tmdls and phosphorus compliance -...

Reconnaissance, Creative Solutions and Partnerships

TMDLs and Phosphorus Compliance:

SEH, Inc.Airports Architecture Bridges Community Development & Project Funding Community Planning Construction Services Drinking Water Environmental Services Geotechnical Engineering Highway Design

Land Development Landscape Architecture Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Municipal Services Structural Engineering Surveying Traffic Engineering Transportation Planning Urban Design Wastewater Water Resources

Agenda

• Overview of TMDLs & Phosphorus Regulations

• Compliance Options • Take away

https://www.flickr.com/photos/widnr

https://www.flickr.com/photos/widnr

Phosphorus Standards• Est. in 2011

– NR 102– WQ Standards for Phosphorus– NR 217– Implementation of phosphorus standards in WPDES

permits– NR 151– Agricultural performance standards for phosphorus.

• All WPDES permits issued after December 2010 – Compliance schedule = up to 7 to 9 years

• Limits based on one of the following – TBL (Technology Based Limits) – WQBEL (Water Quality Based Effluent Limits)

• limits based on the receiving water– TMDL – watershed based

Building a Better World for All of Us®

Adjusting Phosphorus Limits• TMDL-derived limits• Site-specific criteria:

– less stringent phosphorus limits where water quality goals are being attained despite elevated phosphorus levels

• Variance waters: – surface waters not capable of meeting the

fishable or swimmable goals – some streams have too little flow to support a

healthy fish community


Total Maximum Daily Load• Required for impaired waters under CWA• Amount of pollutant that the watershed can

receive and still meet water quality standardsload allocations (nonpoint sources)

+ waste load allocations (point sources)+ margin of safety

TMDL

• Included in WPDES permits • Municipal Wastewater Dischargers• Industrial Wastewater Dischargers (cheese factories, breweries)• Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4/TMDL)• Non-contact cooling water • Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)


Status of TMDLs


http://dnrmaps.wi.gov/SL/?Viewer=Watershed%20Restoration%20Viewer&layerTheme=statewide%20tmdl

Compliance Options • Variances

– Individual Variance– Multi-discharger Variance

• Adaptive Management• Water Quality Trading• On-site evaluations

– Modeling of existing BMPs– Facility Upgrades (Wastewater dischargers)– New treatment BMPs (MS4/TMDLs)– Consumptive Use


http://dnr.wi.gov/news/mediakits/mk_phosphorus.asp

Variances • Process & submittal

requirements in s. 283, Stats. & NR 200 & 217, Wis. Adm. Code

• Individual Economic Hardship Variance – Site specific analysis– Will it “cause substantial and widespread adverse social and

economic impacts in the area where the permittee is located” – Only for specific permit term (5 yrs)– State standards loosely based on EPA guidance – The application for the variance can occur during either the first or

the second permit term.– Have to do pollution prevention projects


Multi-Discharger variance • Must be approved by EPA

– final package mailed to EPA on March 30, 2016.• DNR/DOA = economic analysis for state• Table to identify the type of permittee that may

be eligible. – Still need to apply and conduct facility/municipal specific

analysis to determine final eligibility

• NOT a free pass– Interim limits- progressively more restrictive – Also must do one of the following –

• Pay $ to county - $50/lb/year over target value• Adaptive Management projects• 3rd party to reduce phosphorus discharge


Multi-Discharger Variance• More streamlined approach

– simplifies the application and review process.– EPA = discretionary review over individual

requests• Watershed improvements

– spelled out for entire state– rather than being site-specific.


http://tony-wilson.com.au/blog/trust-in-teams-pt-ii-the-physiology-of-higher-performance/

Comparisons


EPA’s Water Quality Trading Toolkithttps://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/wqtradingtoolkit.pdf

https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/wqtradingtoolkit.pdf

Adaptive Management • Watershed efforts to reduce phosphorus

– Partnerships to implement BMPs “upstream”• Typically Agricultural Landowners

– In-stream monitoring to show BMPs are working • If not working at the end of 15 yrs, will need to look at

WQ trading or treatment BMPs– Good option if waterbody is close to achieving water

quality standard for phosphorus– More flexible implementation than WQ trading

• Permit compliance timeline extended (15yrs) to identifying and implementing measures


Adaptive Management


http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/SurfaceWater/documents/AdaptiveManagementHandbooksigned.pdf

Examples


http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ia/home/?cid=nrcs142p2_008566

Water Quality Trading • Compliance with discharge limit• Point source (PS) pays someone to achieve

less costly pollutant reduction in watershed. – PS or Non-PS (ag., municipalities)– Limited circumstances a non-PS can buy from

another non-PS• Can be “upstream” or “downstream”• Trade ratios to quantify reductions• Long-term if practice/activity is maintained


Water Quality Trading• Practices must be in place prior to credit use• Not as flexible as adaptive management.

– Agreement to buy credits and practices used to generate credits must be established up front.

– Compliance schedule typically 5 years or less. – Practices must have quantifiable reductions

• May not be a viable compliance option for some due to – Costs– No credit generators in their watershed


Examples• Baker Cheese

– New wastewater treatment facility• Previously trucked waste to WWTP• Had phosphorus limit of 0.075 mg/L & 0.16 lb/d

– New discharge = must achieve P-standards on day 1• Chemical treatment in the facility = discharge at 0.2-0.4

mg/L – Purchased nearby farm fields with phosphorus runoff and

restored the fields to native prairie– Permanent credits generated to help facility meet

discharge limits– Credits placed in annual bank for use

• Use/withdraw credits from bank as needed


John Clancy, Godfrey & Kahn- CSWEA 2016 Government Afffairs Seminarhttp://www.cswea.org/File_Catalog/WISCONSIN/2016_Government_Affairs/5_B_John_Clancy_1035_Baker_Cheese_Example.pdf

Examples• Red Cedar River Nutrient Trading Pilot Program

– City of Cumberland• Paying farmers in the watershed to install BMPs

– Nutrient management planning & no-tillage• More than 60 BMPs purchased• Required to purchase 4,400 pounds of phosphorus credits

per year• Farmers may receive payment for a BMP for 3 years

– Barron Co. LCD = 3rd party facilitator to est. Ks– Trade ratio of 2:1– City has paid $58,000 to remove 31, 500 lbs of P

https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/wqtradingtoolkit_appendices.pdf


https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/wqtradingtoolkit_appendices.pdf

Out of state example• City of Princeton WWTP, Minnesota

– Previously discharge infiltrated into groundwater• Groundwater contamination & high groundwater

– New discharge to Rum River (ORW in MN)• Phosphorus limits strict because of anti-degradation

requirements – To meet the phosphorus limits

• Facility upgrade• Water Quality trading with non-point sources

– Shoreland restoration projects

MS4/TMDL PERMIT OVERVIEW

IMPAIRED WATERBODY EXAMPLE – MASON CREEK

MS4/TMDL ROCK RIVER BASIN MAJOR SUB-BASINS IMPAIRED WATERBODIES

MS4/TMDL PERMITS

• ROCK RIVER BASIN• TOWN OF OCONOMOWOC• TOWN OF MERTON• VILLAGE OF MERTON• CITY OF DELAFIELD• VILLAGE OF SUMMIT

SEH COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE ROCK RIVER BASIN

MS4/TMDL PERMIT OVERVIEW• SECTION 1: APPLICABILITY CRITERIA

MS4/TMDL PERMIT OVERVIEW• SECTION 1: APPLICABILITY CRITERIA

TMDL Required for Impaired waterbodies (Sec. 303d) identified by WDNR & EPA

TMDL generated for all pollutants violating water quality standards for each impaired waterbody

TMDL = ∑WLA + ∑LA + MOS

• WLA = Waste Load Allocation (point sources such as WWTFs, MS4/TMDLs, and general permits)

• LA = Load Allocation (nonpoint sources such as agriculture, forest/wetland, non-permitted urban)

• MOS = Margin of Safety

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP) for MS4/TMDLs has its own WLA, as defined by the TMDL, for each Reachshed of an impaired waterbody

• WATER QUALITY MONITORING

• WATERSHEDS EVALUATED FOR TSS AND TP LOADING USING WINSLAMM

• WATERSHED DELINEATED BASED ON DRAINAGE AREA FOR OUTFALLS AND/OR TREATMENT PRACTICES

• TREATMENT PRACTICES – GRASS SWALES, INFILTRATION AND WET PONDS, FILTER STRIPS, CATCH BASINS AND STREET SWEEPING (ONLY STREETS WITH CURB & GUTTER ARE ELIGIBLE

• WATERSHED CAN BE EXCLUDED FROM MODELING IF:• AREA DOES NOT DRAIN THROUGH MS4/TMDL

• AGRICULTURAL LAND USE

• UNDEVELOPED PARCEL LARGER THAN 5 ACRES

• STATE OR INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION

• OUTSIDE THE URBANIZED AREA FROM DECENNIAL CENSUS

MS4/TMDL PERMIT COMPLIANCE

Reachsheds

Urbanized Area

Modeled Area

Unmodeled Area


• TMDL COMPLIANCE• UPDATED WINSLAMM FILES USED FOR INITIAL WATER QUALITY

STANDARDS REQUIREMENTS (20% TSS REDUCTION)

• INITIALLY MODELED EACH WATERSHED IN WINSLAMM WITH NO CONTROLS

• MODELED EACH WATERSHED WITH CONTROLS

• INCORPORATED ANY BMP’S• SWALES & FILTER STRIPS

• WET PONDS, BIOFILTERS AND CATCH BASINS

• USED WDNR TABLE 2: DESIGN INFILTRATION RATES FOR SOIL TEXTURES RECEIVING STORMWATER – BASED ON RAWLS, 1998

• OUTPUT RESULTS FOR NO CONTROLS & EXISTING CONDITIONS


Reachshed Municipalities within Reachshed

Required TSS % Reduction

Required TP % Reduction

23 Town of Merton 47% 36%

25Oconomowoc

Merton (Town & Village) 59% 74%

55 Merton (Town & Village) 66% 77%

• TMDL % REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS

• BASED ON TMDL WATER QUALITY POLLUTANT LOAD ALLOCATIONS


ReachshedTSS % Reductions TP % Reductions

Required Ocono. T. Merton V. Merton Required Ocono. T. Merton V. MertonID/Fox River - 87.7% 69.6% 58.8% - 86.2% 69.3% 55.3%

23 47% - 63.1% - 36% - 58.0% -25 59% 52.5% 43.5% 83.6% 74% 49.1% 39.6% 75.7%55 66% - 44.3% 66.8% 77% - 39.6% 61.6%

CONSERVATIVE VALUES!

NOTE: ID = INTERNALLY DRAINED


• TMDL ANALYSIS CONTINUED: INFILTROMETER TESTING TOWNS OF OCONO. & MERTON• MAP CREATED WITH RECOMMENDED TEST LOCATIONS, SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY WDNR

• FIELD TESTING CONDUCTED TO GET REAL INFILTRATION RATES

• ALLOWS FOR MORE ACCURATE WINSLAMM MODELING OF TSS & TP REDUCTION

Test Location

Infiltration Rate

Modeled Area

Unmodeled Area

LOW HIGH


Delafield Public Works Bio-Filter

Double-Ring Infiltrometer

INFILTROMETER TESTING OVERVIEWMS4/TMDL PERMIT COMPLIANCE

TMDL COMPLIANCE - CONTINUED REMODELED EACH WATERSHED IN WINSLAMM W/ FIELD TESTED

INFILTRATION RATES FOR BMPs THAT UTILIZE INFILTRATION FOR EVERY REACHSHED TSS & TP % REDUCTION RESULTS

WERE MUCH BETTER – BUT NOT ALL MET REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS


• TOWN OF OCONOMOWOC – STORM WATER MODELING SPREADSHEET


Town of Oconomowoc

ReachshedTSS % Reductions TP % Reductions

Required Unmeasured Infiltration

Measured Infiltration Required Unmeasured

InfiltrationMeasured Infiltration

ID/Fox River - 87.7% 90.6% - 86.2% 89.2%23 47% - - 36% - -25 59% 52.5% 82.3% 74% 49.1% 81.4%55 66% - - 77% - -

Town of Merton

Reachshed

TSS % Reductions TP % Reductions

Required Unmeasured Infiltration

Measured Infiltration Required Unmeasured

InfiltrationMeasured Infiltration

ID/Fox River - 69.6% 81.6% - 69.3% 81.2%23 47% 63.1% 79.3% 36% 58.0% 78.0%25 59% 43.5% 75.3% 74% 39.6% 72.9%55 66% 44.3% 78.5% 77% 39.6% 75.9%

NOTE: ID = INTERNALLY DRAINED

TMDL MODELING – TOWNS OF MERTON & OCONO. MODELED SEPARATELYMS4/TMDL PERMIT COMPLIANCE

THE PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL REQUIREMENT IS NON-COMPLIANT, BUT THE MARGIN WAS DRASTICALLY REDUCED. MINIMAL ADDITIONAL CONTROLS WOULD BE REQUIRED OR THERE IS A POSSIBILITY FOR TRADING TO REACH COMPLIANCE

Reachsheds

Urbanized Area

Modeled Area

Unmodeled Area

• POTENTIAL STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT LOCATION – TOWN MERTON

Infiltration Basin


Infiltration Basin

• POTENTIAL STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT LOCATION – TOWN MERTON


• BMP EXAMPLES TOWN OF MERTON AREA

TOWN OF OCONOMOWOC AREA


MS4/TMDL BMP OVERVIEWBMP OPTIONS GRASSED SWALES WET DETENTION BASINS INFILTRATION BASINS BIO-FILTRATION BASINS FILTER STRIPS CATCH BASINS PROPRIETARY STORMWATER

DEVICES (I.E. STORMCEPTORS,ETC.)

PERVIOUS PAVEMENT STREET CLEANING & LEAF

SWEEPING

MS4/TMDL BMP’SGRASSED SWALES % REDUCTION VARIES WITH

SLOPE, SHAPE, LENGTH & INFILTRATION RATE (SOILS)

% REDUCTIONS OF TSS AND P IN THE 10-95% RANGE

HIGHLY RECOMMEND INFILTROMETER TESTING TO INCREASE WDNR TABLE VALUES FOR INFILTRATION RATES

LONGITUDINAL SLOPES MUST BE < 4%

PRE-TREATMENT NOT REQUIRED

MS4/TMDL BMP’SWET DETENTION BASINS % REDUCTION VARIES WITH SIZE

OF BASIN TO DRAINAGE AREA AND OUTLET DESIGN


BUILD TO WDNR TECH STD. 1001 MUST HAVE 2 FT. CLAY LINERS

AND SAFETY SHELVES MUST BE IN PUBLIC DRAINAGE

EASEMENTS WITH MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS

MS4/TMDL BMP’SINFILTRATION BASINS % REDUCTION VARIES WITH SIZE

OF BASIN TO DRAINAGE AREA AND SOILS


BUILT TO WDNR TECH STD. 1003 MUST HAVE 3 FT. SEPARATION

TO SEASONAL HIGH GROUNDWATER

MUST BE IN PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENTS WITH MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS

PRE-TREATMENT REQUIRED

MS4/TMDL BMP’SBIO-FILTRATION BASINS % REDUCTION VARIES WITH SIZE

OF BASIN TO DRAINAGE AREA AND SOILS

GENERALLY SMALLER WATERSHEDS (<2 AC.)


BUILT TO WDNR TECH STD. 1004 TYPICALLY HAS UNDERDRAIN MUST BE IN PUBLIC DRAINAGE

EASEMENTS WITH MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS

PRE-TREATMENT GENERALLY REQUIRED

MS4/TMDL BMP’SCATCH BASINS & PROPRIETARY DEVICES % REDUCTION VARIES WITH

DRAINAGE AREA. FOLLOW WDNR TECH STD. 1006 GENERALLY SMALLER

WATERSHEDS (<2 AC.) % REDUCTIONS OF TSS AND P

IN THE 8% RANGE FOR CATCH BASINS

% REDUCTIONS IN THE 40-50% RANGE FOR PROPERLY SIZED PROPRIETARY DEVICES

CAN BE ADDED TO ROAD RE-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS TO IMPROVE REDUCTIONS

REQUIRE YEARLY CLEANING

MS4/TMDL BMP’SFILTER STRIPS % REDUCTION VARIES WITH

SLOPE & SLOPE LENGTH GENERALLY SMALLER

WATERSHEDS MUST BE GREATER THAN 10 FT.

IN LENGTH FOR WinSLAMM MODELING

PARKING LOT RUNOFF OR FILL SECTIONS OF RURAL ROADS


MS4/TMDL BMP’SSTREET CLEANING -LEAF SWEEPING % REDUCTION VARIES WITH

SWEEPER AND FREQUENCY OF SWEEPING

GENERALLY NEED A VACUUM SWEEPER, ONCE A WEEK FOR AN EFFECTIVE % REDUCTION

% REDUCTIONS OF TSS IN THE 1-9% RANGE, PER RECENT WDNR STUDY IN MADISON

% REDUCTIONS IN THE 10-20% RANGE MAY BE POSSIBLE WITH AGGRESSIVE SWEEPING WITH MODERN VACUUM SWEEPERS

MS4/TMDL BMP’SPERMEABLE PAVEMENT USE WDNR TECH STD. 1008 GENERALLY SMALLER

WATERSHEDS PAVERS, CONCRETE, ASPHALT

& PROPRIETARY SYSTEMS (SPANCRETE, PAVE-DRAIN, ETC.)

PARKING LOT RUNOFF, OR EDGE OF ROADWAYS

POTENTIAL FOR ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

% REDUCTIONS OF TSS AND P IN THE 65-35% RANGE, RESPECTIVELY

MAINTENANCE REQUIRED (VACUUM)

MS4/TMDL PERMIT SUMMARY• TMDL’S DO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON AN MS4 AND

HOW IT IS EVALUATED• MAKE SURE TO TAKE CREDIT FOR ALL EXISTING BMP’S IN A

WATERSHED• LOOK FOR ANY PRIVATE BMP’S AND DISCUSS EASEMENTS WITH

THE OWNERS• MAKE SURE TO COMPLETE INFILTROMETER TESTING TO

INCREASE INFILTRATION RATES OF SWALES AND BASINS• LOOK FOR WAYS TO INCREASE INFILTRATION OPPORTUNITIES

WITH GRASSED SWALES AND FILTER STRIPS

WWTP Facility Upgrades • Analysis of existing operations

– Facilities with tertiary treatment• Pilot testing shows they can typically get close

– Optimization of processes & increased use of chemicals

– Facilities with no tertiary treatment• May need upgrades at significant cost if on impaired

waterway• Consider requesting a revised 7Q10 flow from USGS

if stream is below criteria to gain maximum dilution factor possible

Consumptive Use• Consumptive use

– potential users of water that may be able to use treated wastewater as a substitute water source.

– Water = “consumed” by evaporation, or incorporation into a product or discharge to somewhere other than the waterway ≠ phosphorus standards.

– Site specific – Examples

• Wash water for Frac sand• Irrigation • Concrete products (watch chloride content)

What we’re hearing• Adaptive management

– If the stream doesn’t meet criteria, must look at other options

• Legacy Phosphorus? -Dane County LCD http://www.cswea.org/File_Catalog/WISCONSIN/2016_Government_Affairs/3_John_Reimer_940_Implications_of_Legacy_Phosphorus_in_Sediment.pdf

• Can’t control other land use practices upstream

• Adaptive management & water quality trading– Long-term management & oversite

http://www.cswea.org/File_Catalog/WISCONSIN/2016_Government_Affairs/3_John_Reimer_940_Implications_of_Legacy_Phosphorus_in_Sediment.pdf

tmdls and phosphorus compliance -...

Documents