John Kennedy VA DEQ - Ches. Bay Program Mgr. 804-698-4312 Tributary Strategies: Point Source Nutrient Controls Potomac Watershed.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
creating a sustainable world The Chesapeake Bay TMDL A Policy Model for Nutrient Pollution Reductions James Noonan October.
Advertisements

The Use of Nutrient Credits in Virginia
RTI International RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. Economic Study of Nutrient Credit Trading for the Chesapeake.
Nutrient Issues at the Blue Plains WWTP February 2004.
Commonwealth of Virginia Chesapeake Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Russ Baxter, Chesapeake Bay Coordinator.
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.
Alan Pollock VA DEQ, Office of Water Programs Water Quality Planning Regulation Unused Allocations in Shenandoah-
David K. Paylor Director, Department of Environmental Quality May 27, 2014 VEDP Lunch & Learn Environmental Permitting 101.
James River Chlorophyll Study Status Update: January 2015 House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee David K. Paylor, DEQ Director.
Water Quality Credit Trading Florida League of Cities 2013 Annual Meeting.
June 19, 2014 CONTROL OF TRASH ENTERING WATERWAYS IN CALIFORNIA DRAFT WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD POLICY.
Chesapeake Bay Restoration An EPA Perspective Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Administrator U.S. EPA.
Chesapeake Bay and New York State Water Quality and the Potential for Future Regulations Presented by the Upper Susquehanna Coalition.
Nutrient Trading Framework in the Coosa Basin April 22, 2015.
Impaired and TMDL Waterbody Listings Impacts on DoD Facilities Bill Melville, Regional TMDL Coordinator
Nutrient Trading and the Chesapeake Bay Paul K. Marchetti PENNVEST February 18, 2008.
Update on Chesapeake Bay Issues Presentation to the Chesapeake Bay and Water Resources Policy Committee July 17, 2009 Ted Graham & Steve Bieber COG Department.
Lake Erie HABs Workshop Bill Fischbein Supervising Attorney Water Programs March 16, 2012 – Toledo March 30, Columbus.
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Background and Litigation Jon A. Mueller, Vice President For Litigation Chesapeake Bay Foundation William and Mary,
Virginia Nutrient Credit Trading: Nonpoint Source Offset Options Kurt Stephenson Dept of Ag & Applied Economics Virginia Tech
Status Report: Chesapeake Bay TMDL Clean Up Plan Presented to P otomac Roundtable by Jack E. Frye April 9, 2010.
1 “ Understanding the Local Role of Improving Water Quality” Virginia Association of Counties November 14, 2011 Virginia Association of Counties November.
WATERSHED PERMITTING IN NORTH CAROLINA NPDES PERMIT NCC BECAME EFFECTIVE JAN 1, 2003 NEUSE RIVER COMPLIANCE ASSOCIATION MORRIS V. BROOKHART, P.E.
Update on the Development of EPA’s Chesapeake Bay TMDL and Virginia’s Watershed Implementation Plan Russ Perkinson Potomac Roundtable October 8, 2010.
Department of the Environment Maryland’s Nutrient Trading Program Phase I- Trading between point sources and trading involving connecting on-site septic.
Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee Meeting Bay Program Water Quality Goals: Focus on Funding Presented to COG Board of Directors September 10, 2003.
1 Chesapeake Bay Program Management Board Meeting March 6, 2012 Discussion for the Final Evaluation of Milestones.
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.
Chesapeake Bay Initiatives John Kennedy VA DEQ, Chesapeake Bay Program
Chesapeake Bay TMDL & Watershed Implementation Plans The Role of Local Governments Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Administrator U.S. EPA Presentation.
Restoring VA Waters the TMDL Way Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Region 3.
Great Bay Municipal Coalition New Hampshire Water Pollution Control Association June 13, 2013 Dean Peschel Peschel Consulting
Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Credit Trading Program
Status Report on Chesapeake Bay Clean Up Plan Wastewater Sector June 2, 2010.
Chesapeake Bay Policy in Virginia - TMDL, Milestones and the Watershed Agreement Russ Baxter Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources for the Chesapeake Bay.
Deliberative, Pre-decisional – Do Not Quote, Cite or Distribute 1 Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Trading.
Status and Effect of Impervious Area Estimates in the TMDL Presented to the Potomac Watershed Roundtable by Michael S. Rolband P.E., P.W.S., P.W.D., LEED.
Chesapeake Bay Hypoxia: History and Management Response Rich Batiuk Associate Director for Science Chesapeake Bay Program Office U.S. Environmental Protection.
Water Quality and the Chesapeake Bay David O’Brien NOAA Fisheries Service Gloucester Point, VA.
2004 Tributary Strategies: Assessment of Implementation Options Steve Bieber Water Resources Program Presented at: COG Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee.
Prepared for: Prepared by: Nutrient TMDLs and Their Effect on Dredging Operations in the Chesapeake Bay 24 October 2012 William J Rue- EA Engineering,
James A. Klang, PE Senior Project Engineer Kieser & Associates, LLC 536 E. Michigan Ave., Suite 300 Kalamazoo, MI America’s Ag Water Management Summit.
KWWOA Annual Conference April 2014 Development of a Kentucky Nutrient Strategy Paulette Akers Kentucky Division of Water Frankfort, KY.
EPA National Forum on Water-Quality Trading July 22, 2003 Chicago, Illinois Nutrient Trading in Maryland (and Its Neighbors?)
Indicator Status Updates Overview Nita Sylvester, EPA CBPO Chair of STAR’s Indicator Workgroup.
VACo Environment and Agriculture Steering Committee VML Environmental Policy Committee June 2, 2010 Charlottesville, VA Chesapeake Bay Watershed Roanoke.
Preserving York County 2010 Municipal Educational Series January 28, 2010 Rick Keister, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay Jake Romig, York County Circuit.
Introduction to Water Quality Trading National Forum On Water Quality Trading July 22-23, 2003 Chicago, Illinois.
Maryland Association of Counties Conference August 12, 2009 Bob Koroncai USEPA Region III The Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
1 State Parks  Soil and Water Conservation  Natural Heritage Outdoor Recreation Planning  Land Conservation Dam Safety and Floodplain Management Chesapeake.
Regulatory Approaches to Address Agricultural Water Quality Catherine L. Kling Department of Economics Center for Agricultural and Rural Development Iowa.
Draft Stormwater Proposal Home Builders Association of Virginia Richmond, Virginia June 29, 2009.
Maryland’s Nutrient Trading Program How Trading Works John Rhoderick Maryland Department of Agriculture.
Is algae bad? No! Algae helps us by; taking in waste from the water (ex. Animal poop) providing oxygen and being a food resource for animals.
Nutrient Trading: Principles and Issues April 7, 2006 presentation to Potomac Watershed Roundtable.
Northern Virginia Regional Commission MS4 Workgroup March 17, 2011.
Nutrients and the Next Generation of Conservation Presented by: Tom Porta, P.E. Deputy Administrator Nevada Division of Environmental Protection President,
The Chesapeake Bay: How is it Doing? An Overview of The Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Improving Local Water Quality in Pennsylvania and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay.
James River Chlorophyll Study Status Update: May 3, 2016 Chesapeake Bay Stakeholder Advisory Group John Kennedy, DEQ Office of Ecology.
It’s The Final Countdown To The Mid-point Assessment:
Building a Phase III WIP for Wastewater, Stormwater & Septic Systems
Developing a Water Quality Trading Framework
CITY OF MARSHALL CHLORIDE ISSUES NOVEMBER 22, 2016
Presentation to Maryland’s Trading Advisory Committee March 21, 2016
High Rock Lake TMDL Development
Presentation to Maryland’s Trading Advisory Committee March 21, 2016
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE OCTOBER 7, 2019
Presentation transcript:

John Kennedy VA DEQ - Ches. Bay Program Mgr Tributary Strategies: Point Source Nutrient Controls Potomac Watershed Roundtable April 8, 2005

Major portions of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal rivers are listed under the Clean Water Act as “impaired waters”, due to one or more of the following problems related to nutrient over-enrichment:  low dissolved oxygen levels  poor water clarity  algae bloom conditions and poor quality fish food Impaired WaterUnimpaired Water Impaired Chesapeake Bay

Chesapeake 2000: A Watershed Partnership “By 2010, correct the nutrient- and sediment-related problems in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries sufficiently to remove them from the list of impaired waters under the Clean Water Act.”

Restored Water Quality Means: Overall better balance of aquatic life More oxygen and improved habitat for more fish, crabs and oysters Clearer water and more underwater Bay grasses Fewer algae blooms and better fish food

Steps to Chesapeake Bay Restoration – Point Sources Water Quality Criteria - published by EPA in 2003 Load Allocations - for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment assigned to river basins by CBP in 2003 Tributary Strategies – now finalized for 5 VA Bay basins VA Water Quality Standards –SWCB approved 5 new designated uses, and dissolved oxygen, clarity, and chlorophyll (narrative) criteria on 3/15/05. Point Source regulations – proposals to set nutrient removal technology and load allocations now undergoing public review and comment 2/21/05 – 4/25/05 Nutrient Credit Exchange Legislation – Governor signed on March 24, 2005; regulations must conform with law Permit Limits - now and after regulations adopted Technical and Financial Assistance - WQIF and RLF

Regulatory Actions New water quality standards: Chesapeake Bay standards adopted by SWCB in March 2005 Special standards for tidal James and York rivers will be considered in June 2005 Process underway for adopting nutrient criteria for lakes/reservoirs and freshwater streams/rivers

Regulatory Actions New limitations for Chesapeake Bay dischargers: Regulation for Nutrient Dischargers: (9 VAC 25-40) sets technology-based nutrient concentration limits for certain discharges; SWCB action expected this summer or fall Water Quality Management Planning Regulation: (9 VAC ) sets nutrient waste load allocations and authorizes trading/offsets program Watershed General Permit : authorizes discharge of nutrients from all dischargers; SWCB action by early 2006

Overview: Regulation for Nutrient Dischargers (9 VAC 25-40) –Specifies technology-based, annual average concentration limits for nitrogen and phosphorus –Set limits and deadlines, which vary based on: size of treatment plant existing vs. new or expanded dischargers –Allows for alternative limits if discharger can demonstrate that specified levels cannot be achieved

Summary Of Amendments (9 VAC 25-40)

Overview: Water Quality Management Planning Regulation (9 VAC ) –Establishes annual point source nitrogen and phosphorus waste load allocations in each of VA’s Chesapeake Bay tributary basins - based on Tributary Strategies –Authorizes use of a watershed trading and offset program to assist in the nutrient reduction effort

Determining Waste Load Allocations (9 VAC ) Design Flow: “Discharge flow authorized by VPDES permit and/or the capacity that wastewater treatment processes will likely be operating, per CTO, in the year 2010.” (Tributary Strategy document, pg. 55) SNR’s August 27, 2004 Policy Statement: –Achieve nutrient reductions necessary to restore Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries in the timeframe set by Chesapeake 2000 Agreement; –Provide for full use of existing design capacity at each of the significant municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants; and, –Apply currently available, stringent nutrient reduction technologies at these treatment plants.

Determining Waste Load Allocations (continued) Concentrations used as Basis for Allocations by River Basin (per SNR’s 8/04 Policy Statement): –Shenandoah-Potomac (AFL) / Rappahannock / E. Shore TN = 4.0 mg/l and TP = 0.3 mg/l –Potomac (BFL) TN = 3.0 mg/l and TP = 0.3 mg/l –York and James allocations in proposed WQMP Regulation are interim, and will be finalized after water quality standards are adopted

Relationship between two Regulations Example 1: Significant discharger with capacity of 10 MGD Permit limits as follows: 1.Concentration of TN = 8 mg/l 2.Load allocation of 120,000 pounds/year of nitrogen 4.5 MGD x 8.0 mg/l x CF = 110,000 pounds/year 6.5 MGD x 6.0 mg/l x CF = 120,000 pounds/year 10 MGD x 4.0 mg/l x CF = 120,000 pounds/year

Relationship between two Regulations Example 2: Same discharger expands to capacity of 20 MGD Permit limits as follows: 1.Concentration of TN = 3 mg/l now applies 2.Load allocation of 120,000 pounds/year of nitrogen remains the same 12 MGD x 3.0 mg/l x CF = 110,000 pounds/year 13 MGD x 3.0 mg/l x CF = 120,000 pounds/year 15 MGD x 3.0 mg/l x CF = 140,000 pounds/year –needs to trade or offset for 20,000 pounds/year 20 MGD x 3.0 mg/l x CF =180,000 pounds/year –needs to trade or offset for 60,000 pounds/year

Legislative Actions Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Credit Exchange Program (HB 2862 / SB 1275) SWCB to issue “Watershed General Permit” containing waste load allocations for each significant discharger Allows trading within basins among facilities covered by WGP Authorizes establishment of “Nutrient Credit Exchange Association” Impacts on dischargers vary by size, location, existing vs. expanding vs. new - - matrix of possibilities shown on following slides - - proposed regulations need to conform with complex new law

Point Source Control Requirements Summary Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Credit Exchange Program (HB 2862 / SB 1275) “Non-Significant” Dischargers:

“Significant” Dischargers: Point Source Control Requirements Summary Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Credit Exchange Program (HB 2862 / SB 1275)

Trading Provisions Nutrient Credit Exchange Program Discharger’s compliance plan may include exchange of point source credits to achieve waste load allocations in accordance with WGP New or expanded facilities may acquire needed allocations to offset new loads from: other permitted facilities non-point source BMPs payment into Water Quality Improvement Fund

Options for compliance with individual waste load allocations: 1.Mass load discharged less than waste load allocation 2.Acquire sufficient point source credits 3.If unable to meet waste load allocations by #1 or #2, acquire sufficient waste load allocations by payment into the Water Quality Improvement Fund Trading Provisions Nutrient Credit Exchange Program

Cost Estimates* Capital cost estimates for significant dischargers to meet concentration and waste load allocation limits: *NOTE: figures are planning level, order-of-magnitude cost opinions, accurate from -30% to +50%

Funding Deposit into VA Water Quality Improvement Fund for FY06 –Point sources:$65.7 million –Non-point sources:$26.8 million PS grants range from 35% to 75% based on financial need of community HJR 640 establishes a joint subcommittee to study options for a long-term funding source to clean up VA’s impaired waters, including the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries

SUMMARY 1.All the waters of the Commonwealth will be protected by nutrient-related water quality standards within next few years 2.Nutrients enter water from wastewater dischargers, runoff from the land and air deposition - - ALL sources will be affected 3.Nutrient reduction is here to stay! 4.Watershed strategies are best suited to address the nutrient problem

SUMMARY 5.Loading caps assigned to both PS & NPS 6.New approaches needed for NPS 7.Change is on the way for point sources –Procedures and approaches never used before –FLEXIBILITY + ACCOUNTABILITY 8.New law provides options to maintain nutrient caps while providing for continued growth of VA communities and industry