You are on page 1of 55

TMDL Background and MS4 Implementation

Kevin Kirsch, P.E.
Department of Natural Resources

Overview
 Background on TMDLs
 Update: TMDLs Under Development and Milwaukee

TMDLs
 Background on TMDL Implementation for Permitted MS4s

What are TMDLs?
The amount of a pollutant a waterbody can receive
and still meet water quality standards
Total Maximum Daily Load =
Load Allocation

Waste Load Allocation

+

Margin of Safety

+

Water Quality Standards
Designated Uses:
 Fish & Aquatic Life
 Public Health
 Recreation

Water Quality Criteria:
 Numeric: dissolved oxygen, pH, bacteria, toxic substances,
phosphorus, etc.

Narrative: “no objectionable deposits,” “substances in
concentrations or combinations shall not be harmful to
humans, fish, plants, or other aquatic life.”

Phosphorus Criteria NR 102.06
 Rivers NR 102.06(3)(a) = 100 μg/L
 Streams = 75 μg/L
 All unidirectional flowing waters not in NR 102.06(3)(a)

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




Lakes range from 15-30 μg/L
Lake Michigan =7 μg/L
Lake Superior = 5 μg/L
Exclusions
 Ephemeral Streams
 Wetlands
 Lakes <5 ac

TMDL Allocations
Waste Load Allocation
 WWTPs / POTWs

Load Allocation

 Construction Sites

 Agricultural
 Biosolids
 Manure
 Streambanks
 Non-permitted Urban

 CAFOs

 Natural Background

 Industries

 MS4s
 Non-Metallic Mines

TMDL Allocation Approach
WPDES Permitted
Point Sources

Nonpoint Sources

Existing NR 217
requirements

NR 151
agricultural
reductions

Alternative limits
Existing NR 151
requirements

Permits

Statewide
Requirements

Implementation
of TMDL
Allocations

Alternative
NR 151
Performance
Measures

Target Values for
Water Quality
(not to scale)

Expression of Allocations
 TMDL must express allocations by mass and on a daily

basis (lbs./day).
 The TMDL can be implemented on different time steps

such as monthly, seasonal, or annual and can be
implemented for MS4s and nonpoint using percent
reduction approach.

TMDL Development Steps
 Calculate loading capacity and allocations
 Draft TMDL & implementation plan

 Public comment period conducted by DNR
 Submit TMDL to EPA for approval
 Implementation Planning – can be concurrent or separate

from TMDL development

Current TMDL Development
1. Wisconsin River Basin
 Phosphorus

4

2. Upper Fox-Wolf Basin
 Phosphorus and TSS

3. Milwaukee River Basin
 Phosphorus, TSS, and

Bacteria
4. Lac Courte Oreilles
 Phosphorus
5. Lake Mallalieu
 Phosphorus

5

1
2
3

Milwaukee River Basin TMDLs
Project Website:
http://www.mmsd.com/waterquality/totalmaximum-daily-loads
 3rd party TMDL led and funded by MMSD on

behalf of DNR. CDM Smith is the lead
consultant.

 TMDLs cover Menomonee, Kinnickinnic, and

Milwaukee River watersheds.

 Allocations tentatively planned to be presented

at stakeholder meeting in May/June followed by
additional stakeholder meetings.

 Project delay due to flow refinements and

adjustments of simulated loads needed for
spring months in the Milwaukee watershed.

 E-mail to join distribution list for updates

info@swwtwater.org

Once EPA has approved a TMDL that contains permitted MS4s, the next
permit issued must contain an expression of the WLAs consistent with the
assumptions and requirements contained in the TMDL.

Individual WLAs given for permitted MS4s

A portion of the allocation is set aside to cover general permits
• Storm water construction sites
• Storm water industrial facilities
• Wastewater general permittees (some exceptions)

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

the TMDL due to incorporation of new areas, expansion of the municipal
boundary and non-traditional MS4s (i.e. WisDOT & county highways).
2. TMDLs are rarely able to account for watersheds modified by storm

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

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

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

will not match that required by NR 151.
• Some of the TMDLs developed in Wisconsin used SWAT or HSPF to

calculate the urban loads

• Builds on the existing MS4 modeling already required under NR

151 and the municipal wide analysis already conducted to
comply with requirements stipulated in NR 151.13.
• EPA will allow a percent reduction approach because DNR has a

defined no controls scenario and defined climate files used in NR
151.13.
• The usage of a percent reduction framework allows both the

MS4 and DNR the ability to implement the reductions without
having to reallocate and track WLAs across reachsheds, MS4s,
and other land uses.

• Percent reduction expressed based on regulatory requirements.
• For a TMDL that uses 20% reduction as the baseline loading condition

(TMDLs approved after January 1, 2012) the conversion to the NR 151.13
no-controls modeling condition is:
TSS Percent Reduction = 20 + (0.80 * % control in TMDL)
TP Percent Reduction = 15 + (0.85 * % control in TMDL)

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

(TMDLs approved prior to January 1, 2012) the conversion to the nocontrols modeling condition is:
TSS Percent Reduction = 40 + (0.60 * % control in TMDL)
TP Percent Reduction = 27 + (0.73 * % control in TMDL)

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

calculated using SLAMM, P-8, or equivalent.
• The MS4 area includes the entire acreage that the MS4 is responsible

for; subtract areas not under the jurisdiction of the permittee.
• The percent reduction calculated to meet the TMDL is applied to the no

controls load, which provides the mass that needs to be controlled by
the MS4. This mass will be different from that stipulated by the TMDL
WLA.

• Unlike the requirements contained in NR 151.13, compliance with

TMDL requirements will need to be achieved on a reach by reach basis.
Ultimately water quality standards must be met in-stream at the
compliance point for each reachshed which is the farthest most
downstream point of each reachshed.
• Compliance is with water quality standards. The TMDL reductions are

the best estimate for meeting water quality standards and are modeled
or simulated predictions. Ambient stream monitoring will ultimately
be required to de-list impaired waters and show compliance with the
TMDL.

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

benchmarks for each 5-year permit term. Benchmarks are to be
identified prior to each 5-year permit reissuance.
• It is possible that certain benchmarks will not be easily quantifiable but

there needs to be documentation that achieving such benchmarks will
reduce the discharge of pollutants of concern.
• Under a TMDL, EPA does not acknowledge the concept of maximum

extent practicable as defined in s. NR 151.006, Wis. Adm. Code, but
rather compliance schedules can be structured in SWMPs and permits
to allow MS4s time to meet TMDL goals.

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

implementation planning requirement in their next (or potentially initial)
permit term.
• It is expected that the 2nd reissuance of an MS4 permit after the TMDL is

approved, that a compliance schedule to meet identified benchmarks will
be included in the MS4 permit.
• The compliance schedule will require that the permittee show continual

progress by meeting ‘benchmarks’ of performance within each permit
term.

TMDL Compliance City of Appleton Case Study
Updating a SWMP to Meet TMDL Based Limits

2015 Clean Rivers, Clean Lake Conference
Chuck Boehm, AECOM

Doug Joachim, AECOM

Agenda
Project Background and Key Concepts
Analysis Process and Lessons Learned
Analysis Results
Implementation Plan

Questions

Page 22

City of Appleton Stormwater Management History
• Early 1990’s Anticipated Stormwater Permit
• First Stormwater Ponds
‾ 1995 Kensington Pond / Phase 1 of Ballard Road pond
‾ Designs of both before WDNR Technical Standard

• Stormwater Utility
‾ Became Effective January 1, 1996 (2nd Utility in Wisconsin)
‾ Funds most aspects of stormwater management and
NR 216 Permit

Page 23

City of Appleton Stormwater Management History
• 2005 Stormwater Management Plan
• 2006 General Permit Issued
• 2008 Stormwater Management Plan Update
‾ 2008 TSS Removal = 22.5%

Page 24

2014 Stormwater Plan Update Objectives
• Understand Impact of TMDLs
• Assess compliance with MS4 and TMDL Requirements
‾ Plan Completed before WDNR TMDL Guidance Completed

• TSS and TP by Reachshed
• Evaluate BMPs
‾ Structural BMPs – identified in previous studies

‾ Street Cleaning Alternatives
‾ Emerging Technologies v.s. “Tried and True”

• Develop Implementation Plan

• Utilized Stormwater Advisory Committee
Page 25

New Stormwater Requirements: “TMDL”

Clean Water Goal is “Fishable and Swimmable”

The EPA and DNR have defined “clean water” with
chemical and biological numeric standards for each
waterbody

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

The Lower Fox River now has TMDLs for sediment and
phosphorus
Page 26

Lower Fox River Basin TMDL
Completed by DNR and
Approved by EPA in
March 2012

TMDL sets “acceptable
pollution loads”

Page 27

Lower Fox River TMDL
Lower Fox River Basin
• 641 square miles
• 27 listed waters for
Sediment and Phosphorus
• 45 TMDLs

• 29 Municipal Stormwater
Permits
• 34 Wastewater Permits
o

20 industrial

o

14 municipal

• 15 Large Livestock
Operations
Page 28

Lower Fox River Basin TMDL
Basin
Sub-basin

Page 29

Lower Fox River Basin TMDL
“Baseline”
-TMDL TSS Reduction from
Baseline for Apple Creek
Reported at 40%
-Assumes 20% TSS
Reduction (NR 216/151)

“No-controls”
- Actual Target Reduction
from “no-controls” For TSS
in Apple Creek for Appleton
= 20% + (0.80 * 40%) = 52%

“With-Controls”
-Standard Approach of
BMP Application
-Assumes 15% for
Phosphorus Reduction
(DNR)
Page 30

TMDL Pollution: Reduction Targets
Duck Creek
Pollutant Target
TSS
52%
TP
40%

Apple Creek
Pollutant Target
TSS
52%
TP
40%

Mud Creek

Fox River (DS)

Pollutant Target
TSS
43%
TP
48%

Pollutant Target
TSS
72%
TP
40%

Garners Creek

Fox River (US)

Pollutant Target
TSS
60%
TP
69%

Pollutant Target
TSS
72%
TP
40%

Page 31

Stormwater BMP “Tool Box”

Page 32

Cost Analysis

Annual Cost
(per Ton of TSS
Removed)

Annual Cost
(per lb of TP
Removed)

Street Cleaning

$1,300 - $2,300

$400 - $500

Regional Stormwater Pond

$2,500 - $10,100

$500 - $2,000

HSD (in Conjunction with Street
Reconstruction)

$2,000 - $54,000 (avg. $10,000)

$400 - $4,200 (avg. $1,500)

HSD (as Separate Project)

$3,000 - $87,000 (avg. $18,000)

$700 - $8,200 (avg. $2,600)

Pond Retrofit – Enhanced
Chemical Treatment

$2,500 - $112,000 (avg. $17,000)

$300 - $7,300 (avg. $1,100)

Biofilter

$35,000- $65,000

$12,000- $18,000

Permeable Pavement

$38,000 - $73,000

$13,000 - $20,000

BMP

Includes O&M cost and depreciation where applicable.

Page 33

Guiding Principles For Analysis
•Use approved % reduction targets
•Use City developed datasets
•Follow WDNR Guidance Documents (as available)
•Implement MS4 and TMDL assessment process
•Evaluate Additional BMPs

Page 34

Analyzed Area
• NR 151 – Municipal
Boundary and
Developed Area as of
2004
• TMDL – Municipal
Boundary and
Developed Area at time
of the analysis

Page 35

TMDL Reachsheds
• NR 151 results reported on
a city-wide basis
• TMDL Analysis results
reported by TMDL
reachshed
• Actual TMDL reachshed
boundaries differ from those
in the TMDL
Wasteload Allocation
Percent Reduction
Page 36

Excluded Areas
• Riparian Areas – Areas that do
not drain through the city’s
MS4 (Optional)

• Agricultural Areas – Areas
zoned and operating as
agriculture (Must be excluded)
• Industrial Permitted Areas –
Manufacturing, vehicle
maintenance, materials
storage areas that are
permitted under NR 216
(Optional)

Contact WDNR Representative
for up-to-date list:
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Stormwater
/data/Industrial/
Page 37

Excluded Areas
• WisDOT right-of-way, other
MS4s such as county,
university, etc. (Must be
excluded unless agreement
is in place)

• Undeveloped areas within
the municipal boundary are
included unlike previous
analyses

Page 38

Analysis
• GIS Data
– Land use (WinSLAMM standard
land uses)
– Soil type (sand, silt, clay)
– BMP type, location, drainage
area, performance (Regional
wet ponds, HSDs, swales,
street cleaning)
– TMDL reachshed boundaries

Page 39

WinSLAMM Analysis
• Database Method
– Combine SLU
loading and BMP
reductions outside
WinSLAMM

• WinSLAMM
Method
– Done entirely
within WinSLAMM

Page 40

TMDL Pollution: Existing Pollution Control
Duck Creek
Pollutant Target Existing
TSS
52%
69%
TP
40%
44%

MS4
Pollutant Target
TSS
20%
TP
NA%

Existing
38%
28%

Apple Creek
Pollutant Target Existing
TSS
52%
80%
TP
40%
60%

Mud Creek
Pollutant Target
TSS
43%
TP
48%

Fox River (DS)

Existing
21%
14%

Pollutant Target Existing
TSS
72%
29%
TP
40%
20%

Garners Creek
Pollutant Target Existing
TSS
60% 78%
TP
69% 59%

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

Page 41

Proposed Control Practices
• Wet Detention Basins
• HSDs

• Enhanced Settling
• Enhanced Street Cleaning
• Biofilters/Porous Pavement
on Parking Lots

Page 42

Duck Creek and Apple Creek – In Compliance
Requires
Duck Creek

No New City
Funded BMPs

Maintenance of
Existing
Public/Private
BMPs

BMP
Implementation for
Future
Development

Pollutant Target Existing
TSS
52%
69%
TP
40%
44%

Apple Creek
Pollutant Target Existing
TSS
52%
80%
TP
40%
60%

Page 43

Garners Creek Alternative BMPs
Practices Evaluated
1. Enhanced Settling
for Phosphorus
Removal
(Kensington Pond
only)

Requires
Additional TP
Control

Garners
Creek
Garners
Creek
Pollutant
Target Target
ExistingExisting
Potential
Pollutant
TSS TSS 60% 60%
78% 78%
85%
TP
59% 59%
78%
TP 69% 69%

BMP TSS (tons/yr) TP (lbs/yr) Capital
1
11
190
$ 945,000

Page 44

Mud Creek Alternative BMPs
Requires
Additional TSS
and TP Control

MudMud
Creek
Creek
Pollutant Target
TSS
43%
TP
48%

Existing Potential
21% 49%
14% 36%

Practices Evaluated
1. Expanded Street
Cleaning
2. Wet Detention
(Northland Avenue)
3. Enhanced Settling
(Northland Avenue,
Mud Creek South,
Crossing Meadow)
4. HSDs (7)
5. Biofiltration /
Porous Pavement

BMP TSS (tons/yr) TP (lbs/yr) Capital
1
3
14
$
25,000
2
10
51
$ 2,650,000
3
4
46
$ 230,000
4
1
2
$
90,000
5
29
86
$19,000,000
47
199
$21,995,000

Page 45

Lower Fox River (Upstream of Dam) Alternative BMPs
Requires
Additional TSS
and TP Control
Fox Fox
River
River
(US)(US)
Pollutant Target Existing Potential
TSS
72%
18%
44%
TP
40%
11%
33%

Practices Evaluated
1. Expanded Street
Cleaning
2. Wet Detention
(Pierce Park,
Valley Road)
3. Enhanced Settling
(Pierce Park,
Valley Road)
4. HSDs (34)
5. Biofiltration /
Porous Pavement

BMP TSS (tons/yr) TP (lbs/yr) Capital
1
6
27
$
50,000
2
17
73
$ 1,820,000
3
25
162
$ 810,000
4
2
13
$ 350,000
5
12
42
$ 7,500,000
62
317
$10,530,000

Page 46

Lower Fox River (Downstream of Dam) Alternative BMPs
Practices Evaluated
1. Expanded Street
Cleaning
2. Wet Detention
(Leona Street)
3. Enhanced Settling
(Leona Street and
6 Existing Ponds)
4. HSDs (62)
5. Biofiltration /
Porous Pavement
6. Bellaire Ravine
Porous Pavement

Requires
Additional TSS
and TP Control

Fox Fox
River
River
(DS)(DS)
Pollutant Pollutant
Target Existing
Target Existing
Potential
TSS
TSS
72%
72%
29%
51%
29%
TP
TP40%
40%
20%
41%
20%

BMP TSS (tons/yr) TP (lbs/yr) Capital
1
17
74
$ 175,000
2
17
80
$ 1,420,000
3
25
346
$ 1,730,000
4
5
31
$ 670,000
5
32
87
$19,500,000
6
80
406
$46,000,000
176
1,024
$69,495,000

Page 47

Compliance Point Internal Trading
Apple Creek and
Garners Creek
Existing Excess
TSS and TP can
be Applied to the
Lower Fox River
Downstream of
the Middle Dam
Compliance Point

Fox River
Fox River
(DS) (DS)
Pollutant Target
Pollutant
Existing
Target
Potential
Existing w/Trading
Potential
TSS
72%
TSS
29%
72% 51%29% 63%
51%
TP
40%
TP
20%
40% 41%20% 47%
41%

Apple Creek
Pollutant Existing “Excess”
TSS
69 tons/yr
TP
333 lbs/yr

Garners Creek
Pollutant Existing “Excess”
TSS
27 tons/yr

Page 48

Pre-TMDL Approach To Permit Compliance

Page 49

TMDL Approach to Continued Compliance

Benchmarking (Identify interim permit targets)

Strategic Continual Progress

Page 50

Appleton’s Proposed Strategy
Each Year
• Continue to implement the other items in the Permit
• Continue to operate and maintain existing practices

• Monitor studies, technology and regulations
• Watch for and act on opportunities

Page 51

Appleton’s Implementation Plan
• 2014 – 2019
– Northland Pond Land Acquisition/Design/Construction
– Leona Street Pond Land Acquisition/Design/Construction
– Mud Creek and WDOT 441 Pond Project Evaluation
– Evaluation of enhanced Phosphorus treatment
– Evaluate possibility of adding private street cleaning contract to
supplement City staff
– Evaluate Stormwater Utility Credit Policy
– Work with WDOT/County Agencies

Page 52

Appleton’s Implementation Plan
• 2020-2021
– High Efficiency Street Sweeper Upgrade
– Update the City-wide Stormwater Management Plan

Page 53

Questions and Discussion

Page 54

Thank You!