Review of Alternatives for Addressing Water Quality Impairments in the Copano Bay Watershed

Document Sample
Review of Alternatives for Addressing Water Quality Impairments in the Copano Bay Watershed Powered By Docstoc
					 Review of Alternatives for
 Addressing Water Quality
Impairments in the Copano
           Bay Watershed
                        Allen Berthold
        Texas Water Resources Institute
Review: Clean Water Act
 Goal of CWA is to restore and maintain water quality
  suitable for the “protection and propagation of fish,
  shellfish, wildlife and recreation in and on the water”
   Implemented primarily by the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency (USEPA)
 CWA requires that all waterbodies exceeding a state’s
  water quality standards be identified
 Those identified are placed on the (Texas) Integrated
  Report for Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d)
 CWA also requires that states develop an approach to
  address each impairment
Alternatives for Addressing
Impairments (TMDL/TMDL I-Plan)
 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
   TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS
     WLA = Waste load Allocation = regulated sources
     LA = Load Allocation = non-regulated sources
     MOS = margin of safety

 Implementation Plan
   Developed by local stakeholders
   Typically a 3-5 year plan of activities
   Revised periodically to evaluate the process of improving
    water quality and adapted as necessary
Alternatives for Addressing
Impairments (WPP)
 Watershed Protection Plans (WPPs) are coordinated
  frameworks for implementing prioritized and integrated
  protection and restoration strategies driven by
  environmental objectives
   Holistically address all sources of impairments to a water
   Developed by the local stakeholders and meets EPA 9 Key
   Typically a 10-15 year plan of activities
   Makes use of adaptive management to modify the plan
    according to stakeholder input and observed water quality
  Similarities of TMDLs/TMDL I-Plans
  and WPPs
 Goal: Improve water quality      Developed in coordination
  in rivers, lakes and bays         with local and regional
 Define actions needed to          stakeholders
  reduce pollution and restore     Implementation of measures
  water quality                     eligible for grant funds
 Provides estimated loading       Implementation of nonpoint
  limits                            source control measures
 Can use simplistic or complex     currently voluntary
  analytical tools (e.g., water     • Law suits or changes in
  quality models)                     CWA could result in
                                      compulsory implementation
 Uses existing data and can
  include additional data
  collection if necessary
  Differences of TMDLs/TMDL I-Plans
        TMDL and TMDL I-Plan                                 WPPs
Results in automatic removal from 303(d)   Can result in removal from 303(d) list
list                                       though 4b process
TMDL approved by State and EPA             WPP acceptance by State and EPA (i.e.,
TMDL I-Plan only approved by State         determination of consistency with nine-
                                           element guidance)
Focused on singular pollutants in most     Pollutant focus is determined by
cases                                      stakeholders
TMDLs are set at full permitted flow       End points and flow conditions must be
allowing for more generous WLA             consistent with EPA nine element
Implementation of point source control     Implementation of point source control
measures currently compulsory              measures currently voluntary
Annual stakeholder meeting required        Quarterly stakeholder meetings generally
following development to evaluate          held to assess and maintain
implementation progress                    implementation efforts
Timeline of Planning though
        TMDL and TMDL I-Plan                                WPPs

 Begin forming/working with                Grant proposal developed/submitted
 workgroups immediately                    and planning would begin Sept. 2013 if
 Development of Plan: 1 – 2 years          Development of Plan – ≥ 3 years
 • Funded by State                         • Funded by EPA or other funding
 Implementation Period: ~5 year plan       Implementation Period: ~10 year plan
 outlined in I-Plan                        outlined in WPP
 Evaluate and revise every 5 years or as   Evaluate and revise as outlined in the
 needed                                    WPP
Kevin Wagner, PhD       Allen Berthold
Texas Water Resources   Texas Water Resources
Institute               Institute
979-845-2649            361-318-8780

Shared By: