minnesota pollution control agency welcome! medicine lake excess nutrients tmdl project steering...
TRANSCRIPT
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Welcome!Medicine Lake Excess Nutrients Medicine Lake Excess Nutrients TMDL ProjectTMDL ProjectSteering Committee Meeting #5
May 14, 2009
Photo by: Terrie Christian—President, AMLAC
Min
neso
ta P
ollu
tion
Con
trol
Age
ncy
Agenda
4:00 – 4:05 Welcome and Introductions
4:05 – 4:25 Final Loading Capacity and Reductions update – Hans Holmberg, LimnoTech and Brian Vlach, TRPD
4:25 – 4:45 Finalize method for splitting up the WLA – Chris Zadak, MPCA and Brian Ross, CR Planning
4:45 – 5:25 Review/refine BMP decision criteria - Brian Ross, CR Planning
5:25 – 5:55 Potential Improvement options – Hans Holmberg, LimnoTech and Chris Zadak, MPCA Existing BMPs in watershed (Hans) BMPs in previous implementation
plans (Hans) Additional improvement options to
consider (Chris)
5:55 – 6:00 June meeting agenda – determine BMP options
6:00 Adjourn
Min
neso
ta P
ollu
tion
Con
trol
Age
ncy
Previous Decisions
General agreement on the grouping of the allocation decision criteria, with some caveats
Committee has a comfort level with the data and modeling, Comfort level does not preclude need for additional
information and reservations about the interpretation of data
Committee seeks a hybrid model for making allocations.
Min
neso
ta P
ollu
tion
Con
trol
Age
ncy
Final Loading Capacity, Reductions Update
Min
neso
ta P
ollu
tion
Con
trol
Age
ncy
Finalize method for splitting waste load allocation
1. Individual allocations for each MS42. Categorical allocation, all MS4s together,
administered by the Basset Creek Watershed Management Commission
3. Hybrid allocation, with road MS4s (MnDOT, Hennepin County) getting individual allocations, MS4 cities being categorical
Default allocation method is #1 (individual allocations) Categorical allocation is dependent on involvement of
BCWMC
Min
neso
ta P
ollu
tion
Con
trol
Age
ncy
Draft Criteria for Decision-Making
Best Management Practices should be prioritized by:
Cost effectiveness
Diversity of benefit
Opportunities for shared implementation
Greatest capacity for measurable results
Min
neso
ta P
ollu
tion
Con
trol
Age
ncy
1. Cost effectiveness
Cost effectiveness includes: initial cost, operating or ongoing costs, and minimal external costs, weighed against the
BMP performance as measured by phosphorus load reduction.
Are there other elements of cost effectiveness that need to be considered?
Min
neso
ta P
ollu
tion
Con
trol
Age
ncy
2. Diversity of benefit
Other than cost benefits, benefits identified include:
habitat preservation and enhancement,environmental benefits, water volume control, and sediment removal.
Are there other benefits that should be considered?
Min
neso
ta P
ollu
tion
Con
trol
Age
ncy
3. Emphasize shared implementation
Must shared implementation be watershed wide, or are there other kinds of shared implementation? What is a good example of shared implementation?
Min
neso
ta P
ollu
tion
Con
trol
Age
ncy
4. Greatest capacity for measurable results
The idea emphasized ‘measurable’, which distinguishes BMPs for which removal efficiency rates can be monitored from the BMP versus those where monitoring is not possible.
Should the ability to measure removal of phosphorus be given a high priority?