Transcript Slide 1

The Lake Allegan/Kalamazoo River
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Plan Implementation
by
Jeff Spoelstra, Coordinator, Kalamazoo River
Watershed Council – www.kalamazooriver.org
12/9/09 – MWEA Phase I&II SW Permitting
What is a TMDL?
 Total Maximum Daily Load is an
estimate of the maximum amount of
a pollutant that a water body can
receive and still meet water quality
standards and an allocation of that
amount to the pollutant’s sources.
 In our watershed area this affects
point sources and nonpoint
sources.
TMDL
 “ The primary purpose of the TMDL program is to protect
public health and the health of impaired aquatic
ecosystems by ensuring attainment of water quality
standards, including beneficial uses.”
US EPA, 1998
Lake Allegan
Background
 1,587 acre reservoir
 1972 EPA classified as hypereutrophic due to total
phosphorus
 Assessment kicked off in 1998. A unique “cooperative
agreement” kicked off later to organize the sources.
 Point sources participate to maintain flexibility.
 Stormwater is considered a nonpoint source in this TMDL.
Structure – last 10 years
 TMDL Implementation Committee (meets quarterly)
 Agriculture subcommittee
 Urban subcommittee
 Point Source Committee (meets 2-3 times per year)
 Technical Committee (as needed)
 Strategy/Leadership Committee (as needed)
 Phase II resulted in more independent
stormwater/municipal groups, processes, and paperwork
load
 Battle Creek – Clean Water Partners
 Kalamazoo Area – Stormwater Work Group
TMDL Lake Goals – during the “growing
season”
Water Quality
Indicators
1998
Conditions
Goals
*By 2012
Total
phosphorus
96 ug/L
60 ug/L*
Chlorophyll a
67 ug/L
30 ug/L
Dissolved
oxygen
3.1 mg/L
5 mg/L
Water Clarity
30 inches
42 inches
87%
30%
Carp & catfish as
% of fish
community
Load Goals
April - June
July - September
Goal
1998
Goal
1998
Waste Load
Allocation
8,700
8,700
6,700
8,700
Load
Allocation
9,800
17,218
4,088
8,135
Margin of
Safety
100
Total pounds
per month
18,600
50
25,918
10,838
16,835
 65% of the phosphorus from nonpoint sources; remaining
35% from point sources.
Status
 The PS have met their WLA.
 PS P loading reported online, year round.
 PS have provided educational, monetary, analytical,
sampling and staffing resources.
 PS technical advisor maintains a website, provides
statistical analysis, advises the group on BMPs and TMDL
trends.
 NPS load tracking and methodology not consistent.
Point Source WLA Status 2001-2009:
data summaries by Kieser & Associates, LLC
Nonpoint Source Phosphorus Distribution
Stormwater!
Nonpoint Source LA 1998-2007:
What have we tried?
 Subcommittees refined to focus on ag and urban.
 Monitoring and tracking
 University research and sustainability efforts – internal loading,






dissolved fractions of phosphorus.
Implementation Plan refined to focus on a three year strategy
(handout).
Kanoe the Kazoo, Super Soils Test Saturday, Carp Derby, built
“watershed communication center”.
Support BMP projects and planning – AWEP, HWRP.
Supported regional or state efforts to reduce phosphorus (e.g., lawn
ordinances, Farm Bill funding).
More recently, exploring low impact development ordinances,
stormwater ordinances and practices, wellhead protection ordinances.
Local leadership – sharing the phosphorus message.
Future:
 Sign a new TMDL Cooperative Agreement?
 State of Michigan nutrient limits?
 New stormwater permit process – cooperative TMDL
monitoring?
 Encouraging non-Phase I&II communities to tackle
stormwater
 Umbrella organization and Partnership Agreement
 New overall watershed management plan in development
 Buildout analysis
 Loading
Watershed Nutrient Load, Sediment Load and Runoff Volume
Comparisons (2001 – 2030)
300,000
+ 26%
+ 25%
+ 18%
250,000
200,000
150,000
2001
2030
100,000
+ 12%
50,000
0
Runoff
Volume
Runoff
Volume (acfeet/yr)
(ac-ft/yr)
TSS TSS
(tons/yr)
TP (lbs/yr)
TP
(tons/yr)
(lbs/yr)
TN
TN
(lbs/yr)
tens of lbs/yr)
(in
Change in Total Phosphorus Load per Land Use in the Kalamazoo
River Watershed
120,000
0%
100,000
TP Load (lbs)
- 15%
80,000
+ 377%
60,000
2000
40,000
+ 386%
20,000
- 26%
- 14%
0
Intensity
High Intensity Urban LowLow
Intensity
Urban Roads/Parking Lots
Urban
Agriculture
Herbaceous
Openland
Forest
2030
Comparison of Monthly TP Load in 2001 and 2003 with Phosphorus
TMDL Load Allocation
16,961
lbs/mo
16,961
18,000
16,000
14,022
lbs/mo
14,022
TP Load (lbs)
14,000
TP (lbs)
12,000
9,800
10,000
TMDL Load Allocation per Month
(Apr-June)
8,000
6,000
4,088
4,000
2,000
0
2001
2030
TMDL Load Allocation per Month
(July-Sept.)
Stormwater Control Costs* to Treat Increasing TP Loads from 2001
to 2030
450,000,000
400,000,000
$382M
Stormwater Costs ( $)
350,000,000
Scenario 1: Only required to reduce
50% of 2001 load because SW
Scenario
ordinance was adopted
300,000,000
250,000,000
$219M
$207M
200,000,000
150,000,000
$111M
1
Scenario 2: No ordinance adopted;
Scenario
required to reduce new 2030 load by
250%
Scenario
Scenario 3: No ordinance adopted;
3required to reduce 2030 load to 50%
of 2001 loading level
100,000,000
$55M
50,000,000
$14M
0
TMDL Area
Non TMDL Area
*Assumes an average estimated cost of $10,000/lb of TP reduction (which will vary depending on available land, land costs, design
and inflation).
Thank You
 TMDL information – www.kalamazooriver.net
 Municipal outreach programs – stormwater,
groundwater, and education
 www.bcwater.org
 www.protectyourwater.net
 www.kalamazooriver.org
 [email protected] to e-mail Jeff