1 / 22

Gene Yagow Virginia Tech Biological Systems Engineering Dept. Second Public Meeting

Moore’s Creek and Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch ----------------------------------------------- Draft Sediment TMDL Report. Gene Yagow Virginia Tech Biological Systems Engineering Dept. Second Public Meeting August 18, 2011 Charlottesville, VA.

aran
Télécharger la présentation

Gene Yagow Virginia Tech Biological Systems Engineering Dept. Second Public Meeting

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. Moore’s Creek and Lodge Creek, Meadow Creek and Schenks Branch -----------------------------------------------Draft Sediment TMDL Report Gene Yagow Virginia Tech Biological Systems Engineering Dept. Second Public Meeting August 18, 2011 Charlottesville, VA

  2. Impaired Segments and Watersheds

  3. Basis for Impairment Moore’s Creek (MSC) Lodge Creek (XRC) Meadow Creek (MWC) Schenks Branch (SNK) Unnamed Trib (XSN) Biological Metrics Abundance Diversity Pollution tolerance SCI = Stream Condition Index

  4. Existing Loads, Reference Loads, and TMDLs

  5. TMDL Components TMDL = ƩWLA + ƩLA + MOS + FG where TMDL = total maximum daily load; WLA = wasteload (permitted) allocations; LA = load (nonpoint) allocations; MOS = margin of safety; and FG = future growth allocation.

  6. MS4 Delineation

  7. Future Growth (FG) • Assumed % of ag and forest would decrease; % of urban would increase • Land uses that were decreased varied by what was present in the Reference (TMDL) scenario • Increases in urban were proportional to Reference scenario areas • FG = change in load between the Reference and FG scenarios

  8. Future Growth Example (Lodge Creek) Future Growth (FG) Assumption: 20% forest to urban

  9. Lodge Creek Sediment Loads and TMDL Existing and Reference Sediment Loads The Sediment TMDL (tons/yr) Future Growth (FG) Assumption: 20% forest to urban

  10. Moore’s Creek* Sediment Loads and TMDL Existing and Reference Sediment Loads The Sediment TMDL (tons/yr) Future Growth (FG) Assumption: 10% hay and 0.5% forest to urban * Excludes Lodge Creek

  11. Schenks Branch Sediment Loads and TMDL Existing and Reference Sediment Loads The Sediment TMDL (tons/yr) Future Growth (FG) Assumption: 10% forest to urban

  12. Meadow Creek* Sediment Loads and TMDL Existing and Reference Sediment Loads The Sediment TMDL (tons/yr) Future Growth (FG) Assumption: 100% pasture and cropland and 10% forest to urban * Excludes Schenks Branch

  13. Comments on FG Scenarios?

  14. Allocation Scenarios

  15. Alternate Allocation Scenarios #1: Incorporates statewide BMPs used in the Virginia WIP to achieve downstream TMDLs (% reductions calculated from results) • Baseline + BMPs = Allocation • % reduction = (baseline – Allocation)/baseline #2: Trial-and-error (% reductions changed first) • Baseline * % reduction = Allocation

  16. Lodge Creek Sediment Load Allocation

  17. Moore’s Creek* Sediment Load Allocation * Excludes Lodge Creek

  18. Shenks BranchSediment Load Allocation

  19. Meadow Creek* Sediment Load Allocation * Excludes Schenks Branch

  20. Comments on Allocation Scenarios?

  21. Next Steps • Receive comments on Draft TMDL Report and update for submission to EPA • Setup work groups to transition to Implementation Planning

  22. Questions? • For more information, contact Gene Yagow 540-231-2538 eyagow@vt.edu

More Related