Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 1 September 24 , 2010 Appendix J

Key Chesapeake Bay TMDL Reference and Management Modeling Scenarios: Definitions

and Descriptions



## 1985 Scenario

This scenario uses the estimated 1985 land uses, animal numbers, atmospheric deposition, and

point source loads. This scenario estimates the highest loads of nutrients and sediment to the

Bay in recent time (using a constant 1991

- 2000 hydrology). Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model

simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J

- 2, J

- 4

and J

- 6 , respectively.



## 200 9 Scenario

This scenario uses the estimated 2009 land uses, animal numbers, atmospheric deposition, and

point source loads as well as the best management practices tracked and reported by the

watershed jurisdictions through 2009. The 20 09 year was chosen for simulation as it was the

most recent year for which complete implementation data (BMPs, waster loads, etc.) available.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this

scenario are listed in T ables J

- 2, J

- 4 and J

- 6, respectively.



## Tributary Strategy Scenario

This scenario estimates the nutrient and sediment loads through model simulations of full

implementation of the seven jurisdictions’ 2004

- 2005 tributary strategies throughout the

Chesapeake Bay watershed. This scenario included an accounting for all the tributary strategy

BMPs on a 2010 land use, and the 2010 estimated permitted loads for all the significant and non

significant wastewater dischargers, as described in Table J

- 1. Adjustments to the jurisdictions’

tributary strategies to reflect changes in State laws or policies (e.g., permitting of significant

wastewater discharge facilities) since development of the initial set of jurisdictional tributary

strategies were also included in this scenario’s input decks. Atmospheric deposition inputs were

from the Community Multi

- scale Air Quality Model’s 12 km grid with an estimated 2010

deposition and included simulations of the State Implementation Plans to reach the 2010 Air

Quality Standards. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and

sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J

- 2, J

- 4 and J

- 6, respectively.Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 2 September 24 , 2010 Table J

- 1. Wastewater discharge facilities and combined sewer overflows (CSO) assumptions for

the Tributary Strategy, Everything by Everyone Everywhere (E3), 1985 No Action, and the 2010 No

Action scenarios.



## 1985 No

- Action Scenario

This scenario estimates nutrient and sediment loads under the conditions of minimal to no

pollution reduction controls on sources and nonpoint sources using a 1985 land use and

population. Major widespread management practices such as nutrient management and

conservation tillage were el iminated in this scenario. Wastewater treatment/discharging facilities

were set at primary treatment with no phosphate detergent ban (Table J

- 1). Atmospheric

deposition loads were set to 1985 levels of emissions and controls. Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Mod el simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J

2, J

- 4 and J

- 6, respectively.Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 3 September 24 , 2010 The No

- Action scenario is used with the E3 scenario to define “controllable” loads, the

difference between No

- Action and E3 loads. No

- Action and E3 scenario conditions can be

determined for historic years (beginning 1985), current year, or projected future (through 2030)

bu changing the underlying land use. All past practices, programs and treatment upgrades that

currently exist are credited toward the needed reductions from the No

- Action “baseline”.

No

- Action Wastewater Treatment/Discharging Facilities



### No

- Action Significant municipal wastewater treatment facilities

o Flow = Tributary Strategy flows where most are at design flows

o Nitrogen effluent concentration = 18 mg TN/l

o Phosphorus effluent concentration = 6 mg TP/l

o BOD = 30 mg/l, DO = 4.5 mg/l and TSS = 15 mg/l

No

- Action Significant industrial dischargers

o Flow = Tributary Strategy flows where most are at design flows

o H ighest Loads on record or Tributary Strategy loads if greater

o BOD = 30 mg/l, DO = 4.5 mg/l and TSS = 15 mg/l

No

- Action Non

- significant municipal wastewater treatment facilities

o Flow = Tributary Strategy flows

o Nitrogen effluent concentration = 18 mg TN/l

o Phosphorus effluent concentration = 6 mg TP/l

o BOD = 30 mg/l, DO = 4.5 mg/l and TSS = 15 mg/l

No

- Action Combined Sewer Overflows



### Flow = current base condition flow

Nitrogen effluent concentration = 18 mg TN/l

Phosphorus effluent concentration = 6 mg TP/l

BOD = 200 mg/l, DO = 4.5 mg/l and TSS = 45 mg/l.

No

- Action On

- site Waste Treatment Systems



### There are no nutrient and sediment control practices and programs in the No

- Action scenario

throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed for on

- site waste treatm ent systems.

No

- Action Atmospheric Deposition



### The 2020 CMAQ Scenario is used for atmospheric deposition in both the E3 and No

- Action

scenarios in determining the “controllable” load. This approach allows for the agreed to Bay

TMDL air reductions to be al ready considered in the nitrogen load reductions needed to achieve

the Bay water quality standards.Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 4 September 24 , 2010 No

- Action Urban Practices



### There are no nutrient and sediment control practices and programs in the No

- Action scenario

throughout the Chesapeake Bay watersh ed for the urban sector.

No

- Action Agricultural Practices



### There are no nutrient and sediment control practices and programs in the No

- Action scenario

throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed for agricultural lands and operations.

No

- Action Forestry Practi ces



### There are no nutrient and sediment control practices and programs in the No

- Action scenario

throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed on forest lands where there could be

environmental impacts from timber harvesting and dirt & gravel roads.



## 2010 No

- Actio n Scenario

This scenario estimates nutrient and sediment loads under the conditions of minimal to no

pollution reduction controls on point sources and nonpoint sources using a 2010 land use and

population. Major widespread management practices such as nut rient management and

conservation tillage were eliminated in this scenario. Wastewater treatment facilities were set at

of primary treatment with no phosphate detergent ban. Atmospheric deposition loads were set to

1985 levels of emissions and controls. See the above description of the 1985 No Action Scenario

for further details. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and

sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J

- 2, J

- 4 and J

- 6, respectively.



## Everyone, Everything, Ever ywhere (E3) Scenario

The E3 Scenario is an estimate of the application of management actions to the fullest possible

extent. The E3 scenario is a “what

- if” scenario of watershed conditions with theoretical

maximum levels of managed controls on all pollutant load sources. There are no cost and few

physical limitations to implementing BMPs for point and nonpoint sources in the E3 scenario.

This scenario is used with the No

- Action scenario to define “controllable” loads, the difference

between No

- Act ion and E3 loads. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen,

phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J

- 2, J

- 4 and J

- 6, respectively.

“Controllable” loads is a component of the methodology to allocate target loads needed to meet

water quality standards to different regions of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Load allocations of target caps also take into consideration the relative impacts o f load

reductions from regions throughout the watershed on water quality standards. Differences

between No

- Action and E3 scenario loads provide equity among regions of the Chesapeake Bay

watershed in that assumptions of point source controls and nonpoint source practice and program

implementation levels for each scenario are spatially universal. Differences among regions

occur because of more “inherent” differences in, for example, animal and human populations, the

number and types of point source facilit ies, agricultural land types and areas, urban land areas,

atmospheric deposition, etc.

Generally, E3 implementation levels and their associated reductions in nutrients andDraft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 5 September 24 , 2010 sediment could not be achieved for many practices, programs and control technologie s when

considering physical limitations and required participation levels. E3 includes most

technologies, practices and programs that have been reported by jurisdictions as part of annual

model assessments, Tributary Strategies, and Milestones.

For most non

- point source BMPs, it was assumed that the load from every available acre of the

relevant land area was being controlled by a suite of existing or innovative practices. In addition,

management programs converted land uses from those with high yielding nutrient and sediment

loads to those with lower. E3 does not include the entire suite of practices due to the goal of

achieving maximum load reductions. The BMPs that are fully implemented have been estimated

to produce greater reductions than alternative practices that could be applied to the same land

base.

The current definition of E3 includes a greater number of types of practices than historic E3

scenarios. E3 load reductions could be exceeded through greater effectiveness of practices and

technolog ies in the future because of, for example, employment of new technologies and greater

efforts on operation and maintenance. For point sources, nutrient control technologies are

assumed to apply to all dischargers.

E3 Wastewater Discharging Facilities



### E3 S ignificant municipal wastewater treatment facilities

o Flow = Tributary Strategy flows where most are at design flows

o Nitrogen effluent concentration = 3 mg TN/l

o Phosphorus effluent concentration = 0.1 mg TP/l

o BOD = 3 mg/l, DO = 6 mg/l and TSS = 5 mg/l

E3 Si gnificant industrial dischargers

o Flow = Tributary Strategy flows where most are at design flows

o Nitrogen effluent concentration = 3 mg TN/l or Tributary Strategy concentration if less

o Phosphorus effluent concentration = 0.1 mg TP/l or Tributary Strategy co ncentration if

less

o BOD = 3 mg/l, DO = 6 mg/l and TSS = 5 mg/l

E3 Non

- significant municipal wastewater treatment facilities

o Flow = Design or 2006 flow if design is not available

o Nitrogen effluent concentration = 8 mg TN/l or Tributary Strategy concentration if less

o Phosphorus effluent concentration = 2 mg TP/l or Tributary Strategy concentration if less

o BOD = 5 mg/l, DO = 5 mg/l and TSS = 8 mg/l

E3 Non

- significant industrial wastewater treatment facilities

o Applies the percentage of equivalent re duction from No

- Action (18 mg/l TN, 3mg/l TP)

to E3 (3 mg/l TN, 0.1 mg/l TP) to the 2010 load estimates.

E3 Combined Sewer Overflows



### 100% overflow reduction through storage and treatment, separation or other practices.

Storage and treatment is assumed i n current model scenarios.

E3 On

- site Wastewater Treatment Systems



### E3 Septic system connections

o 10% of septic systems connected to wastewater treatment facilities.

E3 Septic denitrification and maintenanceDraft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 6 September 24 , 2010 o Remaining septic systems after connections emplo y denitrification technologies and are

maintained through regular pumping to achieve a 55% TN load reduction at the edge

- of

septic

- field.

o Septic systems are maintained by a responsible management entity or in perpetuity

t hrough a maintenance contract.

E3 Atmospheric Deposition



### E3 atmospheric deposition uses the Bay Program’s air scenario that shows the maximum

reductions in deposition

– a projection to 202 0 called the Maximum Feasible Scenario.

The Chesapeake Bay Program’s Water Quality Goal Implementation Team decided to use

the same atmospheric deposition for both the E3 and No

- Action scenarios in the allocation

methodology.

The 2020 scenario represents incremental improvements and control op tions (beyond 2020

CA IR) that might be available to s tates for application by 2020 to meet a more stringent

ozone standard, stricter than 0.08 pp m

– such as the proposed 0.070 ppm ozone standard of

January 2010

.

E missions projectio ns for the 2020 E3 scenar io assume the following:

o National/r egional and available State Implementation Plans ( SIP ) for NOx reductions

– with lower ozone season nested emission caps in OTC states; targeting use of maximum

controls for coal fired power plants in or near non

- attainme nt areas.

o Electric Generating Units (EGU):

■ 

### CAIR second phase in place, in coordination with earlier NOx SIP call.

■ 

### NOx Budget Trading Program (NBP)

.

■ 

### Regional Haze Rule and guidelines for Best Available retrofit Technology (BART)

for reducing regional ha ze.

■ 

### Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) in place.

o Non

- EGU point sources:

■ 

### New supplemental controls, such as low NOx burners, plus increased control measure

efficiencies on planned controls and step up of controls to maximum efficiency

measures, e.g., replaci ng SNCRs (Selective Non

- Catalytic Reduction) with SCRs

(Selective Catalytic Reduction) control technology.

■ 

### Solid Waste Rules

– Hospital/Medical Waste Incinerator Regulations

o On

- Road mobile sources:

■ 

### On

- Road Light Duty Mobile Sources

– Tier 2 vehicle emissi ons standards and the

Gasoline Sul fur Program which affects SUV’s, pickups and vans which are subject to

same national emission standards as cars.

■ 

### On

- Road Heavy Duty Diesel Rule

– Tier 4: New emission standards on diesel

engines starting with the 2010 model year for NOx, plus increased penetration of

diesel retrofits and continuous inspection and maintenance using remote onboard

diagnostic systems.

o Clean Air Non

- Road Diesel Rule:

■ 

### Off

- road diesel engine vehicle rule, reduced NOx emissions from marine vessels in

coastal shipping lanes, and locomotive diesels (phased in by 2014) require controls on

new engines.

■ 

### Off

- road large spark ignition engine rul es affect recreational vehicles (marine and

land based).Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 7 September 24 , 2010 o Area (nonpoint area) sources: switching to natural gas and low sulfur fuel.

E3 Agricultural Ammonia Emissions Reductions

o Assumes rapid incorporation of fertilizers in soils at the time of applicati on, litter

treatment, bio

- filters on housing ventilation systems, and covers on animal waste storage

or treatment facilities.

o The overall benefit of reduced emissions from confined animal housing and waste storage

as well as lower emissions from fertiliz ed soils is a 15% reduction of ammonia

deposition.

E3 Urban Practices



### E3 Forest conservation & urban growth reduction

o All projected loss of forest from development is retained or planted in forest.

E3 Riparian forest buffers on urban

o 10% of pervious rip arian areas without natural vegetation (forests and wetlands)

associated with urban lands are buffered as forest for each modeled hydrologic segment

in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

o The area of un

- buffered riparian land is determined using the best avail able data 1) 1:24K

National Hydrography Dataset, and 2) 2001 land cover.

E3 Tree planting on urban

o Forest conservation and urban riparian forest buffers account for tree plantings in the

urban sector.

E3 Stormwater Management

o Regions with k arst topography (low permeability) and Coastal Plain Lowlands (high

groundwater)

 50% of area

– impervious cover reduction.

 30% of area

– filtering practices designed to reduce TN by 40%, TP by 60%, and

SED by 80% from a pre

- BMP condition.

 20% of area

– infil tration practices designed to reduce TN by 85%, TP by 85%, and

SED by 95% from a pre

- BMP condition.

o Ultra

- urban regions

– defined as high

- and medium

- intensity land cover

 50% of area

– impervious cover reductions, e.g. cisterns and collections systems to

capture rainwater for reuse.

 30% of area

– filtering practices, e.g., sand filters, bio

- retention, dry wells.

 20% of area

– infiltration practices, e.g., infiltration trenches and basins.

o Other urban/suburban regions

 10% of area

– impervious cover re duction.

 30% of area

– filtering practices, e.g. sand filters, bio

- retention.

 60% of area

– infiltration practices.

E3 Erosion & sediment controls

o Controls of the runoff from all bare

- construction landuse area s are assumed to be at a

level so that the construction loads are equal to the nutrient and sediment edge

- of

- stream

loads from pervious urban under E3 conditions

. E3 Nutrient management on urban

o All pervious urban acres are under nutrient management.

E3 Controls on extractive (active and abando ned mines)Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 8 September 24 , 2010 o Controls of the runoff from all extractive landuse area s are assumed to be to a degree so

that the loads are equal to the nutrient and sediment edge

- of

- stream loads from pervious

urban under E3 conditions.

E3 Agricultural Practices



### E3 Conservation tillage

o All row crops are conservation

- tilled

. E3 Enhanced nutrient management applications

o All crop land is under enhanced nutrient management

– the hybrid of reduced application

rate and decision agriculture

.

o Long

- term, adaptive managemen t approach with continuous improvement.

E3 Riparian forest buffers on agriculture

o R iparian areas without natural vegetation (forests and wetlands) associated with

agricultural lands are buffered as forest.

o This equates to 15% of cropland and 10% of pas ture land including the pasture stream

corridor for each modeled hydro logic segment in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

o The area of un

- buffered riparian land is determined using the best available data 1) 1:24K

National Hydrography Dataset, and 2) 2001 land cover.

o Current implementation of riparian grass buffers is considered converted to riparian

forest buffers.

E3 Wetland restoration

o 5% of available agricultural acres in crops and grazed f or each modeled hydro logic

segment in the Chesapeake Bay watersh ed.

E3 Carbon sequestration / alternative crops

o 5% of the available row crop ac res f or each modeled hydro logic segment in the

Chesapeake Bay watershed.

o Program is replacement of row crops with long

- term grasses that serve as a carbon bank.

E3 Agricultu ral land retirement

o Retirement of highly erodible land is considered in the E3 practices of riparian forest

buffers, wetland restoration, and carbon sequestration practices which typically have

equal or greater environmental benefits.

E3 Tree planting on agriculture

o Tree planting is considered in the E3 practice of riparian forest buffers which typically

have equal or greater environmental benefits.

E3 Conservation Plans (non

- nutrient management)

o Conservation Plans are fully implemented on all agricultu ral land (row crops, hay, alfalfa,

and pasture).

E3 Cover crops and commodity cover crops

o Early

- planting rye cover crops with drilled seeding on all relevant row crops

.

 The watershed

- wide average of 81 % of row crops are not associated with small

- grain

production is applied to each modeled hydrologic segment in the Chesapeake Bay

watershed.

o Early

- planting wheat commodity cover crops with drilled seeding on remaining row

crops (associated with small

- gra in production).Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 9 September 24 , 2010  The watershed

- wide average of 19% of row crops associated with small

- grain

production is applied to each modeled hydrologic segment in the Chesapeake Bay

watershed.

E3 Pasture Management

o Stream Access Control with Fencing

– Exclusion fe ncing is assumed to protect the

stream corridor area designated as the degraded landuse and the area between the stream

bank and fence is converted to (and is part of) the agricultural forest buffer determination.

o Prescribed grazing

– All upland pasture area is assumed to be under prescribed grazing.

o Dairy Precision Feeding and Forage Management (also listed under E3 Dairy Precision

Feeding)

– All d airy heifers have reduced nutrient concentrations in excreted ma nure of

TN = 24% and TP = 28% from a pr e

- feed management condition.

 M anagement approaches may include increased productivity an d use of on

- farm grass

forage.

o Horse pasture management benefits are the same as those for fencing and prescribed

grazing practices for livestock in general.

E3 A nimal waste management/runoff control

o Controls of r unoff of manure nutrients from the production area of animal feeding

operations is assumed to be at a level so that loads are equal to the nutrient and sed iment

edge

- of

- stream loads associated with hay tha t does not receive fertilizer applications.

o Other practices typically associated with animal waste management and runoff control,

that may affect runoff from the production area, are addressed separately in the E3

scenario. These include Poultry and Swi ne Phytase, Dairy Precision Feeding, Manure

Transport, and Ammonia Emissions Reductions.

E3 Poultry phytase

o The phosphorus content in the manure of all poultry is reduced by 32% from a pre

- feed

management condition.

E3 Swine phytase

o The phosphorus content in excreted manure of all swine is reduced from a pre

- feed

management condition by 17%.

E3 Dairy Precision Feeding

o All dairy heifers have reduced nutrient concentrations in excreted manure of TN = 24%

and TP = 28% from a pre

- feed management condit ion.

E3 Ammonia emissions reductions

o Also under E3 Atmospheric Deposition

– Agricultural Ammonia Emissions Reductions

o Assumes rapid incorporation of fertilizers in soils at the time of application, litter

treatment, bio

- filters on housing ventilation systems, and covers on animal waste storage

or treatment facilities.

o The overall benefit of reduced emissions from confin ed animal housing and waste storage

as well as lower emissions from fertilized soils is a 15% reduction of ammonia

deposition.

E3 Nursery Management

o All nursery operations are managed through a number of practices to protect water

q uality including prope rly addressing nutrient management and incorporating erosion and

sedimentation controls.

o Controls are to a degree so that runoff from nursery areas is equal to the nutrient and

sediment edge

- of

- stream loads from hay that does not receive fertilizer appli cations.Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 10 September 24 , 2010 E3 Forest Harvest Practices



### E3 Forest harvesting practices

o Controls of runoff from the disturbed area of timber harvest operations is assumed to be

at a level so that the nutrient and sediment loads are equal to edge

- of

- stream loads

associated with the forest/woody landuse.

o It’s assumed these BMPs, designed to minimize the environmental impacts from timber

harvesting (such as road building and cutting/thinning ope rations), are properly installed

on all harvested lands with no measurable increa se in n utrient and sediment discharge.



## All Forest with Current Air Scenario

This scenario uses an all forest land use and current estimated atmospheric deposition loads for

the 1991

– 2000 period, and represents estimated loads with maximum reductions on the land

including the elimination of fertilizer, point source, and manure loads. However, this scenario

has loads greater than a pristine scenario which would have reduced input atmospheric

deposition loads by about an order of magnitude. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated

nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J

- 3, J

- 5 and J

- 7,

respectively.



## Base Calibration Scenario

The Base Calibration Scenario is used in data correction procedures and represents the

calib ration of the time series of land uses, loads and hydrology over the ten year simulation

period used for TMDL scenarios. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen,

phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Tables J

- 2, J

- 4 and J

- 6, respectively.



## Allocation Scenario

The Allocation Scenario characterizes the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads necessary to

achieve the Bay jurisdictions’ Chesapeake Bay water quality standards. This initial scenario will

be ultimately replaced by WIPs for each State

- basin. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model

simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed in Table J

- 8.



## 190/12.7 Loading Scenario

This scenario of 190 million pounds nitrogen and 12.7 million pounds phosphorus delivered to

the Bay is one of several scoping scenarios that were run to explore the region of nutrient loads

that were close to achieving all water quality standards in the Chesapeake. Chesapeake Bay

Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and s ediment loads for this scenario are listed

in Tables J

- 3, J

- 5 and J

- 7, respectively.



## 179/12 Loading Scenario

This scenario of 179 million pounds nitrogen and 12 million pounds phosphorus delivered to the

Bay is one of several scoping scenarios that were ru n to explore the region of nutrient loads that

were close to achieving all water quality standards in the Chesapeake. Chesapeake Bay

Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed

in Tables J

- 3, J

- 5 and J

- 7, respectively.Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 11 September 24 , 2010 

## 170/11.3 Loading Scenario

This scenario of 170 million pounds nitrogen and 11 million pounds phosphorus delivered to the

Bay is one of several scoping scenarios that were run to explore the region of nutrient loads that

were close to achievi ng all water quality standards in the Chesapeake. Chesapeake Bay

Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed

in Tables J

- 3, J

- 5 and J

- 7, respectively.



## James Level of Effort Potomac Scenario

This scenario was one of several scoping scenarios examining achievement of the James

chlorophyll water quality standard. The 190/12.7 Loading Scenario was used as a base for this

scenario and all basins but the James River basin had the nutrient loading of the 190/12. 7

Loading Scenario. In the James River basin, the nutrient loads were equivalent to the same level

of effort as Virginia’s portion of the Potomac for the 190/12.7 Loading Scenario. Chesapeake

Bay Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are

listed in Tables J

- 3, J

- 5 and J

- 7, respectively.



## James 1⁄2 Level of Effort Potomac Scenario

This scenario was one of several scoping scenarios examining achievement of the James

chlorophyll water quality standard. The 190/12.7 L oading Scenario was used as a base for this

scenario and all basins but the James have the nutrient loading of the 190/12.7 Loading Scenario.

In the James, the nutrient loads are equivalent to the level of effort half way between Virginia’s

portion of the Potomac and the James for the 190/12 Loading Scenario. Chesapeake Bay

Watershed Model simulated nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads for this scenario are listed

in Tables J

- 3, J

- 5 and J

- 7, respectively.

Please note that i n some cases the scenario loa ds reported in this Appendix may differ slightly

from loads reported in other documentation, such as in the stoplight plots in Appendix M . This

is because the scenario loads in this Appendix have the latest updated input load information but

the stoplight plots in Appendi x M contain scenarios that were dated and in some cases corrected

with new information. For example, the scoping scenarios of the 190/12.7 L oading Scenario

, 179/12 Loading Scenario, and 170/11 Loading Scenario were developed with appropri ate factors

of an early Tributary Strategy Scenario which has been updated since the stoplight assessment s

were run.Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 12 September 24 , 2010 Table J

- 2. Delivered Total Nitrogen Loads (millions lbs/year) by State Basin and

Scenario*

1985 Base 2009 2010 Tributary 2010 E3

Scenario Calibration Scenario No

- Action Strategy Scenario

Eastern Shore(EAS)

DE 4.59 4.77 4.15 4.98 3.16 2.22

MD 16.55 16.35 12.42 17.70 9.84 7.18

PA 0.57 0.54 0.44 0.49 0.31 0.20

VA 2.15 2.20 1.90 2.41 1.03 0.79

James River Basin(JAM)

VA 42.47 36.82 30.41 49.11 27.51 16.45

WV 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

Potomac River Basin(POT)

DC 6.22 5.41 2.86 9.78 2.26 1.47

MD 29.56 26.96 18.77 32.96 16.10 11.42

PA 7.23 6.95 6.23 6.69 4.24 3.50

VA 30.14 28.36 20.22 33.53 16.38 13.31

WV 8.08 7.79 5.91 6.37 4.78 3.61

Rappahannock River Basin(RAP)

VA 8.92 8.35 6.98 9.33 5.62 4.39

Susquehanna River Basin(SUS)

MD 2.29 2.02 1.54 1.75 1.26 0.87

NY 16.87 15.02 10.95 11.03 9.56 6.39

PA 127.49 118.86 101.65 119.29 71.09 56.89

Western Shore(WES)

MD 27.00 17.75 14.00 36.64 9.84 5.99

PA 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01

Patuxent River Basin(PAT)

MD 4.16 3.86 3.09 6.01 2.78 2.03

York River Basin(YOR)

VA 7.60 7.37 6.36 8.49 5.09 3.83

Totals(millions lbs/year)

State DC 6.22 5.41 2.86 9.78 2.26 1.47

DE 4.59 4.77 4.15 4.98 3.16 2.22

MD 79.56 66.95 49.81 95.05 39.82 27.49

NY 16.87 15.02 10.95 11.03 9.56 6.39

PA 135.34 126.39 108.35 126.51 75.66 60.59

VA 91.27 83.10 65.88 102.86 55.65 38.78

WV 8.11 7.81 5.93 6.39 4.80 3.63

Basin EAS 23.85 23.85 18.91 25.58 14.34 10.39

JAM 42.49 36.84 30.44 49.12 27.53 16.47

POT 81.23 75.47 53.98 89.33 43.76 33.31

RAP 8.92 8.35 6.98 9.33 5.62 4.39

SUS 146.65 135.90 114.14 132.07 81.92 64.15

WES 27.04 17.79 14.03 36.68 9.85 6.00

PAT 4.16 3.86 3.09 6.01 2.78 2.03

YOR 7.60 7.37 6.36 8.49 5.09 3.83Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 13 September 24 , 2010 Chesapeake Bay Total(millions lbs/year)

341.95 309.44 247.93 356.61 190.90 140.57Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 14 September 24 , 2010 Table J

- 3. Delivered Total Nitrogen Loads (millions lbs/year) by State Basin and

Scenario*

190/12.7 179/12 170/11.3 James L.O.E. James L.O.E. All Forest

Scenario Scenario Scenario 1/2 Potomac Potomac Scenario

Eastern Shore(EAS)

DE 3.14 2.85 2.57 3.14 3.14 0.58

MD 9.76 8.88 8.00 9.76 9.76 2.65

PA 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.31 0.31 0.09

VA 1.02 0.93 0.84 1.02 1.02 0.22

James River Basin(JAM)

VA 26.55 25.99 25.43 23.47 21.51 7.26

WV 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01

Potomac River Basin(POT)

DC 2.31 2.21 2.10 2.31 2.31 0.06

MD 16.48 15.72 14.96 16.48 16.48 4.66

PA 4.34 4.14 3.94 4.34 4.34 1.03

VA 16.77 16.00 15.23 16.77 16.77 5.22

WV 4.89 4.67 4.44 4.89 4.89 1.84

Rappahannock River Basin(RAP)

VA 5.87 5.54 5.22 5.87 5.87 2.20

Susquehanna River Basin(SUS)

MD 1.25 1.17 1.09 1.25 1.25 0.50

NY 9.44 8.85 8.27 9.44 9.44 2.88

PA 70.20 65.87 61.54 70.20 70.20 23.52

Western Shore(WES)

MD 9.45 9.08 8.71 9.45 9.45 2.29

PA 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00

Patuxent River Basin(PAT)

MD 2.77 2.63 2.49 2.77 2.77 0.88

York River Basin(YOR)

VA 5.37 5.10 4.83 5.37 5.37 1.85

Totals(millions lbs/year)

State DC 2.31 2.21 2.10 2.31 2.31 0.06

DE 3.14 2.85 2.57 3.14 3.14 0.58

MD 39.70 37.48 35.26 39.70 39.70 10.98

NY 9.44 8.85 8.27 9.44 9.44 2.88

PA 74.86 70.30 65.74 74.86 74.86 24.63

VA 55.58 53.56 51.54 52.51 50.55 16.74

WV 4.91 4.69 4.46 4.91 4.91 1.85

Basin EAS 14.23 12.94 11.66 14.23 14.23 3.54

JAM 26.57 26.01 25.45 23.49 21.53 7.27

POT 44.79 42.73 40.67 44.79 44.79 12.80

RAP 5.87 5.54 5.22 5.87 5.87 2.20

SUS 80.88 75.89 70.90 80.88 80.88 26.90

WES 9.46 9.09 8.72 9.46 9.46 2.30

PAT 2.77 2.63 2.49 2.77 2.77 0.88

YOR 5.37 5.10 4.83 5.37 5.37 1.85Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 15 September 24 , 2010 Chesapeake Bay Total(millions lbs/year)

189.94 179.94 169.95 186.86 184.90 57.72Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 16 September 24 , 2010 Table J

- 4. Delivered Total Phosphorus Loads (millions lbs/year) by State Basin and

Scenario*

1985 Base 2009 2010 Tributary 2010 E3

Scenario Calibration Scenario No

- Action Strategy Sceanrio

Eastern Shore(EAS)

DE 0.37 0.38 0.32 0.45 0.27 0.19

MD 1.70 1.59 1.17 2.00 1.04 0.83

PA 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01

VA 0.26 0.25 0.19 0.30 0.13 0.12

James River Basin(JAM)

VA 6.47 4.32 3.30 7.52 3.28 1.55

WV 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Potomac River Basin(POT)

DC 0.10 0.10 0.09 1.58 0.11 0.05

MD 1.48 1.24 1.01 3.56 1.03 0.63

PA 0.57 0.54 0.54 0.61 0.38 0.33

VA 2.18 2.09 1.96 4.97 1.70 0.98

WV 0.85 0.91 0.82 0.92 0.54 0.37

Rappahannock River Basin(RAP)

VA 1.29 1.24 1.08 1.65 0.94 0.60

Susquehanna River Basin(SUS)

MD 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.04

NY 1.07 0.98 0.80 0.97 0.65 0.43

PA 4.48 3.79 3.41 5.25 2.65 1.76

Western Shore(WES)

MD 1.62 0.87 0.77 3.63 0.68 0.25

PA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Patuxent River Basin(PAT)

MD 0.48 0.36 0.29 0.83 0.29 0.13

York River Basin(YOR)

VA 1.02 0.76 0.62 1.16 0.59 0.35

Totals(millions lbs/year)

State DC 0.10 0.10 0.09 1.58 0.11 0.05

DE 0.37 0.38 0.32 0.45 0.27 0.19

MD 5.37 4.13 3.31 10.10 3.10 1.88

NY 1.07 0.98 0.80 0.97 0.65 0.43

PA 5.07 4.36 3.97 5.89 3.04 2.10

VA 11.24 8.67 7.16 15.60 6.64 3.60

WV 0.86 0.93 0.83 0.93 0.55 0.38

Basin EAS 2.36 2.23 1.70 2.77 1.45 1.15

JAM 6.49 4.34 3.32 7.53 3.29 1.55

POT 5.19 4.90 4.41 11.64 3.76 2.36

RAP 1.29 1.24 1.08 1.65 0.94 0.60

SUS 5.64 4.84 4.27 6.29 3.36 2.24

WES 1.62 0.87 0.77 3.63 0.68 0.25

PAT 0.48 0.36 0.29 0.83 0.29 0.13Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 17 September 24 , 2010 YOR 1.02 0.76 0.62 1.16 0.59 0.35

Chesapeake Bay Total(millions lbs/year)

24.10 19.54 16.47 35.51 14.36 8.63Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 18 September 24 , 2010 Table J

- 5. Delivered Total Phosphorus Loads (millions lbs/year) by State Basin and

Scenario*

190/12.7 179/12 170/11.3 James L.O.E. James L.O.E. All Forest

Scenario Scenario Scenario 1/2 Potomac Potomac Scenario

Eastern Shore(EAS)

DE 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.29 0.29 0.05

MD 1.10 1.02 0.94 1.10 1.10 0.22

PA 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00

VA 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.02

James River Basin(JAM)

VA 2.67 2.57 2.47 2.34 2.21 0.90

WV 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Potomac River Basin(POT)

DC 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.00

MD 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.25

PA 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.35 0.35 0.13

VA 1.56 1.48 1.39 1.56 1.56 0.40

WV 0.50 0.47 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.27

Rappahannock River Basin(RAP)

VA 0.91 0.85 0.78 0.91 0.91 0.30

Susquehanna River Basin(SUS)

MD 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.01

NY 0.56 0.53 0.51 0.56 0.56 0.31

PA 2.28 2.17 2.06 2.28 2.28 1.04

Western Shore(WES)

MD 0.45 0.42 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.15

PA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Patuxent River Basin(PAT)

MD 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.07

York River Basin(YOR)

VA 0.54 0.51 0.48 0.54 0.54 0.21

Totals(millions lbs/year)

State DC 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.00

DE 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.29 0.29 0.05

MD 2.75 2.58 2.41 2.75 2.75 0.71

NY 0.56 0.53 0.51 0.56 0.56 0.31

PA 2.64 2.52 2.39 2.64 2.64 1.17

VA 5.82 5.53 5.24 5.48 5.36 1.84

WV 0.51 0.48 0.45 0.51 0.51 0.28

Basin EAS 1.53 1.42 1.31 1.53 1.53 0.30

JAM 2.68 2.58 2.47 2.35 2.22 0.91

POT 3.46 3.27 3.09 3.46 3.46 1.06

RAP 0.91 0.85 0.78 0.91 0.91 0.30

SUS 2.89 2.75 2.62 2.89 2.89 1.36

WES 0.45 0.42 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.15

PAT 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.07

YOR 0.54 0.51 0.48 0.54 0.54 0.21Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 19 September 24 , 2010 Chesapeake Bay Total(millions lbs/year)

12.67 12.00 11.33 12.33 12.20 4.36Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 20 September 24 , 2010 Table J

- 6. Delivered Total Suspended Solids Loads (millions lbs/year) by State

Basin and Scenario*

1985 Base 2009 2010 Tributary 2010 E3

Scenario Calibration Scenario No

- Action Strategy Scenario

Eastern Shore(EAS)

DE 76.68 76.96 64.78 93.67 54.75 31.13

MD 260.20 243.41 185.80 294.98 156.99 126.05

PA 38.73 37.04 31.66 40.47 20.12 19.52

VA 22.16 20.21 16.43 21.99 10.30 8.83

James River Basin(JAM)

VA 1562.90 1473.21 1249.22 1506.04 1004.70 691.16

WV 29.45 28.81 28.52 28.59 18.21 14.62

Potomac River Basin(POT)

DC 22.54 29.86 32.00 100.95 10.31 4.12

MD 923.43 866.58 781.47 1036.36 665.62 471.50

PA 323.32 303.02 309.61 391.39 226.28 225.46

VA 1296.91 1204.65 1093.73 1346.84 823.32 607.61

WV 426.22 384.14 349.86 418.46 230.02 166.15

Rappahannock River Basin(RAP)

VA 890.56 840.71 754.38 852.79 688.86 634.32

Susquehanna River Basin(SUS)

MD 106.49 96.35 73.29 100.82 63.55 53.72

NY 400.98 336.60 337.27 344.28 310.74 212.05

PA 2718.95 2386.77 2286.38 2899.89 1756.33 1589.07

Western Shore(WES)

MD 311.80 266.86 239.00 325.15 204.99 105.10

PA 0.93 0.89 0.77 1.11 0.49 0.56

Patuxent River Basin(PAT)

MD 182.30 171.33 114.46 158.87 103.34 60.57

York River Basin(YOR)

VA 208.88 179.78 145.27 201.47 114.12 83.19

Totals(millions lbs/year)

State DC 22.54 29.86 32.00 100.95 10.31 4.12

DE 76.68 76.96 64.78 93.67 54.75 31.13

MD 1784.21 1644.53 1394.02 1916.18 1194.48 816.94

NY 400.98 336.60 337.27 344.28 310.74 212.05

PA 3081.93 2727.72 2628.41 3332.86 2003.23 1834.60

VA 3981.40 3718.57 3259.03 3929.11 2641.31 2025.11

WV 455.67 412.96 378.38 447.04 248.23 180.77

Basin EAS 397.76 377.62 298.67 451.11 242.17 185.53

JAM 1592.34 1502.02 1277.74 1534.62 1022.91 705.78

POT 2992.42 2788.26 2566.67 3293.99 1955.55 1474.84

RAP 890.56 840.71 754.38 852.79 688.86 634.32

SUS 3226.43 2819.72 2696.94 3345.00 2130.62 1854.84

WES 312.73 267.75 239.76 326.26 205.48 105.65

PAT 182.30 171.33 114.46 158.87 103.34 60.57Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 21 September 24 , 2010 YOR 208.88 179.78 145.27 201.47 114.12 83.19

Chesapeake Bay Total(millions lbs/year)

9803.41 8947.19 8093.89 10164.10 6463.06 5104.72Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 22 September 24 , 2010 Table J

- 7. Delivered Total Suspended Solids Loads (millions lbs/year) by State Basin

and Scenario*

190/12.7 179/12 170/11.3 James L.O.E. James L.O.E. All Forest

Scenario Scenario Scenario 1/2 Potomac Potomac Scenario

Eastern Shore(EAS)

DE 59.35 53.25 47.15 59.35 59.35 43.17

MD 170.16 152.68 135.20 170.16 170.16 51.17

PA 21.81 19.57 17.33 21.81 21.81 7.11

VA 11.17 10.02 8.87 11.17 11.17 2.63

James River Basin(JAM)

VA 893.92 875.04 856.15 833.04 809.93 388.49

WV 16.20 15.86 15.52 15.10 14.68 11.68

Potomac River Basin(POT)

DC 9.73 9.36 9.00 9.73 9.73 2.44

MD 627.64 604.39 581.13 627.64 627.64 263.33

PA 213.37 205.46 197.56 213.37 213.37 99.70

VA 776.35 747.58 718.82 776.35 776.35 274.89

WV 216.90 208.86 200.83 216.90 216.90 120.38

Rappahannock River Basin(RAP)

VA 678.31 657.13 635.96 678.31 678.31 506.66

Susquehanna River Basin(SUS)

MD 59.65 58.51 57.37 59.65 59.65 24.85

NY 291.65 286.08 280.51 291.65 291.65 186.12

PA 1648.48 1616.97 1585.46 1648.48 1648.48 1044.88

Western Shore(WES)

MD 150.73 144.46 138.20 150.73 150.73 84.11

PA 0.36 0.35 0.33 0.36 0.36 0.06

Patuxent River Basin(PAT)

MD 81.84 78.75 75.67 81.84 81.84 64.89

York River Basin(YOR)

VA 105.98 101.56 97.13 105.98 105.98 61.29

Totals(millions lbs/year)

State DC 9.73 9.36 9.00 9.73 9.73 2.44

DE 59.35 53.25 47.15 59.35 59.35 43.17

MD 1090.01 1038.79 987.56 1090.01 1090.01 488.34

NY 291.65 286.08 280.51 291.65 291.65 186.12

PA 1884.03 1842.36 1800.68 1884.03 1884.03 1151.75

VA 2465.72 2391.33 2316.94 2404.84 2381.73 1233.96

WV 233.10 224.72 216.34 231.99 231.58 132.06

Basin EAS 262.48 235.52 208.55 262.48 262.48 104.08

JAM 910.12 890.90 871.67 848.14 824.61 400.16

POT 1843.98 1775.66 1707.35 1843.98 1843.98 760.74

RAP 678.31 657.13 635.96 678.31 678.31 506.66

SUS 1999.78 1961.56 1923.33 1999.78 1999.78 1255.85

WES 151.09 144.81 138.53 151.09 151.09 84.17

PAT 81.84 78.75 75.67 81.84 81.84 64.89

YOR 105.98 101.56 97.13 105.98 105.98 61.29Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 23 September 24 , 2010 Chesapeake Bay Total(million lbs/year)

6033.58 5845.89 5658.19 5971.60 5948.07 3237.84Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 24 September 24 , 2010 Table J

- 8. Delivered Total Allocation Scenario Loads

(lbs/year) by State Basin**

Allocation Allocation Allocation

(Nitrogen) (Phosphorus) (TSS) (range)

Eastern Shore(EAS)

DE 2.95 0.26 58

- 64

MD 9.71 1.09 166

- 182

PA 0.28 0.01 21

- 23

VA 1.21 0.16 11

- 12

James River Basin(JAM)

VA 23.5 2.3 837

- 920

WV 0.02 0.01 15

- 17

Potomac River Basin(POT)

DC 2.32 0.12 10

- 11

MD 15.70 0.90 654

- 719

PA 4.72 0.42 221

- 243

VA 17.46 1.47 810

- 891

WV 4.67 0.74 226

- 248

Rappahannock River Basin(RAP)

VA 5.84 0.90 681

- 750

Susquehanna River Basin(SUS)

MD 1.08 0.05 60

- 66

NY 8.23 0.52 293

- 322

PA 71.74 2.31 1660

- 1826

Western Shore(WES)

MD 9.74 0.46 155

- 170

PA 0.02 0.00 0.37

- 0.41

Patuxent River Basin(PAT)

MD 2.85 0.21 82

- 90

York River Basin(YOR)

VA 5.41 0.54 107

- 118

Totals(millions lbs/year)

State DC 2.3 0.1 10

- 11

DE 3.0 0.3 58

- 64

MD 39.1 2.7 1,116

- 1,228

NY 8.2 0.5 293

- 322

PA 76.8 2.7 1,903

- 2,093

VA 53.4 5.4 2,446

- 2,691

WV 4.7 0.7 241

- 265

Basin EAS 14.2 1.5 256

- 281

JAM 23.5 2.4 852

- 937

POT 44.9 3.7 1,920

- 2,113

RAP 5.8 0.9 681

- 750

SUS 81.1 2.9 2,013

- 2,214

WES 9.8 0.5 155

- 171

PAT 2.8 0.2 82

- 90Draft Appendix J

– Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment



### J

- 25 September 24 , 2010 YOR 5.4 0.5 107

- 118

Bay Total(millions lbs/yr)

187 13 6,066

- 6,673



### * Allocation loads as first distributed in EPA letters to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed States on

July 1, 2010 and August 13, 2010.