Cape Fear River Estuary
TMDL Development
Stakeholder’s Perspective
Cape Fear Council of Governments
TMDL Forum
May 26, 2004
Kenneth L. Vogt, Jr. PE, DEE
Wastewater Treatment Superintendent / City of Wilmington
Lower Cape Fear River Program Cape Fear Estuary TMDL Advisory Subcommittee
Waterbody
A Shared Resource
BENEFITS
A Shared Responsibility
STAKEHOLDERS
2
Explicit Commitment and Effort
to
Attain/Maintain Designated
Uses and Underlying Standards
and
Stakeholder’s Acknowledgement
and Buy-In
3
Waterbody Classification
Water Quality Standards
● Designated Uses/Attainability
● Numerical Criteria
● Narrative Criteria
● Antidegradation Requirements
4
Waterbody Use Designations
● Public Water Supplies
● Protection and Propagation of
Fish, Shellfish and Wildlife
● Recreation In and On the Water
● Agricultural
● Industrial
● Navigation
5
A Regulator’s Perspective
● Non-Attainment
● Impaired Status
● 303 (d) Listing
● TMDL Establishment
6
TMDL and Pollution
• TMDL is “Total Maximum Daily Load” of pollutants
•
•
•
and water body can assimilate (assimilative
capacity)
Occupancy and disturbance result in a pollutional
impact that may lead to a condition of nonattainment
TMDL allocates loading to sources and “caps”
quantity
Combination of regulatory basis and scientific
process
7
Cape Fear TMDL Timeline
• Current hydrodynamic and water quality modeling
developed by City of Wilmington & New Hanover County
now being used by DENR
• Current DENR policy requires new and expanding point
sources to meet BOD5- 5 mg/l Ammonia- 1 mg/l
• 1 to 2 year TMDL development period is now underway
• How is the TMDL “pie” shared?






Point Source
Non-Point Source
Natural
Margin of Safety (MOS)
Growth
Upstream Sources above Lock and Dam #1
8
The TMDL Process
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Name and Geographic Location
Problem Identification
Target Analysis
Source Identification and Assessment
Linkage of Source and Target (Model)
Allocating Pollutant Loads
Implementation and Monitoring Plan Development
9
A Layman’s/Stakeholder’s
Perspective
• Any regulatory process relies upon a strong
•
•
•
•
foundation.
Thorough, comprehensive, and, when applicable,
founded upon sound scientific principles.
Procedures, good and bad, come and go.
While institutional considerations are important,
good science transcends all procedure.
Scientific product, if properly designed and
conducted, should hold lasting value.
10
Stakeholder Questions
• As a resource, what do we want to do with our
waterbody?
• Who is “we”? Who plays a role in the decisionmaking process?
• How are participants/stakeholders identified and
encouraged to become involved in the decisionmaking process, including attempts to reach a
broad, diverse cross-section of the stakeholder
community?
11
Stakeholder Questions
• Who sets the rules?
• How are the rules set? Is there a well conceived
/established institutional/regulatory/procedural
basis and/or a sound scientific technical
framework to work within?
12
Key Stakeholder Concerns
1. Designated Use and Attainability
(Previous Determination)
2. Criteria Establishment
(Previous Determination)
3. Determination of Non-Attainment
(Previous Determination)
13
Key Stakeholder Concerns
4. Stakeholder Identification
●If you cause pollution to enter the Cape Fear River, you
are/should be a stakeholder because you may be directed
to better manage/reduce your pollutant contribution.
LCFRP CFRE TMDL Advisory Subcommittee
● Communicate/ disseminate between the LCFRP and
DWQ
● Sufficiently knowledgeable to serve in peer review/
quality control capacity
● Not sufficiently knowledgeable to act as primary
product developer
14
Key Stakeholder Concerns
5. Contribution/Source Identification and
Quantification
● Natural Sources/Background (LA)
● Point Sources & Permitted Stormwater (WLA)
● Non-Point Sources (LA)
15
Key Stakeholder Concerns
6. Allowable Pollutant Load (APL)
APL = WLA + LA + MOS + FG
MOS can be large or small based upon
uncertainties. Use as much data and analysis
as possible to minimize the MOS and keep it
reasonable. Apply different MOSs to different
categories based upon different data/analysis
uncertainties.
16
Assimilative Capacity “Pie”
• Assimilative Capacity = Acceptable Pollutant
•
•
•
Loading to the Water Body
How big is the pie?
We don’t presently know
Will be determined by the TMDL process
1000 #/day
OR
100,000 #/day
17
Pieces of the “Pie”
Who gets “slices”?
Point Source (PS) Loads
(Ex: Wastewater Plants &
Stormwater?)
Non-Point Source
(NPS) Loads
(Ex: Agriculture &
Stormwater?)
Regulatory “Margin of
Safety”
Upstream Sources Above Lock
and Dam #1
Natural Sources
Growth
18
Key Stakeholder Concerns
7. Load Allocation
● Procedural
● Equitable/Fair/Reasonable
● Credits for Past Reductions
19
TMDL “Pie” Equity?
• “Pieces” of the “Pie”
•
•
•
may not be equal
How are the “slices”
determined?
Yet to be determined
TMDL process will
determine “allocations”
Recognition/credit
Point Sources
previous historical
pollution addition and
reduction activities
Natural
Non-Point
MOS
Growth
Upstream
20
How Big are the Slices?
• Total loading needs to be determined
• Then allocation is to be made by source.
•
•
How?
Pieces are not necessarily equal
How many pieces will there be?
1,000 #/day
100,000 #/ day
21
How Each Source of Pollution is
Estimated?
Inputs:
• Agricultural
 Acres X lbs. of pollution per acre X number of acres =
Total Loading
• Non-point
 Developed acres of each use X estimated loading by
development type = Total Loading
• Natural
 Undeveloped acres of each use (marsh, highland,
swamp) X estimated loading for each use = Total
Loading
22
How Each Source of Pollution is
Estimated?
Inputs:
• Point Source
 Total of the maximum loading of all NPDES permit limits
• Growth
 Adds to point and non-point loads
Boundaries:
• Upstream
 Calculated Critical Condition Maximum Loadings passing
Lock and Dam #1
All sources added together with MOS to set TMDL. Total
Maximum Daily Load for each category is then permanently
established.
23
Simplified Load Allocation Example
(No MOS or FG)
Natural
Point Sources
Non-Point Sources
Total
Natural
Point Sources
Non-Point Sources
Total
Pre-development
500
0
0
PS-Intensive/
No Controls
500
3,500
0
PS & NPS Influence/
No Controls
500
3,500
1,500
Pre-development
PS-Intensive/
No Controls
500
0
0
500
3,500
0
PS & NPS Influence/
No Controls
500
3,500
1,500
1st PS
Control/
Reductions
500
500
1,500
% Reduction
0
86
0
2nd PS &
1st NPS
Reductions
500
125
375
1,000
% Reduction
0
75
75
Single Integrated
PS & NS Reduction % Reduction
500
0
350
90
150
90
1000
24
Potential Requirements to Meet
Allocations?
• Point Sources:
 Lowering of discharge limits or no discharge
• Non-Point Sources:
 Require construction of Innovative and proven BMPs
 Innovative land planning regulations
 Control of construction and post-construction
activities
 Homeowner ordinances:
 Controls of lawn care (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides)
 Pet waste controls
 Elimination of illicit discharges
 Minimization of car washing in streets and driveways
 Innovative home and commercial site design
 Public education programs
25
Potential Requirements to Meet
Allocations?
• Agriculture:
 Require manure controls and processing
 Require buffers along waterways and drainage systems
 Controls on head of livestock per acre
• Upstream Sources:
 Set and monitor maximum loads passing Lock & Dam #1
• Natural Sources:
 Require thinning of deer and raccoon populations
 Re-establishment of impacted wetland system
 Restrictions on drainage systems constructed through
natural areas
 Mitigate
 Offset by others
 Modify use(s) / relax standard(s)
26
Establishment of a “New Way of
Thinking”
• Implement Pollutant Credit Trading program for
removals or reductions of difficult–to-control
pollution
Direct- Local individual efforts (public education)
•
• Indirect
 Coordinated regional planning
 Common ordinances
 Managed by a central agency
27
Questions / Discussion
28