Middle Ohio North Watershed TMDL Development

Middle Ohio North WatershedMiddle Ohio North Watershed TMDL DevelopmentTMDL Development

May 27, 2008May 27, 2008

WV DEP WV DEP James LaineJames Laine

Agenda Background information on Water Quality

Standards, impaired waters and TMDLs Brief history of TMDL development in WV Overview of WVDEP’s TMDL process Discussion of local impaired waters and their

TMDL timeline Pre-TMDL Monitoring Plan for local waters Discussion – Free form questions and answers

What’s a TMDL? “Total Maximum Daily Load” – How

much pollutant a stream can receive and remain healthy

TMDL development required by Clean Water Act for all impaired streams

TMDL is a pollution budget – prescribes reduction of pollutants that result in the restoration of an impaired stream

What’s an impaired stream?

Stream that doesn’t meet water quality standards West Virginia Water Quality Standards are

codified at 47 CSR 2 Standards include designated uses for WV waters

and water quality criteria to protect those uses Criteria can be numeric or narrative Impaired streams (streams that are not meeting

criteria) are on the 303(d) List

Criteria Examples Human Health Protection

Fecal Coliform bacteria (Water Contact)200 counts/100ml as a monthly geometric meanno more than 10% of samples in a month exceed 400

counts/100ml

Human Health/Aquatic Life Protection Total Iron

1.5 mg/l as a 4 day average concentration Not to be exceeded more than once every 3 years

Criteria Examples Narrative Criterion – Biological Impairment

Conditions Not Allowable in State Waters (47 CSR 2-3.2i) “.....no significant adverse impact to the

chemical, physical, hydrologic or biological components of aquatic ecosystems shall be allowed.”

West Virginia TMDL History

TMDL development required by Clean Water Act for all impaired streams

If State doesn’t develop TMDLs, EPA must WV couldn’t (resources), EPA didn’t EPA was sued in 1995, settled suit by

entering into consent decree with plaintiffs, and began developing WV TMDLs

WVDEP TMDL Improvements 48 month process vs. 9

month EPA process Multiple opportunities for

stakeholder input New water quality data vs.

existing data Improved source id and

characterization Synchronized with

Watershed Management Framework

Watershed Management Framework

32 watersheds (8-digit HUC)

5 Hydrologic Groups (A – E)

Geographical way to organize water resource management – Within DEP, watershed assessment, NPDES Permit reissuance and nonpoint source project funding synchronized

WVDEP TMDL development synchronized

TMDL/WMF Synchronization Pre-TMDL monitoring

occurs concurrently with WMF assessment year

TMDL completion six months prior to start of WMF implementation year

5yr WMF cycle/15 year plan3 bites at each HG apple

WVDEP TMDL Process

Stream Selection Pre-TMDL monitoring, source identification and

characterization Contract to model water quality and hydrology Allocation Philosophy Development Report development Finalization

WVDEP TMDL Process

HGA (2004 TMDLs) EPA approved January 2005HGB (2005 TMDLs) HGC (2006 TMDLs) HGD (2007 TMDLs) HGE (2008 TMDLs)HGA2 (2009 TMDLs) Cheat and Lower Blackwater watershedsHGB2 (2010 TMDLs) Lower Kanawha River, Lower Elk River, and New and

Patterson Creeks) HGC2 (2011 TMDLs) Middle Ohio North and Middle Ohio South)

HG C2 TMDL Timeline Stream selection 4/08 – 5/08 Monitoring plan development

3/08-6/08 Outreach (TMDL process +

monitoring plan specifics) 5/08

Monitoring 7/08 – 6/09 Modeling 10/09 – 6/10

HG C2 TMDL Timeline

Outreach (Allocation scenarios)

7/10 - 9/10 Draft TMDLs (Internal Review)

3/11 Outreach (PN/PC on Drafts)

4/11 – 6/11 Finalization (including EPA approval)

12/11

TMDL Stream Selection Process

Evaluate list of impaired waters Consider WMF Spread development over State Maximize efficiency

focus geographically address all known or suspected

impairments

TMDL Development Stream Selection Process

Watershed Management Framework Consideration

Within HG C2, candidate watersheds = Gauley, Lower Guyandotte, Middle Ohio North, Middle Ohio South, Potomac Direct Drains and Tug Fork

TMDL Development Hydrologic Group C2

TMDL Development Stream Selection Process

Statewide Coverage Considerations

Gauley (2008), Potomac Direct Drains (2007) have already had recent TMDL development

Lower Guyandotte and Tug Fork (Previous TMDLs development by EPA)

TMDL Development Stream Selection Process

Evaluated options, resources and constraints DEP proposed TMDLs for known or potential

impairments in Middle Ohio North and Middle Ohio South (* exclusive of Ohio mainstem)

DEP advertised list, and provided opportunity for comment (April 7 – May 6, 2008)

No Comments received Draft List = Final List

TMDL Development Stream Selection Process

Budget allows us to address a limited number of streams

For efficiency, want to stay within major watersheds

Major Watershed Number of Impaired Streams

Number of Streams Sampled

Number of Sample Sites

Middle Ohio North 18 109 163

Middle Ohio South 22 87 135

Total 40 196 298

Impaired Waters in the Middle Ohio North Watersheds

See brochure for listing of streams scheduled for samplingImpairments include

Biological Impairment (cause uncertain)Possible fecal coliform impairmentTotal Iron

Pre-TMDL Monitoring Plan

Goal – to generate robust/ recent data to: Make accurate impairment assessments Calibrate watershed models Quantify the impacts of significant pollutant

sources

Today’s presentation is a preliminary plan; to be refined over next month via WVDEP field recon and stakeholder input

Pre-TMDL Monitoring Plan

Parameters to be sampled include:BIO = Benthic Macroinvertebrate Station FECAL = Fecal Coliform BacteriaFe = Total IronAdditional parameters vary by stream but

could include iron, TSS, D.O., pH, etcA detailed GIS coverage is available upon

request

Pre-TMDL Monitoring Plan

Monitoring period = July 08 – June 09 Sampling frequency

BIO once during index period (Apr – Oct) 1/Month for fecal coliform, TSS, T. Fe, etc Sampling will include flow measurement

Stakeholder Input

General comment regarding plan’s adequacy in addressing goals

Does the plan provide for monitoring of particularly bad or good streams that you know about?

Does the plan provide monitoring sufficient to characterize significant pollutant sources?

Do you have water quality data to contribute?

Future Input Opportunities

Public Meeting to present Draft TMDL and formal Public Notice/Public Comment

– Spring 2011

Public meeting to present allocation scenarios

– Summer 2010

WVDEP Contact Information Contact: Steve Young – syoung@wvdep.org Tele: (304) 926-0499 Ext 1042; FAX: (304) 926-0496 601 57th Street SE, Charleston WV 25304

www.wvdep.org Under “Offices”, select Division of Water and

Waste Management On right, under Watershed Management, click on

“ Total Maximum Daily Load”

Questions???