Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) They Have Arrived Scott Taylor, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

total maximum daily loads tmdls they have arrived
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) They Have Arrived Scott Taylor, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) They Have Arrived Scott Taylor, P.E., D.WRE Michael Baker International May 13, 2015 Overview What is an impairment of a receiving water? What is a TMDL? Common pollutants in listed


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
 They Have Arrived

Scott Taylor, P.E., D.WRE Michael Baker International
 May 13, 2015

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Overview

▪ What is an impairment of a receiving water? ▪ What is a TMDL? ▪ Common pollutants in listed waterbodies ▪ Information for Utah ▪ How are TMDLs developed, implemented and enforced ▪ Numeric and narrative limits ▪ Some Examples and other options to comply ▪ Final Thoughts from the GAO

slide-3
SLIDE 3

What is an Impaired Water?

▪ These are waters that are too polluted or

  • therwise degraded to meet the water quality

standards set by states

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Impaired Waters: 303(d) Listings

slide-5
SLIDE 5

TMDL
 (Total Maximum Daily Load)

▪ The maximum amount (load) of a pollutant that can be discharged to a waterbody and still allow attainment of water quality standards. ▪ Pollutant load should be distributed to sources in the implementation plan ▪ The TMDL is a plan for the waterway to meet WQ standards ▪ Waste Load Allocation (WLA) and Load Allocation (LA) and MOS. ▪ Needed when permits don’t bring a waterway into compliance with WQ standards ▪ TMDL is developed for each pollutant/waterbody combination

slide-6
SLIDE 6

The TMDL Big Picture

▪ Listing ▪ Planning ▪ Implementing ▪ Improving ▪ Recovery

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Pollutants and Sources

▪ Bacteria

  • Natural Sources (e.g. Soil litter, Bird, Wildlife)
  • Homeless, septic systems

▪ Nutrients (Nitrogen and Phosphorus)

  • Atmospheric deposition
  • Fertilizer
  • Sediments

▪ Metals

  • Copper – autos, metal plating, fungicides, insecticides
  • Lead – Leaded gasoline, tire wear, bearing wear, cigarettes
  • Cadmium – tire wear, insecticides
  • Zinc – Tire wear, motor oil, grease

▪ Sediment

  • Slopes, Construction activities, logging practices, etc.

▪ Trash

  • Intentional and unintentional litter

▪ Pesticides

  • Pyrethroids, fpronil, indoxacarb, cyantraniliprole
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Point vs. Nonpoint Sources

▪ POTW ▪ Combined Sewer Overflow ▪ MS4s ▪ Agriculture ▪ Construction ▪ Industrial ▪ Aerial Deposition ▪ Silvaculture

slide-9
SLIDE 9

EPA TMDL Website

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Utah TMDL Status

▪ 156 303d listed waterbodies on EPA site, 49 approved TMDLs ▪ Utah:

  • Good waters 7,000 miles
  • Previously impaired, now attaining: 12.7 miles
  • Impaired waters 3,618.5 miles, (2,463 miles TMDL needed)
  • Reservoirs: 316,554 Ac good, (126,048 Ac TMDL needed)

▪ Main impairments: Recreation and aquatic life ▪ Pollutants: Unknown, phosphorus, temperature, TDS, hydromod, sediment, selenium, boron, DO, arsenic, E. Coli, pH ▪ Utah approved TMDLs: http://www.deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/ programs/water/watersheds/approvedtmdls.htm ▪ Or:http://www.deq.utah.gov/ProgramsServices/programs/water/ wqmanagement/assessment/docs/2011/04Apr/IR2008/Part3/ Final_Utah_2008_IR_303d_list.2.10.2012.pdf

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Utah Impaired Waters

slide-12
SLIDE 12

TMDL and Waste Load Allocations

▪ TMDL= numeric target x critical flow ▪ TMDL = LADirect Air+LAOpen+WLAPOTW+WLA Storm Water

+Margin of Safety

▪ WLA Storm Water = MS4 + General Permits

slide-13
SLIDE 13

TMDL Key Elements

Source Assessment

  • Sewage Plants (POTWs)
  • Stormwater
  • Point and Non-point sources

Numeric Targets

  • Water quality objective
  • Sediment objective
  • Human health

Linkage Analysis

  • Between sources & targets

Allocation

  • Both point & nonpoint

Implementation

  • How, timeline & tracking
slide-14
SLIDE 14

Typical TMDL Approval Process

TMDL Staff (Public Input) State Regulator Approves* EPA Approves TMDL Effective

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Implementation

▪ WLA are implemented through NPDES Permits. Permit limits are set, usually with a schedule for compliance. ▪ LA – This is a potential weakness in the system. LA are implemented through State non-point source programs, which may be voluntary. There is no federal enforcement ‘hook’ for the LA portion of a TMDL. ▪ Implementation Plans – another potential weak point. ▪ Schedule: “Central among the requirements is that the effluent limitation(s)

must be met “as soon as possible.”

▪ Monitoring: “NPDES permits must specify monitoring requirements

necessary to determine compliance with effluent limitations.”

slide-16
SLIDE 16

How to Get There

▪ Use integrated solutions that balance multiple

  • bjectives
  • Source Control
  • Watershed Approach
  • Existing infrastructure
  • BMP Retrofit
  • Collaboration
  • Public Education

Structural

Watershed/Regional Source Control/Non-structural/ Public Education

slide-17
SLIDE 17

TMDLs are Enforceable

▪ Delegated States Issue NPDES Permits ▪ TMDLs are enforceable through NPDES Permits ▪ Include a schedule ▪ Usually expensive ▪ No teeth in rural areas ▪ You must track progress and make sure you have input to the process!

slide-18
SLIDE 18

BMP Retrofit Opportunities

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Detention basins or Infiltration basins Media Filter Media Filter - Earthen

Treatment BMPs (Stormwater Devices)


Bioretention Biofilter Strip/Infiltration Trench

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Copper TMDLs and BMP Performance

▪ Total Copper compared to LA Region TMDLs

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Numeric and Narrative Limits

▪ TMDLs can have either numeric limits (WQS) or narrative (BMP based) limits. WQBEL can be either ▪ See EPA memo dated Nov 26, 2014 on this issue

  • Include Clear, Specific, and Measurable Permit Requirements and, Where Feasible, Numeric

Effluent Limitations in NPDES Permits for Stormwater Discharges

  • The CWA provides that stormwater permits for MS4 discharges “shall require controls to

reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable … and such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants.”

  • “Where the TMDL includes WLAs for stormwater sources that provide numeric pollutant

loads, the WLA should, where feasible, be translated into effective, measurable WQBELs that will achieve this objective.”

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Integrated Watershed Assessment Tool for Restoration iWATR.com

slide-23
SLIDE 23
slide-24
SLIDE 24
slide-25
SLIDE 25

Implementation Example - Caltrans

▪ Named in 84 TMDLs ▪ Variety of pollutants, waterbodies and schedules for compliance ▪ State has implemented a ‘compliance unit’ approach, and required attainment with 33,000 compliance units within 20 years. ▪ Estimated cost: $145M to $220M per year ▪ Compliance is BMP based

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Other Options

▪ WERs: Accounts for the effect of site water characteristics on metal toxicity and bioavailability. ▪ QMRA: Look at the potential, using data and mathematical models to determine if bacteria exposures have human or other risk. ▪ Regulatory offramps: Pollutant not controllable by MS4, not generated by MS4, an administrative exceedence, naturally occurring.

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Final Thoughts

▪ GAO Report Findings on TMDL Program:

  • Pollutants reduced, but few impaired waters have

attained WQSs

  • TMDLs as written ‘seldom’ can attain standards
  • No adaptive process
  • Nonpoint sources are a problem: 83 percent of

TMDLs achieve targets for point sources, 20 percent for NPS

  • Funding is a problem
slide-28
SLIDE 28

GAO Recommended Actions

▪ Issue New TMDL Regulations

  • ID impairment
  • Better monitoring

▪ Better Review of State TMDLs

  • Better guidance
  • Information on pollutant sources and abatement

actions

▪ Increase Funding for NPS programs ▪ Gather Better TMDL Program Data

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Questions?

Michael Baker International Scott Taylor, P.E., D.WRE