1 / 40

Model Support for Developing and Implementing a Nitrogen TMDL for Long Island Sound

Model Support for Developing and Implementing a Nitrogen TMDL for Long Island Sound. Mark A. Tedesco EPA LIS Office. Long Island Sound Study. National Estuary Program CWA 320 CWA 119 Sponsored by EPA, NYSDEC, CTDEP Begin in 1986. The Watershed. 16,000 sq. mile watershed

oprah-stafford
Download Presentation

Model Support for Developing and Implementing a Nitrogen TMDL for Long Island Sound

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Model Support for Developing and Implementing a Nitrogen TMDL for Long Island Sound Mark A. Tedesco EPA LIS Office

  2. Long Island Sound Study • National Estuary Program • CWA 320 • CWA 119 • Sponsored by EPA, NYSDEC, CTDEP • Begin in 1986

  3. The Watershed • 16,000 sq. mile watershed • 1,300 sq. mile water surface • two connections to the ocean • East River in the west • The Race in the east • 8 Million People

  4. Hypoxia Affects Large Areas of LIS

  5. Reoccurs Each Summer

  6. TMDL Requirements • Identify “Water Quality Limited” Waters • Specify Allowable Pollutant Loading • Point Sources • Nonpoint Sources • Margin of Safety • Public Participation

  7. How it Started • 1986: LIS TAC recommends modeling approach to support hypoxia management • Report of the LIS Modeling Workshop, 27-28 January 1986, MRSC Ref. 86-6, Working Paper 26 • 1987: Preliminary modeling and data collection • 1988-89: Intensive data collection, model development for 3-d model (LIS 3.0) • Independent Model Evaluation Group (MEG) established for review

  8. Sources of Total Nitrogen Delivered

  9. 108 STP Discharges

  10. Key Issues • Attainment of water quality standards • Technical basis for DO standard • High cost burden for POTW upgrades • Perceived equity between point and nonpoint sources • NYC vs. CT River • Uncertainty in managing out-of-basin loads

  11. LIS Eutrophication Model (LIS 3.0) HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL (NOAA/NOS) Inputs: Winds, tides, solar radiation, freshwater flows, boundary S&T Outputs: Circulation, volumes, density stratification EUTROPHICATION MODEL (HydroQual, Inc.) Inputs: Pollutant loads Outputs: Water quality as function of time and space SEDIMENT SUBMODEL (HydroQual, Inc.) Inputs: Deposition of particulate organic matter Outputs: Fluxes of sediment oxygen demand and nutrient

  12. Management Framework • Proceed in phases • Identify conditions that will minimize adverse impacts • Make cost-effective progress from in-basin sources • Equitably allocate reductions • Incorporate in TMDL • Consider out-of-basin sources and actions • Atmospheric deposition • import for outside states

  13. Proceed in Phases • Phase I: nitrogen freeze at 1990 levels (1990) • Phase II: low-cost nitrogen reduction (1994) • Phase III: Reduction targets to achieve water quality objectives

  14. DO Benchmarks for Hypoxia Management • Surface waters • > 5.0 mg/l (one-day average) • Bottom waters • fully protective: • > 5.0 mg/l (one-day average) • protective for most species: • > 3.5 mg/l (one-day average) • 2.0 mg/l minimum

  15. Unit Response Matrix • LIS 3.0 run to calculate DO response from different Management Zones • What-if scenarios • Cost curves • Estimated incremental nitrogen reductions and costs from different levels of management • Calculated incremental DO improvement from actions taken in different areas • Plot incremental nitrogen reductions and incremental DO improvement versus incremental cost

  16. Nitrogen Management Zones NY - CT Domain

  17. Variable N Control Costs

  18. Efficient Use of Capital Possible

  19. LIS 3.0 Nitrogen Loading Scenarios • Base Case • Phase 2 Reductions • Cost-Sensitive Reductions • Limit of Technology • DO Targets (Protective of Species) • Pastoral

  20. Characterize Ecological Effects of Scenarios • Describe biological impacts in 0.5 mg/l intervals from 0-5 mg/l dissolved oxygen • For each model scenario, assess duration of time and areal extent of exposure • Develop indices to estimate relative, biological impact for different model scenarios • survival impairment-area-days (SAD) • biomass impairment-area-days (BAD)

  21. Response to Low DO Percent Impairment at 0.5 mg/l DO Intervals - CTDEP Long Island Sound Finfish Survey - EPA Marine WQ Criteria for DO (Say Mud Crab)

  22. Conclusions From Cost Curve and Model Analysis • Approximately 80% of the benefit (DO improvement) can be obtained for 25% of cost • Achievable reductions can greatly reduce the time and area affected by hypoxia • 75% reduction in area • 85% reduction in duration • Greatly reduce biological effects • effects on fish abundance: 95-100% • effects on larval mortality: 65-84%

  23. Challenges to Traditional TMDL and Allocation Process • Use of cost-effectiveness • Phasing • Cost estimates vary • Incentive for dischargers to inflate • Impact on resources debated • Lack of incentives to do more, sooner

  24. Use Flexibility and Market Forces to Achieve Efficient Allocations • Identify optimal reduction levels relative to cost • Cost-effective level of reduction at publicly owned treatments works • Aggressive nonpoint source pollution control program • Allocate equal reductions to each management zone and discharger • Allow flexibility in how to achieve reductions within a zone and among facilities considering relative impacts (equivalency factors) • bubble permit (NY) • general permit (CT) and credit trading

  25. Nitrogen Reduction Goals Have Been Established • Nitrogen reduction targets established in 1998 • A Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis to Achieve Water Quality Standards for Dissolved Oxygen in Long Island Sound (2001) • 58.5 percent reduction to anthropogenic sources in the Connecticut and New York portions of the basin • Establishes WLAs and LAs • Establishes "equivalency factors" for relative effect on DO • additional reductions from out-of-basin sources (MA, VT, NH) and atmospheric deposition • identifies alternatives, i.e. aeration

  26. Schedule for Achieving Reduction Targets • Achieve targets in 15 years • 40% in five years • 75% in ten years • Reevaluate every five years • assess system response • revise DO standards • establish out-of-basin nitrogen allocations • identifies alternatives, i.e. aeration, if needed

  27. The TMDL Calls For: • A 58.5% Reduction from primary anthropogenic sources in CT and NY • 10% reduction from urban and agricultural runoff (LA) • Balance (65%) from point sources (WLA) 50 %

  28. TMDL Trading Ratios • Adjustments in WLA allowed consistent with TMDL exchange ratios • Watershed attenuation factors • Delivery to LIS

  29. Implementation: NY Bubble Permits • Nitrogen "bubble" by management zone • aggregate, annual limit for point sources within a zone • individual, annual limit based on facility's share of aggregate, annual load • Monitoring and reporting requirements • Compliance for 12-month rolling average • Final WLA phased in five-year increments • Reallocation among zones allowed consist with TMDL equivalency factors

  30. How it Works • Option of doing more at upper East River STPS and less at lower East River STPs • 1.9:1.0 trading ratio • NYCDEP and NYSDEC modified consent order for Newtown Creek STP to eliminate nitrogen control • Estimated savings of $600 million • NYCDEP and NYSDEC signed consent order on upper ER nitrogen control to meet TMDL

  31. Implementation: CT General Permit and Trading • Public Act No.01-180 (June 2001) • framework for Nitrogen Credit Exchange Program and Advisory Board • authorization for general permit for the discharge of nitrogen • General Permit (September 2001) • 79 POTWs get annual mass loading • phased in annually over 15 years to attain WLA • contains performance, monitoring, reporting, and trading requirements • opt-out option

  32. How it Works • State finances upgrades • Facilities monitor and report on annual discharge • March 31 audit of calendar year discharge • Comply by... • meeting annual mass loading, or • purchasing credits equal to exceedance • State acts as banker • sells credits by July 31 • purchases credits by August 14

  33. How it Works • State sets price of credits and administers and tracks transaction • Nitrogen Credit Advisory Board proposes value based on statewide cost of nitrogen reduction • No banking, no credit for grant portion (only loan) • Nonpoint sources not currently included in trading program, but desired outcome

  34. 0.17 0.14 0.32 0.19 0.46 0.18 0.93 1.00 0.11

  35. 100 50 80 40 20 100 50 40 10

  36. Point Source Nitrogen Reductions The 1990 estimates include 98 municipal, 4 state, and 4 industrial discharges = 109 CTDEP adjusted its data in 2001 to include reports from plants not previously submitted and change estimates to actual reported numbers.

  37. Maximum Area and Duration of Hypoxia (less than 3.0 mg/l) CT DEP LIS Water Quality Monitoring Program

  38. Meanwhile… • 1992: NYCDEP initiates Systemwide Modeling • 1994-95: NYCDEP initiates comprehensive field program to add to 1988-89 data sets • 1999: Model Evaluation Group approves SWEM for LIS application • 2001: LISS Management Committee accepts use of SWEM to support hypoxia management program • NYCDEP provides SWEM for LISS use through HydroQual

  39. And Now… • Systemwide Nutrients Work Group directs SWEM application • NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program and LISS • Charged with providing recommendations on TMDL development and reassessment

  40. Work Group Goals • By September 2004 prepare assessment: • Revised DO standards • Load estimates from atmospheric deposition and upstream sources • Technology advancements in N control • Exchange ratios of relative effects

More Related