Passaic Trading Formula

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
2005 Stream Phosphorus TMDLs to be proposed in July 5th NJR The NJDEPs Division of Watershed Management is seeking stakeholder input on proposed phosphorus.
Advertisements

Water Quality Trading Claire Schary Water Quality Trading Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 – Seattle Region 10 – Seattle
Truckee River Water Quality: Current Conditions and Trends Relevant to TMDLs and WLAs Prepared for: Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility. City of.
Approach for Including Nutrient Limitations within NDPDES Permits Dallas Grossman Division of Water Quality
Public Meeting: March 3, 2014 Truckee River Water Quality Standards Review.
Pollutant Trading Discussion 22 July Why Allow Trading? §To make point sources pay §To lure nonpoint sources into doing pollution control so we.
Abstract Abstract Trading Framework Option 2: Schematic Economic Modeling Need for Water Quality Trading References Phosphorus loading from point and nonpoint.
RICE CREEK CHAIN OF LAKES TMDL. PELTIER LAKE TOTAL PHOSPHORUS MONITORING DATA.
Options Strategies Commodity Marketing Activity Chapter #6.
Nutrient Trading Framework in the Coosa Basin Alabama Water Resources Conference September 6, 2012 A Feasibility Study of Nutrient Trading in Support of.
Water Quality Credit Trading Florida League of Cities 2013 Annual Meeting.
Lee County Government Division of Natural Resources TMDL/BMAP Update TMDL/BMAP Update November 30, 2010 Roland Ottolini, Director Lee County Division of.
Water Resources Planning and Management Daene C. McKinney River Basin Modeling.
CE Introduction to Environmental Engineering and Science
Nutrient Trading Framework in the Coosa Basin April 22, 2015.
Watersheds on Wall Street? Water Pollutant Trading Becky Shannon, Missouri Department of Natural Resources Craig Smith, University of Missouri Extension.
Anthony Whiley Environmental Engineer WA Department of Ecology ( ) Spokane River Phosphorus Ratios Preliminary.
Hood River Basin Study Water Resources Modeling (MODSIM) Taylor Dixon, Hydrologist February 12, 2014.
Nutrient and Sediment Concentrations, Yields and Loads in Impaired Streams and Rivers in the Taunton River Basin, Massachusetts, Jeffrey R. Barbaro.
WQBELs Karen Holligan May 6, WQBELs – A Four-Piece Puzzle Numerical criteria (toxic pollutants) Water body quality Effluent fraction Bioavailable.
Tom Singleton Associate VP, Director, Integrated Water Resources an Atkins company Linking TMDLs & Environmental Restoration.
Chapter Eight Risk Management: Financial Futures, Options, and Other Hedging Tools Copyright © 2010 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
WATERSHED PERMITTING IN NORTH CAROLINA NPDES PERMIT NCC BECAME EFFECTIVE JAN 1, 2003 NEUSE RIVER COMPLIANCE ASSOCIATION MORRIS V. BROOKHART, P.E.
Working with Stakeholders in Developing Watershed and Water Quality Models: The Dos and Don’ts Well, at least some of them! Presented by: Brian J. Watson,
Department of the Environment Maryland’s Nutrient Trading Program Phase I- Trading between point sources and trading involving connecting on-site septic.
Focus Group Meeting: September 27, 2013 Truckee River Water Quality Standards Review.
Deliberative, Pre-decisional – Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute 1 Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Trading.
Invest Nutrient Retention model Yonas Ghile.
Patapsco and Back River HSPF Watershed Model Part II – Water Quality Maryland Department of the Environment.
Lake Jesup BMAP Adoption Environmental Protection Division February 23, 2010.
Clifton Bell, P.E., P.G. Chesapeake Bay Modeling Perspectives for the Regulated Community.
Chatfield Reservoir Hydrologic Scenario Development Jim Saunders WQCD Standards Unit 13 March 2008.
Focus Group Meeting: November 12, 2013 Truckee River Water Quality Standards Review.
1st International Workshop on TMDL and Water Quality Management March 28-29, 2007, Korean National Assembly, Seoul, Korea HISTORY AND UPDATES HISTORY AND.
Confidential AECOM Environment Draft TMDL for pH Compliance for Barr Lake and Milton Reservoir October 20, 2009 Draft TMDL Review Meeting.
Linear Programming Water Resources Planning and Management Daene McKinney.
Overview of the Total Maximum Daily Load Program.
© 2012 Pearson Prentice Hall. All rights reserved. Financial Control Chapter 11 – Transfer Pricing.
Optimizing Riparian Buffers for Thermal Protection TerrainWorks (
RB-Explorer M7a –Water Quality and Ecology Workgroup WFD-Explorer model wrapup.
Maryland’s Nutrient Trading Program How Trading Works John Rhoderick Maryland Department of Agriculture.
Request approval to proceed to EMC with 2014 Tar-Pamlico River Basin Plan.
Chapter 5 Describing Distributions Numerically Describing a Quantitative Variable using Percentiles Percentile –A given percent of the observations are.
WQBELs Karen Holligan September 23, WQBELs – A Four-Piece Puzzle Numerical criteria (toxic pollutants) Water body quality Effluent fraction Bioavailable.
Modeling with WEAP University of Utah Hydroinformatics - Fall 2015.
Material Contribution to the Condition SB325 Rulemaking Stakeholder Meeting February 23, 2016.
Commonwealth of Virginia Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDLs Four Mile Run Public Meeting #1 June 14, 2001.
Futures Markets and Risk Management
David Stevens, Nancy Mesner, Terry Glover, Arthur Caplan
LP Examples Wastewater & Water Quality
GREAT BAY and NEW HAMPSHIRE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
It’s The Final Countdown To The Mid-point Assessment:
Cost-Volume-Profit Analysis
Dave Clark and Michael Kasch
Cost-Volume-Profit Analysis
Clark Fork River Metals TMDL Development
Public Meeting February 19, 2009
Hyrum Reservoir and how it applies to Flood Control by Nathan Wright
Nutrient Trading for NPDES Permittees
Cost-Volume-Profit Analysis
Overview of the Clean Water Act
Preciptation.
Nutrient Trading for NPDES Permittees
High Rock Lake TMDL Development
Passaic Trading: Special Topics
Tami Thompson - MBK Engineers
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Validation of Trading Program: Scenario Simulations
REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE INTEGRATED VAAL RIVER SYSTEM
Presentation transcript:

Passaic Trading Formula Passaic Trading Symposium July 15, 2008 USEPA Targeted Watershed Grant Program

Formula for trading NJDEP guidance The trading program should attain the same or better result as 0.4 mg/l long term avg. (LTA) TP from each discharger on an annual basis *. System is more sensitive to concentration of discharge than the load Trades must function to offset deviations of LTA from 0.4 mg/l Best way to do this: base the trading allocation on discharger actual flow, rather than permitted flow Trading allocation is < TMDL allocation * Modified for Lower Passaic dischargers (seasonal limits) Trades are designed to offset concentration – UNIQUE FEATURE Allocation is less than TMDL cap

Formula for trading (cont.) Recommended formula Allocation = (0.4 mg/l LTA * Anticipated Actual Discharger Flow) Anticipated Actual Discharger Flow based on average of 2005-2007 actual flow from facility. Balance = Allocation – Load Discharged - Actual load sold + Equalized load purchased

Formula for trading (cont.) [(0.4 mg/l LTA * Anticipated Actual flow) – Load Discharged] - Actual load sold + Equalized load purchased What if allocation is based on permitted flow? Seller can take credit for more pounds than it has really removed; risk to stream Load discharged is function of actual LTA and flow from facility

Formula for trading (cont.) BALANCE = Allocation – Load Discharged - Actual load sold + Equalized load purchased Actual load sold Load below allocation that seller has removed from effluent and sold Equalized load purchased = (Actual load sold * Trading ratioseller to buyer) Uses trading ratio to account for attenuation of TP between buyer and seller; all diversion conditions accounted for Trading ratio of 0.5 means that 0.5 kg discharged from seller has same effect at target location as 1 kg discharged from buyer Trading ratio table developed to guide all dischargers

Trading ratio table Grouped by management area and then point source zone Three management areas Upper Passaic, Pompton, Lower Passaic Nine point source zones Dead River Zone Upper Passaic Zone 1 Upper Passaic Zone 2 Whippany Zone Rockaway Zone Pompton Headwaters Zone Two Bridges Zone Lower Passaic Zone 1 Lower Passaic Zone 2 Upper Passaic MA Create map ? Pompton MA Lower Passaic MA

Upper Passaic Zone 2 (UP MA) Example of trading ratio table (Based on No Diversion, Diversion, Extreme Diversion Scenarios) Buyer Seller Dead River Zone (UP MA) Upper Passaic Zone 2 (UP MA) Lower Passaic Zone 1 (LP MA) Upper Passaic Zone 1 (UP MA) 0.90 0.78 0.57 Whippany Zone (UP MA) 0.82 0.77 0.52 Pompton Headwater Zone (Pompton MA) 0.49 0.43 0.29 Lower Passaic Zone 2 (LP MA) 0.87

Derivation of trading ratios Omni Environmental performed attenuation analysis using calibrated TMDL model Considered “no diversion”, “diversion”, and “extreme diversion” scenarios Calculated attenuation of TP load from each zone as load moves downstream Result: “Zonal persistence coefficient” or ZPC for each zone ZPC is percent of discharged load that reaches target location

Example – Persistence coefficient analysis ZPC vs. location (annual load, Upper Passaic Zone 1, no diversion)

Derivation of trading ratios (cont.) Trading ratio = (Seller ZPC / Buyer ZPC), relative to common critical location. Some ratios have 2 common critical locations; choose the critical location which yields the lower ratio. Calculate trading ratio for each diversion scenario,and select lowest ratio; max protection for WQ Ratios further reduced by 10% as margin of safety Experimented with “average” ratios, and “minimum” ratios in trade scenario simulations Unsatisfactory results

Derivation of trading ratios: Example inter-MA trade, Pompton selling to Upper Passaic Seller: Two Bridges SA (Two Bridges Zone) ZPC at Dundee Lake = 0.93, no diversion ZPC at Dundee Lake = 0.47, diversion ZPC at Dundee Lake = 0.25, extreme diversion ZPC at Wanaque South = 1.00, extreme diversion Buyer: Warren Twp SA – Stage 5 (Dead Zone) ZPC at Dundee Lake = 0.77, no diversion ZPC at Dundee Lake = 0.62, diversion ZPC at Dundee Lake = 0.37, extreme diversion ZPC at Wanaque South = 0.13, extreme diversion Trading ratio = (Seller ZPC/Buyer ZPC) No diversion, trading ratio = 1.21 = (0.93/0.77) Diversion, trading ratio = 0.76 = (0.47/0.62) Extreme diversion, trading ratio = 0.68 = min (0.25/0.37 , 1.0/0.13) Select 0.90*0.68 as trading ratio = 0.61