Modern nature of earth assets EAEE E4001

Industrial ecology of earth resources eaee e4001 l.jpg
1 / 54
0
0
945 days ago, 289 views
PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presentation Transcript

Slide 1

Mechanical environment of earth assets EAEE E4001 MANAGING THE WATER RESOURCES INVITED LECTURE BY PROF. UPMANU LALL

Slide 2

Decision Analysis Tools for Total Maximum Daily Loads - EPA's Water Quality Management Program Presentation by Prof. Upmanu Lall, Earth and Environmental Engineering

Slide 3

Outline The Playing Field The Clean Water Act, Water Quality and the EPA The Problem Management or Regulation ? Information, Science, Problem Scale and Decisions An Approach Emphasis on Science to bolster Decision Process Bayes Networks + Packaging

Slide 4

Fires tormented the Cuyahoga starting in 1936 when a start from a blow burn lighted coasting garbage and oils. Fires ejected on the waterway a few more times before June 22, 1969, when a stream fire caught national consideration when Time magazine portrayed the Cuyahoga as the stream that "oozes instead of flows" and in which a man "does not suffocate but rather decays." This occasion prodded a torrential slide of contamination control exercises bringing about the Clean Water Act , Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement , and the making of the government and state Environmental Protection Agencies. http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9906/22/saving.cuyahoga/

Slide 6

Key Legislation commanding EPA's part in Water National Environmental Policy Act, 1969 : Environmental Assessments (EA's) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's) for all government exercises Federal Water Pollution Control Act 1972 : Regulates releases of toxins to waters Endangered Species Act, 1973 : Conservation of debilitated/jeopardized plants and creatures and the living spaces in which they are found The Safe Drinking Water Act, 1974, 1996 : Protect the nature of all waters really or conceivably intended for drinking use, whether from over the ground or underground sources . EPA to build up safe norms of immaculateness and required all open water frameworks to conform to essential (wellbeing) benchmarks. State governments, likewise support fulfillment of auxiliary benchmarks (disturbance). The Clean Water Act 1977 : Focus on toxics. EPA inspires power to set profluent norms on an industry premise (innovation based) and water quality guidelines for all contaminants in surface waters. The CWA makes it unlawful for any individual to release any poison from a point source into safe waters unless an allow (NPDES) is acquired. Far reaching Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 1980 : Federal "Superfund" to tidy up uncontrolled or relinquished perilous waste destinations and also mishaps, spills, and other crisis arrivals of poisons and contaminants into the environment The Clean Water Act 1987 : approved subject suit arrangements , and subsidized sewage treatment plants (POTW's) under the Construction Grants Program. EPA can appoint numerous allowing, authoritative, and authorization parts of the law to state governments. Asset Conservation & Recovery Act, 1976, 1986 : Underground Storage Tanks, Non-Haz Waste

Slide 7

EPA

Slide 8

Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses 1994/1996 Using Latest State Information Reported - EPA

Slide 9

Percent of Impaired Waters - 1998 - EPA

Slide 10

Major Water Quality Concerns Today Non-point source Pollution (e.g., Agricultural Sources, Urban Runoff) Nutrients (P, N), Sediment, Stream temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Pathogens, Pesticides Organics in Urban Runoff Eutrophication Endangered Species/Habitat/Riparian Zone , Recreation Impacts Climate Variability and Dynamic Range of Biophysical Processes Rapid Urbanization/Shifts in Land Use Competition amongst Environmental and Agricultural/M&I requests Paucity of Data in Space and Time Limited Understanding of Long Term Impacts in Ephemeral Streams

Slide 11

- EPA Sediments Nutrients Pathogens Dissolved Oxygen Metals Habitat pH Suspended Solids Temperature Flow Alterations Pesticides Noxious Plants Turbidity Fish Contamination Ammonia 0 18 % of Water Segments

Slide 12

Sediment Runoff Potential - 1990-1995 Nitrogen Runoff Potential - 1990 - 1995 Pesticide Runoff Potential - 1990 - 1995 Fish Consumption Advisories - 1997

Slide 13

Key Points TMDLs - legitimate area commands handle - strategy or science issue ? Real Public Sector Expenditures and Urgency - Legal Impetus 40,000 TMDLs @ $100k each = $4 billion EPA cost in 10 yrs There are noteworthy information crevices to try and assess existing conditions Natural climatic inconstancy prompts to short and long range impacts on the scene that confuses the evaluation of silt, supplement, and other between related "burdens" that outcome from changed land utilize hones Various "best" administration hones have been proposed. Little is thought about their viability How can one create administration/direction gets ready for particular watersheds in this environment ? Size of watershed, area of source, Equity

Slide 14

The "Nearby" Decision Problem Collaborative Decision Making as a Watershed Management Approach - The Physical Scientists Role

Slide 15

TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Loads Key perspectives: For every stream achieve recorded for a particular contamination Identify Beneficial Use Identify Sources (point and non-point) & Background Loading Allocate Loads to all Point and Non-Point Sources + Margin Of Safety to such an extent that water quality standard(s) with respect to advantageous utilize assignment are met

Slide 16

Regulatory Constraints Management Goals Stakeholders Management Options Time Point & Time Frame Decision Human Activities Water Bodies Values of Activity Outcomes Eco-ecological State Natural Processes E.g. Atmosphere, Geology Information Scale, Relevance, Availability, Source and Cost Natural State Desired State

Slide 17

Typical "Partners" Regional EPA Offices State Departments of Environmental Quality, Water Rights, Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, Agriculture, Planning and Budget The Western Governors Association (WGA) Federal Land and Resource Managers – e.g., USFS, BLM, USBR, NPS, USFWS, NRCS, USDA, DOE, DOD Association of County Governments and County Planners, Irrigation and Water Conservation Districts, Major Industries and Utilities Environmental Organizations and Action Groups, Farm Groups Information Suppliers: established researchers - Universities and different Researchers

Slide 18

THE TMDL EQUATION according to EPA TMDL = Sum of WLA + Sum of LA + MOS TMDL = WQ Standard for Beneficial Use Designation WLA = Waste Load Allocation for every point source NPDES Permits LA = Load Allocation for each non-point source BMPs MOS = Margin of Safety (e.g. 20% of TMDL) Socio-Economic Factors ? Vulnerability ? Inconstancy ? Create for every "scope". Watershed Sequencing ? Exchanging ?

Slide 19

Current Modeling Approaches Lumped, and spatially circulated recreation models for overland and channel stream era given scene data and climatic time arrangement Associated models for displaying the vehicle, responses, rot and blending of contaminants in a waterway channel as well as non-point source stack era Lumped and spatially disseminated discrete time reenactment models for groundwater stream and transport and surface-water trades "GIS Models" that utilization spatial scene information and straightforward material science or factual ways to deal with gauge mean fluxes at a point or perform discrete time reproductions of the framework given presumptions on exogenous atmosphere and poison application Statistical methodologies in light of direct or nonlinear (counting neural system) relapses to give appraisals of the mean esteem (and change) of burdens and fluxes given particular markers. Measurable pointers of biological state of the watershed Ecological models of living space flow restrictive on exogenous forcings Statistical and dynamical models of financial markets and client inclinations Focus on information and choice inquiries or on unit handle demonstrating ? Do chiefs respond to aftereffects of process reproductions or to the shot of key results ?

Slide 20

Source: Jarrell (1999)

Slide 21

Approach TMDL Management Plan = decipher administrative requirements, contending partner targets into observing framework outline and watershed "operation" methodology given developing information and objectives Focus on Variables/Processes required for choice examination and their interconnections - speak to as a coordinated system Recognize that unit procedure models give intends to interface factors on system Explicitly consider part of common inconstancy and obliviousness in characterizing instability - Bayes arrange Communication - Visualization/Presentation Tools Simcity/Simearth theme with BayesNet giving SimRules Limiting Probabilities versus Time Simulation ?

Slide 22

Margin of Safety - Some considerations Example 1 point & 1 Non-point source Concern : Dissolved Oxygen Riparian Buffer Ranch Natural Area 1 Reach 1 Natural Area 2 Reach 2 Secondary Treatment Beet Factory Natural Area 3 MOS = TMDL - Total Loads FS = DO mean/TMDL Reach 3

Slide 23

DO pdf w/Beet plant just DO pdf w/Ranch just DO mean =6.6 FS=1.34 DO<TMDL 3.5% of time DO mean =7 FS=1.4 DO<TMDL 11% of time DO pdf w/Beet manufacturing plant + farm DO mean =6.2 FS=1.24 DO<TMDL 23% of time The NPS (Ranch) has a higher FS than Beet Factory, yet more regrettable danger of infringement of the standard For the case with both the beet production line and the farm, we have a FS>1, yet the TMDL is damaged 23% of the time. Is this adequate for natural effects ?

Slide 24

DO pdf w/Beet treatment DO pdf w/Riparian Buffer DO mean =7 FS=1. 4 DO<TMDL 12% of time DO mean =7 FS=1.4 DO<TMDL 5% of time DO pdf w/Beet treatment + riparian cradle DO mean =7.2 FS=1.44 DO<TMDL 1% of time The 2 treatment choices exclusively prompt to a similar FS, however the Riparian support prompts to a lower danger of TMDL infringement. Exchanging ? Is a 5% hazard worthy or do we require both opti

SPONSORS