Water Quality Coordination TMDL Allocation for the James River Virginia

1
Water Quality Coordination / TMDL Allocation for
the James River Virginia

• Presented to GREEN SOLUTIONS, WATER QUALITY
  COMPLIANCE STRATEGIES AND KEY CSO LONG-TERM
  CONTROL PLAN DEVELOPMENTS, April 18, 2008

2
Courtesy Friends of James River Park
3
Gambles Hill CSO OutfallPrior to CSO Control
(1996)
4
Gambles Hill (July 99)
5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
Bacteria TMDL Development, Watershed Planning and
Water Quality Standards Coordination

• UAA
• Data Collection (fill data gaps, review
  translator)
• Watershed Model Development (DEQ assumptions, CSO
  watershed model input, review DEQ contractor
  calibration)
• Watershed Modeling (scenarios and results)

8
Bacteria TMDL Development, Watershed Planning and
Water Quality Standards Coordination

• TMDL Review (WLA, TMDL result and implementation
  plan, LTCP)
• WQS Triennial Review (bacteria standard, CSO
  policy and COR CSO Special Order)
• Water Quality Standards Coordination (How will
  the COR be able to measure the LTCP outcome is
  compliant?, Phase II CSO Permit Requirements)
• Watershed Approach (watershed sources, trading
  scenarios and implementation options for cost
  effective water quality compliance)

9
Figure 1
10
Water Quality Standards Coordination Percent of
James River Miles Meeting Fecal Coliform WQS
2,400
G
2,000
DEQ Closing Water Quality Gap for Background
Loads
Increase 34 to 92
1,600
Increase 34 to 70
Capital Cost ( Millions)
1,200
F
800
Phase II Investment To Date
D
E
400
Most Cost Effective End of CSO Program
C
A
B
0
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percent of James River Miles Meeting Water
Quality Standards
11
Why the Watershed Approach?
Bact WQS
Watershed Approach
DISCHARGE CONTRIBUTORS
CSO Stormwater Agricultural
TRADING

• REGULATORY PROCESSES
• TMDL
• Triennial Review

STREAMUSES

• Environmental
• Consensus Approach
• Quality of life
• Makes sense
• Cost Savings for the Public - Rate/Tax Payers

WLA
AREWLA ACHIEVABLE
NO
UAA
YES
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
Proposed 9 VAC 25-260-170. Bacteria
Recreational Waters (Primary)

• Geometric means shall be calculated using all
  data collected during any calendar month with a
  minimum of four weekly samples
• For beach advisories or closures, a single sample
  maximum of 235 E. Coli CFU/100 ml freshwater and
  a single sample maximum of 104 enterococci
  CFU/100 ml in saltwater and transition zones
  shall apply

15
Positive Benefits for both Assessment and TMDL
Programs

• more reasonable and cost-effective management
  plans to attain the water quality standards.
• more reasonable primary recreation criteria
  there would be less incentive for pursuing
  secondary contact designation in waters.
• Special standards to implement LTCPs in the
  Commonwealth?

16
Virginia Dept of Health Concerns

• Inquire from DEQ Director and Secretary of
  Natural Resources for their position on one
  particular issue.
• Should the bacteria criteria for freshwater in VA
  Water Quality Standards be revised based on an
  illness rate of 1, which would be an increase
  from the existing 0.8 rate?
• Protective of primary contact recreation and
  would be acceptable to EPA.
• Reasonable given the marine illness rate is
  almost twice the freshwater illness rate.

17
Troubled waters

• concern is that could be perceived by the
  public as a step in the wrong direction for water
  quality protection.
• Risk levels and illness rates can elicit
  reactions that are based on emotion and not fact
  and do not weigh the positive aspects of such a
  change.

18
(No Transcript)
19
Richmond CSO Control Program 30 Day Geometric
Mean Associated Risk Level Maximum Month for
Critical Reach
EPAs Recommended Risk Level for Fresh
Water Primary Contact Recreation
EPA Recommends Risk Level Less Than 10 illness
per 1000
E. Coli Monthly Geometric Mean (cfu/100ml)
206
1.0 of Swimmers
126
0.8 of Swimmers
Phases I II CSO Control Complete
No CSO Control
Alternative E
Separation
State WQS Based on Risk Level of 8 illness per
1000
PRELIMINARY
20
CSO Phase III Program Project Plan Financial
Compliance with CSO Special Order
21
(No Transcript)
22
To conclude where are we?

• Infrastructure improvements in the LTCP and CSO
  Special Order schedule
• Triennial Review comment period (March 31 May
  30 2008)
• TMDL development and implementation
• WLA
• UAA
• Protect COR Investment in CSO Controls to Date
  and Ensure Future Costs Result in the Best Water
  Quality

23
AcknowledgementEd Cronin, Greeley
HansenVirginia Secretariat Natural
ResourcesVirginia Secretariat Health Human
ResourcesTriennial Review Technical Advisory
CommitteeRobert C. Steidel, Deputy
DirectorCity of Richmond Virginia, Department of
Public UtilitiesWe Touch Peoples Lives Every
Dayhttp//www.richmondgov.com/departments/public
utilities/Robert.Steidel_at_richmondgov.com804-646
-8311
24
(No Transcript)