STRATEGIES FOR PHOSPHORUS COMPLIANCE. James E. Kleinschmidt, P.E. September 10, 2013

Transcription

1 STRATEGIES FOR PHOSPHORUS COMPLIANCE James E. Kleinschmidt, P.E. September 10, 2013

2 Strategies for Phosphorus Compliance

3 Applicable Statewide Criteria

4 Basis for Rule-Wadeable Streams

5 Basis for Rule-Nonwadeable Rivers

6 WPDES Permits-New Rule Permits Issued or Public Noticed 29.4 % Permits with TMDL Limits 11.2 % Permits with Limits at WQC 56.6 % (375 Permits) Likely to Increase Rock River Permits 21.1 % (55 permits) Fox/Illinois Permits 13 % (18 permits) Watersheds with Limits> WQC Wisconsin River Chippewa River Upper Fox/Wolf

7 WPDES Permit Conditions Year 1 Operational Evaluation Begin Study of Feasible Alternatives Year 2 Status Report Year 3 Preliminary Compliance Alternative Plan Adaptive Management Trading Commitment

8 WPDES Permit Conditions Year 4 Final Compliance Alternative Plan Year 6 Final Plans and Specifications Unless: Trading Adaptive Management Variance Site Specific Limit

9 Phosphorus Rule Flow Chart

10 Available Strategies for Compliance Accept Limit and Construct Facilities Adaptive Management Trading Elimination of Discharge Site Specific Limits Variance Hybrids (e.g treat to 0.2 mg/l and trade the difference)

11 Accept the Limit Tertiary Filtration with Chemical Addition Typical Molar Dose Rates (5 to 10 molar) Similar Volume to Phosphorus Removal from 6 mg/l to 1 mg/l Forms of Phosphorus No effluent TSS to meet a to mg/l limit

12 Forms of Phosphorus Total Phosphorus Soluble? Particulate? Soluble Ortho P Lead/Copper Poly P Iron/Manganese Organic P Total Organic P Particulate Organic P Chemical P Precipitation Adsorped P

13 Accept the Limit Available Technologies Limit 0.20 mg/l Conventional Sand Filtration Cloth Filter Filtration (Stainless or Cloth) Single Stage Upflow Filters Compressible Media Filtration Limit 0.10 mg/l Membrane Filtration Ballasted Sand Filtration Two Stage Upflow Filters

14 Accept the Limit $$$ Ballasted Sand Filtration mg/l Membrane Filtration (Flat Plate) mg/l $ Cloth Media Filtration 0.2 mg/l Compressible Media Filtration 0.2 mg/l

15 Knee of the Curve-Construct Facilities Additional Chemical

16 Adaptive Management Qualify Non-Point Source > 50% Practices must allow criteria to be met in future or limit will be set at criteria Wisconsin DNR guidance on adaptive management Filtration Required for Compliance with WQBEL

17 Adaptive Management-Timetable First Permit Term Operational Evaluation- 1 year after issuance Study of Feasible Alternatives-3 years after issuance Partners for Adaptive Management Selection for Adaptive Management- 4 years after issuance Second Permit Term Interim Limit 0.6 mg/l Stream Monitoring

18 Adaptive Management-Timetable Third Permit Term Interim Limit 0.5 mg/l Stream Monitoring Fourth Permit Term Criteria Met-Limit of 0.5 mg/l Criteria Exceeded-Limit based on Criteria

19 Trading Offset to Limit (DNR position) General Conditions DNR Guidance (page 10) Water quality trading should not create localized exceedances of water quality? Most Favorable Trades (uncertainty ratio of 1) Whole field management Companion Crops Conservation Easement Wetland Restoration

20 Eliminate Discharge Pump to Waterbody Meeting Criteria Regionalization Land Disposal Mounds (Small Facilities < 0.05 mgd) Infiltration (Suitable Soils) Spray Irrigation (Storage)

21 Site Specific Limit At levels exceeding the state wide criteria Does the water body meet its intended use Biological investigations required Fisheries macro invertebrates May require contested case hearing to preserve option Cashton, Elroy

22 WisCalm

23 Determination of Classification Non-Wadeable Rivers Excellent Fish IBI > 80 Good Fish IBI > 60 Fair Fish IBI > 40 Wadeable Streams Excellent Fish IBI > 65 Macro IBI > 7.5 Good Fish IBI > 50 Macro IBI > 5 Fair Fish IBI > 30 Macro IBI > 2.6

24 USGS Studies

25 Non-Wadeable Rivers Attainment Status Summary

26 Non-Wadeable Rivers-Excellent

27 Non-Wadeable Good

28 Non-Wadeable Fair

29 Non-Wadeable Poor

30 Non-Wadeable Very Poor

31 Trout Streams VERNON COUNTY TROUT MAP Class 1-Self Sustaining Class 2 Class 3

32 Trout Streams

33 Vernon County Total P

34 Vernon County (Fish IBI)

35 Vernon County (Macro IBI)

36 Walworth County Total P

37 Walworth County (Fish IBI)

38 Walworth County (Macro IBI)

39 Statewide Summary-Attaining Status 75 % of Streams > mg/l 70 % of Streams 0.12 to mg/l 87 % of Streams to mg/l 78 Per Cent of Streams > mg/l Attaining Status

40 Variances Designated Use Not Obtained Reasons Other than Phosphorus

41 Variances-Bases

42 Variances-Bases Economic Variance (2% MHI) Not Likely High Natural Background Source Groundwater Wetlands Low-Flow Ephemeral Streams Physical Conditions Human Caused Conditions Hydrologic Modifications Dams Channelized Streams Tile Drainage

43 Proactive Steps Stream Sampling Headwaters Upstream Downstream Review Available Biological Investigations Site Specific Limit Variance Assess Costs of Compliance with WQBEL (Benchmark) Review Critical Watershed Characteristics Impoundments Drainage Systems Agriculture Wetlands Adaptive Management/Trading Feasibility BEGIN IMMEDIATELY EVEN IF PERMIT IS NOT EXPIRED!

44 Questions

45 Compliance Case Studies SINGLE WWTP DISCHARGER WATERSHEDS East Troy, WI (Honey Creek) Paddock Lake, WI (Brighton Creek) Union Grove, WI (West Branch Root River Canal) Cashton, WI (Little La Crosse River Plymouth, WI (Mullet River) Twin Lakes, WI (Bassett Creek)

46 Compliance Case Studies Multiple WWTP DISCHARGER WATERSHEDS Burlington, WI (Fox River-Illinois) Milton, WI (Rock River) Fort Atkinson, WI (Rock River)

47 Watershed Characteristics-I Size of Watershed (HUC) Upstream Point source Dischargers Upstream MS4s Upstream Agricultural Sources Upstream Wetlands History of Watershed Dams Tile Drainage Channelization

48 Watershed Characteristics-II Existing Stream Quality-Biological DNR Site Assessments Trout Stream Classifications Class I Class II Class III Exiting Stream Quality-Total phosphorus

49 East Troy, WI Honey Creek HUC-10 Substantial Hydrologic Modifications Lauderdale Lakes Whitewater Lake Fox River

50 East Troy, WI-Honey Creek Total Drainage Area 91.5 sq miles Six Impoundments Non-Attainment of Full, Fish and Aquatic Status Hydrologic Modifications In-Stream Phosphorous Upstream of Impoundment 3 50 ug/l Downstream of Impoundment ug/l Impoundment 3 Immediately Upstream of Outfall

51 Honey Creek

52 East Troy, WI-Options Adaptive Management Dam Removal Possible Compliance with Criteria Limit 0.2 mg/l instead of mg/l Trading Riparian Land Wetland Restoration Variance Without Dam Removal Hydrologic Modifications Human Caused Conditions

53 Paddock Lake, WI Brighton Creek HUC 12 High Background Phosphorus Des Plaines River

54 Paddock Lake-Brighton Creek Total Drainage Area 26.5 sq miles Low Flow Stream Identified as No Flow Stream at Point of Discharge (10.8 squ miles) Likely 7Q2 0.6 to 0.7 cfs Non-Attainment of Full, Fish and Aquatic Status High Up-Stream Phosphorus 0.42 mg/l

55 Paddock Lake-Brighton Creek Brighton Creek

56 Paddock Lake-Options Variance Low, Flow Ephemeral Stream High Background Phosphorus Trading Adaptive Management PS Dominated (PRESTO Model Verification) Criteria Likely Not Meetable

57 Union Grove, WI Root River Fox River West Branch of Root River Canal LAL at Discharge Agricultural Drainage Channel

58 Union Grove West Branch of Root River Canal Total Drainage Area 35.7 sq miles Agricultural Drainage Channel (10 miles downstream) Limited Aquatic Life at Discharge Non-Attainment of Full, Fish and Aquatic Status Limit Imposed at Downstream Location Union Grove 3% of Annual Flow in Canal

59 Root River Canal

60 Union Grove Options Variance (Contested Case Hearing Filed) Low, Flow Ephemeral Stream Human Caused Conditions Trading Wetland Restoration Adaptive Management PS Dominated (at point of change in classification not entire watershed) Criteria Likely Not Meetable Eliminate Discharge - Regionalization

61 Cashton, WI La Crosse River

62 Cashton-Little La Crosse River Class I Trout Stream WPDES Permit Mass Limit Downstream La Crosse River (Good Condition- WWSF) Data Collection Underway

63 Little La Crosse River La Crosse River

64 Cashton Options Site Specific Limit (Class I Trout Stream) Hearing Request Preserve Site Specific Option Object to Mass Limit ( Downstream ) lbs/day mgd

65 Plymouth, WI

66 Plymouth-Mullet River Five Impoundments Two immediately Upstream of Plant Class II Trout Stream Upstream of City Mullet River Exceed Criteria Downstream of Dams in City Past Cranberry Cropping Activities (1800s)

67 Mullet River

68 Twin Lakes, WI Fox River

69 Twin Lakes-Bassett Creek Low Flow Stream 0.1 cfs at CTH F (one mile downstream of WWTP) 0.17 cfs at confluent with Illinois Fox Non-attainment of Full, Fish and Aquatic Status

70 Bassett Creek Fox River

71 Twin Lakes Options Variance Low, Flow Ephemeral Stream Trading (if allowed up to confluence with FoxIllinois River) Eliminate Discharge Effluent Pumping to Fox River Fox River Compliant? Contested Case Hearing (Alternative Effluent Limit for Thermal)

72 Viroqua, WI Disappearing Stream LAL at Discharge Downstream Class I Trout Stream

73 Springville Branch Fox River

74 Viroqua Options Site Specific Limit

75 Burlington, WI

76 Upstream WWTPs Point Source Dominated Watershed Sussex (5.1 mgd) Brookfield (12.5 mgd) Waukesha (14 mgd Root River Relocation?) Western Racine (2 mgd) East Troy (0.8 mgd) Mukwonago (1.3 mgd)

77 Fox River Phosphorus Loadings

78 Burlington Options Adaptive Management Criteria May be Met Point Source Controls Storm Water Controls Non- Point Controls Site Specific Limit Fishery Meets Intended Use (USGS Study Good) Trading if Criteria Not met, No Site Specific Limit

79 Burlington Site Specific Limit

80 Milton, WI River Exceeds Criteria Fish IBI-Very Poor TMDL Allocation Rock River Milton WWTP

81 TMDL Allocation-Milton Met TMDL limits in 2012

82 Milton Options Accept the Limit Seasonal Discharge to Seepage Cells? / Filtration Trading With Milton Excess Pounds Available to Others?

83 Fort Atkinson, WI River Exceeds Criteria Fish IBI-Very Poor TMDL Allocation

84 TMDL Allocation-Fort Atkinson Lowest Limit-0.42 mg/l Limit w/o Filtration

85 Fort Atkinson Options Accept the Limit Filtration Current Flows vs. Design Flows Trading with Fort Atkinson? Trading with Others?

86 Cambridge, WI River Exceeds Criteria TMDL Allocation Limit Based on Criterion

87 Koshkonong Creek Adequate Dilution Except at Headwaters Multiple Dischargers Sun Prairie (4.40 mgd) Deerfield (0.393 mgd) Cambridge (0.571 mgd) Rockdale (0.030 mgd) Phosphorus Exceeds Criterion of mg/l Rock River TMDL No Remaining Impoundments

88 Koshkonong Creek

89 TMDL Allocation-Cambridge

90 Cambridge Options Site Specific Limit Variance Human Caused Conditions Hydrologic Modifications Tile Draining Trading Adaptive Management Criteria Not Likely Met Impact of Sun Prairie on Koshkonong Creek

91 Questions