tdl compliance -- the city of appleton case study

8/9/2019 TDL Compliance -- the City of Appleton Case Study

1/55

TMDL Background and MS4 Implementation

Kevin Kirsch, P.E.

Department of Natural Resources


2/55

Overview Background on TMDLs

Update: TMDLs Under Development and Milwaukee

TMDLs

Background on TMDL Implementation for Permitted MS4s


3/55

What are TMDLs?

The amount of a pollutant a waterbody can receive

and still meet water quality standards

Total Maximum Daily Load =

Load Allocation Waste Load Allocation

+ +

Margin of Safety


4/55

Water Quality StandardsDesignated Uses:

Fish & Aquatic Life

Public Health

RecreationWater Quality Criteria:

Numeric: dissolved oxygen, pH, bacteria, toxic substances,

phosphorus, etc.

Narrative: “no objectionable deposits,” “substances in

concentrations or combinations shall not be harmful to

humans, fish, plants, or other aquatic life.”


5/55

Phosphorus Criteria NR 102.06 Rivers NR 102.06(3)(a) = 100 μg/L

Streams = 75 μg/L

All unidirectional flowing waters not in NR 102.06(3)(a)

Reservoirs

Stratified = 30 μg/L Not Stratified = 40 μg/L

Lakes range from 15-30 μg/L

Lake Michigan =7 μg/L

Lake Superior = 5 μg/L

Exclusions Ephemeral Streams

Wetlands

Lakes


6/55

TMDL AllocationsWaste Load Allocation

WWTPs / POTWs

Industries

MS4s

Non-Metallic Mines

Construction Sites CAFOs

Load Allocation

Agricultural

Biosolids

Manure

Streambanks

Non-permitted Urban

Natural Background


7/55

TMDL Allocation Approach

WPDES PermittedPoint Sources Nonpoint Sources

StatewideRequirements

Existing NR 217

requirements

Alternative limits

Existing NR 151requirements

Target Values for Water Quality

NR 151

agriculturalreductions

Permits

Alternative

NR 151Performance

Measures

Implementationof TMDL Allocations

(not to scale)


8/55

Expression of Allocations

TMDL must express allocations by mass and on a daily

basis (lbs./day).

The TMDL can be implemented on different time steps

such as monthly, seasonal, or annual and can beimplemented for MS4s and nonpoint using percent

reduction approach.


9/55

TMDL Development Steps

Calculate loading capacity and allocations

Draft TMDL & implementation plan Public comment period conducted by DNR

Submit TMDL to EPA for approval

Implementation Planning – can be concurrent or separate

from TMDL development


10/55

Current TMDL Development

1. Wisconsin River Basin Phosphorus

2. Upper Fox-Wolf Basin

Phosphorus and TSS

3. Milwaukee River Basin

Phosphorus, TSS, and

Bacteria

4. Lac Courte Oreilles

Phosphorus

5. Lake Mallalieu

Phosphorus

1

2

3

4

5


11/55

Milwaukee River Basin TMDLsProject Website:

http://www.mmsd.com/waterquality/total-maximum-daily-loads

3rd party TMDL led and funded by MMSD onbehalf of DNR. CDM Smith is the leadconsultant.

TMDLs cover Menomonee, Kinnickinnic, andMilwaukee River watersheds.

Allocations tentatively planned to be presentedat stakeholder meeting in May/June followed byadditional stakeholder meetings.

Project delay due to flow refinements andadjustments of simulated loads needed forspring months in the Milwaukee watershed.

E-mail to join distribution list for updates

[email protected]

http://www.mmsd.com/waterquality/total-maximum-daily-loadshttp://www.mmsd.com/waterquality/total-maximum-daily-loadshttp://www.mmsd.com/waterquality/total-maximum-daily-loadshttp://www.mmsd.com/waterquality/total-maximum-daily-loadshttp://www.mmsd.com/waterquality/total-maximum-daily-loadshttp://www.mmsd.com/waterquality/total-maximum-daily-loadshttp://www.mmsd.com/waterquality/total-maximum-daily-loadshttp://www.mmsd.com/waterquality/total-maximum-daily-loadshttp://www.mmsd.com/waterquality/total-maximum-daily-loads


12/55

• Once EPA has approved a TMDL that contains permitted MS4s, the next

permit issued must contain an expression of the WLAs consistent with the

assumptions and requirements contained in the TMDL.

• Individual WLAs given for permitted MS4s

• A portion of the allocation is set aside to cover general permits

• Storm water construction sites

• Storm water industrial facilities

• Wastewater general permittees (some exceptions)


13/55

1. The aerial extent of the MS4 and its boundary may not match that of

the TMDL due to incorporation of new areas, expansion of the municipal

boundary and non-traditional MS4s (i.e. WisDOT & county highways).

2. TMDLs are rarely able to account for watersheds modified by storm

sewers.

3. Difference between the tools used to create the TMDL versus the

compliance tools used by the MS4 – will not calculate the same mass.


14/55

• Even if the TMDL used SLAMM or P-8 the rainfall record used in the TMDL

will not match that required by NR 151.

• Some of the TMDLs developed in Wisconsin used SWAT or HSPF to

calculate the urban loads


15/55

• Builds on the existing MS4 modeling already required under NR

151 and the municipal wide analysis already conducted to

comply with requirements stipulated in NR 151.13.

• EPA will allow a percent reduction approach because DNR has a

defined no controls scenario and defined climate files used in NR

151.13.

• The usage of a percent reduction framework allows both the

MS4 and DNR the ability to implement the reductions without

having to reallocate and track WLAs across reachsheds, MS4s,

and other land uses.


16/55

• Percent reduction expressed based on regulatory requirements.

• For a TMDL that uses 20% reduction as the baseline loading condition

(TMDLs approved after January 1, 2012) the conversion to the NR 151.13

no-controls modeling condition is:

TSS Percent Reduction = 20 + (0.80 * % control in TMDL)TP Percent Reduction = 15 + (0.85 * % control in TMDL)

• For a TMDL that uses 40% reduction as the baseline loading condition

(TMDLs approved prior to January 1, 2012) the conversion to the no-

controls modeling condition is:

TSS Percent Reduction = 40 + (0.60 * % control in TMDL)

TP Percent Reduction = 27 + (0.73 * % control in TMDL)


17/55

• For the MS4 area contained in each reachshed, the no controls load is

calculated using SLAMM, P-8, or equivalent.

• The MS4 area includes the entire acreage that the MS4 is responsible

for; subtract areas not under the jurisdiction of the permittee.

• The percent reduction calculated to meet the TMDL is applied to the nocontrols load, which provides the mass that needs to be controlled by

the MS4. This mass will be different from that stipulated by the TMDL

WLA.


18/55

• Unlike the requirements contained in NR 151.13, compliance with

TMDL requirements will need to be achieved on a reach by reach basis.

Ultimately water quality standards must be met in-stream at the

compliance point for each reachshed which is the farthest most

downstream point of each reachshed.

• Compliance is with water quality standards. The TMDL reductions are

the best estimate for meeting water quality standards and are modeled

or simulated predictions. Ambient stream monitoring will ultimatelybe required to de-list impaired waters and show compliance with the

TMDL.


19/55

• MS4 permittees will have the primary role in establishing their own

benchmarks for each 5-year permit term. Benchmarks are to be

identified prior to each 5-year permit reissuance.

• It is possible that certain benchmarks will not be easily quantifiable but

there needs to be documentation that achieving such benchmarks will

reduce the discharge of pollutants of concern.

• Under a TMDL, EPA does not acknowledge the concept of maximumextent practicable as defined in s. NR 151.006, Wis. Adm. Code, but

rather compliance schedules can be structured in SWMPs and permits

to allow MS4s time to meet TMDL goals.


20/55

• Once a TMDL is approved, affected MS4 permittees will receive a TMDL

implementation planning requirement in their next (or potentially initial)

permit term.

• It is expected that the 2nd reissuance of an MS4 permit after the TMDL isapproved, that a compliance schedule to meet identified benchmarks will

be included in the MS4 permit.

• The compliance schedule will require that the permittee show continualprogress by meeting ‘benchmarks’ of performance within each permit

term.


21/55

TMDL Compliance -City of Appleton Case Study

Updating a SWMP to Meet TMDL Based Limits

2015 Clean Rivers, Clean Lake Conference

Chuck Boehm, AECOM

Doug Joachim, AECOM


22/55

Agenda

Project Background and Key Concepts

Analysis Process and Lessons Learned

Analysis Results

Implementation Plan

Questions

Page 22


23/55

City of Appleton Stormwater Management History

• Early 1990’s Anticipated Stormwater Permit

• First Stormwater Ponds

‾ 1995 Kensington Pond / Phase 1 of Ballard Road pond

‾ Designs of both before WDNR Technical Standard• Stormwater Utility

‾ Became Effective January 1, 1996 (2nd Utility in Wisconsin)

‾ Funds most aspects of stormwater management and

NR 216 Permit

Page 23


24/55

City of Appleton Stormwater Management History

• 2005 Stormwater Management Plan

• 2006 General Permit Issued

• 2008 Stormwater Management Plan Update

‾ 2008 TSS Removal = 22.5%

Page 24


25/55

2014 Stormwater Plan Update Objectives

• Understand Impact of TMDLs

• Assess compliance with MS4 and TMDL Requirements

‾ Plan Completed before WDNR TMDL Guidance Completed

• TSS and TP by Reachshed

• Evaluate BMPs

‾ Structural BMPs – identified in previous studies

‾ Street Cleaning Alternatives

‾ Emerging Technologies v.s. “Tried and True” • Develop Implementation Plan

• Utilized Stormwater Advisory Committee

Page 25


26/55

New Stormwater Requirements: “TMDL”

• Clean Water Goal is “Fishable and Swimmable”

• The EPA and DNR have defined “clean water” withchemical and biological numeric standards for each

waterbody

• Total Maximum Daily Loads:“The amount of pollution a water body can receive andstill meet water quality standards”

• The Lower Fox River now has TMDLs for sediment andphosphorus

Page 26


27/55

Lower Fox River Basin TMDL

Completed by DNR and Approved by EPA inMarch 2012

TMDL sets “acceptablepollution loads”

Page 27


28/55

Lower Fox River TMDL

Lower Fox River Basin

• 641 square miles

• 27 listed waters forSediment and Phosphorus

• 45 TMDLs

• 29 Municipal StormwaterPermits

• 34 Wastewater Permits

o 20 industrial

o 14 municipal

• 15 Large LivestockOperations

Page 28


29/55


BasinSub-basin

Page 29


30/55


“Baseline”

-TMDL TSS Reduction fromBaseline for Apple CreekReported at 40%

-Assumes 20% TSSReduction (NR 216/151)

“No-controls” - Actual Target Reductionfrom “no-controls” For TSSin Apple Creek for Appleton= 20% + (0.80 * 40%) = 52%

“With-Controls”

-Standard Approach ofBMP Application

-Assumes 15% forPhosphorus Reduction(DNR)

Page 30


31/55

TMDL Pollution: Reduction Targets

Page 31

Duck CreekPollutant TargetTSS 52%

TP 40%

Apple CreekPollutant TargetTSS 52%TP 40%

Fox River (DS)Pollutant TargetTSS 72%TP 40%

Garners CreekPollutant TargetTSS 60%TP 69%

Mud CreekPollutant TargetTSS 43%TP 48%

Fox River (US)Pollutant TargetTSS 72%TP 40%


32/55

Stormwater BMP “Tool Box”

Page 32


33/55

Cost Analysis

Page 33

BMP

Annual Cost

(per Ton of TSS

Removed)

Annual Cost

(per lb of TP

Removed)

Street Cleaning $1,300 - $2,300 $400 - $500

Regional Stormwater Pond $2,500 - $10,100 $500 - $2,000HSD (in Conjunction with StreetReconstruction)

$2,000 - $54,000 (avg. $10,000) $400 - $4,200 (avg. $1,500)

HSD (as Separate Project) $3,000 - $87,000 (avg. $18,000) $700 - $8,200 (avg. $2,600)

Pond Retrofit – EnhancedChemical Treatment

$2,500 - $112,000 (avg. $17,000) $300 - $7,300 (avg. $1,100)

Biofilter $35,000- $65,000 $12,000- $18,000

Permeable Pavement $38,000 - $73,000 $13,000 - $20,000

Includes O&M cost and depreciation where applicable.


34/55

Guiding Principles For Analysis

•Use approved % reduction targets•Use City developed datasets

•Follow WDNR Guidance Documents (as available)

•Implement MS4 and TMDL assessment process

•Evaluate Additional BMPs

Page 34


35/55

Analyzed Area

• NR 151 – MunicipalBoundary andDeveloped Area as of2004

• TMDL – MunicipalBoundary andDeveloped Area at timeof the analysis

Page 35


36/55

TMDL Reachsheds

• NR 151 results reported ona city-wide basis

• TMDL Analysis resultsreported by TMDL

reachshed

• Actual TMDL reachshedboundaries differ from thosein the TMDL

Page 36

Wasteload Allocation

Percent Reduction


37/55

Excluded Areas

• Riparian Areas – Areas that donot drain through the city’sMS4 (Optional)

• Agricultural Areas – Areas

zoned and operating asagriculture (Must be excluded)

• Industrial Permitted Areas – Manufacturing, vehicle

maintenance, materialsstorage areas that arepermitted under NR 216(Optional)

Page 37

Contact WDNR Representativefor up-to-date list:http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Stormwater /data/Industrial/


38/55

Excluded Areas

• WisDOT right-of-way, otherMS4s such as county,university, etc. (Must beexcluded unless agreementis in place)

• Undeveloped areas withinthe municipal boundary are

included unlike previousanalyses

Page 38


39/55

Analysis

• GIS Data – Land use (WinSLAMM standard

land uses)

– Soil type (sand, silt, clay)

– BMP type, location, drainage

area, performance (Regionalwet ponds, HSDs, swales,street cleaning)

– TMDL reachshed boundaries

Page 39


40/55

WinSLAMM Analysis

• Database Method – Combine SLU

loading and BMPreductions outsideWinSLAMM

• WinSLAMMMethod – Done entirely

within WinSLAMM

Page 40


41/55

TMDL Pollution: Existing Pollution Control

Page 41

Duck CreekPollutant Target ExistingTSS 52% 69%

TP 40% 44%

Apple CreekPollutant Target ExistingTSS 52% 80%TP 40% 60%

Fox River (DS)Pollutant Target ExistingTSS 72% 29%TP 40% 20%

Garners CreekPollutant Target ExistingTSS 60% 78%TP 69% 59%

Mud CreekPollutant Target ExistingTSS 43% 21%TP 48% 14%

Fox River (US)Pollutant Target ExistingTSS 72% 18%TP 40% 11%

MS4Pollutant Target Existing

TSS 20% 38%TP NA% 28%


42/55

Proposed Control Practices

• Wet Detention Basins• HSDs

• Enhanced Settling

• Enhanced Street Cleaning

• Biofilters/Porous Pavementon Parking Lots

Page 42


43/55

Duck Creek and Apple Creek – In Compliance

Page 43

Requires

• No New CityFunded BMPs

• Maintenance ofExistingPublic/PrivateBMPs

• BMPImplementation forFutureDevelopment

Duck CreekPollutant Target ExistingTSS 52% 69%TP 40% 44%

Apple CreekPollutant Target ExistingTSS 52% 80%TP 40% 60%


44/55

Garners Creek Alternative BMPs

Page 44

Practices Evaluated1. Enhanced Settling

for Phosphorus

Removal(Kensington Pondonly)

RequiresAdditional TP

Control

BMP TSS (tons/yr) TP (lbs/yr) Capital

1 11 190 $ 945,000

Garners CreekPollutant Target Existing

TSS 60% 78%TP 69% 59%

Garners CreekPollutant Target Existing Potential

TSS 60% 78% 85%TP 69% 59% 78%


45/55

Mud Creek Alternative BMPs

Page 45

Practices Evaluated1. Expanded Street

Cleaning

2. Wet Detention(Northland Avenue)

3. Enhanced Settling(Northland Avenue,Mud Creek South,Crossing Meadow)

4. HSDs (7)5. Biofiltration /

Porous Pavement

RequiresAdditional TSS

and TP Control


1 3 14 $ 25,0002 10 51 $ 2,650,0003 4 46 $ 230,0004 1 2 $ 90,0005 29 86 $19,000,000

47 199 $21,995,000

Mud CreekPollutant Target ExistingTSS 43% 21%TP 48% 14%

Mud CreekPollutant Target Existing PotentialTSS 43% 21% 49%TP 48% 14% 36%


46/55

Lower Fox River (Upstream of Dam) Alternative BMPs

Page 46


Cleaning

2. Wet Detention(Pierce Park,Valley Road)

3. Enhanced Settling(Pierce Park,Valley Road)

4. HSDs (34)5. Biofiltration /

Porous Pavement


and TP Control


1 6 27 $ 50,0002 17 73 $ 1,820,0003 25 162 $ 810,0004 2 13 $ 350,0005 12 42 $ 7,500,000

62 317 $10,530,000

Fox River (US)Pollutant Target ExistingTSS 72% 18%TP 40% 11%

Fox River (US)Pollutant Target Existing PotentialTSS 72% 18% 44%TP 40% 11% 33%


47/55

Lower Fox River (Downstream of Dam) Alternative BMPs

Page 47


Cleaning

2. Wet Detention(Leona Street)

3. Enhanced Settling(Leona Street and6 Existing Ponds)

4. HSDs (62)

5. Biofiltration /Porous Pavement

6. Bellaire RavinePorous Pavement


and TP Control


1 17 74 $ 175,0002 17 80 $ 1,420,0003 25 346 $ 1,730,0004 5 31 $ 670,0005 32 87 $19,500,0006 80 406 $46,000,000

176 1,024 $69,495,000

Fox River (DS)Pollutant Target ExistingTSS 72% 29%TP 40% 20%

Fox River (DS)Pollutant Target Existing PotentialTSS 72% 29% 51%TP 40% 20% 41%


48/55

Compliance Point Internal Trading

Page 48

Apple Creek andGarners CreekExisting Excess

TSS and TP canbe Applied to theLower Fox RiverDownstream ofthe Middle Dam

Compliance Point

Apple CreekPollutant Existing “Excess” TSS 69 tons/yrTP 333 lbs/yr

Garners CreekPollutant Existing “Excess”

TSS 27 tons/yr

Fox River (DS)Pollutant Target Existing PotentialTSS 72% 29% 51%

TP 40% 20% 41%

Fox River (DS)Pollutant Target Existing Potential w/TradingTSS 72% 29% 51% 63%

TP 40% 20% 41% 47%

P TMDL A h T P it C li


49/55

Pre-TMDL Approach To Permit Compliance

Page 49


50/55

TMDL Approach to Continued Compliance

• Benchmarking (Identify interim permit targets)

• Strategic Continual Progress

Page 50


51/55

Appleton’s Proposed Strategy

Each Year

• Continue to implement the other items in the Permit

• Continue to operate and maintain existing practices

• Monitor studies, technology and regulations

• Watch for and act on opportunities

Page 51

A l ’ I l i Pl


52/55

Appleton’s Implementation Plan

• 2014 – 2019

– Northland Pond Land Acquisition/Design/Construction – Leona Street Pond Land Acquisition/Design/Construction

– Mud Creek and WDOT 441 Pond Project Evaluation

– Evaluation of enhanced Phosphorus treatment

– Evaluate possibility of adding private street cleaning contract tosupplement City staff

– Evaluate Stormwater Utility Credit Policy

– Work with WDOT/County Agencies

Page 52

A l t ’ I l t ti Pl


53/55

Appleton’s Implementation Plan

• 2020-2021

– High Efficiency Street Sweeper Upgrade – Update the City-wide Stormwater Management Plan

Page 53


54/55

Page 54

Quest ions and Discuss ion


55/55

Thank You!