DOCSLIB.ORG

TMDL in December 2007

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Fostering Collaboration ~NEIWPCC on Water Issues New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission Training Environmental Professionals Coordinating 00128 2008 Water Research Educating Mr. Stephen Johnson the Public USEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mail Code: 1101A Washington, DC 20460 Re: Clean Water Act Section 319(g) Petition Dear Administrator Johnson: In accordance with Section 319(g) ofthe Clean Water Act, the New'England states and New York State have prepared a petition requesting a management conference to address waterbodies impaired by atmospheric deposition ofmercury. This collaborative effort, coordinated by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, reflects the consensuswithin our states over how to address an important regional priority. We respectfully submit the petition to U.S. EPA for your consideration. Our states' strong commitment to mercury reduction has eliminated almost all in-region sources ofmercury. U.S. EPA approved the Northeast Regional Mercury TMDL in December 2007. We have demonstrated in that TMDL that between 1998 and 2002 the Northeast states have reduced in-region deposition ofmercury by over 70 percent. Further, we have enforceable controls in place to meet the remaining reduction goals. Yet water quality impairments due to atmospheric deposition ofmercury still exist, and elevated mercury levels in certain fish species remain a great concern. A significant reduction in the mercury reaching our waters from sources outside the region is essential. The Northeast states are using the Section 319(g) Petition and associated management conference as the tool to implement the TMDL and control out-of-region sources ofmercury pollution. Itis our beliefthat eliminating our fish consumption advisories deserves to be a national priority addressed through federal programs that will meet the reduction targets in the Northeast Regional Mercury TMDL. We appreciate EPA's consideration ofthis petition and look forward to working with you to set up the management conference. Sincerely, Alicia Good, Rhode Island DEM Chair, NEIWPCC Executive Committee Cc: RobertVarney, EPA Region 1 Alan Steinberg, EPA Region2 Connecticut NEIWPCC Executive Committee Maine 116 John Street Massachusetts Lowell, Massachusetts 01852-1124 New Hampshire [email protected] New York www.neiwpcc.org Rhode Island p: 978-323-7929 Vermont f: 978-323-7919 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY In re: Clean Water Act § 319(g) Petition of the ) States of Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, ) New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the ) No. ________ Commonwealth of Massachusetts ) ) CLEAN WATER ACT § 319(g) PETITION The States of Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Petitioning States), pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1329(g), hereby petition the Administrator to convene an Interstate Management Conference (Conference) of all states contributing significant nonpoint source mercury pollution to the Petitioning States’ waters. “The purpose of such Conference shall be to develop an agreement among such States to reduce the level of pollution…resulting from nonpoint sources and to improve the water quality…” It is the Petitioning States’ goal for the conference to meet designated uses and water quality standards for mercury within their region through the implementation of plant-specific Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) limits for mercury by EPA under Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act. MACT is expected to control power plant emissions by 90 percent using cost-effective and available technologies. 1. The Petitioning States’ waters, fish and other fauna are highly contaminated with mercury. Mercury, particularly methylmercury – the form of mercury found in fish – is an extremely potent neurotoxin. Infants, children, pregnant women, and women of child-bearing age are most at risk from this widespread poison. 2. Each of the Petitioning States has Clean Water Act (CWA) designated uses of fishing and fish consumption for most of their waters. Mercury pollution prevents compliance with these designated uses and with water quality criteria implementing these uses. Consequently, each of the Petitioning States has issued advisories limiting the types and amounts of fish that can be eaten, which constitutes an impairment of waters under Sec. 303(d) of the CWA. 3. Each of the Petitioning States has water quality criteria for mercury in water and/or in fish that, in part, implement water quality standards consistent with Sec. 303(a) of the CWA. Further, states are required under Sec. 303(d) of the CWA to develop Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analyses for all impaired waters. Hence, in fulfilling these legal requirements of the CWA, each Petitioning State is subject to the Northeast Regional Mercury TMDL (TMDL) for mercury impairments in inland waters, which was approved by EPA on December 20, 2007. 4. The TMDL identified mercury from atmospheric deposition as the primary cause of the impairment. Compliance with the TMDL requires a 74 to 91 percent reduction in fish tissue mercury concentrations. For the Petitioning States to meet the reduction targets of the regional mercury TMDL, atmospheric deposition of mercury in the Petitioning States will have to be reduced by at least 98 percent relative to 1998 levels. An interim goal of reducing the deposition of mercury by at least 75 percent by 20 10 has been established. The TMDL goals will 2 be reevaluated at that time to assure its full implementation and compliance. A copy of the TMDL and EPA’s approval document are attached as Exhibits A and B. 5. According to a March 2008 Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) study, based on data from 2002, U.S. sources contribute approximately 30 percent of the atmospheric mercury deposition in the Northeast region. In-region sources contribute approximately one-half of the atmospheric mercury deposition from U.S. sources within the Petitioning States, although individual state contributions vary. Approximately 48 percent of the Petitioning States’ atmospheric mercury deposition from U.S. sources originates from states outside of the region. The out-of-region states with the most significant contributions (and each state’s portion of the deposition attributable to U.S. sources in 2002)∗ are: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (21.7%) State of New Jersey (5.6%) State of Ohio (5.5%) State of West Virginia (3.9%) State of Maryland (3.7%) State of Michigan (2.0%) Commonwealth of Virginia (1.5%) State of Indiana (1.3%) State of Kentucky (1.2%) ∗ Percentages listed in this paragraph and in paragraphs 21, 26, 31, 36, 41, 46, and 51, are based on 2002 data and refer to the portion of atmospheric mercury deposition from U.S. sources that each state contributes to deposition in the region or a particular state. 3 State of North Carolina (1.1%) State of Illinois (0.9%) Other studies are consistent with the findings of this report in terms of the amount and relative importance of atmospheric mercury deposition to the Petitioning-State region from out-of-region sources in the U.S. A copy of the March 2008 NESCAUM Report is attached as Exhibit C. 6. Each Petitioning State has and is implementing stringent programs to control and eliminate in-state sources of mercury pollution to meet TMDL requirements. But because out-of-region mercury significantly contributes to mercury pollution in the Petitioning States, the Petitioning States’ programs alone cannot bring the Petitioning States into compliance with water quality standards and the regional TMDL. The Conference of the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG-ECP) is an organization of the governors of the six New England states and the premiers of the five Eastern Canadian provinces. The governors and premiers collaborate on regional issues and take action on policy areas including the environment, energy, economic development, trade, security, and ocean issues. In 1998, a regional Mercury Action Plan (MAP) developed by representatives of the states and provinces was approved by the NEG-ECP. The MAP identifies steps to address those aspects of the mercury problem in the region that are within the region’s control or influence and sets an overall regional goal to virtually eliminate the discharge of anthropogenic mercury into the environment to ensure that serious or irreversible damage attributable to these sources is not 4 inflicted upon human health and the environment. The MAP set forth goals of 50 percent reduction of regional mercury emissions by 2003, and 75 percent reduction by 2010. In 2003, it was reported that the goal of 50 percent had been exceeded with reductions achieved amounting to approximately 55 percent. When considering only the New England states plus New York State, the emissions reduction in the same time period was approximately 70 percent. This overall reduction was primarily due to an 87 percent reduction in emissions from municipal waste combustors (MWCs), a 97 percent reduction in emissions from medical waste incinerators (MWIs), and a 100 percent reduction in emissions from chlor-alkali facilities. 7. Out-of-region U.S. sources of atmospheric mercury contribute significantly to, and share responsibility for, the toxic mercury in the Petitioning States’ fish and wildlife, and the potential effects on the humans who consume them. The significant mercury pollution from out-of-region sources contributes to both violations
Recommended publications
  • Total Maximum Daily Loads for Bacteria Impaired Waters in Ohio

    Total Maximum Daily Loads for Bacteria Impaired Waters in Ohio

    Division of Surface Water October 2020 Total Maximum Daily Loads for Bacteria Impaired Waters in Ohio The Clean Water Act requires Ohio EPA to prepare a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for watersheds that do not meet water quality goals. A TMDL report, specifies how much pollution must be reduced from various sources and recommends specific actions to achieve these reductions. TMDL Overview Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to list water bodies that do not meet water quality standards (as defined in Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-1) and to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to address the impairment. A TMDL is a plan to restore good health to streams or other water bodies that are not meeting water quality goals. It serves as a roadmap for measures that can be taken to improve water quality. It defines how much pollution exists and identifies sources; specifies the amount of pollution reduction needed to meet water quality goals; and recommends actions that will improve water quality in the streams. Recreation Ohio is a water-rich state, providing many opportunities for recreation in and on its waters. The overall outcome of this TMDL project is to further the Clean Water Act’s “fishable/swimmable” goal. Water quality standards that pertain to recreation use are intended to protect the health of those using surface waters for swimming, boating, wading and other types of water-related activities. Ohio EPA uses the bacterium Escherichia coli (E. coli) as an indicator for the presence of pathogenic bacteria and viruses in a water body as a result of fecal contamination.
  • Regulatory Underkill: the Bush Administration's Insidious

    Regulatory Underkill: the Bush Administration's Insidious

    Regulatory Underkill: The Bush Administration’s Insidious Dismantling of Public Health and Environmental Protections by William Buzbee, Robert Glicksman, Sidney Shapiro and Karen Sokol A Center for Progressive Regulation White Paper October 2004 Introduction The intended and achieved consequence of this effort In the 1960s and early 1970s, Congress passed a series has been a significant weakening, and in some cases a of path-breaking laws to shield public health and the wholesale abandonment, of many of the vital and statutorily environment from the increasingly apparent dangers created mandated health and safety protections upon which by industrial pollution and natural resource destruction. Since Americans have come to rely. that time, regulated corporations have made determined and For example, the Bush administration has: concerted efforts to use their wealth and political power to diminish or even to eliminate various health, environment, • proposed a rule change that would relieve thousands and safety protections. As is documented in the pages that of coal-fired power plants of their obligations to install follow, the Bush administration has granted regulated entities technology that would reduce—by the tons—emissions of unprecedented license in this area, according corporate harmful airborne pollutants that are significant causes of officials de facto policy-making power while excluding the cancer, neurological disorders, asthma, and lung disease; general public from decision-making to the fullest extent • stopped prosecuting lawsuits
  • Conomic Consequences Ercury Toxicity to the Evelo Ln Rain

    Conomic Consequences Ercury Toxicity to the Evelo Ln Rain

    Cl1 conomic Consequences y ercury Toxicity to the evelo ln rain Public ealth and Economic Consequences of ethyl Mercury Toxicity to the evelo in rai Leonardo Trasande, 1,23,4 Philip J. Landrigan, 1,2 and Clyde Schechter5 'Center for Children's Health and the Environment, Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, and ZDepartment of Pediatrics, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA ; 3Division of General Pediatrics, Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; 4Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA ; 5Department of Family Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA U.S. exposure levels. The first of these studies, Methyl mercury is a developmental neurotoxicant . Exposure results principally from consumption a cohort in New Zealand, found a 3-point by pregnant women of seafood contaminated by mercury from anthropogenic (70%) and natural decrement in the Wechsler Intelligence Scale- (30%) sources. Throughout the 1990s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made Revised (WISC-R) full-scale IQ among steady progress in reducing mercury emissions from anthropogenic sources, especially from power children born to women with maternal hair plants, which account for 41% of anthropogenic emissions . However, the U.S. EPA recently pro- mercury concentrations > 6 pg/g (Kjellstrom . posed to slow this progress, citing high costs of pollution abatement. To put into perspective the et al. 1986, 1989) . A second study in the costs of controlling emissions from American power plants, we have estimated the economic costs Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean found of methyl mercury toxicity attributable to mercury from these plants .
  • (Pollutant) Load (Tmdl) Approach for Managing Eutrophication in South African Dams

    (Pollutant) Load (Tmdl) Approach for Managing Eutrophication in South African Dams

    A FEASIBILITY EVALUATION OF THE TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY (POLLUTANT) LOAD (TMDL) APPROACH FOR MANAGING EUTROPHICATION IN SOUTH AFRICAN DAMS Report to the WATER RESEARCH COMMISSION by Dr WR Harding DH Environmental Consulting (Pty) Ltd WRC Report No. 2245/1/15 ISBN 978-1-4312-0673-5 April 2015 Obtainable from Water Research Commission Private Bag X03 GEZINA, 0031 [email protected] or download from www.wrc.org.za DISCLAIMER This report has been reviewed by the Water Research Commission (WRC) and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the WRC nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. © Water Research Commission Roodeplaat Dam (Gauteng, South Africa) on 28 November 2014. With 62% of South Africa’s largest dams eutrophic or hypertrophic (Matthews 2014) the need for nutrient attenuation interventions is long overdue. Catchment-based audits of nutrient generation, such as the Total Mean Daily Load (TMDL) protocol provide a means of identifying and prioritizing load reductions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are (i) a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and (ii) an allocation of that amount to the pollutant's individual sources. The TMDL protocol was developed in the USA in support of the Clean Water Act of 1972. TMDLs can be applied to any pollutant, inter alia bacterial, pathogens, suspended solids, sediments, trace metals and nutrients. The TMDL approach can be applied to both lentic and lotic waters.
  • Clear Skies in Louisiana1

    Clear Skies in Louisiana1

    The information presented here reflects EPA's modeling of the Clear Skies Act of 2002. The Agency is in the process of updating this information to reflect modifications included in the Clear Skies Act of 2003. The revised information will be posted on the Agency's Clear Skies Web site (www.epa.gov/clearskies) as soon as possible. CLEAR SKIES IN LOUISIANA1 Human Health and Environmental Benefits of Clear Skies: Clear Skies would protect human health, improve air 2 quality, and reduce deposition of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury. • Beginning in 2020, over $1 billion of the annual benefits of Clear Skies would occur in Louisiana. Every year, these would include: Clear Skies Benefits Nationwide � approximately 200 fewer premature deaths; � over 100 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis; • In 2020, annual health benefits from � over 7,000 fewer days with asthma attacks reductions in ozone and fine particles � approximately 200 fewer hospitalizations and emergency would total $93 billion, including 12,000 room visits; fewer premature deaths, far outweighing � over 32,000 fewer days of work lost due to respiratory the $6.49 billion cost of the Clear Skies symptoms; and program. � approximately 250,000 fewer total days with respiratory- • Using an alternative methodology results related symptoms. in over 7,000 premature deaths prevented and $11 billion in benefits by • Currently, all parishes in Louisiana are expected to meet the 2020—still exceeding the cost of the annual fine particle standard; 10 parishes are not expected to program.3 meet the 8-hour ozone standard. • Clear Skies would provide an additional � However, based on initial modeling, 3 parishes are $3 billion in benefits due to improved projected to exceed the annual fine particle standard by visibility in National Parks and wilderness 4 2020 under the existing Clean Air Act.
  • Connecticut DEEP Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program Factsheet

    Connecticut DEEP Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program Factsheet

    Connecticut DEEP Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program Factsheet Child Playing in Water Boats in Long Island Sound What is a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)? A TMDL is an Action Plan used to address pollution, kind of like a budget. Any waterbody that is overspending its daily budget for a substance is considered to be polluted or impaired. Any waterbody that is spending less than its daily budget for a substance has good water quality which should be protected. TMDLs provide the framework for restoring impaired waters by establishing the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive without adverse impact to fish, wildlife, recreation, or other uses. A TMDL can also be used to set a budget to protect waters with good water quality. Piece by piece To create a TMDL, the waterbody is cut into pieces known as segments. These segments are like pieces of a puzzle. Each piece is reviewed for available data and pollution levels. A budget is determined for each piece in order to restore or protect water quality. Reaching these goals allows for a waterbody to meet the planned budget. This will reduce pollution and improve water quality. Segment 1 Segment 2 Fix what is broken And protect what is not TMDLs are action plans that provide water quality targets for the waterbody and identifies sources of water pollution. As changes are made to achieve these targets in impaired waters and fixes are implemented, the result will be protection of natural resources and cleaner water. This provides better habitat for fish and safer recreation for people.
  • Clear Skies in Texas 2002

    Clear Skies in Texas 2002

    The information presented here reflects EPA's modeling of the Clear Skies Act of 2002. The Agency is in the process of updating this information to reflect modifications included in the Clear Skies Act of 2003. The revised information will be posted on the Agency's Clear Skies Web site (www.epa.gov/clearskies) as soon as possible. 1 CLEAR SKIES IN TEXAS Human Health and Environmental Benefits of Clear Skies: Clear Skies would protect human health, improve air 2 quality, and reduce deposition of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury. • Beginning in 2020, approximately $3 billion of the annual benefits of Clear Skies would occur in Texas. Every year, these would include: Clear Skies Benefits Nationwide � over 300 fewer premature deaths; � approximately 300 fewer cases of chronic • In 2020, annual health benefits from reductions in bronchitis; ozone and fine particles would total $93 billion, � approximately 19,000 fewer days with asthma including 12,000 fewer premature deaths, far attacks; outweighing the $6.49 billion cost of the Clear � over 400 fewer hospitalizations and emergency Skies program. room visits; • Using an alternative methodology results in over � over 76,000 fewer days of work lost due to 7,000 premature deaths prevented and $11 billion respiratory symptoms; and in benefits by 2020—still exceeding the cost of the 3 � over 610,000 fewer total days with respiratory- program. related symptoms. • Clear Skies would provide an additional $3 billion in benefits due to improved visibility in National Parks • Currently, there is 1 county (Harris County) that is and wilderness areas in 2020.
  • How the Local Implementation of Air Quality Regulations Affects Wildfire Air Policy

    How the Local Implementation of Air Quality Regulations Affects Wildfire Air Policy

    Beyond the Exceptional Events Rule: How the Local Implementation of Air Quality Regulations Affects Wildfire Air Policy Ben Richmond* What can be done about the recent phenomenon of intense wildfire air pollution in the American West? Wildfire science emphasizes the importance of using fire as a natural, regenerative process to maintain forest health and reduce large wildfire air pollution events. But forestry management policy has long emphasized suppressing wildfires, loading forests with fuel and increasing the risk of catastrophic wildfires. As a result, using prescribed fire to restore Western forests and reduce long-term air pollution creates tension with air quality law, because in the short term, prescribed fires will worsen air quality. Despite the exceptional events rule of the Clean Air Act allowing the use of prescribed fire as a wildfire management tool, the local implementation of air quality laws hinders the use of prescribed fire for forest management. Looking to California and more specifically the San Joaquin Valley as a case study, this Note uses new data to show that while land managers and air quality regulators in the San Joaquin Valley have drastically increased their use of prescribed fire, this increase is not sufficient to return the southern Sierra Nevada to a natural fire-adapted ecosystem. Policy makers should pursue even more aggressive options to encourage prescribed fire by modifying the structure of air quality law. Subjecting large wildfires to the requirements of the Clean Air Act would incentivize local air managers to develop plans on how to mitigate the effects of wildfire in the long term.
  • Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Seven Segments of The

    Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Seven Segments of The

    Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Seven Segments of the Chattahoochee River in the Chattahoochee River Basin (PCBs in Fish Tissue) Submitted to: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Atlanta, Georgia Submitted by: The Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Atlanta, Georgia January 2003 Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation January 2003 Chattahoochee River (PCBs in Fish Tissue) Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Watershed Description.................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Impact of PCBs ............................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Water Quality Standard................................................................................................. 2 2.0 AVAILABLE MONITORING DATA..................................................................................... 5 3.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 6 4.0 TMDL DEVELOPMENT APPROACH ................................................................................ 7 5.0 ALLOCATION ...................................................................................................................
  • Appendix C Total Maximum Daily Load Discussion

    Appendix C Total Maximum Daily Load Discussion

    Appendix C Total Maximum Daily Load Discussion REGIONAL NIAGARA RIVER/LAKE ERIE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN (Phase 2) Total Maximum Daily Load What is a TMDL? A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. TMDLs are governed by the Clean Water Act (CWA) under Section 303. More specifically, the EPA regulations define a TMDL as the sum of pollutant loads from point sources (“waste load allocations”) and nonpoint sources (“load allocations”).1 Such loads shall be established at a level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards with seasonal variations and a margin of safety. Water Quality Standard A water quality standard on the other hand is based on use. It is either a narrative standard or numeric criteria set by states that focus on uses of the waterbody. 2 A narrative standard would be swimming or fishing. Setting numeric criteria states the allowable amount, or calculation, of a pollutant in the implementing regulation.3 The use is then backed by calculations of pollutant loads which must be met in order to meet the designated use for a waterbody. Each entity that must discharge a categorized pollutant into a waterbody is able to discharge only a certain amount. This amount is known as its “allocation.” The allocation of each industry or discharger is directed by a permit. Permits are guided by the National Pollution Elimination Discharge System (NPDES). New York State has its own federally-approved program known as the State Pollution Elimination Discharge System (SPDES).
  • Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit

    Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit

    Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit USDA Forest Service, Ottawa National Forest, Bergland Ranger District, Ontonagon County, Michigan T49N, R41W, Section 4, NE ¼ of the S1/2; Section 5, SW1/4; and Section 8, N1/2 Introduction This Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) documents the Forest Service actions for implementation of the Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits project. The Responsible Official for this project is Susanne M. Adams, District Ranger of the Bergland and Ontonagon Ranger Districts on the Ottawa National Forest (ONF). The USDA Forest Service has prepared, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Trans Superior Resources, Inc. - Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permit project. Federal laws and policies require the Forest Service, as the surface managing agency, and BLM, as the agency responsible for sub-surface resources, to consider these applications. The BLM is the permitting agency. The Forest Service is responsible for making recommendations to the Regional Forester, who will provide a response to the BLM. The EA documents the environmental analysis that was completed, and discloses the potential environmental effects of the proposed actions and alternatives to those actions. The EA and its project record are hereby incorporated by reference. Development of the EA is in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508. The EA is available for public review at the Ontonagon District Office and the following website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda- pop.php/?project=38891.
  • Total Maximum Daily Load For: Oak Creek- Headwaters to the Verde River

    Total Maximum Daily Load For: Oak Creek- Headwaters to the Verde River

    Total Maximum Daily Load For: Oak Creek- Headwaters to the Verde River Parameters: Total Phosphorous and Total Nitrogen June 1999 Open File Report 09-05 NOTE: Since initial publication the contact information has been updated. For more information please contact: TMDL Unit Supervisor 602-771-4468 800-234-5677 TDD 602-771-4829 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen in the Oak Creek Basin, Arizona (Including Munds Creek) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 3033 North Central Phoenix, Arizona 85012 June, 1999 Acknowledgments Early project work and sampling completed by Julie Cox, formerly of ADEQ The computer model selection, modeling, and a report titled, AA Watershed Model for Developing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Nutrients in Oak Creek, Arizona - May, 1999@ were completed under agreement 98-0187 by: Stephan J. Nix, Ph.D. - Team Leader Wilbert I. Odem, Ph.D. Hal Voepel of Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, Arizona 86011 and Daniel P. Davis, P.E. Antonio D. Deskins of Moffa and Associates, Inc. 5710 Commons Park Syracuse, New York 13214 This report is available for viewing in its entirety at the Hydrologic Support and Assessment Section, 3rd floor, ADEQ, 3033 N. Central, Phoenix, Arizona. Copies can be made available on request and for a copying fee. Appendices A and B were directly copied from the above report. ACRONYMS ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ALRIS Arizona Land Resource Information System ARCView A GIS system