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

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
(your state) Master Farmer Program
Advertisements

1 Watershed Planning: A Key to Integrated Planning FHWA Environmental Conference Ann Campbell Wetlands Division.
Ann D Hirekatur Project Manager State of Lake Wisconsin Meeting July 13, 2013 Wisconsin River Basin Water Quality Improvement Project.
What are TMDLs? and What Might They Mean to MS4 Permittees?
The Chesapeake Bay TMDL: Coming to an Impaired Water Near You? Sean M. Sullivan Williams Mullen 301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1700 Raleigh, NC (919)
TMDL Development Mainstem Monongahela River Watershed May 14, 2014.
TMDL Development for the Floyds Fork Watershed Louisville, KY August 30, 2011.
Truckee River Water Quality: Current Conditions and Trends Relevant to TMDLs and WLAs Prepared for: Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility. City of.
Pollutant Trading Discussion 22 July Why Allow Trading? §To make point sources pay §To lure nonpoint sources into doing pollution control so we.
Water Quality Trading Claire Schary Water Quality Trading Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA Region 10, Seattle,
The Lake Allegan/Kalamazoo River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Plan Implementation by Jeff Spoelstra, Coordinator, Kalamazoo River Watershed Council.
Lake Studies Impaired Waters Waters are classified as impaired when they fail to meet state water quality standards and have been placed on the federal.
Prioritization Workgroup Summary. Workgroup Topics Nutrient results What is a watershed? What is a TMDL? Prioritization methods Basin framework and management.
Bureau of Water Overview Wastewater issues Drinking water issues Wrap up topics.
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Third Generation Watershed Management Plan.
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality TMDLs 101 An Explanation of the Federal Clean Water Act’s TMDL Requirements and How they Impact Carter Lake.
Legislative Changes Affecting Water Quality at a Local Level October 2011 Robert Kollinger, P.E. Water Resources Manager Polk County Parks and Natural.
Nelly Smith EPA Region 6. - Develop or revise bacteria reduction program for consistency with new TMDL requirements and allocations - Develop or revise.
Nutrient Trading Framework in the Coosa Basin Alabama Water Resources Conference September 6, 2012 A Feasibility Study of Nutrient Trading in Support of.
June 19, 2014 CONTROL OF TRASH ENTERING WATERWAYS IN CALIFORNIA DRAFT WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD POLICY.
The Wisconsin River TMDL: Linking Monitoring and Modeling Ann Hirekatur, Pat Oldenburg, & Adam Freihoefer March 7, 2013 Wisconsin River TMDL Project Team.
IDEM TMDL 101 Everything you wanted to know about Total Maximum Daily Loads.
Montana’s 2007 Nonpoint Source Management Plan Robert Ray MT Dept Environmental Quality.
Lee County Government Division of Natural Resources TMDL/BMAP Update TMDL/BMAP Update November 30, 2010 Roland Ottolini, Director Lee County Division of.
EPA Region 6 Dallas, Texas EPA Region 6 Dallas, Texas.
9.Monitoring Plan + 10.Implementation Plan + 4. LAs* 5. WLAs* 6. MOS* 7.Seasonal Variation* 8.Reasonable Assurance + TMDL Process 1 Problem Understanding.
April 22, 2005Chester Creek Watershed TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load Chester Creek University Lake & Westchester Lagoon Alaska Department of Environmental.
Water Policy in the US and the EU K H Reckhow and C Pahl-Wostl Part I: US Total Maximum Daily Load Program.
Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation in EPA Region 10 Programs: An example based on a newly initiated pilot in the Office of Water and Watershed’s Total.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Allen Berthold Texas Water Resources Institute. Review: Clean Water Act Goal of CWA is to restore and maintain water quality suitable for the “protection.
Approaches to Addressing Bacteria Impairments Kevin Wagner Texas Water Resources Institute.
Impaired and TMDL Waterbody Listings Impacts on DoD Facilities Bill Melville, Regional TMDL Coordinator
Department of the Environment Overview of Water Quality Data Used by MDE and Water Quality Parameters Timothy Fox MDE, Science Service Administration Wednesday.
Lake Erie HABs Workshop Bill Fischbein Supervising Attorney Water Programs March 16, 2012 – Toledo March 30, Columbus.
 Why are we here?  Without regulations, rivers used to catch fire. Rules and Regulation.
Total Maximum Daily Loads in MS4 Storm Water Programs.
1 ATTAINS: A Gateway to State-Reported Water Quality Information Webcast Sponsored by EPA’s Watershed Academy June 18, 2008, 11:30am-1:30pm EST Shera Bender,
VIRGINIA’S TMDL PROCESS.
Federal Clean Water Act Monitoring and assessments completed statewide Standards not met? Section 303 (d) requires placing the water body on the “Impaired.
1 Sandra Spence EPA Region 8 TMDL Program EPA Region 8 TMDL Program Integrating Watershed Plans and TMDLs to Help Answer Watershed Planning Questions November.
Watershed Assessment and Diagnosis of Condition for August 20, 2007 Joe Magner and Greg Johnson MPCA.
Teresa Marks Director 1. o The Clean Water Act of 1972 requires states to establish water quality standards (WQS) for all waterbodies within the state.
Phase II WIP Background & Development Process Tri-County Council – Eastern Shore June 2,
Presentation to the Chesapeake Bay and Water Resources Policy Committee July 30, 2010.
Restoring VA Waters the TMDL Way Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Region 3.
Preparing for Regulatory Change WATER RESOURCES WORKSHOP February 20, 2004 Donald J. Brady, Ph.D.
Status Report on Chesapeake Bay Clean Up Plan Wastewater Sector June 2, 2010.
Eric Agnew Environmental Regulations February 15, 2006.
Deliberative, Pre-decisional – Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute 1 Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Trading.
Bacteria and Dissolved Oxygen Total Mass Daily Load Development for the Atascosa River Jessica L. Watts.
Clifton Bell, P.E., P.G. Chesapeake Bay Modeling Perspectives for the Regulated Community.
KWWOA Annual Conference April 2014 Development of a Kentucky Nutrient Strategy Paulette Akers Kentucky Division of Water Frankfort, KY.
Some Context behind the Implementation of Numeric Nutrient Criteria or Why do we have these Water Quality Regulations? Mark W. Clark and Thomas Obreza.
Arkansas Water Quality Standards Ryan Benefield Deputy Director.
West Metro Water Alliance A Path to Clean Water – Understanding TMDLs and Watershed Planning September 21, 2011 Diane Spector Wenck Associates, Inc.
Overview of the Total Maximum Daily Load Program.
STREAM MONITORING CASE STUDY. Agenda  Monitoring Requirements  TMDL Requirements  OCEA Initial Monitoring Program  Selection of Parameters  Data.
ARE 309Ted Feitshans016-1 Unit 17 Point Source Control Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act of 1972)
Modeling Fecal Bacteria Fate and Transport to Address Pathogen Impairments in the United States Brian Benham Extension Specialist and Associate Professor,
Nutrients and the Next Generation of Conservation Presented by: Tom Porta, P.E. Deputy Administrator Nevada Division of Environmental Protection President,
Slide 1 California Implementation Water Board Policies.
Commonwealth of Virginia Fecal Coliform Bacteria TMDLs Four Mile Run Public Meeting #1 June 14, 2001.
Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP’s) John Reimer City of Madison Engineering Department.
New York’s Chesapeake Bay WIP
Water Quality Trading – Utah Perspective
Public Meeting February 19, 2009
The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program in Illinois
High Rock Lake TMDL Development
EPA’S ROLE IN APPROVING BASIN PLAN AMENDMENTS
Presentation transcript:

2005 Stream Phosphorus TMDLs to be proposed in July 5th NJR The NJDEPs Division of Watershed Management is seeking stakeholder input on proposed phosphorus TMDLs: Pre-proposal Outreach to Interested and Affected Entities To share subject impairments and approach relating water quality to pollutant loads To request comments on approach and information regarding identification sources, and local initiatives to address sources

Current Approach Focuses on Stream Impairments Where: Sufficient data on water quality and flow exist to develop relationship NPS are the primary source Streams are nontidal

Watershed Management approach to TMDLs SWQS Monitoring Assessment 303(d) List/ Sublist 5 TMDLs Permit Limits NPS Controls Compliance & Enforcement Public Involvement Impaired?

What are TMDLs? Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) represent the assimilative or load capacity of the receiving water, taking into consideration: point sources of pollutants (wasteload) nonpoint sources of pollutants (load) natural background surface water withdrawals

How are TMDLs expressed? TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS Where: WLA is the wasteload allocation LA is the load allocation and MOS is the margin of safety Amount of pollutants that a waterbody can assimilate without violating surface water quality standards or other target

Margin of Safety (MOS) A required component of the TMDL that accounts for any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality (40 CFR (c)) The MOS shall be expressed either as an internal modeling factor and/or as an explicit, separate factor (N.J.A.C. 7: (a))

Components of a TMDL Source assessment characterization and quantification as necessary identify point, nonpoint and background sources Water quality analysis link pollutant sources & water quality: model consider seasonal variation / critical conditions TMDL calculations loading capacity margin of safety load and wasteload allocations Follow-up monitoring Implementation Public participation

When Are TMDLs Done? TMDLs are required, under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, to be developed for waterbodies that cannot meet surface water quality standards after the implementation of technology-based effluent limitations

2004 Integrated List SUBLIST 1 & 2: FULL ATTAINMENT LIMITED ATTAINMENT DATA SUBLIST 3: INSUFFICIENT DATA TO ASSESS SUBLIST 4: IMPAIRED BUT: TMDL DONE IMPAIRMENT BY POLLUTION NOT POLLUTANT OTHER ENFORCEABLE MEASURES WILL ADDRESS SUBLIST 5: NON-ATTAINMENT 305(b) Report 303(d) List

Target for TMDL: SWQS for Phosphorus (mg/L) Numerical Criteria i.Lakes: TP not to exceed 0.05 in any lake, pond, reservoir, or in a tributary at the point where it enters such bodies of water, except where site-specific criteria are developed (N.J.A.C. 7:9B-1.5(g)3) ii.Streams: TP not to exceed 0.1 in any stream, unless it can be demonstrated that TP is not a limiting nutrient and will not otherwise render the waters unsuitable for the designated uses.

SWQS for Phosphorus (mg/L), continued Narrative Criteria--Nutrient policies are as follows: Except as due to natural conditions, nutrients shall not be allowed in concentrations that cause objectionable algal densities, nuisance aquatic vegetation, abnormal diurnal fluctuations in dissolved oxygen or pH, changes to the composition of aquatic ecosystems, or otherwise render the waters unsuitable for the designated uses.

TMDL Model Used:Flow-Integrated Reduction of Exceedances (FIRE) Method must be selected to relate water quality to pollutant loading FIRE uses site-specific water quality concentration and flow data to determine the actual load and the target load, which is the load that corresponds to attainment of the New Jersey Surface Water Standards. The technique compares actual loads to the target over the entire range of measured flows. Any units for loadings can be used in the regression.

Target total phosphorus loading to maintain 0.1 mg/l TP concentration

Illustration of FIRE Technique

Load Capacity The Load Capacity of the waterbody is represented by the Target Loading line The Required Load Reduction is the difference between the slopes of the Exceedance Regression line and the Target Loading line Margin Of Safety (MOS) is represented by the difference between the slopes of the Upper 95 percent confidence limit of the Exceedance Regression and the Exceedance Regression line and becomes an unallocated portion of the Load Capacity

Load Reduction The Overall Loading Reduction required is the summation of the Required Load Reduction to attain standards and the MOS and is represented by the difference between the slopes of the Upper 95 percent confidence limit of the Exceedance Regression and the Target Loading lines

Allocating Load Reduction Existing load is calculated by applying loading (or export) coefficients, which represent annual average loads from various land uses, to the areal extent of each land use in the drainage area, determined using GIS WLAs and LAs are then derived from the allocable load, with LA reductions taken only from land uses where reductions are feasible No reduction is taken from forest, wetland, water and barren land uses; these load contributions remain unchanged between existing and future scenarios

UAL Methodology Pollutant Export Coefficients obtained from literature sources are applied to land use patterns: Land Use determined by NJDEPs 1995/97 GIS Coverage. Phosphorus export coefficients selected for NJ from an extensive database to develop table on next slide.

Phosphorus export coefficients (Unit Areal Loads )

Example of FIRE Application

TMDL Calculations Load Capacity = (Slope C ÷ Slope B) x 100 = % of existing loadings Total Overall Loading Reduction = (1 – (Slope C ÷ Slope A)) x 100 = % of existing loadings Land-Use Loading Reductions = (1 – (Slope C ÷ Slope B)) x 100 = % of existing loadings Margin of Safety = (1 – (Slope B ÷ Slope A)) x 100 = % of existing loadings Or, = (1 – (Slope B ÷ Slope A)) x (Slope C ÷ Slope B) x 100 = % of existing loadings as applied to Load Capacity Percent Reduction of Adjustable Land-Use Loads = [1 - (Load Capacity – MOS – Non-Adjustable Land-Use Loads) ÷ Total Existing Loads] x 100 = [1 – ({Slope C ÷ Slope B} – {(1 – (Slope B ÷ Slope A)) x (Slope C ÷ Slope B)} – (fraction of Non-Adjustable Land-Use Loads))] x 100 = % of existing loadings

Application of FIRE, continued Derived from Export Coefficients: Total Existing Loading = 1,000 lb/day Non-Adjustable Land-Use Loads = 50 lb/day Derived from FIRE: Slope A = (Upper 95% Confidence Limit of Exceedance Regression) Slope B = (Exceedance Regression) Slope C = (Target Loading, or Load Capacity) Application of Results from FIRE: Load Capacity = TMDL = 603 lb/day Total Overall Loading Reduction = 496 lb/day Margin Of Safety (MOS) = 166 lb/day of existing loading Or 100 lb/day of Load Capacity Adjustable Land-Use Load Reduction = 547 lb/day

Summary of TMDL TMDL Loading (lb/day) Percent of Load Capacity (%) Percent Reduction of Existing Loadings (%) Load Capacity Adjustable Land-Use Loads = 453/603 x = [1 – (453/1000)] x 100 Non- Adjustable Land-Use Loads = 50/603 x Margin of Safety = 100/603 x 100

TMDL Implementation For TMDL purposes, point sources include discharges to surface water that are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Point source reductions are accomplished through NJPDES permits: effluent limits or Phase II stormwater basic requirements, as well as additional measures, if appropriate

TMDL Implementation For TMDL purposes, nonpoint sources are those that are not subject to regulation under NPDES, including NJPDES Tier B municipal stormwater discharges Nonpoint source reductions are achieved through implementation of management measures that can reduce loads, e.g. land use BMPs, NJPDES basic requirements and additional measures applied to Tier B municipal stormwater dischargers, etc.

Resources for Implementation Agricultural BMPs: EQIP, CRP, CREP 319(h) grants for nonpoint source projects Environmental Infrastructure Financing Program loans Estuary Programs Private grant programs

Request for Input from Stakeholders Prior to Proposal: Comment on Proposed TMDL Method Identify Potential Sources in affected watersheds Identify On-going Projects that would reduce phosphorus load in affected watersheds Comments due: June 24th Contact: Barbara Hirst or Kim Cenno at (609)