yahara wins -- adaptive management for phosphorus -- sweet water policy mtg. 3.19.13

7/29/2019 Yahara WINS -- Adaptive Management for Phosphorus -- Sweet Water Policy Mtg. 3.19.13

1/39

Yahara WINS-Partnerships at Work

Adaptive Management for ReducingPhosphorus in the Yahara Watershed

Dave TaylorDirector of Special Projects

Madison Metropolitan Sewerage DistrictPhone: 608-222-1201, ext. 276Email: [email protected]


2/39

Presentation at a Glance

Regulatory drivers

Phosphorus and sediment

Compliance strategies

Yahara WINS

Challenges/opportunities


3/39

New regulatory obligations.

Significant reductions required.

Limitations with traditionalcompliance approaches.

Watershed adaptivemanagement as a promisingalternative.

Regulatory Drivers


4/39

Phosphorus and/or Sediment

NR 102-numeric waterquality criteria

NR 151-runoff management

Rural and urban

NR 217-implementationframework for point sources

Rock River TMDL


5/39

Rock River TMDL

Approved by EPA in September,2011

Addresses impairments causedby TP and TSS

3 broad source categories

Nonpoint (primarily ag)

Municipal stormwater

Wastewater and other pointsources

Reductions required from allsource categories


6/39

Rock River TMDL-Point Sources with

Discharges to the Yahara Watershed


7/39

Rock River TMDL-MS4 (Stormwater) Dischargers with

Outfalls in the Yahara Watershed


8/39

Example of Rock

River TMDL Allocations


9/39

Effluent TP Data and Potential Targets

Effluent TP Concentration (mg/l)

Year Annual Ave Monthly Range

2008 0.30 0.20 - 0.41

2009 0.29 0.20 - 0.47

2010 0.28 0.17 - 0.41

2011 0.30 0.18 - 0.55

2012 0.26 0.16 - 0.51

0.075 mg/l NR 102

0.13 mg/l TMDL


10/39

Potential P Reduction Approaches

Traditional-treatmentand/or control Pollution prevention and source

reduction

Water quality trading

Adaptive management

Combination


11/39

Traditional Compliance Approaches

Independent actions

Discharge focused solutions

Expensive

May not achieve desiredenvironmental outcomes

Permit

driven

Permitdriven

Generallynot permitdriven


12/39

What would this look like for MMSD?

CH2MHill Study

TP alone and TP + TN

TP targets

From 0.075 to 0.225 mg/l

Filtration required

For TP: $71-$124 Million

Resource intensive


13/39

Missed Opportunities

Improvement limited tosmall part of the watershed

No opportunity to improve

quality in Yahara lakes

Minimal opportunity forpartnerships


14/39

Water Quality Trading

Different sources have differentcontrol costs

Entities with higher controlcosts fund practices with lower

costs

Purchaser receives credit forreductions

WDNR has developed a drafttrading framework but issuesremain

Trade ratio and baseline Point to nonpoint example


15/39

Wide Range of Unit Costs for both Ag and

Urban Management Practices

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$/lb TP

Urban Water Quality Grant PracticesIowa ag BMP Pilot Project


16/39

Watershed Adaptive Management

A new compliance option per NR 217

Goal-meet water quality criterion

Some similarities to trading

Flexible (adaptive)

Potential for reduced cost


17/39

Watershed Adaptive Management

Watershed based solutions

Collaboration

Engage all sources

Pool resources

Invest in lowest cost solutions

Likely a mix of urban and ruralpractices

Less reliance on traditional brickand mortar approaches

Improved environmental outcomes

May be less expensive thantraditional approaches

Doesnt come with an instruction manual!


18/39

Adaptive Management vs. Trading

Adaptive Management

Watershed focus

Endpoint-meeting water qualitycriteria

Compliance by water qualitymonitoring

High level of collaboration with

diverse group of stakeholders

High degree of flexibility

Trading

Discharge limit focus

Endpoint-meeting permitrequired reduction

Compliance by calculation

High level of collaboration withnarrow group of stakeholders

Limited flexibility-must conformwith statewide framework


19/39

MMSD Preliminary Evaluation of AM Option

Focus is on Yahara watershed

$59M preliminary cost estimate

TMDL used to calculate total

watershed load reduction for TP

Costs distributed proportional tophosphorus load reduction in TMDL

Interest by many stakeholders


20/39

$59 M Total PW Cost

Distribution of Adaptive Management Costs


21/39

Adaptive Management Pilot Project (Yahara WINS)

Why do a pilot project?

This approach has never been tried

before Get some experience on a small scale

first-then expand

Goals

See if we can get folks to work together

Develop admin framework

Build community support

Work out the bugs

Specifics

$3 million dollars

4 years

Project area-northwest of Lake Mendota


22/39

What Does Success Look Like?

Cost andAffordability

Technical Feasibility

Administration

PartnershipsRegulatory

Community

Acceptance

Net EnvironmentalBenefit


23/39

Yahara WINS-Pilot Project Participants

Cities Villages Towns Others

Other Interested Parties*DATCP EPA Region 5

CARPC River Alliance

Yahara Lakes Association UW-Madison *Periodically updated

Friends of Badfish Creek USDA/NRCS

FitchburgMadison

Middleton

Monona

Stoughton

ArlingtonCottage Grove

DeForest

Maple Bluff

McFarland

Oregon

Shorewood HillsWaunakee

Blooming GroveBristol

Burke

Cottage Grove

Dunn

Middleton

Westport

Windsor

CLAClean Wisconsin

Dane County

MG&E

MMSD

Sand County Foundation

Stoughton Utilities

USGS

WDNR

Yahara Pride Farm Group


24/39

TPReduction

(lbs/yr)

Adaptive

Management

EstimatedCost ($/yr)

Traditional

Stormwater

ControlLow

($/yr)(1)

Traditional

Stormwater

ControlHigh

($/yr) (1)

Potential

Cost

Savings

($/yr)

StormwaterMS4 2,141 $57,000 $430,000 $1,300,000 $373,000to$1,243,000

TraditionalApproach

($/yr)

AdaptiveManagement

($/yr)

PotentialCostSavings

($/yr)

Wastewater(2) $207,000 $21,400 $185,600

)A

range

of

$200

to

$600

per

pound

of

phosphorus

controlled

was

used

as

a

reasonable

estimate

based

on

actual

capital

costofconstructedBMPsinWisconsinandtheirmodeledphosphorusreduction.DatawasassembledbyAECOM,Middleton,WI.

(2) Wastewatercostsrepresenttheincrementalcompliancecosts i.e.theadditionalcoststhatwouldbepassedontoCityabovetheamountthattheyarecurrentlybilledforwastewaterservices

Business Case for Pilot Participation


25/39

Timelines

2012-2015 Pilot Project

2014 (mid/late) Determine go/no go for full scale

2015 Full scale plan submittal to DNR

2015-2030 Compliance period (3 permit terms)


26/39

Pilot Project - Current Status

MOU signed

Administrative framework in place

USGS stations operational-water quality monitoring

Supporting workgroups/committees formed

Detailed work plan developed to engage farm producers

MMSD is evaluating Badfish Creek and Badger Mill Creek optionsduring the pilot


27/39

Some Additional Details

MMSD is the banker

Dane County is the broker

Signed Memorandum ofUnderstanding

Participant funding levelbased on TMDL required Preductions

Robust water qualitymonitoring and I/E efforts


28/39

Yahara Pride Farm Conservation Board

Farmer led effort

Proactive-developing a certificationprogram

Focus is on voluntary (non-regulatory),incentive based approaches

MMSD sits on board of directors

Legume Cover Crop


29/39

Partnerships Are Important

USGS Water quality monitoring

Sand County Foundation Water quality monitoring

UW Madison-WRM Program Sediment P loss

UW Madison-Soils TP loss-exercise lots and spring runoff

USDA/NRCS Soil/Sediment

Clean Lakes Alliance Lake quality

DNR/EPA Alternative compliance approach

Dane County/CLA Winter cover crops


30/39

Challenges-Some Examples

Being the first

Time available under AM

Differing regulatoryexpectations

Equity

Investing outside of municipalboundaries

Effluent dominated streams

Speaking new languages


31/39

Adaptive Management Time Frame

Permit 1

Years 0-5

Permit 2

Years 5-10

Permit 3

Years 10-15

AM allows for up to 3 permit terms to meet WQ

May not be enough time depending on complexity ofwatershed, location of streams, etc.


32/39

Yahara Watershed Example

May respond

quickly

May take muchlonger to respond

(> 15 years)


33/39

Differing Regulatory Expectations

Timelines

MS4s

Adaptive management

TMDL

Compliance methodologies

Concentration

Load

Modeling

Others


34/39

Multiple/Overlapping Regulations

NR 102

In-streamconcentration

NR 217

Implementationguidance for NR102

Concentration

Modeling?

NR 151

TSS, PercentReduction

Phosphorus

Index

Modeling

Rock River

TMDL Load

Concentration

Modeling

Different DNR programs, players, etc

Structuring a monitoring program that addresses all programsneeds


35/39

$59 M Total PW Cost

Equity-Example


36/39

Effluent Dominated Streams Effluent quality:

Little change with AM

Commitment to WQimprovements in watershed &plant optimization

Want to avoid doing both AM and

a plant upgrade

Possible options:

Variance

Variance Water

Site Specific Criteria Other possibilities


37/39

Need to Account for Good Work Already Done

Updating the TMDL information toaccount for reductions alreadyachieved:

Ag Municipal stormwater Wastewater treatment

?

?

Distribution and size ofthe pie may change

?

?

?


38/39

Some Concluding Thoughts

Adaptive Management

Requires collaboration

Offers potential for improvedenvironmental outcomes at a

lower cost

No two projects will look thesame

Will not work for everyone

Some adjustments may beneeded to enablingregulation


39/39

Yahara WINs on MMSD Website

www.madsewer.org

yahara wins -- adaptive management for phosphorus -- sweet water policy mtg. 3.19.13

Documents