Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two1 Lake Tahoe TMDL Phase Two Fall 2007 Public Participation Series Source Category Group Focus Team Meetings.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Strategic Planning Process: An Overview
Advertisements

Target Load Method CBP Principals Staff Committee Meeting July 22, 2009 Gary Shenk U.S. EPA CBPO Presentation No. 2 Update on Methods Plan for Resolution.
Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source BMP Effectiveness, Cost-Effectiveness and Potential for Reducing Loads Jeff Sweeney University of Maryland PA Chesapeake Bay.
Antidegradation Demonstration: Alternatives Analysis Analysis WHAT IS IN THIS PAPER- Distinguish between need and necessity Recognize three general types.
Management Plan: An Overview
Agricultural and Biological Engineering SWFREC, UF/IFAS Immokalee.
Watershed Approaches and Community Based Planning
Water Quality Trading Claire Schary Water Quality Trading Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA Region 10, Seattle,
Status Update on Future Water Quality Strategies for the Refuge Kenneth G. Ammon, P.E., Deputy Executive Director, Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects.
Prioritization Workgroup Summary. Workgroup Topics Nutrient results What is a watershed? What is a TMDL? Prioritization methods Basin framework and management.
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Third Generation Watershed Management Plan.
Developing Modeling Tools in Support of Nutrient Reduction Policies Randy Mentz Adam Freihoefer, Trip Hook, & Theresa Nelson Water Quality Modeling Technical.
Minnesota Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool William Lazarus Department of Applied Economics University of Minnesota David Mulla Department of.
Current Planning for 2017 Mid-Point Assessment Gary Shenk COG 10/4/2012 presentation credit to Katherine Antos and the WQGIT ad hoc planning team.
Chesapeake Bay Restoration An EPA Perspective Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Administrator U.S. EPA.
Chesapeake Bay and New York State Water Quality and the Potential for Future Regulations Presented by the Upper Susquehanna Coalition.
Role of Governments in Addressing the Water Quality Impacts of Agriculture.
Incorporating the 9-Elements into a WMP Lindsey PhillipsMike Archer Source Water CoordinatorState Lakes Coordinator (402) (402)
Build to Cost Directions & Guidelines Peter Wizinowich SSC Meeting November 3, 2008.
Rick Koelsch University of Nebraska – Lincoln Bob Broz University of Missouri - Columbia.
Determining the effectiveness of best management practices to reduce nutrient loading from cattle grazed pastures in Utah Nicki Devanny Utah State University,
Nonpoint Source Pollution Reductions – Estimating a Tradable Commodity Allen R. Dedrick Associate Deputy Administrator Natural Resources & Sustainable.
Allen Berthold Texas Water Resources Institute. Review: Clean Water Act Goal of CWA is to restore and maintain water quality suitable for the “protection.
1 Lake Tahoe TMDL Forested Upland Source Category Group Load Reduction Analysis Dr. Mark Grismer, UC Davis Michael Hogan & Kevin Drake, Integrated Environmental.
Life Cycle Overview & Resources. Life Cycle Management What is it? Integrated concept for managing goods and services towards more sustainable production.
QS 702 Phase II: Encouraging the Integration of Technology Into Higher Education.
Northwest hydraulic consultants 2NDNATURE Geosyntec Consultants September 11, 2007 Urban Upland / Groundwater Source Category Group (UGSCG) Overview Presentation.
1 Module 4: Designing Performance Indicators for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Programs.
Implementing the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit Stormwater Division General Services Department Board of Supervisors Work Session October.
Advanced Metropolitan GIS Plan Final Report Presentation December 14, 2000 Jerry Happel – PlanSight LLC Fargo-Moorhead Council of Governments.
Hancock Springs A natural lab for studying the roles of physical habitat, nutrient availability, and non-native species to inform river restoration John.
Lake Tahoe TMDL Science Objectives l What are sources and relative contributions of “contaminants” causing clarity decline? l How much of a reduction is.
Oil and Gas Workgroup Summary October 21-23, 2009 Denver.
United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service 1 National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection August 8-9, 2007.
1 Chesapeake Bay Program Management Board Meeting March 6, 2012 Discussion for the Final Evaluation of Milestones.
Phase II WIP Background & Development Process Tri-County Council – Eastern Shore June 2,
Presentation to the Chesapeake Bay and Water Resources Policy Committee July 30, 2010.
1 Questions Addressed What are the options for reducing pollutant inputs to Lake Tahoe? Pollutant Reduction Opportunities.
Integrated Risk Management Charles Yoe, PhD Institute for Water Resources 2009.
What is the Chesapeake Bay TMDL? Total Maximum Daily Load –Amount of pollutants that a water body can receive and still support designated uses Drinking,
Chesapeake Bay TMDL & Watershed Implementation Plans The Role of Local Governments Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Administrator U.S. EPA Presentation.
Restoring VA Waters the TMDL Way Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Region 3.
Overview of Load Reduction Estimates for Atmospheric Sources of Pollutants Richard Countess Atmospheric Deposition SCG Lead September 10, 2007.
Catawba River Basin Update to the Lower Creek Advisory Team By Melanie Williams.
Robert M. Summers, Ph.D. September 16, 2015 How can we make sure the Chesapeake Bay Restoration really works?
2004 Tributary Strategies: Assessment of Implementation Options Steve Bieber Water Resources Program Presented at: COG Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee.
Potential Partnership UNRBA – Nicholas Institute Bill Holman & Amy Pickle August 4, 2011.
Pine Lake Restoration Society Planning – 2010 and Forward.
Need for Advanced Stormwater Treatment at Lake Tahoe John E. Reuter & Dave Roberts Tahoe TMDL Research Program.
Maryland Association of Counties Conference August 12, 2009 Bob Koroncai USEPA Region III The Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
Lake Tahoe Stream Channel Load Reduction and Costs Virginia Mahacek Valley & Mountain Consulting September 2007 Focus Team Workshop 1.
Stream Health Outcome Biennial Workplan Neely L. Law, PhD Center for Watershed Protection Chesapeake Bay Program Sediment & Stream Coordinator Habitat.
Carin Bisland, EPA Principals’ Staff Committee 5/14/12.
Modeling Fecal Bacteria Fate and Transport to Address Pathogen Impairments in the United States Brian Benham Extension Specialist and Associate Professor,
ISIS Project Status Report May 18, 2006 Prepared by MAXIMUS, Inc Education Systems Division for the ABT Committee.
Northern Virginia Regional Commission MS4 Meeting March 17, 2011 Virginia Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Approach.
Nutrients and the Next Generation of Conservation Presented by: Tom Porta, P.E. Deputy Administrator Nevada Division of Environmental Protection President,
IOWA NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY A science and technology-based framework to assess and reduce nutrients to Iowa waters and the Gulf of Mexico James Gillespie.
GIS M ETHODOLOGY Swearing Creek Watershed Restoration Plan 8/26/2015 Piedmont Triad Regional Council.
P U B L I C S E R V I C E S State of South Carolina Enterprise Information System Business Case Study SCEIS User Group Briefing Wednesday July 10, 2002.
EVALUATING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANS NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT APPROACHES IN THE LAKE ERIE BASIN AND KEY LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE LAKE ERIE WATERSHED Ohio Stormwater.
CBP Update: Climate Change and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
GIS Data Management for SHA’s Bay Restoration Program
Developing a Water Quality Trading Framework
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
What is a Watershed Implementation Plan?
Water Quality Trading Advisory Committee MDA Headquarters
Jim Edward Acting Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office May 23,2018 EPA’s Draft Final Phase III WIP Expectations.
Jon Capacasa, Director Water Protection Division U.S. EPA Region III
Incorporating metal bioavailability into permitting – UK experience
Presentation transcript:

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two1 Lake Tahoe TMDL Phase Two Fall 2007 Public Participation Series Source Category Group Focus Team Meetings

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two2 TMDL Program Overview A science-based plan to restore Lake Tahoe’s clarity

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two3 Central TMDL Questions Questions Addressed 1.What pollutants are causing Lake Tahoe’s clarity loss? 2.How much of each pollutant is reaching Lake Tahoe? 3.How much of each pollutant can Lake Tahoe accept and still achieve the clarity goal? Current Questions 1.What are the options for reducing pollutant inputs to Lake Tahoe? 2.What strategy should we implement to reduce pollutant inputs to Lake Tahoe?

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two4 Source Category Group Analysis Opportunities Basin-Wide load reduction estimates Relative load reduction opportunity among source categories Consistent methods to evaluate future pollutant control options

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two5 Source Category Group Analysis Boundaries Not suited to project scale Evaluated pollutant control options chosen for data availability Limited time, resources, and effectiveness data

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two6 Continuous Improvement Adaptive management process SNPLMA science funding opportunities Each group identified “next steps” and data needs

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two7 Focus Team Role Gain technical understanding of SCG approach Act as a liaison to your agency Provide input on preferred pollutant control options Suggestions for future work

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two8 Questions?

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two9 Questions Addressed What is causing Lake Tahoe’s clarity loss? Suspended fine sediment Floating algae – fed by nutrients Very fine sediment (<20 microns) accounts for ~2/3 of the clarity conditions

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two10 How much of each pollutant is reaching Lake Tahoe?

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two11 How much of each pollutant is reaching Lake Tahoe?

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two12 How much of each pollutant is reaching Lake Tahoe?

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two13 How much of each pollutant can Lake Tahoe accept and still achieve the clarity goal? The Lake Clarity Model provides estimates of clarity response to load reductions Reducing fines has a greater potential to improve clarity Model output indicates significant reductions will be needed

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two14 What are the options for reducing pollutant inputs to Lake Tahoe? Good Question!

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two15 Approach to Answering Current Questions Identify load reduction options Quantify load reduction options Prepare Integrated Strategies Gather stakeholder input

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two16 Pollutant Load Reduction Opportunity Project - People Source Category Groups Technical Reviewers Source Category Integration Committee Project Team Focus Teams

PCO Concepts Screening Process Viable PCOs PCO Grouping Process Treatment Tiers A A B C A B C Settings Extrapolation Process GIS Models Step 1: PCO Evaluation Step 2: Site-Scale Analysis Step 3: Basin-Wide Analysis Nitrogen Reduction Table Sediment Reduction Table Phosphorus Reduction Table Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Load Tables Cost Tables Combined Results Tables Total 20 Year Cost Table Capital Cost Table O & M Cost Table Cost- Effectiveness Table PCO Concepts Screening Process

PCO Concepts Screening Process Viable PCOs PCO Grouping Process Treatment Tiers A A B C A B C Settings Extrapolation Process GIS Models Step 1: PCO Evaluation Step 2: Site-Scale Analysis Step 3: Basin-Wide Analysis Nitrogen Reduction Table Sediment Reduction Table Phosphorus Reduction Table Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Load Tables Cost Tables Combined Results Tables Total 20 Year Cost Table Capital Cost Table O & M Cost Table Cost- Effectiveness Table PCO Concepts Screening Process

PCO Concepts Screening Process Viable PCOs PCO Grouping Process Treatment Tiers A A B C A B C Settings Extrapolation Process GIS Models Step 1: PCO Evaluation Step 2: Site-Scale Analysis Step 3: Basin-Wide Analysis Nitrogen Reduction Table Sediment Reduction Table Phosphorus Reduction Table Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Load Tables Cost Tables Combined Results Tables Total 20 Year Cost Table Capital Cost Table O & M Cost Table Cost- Effectiveness Table PCO Concepts Screening Process

Sept. 10 and 11, 2007Lake Tahoe TMDL - Phase Two20 Development Summary PCO Selection and Evaluation Site Scale Analysis –Settings –Tiers Basin-wide extrapolation