S-36. MPCA SONAR Exhibit # 36.

Transcription

1 MPCA SONAR Exhibit # 36. S-36 Myrbo, A., E.B. Swain, N.W. Johnson, D. R. Engstrom, J. Pastor, B. Dewey, P. Monson, J. Brenner, M. Dykhuizen Shore, and E.B. Peters. Increase in nutrients, mercury, and methylmercury as a consequence of elevated sulfate reduction to sulfide in experimental wetland mesocosms. (submitted 2017) Exhibit 36 is not publicly posted on the MPCA Web page due to copyright protection laws. The document is available by request to the MPCA by contacting Carol Nankivel at or at MinnRule7050.pca@state.mn.us wq-rule4-15t

2 S-37 Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota (Version 1.0) November 2015

3 S-37 Table of Contents Abbreviations used (in alphabetical order)... ii Overview...1 Unique standard requires specialized staff and watershed based approach... 2 Background...2 Historical note... 2 Statewide river monitoring network... 3 Unique frequency and duration of river eutrophication standards... 5 Process Overview...6 Limit implementation procedures and examples...9 Rivers: (Steps 1-5) Stabilization Ponds New and expanding facilities Step 1: Water quality data review Step 2: Protection analysis, response potential analysis and reasonable potential analysis Step 3: Wasteload allocation calculation: mass balance approach, water quality model or TMDL/WRAPS Step 4: Converting WLA to permit effluent limit Step 5: Verify final limits (multiple downstream endpoints and seasonal considerations) Seasonal consideration for state discharge requirements (new and expanding facilities) Lakes: (Steps 1-5) Step 1: Data assessment Step 2: Reasonable potential Step 3: Wasteload allocations Step 4: Conversion of WLA to effluent limits Step 5: Verify final effluent limits References Appendices Appendix A. Special considerations for municipal pond facilities Appendix B. Response potential for facilities discharging to rivers with elevated TP and response criteria that meet RES Appendix C. Additional ambient monitoring considerations for river eutrophication standards Appendix D. Examples of current background TP concentration at 80% exceeds flow (C S ) Appendix E. Simplified river examples Appendix F. Phosphorus Management Plan/WWTF optimization wq-wwprm2-15 i

4 Abbreviations used (in alphabetical order) ADWDF: average dry weather design flow AUID: assessment unit identification AWWDF: average wet weather design flow BATHTUB: lake nutrient model BOD: biological oxygen demand BPJ: best professional judgement Chl-a: chlorophyll-a DO: dissolved oxygen DO flux: dissolved oxygen fluctuation FLUX: river nutrients loading model EPA: US Environmental Protection Agency HUC: Hydrologic Unit Code I/I: infiltration/inflow (analysis) IBI: index of biological integrity IWM: intensive watershed monitoring LES: lake eutrophication standards MDF: maximum design flow MnTAP: Minnesota Technical Assistance Program NPDES: national pollutant discharge elimination system PMP: phosphorus management plan RES: river eutrophication standards RP: reasonable potential SDR: state discharge restriction SID: stressor identification TBEL: technology based effluent limit TMDL: total maximum daily load TP: total phosphorus TSD: technical support document USGS: U.S. Geological Survey WLA: wasteload allocation WQBEL: water quality based effluent limit WRAPS: watershed restoration and protection strategy WWTF: wastewater treatment facility S-37 ii

5 Overview This document is an overview of the procedures for assigning total phosphorus (TP) limits and requirements consistent with Minnesota s recently adopted river eutrophication standards (RES) for national pollution discharge elimination system (NPDES) wastewater permits. The document will briefly discuss lake eutrophication standards, but the focus is on eutrophication standards for rivers and streams (rivers and streams will be collectively be referred to as rivers from this point on). The intent of RES is to protect aquatic life from the negative impacts of elevated suspended algal levels. Minnesota s RES include both a cause criterion (i.e. total phosphorus) and response criteria [i.e. daily dissolved oxygen fluctuation (DO Flux), biological oxygen demand (BOD), and chlorophyll-a (Chl-a)] instead of a single criterion/pollutant like toxics (MPCA 2012, 2013) Phosphorus 1, in itself, is not toxic at levels discharged by wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) and is an essential nutrient in aquatic ecosystems. However, when TP exceeds the RES criterion, negative impacts can be observed during summer when water temperatures and other factors such as residence time, shading, depth and transparency are conducive to excessive algal growth. The response criteria provide the linkage to the nuisance condition, excess suspended algae. The inclusions of response criteria with RES requires more monitoring data and a more complicated process for establishing effluent limits, rather than if the RES only included a cause criterion. RES based effluent limits will be based on river monitoring locations with sufficient data for both the cause criterion and at least one response criterion. A RES effluent limit analysis will be completed for WWTFs upstream of these monitoring locations. When both the cause and a response criteria are exceeded (i.e. exceeds RES), the cause criterion becomes the basis for establishing effluent limits and reasonable potential (RP) analysis is completed. When neither the cause nor response criteria are exceeded, the focus is on protecting for the cause criterion, and protection potential analysis is completed. The most complicated situation for effluent limit reviewers is when the cause criterion is exceeded and the response criteria are not exceeded. In such cases, effluent limit reviewers will complete response potential analysis and consider downstream surface waters (Appendix B). S-37 This document is not intended to provide methods for completing stressor identification (SID). Some of Minnesota s water quality standards are designed to identify water quality problems but do not explicitly identify a causal agent. Impairments of this nature may include; biological impairments as described by fish or invertebrate index of biological integrity (IBI) scores, low DO, which is different than the RES response criterion DO Flux, and periphyton. Phosphorus in each circumstance could, ultimately, be a stressor either by itself or in combination with a suite of other pollutants or physical conditions. Once stressors are identified, one must also determine the pollutant load reduction necessary to meet standards prior to setting wasteload allocations or effluent limits. Development of wasteload allocations and subsequent effluent limits on the basis of these impairments is a complicated and time consuming process that is outside of the scope of the permitting program. Nonetheless, TP limits may be derived from wasteload allocations (WLAs) in total maximum daily load (TMDL) studies or watershed restoration and protection strategies (WRAPS). 1 Phosphorus is often dosed in drinking water at an order of magnitude higher than the RES TP criterion. Municipalities that add phosphorus at their water treatment plant may be required to remove phosphorus at the wastewater treatment plant. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

6 Unique standard requires specialized staff and watershed based approach Specialized effluent limit reviewers with experience in limnology and water-quality models will be needed to establish eutrophication based effluent limits. TP effluent limit setters will use best professional judgement (BPJ) to complete watershed based batches of eutrophication limits and requirements. The procedures outlined in this document are meant to guide TP effluent limit reviewers rather than eliminate flexibility when establishing effluent limits for the unique combination of NPDES permittees and rivers in Minnesota. For most pollutants, limits are set on the basis of conditions in the immediate receiving water. For eutrophication, limits may be reviewed on the basis of water quality in number of downstream waters. The history of eutrophication standards in Minnesota provides some context to this temporal complexity. Background Historical note S-37 Since 2008, MPCA has set effluent limits for WWTFs upstream of lakes and reservoirs consistent with lake eutrophication standards (Figure 1). The experience of setting effluent limits for lakes serves as a template of setting effluent limits for RES. This document will briefly summarize the effluent limit setting process for facilities upstream of lakes in the final section of the main document. The process is similar for both lakes and rivers, but some of the calculations for RP and wasteload allocations are different. In many cases, WWTFs may have rivers and lakes downstream of their outfalls requiring effluent limit reviewers to set limits that are protective of multiple surface waters. Many facilities in Minnesota have been issued TP water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) to protect distant lakes such as Lake Pepin. This has resulted in dramatic reductions of TP discharged to Minnesota s rivers. The WWTFs in Minnesota have already reduced TP loads by 70% due to LES, technology based effluent limit (TBELs) and TMDLs. The adoption of RES cannot have the same impact as lake standards in terms of overall reduction of actual point source loads from pre-2002 levels. In some cases, the significant progress from previous efforts achieved in rivers draining to lakes is sufficient to be consistent with RES at local reaches downstream of WWTFs. In other cases, limits set from previous efforts may not be sufficient to protect local rivers and more restrictive limits will be needed. The adoption of RES will insure that rivers without downstream lakes are also evaluated for eutrophication standards. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

7 S-37 Figure 1. Areas in Minnesota where rivers will be the primary focus of TP effluent limit setting process along with areas upstream of eutrophication impaired lakes that may also be assessed for river eutrophication standards. Statewide river monitoring network Minnesota s robust watershed monitoring program along with data from other sources will have sufficient cause and response criterion monitoring at approximately 400 river monitoring stations statewide to assess the eutrophication status of rivers at the writing of this document. Minnesota will monitor all of its 81 watersheds over a 10-yr period. This will include TP and response criteria monitoring at the outlet of the watershed along with additional HUC 11 sized streams with favorable characteristics for growing suspended algae 2. In a limited number of situations, monitoring will be adjusted to assess the impact of larger WWTFs on the eutrophication status of rivers not captured by the general monitoring network consistent with the 10-yr monitoring cycle of MPCA (Appendix C). A preliminary analysis of existing TP and Chl-a data for rivers was completed to illustrate the extent of rivers exceeding RES in Minnesota. Minnesota s statewide nutrient reduction strategy has extensive discussion of this analysis (MPCA, 2014a). Figure 2 illustrates the river reaches potentially impaired for RES along with lakesheds of the lakes currently listed on the state s 303(d) list of impaired waters for eutrophication. It is quite obvious that the potential eutrophication statuses of rivers in Minnesota are variable and the lakesheds of impaired lakes cover a large portion of the state. Recent monitoring from 2 Hydrologic unit code (HUC). United States Geological Survey (USGS) system for cataloging watersheds based on drainage size and relative location. For reference, HUC 8 watersheds drain approximately 1,200 to 1,500 square miles. HUC 11 watersheds drain approximately 150 square miles. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

8 S-37 the past three years will add additional data information to this graphic. It is quite apparent that many of the WWTFs in Minnesota are upstream of a current lake impairment or potential river eutrophication impairment. Figure 2. Lakesheds of eutrophication impaired lakes along with potential status of rivers with sufficient data to assess for river eutrophication standards. Data for rivers through Figure will be updated after statewide assessment for RES in Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

9 S-37 Unique frequency and duration of river eutrophication standards The frequency and duration of RES are unique from most of Minnesota s water quality standards. The RES are based on a long-term summer average concentrations over multiple years instead of a do not exceed threshold common with toxic pollutants. When assessing the status of a stream for an impairment using toxic pollutants, the 4-day average concentration of the toxic parameter is only allowed to exceed the standard once in a three year assessment period. US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA s) TSD based method is an expedient method designed to set WQBELs in timely manner for toxic pollutants. The technical support document (TSD) method is simply a dilution equation at a critical flow threshold. This works well for toxic pollutants that are problematic at low flows when dilution is minimal. TP; however, must be linked to a response criterion, and RES are measured as a long-term summer average. When MPCA promulgated RES, it also adopted some important rule language to guide the implementation of TP WQBELs for eutrophication standards. Minn. Rule Subpart 7.C. contains the following text: Discharges of total phosphorus in sewage, industrial waste, or other wastes must be controlled so that the eutrophication water quality standard is maintained for the longterm summer concentration of total phosphorus, when averaged over all flows, except where a specific flow is identified in chapter When setting the effluent limit for total phosphorus, the commissioner shall consider the discharger's efforts to control phosphorus as well as reductions from other sources, including nonpoint and runoff from permitted municipal storm water discharges. The intent of this language was to characterize the unique frequency and duration of eutrophication standards and to recognize the impact of other sources of TP to Minnesota s lakes and rivers. The consideration of reductions from other sources is very prevalent in eutrophication TMDLs. This intent of this language has not served as a free pass for WWTFs upstream of eutrophication impaired rivers and lakes. In fact, a final monthly limit of mg/l TP was issued to Virginia WWTF since it was the primary source of TP to eutrophication impaired Lake Manganika. MPCA has invested considerable effort and funds to collect monitoring data and develop water quality models necessary to calculate defensible WQBELs for eutrophication standards. TMDLs for RES and LES will utilize load duration curves and various models to develop wasteload allocations for WWTFs upstream of eutrophication impaired rivers and lakes. These models cover a wide range of summer flow conditions for several years in most cases. MPCA plans to utilize multiple methods for establishing TP WQBELs for RES including, but not limited to, a modified TSD-based approach, load duration curves and water quality models. Some examples of these methods will be discussed later in the document (Appendix E). Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

10 Process Overview S-37 The individual limits and requirements for WWTFs will be contained in watershed (HUC 8 size) memorandums. Within the watershed memorandums, multiple downstream reaches are considered since TP is generally considered conservative in surface waters. This creates considerable possible combinations of receiving waters categories and RES based effluent limit outcomes downstream of a WWTF of interest. Several examples will be discussed later in the document to describe the limit and permit requirements for a WWTF upstream of hypothetical rivers of varying RES categories (Appendix E). The MPCA developed a flow diagram to illustrate the complicated process of assigning RES based TP limits and requirements that are not independent of other limits/requirements impacting TP levels from WWTFs such as annual lake eutrophication based limits (Figure 3). WWTFs will discharge to rivers within the following general categories below. Colors associated with headings correspond to river condition categories (Error! Reference source not found.). Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

11 S-37 Figure 3. General process for reviewing phosphorus effluent limits for RES in Minnesota. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

12 S Insufficient data for response criteria a. Base limits and strategies on downstream waters i. This reach will likely be upstream of one of the other 3 categories listed or a lake b. Use BPJ to develop monitoring scheme for receiving waters c. Risk of more restrictive limits in the future if response found in current reach with insufficient data 2. Meeting RES (both cause and response below criteria) a. Do protection analysis to determine if facility at design flow (70% of AWWDF for municipals) would cause TP to exceed criterion b. Protection strategies i. When protection analysis indicates TP criterion could be exceeded at design flow calculate WLA based on TP criterion and translate to an effluent limit ii. Phosphorus Management Plans (PMP) when protection analysis indicates TP criterion would not be exceeded at design flow (Appendix F). 3. Exceeding RES (both cause and response exceed criteria) a. Determine if RP exists i. Likely in most river situations if effluent concentration exceeds TP criterion a. If facility has RP to contribute, then calculate WLA based on TP criterion with one of the following methods i. TMDL (draft or approved) ii. Available modeling results iii. Mass balance approach at 80 % exceeds flow b. Translate WLA into effluent limit 4. Meeting RES (elevated cause with response below criteria) a. Stream characteristics are muting response in the river i. Evaluate response potential (Appendix B). b. When response potential analysis indicates response criteria could be exceeded at design flow, then assign limit to freeze discharge at current actual discharge to continue to meet the response criteria at the local reach c. Move to downstream water until find a reach in Category 2 or 3 If downstream waters or basin plans require limits, then there will likely be reduced TP from the WWTF to the immediate reach. There are three general RES based effluent limit outcomes in the RES flow diagram: A WQBEL. RP or protection potential for a local or downstream river exists. A WQBEL for local or distant reach would result in TP meeting the TP criterion at the reach of concern. Examining limits for additional downstream rivers is generally not needed in this situation. a. Example: WWTF issued a 0.63 mg/l monthly WQBEL due to response above response criterion in local river. The limit would result in concentration of mg/l in a river during the critical 80% exceeds flow. The cause criterion for this example is mg/l. b. PMPs, state discharge requirements, basin plans and optimization plans may be required for these facilities. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

13 B Mass Cap. Response potential indicates the additional TP loading from the facility may result in a response above the RES criteria at local or downstream reach. Since the existing actual discharge from WWTF does not cause a response above the criterion, a TP mass freeze will insure current conditions are maintained. a. Example: The cause criterion for this example is mg/l TP and the response criterion is 18 µg/l Chl-a. The current effluent from the WWTF is 10 kg TP/day which equates to a TP concentration of mg/l in a local river during the critical 80% exceeds flow. Existing response of the local river is 16 µg/l Chl-a based on three years of monitoring data. Summer average Chl-a is not exceeding but is certainly near the response criterion, which suggests there is some potential for additional algae growth if phosphorus loading significantly increases. Based on the current design of the WWTF, the WWTF could discharge 60 kg/day which equates to a TP concentration of mg/l in a local river during the critical 80% exceeds flow. The TP effluent limit staff examined the existing TP and Chl-a data and concluded based on BPJ that an increase of TP from at during low flow would likely increase Chl-a (i.e. response potential). The WWTF is issued a 21.0 kg/day (10 kg/day x 2.1 monthly limit multiplier) monthly mass cap due to the potential exceedance of the response criterion in the local river. b. PMPs, state discharge requirements, basin plans and optimization plans may be required for these facilities. C. Keep existing limits. The existing discharge from the WWTF at existing limits and design flow (70% of AWWDF for municipals) does not trip RP, protection potential or response potential. a. Facilities that discharge at or below the TP criterion are often included in this Category. Typically only certain types of industrial facilities can discharge below the TP criterion without additional treatment works. b. Includes scenarios where all rivers downstream of discharge have elevated TP but no monitored response above criteria and no response potential. Basin strategies may require TP load reduction from WWTFs in these situations. iii. This sub-category is most common in the Red River Basin. D. PMPs, state discharge requirements (SDRs), basin plans and optimization plans may be required for these facilities Additional considerations and requirements When multiple WWTFs contribute to a river, each WWTF will receive a portion of the overall WLA based on BPJ. Effluent limit staff will combine the RES based TP outcomes or limits which generally apply from June to September with the additional considerations that generally require annual TP management at WWTFs (PMPs, TMDLs, WRAPS, SIDs, SDRs and optimization plans). Optimization plans and PMPs will be considered in the process after the RES based limit analysis is completed. Limit implementation procedures and examples S-37 The overall process of establishing effluent limits requires five critical steps. The first step requires the effluent limit staff to examine available river water quality data near and downstream of the outfall of the WWTF of concern. This includes the analysis of both TP and response criterion data. The second step requires the effluent limit setter to determine if the WWTF has potential to cause or contribute to a eutrophication impairment. This may include multiple reaches downstream of the WWTF of concern. The third step is the calculation of the WLA for the WWTF. The fourth step is the translation of the WLA into a WQBEL for the WWTF. Finally, the effluent limit setter must compare WQBELs for all applicable downstream surface waters to determine which effluent limits and other requirements should be included in the NPDES permit. The remainder of the document will outline these five steps. If a Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

14 S-37 particular situation for a certain group of WWTFs is not covered in this document, procedures for this unique situation will be developed and added to an updated version. Rivers: (Steps 1-5) Stabilization Ponds Steps 2 through 4 require unique considerations for stabilization ponds. The main body of the document will focus on continuous dischargers while specific considerations for controlled discharge stabilization pond facilities will be covered in Appendix A. New and expanding facilities The procedures in this section are applicable to new and expanding WWTFs, but the procedures do not specifically address additional permitting considerations such as nondegradation/antidegradation and pollutant trading (Pre-TMDL Phosphorus Trading Permitting Strategy) for new and expanding facilities. TP effluent limit reviews for new and expanding facilities will be evaluated on a case by case basis. The individual reviews for new facilities will need to be compatible with the watershed review for the location of where the new facility is planned. Step 1: Water quality data review The first step of the TP effluent limit review is to assess and categorize the current eutrophication status of the receiving waters at and downstream of the WWTF outfall (Figure 3). As discussed earlier, Minnesota s RES include both a cause criterion (i.e. TP) and response criteria (i.e. Chl-a, BOD, and daily DO flux) (Table 1). Effluent limit reviewers will generally examine the past 10 3 years of data for receiving waters upstream and downstream of a given WWTF to determine the long-term summer averages for TP, Chl-a and BOD. The data for DO flux are often collected during continuous water-quality sensor deployments for one or two week periods. The procedures for summarizing RES data will be detailed in an assessment guidance document for RES (MPCA, in draft). The MPCA plans to conduct a statewide assessment of rivers for RES in the fall of Draft minimum sample numbers for a river reach assessment unit identification code (AUID) for TP, Chl-a, and BOD are two summers with a minimum of 12 samples overall. Stations with fewer samples than the minimum requirements can inform the effluent limiting process, but downstream stations with sufficient datasets will be the basis of the effluent limit calculations. Table 1. River eutrophication criteria by River Nutrient Region for Minnesota. Nutrient Stressors Region TP μg/l Chl-a μg/l DO flux mg/l BOD 5 mg/l North Central South Recent reductions in point source TP loads from 2006 to the present have resulted in lower TP during low flow conditions in several rivers in Minnesota. This has likely resulted in less algal production during low flow conditions. Effluent limit setters should focus on impact of point source reductions on TP and response criterion data before and after point source TP reductions. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

15 S-37 Effluent limit reviewers will need to review available RES data when a recent 303(d) assessment is not available for a river of interest. The water-quality monitoring plans for rivers in Minnesota are variable depending on the goals of the given station and/or monitoring agency. For consistent, equal interval sampling stations, (e.g. 2 times per month) simple averages will be sufficient to assess the status of streams in regards to RES. Calculating simple averages will be the first step for all AUIDs. Many of the monitoring stations in Minnesota have event based sampling schemes to monitor TP concentration and loads during high flow events. For event based stations, monitoring staff collect the majority of samples during rising and falling river levels after storm events in summer. A smaller number of samples are collected during base flow conditions. A straight arithmetic mean of event based sampling will be biased towards high flow sampling. MPCA has considered several techniques to calculate a mean that is more representative of the long-term mean from flow weighted sampling. The effluent limit setter should use BPJ when selecting one of the following averaging techniques (not listed in order of preference): 1. Time weighted average a. Samples are given more weight as the gap between samples widens 2. Average by month then by summer a. All months with samples receive equal weighting b. June often has the most samples 3. Average modeled daily values a. HSPF, FLUX and other tools can be calibrated to estimate all summer days 4. Average by flow zone based on load duration curve type analysis a. Data are divided into equal flow zone intervals b. Take average by flow zone then overall average c. This technique is best with a minimum of 10 years of flow monitoring to calculate flow zones 5. Average paired TP and response criterion sampling dates a. Response criteria are typically not sampled during all event samples for TP b. Removing TP only samples removes bias of event sampling c. Additional option of doing simple average on response criteria if based on equal interval sampling and one of first 4 techniques for cause criterion Less data processing is required when assessing RES response criteria. Chl-a and BOD are typically collected at specified intervals (e.g. 2 times per month) and DO Flux is typically sampled for one or two weeks in late July or early August. Step 2: Protection analysis, response potential analysis and reasonable potential analysis Federal regulations require that all discharges with the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to the exceedance of a state water quality standard are required to receive a WQBEL (40 CFR ). RP is basically a test to determine if a discharge contributes to or has the potential to contribute to an excursion above the applicable RES. This language was developed for a one parameter water quality standard. The MPCA has decided to develop three subcategories of reasonable potential for RES. Depending on assessment of local and downstream waters in Step 1, the effluent limit setter will complete one or more of the three following potential analyses for downstream reaches with sufficient cause and response monitoring data: protection analysis (when neither the cause nor response criteria are exceeded), response potential analysis (when the cause criterion is exceeded and the response criteria are not exceeded) or response potential analysis (when both the cause and a Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

16 S-37 response criteria are exceeded). Each HUC 8 watershed will likely have a complex set of receiving waters and analyses completed. Watershed review memorandums will summarize the detailed reviews (Appendix E). A load duration curve or concentration duration curve is generated to determine the concentration of the receiving stream at low flow (Figure 4). The load duration curve allows for isolating the impact of point sources during critical flow conditions when algae are mostly likely to grow. Details on information gathered from the load duration curves will be covered in Steps 2 and 3. Downstream considerations There are some scenarios where achieving the downstream target generally requires local watersheds to achieve the TP criterion at the local reach. In such cases, the local potential analysis should reflect the reductions needed for the downstream reach. For example, a local reach at mg/l TP with limited response (Category 4 reach) would be reduced to mg/l at critical low flow due to a downstream impairment. The hypothetical TP criterion for the local reach is mg/l. A response potential analysis would not be needed at the local reach since requirements for the downstream reach would meet the TP criterion at the local reach at design flow. Figure 4. Example concentration duration curve where the concentration of the river is mg/l (175 µg/l) at 80% exceeds flow. Solid black line denotes concentration at summer 80 % exceeds flow. Calculated concentration without WWTFs is mg/l at 80% exceeds flow. Reasonable potential analysis (Equation 1) Identifying the location(s) where a response criterion and cause criterion are both exceeded (Category 3 reach) in a watershed is critical to setting TP effluent limits for RES. TP is generally conservative with some documented transport losses during low flows. As a general rule, if a facility discharges upstream of a river that exceeds eutrophication standards at an effluent concentration greater than the TP RES criterion of the applicable downstream water, then it contributes to the downstream impairment. Some TMDLs have included WLAs for facilities discharging below the TP criterion as part of a total Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

17 S-37 accounting system for all sources of TP upstream of an impaired water. In circumstances where the discharge concentration is below the applicable water quality standard, the facility would not have RP, and an additional effluent limit may not be necessary to insure that the discharge is consistent with the assumptions of the TMDL WLA. There are some aquatic features such as lakes or wetlands that trap TP and may reduce/eliminate the downstream impact of a given discharge. Identifying situations such as this will be done on a case-bycase basis. In most cases where TP is trapped by a lake, the focus of a TP effluent setter will be on the lake rather than a downstream river. Conservative transport of TP to downstream waters is generally assumed unless a large wetland or lake retains TP from the discharger of concern. Computer models like HSPF or select datasets may also be used to estimate transport losses where available. Protection potential analysis (Equation 1) Protecting reaches where neither the response criterion nor cause criterion are exceeded (Category 2 reach) in a watershed it is important for maintaining water quality that currently meets RES. In these situations, the current discharge from the facility is acceptable since RES standards are met, but there may be unused capacity at the WWTF that could cause the TP criterion to be exceeded at the critical low flow condition. The TP effluent limit setter will use the protection analysis calculation to determine if the facility has the potential to increase the TP concentration at the critical low flow above the applicable TP criterion (Equation 1). If the calculation yields a result below the applicable TP criterion, then current requirements or downstream requirements are sufficient to protect the local reach. If the calculation yields a result above the applicable TP criterion, then a response potential analysis could be conducted at the local reach. It is very difficult to estimate response potential at Category 2 streams since TP is currently low and modeling would be needed to estimate the impact of increased TP loading to the reach. As a general rule, if a protection analysis indicates that a facility could increase TP above the RES criterion, MPCA will employ protection strategies to keep TP at the RES criterion at the local reach. Equation 1. Reasonable potential and protection analysis calculation CC rr = QQ sscc ss + QQ ee CC ee QQ rr If Cr > TP of RES then reasonable potential or protection potential exists Inputs (details about these inputs are covered in following pages) Q r = Q s + Q e C r = Concentration of river at critical flow with WWTF at 70% of average wet weather design flow Q s = 80% summer exceeds flow of stream without WWTF(s) C s = Concentration of river without WWTF(s) Q e = Design flow of WWTF C e = Long term effluent concentration, existing concentration limit, proposed concentration WLA for downstream resource, or concentration target of downstream mass WLA. Note: No multiplier is used to transform C e to 95 th or 99 th percentile concentration since RES are long-term summer averages over multiple years. There is no frequency of exceedance specified in Minnesota s RES (e.g. not to exceed once in 10 years). Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

18 S-37 Receiving water Flow (Qs) = 80% exceeds summer flow The Q s criterion of the equation is the 80% exceeds summer (June September) flow of the river reach of concern. If appropriate, the effluent limit setter can subtract out actual flows from all contributing WWTFs. Watershed and TMDL projects will examine all sources and flows while effluent limit reviewers will focus on a relatively low flow period (i.e. 80% exceeds) when contributions from nonpoint sources are minimized and conditions are conducive for algal growth (Figure 4). The 80% exceeds flow was selected based on best professional judgment gained from numerous reservoir TMDLs and is similar to the 30Q 3 flow option in Wisconsin s NR 217 rule (WI DNR, 2011). The percent exceeds flow approach provides a reliable and reproducible low flow value that is easier to derive than conventional low flow calculations like 30Q 3 or 7Q 10. Minnesota rules do not require that a minimum flow of 7Q 10 be used when implementing RES (Minn. R Subp.7). Flow calculations will be based on available summer flow data from the past 30 years. Streamflow estimates based on land area ratios of nearby gages, models or other techniques may be used when streamflow data is unavailable for the river reach of concern. Effluent flow volume (Qe) Multiple facility option: Q e = Q e for all contributing WWTFs. The procedures outlined in this document focus on permitted design flow during low flow conditions. Average wet weather design flow (AWWDF) for municipal WWTFs and maximum design flow (MDF) for industrial WWTFs have been traditionally used to calculate TP effluent limits. When MPCA engineers review plans and specifications for WWTFs they focus on the AWWDF as the design flow of the facility. To expect AWWDF from facilities at the 80% exceeds summer flow is unrealistic. For municipals WWTFs, Q e is equivalent to 70% of AWWDF which is often similar to average dry weather design flow (ADWDF) for municipal WWTFs. The MPCA initially used 70% of AWWDF to estimate WWTF flow potential during low flow conditions in the Lower Minnesota River low DO TMDL. In situations where current average summer effluent flow exceeds 70% of AWWDF, the current average flow for the facility will serve as Q e. Flow may be considered on a case-by-case basis for municipal stabilization ponds which are prohibited from discharging through much of the summer (Appendix B). For industrial WWTFs, Q e is equivalent to the MDF. Given the complex nature of some industrial facilities, MPCA may use a facility specific approach for some industrial facilities. Example: Rochester WWTF/ Rochester Water Reclamation Plant AWWDF: mgd ADWDF: mgd 70% of AWWDF: mgd Current background concentration at 80% exceeds flow (Cs) The TP current background concentration is critical to the RP calculation and the WLA equation. The example C s in Figure 4 is for a monitoring station downstream of several WWTFs. Many rivers that exceed the response criteria of RES may have multiple discharges upstream of the river reach of concern. Estimating the concentration of the river at the 80% exceeds flow minus any point sources is difficult for several reasons. The following options may be used based on BPJ to estimate upstream concentration: 1. River monitoring data upstream of point sources during low flow conditions. BPJ is needed to insure the upstream station is a representative sampling station. It may not be prudent to use upstream data of a stream with a 5 mi 2 wetland dominated watershed for as background concentration of a large river with a mixed landuse watershed draining 750 mi 2. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

19 S Assume upstream resource meets applicable RES standard. This is especially important for consideration for river discharges with multiple watersheds upstream and when an upstream lake is major source of water to river. 3. Estimate concentration based on modeling or mass balance calculations. a. Model runs with point sources removed to estimate current background concentration. b. Equation 2: Mass balance approach where assume 100% transport of TP from point sources during 80% exceeds flow. The C s in Figure 4 is mg/l once the mass of the WWTFs is removed from the monitored mass at the 80% exceeds flow. There may be some cases where a mass balance approach reveals that the monitored load at a monitoring station is less than monitored effluent load for the contributing WWTFs. In this situation transport losses are occurring during the 80% exceeds flow. If estimated background (C s ) is less than mg/l due to transport losses during low flow, then one half of the applicable RES for a given river (North mg/l, Central mg/l and South mg/l) are acceptable values for C s. In this circumstance, which is somewhat rare, data demonstrate that the river is effluent influenced. However, it may be an unsafe assumption that all measured loading under moderate low flow is due to point sources and that no loading is due to other sources. As such, it is not recommended that mg/l be used as C s, because resulting limits may not be sufficiently protective. c. These C s values can also be used when datasets for the previous two methods are limited and results are inconclusive. TP monitoring data from streams meeting RES are often one half of the RES at the 80% exceeds flow in Minnesota. Nonpoint control is most critical at high flows and less important during low flow unless upstream lakes or wetlands are a source of high TP concentration. During low flow conditions, source water to rivers is dominated by groundwater. Groundwater is well below the TP RES in most cases in Minnesota. Equation 2. CC ss (BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 8888% eeeeeeeeeeeeee ffffffff) RRRRRRRRRR 8888 % eeeeeeeeeeeeee ffffffff mmbbbbccccbbbbccbb WWWWWWWW 8888% eeeeeeeeeeeeee ffffffff = 8888% eeeebbbbccbbss ffffffff(iinncccccccccccc aaaaaaaaaaaa WWWWWWWW ffffffffff) Response potential analysis (see Appendix B for more details) Category 4 streams have an average TP concentration above the TP criterion, but response criteria are not exceeded. If nutrient loading remained stable, then it is logical to assume that response criteria would continue to be suppressed. In many situations there will be downstream limits for Category 2 and 3 reaches that will require TP reductions beyond current actual loading from WWTFs discharging directly to Category 4 reaches. In these situations, response potential analysis would not be needed since TP is going down at the local reach. In other situations, there may be no requirements to reduce the local TP concentration and the facility may have substantial unused capacity. Response potential evaluates the potential impact of the WWTF(s) going from current loading to loading levels at design capacity and the impact of that shift on response criteria. There are two basic types of rivers to evaluate when considering response potential. First, there are rivers with high TP where response monitoring values are well below response criteria. These rivers are typically weak candidates to demonstrate response potential since there is basically very minimal response to currently elevated TP (Example A and B in Table 2). If monitoring shows that response data are well below the applicable response criterion at all downstream stations despite TP exceeding the criterion, then response potential does not exist (e.g. main stem of the Red River). The second group of rivers has high TP with response monitoring values near, but still below, response criteria (Example C Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

20 S-37 and D in Table 2). Facilities such as example C have the potential to increase the TP concentration of the river substantially. TP effluent limit reviewers would analyze data from the river and utilize BPJ to determine if the response criterion could be exceeded due to increased TP concentration. If so, response potential would exist and a mass freeze would be assigned in the permit to maintain existing TP load which does not result in an exceedance of the response criteria. In example D, the impact of the change from current TP loading from the WWTF to a design load would have minimal impact on river TP or response values. Table 2. Likely response potential of four example WWTFs at design flow compared to current conditions to a river in the south river nutrient region. Note: Applicable TP criterion is mg/l and Chl-a criterion is 35 µg/l for example receiving water. Facility Current TP (mg/l) Current Chl-a (µg/l) Potential TP (mg/l) Estimated Chl-a Response potential (Yes or No) Local limit implications Example A No PMP Example B No PMP Example C >32 Yes Mass freeze Example D No PMP Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

21 S-37 Figure 5. Estimated impact of increased TP on Chl-a for the four examples in Table 2. Step 3: Wasteload allocation calculation: mass balance approach, water quality model or TMDL/WRAPS Reasonable potential exists When a WWTF has RP to cause or contribute to a downstream impairment on a Category 3 stream, a WLA must be established. Like the RP calculation (Equation 1), the WLA calculation (Equation 3) will focus on the TP criterion of RES. This document will focus on a mass balance based equation for calculating WLAs. Water quality models, TMDLs, load duration curves and WRAPS can also be used to establish WLAs. The complexity of these latter techniques is beyond the scope of this document but generally would be favored over the mass balanced equation as they consider more factors in developing the WLA. Examples of completed eutrophication TMDLs for lakes are available on the MPCA webpage ( Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

22 S-37 Protection potential exists There may be some cases where the immediate or downstream reach meets both the cause and response criteria of RES (Category 2 stream) and protection potential is tripped since the WWTF s actual discharge is well below its potential discharge capacity and/or the stream has limited assimilation capacity. In this situation, the WLA equation is based on meeting the RES at the station where the protection analysis was completed. Equation 3 is used to set the WLA when protection potential exists. Wasteload allocation calculation: mass balance approach The mass balance approach is a modified version of the TSD approach for toxics. This section provides sufficient detail for TP effluent limit setting staff to complete mass balance equations for eutrophication standards. Given the great diversity of surface waters in Minnesota, it is anticipated that staff may need to use BPJ to modify or complete the general mass balance equation presented in this document. Nonetheless, this equation serves as a starting point to calculating WLAs. Equation 3. General mass balance equation for WLA (some terms of equation defined in previous section) WWWWAA cc = (RREESS (QQ ss + QQ ee )) (QQ SS CC ss ) QQ ee WLA c = Wasteload allocation concentration in (mg/l). Can be translated to mass based on Qe and WLA RES = Total phosphorus river eutrophication standard. The applicable TP RES criterion varies by river nutrient region. The applicable standards are 0.150, and mg/l for the south, central and north regions, respectively. In some cases where a river of concern is near region border, a site specific or hybrid number may be used. The closest downstream river reach with reasonable potential or response potential from Step 2 determines the applicable TP standard. Equation 3 example and WQBEL for municipal facility (Note this facility has RP with an existing concentration limit of 1.0 mg/l.) Total phosphorus RES RES (mg/l) 0.05 Receiving water flow rate Q s (cfs) 791 Effluent flow volume Q e (cfs) 79.2 Upstream river TP concentration C s (mg/l) WLA mg/l Monthly limit mg/l Mass limit* kg/day *Based on 70 % of AWWDF x monthly limit x conversion factor, conversion of WLA to effluent limits is covered later in the document Wasteload allocation calculation: watershed and reach specific models. The MPCA has extensive experience with watershed, lake and river eutrophication models. In many cases, models are tools used to establish TP WLAs in TMDLs and WRAPS. Models may have the ability to predict outcomes of effluent limits over a range of summer flows, rather than just at the 80% exceeds flow. Given that models will be used in TMDLs to set the ultimate TP allocations for WWTFs that contribute to eutrophication impairments, available models should be used to set allocations prior to Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

23 S-37 final TMDLs when possible. Adjustments can be made to initial allocations from pre-tmdl models in the final TMDL, but MPCA does not anticipate large changes. Effluent limit reviewers have considerable experience with setting WLAs prior to the completion of lake TMDLs. In nearly all cases these allocations have been maintained once the final TMDL has been completed. Given the considerable cost of upgrading WWTFs to meet more restrictive TP limits, effluent limits reviewers strive to set limits compatible with TMDL guidelines. Mass freeze for response potential Response potential indicates the additional TP loading from the facility may result in a response above the RES criteria at local or downstream reach. Since the existing actual discharge from WWTF does not cause a response above the criterion, a TP mass freeze will insure current conditions are maintained. The current average summer concentration and mass serve as the WLA to establish permit limits that will freeze the WWTF at current TP impact on the river. Example: The cause criterion for this example is mg/l TP and the response criterion is 18 µg/l Chl-a. The current effluent from the WWTF is 10 kg TP/day which equates to a TP concentration of mg/l in a local river during the critical 80% exceeds flow. Existing response of the local river is 16 µg/l Chl-a based on three years of monitoring data. Based on the current design of the WWTF, the WWTF could discharge 60 kg/day which equates to a TP concentration of mg/l in a local river during the critical 80% exceeds flow. The TP effluent reviewer examined the existing TP and Chl-a data and concluded based on BPJ that an increase of TP from at during low flow would likely increase Chl-a (i.e. response potential). WWTF issued a 21.0 kg/day (10 kg/day x 2.1 monthly limit multiplier) monthly mass cap due to potential exceedance of response criterion in the local river. Setting fair WLAs and limits for multiple facilities Many dilution based WLA equations will be based on multiple facilities contributing to a river reach of concern. The MPCA will work with permittees to determine if all facilities effluent limits should be based on identical concentration WLAs when multiple facilities discharge upstream of a reach of concern. The MPCA has typically assigned more stringent wasteload concentrations for larger facilities, providing modest relief to smaller facilities, which can ultimately limit the need for variances. All facilities generally need to reduce TP concentration when there is RP, but this approach recognizes the economy of scales for larger facilities. The WLA can be thought of as a flow weighted WLA when multiple facilities are involved. Past experience has shown that meeting with representatives of WWTFs is an effective technique to finalize TP limits when multiple WWTFs are involved. Various allocation scenarios can be presented and WWTFs can select options that are fair for all WWTFs, yet still meets the overall WLA. The following provides a simplified example of variable WLAs for multiple facilities discharging to the same river reach. An overall concentration WLA of 0.3 mg/l is necessary to achieve the RES criterion. A WLA of 0.2 mg/l is assigned to the largest facility in the watershed, and WLAs of 0.7 mg/l for the smaller facilities in the watershed. The overall flow-weighted WLA would be 0.3 mg/l. TP effluent limit review staff would need to work with engineers and permittees to make decisions on assigning variable WLAs within the example watershed. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

24 S-37 Step 4: Converting WLA to permit effluent limit Reasonable and protection potential based limits Once the WLA for a particular facility has been calculated, the WLA must be converted into a TP effluent limit. The proposed approach is similar to the approach used to set monthly permit limits for toxics (TSD manual, EPA, 1991). EPA Region V has developed a 2.1 monthly limit multiplier based on major facilities in the state of Minnesota. In the example WLA equation discussed earlier, an annnual WLA of mg/l equates to a monthly TP concentration limit of 0.63 mg/l (0.3 mg/l x 2.1 = 0.63 mg/l). By meeting a monthly limit of 0.63 mg/l the facility will average 0.3 mg/l as a long-term summer average which is equivalent to the WLA. TP effluent data from three WWTFs with the lowest historical monthly effluent limits in Minnesota were examined to verify the validity of the 2.1 monthly limit multiplier for converting WLAs to monthly effluent limits (Table 3). The desired hypothetical WLA based on the procedures in this document of a 0.3 mg/l monthly limit would be equal to mg/l. Both Ely and Bemidji have had 0.3 mg/l monthly TP limits for 20 or more years while Princeton s limit is more recent. A reverse multiplier was calculated by dividing the monthly effluent limit for each facility by the average effluent concentration. The reverse multipliers for Bemidji and Ely WWTFs both exceeded the 2.1 multiplier indicating performance of these long-term low level treatment facilities is slightly better than expected with a standard 2.1 multiplier. Performance of the Princeton WWTF, based on a smaller dataset than other two facilities, is slightly less than expected based on the standard 2.1 multiplier. Based on the review of these three facilities, it appears that the standard 2.1 monthly limit multiplier will likely achieve the WLA as a long-term summer average. Table 3. Historical performance of facilities in Minnesota with 0.3 mg/l monthly TP effluent limits. Facility Monthly limit (mg/l) Average concentration (mg/l) Months sampled Limit / average Bemidji WWTF Ely WWTF Princeton WWTF multiplier NA 2.10 Sensitivity Analysis/Limit type selection: limits based on actual or design flows A sensitivity analysis should be completed to determine if mass limits alone are sufficient to protect receiving waters (Equation 4-7). The sensitivity analysis is basically multiple runs of Equation 1 with different values for C e and Q e. If facilities flows are near Q e, sensitivity analysis is of limited value since a facility will need to achieve the WLA c. Many facilities in Minnesota are discharging well below the Q e (70% of AWWDF) used in the RP and WLA calculations in Steps 2 and 3. Some of these facilities were overdesigned for various reasons such as projected growth or industrial users that have now gone away. If a facility continues to discharge well below Q e, then a concentration limit based on the limit setting process outlined in Steps 2 and 3 will result in a limit that is more restrictive than needed to protect the receiving water (Table 4, concentration only sensitivity run). A sensitivity analysis can be completed by re-running Steps 2 and 3 with actual average flows instead of 70% of AWWDF. The sensitivity run basically maintains the effluent mass of the WWTF in the original WLA equation. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

25 S-37 Equation 4. Concentration of river initial run (C ri ): CC rrrr = QQ sscc ss + QQ ee WWWWWW cc QQ ss + QQ ee Re-run reasonable potential (Equation 1) with Q e at design flow (70% AWWDF for municipals) and WLA c (result of Equation 3) is substituted for C e. This initial run should be at the TP criterion since it basis of the WLA c. Other permit requirements, downstream requirements and margin of safety from TMDLs may result in concentration below the TP criterion at the local reach. Concentration of river mass sensitivity run (C rms ): Equation 5. Sensitivity analysis -concentration to meet mass at current flow: WWWWWW cccc = WWWWAA mm QQ eeee WLA cm : maximum potential effluent concentration when the mass is fixed at the WLA m and flow is current actual flow (Q ea ) which is less than full capacity (Q e ). Where: WLA m : mass wasteload allocation based on Q e (70% AWWDF for municipals) and WLA c from Step 3 Q ea : current actual effluent flow (must be lower than design flow or C me will be equal to the WLA c ) Equation 6. Maximum concentration of the river if the facility was issued a mass limit only CC rrrrrr = QQ sscc ss + QQ eeee WWWWWW cccc QQ ss + QQ eeee Re-run RP (Equation 1) with Q ea and C em to determine the maximum concentration of the river if the facility was issued a mass limit only. The C rs will be higher than the initial run since actual facility flow will result in less total flow to dilute the mass of phosphors discharged by the WWTF(s). Equation 7. Concentration of river concentration sensitivity run (C rcs ): CC rrrrrr = QQ sscc ss + QQ eeee WWWWAA cc QQ ss + QQ eeee Optional run: Re-run RP (Equation 1) with Q ea and C e at WLA c (result of Equation 3) to illustrate the impact of a concentration limit if WWTF flow remained at current actual flows. The C rcs will be lower than the initial run since actual facility flow and a concentration limit based on design flow will result in less mass discharged than discharged in the C Ri with only slightly less overall dilution flow. This run is useful to illustrate the impact of excess flow capacity of WWTFs. The excess flow used in Equation 3 to calculate the WLA c results in achieving a river concentration well below the RES criterion at the critical 80% exceeds flow if the facility discharges at actual flows. Interpretation of sensitivity analysis results Once the sensitivity analysis has been completed, determine whether there is any biologically significant or measureable change in C r from a mass only limit. Based on the change in C r select one of the following options for limit types in the permit: 1. If modified C rms results in measurable C r differences consider implementing a monthly average concentration limit. Multiply non-modified WLA c by 2.1. Implement as monthly average concentration limit. In the South Fork Crow River Watershed, the watershed outlet went from a C ri of mg/l to a C rms of mg/l in the sensitivity analysis (Table 4). Concentration limits for the summer season are needed for facilities discharging in the South Fork Crow River Watershed. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

26 S-37 Concentration and mass limits option: Monthly concentration WQBEL (mg/l) = WLA c (mg/l) * 2.1 Concentration limits apply as monthly averages from June through September. Sensitivity analysis indicates river concentration could potentially increase significantly with mass only limits. Table 4: South Fork Crow River Watershed sensitivity analysis. TP criterion is mg/l. Variables Initial run (C ri ) Mass only sensitivity run (C rms ) Concentration sensitivity run (C rcs ) Q s mgd mgd mgd C s mg/l mg/l mg/l Q e mgd 5.47 mgd 5.47 mgd C e mg/l 0.56 mg/l mg/l Q r mgd mgd mgd C r mg/l mg/l mg/l 2. If there is no change in C r outside of the margins typically associated with field sampling and laboratory uncertainty, apply monthly average mass limit. Multiply C e by 70% of AWWDF and the 2.1 multiplier. Implement in permit as kg/day monthly average TP limit. In the Le Sueur River Watershed, the estimated watershed outlet concentration went from a C ri of mg/l to a C rms of mg/l in the sensitivity analysis (Table 5). Concentration limits are not needed for facilities discharging in the Le Sueur River Watershed since mass only limits would not result in a biological significant change in C r. Mass limits only option: Mechanical facilities: Monthly mass WQBEL (kg/day) = WLA (mg/l) * 70% of AWWDF * 2.1 * Mass limits apply as monthly averages from June through September. Table 5. Le Sueur River watershed sensitivity analysis. TP criterion is mg/l. Variables Initial run (WLA) Mass only sensitivity run Concentration sensitivity run Q s 34.9 mgd 34.9 mgd 34.9 mgd C s mg/l mg/l mg/l Q e 4.95 mgd 4.01 mgd 4.01 mgd C e 0.91 mg/l 1.12 mg/l 0.91 mg/l Q r 39.8 mgd 38.9 mgd 39.8 mgd C r mg/l mg/l mg/l Protection potential limits The goal of the mass freeze when protection potential exists is maintain the current impact of the WWTF on the receiving water of concern. The intent of these limits is not to result in new treatment works unless the WWTF expects actual increases in effluent flows. TP effluent limit reviewers will use Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

27 S-37 BPJ to establish mass and/or concentration limits that maintain existing average loading from the WWTFs. Step 5: Verify final limits (multiple downstream endpoints and seasonal considerations) The final step of the limit setting process requires the effluent limit reviewer to evaluate all applicable regulations and requirements for local and downstream resources to determine the TP limits to be included in the NPDES permit of a given WWTF. The limit reviewer will strive to make the permit as simple as possible, yet be mindful of multiple downstream resources, antidegradation, antibacksliding, seasonal considerations and TBELs. In this step, the effluent limit reviewer will also determine if it is necessary to include concentration and/or mass limits. After the final limits and requirements are determined by the TP effluent limit reviewer, compliance schedules and optimization plans will be included if needed in the NPDES permit by MPCA permitting staff (Appendix F). RES based limits apply June-September Since RES were specifically developed for June to September, the majority of limits based on RES will be applied from June to September only, since rivers generally do not retain annual TP loads like many lakes. The TP requirements for any given discharge may vary by season if there are multiple eutrophication impaired waters downstream. It is quite possible that some facilities will have a monthly mass or concentration limit to protect local resources from June to September, an annual mass limit to protect downstream resources and a SDR limit from a historical permit reissuance. The effluent limit reviewer will examine the limits to determine which limit is most restrictive throughout the calendar year. The most restrictive limit will be applied for each season. To simplify permits, some limits may be eliminated if less restrictive than another limit(s) throughout the year. Multiple limits to protect a single waterbody are generally avoided to reduce redundancy and unnecessary complexity in permits. Seasonal example: Mechanical facility with AWWDF = 2.0 mgd Maintains 1.0 mg/l TBEL applicable as 12 month moving average from January to December Assigned 0.4 mg/l monthly limit from June to September to protect local river Assigned annual mass based limit to protect Lake Pepin of 2210 kg/yr (based on AWWDF*0.8mg/L*conversion factor) Outcome: all three limits are included in the permit Seasonal consideration for state discharge requirements (new and expanding facilities) SDRs allow for seasonal limits (Minn. R Subp. 4), but few if any permittees have requested seasonal limits since 2008 when the rule allowing seasonal limits was adopted. This rule was geared towards new and expanding facilities meeting TBELs and was not tailored for facilities with WQBELs for lakes and rivers. Since 2010, many annual mass WQBELs have been assigned for existing WWTFs that were not expanding. Compliance schedules and optimization plans (see Appendix F) The MPCA has flexibility with permit language to protect rivers from eutrophication. This document has focused primarily on calculating TP effluent limits. PMPs or optimization plans may also be required. These plans will encourage permittees to reduce pollutant source loading and better utilize existing treatment works to remove phosphorus. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

28 S-37 Alternatives to treatment for permittees There are multiple options for municipalities and industries to consider if treatment to meet proposed RES based effluent limits are not the most prudent option. Some options include spray irrigation, large land based systems or other potential treatment types that do not discharge to surface waters during summer. When possible, permit language for stabilization ponds to avoid the summer eutrophication window is an example of a permit requirement that is not tied to a numeric effluent limit. Given the unique nature of some industrial facilities, permit flexibility may be examined where reasonable and appropriate. Additional Monitoring Considerations (see Appendix C) Sufficient water quality data, outlined in Minnesota Nutrient Criteria Development for River (MPCA, 2013), is required for RP analysis. In areas where potential impacts from WWTFs are unclear due to a lack of data, RP analysis is not completed. In these situations, MPCA can evaluate the need for additional RES based monitoring in select locations. A number of factors need to be taken into consideration when determining what, if any, reaches need additional monitoring. Below is a list of those factors and how they will be considered. Lakes: (Steps 1-5) TP WQBELs for lakes have been issued since 2008 when LES were adopted. Simple mass balance equations have not been used to calculate WQBELs for WWTFs upstream of lakes. The BATHTUB model has been the primary tool for calculating WLAs for lakes. In some cases, such as Lake Pepin, more complicated models have been used to calculate WLAs. The five steps for assigning river eutrophication WQBELs are similar for lakes, but several key differences will be highlighted for each step consideration. Step 1: Data assessment Data for lakes is almost universally collected on an equal interval basis. Summer samples are averaged by year, then the most recent 10-yr period to compare to the applicable LES (MPCA 2014b, Step 2: Reasonable potential RP for facilities that discharge at a concentration of TP above the LES are done on a case by case basis. A model such as BATHTUB is used to determine if a given facility has RP to contribute to a lake eutrophication impairment or cause a lake meeting LES to exceed LES. The process is similar to that for rivers except that the equation(s) are contained within the model. Multiple model runs may be needed for facilities discharging well below design flows. Step 3: Wasteload allocations The WLA for facilities with RP is calculated within a lake model. MPCA has considerable experience with this process since The typical averaging period for a lake model is one year, and weather conditions range from dry to average years depending on the specific lake. Predictive tools range from BATHTUB models based on runoff coefficients to 3-dimensional water-quality models such as the model used for Lake Pepin. Models incorporate TP from multiple sources including: stormwater, rural nonpoint, atmospheric deposition, WWTFs and other sources if data exists. In general, models are used to determine the pollutant load reduction necessary to meet standards or the assimilative capacity in Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

29 S-37 the waterbody. Permitted loading from facilities upstream of the resource are adjusted accordingly to achieve a protection or restoration goal. Step 4: Conversion of WLA to effluent limits There have been two primary practices for assigning TP effluent limits for facilities with RP. The first method is simply assigning the WLA as an annual mass limit. No multipliers are applied to the annual mass limit. An annual limit is issued since lakes have long residence times, and the averaging period for most lake models is one year. Limits are typically expressed as 12 month moving totals. No concentration based WQBEL is assigned to these facilities. For lakes where the facility is a major source of TP, multiple model runs are completed to verify that an annual mass is protective. This is another example of sensitivity analysis where the model is run with the multiple WWTF flows and effluent concentrations. If these scenarios reveal that an annual mass limit is not sufficient to protect the given lake, then monthly concentration limits are assigned. These limits may be seasonal, and a variability of treatment multiplier can be used. Generally monthly average concentration limits are only assigned where point sources are the primary pollutant load source. Step 5: Verify final effluent limits Determine whether limits designed to support LES in the nearest lake or reservoir are also sufficiently protective of the next downstream water. In general, because LES are lower than RES, most limits to meet the first downstream lake will also be protective of other downstream rivers. However, there is the potential that a limit set to meet a shallow lake may need additional restrictions to be protective of a deep lake farther downstream. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

30 References MPCA, 2014a. The Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy. 44 pp. MPCA, 2014b. Guidance Manual for Assessing the Quality of Minnesota Surface Waters for Determination of Impairment: 305(b) Report and 303(d) List: 2014 Assessment and Listing Cycle. 54 pp. MPCA, Minnesota Nutrient Criteria Development for Rivers. 176pp. MPCA, Mississippi River Pools 1 through 8: Developing River, Pool, and Lake Pepin Eutrophication Criteria. 83 pp. MPCA (2015). Assessment procedures for river eutrophication standards. Tetra Tech. (2009). Minnesota River Basin Turbidity TMDL Scenario Report. Prepared for Minnesota Pollution Control Agency by Tetra Tech, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2011). Wisconsin administrative code NR Register January 2011 No. 661, pages S-37 U.S. EPA, Technical support document for water quality-based toxics control. EPA/505/ , PB , 335 pp. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

31 Appendices Additional strategies are considered when implementing RES based TP limits. These additional strategies are important when determining the most effective way of protecting RES by means of implementing RES based limits. Appendices A F outline these strategies which include, but are not limited to, WWTF discharge window, river response criterion exceedance potential, additional watershed ambient monitoring, and PMPs and optimization plans. Appendix A. Special considerations for municipal pond facilities. Many smaller communities in Minnesota have stabilization pond WWTFs. These facilities are allowed to discharge seasonally which partially overlaps with the summer season of RES. There are two basic categories when establishing RES based TP limits for stabilization ponds. Considerations for downstream waters and basin plans are not independent of local RES based limits and will, in many cases, overlap. This will be addressed in Step 5 of the RES implementation procedures. 1. Reasonable potential or protection potential exists for RES in immediate HUC 8 watershed. a. Avoid discharging from June to September; Q e = 0 in Equation 1. A facility can change operations to avoid summer discharge. This allows a facility to be removed for RES WLA calculations. Stabilization ponds are already prohibited from discharging in July and August. If existing records indicate that a facility has not routinely discharged during June and September, and has adequate storage capacity to avoid a summer discharge, the following items will be considered. i. Language in permit to prohibit summer discharge. Exceptions may include discharge under extreme high flow conditions. The facility will be required to notify MPCA of intention to discharge from June to September. ii. Facility may still have annual limits depending on downstream waters and basin strategies. iii. Facility may have to construct to provide additional storage to avoid summer window. This strategy is effective for new and expanded pond facilities. b. If a facility needs to discharge in June and September. For the WLA calculation, flow will be equivalent to 70% of AWWDF. Assume that this flow is spread over the entire summer period even though ponds can only discharge during a portion of the summer. This technique is possible since the standard is a long term average over multiple summers rather than a do not exceed standard averaged over a short duration such as a 4-day average. i. For the sensitivity analysis (Equations 4-7), Q ea is equivalent to average summer flow during recent summers (five years). To calculate this flow take the total volume discharged during June and September divided by 122 days. The intent of the conversion is to represent the long-term average flow of the facility during the summer. These calculations will determine if going from existing flows to design flows will significantly impact the receiving water. For facilities with limited growth potential, consider language about maintaining current flows during summer to minimize impacts from discharge. Significant new sources of flow will require new calculations. ii. RES based limits will only apply from June through September, while downstream resources or basin strategies may require annual limits. S-37 Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

32 S Response potential exists for RES in immediate HUC 8 watershed. In these watersheds current performance of the stabilization facilities is adequate, but increased loads may increase response in the river. Slight adjustments in permit language or a mass freeze will minimize the impact of ponds during summer. Downstream resources or basin strategies may require annual limits. a. Pond facilities have the potential to avoid RES based limits if: Existing records indicate that the facility has not routinely discharged during June and September. They can change operations, to avoid summer discharge. The facility agrees to permit language to prohibit summer discharge in the future. Exceptions may include discharge under extreme high flow conditions. The facility will be required to notify MPCA of intention to discharge from June through September. Facilities may still have annual limits depending on downstream waters and basin strategies. b. Keep the option to discharge in June and September and assign mass freeze. Develop mass or concentration limits to maintain average discharge of the facility. Consider intervention limits due to extremely variable flows of some pond facilities from year to year. If feasible based on past performance, insert language to reduce June and September discharges when possible. Focus on reducing discharges in September since points sources generally have a greater impact on TP loads during September than June. Require PMP Apply annual limits if needed for downstream resources and basin strategies. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

33 Appendix B. Response potential for facilities discharging to rivers with elevated TP and response criteria that meet RES The current monitored water quality condition is acceptable at current actual WWTF loads since the response criteria do not exceed standards. Use BPJ to determine if increase from current loads to permitted load will cause an elevated response. An extensive modeling effort is not needed for an efficient use of agency time for response potential. A weight of evidence approach will be needed since the most restrictive requirement of response potential is a mass freeze. Table 6. General considerations when evaluating response potential. Consideration Response potential more likely Response potential less likely Response criteria within 75% of RES Yes, some evidence that river has No, evidence that river does not potential to respond to TP additions respond currently elevated TP levels Current TP levels in river near TP criterion Current TP is well below criterion at low flows Ortho phosphorus levels during low to moderate flows Existing sample data is from high flow years TP & Chl-a relationship indicates response potential Similar nearby rivers with higher TP exceed response criteria WWTF has considerable unused capacity River has low baseflows in summer Yes, depending on other factors more TP may increase response Yes, this may be a nonpoint source dominated river where TP could increase during low flows due to WWTFs discharging at design flow Existing ortho phosphorus levels are low suggesting possibility of phosphorus limitation Yes, higher flow summers tend to increase TP and decrease Chl-a Yes, graph indicates additional TP will likely lead to exceedance of Chla criterion (Figure 5C) Yes, be mindful of how similar the rivers are Yes, design loads will be much higher than current loads Yes, WWTF will have more impact on TP concentration in the river General outcomes of response potential No, existing high TP levels well above TP criterion do not cause response, it is unlikely additional TP will cause a response No, there is already sufficient TP at low flow at actual WWTF loads Existing ortho phosphorus levels are above detection limit suggesting algae are not phosphorus limited No, existing data from moderate to low flow summers indicate that river is not conducive for algal production No, graph indicates additional TP will likely not lead to Chl-a criterion exceedance (Figure 5A, 5B and 5D) No, be mindful of how similar the rivers are No, design loads will be similar to current loads No, WTTF will have less impact on TP concentration in the river 1. Limits from downstream response or basin plan result in similar or lower loads than current actual discharge. a. Basically, current discharges are frozen at existing levels. 2. Response variable close to criterion. Actual loading could increase with downstream based limits. BPJ that response could increase. a. Optimization plan or mass freeze to maintain current loading which equates to meeting response criterion. S-37 Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

34 S Red River mainstem or similar river station: BPJ that TP will not cause a response even at highest possible loading rates. a. Consider basin plans and require optimization plan or PMP Appendix C. Additional ambient monitoring considerations for river eutrophication standards Justification for additional monitoring Much of the implementation procedures focus on river reaches where receiving water monitoring data for both cause and response criteria of RES are available. This approach is both defensible and efficient since the effluent limit reviewer has actual data of the impact of TP on a given river. For streams with limited response data (e.g. < 10 Chl-a samples in 10 years), estimating the impact of TP above the cause criterion would require some of the following: additional river monitoring, modeling, peer review and BPJ. The additional time requirements for effluent limit staff for this type of analysis would result in a large backlog of expired permits and there would still be considerable uncertainty about the likelihood of response above RES criteria due to maximum allowable discharge of TP from a WWTF. The MPCA is committed to assessing the impacts of TP on rivers through its extensive water quality and biological monitoring program. The data generated through the monitoring programs will be analyzed fully in the WRAPS process and subsequent permit reissuances. If a response to TP above the response criteria is monitored after the initial RES based reissuance or TP is identified in the WRAPS process as direct link to impaired biology or elevated periphyton, then limits will be set to meet the TP criterion/target needed to reduce the response to the applicable criterion. There is some risk that a facility that builds for a downstream response based TP limit in the first permit cycle may have to install additional treatment due to a local response based on updated monitoring and analysis in subsequent permit reissuances. This is an inherent risk of a response driven standard and the procedures outlined in this document. Future monitoring Typically, MPCA will collect additional water quality for those locations downstream of existing WWTFs, whereas individual WWTFs may be required to collect appropriate water quality data for those areas downstream of new or expanded WWTFs. These data will then be used to calculate appropriate WQBELs for the respective WWTFs upstream of the collection sites. What parameters will be collected? Additional water quality collected for RES based TP limit determination will primarily use TP and Chl-a samples; however, DO flux and BOD 5 may also be considered. When will sample collection occur? Additional water quality data collected by MPCA is expected to be incorporated with the statewide IWM plan. Minnesota s 81 watersheds are on a 10-year extensive monitoring cycle completed over a consecutive 2-year period. Incorporating additional monitoring with the on-going IWM work will provide consistency and certainty. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

35 Where will sample collection occur? S-37 Where additional monitoring is being considered in a given watershed, a range of factors will guide the location of such monitoring. Below is a list of the primary factors and how they will be considered. River size: While adopting the standard, MPCA found that Chl-a is generally less abundant per unit of TP in wadeable streams than nonwadeable streams (Figure 6). Figure 6. Comparison of the summer average response of suspended algae (chlorophyll-a) to summer average TP in wadeable streams and nonwadeable river in Minnesota. River eutrophication criteria for the three river nutrient regions were included as a point of reference. Water classification: additional monitoring will be completed for waters of interest that are Class 2 waters, those designated to protect for aquatic life and recreation. Additional sampling will not be completed for those waters not designated as Class 2 waters (see location D in example below). High priority waters: extra effort will be made to monitor high priority waters (e.g. outstanding resource value waters) where appropriate in addition to any other applicable nondegradation review requirements. Distance: samples collected should be representative of water quality impacts from WWTFs of interest. Samples collected too far downstream may include additional dilution from tributaries (see locations C, D, and E in example below). Geographic region: certain geographic regions have a higher or lower tendency to grow excess algae. Those areas that have a higher tendency to grow algae (i.e. south river nutrient region) are of higher concern compared to areas that have a lower tendency to grow algae (i.e. north river Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

36 S-37 nutrient region). Data provided by the statewide river assessment will provide additional support characterizing streams as higher or lower potential for growing algae. Physical conditions: A number of physical conditions can influence a river s ability to grow algae, including shading, impoundments, lakes and wetlands. Monitoring locations selected should represent the area of interest with minimal influence from unnatural geomorphology (see location A in example below). Residence time: allowing sufficient time for algae to grow is important when determining how far downstream from a WWTF a sample is collected. Typically a 1-2 day residence time is considered the minimum time needed for algae to grow if present in the right conditions (see location E in example below). Relative contribution: WWTFs that contribute a significant load contribution relative to the receiving water of interest are of higher concerns than those WWTFs that contribute a relatively insignificant amount of loading to the receiving water where additional sampling is considered (see locations B and C in example below). How many sample locations will be selected? The number of sample locations within a watershed will vary. Coordinating efforts within MPCA can lead to more sampling locations available for additional RES based monitoring. In general, about three to seven sample locations will be identified throughout the watershed for all IWM work. This includes one sample location at the watershed outlet and the remaining six throughout the watershed typically located at HUC 11 outlets (Figure 7). When possible, one or more of these locations may be strategically located for additional RES monitoring for assessing the impact of larger WWTFs. Figure 7. Example watershed with three stream locations (purple diamonds and dotted line, HUC 11) where additional RES monitoring would be recommended. Blue line identifies sufficient water quality data for RES analysis based on two existing monitoring locations. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

37 Appendix D. Examples of current background TP concentration at 80% exceeds flow (C S ) This brief appendix provides two examples of the variable C S (current background at 80% exceeds flow) referenced in Equations 1 through 7 in the main document. Typically, C S is calculated by averaging TP samples from 75 to 85% exceeds when no point sources are present. When a monitoring station is impacted by WWTFs, the contributions from WWTFs are removed in Equation 2 of the main document. The C S of the Straight River upstream of Owatonna is near the TP criterion at the 80% exceeds flow so there is limited dilution for WWTFs (Figure 8). There are essentially no point sources upstream of the Straight River (S ) station. In the Kettle River, C S is below the TP criterion and some dilution is available for point sources (Figure 8. Upstream river has limited dilution at 80% exceeds flow. Summer TP of Straight River (S ) from Average TP concentration at 80% exceeds flow (75% - 85% shaded area) is mg/l. Blue line represents daily load at RES criterion of mg/l. Flow at station E (Straight River near Faribault, Minnesota) was selected for illustration purposes. Flow was not adjusted to represent expected lower flows at upstream water-quality site (S ). Daily loads are likely elevated, but flow exceedance percentile should be representative surrogate for S ). S-37 Figure 8. Upstream river has limited dilution at 80% exceeds flow. Summer TP of Straight River (S ) from Average TP concentration at 80% exceeds flow (75% - 85% shaded area) is mg/l. Blue line represents daily load at RES criterion of mg/l. Flow at station E (Straight River near Faribault, Minnesota) was selected for illustration purposes. Flow was not adjusted to represent expected lower flows at upstream water-quality site (S ). Daily loads are likely elevated, but flow exceedance percentile should be representative surrogate for S Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

38 S-37 Figure 9. Summer TP load duration for the Kettle River (S ) from Colors: green = June, yellow = July - September. Flow exceedance percentile based on Kettle River at Sandstone from Existing average concentration at 80% exceeds flow and actual historical WWTF discharges is mg/l. Concentration without WWTFs is mg/l. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

39 Appendix E. Simplified river examples S-37 Seven simplified RES analysis examples are shown below. In each situation, sufficient water quality allow for RES analysis in local and downstream waters. These examples demonstrate various situations where one or more of the following management strategies may be appropriate: RES and LES based limits, TP mass cap limits, PMPs and optimizations plans, and basin plans. The examples are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of every situation found in Minnesota; however, they cover the majority. Example 1. Simplified RES analysis example where a RES based limit is necessary to meet the TP causal criterion in the local reach. The current condition (left figure) indicates the local reach is meeting RES. Further protection analysis (middle figure) indicates that under low flow and WWTF design conditions, there is the potential for the river to exceed RES. Therefore, a limit based on the WLA to meet applicable RES TP criterion, under low flow conditions, is set for the WWTF (right figure). The WLA is slightly larger than the current discharge amount. Example 2. Simplified RES analysis example where no WLA is necessary to meet the TP causal criterion in the local reach. The current condition (left figure) indicates the receiving water is meeting RES. Further protection analysis (middle figure) indicates that under low flow and WWTF design conditions, the local reach is still anticipated to meet RES. Therefore, no WLA is required to meet the RES TP criterion in the local reach, under low flow conditions (right figure). Alternatively, optimization plans and downstream considerations, including basin plans, are implemented as necessary. These will likely maintain loading at or below the WWTF design discharge capacity. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

40 S-37 Example 3. Simplified RES analysis example where a RES based limit in the local reach is necessary to meet the TP causal criterion. The current condition (left figure) indicates the receiving water is exceeding RES (both cause and response criteria). The RP analysis (middle figure) indicates that under low flow and WWTF design conditions, the local reach is still anticipated to exceed RES. Therefore, a limit based on the WLA to meet the RES TP criterion in the local reach, under low flow conditions, is required (right figure). The WLA is less than what is currently being discharged. Example 4. Simplified RES analysis where a WWTF TP mass cap is needed in order to protect the local reach. The current condition (left figure) indicates the local reach has elevated TP, but not Chl-a concentrations. A response potential analysis (middle figure) shows the WWTF at design conditions could increase the response at the local reach water above a RES response criterion. TP and Chl-a concentrations in the local reach indicate a positive linear relationship. As TP concentrations increase, Chl-a concentrations also increase. As such, a TP mass cap is applicable for the WWTF to maintain loading at the current condition in order to maintain the response concentration below the criterion. Example 5. Simplified RES analysis where a WWTF TP mass cap is not needed to protect the local reach. The current conditions (left figure) indicates the local reach has elevated TP, but not Chl-a concentrations. A response potential analysis (middle figure) shows under WWTF design conditions, the local reach water quality is anticipated to meet RES criteria. TP and Chl-a concentrations indicate a nonlinear relationship. As TP concentrations increase, Chl-a concentrations tend to remain relatively stable. As such, a TP mass cap for the WWTF is not necessary to maintain the response concentration below the response criteria (right figure). Alternatively, optimization plans and downstream considerations, including basin plans, are implemented as necessary. These will likely maintain loading at or below the WWTF design discharge capacity. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

41 S-37 Example 6. Simplified example of RES analysis where RES and LES based TP limits are necessary. The current condition (left figure) indicates Reach 1 and 2, and Lake 1 all exceed their eutrophication criteria. It also shows the current WWTF discharge going into Reach 1 is also making it to Lake 1 based on conservative transport assumptions. RP analysis (middle figure) indicates the WWTF has the potential to cause or contribute to a downstream impairment for both rivers and lakes. Under low flow and WWTF design conditions, RES criteria are expected to be exceeded from Reach 1 down through Lake 1. As such, a specific WLA is derived for the WWTF (right figure) so that under low flow conditions, the local reach and downstream river and lake are anticipated to meet applicable eutrophication standards. The RES based WLA for Reach 1 is more restrictive than the WLA for Reach 2 and Lake 1. The RES and LES WLAs are less than what is currently being discharged. Example 7. Simplified example of RES analysis where RES and LES based TP limits are necessary. The current condition (left figure) indicates Reach 1 and 2, and Lake 1 are all exceeding their eutrophication criteria. It also shows the current WWTF discharge going into Reach 1 is also making it to Lake 1 based on conservative transport assumptions. RP analysis (middle figure) indicates the WWTF has the potential to cause or contribute to a downstream impairment for both rivers and lakes. Under low flow and WWTF design conditions, RES criteria are expected to be exceeded from Reach 1 down through Lake 1. As such, a specific WLA is derived for the WWTF (right figure) so that under low flow conditions, the local and downstream river reach are anticipated to meet RES and the downstream lake is expected to meet LES. The RES based WLA for Reach 1 is less restrictive than the WLA for Reach 2 and Lake 1. The RES and LES WLAs are less than what is currently being discharged. Appendix F. Phosphorus Management Plan/WWTF optimization The PMP concept has been incorporated in NPDES permits in Minnesota for the last 15 years. It was originally developed as a set of permit requirements designed to ensure the optimization of phosphorus removal at municipal WWTFs, primarily through the management and reduction of upstream sources. Relatively successful efforts in this regard are demonstrated by a 3.2 mg/l median influent concentration reduction from 5.7 mg/l in 2000 to 2.5 mg/l in 2012 (Figure 10). Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

42 S-37 IQR = Inter quartile range (25-75%). Median value +/- IQR represents non-outlier values in normally distributed data (Tukey, J. 1977). Figure 10. Influent municipal wastewater concentration trends for WWTFs whose permits do not contain effluent total phosphorus limits. The MPCA s original PMP resources in 2000 were subsequently updated to include materials that focused more closely on data analysis, industrial pretreatment and WWTF operational optimization. The MPCA s PMP web page 4 was developed in collaboration with the Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP), a University of Minnesota outreach and assistance program dedicated to help Minnesota businesses develop and implement industry-tailored solutions that prevent pollution at the source, maximize efficient use of resources, and reduce energy use and costs to improve public health and the environment. The webpage, intended as a phosphorus management resource for Minnesota s wastewater sector, is a compendium of fact sheets and guidance documents designed to assist in the development of PMPs. Available resources include: PMP development templates Phosphorus removal benchmarking guidance by WWTF type Phosphorus reduction tips Industrial pretreatment local limit development guidance Phosphorus influent, effluent and percent removal spreadsheet and chart templates Industry specific pollutant reduction fact sheets WWTF optimization for phosphorus removal fact sheet 4 MPCA Phosphorus Management Plans - Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

43 S-37 PMPs have an important role in the implementation of RES based effluent limits. Historically, PMPs were requirements for facilities whose permits did not otherwise contain effluent phosphorus limits to optimize phosphorus management through minimization of influent phosphorus concentrations and optimization of WWTF operations. RES implementation will result in the application of new or enhanced phosphorus effluent limits for many more WWTFs. In some cases, WWTF upgrades will be required to provide the advanced treatment necessary to meet the new limits. In some cases with mass only limits, facilities will be able to meet new RES based phosphorus limits under current actual conditions, but would have difficulty meeting them in the future as they grow into their design conditions. Others may not be able to meet new RES based limits based on past performance, but WWTF optimization might allow for the WWTF to meet limits or realize significant cost savings compared to a full WWTF upgrade. Phosphorus management planning and WWTF optimization for phosphorus removal can help WWTF operators develop low cost alternatives for achieving water quality objectives. The MPCA intends to utilize three alternate sets of PMP requirements in permits depending on the WWTF s phosphorus optimization potential and the progress demonstrated in the past. 1. Enhanced PMP requirements will be incorporated in permits for facilities that have a greater potential for source reduction and WWTF optimization. 2. Streamlined PMP requirements will be incorporated in permits for facilities that have already achieved significant phosphorus reductions and demonstrated an ability to maintain and build on those gains in the future. 3. No PMP requirements will be incorporated in permits on a case by case basis when MPCA staff determines there is no benefit to including a PMP. The following list includes some of the possible situations where PMPs most likely will not be required. WWTF will need a major upgrade to meet new TP limits. The design engineer will be optimizing the WWTF to remove TP when he or she is designing the upgraded WWTF. The WWTF would have completed PMPs in past permit cycles to reduce influent TP. Existing concentration from the WWTF is lower than the applicable RES criterion. Some industrial facilities discharge at very low TP concentrations. Average effluent concentration is less than 0.8 mg/l for municipal facilities and previous PMPs or upgrade included WWTF optimization. Previous PMP included WWTF optimization and MPCA staff determine that additional PMPs would have limited impact on effluent TP concentration. Sample PMP Permit Conditions: Enhanced PMP Permit Language Within 180 days of permit issuance the permittee shall prepare and submit to the MPCA, a PMP for review and comment. The PMP must identify specific actions that the permittee will take to reduce or minimize influent phosphorus sources by working with the influent contributors, and the expected reduction to phosphorus in the effluent from that action, when implemented. The PMP should include, but not necessarily be limited to: A. A summary of recent influent and effluent phosphorus concentrations and mass loadings. B. An identification of sources of high phosphorus loading to the WWTF and development of a plan for reducing phosphorus loading. This plan shall include an evaluation of phosphorus reduction opportunities for users or classes of users with high phosphorus loading. When necessary, require high phosphorus loading users to submit PMPs that include identification of user specific Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

44 S-37 opportunities to reduce phosphorus loads to the WWTF. In some cases, the development and implementation of local limits may be appropriate. C. An evaluation of past and present WWTF operations to determine those operating procedures that result in phosphorus removal to the fullest practicable extent. The evaluation should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: i. Analysis of the phosphorus loads associated with return flows (digester supernatant, etc.), and evaluation of the benefits of side stream treatment of return flows with significant phosphorus loads or concentration or minimizing the impact on recycle streams by improving aeration within holding tanks. ii. iii. iv. Infiltration and inflow (I/I) analysis and evaluation of the effect of I/I on the WWTF s effluent pollutant loads. This is especially important for WWTFs with monthly or annual mass limits. For controlled discharge WWTFs, analysis of the effect of I/I on stabilization pond residence time and the WWTF s ability to avoid or minimize discharges in June and September. WWTF process optimization alternatives v. Optimization of biological phosphorus removal (if applicable) A. Information and data related to potential WWTF expansions or significant modifications, population growth, and potential phosphorus removal plans that will help to evaluate the current and potential effects of the WWTF on the receiving water. B. An evaluation of source reduction strategies and WWTF optimization alternatives aimed at achieving (Permit Team should select the appropriate option): i. an effluent phosphorus concentration goal of (WWTF specific effluent concentration assumption) milligram per liter (annual average 5 ). OR ii. compliance with the (WWTF specific value) kg/year effluent limit as the WWTF approaches its design flow 6. PMP guidance can be found on the MPCA internet at or by contacting the compliance staff listed on the cover page of this permit. Immediately upon submittal, the Permittee shall implement the PMP for the remainder of the permit. Streamlined PMP Permit Language Within 180 days of permit issuance the Permittee shall prepare and submit to the MPCA, a PMP. The intent of the PMP is to help maintain previous improvements and conduct ongoing evaluations to 5 Effluent concentration goals can be evaluated by calculating the influent concentration necessary to achieve the effluent concentration goal based on the WWTF s total phosphorus removal efficiency (% removal).the resulting influent concentration goal can be evaluated in comparison to historical influent data and typical values (available from MPCA). Note that the WWTF s removal efficiency is likely to decrease as a function of decreasing influent concentrations. 6 Predicting future growth and future wastewater flows and evaluating effluent concentrations necessary to meet limits during those flow conditions. Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

45 S-37 determine possible source reduction measures, operational improvements, and minor WWTF modifications that will reduce phosphorus loadings at a reasonable cost. Immediately upon submittal, the permittee shall implement the PMP for the remainder of the permit. The PMP should include, but not necessarily be limited to, an evaluation of the following and a plan to implement the necessary changes: 1. WWTF influent reduction measures a. Re-evaluation of the phosphorus reduction potential of users b. Determine which sources have the opportunity for further reduction of phosphorus (e.g., industrial, commercial, institutional, municipal, and others) c. Determine whether known sources (e.g., restaurant and food preparation) have adopted or can adopt phosphorus minimization and water conservation plans d. Re-evaluation of whether or not local limits on influent sources of excessive phosphorus are needed. This includes an evaluation of whether any existing local limits are appropriate. 2. WWTF effluent reduction measures a. Continued optimization of existing treatment processes b. An assessment of side stream loading and reductions options Procedures for implementing river eutrophication standards in NPDES wastewater permits in Minnesota November

46 S-38 Exhibit 38- MPCA notes from Tribal Consultations where the sulfate standard to protect wild rice was discussed. January 31, 2017 August 26, 2015 March 12, 2012 March 7, 2011

47 S-38 Wild Rice Tribal Consultation on MPCA Wild Rice Water Quality Standard Development EPA Mid-Continental Ecology Division Conference Center January 31, 2017 Tribal Consultation Attendees (Tribes) Bois Forte: Cathy Chavers, Tribal Chairwoman; Ray Toutloff; (Vermillion Representative); Tara Geshick, Natural Resources Commissioner; Corey Strong, Bois Forte Executive Director (phone) Fond du Lac Band Kevin R. DuPuis, Sr, Tribal Chairman; Bruce M. Savage, District II Representative; Sean Copeland; Nancy Schuldt; Jeff Savage; Thomas Howes; Vanessa Northrup, District I Representative; Reginald DeFoe (phone) Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa: Rob Hull, Grand Portage Tribal Council; Margaret Watkins; Tony Swader, Grand Portage Trustlands Administrator Mille Lacs Band of Objiwe: Susan Klapel; Ryan Rupp; Perry Bunting Prairie Island Indian Community: Gabe Miller (phone) Upper Sioux Community: Megan Moudry (phone) White Earth: Terrence Tibbetts, Tribal Chairman; Umsy Tibbetts, District III Representative; Richard Jackson; Tim LaFriniere; Will Bement Red Cliff: Gabrielle Van Bergen, Amorin Mello (phone) Attendees (others) 1854 Treaty Authority: Sonny Myers, Executive Director, Darren Vogt, Tyler Kaspar Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission: Ann McCammon-Soltis, Lisa David; on phone: John Coleman, Esteban Chiriboga MPCA: John Linc Stine, Commissioner; Rebecca Flood, Assistant Commissioner; David Thornton, Assistant Commissioner and Tribal Liaison; Shannon Lotthammer; Catherine Neuschler; Patricia Engelking Meeting Notes: MPCA Commissioner John Linc Stine provided a welcome at the start of the consultation. Shannon Lotthammer gave a presentation providing background on water quality standards and on the MPCA s current efforts to revise the wild rice sulfate water quality standard (see attached). During the presentation, she pointed out where changes have been made to the proposed approach based on tribal input. The following questions were asked and comments made during Shannon s presentation. Fond du Lac is advocating for moving the sulfate wild rice water quality standard to Class 2 because of the broader inherent protections available there. Don t let water quality/chemistry degrade. Use attainability analysis (UAA) is only needed when removing a use, so the threat of litigation over lack of a UAA to change the use to class 2 seems like a red herring. 1

48 S-38 Darren Vogt from 1854 Treaty Authority commented that the definition of the beneficial use (as a food for wildlife and humans) is overly narrow and prevents the identification of some waters with wild rice as wild rice waters. The beneficial use and where it applies is a concern especially the fact that MPCA is only using part of the list from the DNR 2008 report. Include all the waters from the 2008 DNR report, even those without density or acreage information. The 2008 DNR report established the beneficial use as an existing use in all the waters included in that report. Pulling a water off the 2008 DNR list should require a UAA Concern that MPCA won t add waters later as MPCA has not added WR waters Concerned that there isn t a clear way to add a new water, leading to potentially arbitrary decisions. Might be subject to political will if there is a big new discharger. Criteria for adding a water needs to be spelled out. DNR list: Many people in this room participated in developing this list (bands, DNR offices) and it was a good process. Have heard DNR staff wonder why MPCA isn t using all of the waters. List was done to help improve management and protection of this resource. This sulfate standard rulemaking will chip away at a diminishing resource. MPCA is being exclusive not inclusive. Not taking into account DNR expertise. Concern expressed that acreage and density requirements do not recognize the fact that there is not long-term monitoring of wild rice that includes those measures list includes BWCA waters. Pastor showed iron-sulfide plaques blocked nutrients so concerned about concept that iron is protective. MPCA saying that they will take into account new information Tribes have continued to support mesocosm experiments. There have been iron additions to mesocosms. Assumption that higher iron makes higher sulfate okay is wrong. Plaques appeared during most critical period of wild rice growth. Pastor s iron plaque work disproves MPCA s whole hypothesis. Legislature told MPCA to look at all effects of sulfate not just toxicity. In the real world, sulfate causes mercury methylation and also affects algae growth. MPCA should be conservative because there are a lot of other impacts of sulfate. Question about how variable TOC and iron are both seasonally and locationally. Response: They do not vary much seasonally but do vary by location across the state. Questions about the annual average and whether a facility can discharge higher sulfate concentrations in the winter. Is the calculated sulfate value the value forever? 2

49 S-38 Following Shannon s presentation, Tribes took some time to caucus with each other while the MPCA left the room. The MPCA was then called back into the consultation room, and the following comments and discussion took place after the caucus. All lakes and waterways should be in class 2. Question for MPCA about why we are thinking Class 4. MPCA needs to get clear with EPA about the process If Class 2 provides better protection for a longer time, is there a benefit to changing it (John Linc Stine) It s not just sulfate. There are a lot of things hammering wild rice right now and Tribes see Class 2 as offering broader protections (Nancy Schuldt) MPCA shouldn t just focus on sulfate but should protect wild rice more holistically. Margaret Watkins from Grand Portage commented that the current proposal with site-specific characteristics is the same as treating the wild rice waters as a degraded Tier 1 and treating as lowest quality. Proposing something site-specific is just requiring it to meet its lowest protection. Mille Lacs commented that Tribes think about how wild rice affects seven generations. What we do with a water now impacts how we can use it in the future. Think about pipelines and the fight over oil. In 5-10 years we will be fighting about water. The 4WR classification was brought up and a question was asked about why the narrative standard was just applied to the 24 waters in From Tribes standpoint, applying the narrative standard to all of the wild rice waters would be appropriate and provide something like Class 2 protection. Question about how the equation is going to be enforced and implemented. Lots of talk about variances. Is the standard really going to implemented and enforced? Discussion of the costs and benefits of the standard. Think of it like a ledger. The expense to business vs. the expenses to the resources. The expenses to businesses are well documented but expenses to resources are not. It is hard to put a value to cultural concerns. The loss of wild rice waters is half of the cost and benefit equation and is very important. MPCA isn t addressing the cultural impact. Classifying wild rice just as a food is a disgrace. It is part of who we are. Many stories from our elders passed through generations. Data is good but cultural significance is key. The Tribes will work together to protect rice even at the federal level. Tribal sovereignty, treaty, and trust responsibility issues. Why can t rice be classified as an endangered species? Genetically endangered, totally different from cultivated rice Part of migration stories Treaty principle Way of life Put yourself in a position where you have an identity language and culture and people want to take that away. We have to protect that. Rice located in one region. 3

50 S-38 Paddy rice exploited to take that away from Tribes. Have something to defend that means something to indigenous peoples. Why would we not go to Class 2? Thomas Howes asked about iron binding and the ability of the equation to hold up over time. It has to be scientifically defensible over time especially because permits are long term. What is the replenishment rate of iron into the system? Commissioner Stine comment: If we assume that the equation represents equilibrium, how can we validate that? How can we be certain? Equilibrium vs. how frequently should we check/reanalyze the sediment to see if things have changed. Other big missing piece MPCA focuses only on sulfate and sulfide. That s a narrow window that doesn t tell us if the waterbody is supporting rice. Should assess based on health of wild rice (Nancy Schuldt) MPCA does bioassessment. Tribes have methods for assessing health of wild rice. The methods are there; states should invest in doing that. Would be good to see everyone come together and work together for the benefit of all on wild rice. Time is of the essence. How do floods/droughts affect wild rice? Tribes are the experts in wild rice; no one else is. By using the equation, are you leaving some waters exposed? What if certain areas don t fit the equation? Should reservation waters by on or off the list? (Darren Vogt) White Earth currently doing an inventory of waters. What documentation would be needed for waters? Shannon Lotthammer answered oral history that could be written down, pictures, reports, elders that can speak to presence of rice Jeff Savage Shared some history of his family and their relationship to wild rice, and the huge importance of rice I m 66 from Fond du Lac and have been ricing since I have been 13 years old. My grandfather born in 1889 would tell stories about seeing his own grandparents ricing, and the stories they told him; so at least 8 generations of the family have been ricing. His five-year old grandson can name every part of the wild rice plant. Has seen disappearance of rice in St. Louis Bay. Could see 12 canoes ricing near Boy Scout landing as a boy In the late 1960s paddy rice destroyed seasonal economy His grandpa knew where all the Tribes camped when they came to take rice Eats rice every day. Needs 1,000-2,000 pounds each year to feed his family. Worried about feeding his grandchildren if rice continues to decrease Damming of wild rice lakes Fish Lake, Boulder Lake has cost him $20,000 per year MPCA is trying to make excuses for the mining companies. Is going to ignore all the tribal information. 4

51 S-38 Northern Minnesota is one of the 10 most disturbed sites in the world, and MPCA is only worried about sulfate and does not see the big picture. The Houghton-Hancock mine meeting place of three watersheds. Triple continental divide is in the middle of an iron ore mine. Water doesn t even flow like that anymore, only into tailings basins. Excuses, equations Don t have time to wait for 20 years of soil samples and variances before anything is done. Others noted that Jeff is fortunate to know that history. Many people s ancestors were not supposed to talk about anything like that (cultural). Remember that the permits are for foreign metal companies and the water we re protecting is for Minnesotans. Commissioner Stine talked about having more discussion before we move forward. Invited Tribes to let him know if there are other issues they would like to consult with MPCA about. 5

52 Wild Rice Water Quality Standard Consultation (Notes) August 26, 2015 S-38 Attendees: Katrina Kessler (MPCA), Michelle Beeman (MPCA), David Thornton (MPCA), Darren Vogt (1854 Treaty Authority), Gerald Blaha (MPCA), Perry Bunting (Mille Lacs), Dustin Spaeth (White Earth), Will Bement (White Earth), Norman W. Deschampe (Grand Portage), Katharine Marko (USEPA Region 5), Tyler Kaspar (1854 Treaty Authority), Shane Bowe (Red Lake), Thomas Howes (Fond du Lac), Karen Diver (Fond du Lac), Nancy Schuldt (Fond du Lac), Ann McCammon Soltis (GLIFWC), Reginald DeFoe (FDC), Eric Chapman Sr. (Lac du Flambeau), John D. Johnson Sr. (Lac du Flambeau), Susan Johnson (Lac du Flambeau), Wayne Dupuis (Fond du Lac), Edward Swain (MPCA), Shannon Lotthammer (MPCA), John Linc Stine (MPCA). Phone Attendees: Kelly Applegate (Mille Lacs), John Coleman (GLIFWC), Leya Charles (Prairie Island). Karen Diver Expressed concern that the Minnesota Legislature is institutionalizing approaches that don t hold up the science. Designating wild rice waterbody is failing to acknowledge the impact that we ve already had and doesn t move toward protecting the ecosystem. Goal how do we restore and how do we protect where wild rice is healthy. Goal preserve rights of tribal people. MPCA is compelled to follow the Clean Water Act (CWA) despite what the legislature does. Norman Deschampe MPCA took a simple issue and made it complicated, essentially pitting sustainability of a food source vs. industry. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a trust responsibility to tribes plus CWA and Clean Air Act (CAA) responsibilities regardless of what is good for mining or any other industry. The proposal seems to be not what is good for the resource, seems to be what s good for politics. Needs to be about what s good for resource. Here to listen. Eric Chapman Represents Lac du Flambeau and the 150 Band members that reside in Minnesota. Responsibility to tribal members including those in Minnesota, to focus on protecting mother earth. Wild rice is an indicator of health of water, sediment and Mother Earth. Obligation to speak for the rice and organisms that rely on it. Signed treaty with federal government to implement CWA. If state doesn t uphold that responsibility, what is EPA s responsibility? Ann McCammon Soltis - Wild rice is important part of GLIFWC restoration & protection work. Need to speak for resources who can t speak for themselves. GLIFWC represents 11 tribes and works on issues like wild rice from an off-reservation perspective. Will Bement Thanks for reviewing wild rice susceptibility period, it is a big concern. The concept of a seasonal sulfate standard makes no sense. Reginald DeFoe Wild rice is only found in Minnesota & Wisconsin, very important that we not forget this unique resource - that can t be said enough. Is wild rice in decline in areas where sulfate is greater than the protective value? Lakes and wild rice have a life and it is possible that sulfate is speeding up the death. As measurements of sulfate levels were conducted in various parts of Minnesota and that the results indicated a range of sulfate levels/measurements where wild rice plants exist, my concern is perhaps some of those wild rice ecosystem areas may have already been influenced by human activities since the last 150 years and in some areas greater development occurred and continues than other areas and are depicting a misleading 1

53 sulfate reading measurement. And also in those various sampled areas, densities of wild rice plants ought to be conducted to substantiate the sulfate level results as a comparison to all of the sampled plots. Kelly Applegate As protectors of resources, we recognize proximity to the best wild rice habitat around. One of the remaining strong aspects of culture while others have been lost. Cannot allow degradation from water quality standards (WQS). Wayne Dupuis It s an ongoing reminder message to protect resource. Concern about wild rice has been shared with the federal government in the past. John Linc Stine How to characterize traditional knowledge and how can we better express our intention to include water with wild rice since Karen Diver Strong objection to the and in the definition in that it incorporates loss that has already occurred. Nancy Schuldt Self-perpetuating is problematic as well would be stronger/more reflective of tribal staff feedback without that modifier. Remove the term self-perpetuating from the proposed definition of wild rice waters and just refer to it as population of wild rice instead. Also concerned about density threshold. Norman Deschampe Who is going to fund the monitoring and implementation going forward? John explained the study funds are gone and how we are going to absorb it into our existing program. John Linc Stine Work is being done under our current budget. Will Bement How much do you share with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)? In their experience a water would need to be on a list to be eligible for Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) funding. A White Earth Elder recommended a certain water as a candidate for wild rice restoration efforts but NRCS is reluctant to approve of the idea given no apparent written record of past wild rice on the lake. Historical records-local ricers have a lot of information. Katrina Kessler We are working with DNR to share information and field survey resources. Thomas Howes Number of stems/meter concept is erroneous. If there is one plant, that is a rice water. If it can grow rice, it s a rice water. Should be trying to increase rice. Darren Vogt Agree with Tom any place wild rice can grow is a wild rice water. Why this density? What s the basis? (Katrina explained duck research. Gerald further explained). Gerald Blaha 8000 stems does have a connection with duck habitat and usage but to put it into context the origin of the 10 mg/l sulfate standard dates back to the work of John Moyle that led him to state that there were no large and important natural and self-perpetuating wild rice stands in Minnesota where the sulfate ion content exceeded 10 mg/l. Since that time conservation managers have looked at what type of carrying capacity is necessary to sustain foraging. They have noted a giving up density where the birds leave a feeding area to seek a more productive area in which to feed. The give up density is about 50 kilograms per hectare (or about 45 pounds per acre ). Based on certain wild rice seed production assumptions, the proposal of 8000 stems per waterbody results in about 22 pounds per acre. 2 S-38

54 Thomas Howes One plant is still protecting ecosystem diversity, understand the rationale, but disagree that a threshold is appropriate. If there is one wild rice plant on a water body that is within two miles of another water body with wild rice, there is a potential for pollen transfer to the one wild rice plant. Therefore, the water body containing the one wild rice plant should be designated as a wild rice water. Karen Diver Using a very western look at how you manage the resource focus on consumption. MPCA is too focused on the consumption aspect of wild rice (e.g. human harvest of wild rice grain for food, food availability threshold for waterfowl that forage for wild rice grains). Wild rice (entire plant) has its own inherent value deserving of respect and these values should be taken into account when establishing the definition of wild rice waters. Need to acknowledge existence is a benefit. Polymet is looking at filling in largest wetland and will add sulfate stressors in addition to climate and water level changes. Also don t forget the need to look at resiliency which argues for presence not just density. Nancy Schuldt This approach is making wild rice subjective or subservient to some other organism. Its value is not only about how many ducks or people it can feed. Wild rice has its own inherent value and that is what we are asking you to respect. Thomas Howes Need four things to stay alive: wild rice, berries, meat, and syrup and you could live a good life. Essential to all of those elements is clean water. John Linc Stine Agree that it s a western mentality. We ve heard the comments and we struggle with it. To justify protectiveness, we need to put it in scientific terms Tyler Kasper Is that why you went this route because of the legislature? Are you proposing 8000 to protect ducks or to satisfy legislature? Reginald DeFoe Is wild rice in decline in areas where sulfate is greater than the protective value? Lakes and wild rice have a life and it is possible that sulfate is speeding up the death. Katrina Kessler We can t say with certainty-many factors play into that. S-38 Ann McCammon Soltis Troubled that you re proposing the same definition of wild rice water and impact threshold. MPCA should de-couple the definition of wild rice waters and the two stems per square meter reference in defining wild rice presence in the development of the equation. Use of the proposed equation to establish water body specific sulfate standards will lead to the loss of 10% more wild rice lakes down to the low density threshold upon which the equation is based (linked to the EC-10 proposal). Not distinguishing between very dense stands and stands that are struggling. John Linc Stine We should have more than a WQS, we should have a restoration plan. MPCA should work with other agencies to develop a goal for the resource. Perhaps for increase, not just preventing/decline. John Coleman If 165 micrograms per liter sulfide allows the decline from 100 stems/m 2 to 2 stems/m 2, the standard doesn t account for decline in quality (density) of rice waters- focuses on number of waters instead. The WQS and this approach isn t protective of healthy stands. Decouple the definition of wild rice water and measuring impacts. 3

55 Karen Diver 90% of habitat has been lost, so what does the threshold look like in that context? What does giving up 10% more look like? It makes the picture look different. Also remember that this is a national resource and we are the home and the stewards. John Linc Stine Need to be able to characterize the loss. What s happening in Wisconsin with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)? Eric Chapman The State of Wisconsin does not have a sulfate standard in their water quality standards rule for the protection of wild rice. Want to develop a plan for restoration and management in Wisconsin and have run into roadblocks about what is important and possible. Member tribes of GLIFWC want to move forward. GLIFWC is developing its own plan forwild rice water in ceded areas in Wisconsin. Ann McCammon Soltis Tribes with WQ standards in Wisconsin are watching this effort closely with respect to their standards. The Agency is setting itself up for future water body by water body arguments with regulated parties. The current proposal will lead to continued debate between the Agency and industrial dischargers on data collection needs and sediment variability across a given water body. Sees enforcement challenges with industry supplementing with more samples to get a less restrictive discharge limit. John Linc Stine We agree on basic principle-we want the rice to survive & increase. We have an interest in traditional knowledge about wild rice. Tyler Kasper What level of confidence does the Agency have in the model equation for determining the calculated protective sulfate value and does the Agency plan to do follow up studies to insure the assigned sulfate effluent limit is actually being protective of the wild rice? Nancy Schuldt Primary reason we are here today is because 10 years ago tribal staff began scrutinizing discharge permits for mines. 10 mg/l sulfate is not easy to enforce because it hasn t been enforced. Thought originally that MPCA would clarify standard and that updated science would support 10 mg/l. If state has not been able to enforce standard up to this point, what assurance do we have that it will be enforced going forward? A preferred approach is one standard that applies everywhere with a site specific option if needed. Dischargers should be responsible to show their discharge is not going to impact the wild rice resource. Karen Diver We will end up arguing water body by water body. We should shift the burden from the resource managers to the dischargers. Nancy Schuldt Waterbody specific criteria are justified when you have a lot of data/information. That is not the case with wild rice - you do not and will not have that richness of data for wild rice. Reginald DeFoe - Why did Leech Lake opt out of the wild rice water listings? John Linc Stine - Invitation to meet separately with leaders and staff and hear other things. The MPCA is interested in traditional knowledge about wild rice. Norman Deschampe - What are you enforcing in the meantime? John Linc Stine We are evaluating permits and limits needs as permits are issued. S-38 4

56 S-38 Tribal Consultation with Minnesota Tribes and (MPCA) staff on Water Used for Production of Wild Rice March 12, 2012, 1:00 3:00 p.m. Fond du Lac Resource Management Office (with conference call connections) Agenda item #1 - Opening comments and introductions. Welcome and opening remarks given by Karen Diver (Tribal Chairperson, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa). Introduction of meeting attendees: Karen Diver (Fond du Lac Band) Shannon Lotthammer (MPCA) Bill Latady (Bois Forte Band) Mark Tomasek (MPCA) Ryan Rupp (Mille Lacs Band) Margaret Watkins (Grand Portage Band) Rose Berens (Bois Forte Band) Nancy Schuldt (Fond du Lac Band) Thomas Howes (Fond du Lac Band) Darren Vogt (1854 Authority) Wayne DuPuis (Fond du Lac Band) Edward Fairbanks (USEPA Tribal Liason) Patricia Engelking (MPCA) Kari Hedin (Fond du Lac Band) Gerald Blaha (MPCA) Connected via telephone conference call-in: Joel Rohde (Red Lake Band) Andrew Boyd (Mille Lacs Band) John Coleman (Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission) Esteban Chiriboga (Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission) Agenda item #2 - Meeting Purpose MPCA staff indicated that the purpose of this consultation from the MPCA s perspective was to: 1) ask for Tribal staff input on a list of wild rice waters that will be proposed for inclusion in the State s water quality standards and use classification rule, Minnesota Rules Chapter 7050, to more clearly define the waters where the existing wild rice-based sulfate standard applies; and 2) seek Tribal staff input on a process and set of objective criteria by which additional wild rice production waters could be determined between rulemakings and added to the rule in the future. A brief discussion followed on MPCA s consideration of the Tribal comments and suggestions provided during the last (March 7, 2011) MPCA/Tribal Consultation and that the March 12, 2012 consultation was viewed as a continuance of the 2011 discussions. Tribal participants indicated that in addition to the goals MPCA identified, they would also like to explore other aspects of the Clean Water Act as they pertain to protecting wild rice (e.g. impaired waters assessment, antidegradation, TMDLs), either at this meeting or in the future. Several Tribal representatives commented that there are no Clean Water Act section 303d listed waters based on 1

57 S-38 exceedances of the wild rice-based sulfate standard. The group discussed the need for future discussions to explore these topics. Agenda item #3 - Rule Revision Purpose MPCA staff provided an overview of rulemaking intentions related to the wild rice-based sulfate standard by indicating that the need for any potential change to the 10 mg/l wild rice-based sulfate standard, or the seasonal application of this standard, would be evaluated following the completion of the upcoming twoyear wild rice/sulfate studies that are getting underway. Proposals to specifically list additional wild rice waters in the rule and establish a process to add to (or remove) wild rice waters from the list will be addressed under a separate rulemaking proceeding scheduled to go on public notice in the Fall of Agenda item #4 - Water Used for Production of Wild Rice List of waters for potential inclusion in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7050 Mark Tomasek gave a brief outline of things the MPCA will be considering when developing a process to add wild rice production waters to the list. These included human harvesting of wild rice and wildlife use of wild rice, presence of seed alone vs. aquatic community, what kind of process will be workable for both large and small dischargers, and who would be responsible to identify rice. The MPCA indicated that further clarifying the definition of water used for production of wild rice associated with the 10 mg/l sulfate water quality standard in Minn. R may include further clarification of the term production as used in the phrase. Several suggestions were made that the MPCA should amend the rule by removing, modifying, or clarifying this term. Meeting participants noted that the fact that the 10 mg/l sulfate standard is currently listed under the Class 4A (irrigation) standards has been a source of confusion to some people. MPCA indicated that past rulemaking records clearly state that the 10 mg/l sulfate standard was intended to apply to both commercial paddy rice and natural wild rice stands. A suggestion was made that the MPCA could include a comparable sulfate standard entry under the Class 2 (aquatic life and recreational uses) to be applicable to natural stands of wild rice. Tribal representatives stressed the importance of including historical wild rice production waters that have been impacted and may no longer support wild rice on the list. The group discussed the relationship of this concern to the existing uses definition in the Clean Water Act and federal regulations. Historical information, literature searches and sediment core sample analyses are among the resources and tools that should be considered in developing a statewide inventory list of wild rice production waters or identifying/evaluating water bodies that do not appear on a list but support wild rice production. (Later in the meeting the importance of collecting oral historical information was discussed and the discussion covered the challenges and timeliness of collecting this kind of information; oral history is essential to wild rice and to Indian people.) It was recognized that identifying beneficial uses of waters within their jurisdiction is ultimately the responsibility of each CWA implementing agency. The group noted that the 1997 MPCA rulemaking listing of a select few wild rice waters in the Lake Superior Basin can be confusing when the context shifts to the application of the wild rice sulfate standard. A brief explanation of the MPCA 1997 rationale for listing these 24 waters was given. The following is an excerpt of a response to a similar question posed at an earlier date: The listing of the select number of waters as wild rice waters was intended to be part of a broader process to provide greater protection for, and greater public awareness of, the ecological 2

58 S-38 importance of wild rice. These listings were also viewed as an affirmation of the MPCA's commitment to work cooperatively with Tribal governments and others concerned about wild rice waters. Inclusion of the wild rice narrative language and the rule listings were considered "first steps" towards a future statewide identification and listing of wild rice waters and the development of wild rice related best management practices. A general discussion was had on the resources to be used, and the approaches that would be followed, in the development of the statewide list of wild rice production waters. MPCA staff noted the intent is to specifically list the identified wild rice production waters in Minn. R (the classifications section of the State s water quality standards and use classification rule). - A suggested approach called for the protection of wild rice habitat, not just waters with past or current wild rice stands. An analogy was made to the State s designated trout streams there may not be trout present within a given reach but the cold water temperatures and other habitat conditions provide the rationale to designate these water segments as Class 2A cold water fisheries. - Another suggestion was that the rule should start with the presumption that a water body is or was a wild rice production water, especially in Northeastern Minnesota, and have the burden be to demonstrate that is/was not the case. - A suggestion was made that for new facilities or for expansions, the proposer should have some responsibility to look at the potential impact of the facility footprint on wild rice. - The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) 2008 wild rice report to the Minnesota Legislature contains a county-by-county inventory list of 1,286 natural wild rice waters which MPCA plans to use as the base inventory for its rule listing of wild rice production waters. - There was a general consensus among the group that riverine wild rice production waters were not adequately accounted for in the 2008 inventory, and supplemental information is needed in that area. MPCA staff noted they will be soliciting additional MDNR comment on the 2008 list and will be supplementing this list with additional waters from other sources (e.g Treaty Authority, MDNR County Biological Monitoring, Shallow Lakes, and Fisheries programs as well as MPCA s Bio-monitoring Program). Other suggested resources to pursue included the University of Minnesota, Minnesota Lake Associations, Citizen Stream Monitoring Program and Citizen Lake Monitoring Program participants, United States Geological Survey (USGS) records and USGS Red River Basin impoundment studies, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, and County Historical Societies. - Tribal technical staff also expressed interest in reviewing the 2008 MDNR list as a list of wild rice production waters is developed for the water quality rules (Minn. R. ch. 7050). - MPCA staff noted the Clean Water Act concept of existing uses as being beneficial water uses that were achieved on or after November 28, A tribal representative noted that the need for more information about riverine wild rice production waters is one reason for not relying solely on a list of waters to further clarify where the sulfate standard applies. Multiple participants noted that descriptive criteria and a process for adding waters were also needed. 3

59 S-38 o A suggested approach to this was to develop a guidance document or rule language to be used for the identification of wild rice production waters that are not specifically listed in the rule that considers: 1) habitat conditions and 2) presumption that the water body was once a wild rice production water. Guidance/rule should be slanted toward protection. - Assumption stated that wildlife would make use of wild rice stands that would not normally be considered a worthwhile human harvestable stand. - It was noted that the general decline in natural wild rice stands leads to a decline in the number of wild rice ricers and the subsequent decline in wild rice harvest permit revenues. - A question was posed Should the MPCA also list Tribal wild rice waters in Minn. R. ch. 7050? Suggestion was made to address this question under a separate Tribal Consultation. - The existing cache of lake sediment cores could be examined for the presence of wild rice phytoliths to support listing a given water as a water used for production of wild rice. - Rule or guidance could include a process for looking to see if water used for production of wild rice is present. - Need to consider the historical range of wild rice throughout the state. - Suggestion that removal of a listed wild rice production water in Minnesota rules would require a use attainability analysis in order for it to be removed from the Minnesota rule. Development of use attainability process guidance will be needed. A request was made that MPCA staff share bibliographic and data source information relating to the wild rice production waters listings and other materials related to the wild rice sulfate studies. MPCA will provide this information to the Tribes, the 1854 Treaty Authority, and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. The Red Lake Band meeting participant also noted they have some limited monitoring data from 2011 and more monitoring is planned for 2012 that may be useful to the studies. The group also discussed oral history as an important source of information about wild rice production waters. Tribal representatives strongly urged MPCA to consider oral history in the identification of such waters, and encouraged the MPCA to either discover and adopt any State of Minnesota policies or practices about the use of oral history, or develop a process for accepting and considering this information source. Agenda item #5 Water Used for Production of Wild Rice Considerations MPCA briefly discussed the 1973 origin of the 10 mg/l wild rice-based sulfate standard, the recommendation made by Dr. John Moyle (MDNR), and the related discussions of this standard that are contained in transcripts from the 1975 contested case hearing on the Minnesota Power and Light s Clay Boswell electric generating facility on the Mississippi River near Cohasset, Minnesota. Tribal representatives re-emphasized the need to modernize the term production in the phrase water used for production of wild rice to more definitely reflect the ecological aspects of production. Suggested alternatives offered: production and propagation or production and sustainability. 4

60 S-38 MPCA staff stated that the word production is a common term used in ecological contexts (e.g. primary production of algae or submerged plants). During this discussion Tribal representatives also emphasized the need to protect for potential wild rice restoration activities. MPCA staff also asked for feedback about the potential development of a minimum threshold of wild rice stand density or another measurement to further define water used for production of wild rice. This prompted a number of comments and suggestions from Tribal representatives, as follows: - Several suggested that a minimum threshold is not appropriate given the loss of wild rice that has already occurred. One further suggestion was that if a threshold is included in the definition, it should be an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for wild rice that includes a threshold for identifying impairment. - Another observation was that there is a distinction between the presence of one wild rice plant remaining in an area that once supported a much larger stand (remnant stand) versus a random observation of just one plant, and that distinction points to the need to protect wild rice habitat, and that protecting habitat is more important than a water quality standard based on what anyone sees in a given year. - In addition, a sparse-density river stand may be indicative of wild rice becoming established in an area versus a remnant patch of wild rice from a former established stand or an isolated small grouping of plants. Tribal representatives wondered if there would be an opportunity to review the Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) prior to the formal public noticing period in advance of the rulemaking hearings on water used for production of wild rice. MPCA staff responded that we have been posting Technical Support Documents (TSDs) on the Agency s Proposed Water Quality Standards Web page [ These topic-specific TSDs will later be introduced in the rulemaking record as the supporting documents (exhibits) to the proposed rules and SONAR. The goal of publishing these documents prior to the official notice for proposing revised rules and SONAR is to obtain early comments and additional data to help MPCA refine and improve the basis for the proposed water quality standards. MPCA staff plans to continue with this approach. The group also discussed the intent of and process regarding formal Consultation, consideration of comments, and follow-up to the Consultation. Agenda item #6 Next Steps MPCA will compile a draft set of meeting notes and submit the draft to Tribal representatives who participated in the Tribal Consultation for their review and comment prior to its formalization, at which point it will be shared with the participants and others requesting the notes. Background information will be gathered and a future Consultation scheduled regarding the question raised about identifying waters under Tribal jurisdiction as wild rice production waters 5

61 S-38 in Minnesota Rules. MPCA will investigate including oral history as an information source for wild rice production water determinations for Minn. R. ch MPCA and Tribal technical staff will continue to discuss and exchange information regarding the statewide inventory list of wild rice production waters and the development of a process by which future identified wild rice production waters could be added to the rule list. Once the draft rule and SONAR language are developed for further clarifying the meaning of water used for production of wild rice, MPCA staff will provide a responsiveness summary to the Tribes that identifies specifically how the MPCA considered the feedback from the Tribal Consultations (March 7, 2011, and March 12, 2012) in developing the draft rule and SONAR. Tribal representatives were encouraged to provide feedback to David Thornton on the Consultation process. ******************************************************************** Resource Links: MDNR Report to the Legislature Natural Wild Rice in Minnesota Minnesota Rules Chapter April 13,

62 S-38 Meeting Summary: Tribal Consultation on Wild Rice March 7, 2011 Meeting: Tribal Consultation on Sulfate and Wild Rice Date: March 7, 2011 Location: MPCA Duluth Regional Office List of Attendees: Rose Berens, Tara Geschick, Chris Holm, Bill Latady, Corey Strong Bois Forte Band of Chippewa Reggie DeFoe, Kari Hedin, Thomas Howes, Nancy Schuldt Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Christina Deschampe, Margaret Watkins Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Jeff Harper Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Deb Dirlam Lower Sioux Community Scott Hansen Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Stan Ellison Shakopee-Mdewakanton Sioux Community Dallas Ross, Megan Ulrich Upper Sioux Community Mike Swan White Earth Band of Ojibwe Darren Vogt John Coleman 1854 Treaty Authority Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission MPCA staff Gerald Blaha, Pat Engelking, Ann Foss, Shannon Lotthammer, Phil Monson, Ed Swain, Mark Tomasek Meeting summary: The (MPCA) held a Tribal Consultation on wild rice and sulfate at the MPCA s Duluth Regional Office on March 7, The meeting began with introductions and with opening comments and discussion. One comment from Tribal representatives was that in addition to the wild rice sulfate standard, the agency should explore other ways to use Clean Water Act provisions/requirements to protect wild rice, such as more general narrative standards. Tribal representatives also emphasized the importance of recognizing ecosystem and cultural issues. Following this opening discussion, Gerald Blaha from the MPCA gave a brief overview of the standards process, which included historical information on the adoption of the 1973 sulfate standard and the status and timeline of the current triennial rulemaking process. The next part of the meeting focused on discussion and input on the definition of water used for the production of wild rice. The MPCA is intending to clarify this definition as part of the current triennial review. Tribal representatives had many comments on this issue which are documented in the attached file titled Input from MPCA Tribal Consultation March 7, 2011, which includes flip chart and participant notes. The comments included the importance of protecting wild rice habitat, the need to consider historic locations of wild rice and to review historic records, oral history and plat maps when determining waters used for production of wild rice. A suggestion was made to consider the Fond du Lac wild rice rule, which applies to waters presently, historically or with the potential to support wild rice. Other comments were that current lists of waters are not all-inclusive, but are good examples of habitat to protect. Participants also 1

63 S-38 Meeting Summary: Tribal Consultation on Wild Rice March 7, 2011 commented that the location of wild rice in river systems moves from year to year and that lake and river names have changed over time. Discussion and input on the wild rice and sulfate testing protocol followed. Shannon Lotthammer from the MPCA gave a brief definition of the protocol, which will outline research needs and testing methods, and which will include both field observation and experimental components. The MPCA intends to complete the protocol by June 30, The questions in the attached Wild Rice and Sulfate Discussion Handout were used to guide the protocol conversation. The MPCA also shared an MPCA/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency brainstorming document that outlines potential research needs. This document is also attached. Shannon Lotthammer also outlined the proposed process for protocol development and requested that the Tribes recommend experts who would be willing to participate in protocol development. Meeting participants provided input on both the protocol development process and protocol design. The detailed input from tribal representatives can be found in the attached Input from Tribal Consultation March 7, 2011 document. Participants shared information on tribal wild rice research efforts that are currently underway and also sulfate data that the Tribes have collected over time. Tribal representatives stressed the importance of including tribal harvesters in scientific discussions as the protocol is developed. It was also noted that wild rice has a three- to five-year cycle so the amount of rice harvested at any one site varies from year to year, and the robustness of the stand can vary. Other comments focused on the need to mimic actual growing conditions as opposed to conducting wild rice experiments in sand or water, to better represent natural conditions. Participants also thought it important to look at both lake and river sites. Other topics discussed included parameters for experiments, frequency of field observations, and aquatic plant management. Tribal representatives also offered help with sampling and identification of sites that could be used in studies. Participants commented that the Tribes would like to be involved in the technical discussions as the protocol is developed rather than only commenting on a completed protocol once it was done. The MPCA also asked for input on a preliminary field study that would occur in the 2011 field season and would be used to inform the protocol development. Tribal representatives said it would be good to characterize conditions at sites with healthy stands as well as sites that are declining, and sites impacted by mining. Participants commented that ricers are a good source of information on what is a healthy stand of rice, and that ricers know when the plants are ripe, which can vary from year to year. Commentors also noted that it s important to gather data for more than one year to determine the health of a stand. Some of the parameters that were mentioned as important for a field study included ph, specific conductance, dissolved organic carbon, and trace metals such as aluminum, manganese, fluoride and iron. Participants also stressed the importance of looking at both water and sediments. The meeting concluded with a brief discussion of next steps. MPCA staff committed to developing and sharing a meeting summary, and keeping the meeting participants informed as the triennial rulemaking and protocol development efforts proceed. 2

64 S-39 Environmental Justice Framework December 17, 2015

65 S-39 Authors Ned Brooks Karen Solas Contributors MPCA Environmental Justice Steering Team: John Linc Stine, Commissioner David Thornton, Assistant Commissioner Dave Benke, Director, Resource Management and Assistance Division Shannon Lotthammer, Director, Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division Kathy Sather, Director, Remediation Division Jeff Smith, Director, Industrial Division Risikat Adesaogun Taylor Holland Katie Koelfgen Catherine Neuschler Kelsey Suddard Numerous MPCA staff also assisted with development of strategies and approaches. Acknowledgements We are grateful to the many community members, environmental justice advocates, and other stakeholders who helped to shape our understanding of the experiences of people impacted by environmental justice issues. We thank you for your guidance and input, both invaluable to our work to develop strategies in this framework. The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs by using the Internet to distribute reports and information to wider audience. Visit our website for more information. MPCA reports are printed on 100% postconsumer recycled content paper manufactured without chlorine or chlorine derivatives. 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, MN Or use your preferred relay service. This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at Document number: p-gen5-05

66 Foreword In Minnesota, we are fortunate to live in a state with a healthy natural environment that contributes to a high quality of life. This is in large part due to a long history of shared responsibility and action to build societal systems that support healthy ecosystems, healthy communities, and a strong economy. Not everyone has benefited equally, however, and disparities exist between middle and upper income people, and lower income residents and people of color. These also include gaps in educational and economic achievement and health outcomes that have been widely documented, and in some parts of the state, differences in exposure to environmental pollution. As Commissioner of the, I am committed to renew and strengthen our agency s actions and to put the principles of environmental justice into practice. It is with those responsibilities in mind that I am pleased to share with you the s environmental justice framework document. This framework represents our commitment to act using our expertise, relationships, and resources to focus our work where it will have the greatest effect in reducing the impact of environmental pollution. It provides direction and guidance to modify our practices and integrate environmental justice principles into our work over the next two-three years. In collaboration with others, we expect to build on this initial framework and continually look for ways to improve our implementation of its strategies. Striving to address environmental inequities across Minnesota is an ambitious and long-term effort. We can only achieve this by working with people, governments, and organizations across the state. Please join us as we strive for a better Minnesota! John Linc Stine Commissioner S-39

67 S-39 Contents Summary... 1 What is the issue?... 1 What can we do about it?... 2 MPCA s environmental justice policy and plans... 3 From policy to action MPCA s environmental justice framework... 3 Strategies for implementing environmental justice into MPCA programs... 6 Regulatory programs... 6 Monitoring, assessment, and consideration of cumulative impacts... 8 Prevention and assistance Rulemaking, policy development, and program implementation Resources to support environmental justice integration Screening to identify areas of concern for environmental justice Outreach, public participation, and engagement Agency training and development Ongoing stakeholder and community involvement in framework implementation and improvement Coordination with federal, state, local, and tribal governments Measuring and reporting on progress... 16

68 S-39 Summary All Minnesotans deserve a life with clean air, clean water, and unpolluted land. Working to achieve this is at the heart of the s (MPCA) mission to protect and improve our environment and enhance human health. The MPCA defines environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. This will be achieved when everyone benefits from the same degree of environmental protection and has equal access to the decision-making processes that contribute to a healthy environment. The MPCA is committed to reaching this goal. This document defines strategies and proposes initial implementation actions to integrate environmental justice principles into our daily work. Community and stakeholder feedback played a significant role in developing the elements of this framework. These approaches reflect lessons learned from past experiences as well as stakeholder feedback during 2014 and early The MPCA fully expects that through experience with implementation, agency staff and stakeholders will identify areas for improvement. As we strive to achieve environmental justice, we look forward to collaborating with community members and other stakeholders to refine and improve implementation of this framework. What is the issue? Over the past 30 years, the MPCA, other units of government, community organizations, businesses, and individuals have come together to significantly reduce air and water pollution and clean up contaminated sites. Many of these improvements are the result of reducing emissions from large sources of pollution using traditional regulatory methods -- issuing permits that limit pollution and ensuring sources comply with environmental laws. Other improvements have been achieved by addressing pollution from smaller more widespread sources, which are often more difficult to control. Because of this work, most Minnesotans enjoy a natural environment that contributes to a high quality of life. But not all Minnesotans have benefitted in the same way. The impacts of pollution vary across Minnesota because of past practices and decisions. Historical settlement patterns of low-income workers who lived near the factories where they worked; the routing of roadways and the siting of industry in low-income neighborhoods or within communities of color, created inequities in exposures and health conditions. For example: Low-income Minnesotans and people of color in some parts of the state are exposed to more pollution than middle and upper income white Minnesotans. Older residents, children, many lower income Minnesotans, and people of color are more vulnerable to health impacts from pollution and experience greater incidences of disease and death, often due to underlying health disparities. Climate change disproportionately threatens vulnerable groups and can amplify the economic and health challenges people already face. The MPCA and other government agencies decision making processes too often lack adequate opportunities and access for those facing environmental justice challenges. Traditional approaches can be inconvenient, hard to follow and understand, one-sided, and lack community and cultural sensitivity. This further inhibits participation and affects trust, making it less likely for people to feel their involvement in a government process will have an impact. Environmental Justice Framework December

69 S-39 Minnesota s changing racial and ethnic demographics requires the MPCA to adapt. In 1980, people of color accounted for only 4% of Minnesota s population. Now, while still below the national average, that figure is about 18%. In the past decade, only six other states populations of people of color grew faster. Migrants from other countries and new births to immigrants and native-born communities of color contributed significantly to Minnesota s population growth in recent years. Those new to Minnesota face a unique set of barriers to full participation, ranging from language and communication methods to different cultures and customs. What can we do about it? Fully addressing disparities in environmental exposures and effects requires the combined and concerted efforts of many partners: federal, state, and local governments; non-profit and community organizations; universities; businesses; and community members. While we don t have the ability to address all aspects of this issue on our own, we are committed to using our authority and influence to address past inequities and to prevent environmental policies and decisions from producing future disproportionate impacts. It is important we recognize and embrace our role and partner with, facilitate, and support others in doing their part. This framework provides MPCA leadership and staff with the direction and guidance needed to modify our approaches and integrate environmental justice principles into the Agency s work. It includes strategies for MPCA s regulatory programs, monitoring and assessment work, technical assistance, educational efforts, and policy development. Where we lack authority, we will lead by example and work with local governments and others to influence changes. To achieve environmental justice, we must actively engage people of all backgrounds from across the state. We must listen to and collaborate with others to create a shared set of values and outcomes for the work that affects communities. To foster that collaboration, the MPCA will actively engage a diverse range of residents in our work, including those from lower income communities, communities of color, and American Indians. Environmental Justice Framework December

70 S-39 MPCA s environmental justice policy and plans Following action on the national level, the MPCA began formally working on environmental justice in the mid-1990s. Presidential Executive Order 12898, issued in 1994, directed each federal agency to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Presidential Executive Order built on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. As a recipient of federal funding, the MPCA is required to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The MPCA developed a policy for environmental justice that closely mirrors the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA) policy. The MPCA s policy, last revised in 2012, states: The will, within its authority, strive for the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or policies. Meaningful involvement means that: People have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health. The public s contribution can influence the regulatory agency s decision. Their concerns will be considered in the decision making process. The decision-makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected. The above concept is embraced as the understanding of environmental justice by the MPCA. In 2013 the MPCA renewed our commitment to environmental justice and added an environmental justice goal and objectives in our current strategic plan: Pollution does not have a disproportionate negative impact on any group of people. Objectives: Develop and implement program strategies to identify and address environmental justice concerns. Identify and enhance opportunities for all Minnesotans to provide meaningful input into MPCA environmental decision-making. From policy to action MPCA s environmental justice framework This framework sets forth a range of strategies designed to integrate environmental justice principles into our work. It provides direction to MPCA leadership and staff on integrating environmental justice principles into every aspect of the MPCA s work over the course of the next two to three years. Implementing this framework involves a new emphasis on using our authority, influence, and resources to benefit the lives of those who are experiencing greater risk from environmental pollution and who are the most susceptible to this pollution. Environmental Justice Framework December

71 Framework goals Building on the foundation of the MPCA s policy and strategic plan goal, the framework seeks to ensure that: Pollution does not have disproportionate negative impacts on any group of people. The benefits, opportunities, and risks of agency policies, decisions, and activities are fairly and equitably distributed. All individuals and groups are given the opportunity for meaningful involvement in agency decisions that may impact them. Environmental justice concerns are given due consideration by agency decision-makers during the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The MPCA and its stakeholders have mechanisms in place to regularly evaluate progress, success, and failure in meeting the agency s goals and the outcomes of those evaluations are used to inform future planning and decision-making by the agency. Summary of framework approach The framework consists of strategies that integrate environmental justice into the MPCA s regulatory, monitoring, and assistance programs. It outlines the procedures, resources, and tools needed to support integration. This includes: 1. Identify areas where low-income Minnesotans, people of color, and others may be experiencing more harm or are more susceptible to environmental conditions as areas of focus for environmental justice action. Use demographic data, information about environmental conditions, and health data to identify areas of concern for environmental justice. Use community knowledge to verify and supplement data sources. 2. Modify our approach and increase our work in order to address environmental justice issues. Better understand sources of pollution and health risks through monitoring and assessment. Thoroughly examine ways to reduce these sources using our regulatory authority and influence. Target education, outreach, technical assistance, and grants. Do a better job of facilitating public participation and engagement of people around the actions and decisions that affect them. Implementation values and principles Embracing key implementation principles will help us effectively and deeply integrate environmental justice into the MPCA s work. Our key principles are: S-39 Build on best practices. The MPCA will benefit from the experience of others who have a longer history addressing environmental justice issues. The EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation, other states environmental agencies, local governments, and others have policies, training programs, guidance materials, screening tools, and other resources the MPCA can use, modify, and adopt as we build our own practice in Minnesota. Collaboration and engagement. Equitable environmental protection requires collaboration with community members and other stakeholders to create shared values and outcomes. The MPCA recognizes the importance of dialogue and the partnerships needed to develop mutual understanding, Environmental Justice Framework December

72 S-39 build trust, and foster the participation of people or groups affected by the decision-making process. This applies to individual regulatory decisions and actions as well as overall framework implementation and improvement. Targeted and risk-based approach. The MPCA will target areas where our work can have the most benefit for people and areas that are already experiencing greater pollution and other burdens. The MPCA will direct activity toward the pollution sources that are contributing to risk and scale our efforts commensurate with the potential for risk reduction or elimination. Proactive and reactive. Many MPCA programs, especially our regulatory programs, are reactive. The MPCA s work on a facility permit, for example, is usually the result of a decision by a company or municipality to build a new facility or make changes to an existing one. We must also look for opportunities to make positive changes independent of a permit or enforcement action. We will proactively target our permitting, compliance, technical assistance, and grant resources to address environmental justice concerns. Adaptive, phased approach. The MPCA will regularly modify its implementation of this framework to reflect new approaches and improvements identified by agency staff and stakeholders. Environmental Justice Framework December

73 S-39 Strategies for implementing environmental justice into MPCA programs Regulatory programs As an agency with significant regulatory responsibilities, one of the MPCA s primary duties is to limit pollution from a wide variety of sources in order to protect human health and the environment. We develop permits to control specific kinds of activities that affect the environment, and take compliance and enforcement action to make sure regulations are followed. We also identify and clean up old contamination sites and polluted water bodies through our remediation and impaired waters programs. There are many sources of pollution beyond those we regulate (such as vehicles, construction equipment, and runoff from lawns) that contribute to overall pollution levels. To address these sources we use other approaches, such as education, outreach, and partnerships. While the facilities we do regulate are only a portion of the burden, our authority to limit and control pollution from the sources is an important role for protecting human health and the environment. By integrating environmental justice principles into our regulatory activities and programs the MPCA strives to achieve a healthy environment for all Minnesotans. Permitting, environmental review, and remediation Permits are an important tool used to protect the environment and people in Minnesota. The MPCA manages more than 15,000 permits that regulate air emission sources, water discharges, landfills, chemical storage facilities, and other sources of pollution in the state. The permits outline the requirements in state and federal environmental laws, including limits on the amount of pollution that can be released to the air, water, and land. The permitting process is a critical opportunity for community involvement, particularly in areas where environmental justice concerns are present. Many permits require a formal public notice period. We will expand the opportunities for public involvement beyond the formal notice. This will allow the MPCA and the facilities to understand and address community concerns and establish or enhance relationships with the surrounding community. Before permitting new or expanding facilities, a process called environmental review may be required. The purpose of environmental review is to develop an information-gathering document (an Environmental Assessment Worksheet or an Environmental Impact Statement) that informs permit decision-makers, the public, and others about the human health and environmental impacts of the proposed project. There is a formal public notice and comment period required for an environmental review also. The MPCA also plans to use the environmental review process to review proposed changes to facilities located in environmental justice areas of concern. This will provide an opportunity to involve community members early and allow for robust public participation when identifying and addressing community concerns. The MPCA s remediation programs investigate and determine appropriate clean-up and development plans for sites that pose risks to human health and the environment because of past contamination, including abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, closed landfills, and leaking storage tank systems. These risks may also include surface and groundwater contamination, outdoor air pollution, and vapor intrusion into buildings. The MPCA works with owners or operators of these sites, past and present, community groups, and surrounding residents throughout this process. Environmental Justice Framework December

74 S-39 Goals Provide for meaningful involvement of community members in the environmental review, permitting, and remediation processes. Use MPCA authority and influence to address environmental justice issues to the extent we are able. Strategies 1. Identify facility and permit types that warrant additional actions based on the potential for adverse effects. Evaluate the types of activities and sources of pollutants that pose the greatest risk in areas of concern for environmental justice. Consider the context of existing burdens, including multiple facilities and dispersed sources such as vehicles and stormwater run-off. 2. During permitting, identify and evaluate additional measures, beyond meeting established permit limits, to avoid and diminish impacts. This could include changing processes or procedures, installing additional pollution control equipment, or otherwise achieving a lower level of pollutant release than required by state or federal requirements. Work with the permittee to incorporate these measures into the permit or supplemental documents as possible. 3. Employ civic engagement, public participation, and outreach tools for community groups and residents. Implement outreach and public participation tools identified in the MPCA s outreach and public participation plan (See pages 14-15) to ensure early and meaningful involvement, including: Inform community members early and often using trusted, community-identified sources. Explain the key decision points and how and when community members can have the most influence. Assist community members in understanding technical aspects of regulatory decisions. Provide easily accessible and understandable information to community members. Actively seek to understand and address community concerns and ways in which our regulatory processes present obstacles to their participation. Report back to community members on how their involvement was considered. 4. Foster increased community involvement and actions on the part of the entities that we regulate. Encourage facilities located in areas of concern for environmental justice to increase engagement with local government, community groups, and area residents, especially early on in the environmental review and permitting process, to understand and address concerns. Work with regulated parties to jointly explore ways to mitigate environmental and health-related impacts in the community and make other quality-of-life enhancements. Provide guidance to facilities on best practices for community engagement. 5. Consider ways to prioritize work in order to enhance benefits to areas of concern for environmental justice. Outside of responding to proposals for new and expanding sources, prioritize review and evaluation of expired permits, permit reissuance, or the review of non-expired permits to identify possible ways to reduce risks. When investigating contaminated sites for vapor intrusion and other risks, consider environmental justice concerns when determining which sites to evaluate before others. Compliance and enforcement Through inspections, review of test results and required monitoring reports, and complaint investigations (collectively referred to as compliance determination activities), the MPCA monitors the environmental performance of facilities with permits and licenses or businesses that engage in activities that affect Minnesota s environment. These include large and small facilities that emit pollutants into the air, water dischargers, Environmental Justice Framework December

75 S-39 hazardous waste generators, and solid waste landfills. The MPCA and local government partners conduct inspections and other compliance determination activities on a routine basis. When violations are noted, the MPCA uses its compliance tools and enforcement authority to address noncompliance. Goal Increase compliance and enforcement work to further ensure facilities operating in areas of concern for environmental justice are in full compliance. For facilities out of compliance, explore ways for them to provide benefits to the community in addition to addressing violations. Strategies 1. Conduct additional compliance determination and enforcement activities. Conduct more frequent inspections or other compliance determination work at facilities in areas of concern to ensure they are meeting applicable regulations and permit conditions. Select facilities based on their potential to release pollutants of concern in a particular area. 2. Resolve noncompliance with community benefit in mind. Seek resolution of compliance issues at facilities located in areas of concern for environmental justice in ways that benefit the community. For example, the facility, with encouragement by the MPCA or community, could reduce releases beyond what is needed to be in compliance, or propose a community improvement project as part of their means to correct violations, or to reduce a penalty. 3. Support MPCA permitting programs with additional compliance determination and assistance to facilities. When an existing facility submits a permit application to modify or expand its operations, or when the MPCA is renewing a permit, MPCA staff will thoroughly research the facility s compliance history, determine current compliance status (either by inspection, site visit, or file review), inform the community, and, if needed, provide additional compliance assistance to the facility. 4. Communicate with affected communities. When compliance issues occur at facilities in potential environmental justice areas, and when there is potential for adverse effects, provide information about the violation in a timely manner to community contacts, except when prohibited by law such as during a formal investigation or ongoing enforcement action. Monitoring, assessment, and consideration of cumulative impacts A fundamental role of the MPCA is to evaluate and describe both qualitatively and quantitatively the condition of our environment, why it is in that condition, and what effectively could be done to make desired improvements. We do this by: Monitoring the air and water. A network of air monitors and systematic water monitoring approaches allow MPCA scientists to characterize the condition of our groundwater, lakes, wetlands, rivers and streams, and air. Modeling and computational analysis. While our work is extensive, environmental monitoring is limited by where monitoring and sampling occurs and by what is measured. To fill in gaps, the MPCA uses tools to predict or estimate pollutant levels and their impacts on human health. Modeling also allows us to evaluate what might happen if permits or other requirements change or a new project moves forward, which can help us decide if proposed changes are protective of the environment and human health before they occur. Risk assessment and problem investigation. The MPCA compares information to standards and benchmarks and investigates sources of environmental impacts. These levels are evaluated along with health information and expertise from the Minnesota Department of Health, such as disease rates Environmental Justice Framework December

76 S-39 and emergency room visits, to identify threats and impacts, inform standards development, guide our regulatory and assistance programs, and measure progress in achieving environmental goals. Part of our work includes evaluating potential impacts and preventing actual harmful impacts. As part of this process, the MPCA considers the cumulative impacts of pollutants as a way to provide additional context for decision-making. The effects of multiple pollutant sources, multiple exposure pathways (where the exposure occurs and how: through inhalation, ingestion, or skin contact), and multiple contaminants with similar effects are regular considerations in many of MPCA s environmental decisionmaking processes. These factors are taken into account when developing standards, in air and water permitting, risk assessment, environmental review, and remediation activities. While the quality of the data and tools available to consider these factors varies, it is important to note that consideration of cumulative impacts is an integral part of the decision-making framework of MPCA programs. Less common in MPCA decision-making is the consideration of non-chemical stressors (such as loss of open space or road safety concerns), socioeconomic conditions, or differences in community vulnerability when evaluating the cumulative impacts of a project. While still limited, quantitative methods to incorporate non-chemical stressors and community vulnerability into typical regulatory evaluations are becoming more available. Some existing evaluations already incorporate these concepts, but evaluations incorporating non-chemical stressors and community vulnerability are largely qualitative due to the diverse nature of the data and the more recent emergence of this field of study. Goal Through the uses of tools and resources for monitoring, modeling, risk assessment and cumulative impacts analysis, strive to identify and understand environmental impacts, inform and target efforts to address past and present impacts, and avoid future disproportionate impacts. Strategies 1. Consider known or potential areas of concern for environmental justice when planning for environmental monitoring. When deciding where, when, and what to monitor, expressly consider contaminants of concern in areas of concern for environmental justice. Evaluate whether additional monitoring would help to understand risks. Seek and consider input from community members on monitoring plans, and involve community members in citizen monitoring and science activities as resources permit. 2. Consider more comprehensive risk assessment and cumulative impact analysis. In areas of concern for environmental justice, determine if additional analysis of pollution from multiple sources and the evaluation of non-chemical stressors and community vulnerability will better inform decisions. When lacking the authority or ability to address these impacts, advocate for and work with other government entities to alleviate these stressors. MPCA programs (air permitting, remediation, wastewater permitting, etc.) will identify when and how they support more comprehensive cumulative impact analysis. 3. Communication and outreach. Seek to better understand and respond to community concerns about cumulative impacts and risks. Clearly explain to community members when and how we conduct risk assessments, how we consider cumulative impacts in our existing standards, procedures and reviews, and when additional analysis is conducted. When concerns are expressed about non-chemical stressors (such as safety concerns) and community vulnerability, involve others who may be able to assist in addressing concerns that are not within the scope of MPCA authorities. Explain findings and proposed decisions to community members, including how community concerns were considered. Environmental Justice Framework December

77 S-39 Prevention and assistance In addition to our regulatory and pollution clean-up work, the MPCA also employs tools to prevent or minimize the negative impacts of pollution on public health and the environment. This work often targets smaller, diffuse sources such as cars and trucks and small businesses. These sources, while individually small, can be collectively significant contributors to disproportionate impacts in areas of concern for environmental justice. Though MPCA lacks regulatory authority over many of these sources, technical assistance, grants, education, outreach, and collaborative work with partners can be used to foster and achieve environmental justice goals. Through providing resources that build knowledge and capacity, the MPCA strives to empower individuals, businesses, and communities and to foster attitudes and actions that strengthen the natural environment, economy, and social well-being. Goal MPCA prevention and assistance work improves environmental quality and livability in areas of concern for environmental justice, and businesses and residents in areas of concern for environmental justice experience the full benefits of MPCA s services and work. Strategies 1. Identify programs and tools with the greatest potential to contribute to environmental and human health benefits. Considering pollutants and sources of greatest concern in areas of concern for environmental justice, the MPCA, along with other partners, will identify program areas and strategies that are likely to lead to the greatest reductions in those pollutants, and have the largest positive effect on impacted communities and their quality of life. 2. Prioritize prevention and assistance work. In collaboration with community members, identify and give priority to prevention and assistance work that has the potential to eliminate or reduce harmful pollution or bring other benefits to areas of concern for environmental justice. This could include modifying existing pollution prevention grants and technical assistance programs to prioritize work in areas of concern. 3. Increase outreach and engagement. In collaboration with community members and partner organizations, increase awareness of and access to the MPCA s prevention and assistance programs and resources. Proactively promote the availability of grants, technical assistance, and services to community organizations, local units of government, and others serving in areas of concern for environmental justice. The MPCA will also broaden outreach and education efforts focused on reducing pollution in these areas. 4. Foster increased partner involvement and actions. In areas of concern for environmental justice, the MPCA will look for opportunities to reduce risk and improve access to services through building and leveraging partnerships with other state agencies, local units of government, and community organizations serving low-income and communities of color. The MPCA will strive to increase the impact and effectiveness of our prevention and assistance work through the sharing of resources, knowledge, skills, and experience with others working toward common goals. Environmental Justice Framework December

78 S-39 Rulemaking, policy development, and program implementation One important way that the MPCA takes action to respond to environmental concerns is by adopting and implementing rules. The MPCA develops rules to implement federal regulations and state legislation and to address human health and environmental concerns. Rulemaking is a formal process that requires public notification, accepting and responding to comments, analysis of options, and justification of the need for the requirements. The MPCA also develops policies to provide additional clarification and direction to rules and other requirements as part of the implementation of MPCA s programs. During rulemaking, policy development, and other decisions around program implementation, the MPCA will consider the implications of those actions and decisions on lower-income Minnesotans, indigenous people, and communities of color. In addition, the MPCA will take extra steps to provide for meaningful involvement of all people. When determining whether or not to undertake a certain action, the MPCA will consider the equity impacts of a proposed action will an action achieve the overall goals and will it create any positive and negative impacts on various groups of people? For example, a rule or policy may result in positive impacts such as decreased pollution, decreased costs, and increased employment opportunities. Possible negative impacts include increased pollution, increased costs, or a decrease in opportunities and access to beneficial things or opportunities. In other words, it is important to ask: Who benefits? Who bears an increased burden or cost? More particularly, does the proposed action change the distribution of the benefits and burdens among different groups within society? Is anyone made better off? Is anyone made worse off? The MPCA will evaluate these equity impacts whenever we consider possible actions to address environmental concerns. The analysis of these impacts provides information to any entity considering implementing a possible action. Goals MPCA rules and policies are fair and equitable, address disparities in exposures and impacts where possible, and are developed reflecting the input of all Minnesotans. Strategies 1. Actively engage all Minnesotans in rule and policy development. Employ outreach and civic engagement strategies and tools outlined on pages to facilitate early and meaningful involvement in rulemaking and policy development processes. 2. Review and document the equity impacts of rules. Prepare an analysis for each rule that shows the effects of the proposed rule and how the proposed rule changes the existing distribution of burdens and benefits between groups of concern. Conduct this analysis as an additional component of the Statement of Need and Reasonableness already prepared for each rule. 3. Identify and evaluate equity implications of policies and program implementation. Seek to understand and evaluate equity impacts of policies developed as part of specific program implementation. When possible equity concerns are identified by the MPCA or stakeholders, the MPCA will conduct a qualitative analysis of possible equity impacts to inform policy development and program implementation decisions. Environmental Justice Framework December

79 S-39 Resources to support environmental justice integration Screening to identify areas of concern for environmental justice Many factors can contribute to disproportionate adverse human health or environmental impacts in one area compared to another and on certain groups of people. These include not only differences in levels of pollution but also underlying health conditions, fears about safety, financial concerns and other stresses, access to healthy food, and lack of positive community attributes such as greenspace. In addition, some groups of people are more susceptible to these burdens than others. The MPCA will evaluate demographic data, environmental stressors, and community knowledge to identify areas that may be experiencing disproportionate pollution impacts and with higher concentrations of people who may be the most vulnerable to that pollution. This initial screening will provide information to direct and influence actions under other parts of this framework, such as increased community outreach, enhanced regulatory or pollution prevention attention, as well as additional monitoring or risk analysis. This screening is only a first step. It does not provide a definitive designation that an area is subject to a disproportionate burden. It simply flags an area as one where additional consideration or effort is needed to identify and potentially mitigate disproportionate adverse impacts. Goal MPCA program staff, community members, and regulated parties are able to identify areas where additional review or action is needed or desired to address possible environmental justice concerns. Strategies 1. Develop data-driven screening methodology. Identify data sources and procedures to provide information about possible environmental justice concerns in a geographical area using demographic and environmental variables. Variables provide information on race and income levels, potential environmental exposures, number of facilities and contamination sites in the surrounding area, and other factors to characterize the potential burdens and vulnerabilities faced by residents. Data sources should include other state agency data, county and city data, and EPA-developed tools such as EJSCREEN. 2. Include community engagement in the screening process to gather community knowledge. Seek out information from community members about conditions in their community, including nonchemical stressors. Use this information to verify and supplement data-driven sources. Discuss what additional sources of information could help to characterize the community. 3. Apply the screening methodology to identify areas for further review and action by MPCA programs and facilities located in these areas. As described throughout this document, MPCA program areas act as appropriate to adapt program work to engage community members, further evaluate risks, mitigate disproportionate impacts, and take other actions. Environmental Justice Framework December

80 S-39 Outreach, public participation, and engagement As we strive to achieve environmental justice, all residents must have opportunities to participate in decisions about activities that affect them and have equal access to programs and services. The MPCA must engage people of all backgrounds, in all parts of the state especially lower-income residents, communities of color, and American Indians in collective action to create shared values and outcomes. One goal of our environmental justice efforts is to engage previously underrepresented communities and identify and remove barriers limiting their ability to participate in the MPCA s work. The MPCA will address obstacles related to logistical considerations such as lack of community members time to participate, convenience of meeting location, and higher priority conflicts. MPCA s traditional approaches have often lacked community and cultural sensitivity, further inhibiting participation and affecting trust. In areas of concern for environmental justice, the MPCA will take steps to provide more and better opportunities to be involved, seek out the participation of communities not previously involved and be more inclusive of different communities and cultures. The MPCA will also strive to provide accessible and understandable information to community members on activities that may affect their health and quality of life. The MPCA also recognizes the need to develop and maintain meaningful relationships with a variety of community stakeholders, organizations, and individuals to reconcile historical distrust between government and communities of color. It is important we work to establish the foundations for longterm collaborative work. The MPCA will work with stakeholders to establish strategies for long-term and comprehensive community engagement, and continually revisit organizational policies and structures to respond to community needs and ideas. Goal The MPCA engages with community members to build authentic relationships and build trust, and involve all Minnesotans in a meaningful and accessible manner. Strategies 1. Build upon previous efforts to deepen community connections and understanding. Collaborate to foster supportive partnerships, authentic relationships, and culturally competent long-term engagement. Expand the network of community stakeholders that we interact with to ensure representation from affected communities, and inclusion of as many community members and organizations working on environmental justice as possible. Encourage community members to be involved. 2. Tailor outreach and public participation to specific community. Seek to understand the community characteristics and specific barriers to meaningful involvement. Develop outreach and public participation to engage and inform the community. Use trusted and culturally relevant sources of information. Start communication with community members at the earliest possible opportunity. 3. Use understandable language. Written materials, presentations, and informal communication should be easily understandable, free of jargon and undefined acronyms, and available in multiple languages when appropriate. Highlight the most relevant information and assist community members in understanding the technical aspects of our work. 4. Hold community meetings and events early and frequently. In addition to and in advance of formal and required public meetings, employ a variety of formats early on and frequently to share information, listen to residents concerns, and answer questions. Demonstrate how community input was considered. Environmental Justice Framework December

81 S Expand public notification methods. During certain actions, such as some permits and rulemaking, the MPCA is required to formally notify the public through specified traditional media. When environmental justice is of concern, the MPCA will employ additional methods specifically tailored to that community as early in the process as practical, and as often as appropriate. 6. Encourage the facilities we regulate to plan for public participation. In addition to employing the approaches above, the MPCA will suggest or request that the regulated party, such as a facility applying for a permit, prepare and implement a public participation plan that includes the same strategies as above. Agency training and development Integrating environmental justice principles into MPCA s work will require staff and MPCA leadership to implement new procedures and approaches. Successful adoption and practice will be aided by developing a workforce that reflects the diversity of Minnesota. It is essential that MPCA staff approach their work inclusively and respond appropriately to the needs and perspectives of people from diverse racial, economic, and cultural backgrounds. We must be diligent to ensure that cultural and racial bias does not contribute to different access, service, and outcomes. Goal Develop and maintain a workforce that is trained in environmental justice, values diversity, and delivers services in a multi-culturally competent, sensitive, and equitable manner. Strategies 1. Recruit, hire, and maintain a diverse work force. Along with other state agencies, implement best practices identified by the Governor s Diversity and Inclusion Council to recruit, promote, and retain individuals from underrepresented communities in order to create a more vibrant, diverse work force. Additionally, increase awareness of the MPCA s mission and employment opportunities among diverse groups and communities. Build and strengthen partnerships and connections to aid in recruiting a diverse pool of candidates for MPCA and state of Minnesota positions. Encourage and facilitate applicants from diverse backgrounds to apply for student worker and permanent positions. Create a workplace culture that values diversity and is inclusive. 2. Train and develop all managers and staff in multicultural competency, institutional racism, the MPCA s environmental justice policy, Civil Rights Act Title VI requirements, and other areas identified that support MPCA s capacity to assure equal access and achieve equitable outcomes. 3. Train relevant program staff in procedures and policies to integrate environmental justice principles into their specific area of work. Incorporate these responsibilities into employee work plans. Collect employee feedback to monitor effectiveness of capacity-building and awareness-raising work. Ongoing stakeholder and community involvement in framework implementation and improvement This document is MPCA s initial attempt to define strategies and develop implementation approaches to integrate environmental justice principles into our daily work. While much work remains to be done, we are already implementing some of the strategies and will continue to expand implementation while we work to develop the remaining approaches described in this plan. The MPCA fully expects that through experience with implementation, agency staff and stakeholders will identify areas for improvement. The MPCA will regularly improve and modify implementation of the strategies in this framework based on initial experience, learning, and feedback and communicate changes to all stakeholders. The MPCA Environmental Justice Framework December

82 S-39 expects and invites regular feedback from all stakeholders to further develop and shape implementation. Goal Feedback from a variety of stakeholders informs improvements to MPCA s environmental justice work and all interested stakeholders have a satisfying level of access and opportunity to contribute. Strategies 1. Environmental justice advisory group. Establish an advisory group that meets regularly to provide feedback to the MPCA on framework implementation and to collaborate on ways to improve MPCA s strategies and implementation. This group will be made up of a variety of stakeholders working on community engagement, environmental justice, health equity, and related work. 2. Targeted engagement. As needed or requested, provide opportunities for additional stakeholder input and feedback on MPCA s work with businesses, local and tribal governments, and others. 3. Environmental justice events. Convene and sponsor events that provide opportunities for all stakeholders to learn, share experiences, and provide feedback related to environmental justice work. The MPCA would present on implementation progress at these events. Coordination with federal, state, local, and tribal governments While the MPCA has significant authority and responsibility to protect the environment of Minnesota, others share in this role including the EPA, tribal governments, county, and municipal governments. Local governments in particular also play a key role in land use decisions that factor into many concerns about environmental justice. Similarly, decisions and actions by other state agencies also impact our work. We have overlapping responsibilities and missions with many of our sister state agencies, especially the Minnesota Department of Health. We aim to learn from and support each other s work. Goal The MPCA coordinates its work with all levels of government to improve joint effectiveness in reducing disparities in exposures, health effects, and other related public interests. Strategies 1. Coordinate work with state agencies and local government in Minnesota to reduce disparities across multiple agencies/jurisdictions, enhance relationships, and together, implement Governor Mark Dayton s Executive Order establishing the Diversity and Inclusion Council. Involve local government staff, elected officials, and others in actions and projects in areas of concern for environmental justice. 2. Learn from the experiences of other states and the EPA. Identify best practices, tools, and lessons learned from the EPA and other states that could inform integration in Minnesota. Participate in national information-sharing and working groups such as those convened by EPA or the Environmental Council of States. 3. Tribal coordination. Ensure environmental justice issues are considered in our government-togovernment interactions with Minnesota tribes. (See Governor Mark Dayton Executive Order 13-10) 4. Collaborate with EPA. Identify ways the expertise and resources of the EPA can help advance our work in Minnesota and identify ways the MPCA can support EPA s work in the state. Environmental Justice Framework December

83 S-39 Measuring and reporting on progress The MPCA is committed to achieving results, measuring progress, and regularly communicating with stakeholders about our results. The MPCA will seek feedback on implementation of this framework during periodic meetings with the environmental justice advisory group, through electronic communication, personal contact, and other means. During initial implementation, the MPCA will prepare a written report on our progress achieving the goals of this framework. This report will be produced every year on or before January 15, beginning in After 2018, the reporting frequency will be evaluated in consultation with stakeholders. This report will include: Progress developing analytical tools, guidance documents, and procedures Reports on measures identified to track progress Summary of advisory group meetings Planned activities, deliverables, and milestones for the coming year and beyond Case studies related to permitting, outreach, engagement, and other activities To monitor our progress in meeting the goals of this framework, the MPCA has identified three types of measures related to pollution and health, meaningful involvement, and program integration. Specific measures are listed as initial examples; more work is needed, including collaboration with stakeholders to identify indicators that can be measured and tracked over time. Pollution and health: The changes over time in environmental conditions, potential exposures, and effects. Possible measures: Air pollution measures, statewide and in areas of potential environmental justice concern Monitored levels of key air pollutants of concern (PM 2.5, formaldehyde, ozone, nitrogen dioxide) Predicted (modeled) health risks Emissions of criteria pollutants Asthma healthcare use rates and other respiratory disease, statewide and in areas of potential environmental justice concern Other environmental and health-related measures, to be determined Meaningful involvement: The activities and satisfaction of community members related to public participation and engagement with members of the environmental justice community. Possible measures: Development and successful implementation of an outreach and engagement plan Participation in community events and activities Number of meetings or community events that the MPCA attended or participated in Number of community members attending MPCA events or meetings Number of people from environmental justice communities routinely engaging in MPCA work Community input is recorded and reflected in agency program implementation and decisions Satisfaction of community members related to meaningful involvement in MPCA public participation activities Programmatic measures: The progress we make integrating environmental justice into the MPCA s work. Possible measures: Environmental Justice Framework December

84 S-39 Use of screening tools to determine if a project is in an area of concern for environmental justice Number/portion of MPCA programs that have developed and fully incorporated environmental justice strategies Creation and documentation of tools/guidance/procedures for addressing environmental justice in identified program areas to implement the strategies identified in this framework Number of staff trained in multicultural competency, employee survey of attitudes Implementation details Implementation plans, guidance documents, procedures, and other tools that will fully implement this framework are being developed separately. We expect to regularly modify these documents often based on experience and feedback from stakeholders, especially initially. These include: Procedures for screening for possible environmental justice concerns Implementation plans for permitting, compliance, and enforcement Planned approaches for public participation and engagement in permitting and other actions when environmental justice is a concern Stakeholder outreach and engagement plan Risk assessment and cumulative impacts Guidance on civic engagement and equity considerations in policy development and rulemaking We will report on the status of these plans, guidance documents, and other resources periodically through regular updates as described in the previous section. Completed versions will be posted on the MPCA website as they become available. Draft versions and a status summary are available upon request. Please check or contact ned.brooks@state.mn.us for more information. Environmental Justice Framework December

85 S-40 Environmental Justice Principles and Practices Policy Title: Incorporating Environmental Justice Principles and Practices (EJ Policy) into Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Operations Policy Type: Environmental, Agency-wide Effective Date: October 11, 2012 Policy statement The (MPCA) will, within its authority, strive for the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies Meaningful Involvement means that: 1. people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health; 2. the public s contribution can influence the regulatory agency s decision; 3. their concerns will be considered in the decision making process; and 4. the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected The above concept is embraced as Environmental Justice (EJ) by the MPCA. John Linc Stine, Commissioner Purpose and rationale Environmental Justice is based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) definition of environmental justice, which can be found at This MPCA policy is intended to identify principles and practices to guide the commitment to integrating Environmental Justice principles into programs administered by the MPCA. Statutory Basis Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 p-gen5-01a

86 S-41 Waste Water Treatment System: Design and Operation Report Permit-Review Level NorthMet Project Prepared for Poly Met Mining, Inc. July MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN

87 S-41 Attachment D Reverse Osmosis Pilot-Test Report SD033 Active Treatment Evaluation

88 Table 23 Revised Preliminary Cost Estimate for Evaporation and Crystallization Item Unit Unit Cost Qty Cost Construction and Equipment Costs Feed pumps and pump house LS $ 148,000 1 $ 148,000 Process building SF $ $ 620,000 Liquid chemical storage and feed systems EA $ 10,000 3 $ 30,000 MMF and reverse osmosis systems LS $ 1,053,000 1 $ 1,053,000 Evaporator and crystallizer LS $ 5,600,000 1 $ 5,600,000 Limestone contactor, carbon dioxide and degassifier LS $ 322,700 1 $ 322,700 Process equipment LS $ 2,150,000 1 $ 2,150,000 Mechanical (HVAC & small LS $ 1,050,000 1 $ 1,050,000 Electrical and control LS $ 1,790,000 1 $ 1,790,000 Construction and Equipment Subtotal $ 12,763,700 Construction and Equipment Allowance 30% S-41 Construction and Equipment Cost Subtotal $ 12,763,700 Professional Services Design and procurement 10% $ 1,276,000 1 $ 1,276,000 Construction services 5% $ 638,000 1 $ 638,000 Professional Services Subtotal $ 1,914,000 Professional Services Allowance 10% $ 191,000 Professional Services Subtotal $ 2,105,000 Capital Cost Total $ 14,868,700 Annual Operation and Maintenance RO O&M LS $ 199,100 1 $ 199,100 Evaporator and crystallizer O&M LS $ 441,800 1 $ 441,800 Limestone LS $ 48,000 1 $ 48,000 Sludge hauling and disposal (non hazardous) WT $ $ 56,900 Labor FTE $ 60,000 5 $ 300,000 O&M Subtotal $ 1,045,800 Operation and Maintenance Cost Allowance 30% $ 313,700 Operation and Maintenance Cost Total $ 1,359,500

89 Table 24 Preliminary Cost Estimate for VSEP and Crystallization S-41 Item Unit Unit Cost Qty Cost Construction and Equipment Costs Feed pumps and pump house LS $ 148,000 1 $ 148,000 Process building SF $ $ 470,000 Liquid chemical storage and feed systems EA $ 10,000 3 $ 30,000 MMF and reverse osmosis system LS $ 1,053,000 1 $ 1,053,000 VSEP system LS $ 1,199,000 1 $ 1,199,000 Crystallizer LS $ 4,750,000 1 $ 4,750,000 Limestone contactor, carbon dioxide and degassifier LS $ 322,700 1 $ 322,700 Process equipment LS $ 2,250,000 1 $ 2,250,000 Mechanical (HVAC & small LS $ 1,100,000 1 $ 1,100,000 Electrical and control LS $ 1,880,000 1 $ 1,880,000 Construction and Equipment Cost Subtotal $ 13,202,700 Operation and Maintenance Cost Allowance 30% $ 3,961,000 Construction and Equipment Cost Subtotal $ 17,163,700 Professional Services Design and procurement 10% $ 1,716,000 1 $ 1,716,000 Construction services 5% $ 858,000 1 $ 858,000 Professional Services Subtotal $ 2,574,000 Professional Services Cost Allowance 10% $ 257,000 Professional Services Subtotal $ 2,831,000 Capital Cost Total $ 19,994,700 Annual Operation and Maintenance RO O&M LS $ 199,100 1 $ 199,100 VSEP O&M LS $ 188,300 1 $ 188,300 Crystallizer O&M LS $ 207,600 1 $ 207,600 Limestone LS $ 48,000 1 $ 48,000 Sludge hauling and disposal (non hazardous) WT $ $ 63,200 Labor FTE $ 60,000 5 $ 300,000 Operation and Maintenance Subtotal $ 1,006,200 Operation and Maintenance Cost Allowance 30% $ 301,900 Operation and Maintenance Cost Total $ 1,308,100

90 S-41 Table 25 Preliminary Cost Estimate for ICCP, Secondary RO, and Crystallization Item Unit Unit Cost Qty Cost Construction and Equipment Costs Feed pumps and pump house LS $ 148,000 1 $ 148,000 Process building SF $ $ 560,000 Liquid chemical storage and feed systems EA $ 10,000 3 $ 30,000 Primary and secondary RO systems LS $ 1,680,000 1 $ 1,680,000 Crystallizer LS $ 3,700,000 1 $ 3,700,000 Concentrate storage tank LS $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 Lime storage silo and feed system EA $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 Soda ash storage silo and feed system EA $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 Solids contact clarifiers EA $ 100,000 1 $ 100,000 Dewatering equipment EA $ 150,000 2 $ 300,000 Limestone contactor, carbon dioxide and degassifier LS $ 322,700 1 $ 322,700 Process equipment LS $ 2,040,000 1 $ 2,040,000 Mechanical (HVAC & small LS $ 1,000,000 1 Electrical and control LS $ 1,700,000 1 $ 1,700,000 Construction and Equipment Cost Subtotal $ 11,100,700 Operation and Maintenance Cost Allowance 30% $ 3,330,000 Construction and Equipment Cost Subtotal $ 11,100,700 Professional Services Design and procurement 10% $ 1,110,000 1 $ 1,110,000 Construction services 5% $ 555,000 1 $ 555,000 Professional Services Subtotal $ 1,665,000 Professional Services Cost Allowance 10% $ 167,000 Professional Services Subtotal $ 1,832,000 Capital Cost Total $ 12,932,700 Annual Operation and Maintenance Reverse Osmosis O&M LS $ 261,500 1 $ 261,500 Crystallizer O&M LS $ 151,900 1 $ 151,900 Lime softening chemicals LS $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 Limestone LS $ 48,000 1 $ 48,000 Solids disposal WT $ $ 131,700 Labor FTE $ 60,000 5 $ 300,000 Operation and Maintenance Cost Subtotal $ 1,193,100 Operation and Maintenance Cost Allowance 30% $ 357,900 Operation and Maintenance Cost Total $ 1,551,000

91 Table 26 Summary of Preliminary Costs Estimates S-41 Primary Treatment (RO)/Concentrate Management Option Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost 20 yr NPV Evaporator and crystallizer $ 14,900,000 $ 1,360,000 $ 39,900,000 Volume reduction by VSEP with crystallizer $ 20,000,000 $ 1,310,000 $ 44,100,000 ICCP, secondary RO, and crystallizer $ 12,900,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 41,400,000

92 S-42 Engineering Cost Analysis of Current and Recently Adopted, Proposed, and Anticipated Changes to Water Quality Standards and Rules for Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Systems in Minnesota Prepared for Minnesota Management and Budget January 2017 Revised February 10, MarketPointe Drive, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN

93 S-42 Appendix C Membrane Costs

94 S-42 Memorandum To: Paul Saffert and Seth Peterson, Bolton and Menk From: Barr Engineering Co. Subject: MMB cost analysis for RO, NF, and evaporator/crystallizer systems Date: December 2, 2016 Project: WWCE c: Bryan Oakley, Jon Minne, Jeff Ubl, Tim Reid, Alison Ling, Dale Finnesgaard, Hal Runke C1.0 Rationale for Cost Estimate Barr compiled estimated costs to upgrade 15 Minnesota wastewater treatment facilities to meet current and future water quality standards. Some of the 15 wastewater facilities analyzed in this study may require reverse osmosis (RO) and/or nanofiltration (NF) treatment to meet anticipated future Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) standards for chloride and sulfate. The majority of costs were estimated using CapdetWorks TM, a software program that models treatment costs for a wide variety of wastewater processes. However, reverse osmosis (RO) and associated brine treatment are expensive methods that produce cleaner water than typically required for wastewater treatment, and these processes are not included in the model. This memo describes Barr s cost estimation for RO or NF membrane filtration and brine treatment by evaporation/crystallization for Minnesota wastewater treatment facilities. Cost estimates were normalized to July 2014 dollars using Engineering News Record (ENR) cost indices for construction costs. July 2014 was chosen as the basis to match the cost output from CapdetWorks TM. C2.0 Membrane Costs Both RO and NF capital costs were based on budgetary proposals from GE Water and Process Solutions for a confidential Barr project for hollow fiber membrane modules mounted on 8 x 20 skids. C2.1 Flow Apportioning Because RO and NF remove over 90% of target salts fed to the membranes and treatment is expensive, WWTFs requiring RO or NF treatment are expected to treat only a portion of the plant flow with RO or NF membranes. This cost analysis assumes that flow would be apportioned to treat the minimum volume required to meet chloride and sulfate targets. The method used to calculate these flows for RO and NF is outlined below. Design conditions for chloride and sulfate removal were determined based on historical DMR flow and concentration data. For example, Figure C-1 shows the relationship between flow and chloride concentration for Watertown. Generally, concentrations of sulfate and chloride decrease with increasing plant flow, which allows a treatment system to be sized to treat a constant side stream of flow at varying influent flow rates. The amount of flow requiring RO treatment was evaluated for two different conditions. The first condition evaluated was the average monthly flow with the highest recorded average monthly