Nationwide Permit Status - 2012

~14,500 municipal

Will change significantly in next few years!

Art K. Umble PhD, PE, BCEEGlobal Wastewater Practice Leader

States with Active Trading Programs

2

Statewide in place

Statewide in development

Watershed-specific

No program in place

Point - Point

Point – Nonpoint

Nonpoint – Nonpoint

Source: USEPA 2014

WI

MO

~80% of all tradeshave been in theLong Island Sound

Watersheds with Active Trading Credit Programs Funded by USEPA

3

Source: USEPA 2014

Currently 49trading programsin US active, and/ordeveloping

Facility Size Matters

Wisconsin DNR, 2015

Wisconsin

Small plants needWQT opportunities

Most Viable Trade Situations

• Best Trading Opportunities• Smaller facilities have the largest

demand for credits

• Substantial upstream agricultural watershed

Stro

ng

Op

po

rtu

nit

y

Wea

k O

pp

ort

un

ity

• WQ Modeling: major source of uncertainty in TMDL process• Affects trade outcomes

• No evidence that outcome of trades between WWTPs significantly increase uncertainty in attainment of environmental objectives, as compared with command and control regulation (e.g., NPDES permits)

6

What About the Uncertainty?

Kardos, Josef S. and Christopher C. Obropta, 2011. Water Quality Model Uncertainty Analysis of a Point-PointSource Phosphorus Trading Program. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 47(6):1317–1337

7

What About the Uncertainty?

Kardos, Josef S. and Christopher C. Obropta, 2011. Water Quality Model Uncertainty Analysis of a Point-PointSource Phosphorus Trading Program. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 47(6):1317–1337

Baseline Scenario =no trading

Modeling of non-tidalPassaic River Valleyresulted in parity fromimprovements, with nohot spots for worst casescenario

Other State Programs

• Maryland• Phase I: Point-to-Point – 2008• Phase II: Point-to-Nonpoint - 2008• Pilot trading – 2009• Web-based trading tool – 2009

• Missouri• Watershed Permitting Initiative

promoted in 2011• WQT proposed as tool• South Fork River Basin: Point-to-

Nonpoint• Spring River Basin: Point-to-Nonpoint

• Pennsylvania• Initial the Watershed Implementation

Plan (WIP) program – 2005• One of the first in country to include

nonpoint source loads from agriculture

• One of the first to issue RFPs to agriculturalists for conservation measures

• EPA objected to DEP’s NPDES permits in 2014 due to arguments over agricultural load allocations for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL

Wabash River Basin Case Study:Water Quality Trading Program

• Establish the Unit Costs for Reduction Credits

9

TP Annual Cost Cost/lbs TP

Fermenter with Alum & Filters 0.1 mg/L 504,632$ 8.50$

Mult Point Alum & Filters 0.1 mg/L 653,054$ 11.00$

EBPR + Multi Point Alum & Filters 0.1 mg/L 1,721,904$ 29.01$

Upgraded Process

TN Annual Cost Cost/lbs TN

MLE Retrofit 3 mg/L 554,106$ 1.65$

Step Feed Retrofit 3 mg/L 554,106$ 1.65$

Denitrification Filters 3 mg/L 1,048,844$ 3.13$

Upgraded Process

*Costs projected for 5 MGD

Pollution ReductionCredit Market Value

Wabash River Basin Case Study:Water Quality Trading ProgramDetermine Reduction Potential of Conservation Practices

• Sets the CREDIT SUPPLY from producers

• Best Management Practices most commonly applied

10

Photo credits: Ohio NRCS;Dan Brisebios (2012)

No-till Farming

Grass Filter StripsCover Crop Farming

TN & TP Removal efficiencies range from 10% - 25%

Typical Loads from row agriculture:TN ~ 30 lbs/ac; TP ~ 3 lbs/ac

Basis for negotiation ofexchange agreement