DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

10

- 1 September 24 , 2010



## SECTION 10. TMDL IMPLEMENTATION AND

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

10.1 Future Growth
As an assumption of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, EPA expects Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions to account for and manage new or increased loadings of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. Such loadings might be introduced by point and nonpoint sources as a result of future growth and development and land use changes.



### 10.1.1 Designating Target Loads for New or Increased Sources
Where the TMDL does not provide a specific allocation to accommodate new or increased loadings of nitrogen, phosphorus, or sediment, a jurisdiction may only accommodate such new or increased loadings through a mech anism allowing for quantifiable and accountable offsets of the new or increased load in an amount necessary to implement the TMDL and applicable WQS in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. Therefore, the Chesapeake Bay TMDL assumes and EPA expects the jurisdictions to accommodate any new or increased loadings of nitrogen, phosphorus, or sediment that do not have a specific allocation in the TMDL with appropriate offsets supported by credible and transparent offset programs subject to EPA and indepe ndent oversight. If a jurisdiction requests a specific allocation for future growth in its final Phase I WIP, EPA will evaluate whether to include such an allocation in the final TMDL.



### 10.1.2 Offset Programs
EPA expects that new or increased loadings of ni trogen, phosphorus, and sediment in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that are not specifically accounted for in the TMDL’s WLA or LA will be offset by loading reductions from other sources where such offset credits are generated under programs that are consist ent with the definitions and common elements described in Appendix S . These definitions and common elements are important to ensure that offsets are achieved through reliable pollution controls and that the goals of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL are

met.

EPA expects such the jurisdictions to develop offset programs that are credible, transparent,
consistent with the definitions and common elements set out in Appendix S , and subject to EPA and public oversight. Any such offsets are expected to account for the entire delivered nitrogen, phosphorus, or sediment load after accounting for location of the sources, delivery factors affecting pollutant fate and transport, equivalency of pollutants, and the certainty of any such reductions. In addition, such offsets m ay not cause an exceedance of local WQS or local TMDLs. The offsets are to be in addition to reductions already needed to meet the allocations in the TMDL and must be consistent with applicable federal and state laws and regulations.

For nonpoint sources , this assumption and expectation is based on the fact that any new or increased nonpoint source loadings not accounted for in the TMDL’s LA will have to be offset by appropriate reductions from other sources if the TMDL’s pollutant loading cap and applica ble WQS are to be met. For permitted point sources, the assumption and expectation also is based on the statutory and regulatory requirements that effluent limits for any such discharges are derived from and comply with all applicable WQS and are consisten t with the assumptions andDRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

10

- 2 September 24 , 2010

requirements of any available WLAs [CWA sections 301(b)(1)(C), 303(d); 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(A) & (B)].

In addition, CWA section 117(g) authorizes EPA to ensure that management plans are developed and implementation is begun t o achieve and maintain the Bay’s nutrient goals. If jurisdictions authorize new or increased loadings without a specific TMDL allocation, an offset is necessary component of any such management plan. Accordingly, the Bay TMDL assumes that new point

source dischargers, without an allocation in the TMDL (or in other words, with a zero allocation), will find offsets large enough to compensate for their entire loading. The TMDL similarly assumes that point source dischargers that increase pollution loading will find offsets large enough to compensate for the entire increase in their loading and to meet their Water Quality Based Effluent Limit (WQBEL) consistent with the WLA in the TMDL. In the case of new or increased loading from sources other than permitted p oint source dischargers, jurisdictions are to estimate loadings and ensure offsets that fully compensate for this estimated increase in pollutant load.

Although EPA assumes some flexibility in the design and content of Bay jurisdiction offset programs, EPA expects that the jurisdictions will develop and implement programs for offsetting new and increased loadings consistent with the definitions and common elements described in
detail in Appendix S . Jurisdictions with existing trading programs that address n ew or increased loadings (such as several jurisdictions have), should ensure that their programs address new or
increased loads consistent with the definitions and common elements in Appendix S

.

EPA is interested in comment on the extent to which definit ions, common elements and program
features described here and in Appendix S for new or increased loadings of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment should also be applicable to trading among existing sources of those pollutants for purposes of achieving their W LAs or LAs under the Bay TMDL.



### 10 .1.3 Additional Offset Program Features
EPA expects that the jurisdictions also may use the following features to build their offset programs for new or increased loadings of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment:

Net Improvem ent Offsets : For purposes of the Bay TMDL, this means an offset at a ratio greater than merely accounting for the entire new or increased load. The jurisdiction’s offset program needs to provide the authority and procedures for invoking such a provision. T his tool may be used as a means to accelerate load reductions where a jurisdiction is not on a schedule to ensure that nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment controls are in place by 2017 and 2025 to meet interim and final target loads, respectively. This may be determined to be needed based on an EPA evaluation of a jurisdiction’s progress on its WIP and 2

- year milestones, as discussed in EPA’s December 29, 2009 letter (USEPA 2009d). Net improvement offsets also may be used by a jurisdiction in the case of pe rmitted point sources to offset new or increased loads from nonpoint sources or from point sources not expected to be permitted.

Aggregated P rogrammatic Credits : For purposes of the Bay TMDL, this means defining a programmatic solution for over

- control of nutrients or sediment beyond the basic WIP strategies to achieve the TMDL allocation. In essence, it is an aggregation of credits from reductions by a class or subclass of sources where such reductions have been achieved by the jurisdiction or another duly authorized body. Such credits may be made available by the jurisdiction to offsetDRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

10

- 3 September 24 , 2010

new or increased loadings. In some circumstances, such class reductions also could be applied as a reallocation of loadings under the TMDL. Such reallocation may require mod ification of the
TMDL.

Reserve

- Offset Hybrid : For purposes of the Bay TMDL, this applies where a jurisdiction reserves a portion of its allocations for future growth and, once that allocation is depleted, uses an offset program as described herein.



### 10 .1.4 EPA’s Oversight Role of State Offset Program
EPA expects the jurisdictions to describe their offset programs in their final Phase I and Phase II WIPs. EPA encourages jurisdictions to consult with EPA throughout the development of their offset programs to facilitate alignment with the CWA and the Bay TMDL. EPA has various oversight responsibilities under the CWA, MOUs for authorization of jurisdictions’ NPDES programs, and the TMDL/Executive Order 13508, including approval of revisions to WQS,
review of NPD ES permits, and provisions for reviewing and making recommendations regarding revisions to a jurisdiction’s water quality management plans through the continuing planning

process.
EPA intends to maintain regular oversight of jurisdictions’ offset programs through periodic audits and evaluations. EPA will report its findings to the respective jurisdiction. Such oversight generally will be conducted on a programmatic basis, not an individual offset basis. EPA reserves its authority, however, to review any ind ividual offset (including an NPDES permit containing an offset) and to comment on, object to, or issue the permit as needed if EPA determines that the offset is not consistent with a jurisdiction’s offset program determined to be
consistent with Appendix S . Where questions or concerns arise, EPA will use its oversight authorities to ensure that offset programs are fully consistent with the CWA and its implementing regulations. EPA recognizes the value of implementing a strategy for offsets that, wherever po ssible, is consistent among the jurisdictions to increase credibility, scalability, and broader regional implementation such as interstate trading.



### 10.2 Water Quality Trading
EPA recognizes that a number of Bay jurisdictions already are implementing water quality trading programs

. EPA supports implementation of the Bay TMDL through such programs, as long as they are established and implemented in a manner consistent with the CWA, its implementing regulations, and EPA’s 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy 1 and 2007 Water Quality Trading Toolkit for NPDES Permit Writers

. 2 An assumption of this TMDL is that trades may occur between sources contributing pollutant loadings to the same or different Bay segments, provided such trades do not cause or contribute to an exceed a nce of WQS in either receiving segment or anywhere else in the Bay watershed

. EPA does not support any trading activity that would delay or weaken implementation of the Bay TMDL, that is inconsistent with the assumptions and requirements of the TMDL, or that would cause the combined point source and nonpoint source loadings covered by a trade to exceed the applicable loading cap established by the TMDL.

1 http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/finalpolicy2003.pdf

2 http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/WQTToolkit.html)DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

10

- 4 September 24 , 2010

In Section 10.1 , EPA explain s how Bay jurisdictions may accommodate new or increased loadings of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment either through a specific TMDL allocation or by offsetting those loadings with quantifiable and accountable reductions necessary to implement applicable WQS in the Bay and its tidal tributaries

. In Appendix S , EPA disc usse s a number of
definitions and common elements that EPA expects the jurisdictions to include and implement in their offset programs

. EPA requests comment on the extent to which the policies and elements discussed in those sections should apply to water quality trades in Bay jurisdictions generally and not only to offsets for new or increased nutrient and sediment loadings.



### 10.3 Future Modifications to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Critical implementation issues for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL have been addressed in several ways. Through the establishment of the accountability framework, reasonable assurance has been built into the Chesapeake Bay TMDL development process. As part of this framework, the jurisdictions are expected to adhere to a phased schedule of development for their WIPs

. EPA has provided clear expectations to the jurisdictions as they set forth and develop their WLAs and LAs for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. EPA and its part ners also have committed to taking an adaptive management approach to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL implementation . Among other things, jurisdictions can consider exchanges of the target loads within tributary basins and between nitrogen and phosphorus as long a s WLAs and LAs, applied collectively across the entire watershed, will still result in model simulated achievement of the jurisdictions’ Chesapeake Bay WQS across all 92 tidal Bay segments. Such exchanges could require modification of the Chesapeake Bay TM DL.

EPA has agreed to consider revisions to the Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model to address nutrient management effectiveness and suburban land characteristics and, if appropriate, modify the nutrient and sediment allocations. EPA also will conside r whether any other modifications to the model are necessary as a result of public comment or otherwise and will make any changes as appropriate.

EPA has documented a three

- phase process to ensure that it and its watershed partners continue to take steps t o have all practices in place to restore local waters and the Chesapeake Bay by 2025, with 60 percent achieved by the 2017 mid

- point mark ( USEPA 2010 e). If necessary, EPA will consider modifying the Chesapeake Bay TMDL in 2011 or 2017 should it appear that these interim marks will not be achieved, or upon a request for modification by one of the jurisdictions. The three

- phase process is as follows:

In 2010

o On July 1, EPA assigned draft nitrogen and phosphorus allocations to the jurisdictions by major river basin and included a temporary reserve for any shift in loads that may occur from two specific Bay watershed model refinements (nutrient management effectiveness and suburban land characteristics).

o On August 13, EPA assigned draft sediment allocations to the jurisdictions by major river basin.

o The jurisdictions submitted their draft Phase I WIPs on September 1 (Virginia on September 3).

o O n September 24

, EPA issued a draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL for a 45

- day formal public comment period.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

10

- 5 September 24 , 2010

o The jurisdictions are expected to submit their final Phase I WIPs by November 29.

o By December 31, EPA will establish the Chesapeake Bay TMDL.

In 2011

o EPA has agreed to make revisions to the partnership’s Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model to address nutrient management e ffectiveness and suburban land characteristics and, if appropriate, modify the nutrient and sediment allocations.

o The jurisdictions are expected to submit their draft Phase II WIPs by June 1 and their final Phase II WIPs by November 1, 2011. The Phase II W IPs are expected to
include finer

- scale load distributions as described in EPA’s November 4, 2009 letter and any updates resulting from the Bay watershed model revisions.

o Along with their final Phase II WIPs, the jurisdictions would submit for public

comme nt any intention to modify the Chesapeake Bay TMDL allocations.

o EPA will modify the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, if necessary, by December 31, 2011.

In 2017

o Before 2017, EPA will review the full suite of Bay models on the basis of the best
available science and d ecision

- support tools and consider whether updated models should be developed to support Phase III WIPs and potential modifications to Chesapeake Bay TMDL allocations.

o In 2017, jurisdictions are expected to submit draft Phase III WIPs by June 1, 2017
and f inal WIPs by November 1, 2017 with a focus on ensuring that all practices are in place by 2025 as needed to fully restore the Bay and its tidal waters.

o EPA will modify the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, if necessary, by December 31, 2017.



### 10.4 Federal Facilities and Lands
Federal lands account for approximately 5.5 percent of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The federal sector is like other sectors in that EPA expects federal land owners to be responsible for achieving LA and WLA through actions, programs, and policies that wi ll reduce the release of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment (CWA section 313, 33 U.S.C. 1323 ).

Federal agencies with property in the wat ershed will provide leadership and will work with the seven Bay watershed jurisdictions in developing and implementing their WIPs. Federal agencies have provided information on the spatial boundaries and land use types for facilities in the
watershed. EPA used that information to model pollutant loads from federal facilities and has provided the estimated loads to the jurisdictions.

In their final Phase I WIPs, the jurisdictions are expected to propose final LAs and WLAs that
include federal lands. In the Phase II WIPs, the jurisdictions are expected to further distribute LA and WLA allocations at the local level (counties, subwatersheds, and such) including federal facilities. The Phase II WIPs are expected to identify federal agency actions, programs, pol icies, and resources necessary to achieve federal facility

- specific allocations. Federal agencies are expected to create 2

- year milestones related to planned actions for inclusion in jurisdictions’
Phase II WIPs. The milestones will be the basis for tracki ng progress and providing transparency on federal sector performance related to agency TMDL responsibilities in the watershed.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

10

- 6 September 24 , 2010

Federal facility

- specific allocations and load reduction plans are expected to be developed as part of the jurisdictions’ Phase II WIPs in 2011 via one of two approaches: (a) jurisdictions could establish explicit load reduction expectations for federal facilities as part of the Phase II WIP process; or (b) on the basis of broad load reduction goals established by the jurisdiction, individual federal facilities/installations could develop Federal Facility Implementation Plans (FFIPs), which would explain to the jurisdiction how the facility would achieve needed load reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. The FFIPs would a ddress, at a minimum, the following in targeting and achieving load reductions:
Assess properties to determine the feasibility of installing urban retrofit practices and implementing nonstructural control measures that reduce volume and improve quality of
stormwater runoff.
Align cost

- effective, urban stormwater retrofits and erosion repairs with the Bay TMDL allocations and jurisdictions’ 2

- year milestones.
Assess and implement appropriate nonstructural practices to control stormwater discharges
from devel oped areas and to reduce, prevent, or control erosion from unpaved roads, trails,
and ditches.
Consider the full spectrum of nutrient and sediment sources at a facility or installation to assess the ideal approach to achieve the needed nutrient and sedimen t reduction.

In addition, section 501 of Executive Order 13508 and the subsequent Executive Order Federal Strategy (FLC CB 2010) direct each federal agency with land, facilities or installation management responsibilities affecting 10 or more acres in the B ay watershed to implement section 502 guidance on federal land management. Pursuant to section 502 of the Executive Order, EPA issued on May 12, 2010, the Guidance for Federal Land Management in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (EPA May 12, 2010), EPA 841

- R

- 10

- 002 (―s ection 502 guidance‖). EPA’s objective in developing the section 502 guidance was to provide information and data on appropriate

, proven , and cost

- effective tools and practices for implementation on federal lands
and at federal facilities

.

The sect ion 502 guidance includes chapters addressing agriculture, urban and suburban areas (including turf), forestry, riparian area management, decentralized wastewater treatment systems, and hydromodification. Each chapter contains one or more implementation me asures that provide the framework for the chapter. The y are intended to convey the actions that will help ensure that the broad goals of the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order are achieved. Each chapter also includes information on practices that can be used t o achieve the goals; information on the effectiveness and costs of the practices; where relevant, cost savings or other economic/societal benefits (in addition to the pollutant reduction benefits) that derive from the implementation goals or practices; and copious references to other documents that provide additional information. Federal agencies are to incorporate s ection 502 guidance as part of their overall strategy to meet the loading reductions that the jurisdictions in their Phase II WIPs assign to
th em.

In addition, the Executive Order strategy calls for federal agencies to adopt an agency

- specific policy by December 2010 to ensure implementation of the stormwater requirements in section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) for new d evelopment and redevelopment activities consistent with guidance developed by EPA. Section 438 of EISADRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

10

- 7 September 24 , 2010

requires federal agencies to maintain or restore the predevelopment hydrology (the runoff volume, rate, temperature, and duration of flow that typically existed on the site before human

induced land disturbance occurred) of any project with a footprint that exceeds 5,000 square feet. The agency

- specific policy should include mechanisms for producing an annual internal agency action plan and progress report . Implementation of the agency

- specific policy is to begin in 2011. The results of each federal agency’s actions to comply with section 438 of EISA will be published as part of the annual progress report issued under the direction of the Executive Order
di scussed above.



### 10.5 Factoring in Effects from Continued Climate Change
The Chesapeake Executive Order 13508 specifies that the 2017 assessment of implementation progress will include an explicit assessment of climate change influences. W ater managers in th e Chesapeake watershed face significant challenges associat ed with climate change and the impacts of land use , increases in water demand, ecosystem degradation

, and other stressors. Some stressors interact in ways that reinforce detrimental effects. For ex ample increased population increases impervious area, which results in warmer, flashier runoff which reinforces similar climate change impacts.

To support the 2017 assessment requirement, climate change will be examined to explicitly
determine the scope, m agnitude, and timing of potential effects. An improved understanding of climate change impacts through an extension of the CBP partnership’s model capabilities will enable water managers to better evaluate risk and make informed decisions about meeting sup ply needs, complying with water quality regulations, and protecting aquatic ecosyste ms over a range of time scales. Future assessments will include the tidal Bay response in DO , chlorophyll a , SAV, and water clarity

, which can be estimated by linking the climate change scenarios with the Chesapeake Water Quality and Sediment Transport Model as well as assessment of the effect of water column temperature changes on the Bay water quality and biological communities.



### 10.6 Sediments behind the Susqu ehanna River Dams
The dams along the lower Susquehanna River are a significant factor influencing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads to the Bay because they retain large quantities of sediment and phosphorus, and some nitrogen, in their reservoirs (A ppendix T ). The three major dams along the lower Susquehanna River are the Safe Harbor Dam, Holtwood Dam, and Conowingo Dam. In developing the TMDL, EPA considered the impact of these dams on the pollutant loads to the Bay and how those loads will change w hen the dams no longer function to trap nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment.

The Bay TMDL incorporates the current sediment

- trapping capacity of the Conowingo D am at 55 percent, with nitrogen and phosphorus trapping capacity at 2 percent and 40 percent,

res pectively. That allows the sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus allocations to the jurisdictions to reflect the actual input to the Bay. If future monitoring shows an increase or a reduction in trapping capacity in the Conowingo Dam, the 2

- year milestone del ivered load reductions could be adjusted accordingly. The adjusted loads may be compared to the 2

- year milestone commitments to ensure that each jurisdiction is meeting its obligations. For example, if there
were a reduction in the sediment

- trapping capaci ty in the reservoir, an upland jurisdiction might
need to increase its sediment

- reduction efforts to meet the allocations it has been assigned in the Bay TMDL. The jurisdictions’ sediment allocation would not necessarily change, but theDRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

10

- 8 September 24 , 2010

jurisdictions might need to increase the level of effort in reducing sediment to account for the loss of trapping capacity in the reservoir. Changes in the sediment

- trapping capacity are not expected to alter the amount of sediment that the Bay is able to assimilate and, the refore, are not expected to change the allocations in this Bay TMDL.

For the purposes of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, EPA and the partners assumed the current trapping efficiencies will continue. If future monitoring shows that trapping efficiencies are
reduce d, Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland’s respective 2

- year milestone delivered loads could be adjusted accordingly. Therefore it is imperative that those jurisdictions work together to develop an implementation strategy for addressing the sediment, nitrog en, and phosphorus behind the Conowingo Dam through their respective WIPs, so that they are prepared if the trapping efficiencies decrease.



### 10.7 Filter Feeders
Filter feeders play an important role in the uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus from the Chesapea ke Bay and have the potential significantly improve water quality if present in large numbers (Appendix U ). The organisms of interest for their ability to improve water quality are the native Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica , and menhaden fish, Brevoo rtia tyrannus . Each
market

- sized oyster contains about 0.5 gram of nitrogen and 0.16 gram of phosphorus. Menhaden fish are another filter feeding organism in the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay TMDL incorporates the effects of filter feeders.

EPA is basing the TMDL on the current assimilative capacity of filter feeders at existing populations built into the calibration of the oyster filter feeding submodel of the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality/Sediment Transport Model. Potential future population change s would not be accounted for in the Bay TMDL. If future monitoring data indicate an increase in the filter feeder population, the appropriate jurisdiction’s 2

- year milestone delivered load reductions can be adjusted accordingly. Similarly if reductions in future filter feeder populations are observed that result in reduced nutrient assimilation, the 2

- year milestone delivered load reductions can be adjusted to account for the change. The adjusted loads will be compared to the 2

- year milestone
commitments to ensure that each jurisdiction is meeting its obligations.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

11

- 1 September 24 , 2010



## SECTION 11. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

EPA and the Bay jurisdictions have benefitted from a comprehensive effort to exchange information with key stakeholders and the broader public on the Chesapeake Bay TMDL.

By the end of 2010, a 2

- year outreach effort will have included hundreds of meetings with interested groups; two rounds of public meetings, stakeholder sessions and media interviews throughout the watershed; a dedicated EPA website; monthly interactive webin ars; three notices published in the Federal Register ; and a close working relationship with Chesapeake Bay Program committees representing citizens, local governments, and the scientific community.

The outreach will continue in 2011 and beyond as the Bay T MDL is implemented.



### 11.1 Stakeholder and Local Government Outreach and Involvement
EPA has made a concerted effort over the past years to involve stakeholders and local governments in the development of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. This section describes some of the more significant aspects of that effort.



### 11.1.1 Open Collaboration with Stakeholders
EPA has taken extra efforts to reach out to groups and sectors that will be particularly affected by the Bay TMDL. EPA principals involved in developing the Bay TMD L have attended dozens of meetings with a wide variety of groups throughout the watershed to give and receive information about the TMDL. A full list of those meetings held since January 2008 is provided in Appendix C.

During the course of a 7

- week outreac h campaign in the fall of 2009, EPA teams conducted nearly 50 separate meetings and briefings with key stakeholder groups to share sector

- specific information and address questions in a productive setting. Those groups included farmers and producers, homeb uilders and developers, municipal authorities, local elected officials, conservation groups, and environmental advocacy organizations. The outreach generated key insights and perspectives.



### 11.1.2 Outreach to Local Governments and Elected Officials

EPA and the jurisdictions have made a special effort to involve local governments in the Bay TMDL process to better understand how the TMDL can best be tailored to local scales for implementation. EPA has the scientific ability in the TMDL to identify pollution so urces and impacts on a relatively local level.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

11

- 2 September 24 , 2010



### 11.1.3 Local Pilots EPA provided $300,000 in technical assistance for a series of pilot projects to help the jurisdictions engage local partners as part of their watershed implementation plan process. Local

go vernments, conservation districts, watershed groups and others were eligible for a share of the assistance. The projects were to demonstrate how local needs, priorities, and existing restoration efforts could be incorporated in the implementation plans. EP A awarded funds to the following
communities and watersheds:

District of Columbia
Maryland: Anne Arundel and Caroline counties
New York: Chemung River Watershed
Pennsylvania: Conewago Creek Watershed
Virginia: Prince William County and Rivanna River Basin
West Virginia: Berkeley, Jefferson, and Morgan counties

Information on the pilot projects are at http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/WIPPilotProjectSummary_4222010.pdf

.



### 11.2 Public Outreach
EPA’s extensive outreach efforts included public meetings, webinars, and a dedicated website that facilitated the continuing dialogue between EPA, the seven watershed jurisdictions, and key stakeholders on the Chesapeake Bay TMDL for nutrients and sediment.



### 11.2.1 Public Meetings Two rounds of public meetings in each of the watershed jurisdictions are a centerpiece of EPA’s
outreach efforts.

November

– Dec ember 2009 Public Meetings EPA and its jurisdiction partners sponsored 16 public meetings in the fall of 2009 to share information on the forthcoming Bay TMDL. A number of the public meetings were broadcast to a live, online audience via webinar. More than 2,000 people participated in the meetings, including 1,815 in the live audiences and 263 online via webinar at six of the locations. There was also a kickoff public meeting in Richmond, Virginia, in October 2009 that drew a combined
live and online audien ce of more than 400 people.

The 2009 public meetings were held in
Martinsburg, West Virginia, November 4*
Moorefield, West Virginia, November 5
Washington, D.C., November 16*
Ashley, Pennsylvania, November 17
Williamsport, Pennsylvania, November 18

State C ollege, Pennsylvania, November 19
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, November 23*DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

11

- 3 September 24 , 2010

Binghamton, New York, December 1*
Baltimore, Maryland, December 8*

Laurel, Delaware, December 10*
Wye Mills, Maryland, December 11
Falls Church, Virginia, December 14
Chesapeake, Virgi nia, December 15
Williamsburg, Virginia, December 15
Penn Laird, Virginia, December 16
Fredericksburg, Virginia, December 17

* Meeting also was broadcast online via webinar. The largest live audiences were in Penn Laird, Virginia (205), and Lancaster, Penn sylvania (196).

September

- November 2010 Public Meetings

A total of 18 public meetings are scheduled to be held in the fall of 2010 in all seven watershed jurisdictions. One of the 18 is strictly a webinar, and, as in 2009, in the other jurisdictions, one o f the public meetings in each jurisdiction will also be broadcast online via webinar to a broader audience. Times, specific locations, directions, and parking information are on the Bay TMDL
website: http: //www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl

. The meetings are scheduled for
Washington, D.C., September 29*
Harrisonburg, Virginia, October 4
Annandale, Virginia, October 5
Richmond, Virginia, October 6

Webinar, October 7
Hampton, Virginia, October 7
Georgetown, Delaware, October 11*
Easton, Maryland, October 12
Annapolis, Maryland, October 13
Hagerstown, Maryland, October 14*
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, October 18
State College, Pennsylvania, October 19
Williamsport, Pennsylvania, October 20*
Ashley, Pennsylvania, O ctober 21

Elmira, New York, October 26
Binghamton, New York, October 27*
Martinsburg, West Virginia, November 3DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

11

- 4 September 24 , 2010

Romney, West Virginia, November 4*

* Meeting will also be broadcast online via webinar. Webinar registration links are available on the Bay TMDL website listed above.



### 11.2.2 Webinars to Expand Audiences
EPA Region 3 was one of the first regional offices to acquire capacity to host large webinars. The system was obtained specifically to broadcast a representative number of the 2009 fall public meet ings to online audiences, thus expanding the ability for the public to hear and participate in the meetings. The webinars have since been broadcast about monthly and will be incorporated in a number of the fall 2010 public meetings

— one in each jurisdiction

. Monthly Webinars EPA sponsored monthly webinars in 2010 to keep the public up to date on Bay TMDL developments. The regularly scheduled webinars, each attracting hundreds of participants, represent one of EPA’s Open Government flagship initiatives for pu blic outreach. A substantial portion of each webinar is reserved for informal questions and answers.

The monthly webinars have been advertised widely using stakeholder and jurisdiction lists of hundreds of people and organizations that have expressed an in terest in the Bay TMDL. The registration links for the webinars have been published prominently on the Bay TMDL website.

The monthly webinars were held on
February 25, 2010 TMDL Update 1 529 participants March 25, 2010 TMDL Update 2 379 participants May 17, 2010 TMDL Update 3 294 participants June 7, 2010 TMDL Update 4 288 participants July 8, 2010 TMDL Update 5 383 participants August 9, 2010 TMDL Update 6 385 participants

A monthly webinar is scheduled for September 28, 2010, at 10 a.m., on the eve of the first fall 2010 public meeting.

Webinars Tailored to Specific Stakeholder Communities In addition to the monthly webinars, EPA sponsored two webinars to review detailed modeling and other technical information with representatives of th e agriculture and development
communities.

The webinars were held on
March 22, 2010 Webinar for the Agriculture Community 218 participants May 6, 2010 Webinar for the Development Community 84 participants



### 11.2.3 Chesapeake Bay TMDL Web Site

EPA establi shed a website for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL in August 2009. The address is http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl

.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

11

- 5 September 24 , 2010

The site continues to include the latest news and information on the Bay TMDL, along with fact sheets, questions and answers, presentations, and other features. The site has consistently been one of the most popular in EPA Region 3 according to access numbers.



### 11.2.4 Public Notices

Federal Register Notices

EPA has issued notices in the Federal Register regarding the Chesapeake Bay TMDL to ensure that the public has full advance notification of major events. The two notices issued to

- date include a September 17, 2009, announcement (USEPA 2009a) of the public meetings and a September 22, 2010 anno uncement ( USEPA 2010 c ) of the public review and comment period. EPA will publish a Federal Register notice in December 2010 for the final Bay TMDL publication.

Newspaper Notices EPA has issued notices in regional and local newspapers regarding the Chesapea ke Bay TMDL to ensure that the public throughout the watershed has full advance notification of major events.



### 11.3 Responses to Public Comments
The Draft Chesapeake Bay TMDL will be available for public comment from September 24, 2010, to November 8, 2010. EPA invites anyone wishing to comment on the information in the
TMDL to do so by November 8, 2010. All comments must be postmarked no later than
November 8 , 2010. All comments must be written (or electronically received), include the name,
address and tel ephone number of the commenter

, and should be as concise and as specific as possible for EPA to develop meaningful responses. EPA encourages e lectronic submission of

comments as described below

. EPA will review all written comments submitted during the pub lic comment period and will consider them in establishing the final TMDL as appropriate. Responses to comments will be included in Appendix V in the final Chesapeake Bay TMDL
document.

C omments may be submitted , identified by Docket ID No. EPA

- R03

- OW

- 2010

- 0736, by the
fo llowing methods:

1. http://www.regulations.gov: After entering the docket for this action, click the Draft Bay
TMDL to make a comment. C lick the Submit a Comment button at the top right of the Web page, and then follow the online instructions.

2. Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822 1 T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N

. W., Washington, DC 20460.

3. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room, EPA Headquarters West,
Room 33 34 , 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are accepted o nly during the Docket Center’ s normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information by contacting th e Docket Center at 202

- 566

- 174DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

12

- 1 September 24 , 2010



## SECTION 12. REFERENCES

Aber, J.D., K.J. Nadelhoffer, P. Steu dler, and J.M. Melillo. 1989. Nitrogen saturation in northern forest ecosystems. Bioscience 39:6 pp: 378

- 386.

Aber, J.D., C.L. Goodale, S.V. Ollinger, M.L. Smith, A.H. Magill, M.E. Martin, R.A. Hallett, and J.L. Stoddard. 2003. Is nitrogen deposition alte ring the nitrogen status of northern
forests? Bioscience , v. 53, no. 4, p. 375

- 389.

American Canoe Association, Inc., et al. v U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , et al., Civil
Action No. 98

- 979

- A, (E.D. Va. June 11, 1999)

. American Littoral Society, et al. v EPA, et al., No. 96

- 330 (D. Del.)

. Batiuk, R.A., R. Orth, K. Moore, J.C. Stevenson, W. Dennison, L. Staver, V. Carter, N.B. Rybicki, R. Hickman, S. Kollar, and S. Bieber. 1992. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Habitat Requirements and Res toration Targets: A Technical Synthesis. CBP/TRS 83/92. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

Batiuk, R.A., P. Bergstrom, M. Kemp, E. Koch, L. Murray, J.C. Stevenson, R. Bartleson, V. Carter, N.B. Rybicki, J.M. Landwehr, C. Gallegos, L. Karrh, M. Naylor, D. Wilcox, K., A. Moore, S. Ailstock, and M. Teichberg. 2000. Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Water Quality and Habitat

- Based Requirements and Restoration Targets: A Second Technical Synthesis. CBP/TRS 245/00 EPA 903

- R

- 00

- 014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

Batiuk , R.A. , D

. L. Breitburg, R

. J. Diaz, T

. M. Cronin, D

. H. Secor, and G

. Thursby . 2009.
Derivation of habitat

- specific dissolved oxygen criteria for Chesapeake Bay and its tidal
tributaries

. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 38 1: S204

– S215

. Bicknell, B.R., J.C. Imhoff, J.L. Kittle Jr., T.H. Jobes, and A.S. Donigian Jr. 2005. Hydrological Simulation Program

— FORTRAN. User’s Manual for Release 12.2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ecosystem Research Division, Athens, GA, and U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Surface Water, Reston, VA.

Brakebill, J., and S. Preston. 2004. Digital Data Used to Relate Nutrient Inputs to Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Version 3.0 . USGS Open

- File Report 2004

- 1433. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Brown and Thomas. 1978. (On

- sit e systems Section 4.7.4)

Campbell, K.L. 1982. Nutrient transport from North Florida agricultural fields and watersheds. Ed. Baldwin, L. B.; Bottcher, A. B. IFAS Conference on Nonpoint Pollution Control Technology, Gainsville, FL.

Castro, M. S.; K.N. Es hleman, R.P. Morgan II, S.W. Seagle, R.H. Gardner, and L.F. Pitelka. 1997. Nitrogen dynamics in forested watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay. STAC Report
Number: 97

- 3. June 1997 Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, Frostburg, MD.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

12

- 2 September 24 , 2010

Center for Watershe d Protection , 2003. Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems

, Center for Watershed Protection Ellicott City, MD

. March 2003

Chesapeake Bay Partnership. 1983. The Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983 . Chesapeake Bay Partnership, Washington, DC.

CBP (Ches apeake Bay Program). 1987. Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living
Resources . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Task Force, Annapolis, MD.

CBP ( Chesapeake Bay Program ) . 1989 a

. Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program Atlas

- Volume 1: Water Quality and Other Physiochemical Monitoring Programs . CBP/TRS 34/89. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency

, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

CBP ( Chesapeake Bay Program ) . 1989 b

. Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program Atlas

- Volume II : Biological and Living Resource Monitoring Programs . CBP/TRS 3 5 /89. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, M D

. CBP ( Chesapeake Bay Program). 1997. Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reductio n Progress and
Future Directions

—

Nutrient Reevaluation Summary Report . October 1997. CBP/TRS
189/97. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 1998. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Application and Calculation of Nutrient and Sediment Loadings

– Appendix F: Phase IV Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model Point Source Load

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Nutrient Subcommittee, Annapolis, MD.

CBP ( Chesapeake Bay Program). 1 999. Process for Integrating the Cooperative and Statutory Programs of the Chesapeake Bay and its Tributaries

— Continuing the Watershed Partnership to Restore the Chesapeake Bay . September 24, 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

, Chesapeake Bay Progr am, Annapolis, MD.

CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 2004. Oyster Management Plan

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 2008. Nontidal Water Quality Monitoring

. November 2008

. Chapter V of Recommended Guidelines for Sampling and Analysis in the Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program , Revision 1

- Draft

. Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland.

CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 2009. Chesapeake Bay Program Governance

— Managing the
Partn ership for a Restored and Protected Watershed and Bay

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

CBP PSC (Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee). 2007. October 1, 2007 Meeting Summary of the Chesapeake Bay Pr ogram Principals’ Staff Committee, Annapolis Friends Meeting House, Annapolis, MD.

Chesapeake Bay Reevaluation Steering Committee. 2005. Chesapeake Bay Program 2007 Reevaluation Workshop, Lancaster, PA, September 21

– 22, 2005. Summary of Issues,
Actions and Decisions. Chesapeake Bay Reevaluation Steering Committee, Annapolis, MD.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

12

- 3 September 24 , 2010

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Partners. 2000. Memorandum of Understanding among the State of Delaware, the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, the State of New York, the
Commonw ealth of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of West Virginia, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Cooperative Efforts for the Protection of the Chesapeake Bay and Its Rivers . Chesapeake Bay Watershed Partners, Annapolis, MD.

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Partners. 2004

. Memorandum of Understanding among the State of Delaware, the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, the State of New York, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the St ate of West Virginia, the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Geological Survey a nd the Chesapeake Bay Commission regarding Cooperative Efforts for Monitoring and Assessing Water Quality in the Streams and Rivers of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed . September 23, 2004. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Partners, Annapolis, MD.

CEC (Chesapeake Execu tive Council). 1987. Chesapeake Bay Agreement . Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

CEC (Chesapeake Executive Council). 1992. Chesapeake Bay Agreement

— 1992 Amendments

. Chesapeake Executive Council, Annapolis, MD.

CEC (Chesapeake Executive Council). 1997. Directive No. 97

- 1 Basinwide Nutrient Reduction Progress and Future Direction. Chesapeake Executive Council, Annapolis, MD.

CEC (Chesapeake Executive Council). 2000. Chesapeake 2000. Chesapeake Executive Council, Annapolis, MD.

CEC (Chesapeake Executive C ouncil). 2003. Directive No. 03

- 02 Meeting the Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals. Chesapeake Executive Council, Annapolis, MD.

CEC (Chesapeake Executive Council). 2005. Directive No. 04

- 02 Meeting the Nutrient and
Sediment Reduction Goals

— Next Steps. C hesapeake Executive Council, Annapolis, MD.

Cerco, C., and T. Cole. 1994. Three

- Dimensional Eutrophication Model of Chesapeake Bay

. Technical Report EL

- 94

- 4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Cerco, C.F., and M.R. No el. 2004. The 2002 Chesapeake Bay Eutrophication Model. EPA 903

- R

- 04

- 004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

Cerco, C. 2010. The Chesapeake Bay Water Quality and Sediment Transport Model. In preparation.

Cla ggett, P and C. Bisland. 2004.

Clarke, K.C., Hoppen , S., and Gaydos , L., 1997, A self

- modifying cellular automaton model of historical urbanization in the San Francisco Bay area, Environ. Plann. B: Plann. Des. 24,247

–DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

12

- 4 September 24 , 2010

261. Curtin, P.D., G.S. Brush, and G. W. Fisher. 2001. Discovering the Chesapeake . Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Clark, Gregory M., D.K. Mueller, M.A Mast. 2000. Nutrient concentrations and yields in undeveloped stream basins of the United States Journal of the American Wate r Resources
Association 36:4 pp: 849

- 860.

DC DOE (District of Columbia Department of the Environment). 2008. Integrated Report.

DiToro, D., and Fitzpatrick, J. (1993). ―Chesapeake Bay sediment flux model,‖ Contract Report
EL

- 93

- 2, US Army Engineer Waterwa ys Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS.

Di Toro, Dominic M. 2001. Sediment Flux Modeling. Wiley

- Interscience. 448 pages

. ISBN

- 10:
0471135356.

DE DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control). 1998. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Analysis for Nanticoke River and Broad Creek
Delaware. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover,
DE.

DE DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control). 2008.
State of Delaware 2008 Combined Wate rshed Assessment Report (305(b)) and Determination for the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Waters Needing TMDLs. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.

Dennis, R., Haeuber, R., Blett, T., Cosby, J., Driscoll, C., Sickles, J., and Johnson, J., 2007. Sulfur and nitrogen deposition on ecosystems in the United States. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association. December 2007.

Dennison, W.C., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore, J.C. Stevenson, V. Carter, S. Kollar, P.W. Bergstrom, and R.A. Batiuk. 1993. Assessing water quality with submersed aquatic vegetation habitat requirements as barometers of Chesapeake Bay health. Bioscience 43:86

– 94.

Fennel, K

., J

. Wilkin

, J. Levin, J. Moisan, J. O ’ Reilly, and D. Haidvogel

. 2006

. Nitrogen cycling in the Middle Atlantic Bight: Results from a three dimensional model for the North Atlantic nitrogen budget Global Biogeochemical Cycles 20 ( GB3007 ). doi:10.1 029/2005GB002456

FLCCB (Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay). 2010. Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Pursuant to Executive Order 13508. Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay, Washington, DC.

Funderburk, S.L., S.J. Jordan, J.A. Mihursky

, and D.R. Riley (eds). 1991

. Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources, 1991 Second Edition

. Living Resources Subcommittee, Chesapeake Bay Program

, Annapolis, M D

. Gallegos, C.L. 2001. Calculating optical water quality targets to restore and protect submersed aquatic vegetation: Overcoming problems in partitioning the diffuse attenuation coefficient for photosynthetically active radiation. Estuaries 24:381

– 397.

Gelli s, A.C., C.R. Hupp, M.J. Pavich, J.M. Landwehr, W.S.L. Banks, B.E. Hubbard, M.J. Langland, J.C. Ritchie, and J.M. Reuter. 2009. Sources, Transport, and Storage of SedimentDRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

12

- 5 September 24 , 2010

at Selected Sites in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed . Scientific Investigations Report 2008

– 5186. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Goetz, S.J., Jantz, C.A., Prince, S.D., Smith, A.J., Varlyguin, D. and Wright, R. , 2004, Integrated analysis of ecosystem interactions with land use change: the Chesapeake Bay watershed, Pages 263

- 275 in R.S. DeFries, G.P. Asner and R.A. Houghton (Editors), Ecosystems and Land Use Change. American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph Series, Washington DC.

Goetz, S.J., and C.A. Jantz, 2006, Modeling the Rates and Spatial Patterns of Future Land Cover
Chan ge in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Final Report to the Chesapeake Bay Program, Chesapeake Bay Program Assistance Agreement # CB

- 973009

- 01.

Goodale, C.L.; K. Lajtha, K.J. Nadelhoffer, E.W. Boyer, and N.A. Jaworski. 2002. Forest nitrogen sinks in large ea stern U.S. watersheds: Estimates from forest inventory and an ecosystem model. Biogeochemistry 57:58 pp:239

- 266.

Grimm, J.W., and Lynch, J.A., 2000. Enhanced wet deposition estimates for the Chesapeake Bay watershed using modeled precipitation inputs: DNR Chesapeake Bay and Tidewater Programs CBWP

- MANTA

- AD

- 99

- 2.

Grimm, J.W., and Lynch, J.A., 2005, Improved daily precipitation nitrate and ammonium concentration models for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Environmental Pollution, v. 135, no. 2005, p. 445

- 455.

Ha meedi, J., Paerl, H., Kennish, M., and Whitall, D., 2007. Nitrogen deposition in U.S. coastal bays and estuaries. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association. December 2007.

Howarth, R. W.; Billen, G.; Swaney, D.; Townsend, A.; Jaworski, N.; Lajt ha, K.; Downing, J. A.; Elmgren, ER.; Caraco, N.; Jordan, T.; Berendse, F.; Freney, J.; Kudeyarov, V.; Murdoch, P.; Zhao

- liang, HZhu, 1995. Regional nitrogen budgets and riverine N & P fluxes for the drainages to the North Atlantic Ocean: Natural and huma n influences. Biogeochemistry 35:1 pp 75

- 139.

Howarth, R.W. 1998. An assessment of human influences on fluxes of nitrogen from the terrestrial landscape to the estuaries and continental shelves of the North Atlantic Ocean: Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosyste ms , v. 52, p. 213

- 223.

Huddleston, J. H., and Ronayne, M. P. 1990. Guide to Soil Suitability and Site Selection for Beneficial Use of Sewage Sludge. Manual 8. Oregon State Univ. Extension Service, Corvallis.;Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wate r. Washington, DC. PB95

- 159596

. HydroQual. (1988). ―Re

- calibration of the Potomac Eutrophication Model to the 1983 algal bloom,‖ Job Number WCOG0090, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington DC.

Jantz, C.A., Goetz, S.J., and Shelley, M.K. , 2003, Using the SLEUTH urban growth model to simulate the impacts of future policy scenarios on urban land use in the Baltimore

– Washington metropolitan area, Environ. Plann . B: Plann . Des. 31(2):251

- 271.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

12

- 6 September 24 , 2010

Jordan, S.J., C. Stenger, M. Olson, R. Batiuk

, and K. Mountford. 1992. Chesapeake Bay dissolved oxygen goal for restoration of living resource habitats: A synthesis of living resource requirements with guidelines for their use in evaluating model results and monitoring information . CBP/TRS 88/93. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, M D

. Kemp, W.M., R.A. Batiuk, R. Bartleson, P. Bergstrom, V. Carter, C.L. Gallegos, W. Hunley, L. Karrh, E. Koch, J.M. Landwehr, K.A. Moore, L. Murray, M. Naylor, N.B. Rybicki, J.C. Stevenson, and D.J. Wilcox. 2004. Habitat requirements for submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: Water quality, light regime and physical

- chemical factors. Estuaries
27:363

– 377.

Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, J.E. Adolf, D.F. Boesch, W.C. Boicourt, G. Brush, J.C. Cornwell, T.R. Fisher, P.M. Glibert, J.D. Hagy, L.W. Harding, E.D. Houde, D.G. Kimmel, W.D. Miller, R.I.E. Newell, M.R. Roman, E.M. Smith, and J.C. Stevenson. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: Historical trends and ecological interaction s

. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 303:1

– 29.

Kingman Park Civic Association, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Case No. 98CV00758 (D.D.C. June 13, 2000)

. Lane, Mark. 2004. CIMS Data Upload and Quality Assurance Tool: Data User’s Guide

. August
2002. Veridyne, Inc. for Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office

. Langland, M.J., P.I. Lietman, and S. Hoffman. 1995. Synthesis of Nutrient and Sediment Data for Watersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin: USGS in cooperation with EPA
Wate r Resources Investigations Report 95

- 4233. Lemoyne, PA.

Langland

, M

., and T

. Cronin , 2003. A Summary Report of Sediment Processes in Chesapeake Bay and Watershed . USGS Water

- Resources Investigations Report 03

- 4123

. U.S. Geological Survey

, New Cumberland, P A.

Leopold, Luna B.; Wolman, M. Gordon; and Miller, John P. (1995). Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology . Dover Publications. ISBN 0

- 486

- 68588

- 8

. Linker, L.C. 2003. A Comparison of Es timated Water Quality Effects of Monthly and Annual
Based Load Point Source Load Reductions

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

Linker, L.C. 2005. Labile and Refractory Organic Nitrogen in Chesapeake Bay Was tewater Treatment Plants: Measurement and Model Simulation

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

Linker, L., G. Shenk, P. Wang, C. Cerco, A. Butt, P. Tango

, and R. Sav a ge. 2002. A Comparison of Chesapeake Bay Estuary Model Calibration with 1985

– 1994 Observed Data and Method of Application to Water Quality Criteria. Chesapeake Bay Program Modeling Subcommittee Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis,
M D

.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

12

- 7 September 24 , 2010

Linker, L.C ., T. Johnson, J. Kittle, Jr., G.W. Shenk, 2007. Evaluating 2030 Climate Change in the Chesapeake Watershed. American Water Research Association Annual Conference,
November 12

- 15, 2007, Albuquerque, NM.

Linker, L.C., G.W. Shenk, P. Wang, R. Batiuk, 2008. Chapter 3: Integration of Modeling, Research, and Monitoring in the Chesapeake Bay Program in Management of Water Quality and Irrigation Techniques , Editors: Jose Albiac and Ariel Dinar, Earthscan. London , UK.

Lynch, J.A., and J.W. Grimm. 2003. Improved Daily Nitrate and Ammonium Concentration Models for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: U.S EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office

Maizel, M., G. Muehlbach, P. Baynham, J. Zoerker, D. Monds, T. Iivari, P Welle, J. Ro bbin, and
J. Wiles. 1995. The Potential for Nutrient Loadings from Septic Systems to Ground and Surface Water Resources and the Chesapeake Bay . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

Martucci, S.K., J.L. Krstoli c, J.P. Raffensperger, and K.J. Hopkins. 2006. Development of Land Segmentation, Stream

- Reach Network, and Watersheds in Support of Hydrologic Simulation Program

- Fortran (HSPF) Modeling, Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and Adjacent Parts of Maryland, Delaware, a nd Virginia . U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

MDE (Maryland Department of the Environment). 1998, as amended 2004. Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Maryland and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 , regarding Secti ons 303(d) an d 303(e) of the Clean Water Act. Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD.

MDE (Maryland Department of the Environment). 2000. TMDL of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) for the Western Branch of the Patuxent River, Prince George ’ s County, MD(Approved on June 6, 2000) . Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD.

MDE (Maryland Department of the Environment). 2004. September 2, 2004

, Letter Revising Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Maryland and the United Sta tes Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3. Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD.

MDE (Maryland Department of the Environment). 2008. Integrated List. Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD.

MD OEP (Maryland Office of Env ironmental Protection). 1987. Monitoring for Management Actions: Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program

— First Biennial Report

. Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD.

MRAT (Monitoring Realignment Action Team). 2009. Chesapeake Bay B aywide and Basinwide Monitoring Networks: Adapting to Address Partner Priorities. Summary Report with Benchmark Options on Adapting Monitoring Networks and Realigning Resources to Address
Partner Priorities . Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

Nixon, S. W. 1997. Prehistoric nutrient inputs and productivity in Narragansett Bay. Estuaries 20:2 pp: 253

- 261.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

12

- 8 September 24 , 2010

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003. Amb ient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapea ke Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries. National Marine Fisheries Service Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion.
F/NER/2003/ 00961. Northeast Region, Gloucester, MA.

Officer 1984. (Section 6.2)

Orth, R.J., and K.A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: An unprecedente d decline in submerged aquatic vegetation. Science 222:51

– 53.

Orth , R.J., M

. R. Williams , S. R. Marion , D. J. Wilcox

, T

. J.B. Carruthers

, K

. A. Moore , W .M

. Kemp

, W

. C. Dennison

, N

. Rybicki , P. Bergstrom , and R

. A. Batiuk. 2010. Long

- Term Trends in Submersed Aquat ic Vegetation (SAV) in Chesapeake Bay, USA, Related to Water Quality. Estuaries and Coasts (2010) 33:1144

– 1163

. Palace, M., J. Hannawald, L. Linker, G. Shenk, J. Storrick, and M. Clipper. 1998. Appendix H: tracking best management practice nutrient reductions in the Chesapeake Bay Program. In Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model application and calculation of nutrient and sediment loadings

. EPA 903

- R

- 98

- 009, CBP/TRS 201/98. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, M D

. Pan, Y., R. Birdsey, J. Hom, and K. McCullough. 2005. ―Forest Productivity and Effects of Nitrogen Deposition on Water Quality.‖ USDA Forest Service, Northwestern Area, Global Change Research.

Preston

, S

. D., R

. B. Alexander, M

. D. Woodside, and P

. A. Hamilton 2009. SPARROW
MODELING

— Enhancing Understanding of the Nation’s Water Quality . Fact Sheet 2009

– 3019. U.S. Geological Survey Reston, VA.

Preston and Brakebill. 1999.

Reilly, J., 2003, The New Jersey (USA) Growth Allocation Model: development, evaluation and extension’, in S. Geertman and J. Stillwell (Eds.) Planning Support Systems in Practice, Advances in Spatial Science Series, Springer, Berlin, pp.373

- 389.

Riekerk, H., D.G. Neary, and W.T. Swank. 1988. The magnitude of upland siliculture nonpoint source pollution in the South. Ed. Hook, Donal D.; Lea, Russ Conference on the Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States, Asheville, NC. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. pp: 8

- 18.

Ritter, W.F., and A.E.M Chirnside. 1984. Impact of land use on groundwater quality in Southern
Delaware Groundwater 22:1, pp 38

- 47.

Robertson, W. D., J. A. Cherry, and E. A. Suclicky. 1991. Ground

- Water Contamination From Two Small Septic Systems on Sand Aquifers. Ground Water. 29:82

- 92.

Robertson, W.D. and Cherry, J.A., 1992. Hydrogeology of an unconfined sand aquifer and its effect on the behaviour of nitrogen from a large

- flux septic system. Appl. Hydrogeol

. Rountree, H., W. Clark, and K. Mountford. 2007. John Smith’ s Chesapeake Voyages 1607

– 1609

. Univ ersity of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, VA.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

12

- 9 September 24 , 2010

Salvato, J.A. 1982. Environmental Engineering and Sanitation. 3rd ed. Wiley

- Interscience, New York, New York.

Secretary Robert Perciasepe. 1992. Nutrient Reevaluation Load Allocations. October 14, 1992,
Memor andum to the Principals’ Staff Committee Members. Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD.

Secretary Tayloe Murphy. 2003. Summary of Decisions Regarding Nutrient and Sediment Load Allocations and New Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Restora tion Goals. April 25, 2003, Memorandum to the Principals’ Staff Committee members and representatives of the Chesapeake Bay headwater states. Virginia Office of the Governor, Natural Resources Secretariat, Richmond, V A

. Seitzinger, S. (1986). ‖The effect o f pH on the release of phosphorus from Potomac River sediments,‖ Report 86

- 8D, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia PA.

Smith, D.E., M. Leffler

, and G. Mackiernan (eds.). 1992. Oxygen Dynamics in the Chesapeake Bay: A Synthesis of Recent Research. Maryland and Virginia Sea Grant College Program, College Park, M D

. STAC 2005a. Assessing Progress and Effectiveness through Monitoring Rivers and Streams. Report to the Task Force on Analysis of Non

- tidal Water Qualit y Modeling Results. STAC
Publication 05

- 005.

STAC 2005b. Recommendations for Refinement of a Spatially Representative Non

- tidal Water Quality Monitoring Network for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Report to the Task Force
on Non

- tidal Water Quality Monitor ing Network Design. STAC Publication 05

- 006.

STAC ( Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee). 2006 b

. The Cumulative Frequency Diagram Method for Determining Water Quality Attainme nt: Report of the Chesapeake Bay Program STAC Panel to Review Chesapeake Bay Analytical Tools . STAC Publication 06

- 003. Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Edgewater, MD.

STAC ( Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee ) . 2009. Application of reference curves in
d issolved oxygen criteria assessment. STAC Review and R ecommendations for the Chesapeake Bay Program. STAC Publ ication 09

- 005. Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Edgewater, MD.

Stevenson, J. C ., R. Brinsfield, and K. Staver. 1987. Surface runoff and groundwater impacts from agricultural activities in the Chesapeake region. Ed. Stevens, Larry Proceedings of the U.S. Committee on Irrigation and Drainage, Regional Meeting, Washington, DC.

Stodda rd, J.L., ed. 1994. Long

- term changes in watershed retention of nitrogen: Its causes and aquatic consequences: L.A. Baker (ed.), Environmental Chemistry of Lakes and Reservoirs, ACS Advances in Chemistry Series No. 237: Washington, D.C., American Chemical Society, 83 p.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 1999 (September 8). Improving Point Source Loadings Data for Reporting National Water Quality Indicators, Final Report. Final Report. Prepared for: U.S.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

12

- 10 September 24 , 2010

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management (OWM). Contract
#68

- C

- 0014, Work Assignment 1

- 31. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia.

Thomann, R.V., J.R. Collier, A

. Butt, E

. Casman, and L

. C. Linker

. 1994. Response of the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model to Loading Scenarios

. CBP/TRS 101/94. U.S.
Environmen tal Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

Trimble, S.W. 1999. Decreased rates of alluvial storage in the Coon Creek Basin, Wisconsin,
1975

– 1993. Science 285:1244

– 1246.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1976. [Biosolids 4.7.1]

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1978. [Biosolids 4.7.1]

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1982. Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA ( U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1983a. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for
Action . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1983b. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for
Action

— Appendices . U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1983c. Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmental Change . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1983 d. Chesapeake Bay Program: Findings
and Recommendations . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991a. Guidance for Water Quality

- Based
Decisions: The TMDL Process. EPA 440/4

- 91

- 001. U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991 b

. Chesapeake Bay Coordinated Split Sample Program Implementation Guidelines. May 1991. CBP/TRS 58/91. Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD

.

U SEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. Recommended Guidelines for Sampling and Analysis in the C hesapeake Bay Monitoring Program. August 1996

. EPA 903

- R

- 96

- 006. CBP/TRS 148/96. Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD

. USEPA (U .S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Draft Guidance for Water Quality

Based Decisions: The TMDL Process. (Second Edition) . EPA 844

- D

- 99

- 001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Us ers G uide to Chesapeake Bay Program Biological and Living R esources Monitoring Data

. EPA 903

- R 99

- xx or 00

- xx

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Frequently Asked Questions About Atmospheric Deposition : A Handbook for Watershed Managers

. EPA

- 453/R

- 01

- 009. U .S.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

12

- 11 September 24 , 2010

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC

. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. (Section 1.4)

USEPA (U.S. Env ironmental Protection Agency). 2002. (Section 4.5.5)

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal
Tributaries . EPA 903

- R

- 03

- 00 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003b. Setting and Allocating the Chesapeake Bay Basin Nutrient and Sediment Loads, the Collaborative Process, Te chnical Tools and Innovative Approaches . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003c. Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay Desi gnated Uses and Attainability . EPA 903

- R

- 03

- 004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal
Tributaries. 2004 Addendum

. EPA 903

- R

- 03

- 002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis , MD.

USEPA ( U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ) . 2004 b

. Chesapeake Bay Program Analytical Segmentation Scheme: Revisions, Decisions and Rationales 1983

– 2003 . EPA 903

- R

- 04

- 008.
CBP/TRS 268/04. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Chesapeake Ba y Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004c. Memo randum from J ames Hanlon to
J on Capacasa

, March 3, 2004. Annual Permit Limits for Nitrogen and Phosphorus for
Permits Designed to Protect Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries from Excess Nutrient Loading under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004d. NPDES Permitting Approach for Discharges of Nutr ients in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

— December 2004 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004e. Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay Designated Uses and Attainability

– 2004 Addendum. EPA
903

- R

- 04

- 006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

USEPA ( U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ) . 2005. Chesapeake Bay Program Analytical Segmentation Scheme: Revision s, Decisions and Rationales 1983

- 2003. 2005 Addendum

. EPA 903

- R

- 05

- 004. CBP/TRS 278

- 06. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

12

- 12 September 24 , 2010

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Establishing TMDL ―Dail y‖ Loads in Light of the Decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. EPA, et al., No.05

- 5015, (April 25, 2006) and Implications for NPDES permits

. Memorandum from Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, O ffice of Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal
Tributaries

— 2007 Addendum . EPA 903

- R

- 07

- 003. CBP/TRS 285

- 07. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries. 2007 Chlorophyll Criteria Addendum . EPA 903

- R

- 07

- 005 CBP/TRS 288/07. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

USEPA (U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency). 2007c. Options for the Expressing Daily
Loads in TMDLs . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds. Washington, DC.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal
Tributaries

– 2008 Technical Support for Criteria Assessment Protocols Addendum . EPA 903

- R

- 08

- 001. CBP/TRS 290

- 08. U.S. Environmental Pr otection Agency, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008b. September 11, 2008, Letter from Region 3 Administrator Donald Welsh to Secretary John Griffin, Maryland Department of
the Environm ent.

USEPA 2008c.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009a. Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Preliminary Notice of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Development for the Chesapeake Bay . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Water Protecti on Division. Federal Register . September 17, 2009, 74:47794.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009b. Letter from Region 3, Acting Administrator William C. Early to Secretary L. Preston Bryant, Virginia Department of Natural Resources, November 3, 2009.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009c. Letter from Region 3, Acting Administrator William C. Early to Secretary L. Preston Bryant, Virginia Department of Natural Resources, November 4, 2009.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy). 2009d. Letter from Region 3 Administrator Shawn M. Garvin to Secretary L. Preston Bryant, Virginia Department of Natural Resources, December 29, 2009.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

12

- 13 September 24 , 2010

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Dissolved Ox

ygen, Water Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries: 2010 Technical Support for Criteria Assessment Protocols Addendum . May
2010

. EPA 903

- R

- 10

- 002. CBP/TRS 301

- 10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010 b

. Chesapeake Bay Program Grant and Cooperative Guidance: Attachment 6

— CBP Wastewater Facility & Nonpoint Source Data Submission Specifications and Requirements. U.S. Env ironmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010c. Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Notice for the public review of the Draft Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the
Che sapeake Bay . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Water Protection Division. Federal Register. September 22, 2010, ##:#####.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010d. Estimates of County Level Nitrogen and Phosphorus Data for Use in M odeling Pollutant Reductions. September 2010 (Draft). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010 e

. Guide for EPA ’ s Evaluation of Phase I Watershed Implemen tation Plans

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010f. Letter from Region 3 Administrator Shawn M. Garvin to the Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee Members,
June 11, 2010.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010g. Letter from Region 3 Administrator Shawn M. Garvin to the Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee Members, July 1, 2010.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010h. Letter f rom Region 3 Administrator Shawn M. Garvin to the Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee Members, August 13, 2010.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010 i

. Our Nation ’ s Air: Status and Trends Through 2008 . EPA

- 454/R

- 09

- 002. U.S. Env ironmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010j. Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Model Documentation . U.S. Environmental Protection A gency, Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010k. Quality Management Plan for the Chesapeake Bay Program Office. September 2010. Region 3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

12

- 14 September 24 , 2010

VADEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). 2004. James River Alternatives Analysis

. Addendum #4 . Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond, VA.

VADEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). 2008. Integrated Report.

Walter, Robert C., and Dorothy J. Merritts, 2008. Natural Streams and the Legacy of Water

Powered Mills. Science 319(5861):299

– 304.

Wang, P., and L.C. Linker. 2009. Assessment of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Control Trade

- Offs Using a Water Quality Model with a Respons e Surface Method. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 135:3(171

– 177).

Wang, P., L.C. Linker, R.A. Batiuk, and C.F. Cerco. 2006. Surface Analysis of Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Response to Different Nutrient and Sediment Loads. Journal of
E nvironmental Engineering . 132:3(377

– 383).DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

13

- 1 September 24 , 2010



## SECTION 13. GLOSSARY

Airshed

. A geographic area delineating the relative location of air emission sources contributing to the atmospheric deposition to a down

- wind watershed

.

Bay Segment

. S ubunits of th e Chesapeake Bay estuary that were derived on the basis of specific selection criteria related to factors such as jurisdictional boundaries and other water quality, physical, and habitat related characteristics. The Chesapeake Bay is divided into 92 segmen ts.

Critical Condition

. Critical conditions are represent ed by the combination of loading, waterbody conditions and other environmental conditions that result in impairment and violation
of water quality standards. Critical conditions for an individual TMDL typically depend on applicable water quality standards , characteristics of the observed impairments, source type and behavior, pollutant, and waterbody type.

Critical Period . A period during which hydrologic, temperature, environmental, fl ow, and other such conditions result in a waterbody experiencing critical conditions with respect to an identified impairment (e.g., summer low flow, winter high flow).

Delivered Load

. T he amount of a pollutant delivered to the tidal waters of the Chesape ake Bay or its tributaries from an upstream point of discharge/runoff after accounting for permanent reductions in pollutant loads due to natural in

- stream processes in nontidal rivers.

Edge

- of

- Stream Load

. The amount of a pollutant reaching a simulated stream segment from a point in that stream’s watershed.

Existing Flow . The average flow volume discharged from a facility based on monitored data.

Facility Design Flow . The maximum flow volume for which a facility is designed and permitted.

Load Alloca tion

. The portion of the TMDL allocated to existing or future nonpoint sources and natural background.

Loading Capacity

. The greatest pollutant loading a waterbody can receive without exceeding water quality standards.

Margin of Safety . An accounting of uncertainty about the relationship between pollutant loads and receiving water quality. The margin of safety can be provided implicitly through analytical assumptions or explicitly by reserving a portion of loading capacity.

Nonpoint Source

. A ny source of water pollution that does not meet the legal definition of point

source

. Nonpoint source pollution generally results from land runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, drainage, seepage or hydrologic modificationDRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

13

- 2 September 24 , 2010

Nonsignificant Discharge Facility . A municipal or industrial wastewater discharge facility that
is not defined as a significant facility by the jurisdiction in which it is permitted. In general, nonsignificant municipal facilities have design flows less than 0.4 million gallons per day (V irginia and Maryland thresholds are slightly different). Nonsignificant industrial facilities discharge less than 3,800 pounds per year total phosphorus and less than 27,000 pounds per year total nitrogen.

NPDES . T he National Pollutant Discharge Eliminat ion System (NPDES) permit program is authorized by the Clean Water Act and works to control water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain perm its if their discharges go directly to surface waters. In most cases, the NPDES permit program is administered by authorized states.

Point Source

. A ny discern i ble, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, t unnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation , vessel or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged.

Pollutant Source Sector

. Category of related sources of nutrient and se diment loads identified for purposes of quantifying load allocations. Examples include agriculture, wastewater, forest,
urban runoff.

S egment W atershed

. Watershed area draining into one of the 92 Chesapeake Bay segments.

Significant Discharge Facility

. A municipal or industrial wastewater facility defined as such by the jurisdiction in which it is permitted. Significant facilities are distinguished from nonsignificant facilities on the basis of flow for municipals and loads for industrials. In general,

s ignificant municipal facilities have flows larger than 0.4 million gallons per day, and significant industrial facilities discharge loads larger than 3,800 pounds per year of total phosphorus and 27,000 pounds per year of total nitrogen.

Simulation Perio d

. A period used to run the simulation, selected to ensure that the simulated rainfall, meteorological, and environmental time series used to drive the watershed simulation such that it accurately simulates the critical conditions.

Total Maximum Daily Load

. S pecifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet applicable water quality standards. It is the sum of the individual allocations for point sources (called wasteloads) and allocations for nonpoint sources (called loads) and natural background with a margin of safety (CWA section 303(d)(1)(c)). The TMDL can be described by the following equation :

TMDL = LC = Σ WLA + Σ LA + MOS

Wasteload Allocation . The portion of the TMDL allocated to existing or future point sour ces.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

13

- 3 September 24 , 2010

Water C larity A cre

. A n acre of shallow

- water bay grass designated

- use bottom habitat, located anywhere between the 2

- meter depth contour and the adjacent shoreline inclusively, which has been observed to achieve the applicable salinity

- regime

- specifi c water clarity criteria.

Watershed

. An a rea of land from which all water drains to a common point.DRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

14

- 1 September 24 , 2010



## SECTION 14. ABBREVIATIONS

μg/L microgram per liter
AEU animal equivalent units
AFO animal feeding operation
ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries C ommission
BART best available retrofit technology
BMP best management practice
BOD biological oxygen demand
CAA Clean Air Act
CAC Citizen’s Advisory Committee
CAFO concentrated animal feeding operation
CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule
CBP Chesapeake Bay Program
CEC Chesapeake Executive Council
CFD cumulative frequency distribution
CFR Code of Federal Regulations CMAQ Community Multi

- scale Air Quality model
COMAR Code of Maryland
CONMON continuous monitoring
CSO combined sewer overflow
CSS combined sewer system
CWA Clean Water Act
DAITS Data and Information Tracking System
DC District of Columbia
DC WASA District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
DE Delaware
DE DNREC Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
DO dissolved oxygen DUQAT Data Upload and Quality Assurance Tool
E3 everything by everyone everywhere
EGU electric generating unit
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act
ELG effluent limit guidelines
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FFIP federal facili ty implementation plan
FR Federal Register
GIS geographic information system
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
Kd light attenuation coefficient
LA load allocation
lbs pounds
LC loading capacity
LGAC Local Governments Advisory CommitteeDRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

14

- 2 September 24 , 2010

Ln natural log
LOESS locally weighted scatter plot smoother
LTCP Long

- Term Control Plan

m meter MAWP Mid

- Atlantic Water Program
MD Maryland
MDE Maryland Department of the Environment mgd million gallons per day mg/L milligrams per liter
MOS margin of safety
M OU memorandum of understanding
MRAT Monitoring Realignment Action Team
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program
NAS National Agricultural Statistics
NEIEN National Environmental Information Exchange Network
NH 3 ammonia
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NMP nutrient management plan
NO 2 nitrite
NO 3 nitrate
NOI notice of intent
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NY New York
OSWTS on

- site wastewater treatment system
PA Pennsylvania
PA DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
PAR photosynthetically active radiation
PCS Permit Compliance System
PLW percent light through water
POTW publicly owned treatment works
PS C Principals’ Staff Committee ppt parts per thousand (salinity)
RDA Residual Designation Authority
RESAC University of Maryland’s Regional Earth Science Applications Center
SAV submerged aquatic vegetation
SIP state implementation plan
SPARROW Spatially Re ferenced Regressions on Watershed Attributes
SSO sanitary sewer overflow
STAC Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
TMDL total maximum daily load
TN total nitrogen
TP total phosphorus
TSS total suspended solidsDRAFT Chesapeake Bay TMDL

14

- 3 September 24 , 2010

USC Upper Susquehanna Coalition
U.S.C. United States Code
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
VA Virginia VA DEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
VA DCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
WIP watershed implementation plan
WLA wasteload allocation WQBELs water quality

- based effluent limits WQGIT Water Quality Group Implementation Team WQS water quality standards
WV West Virginia
WV DEP West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
WWTP wastewater treatment plant

yr year

z depth