Luncheon Plenary 4-25-2013 Exploration of Economic Incentives -- Water Quality Trading and Wastershed-based Water Quality Management Strategies in Dane Cty Dave Taylor

7/30/2019 Luncheon Plenary 4-25-2013 Exploration of Economic Incentives -- Water Quality Trading and Wastershed-based Water Quality Management Strategies in Dane Cty Dave Taylor

1/35

Yahara WINS-Partnerships at Work

Adaptive Management for ReducingPhosphorus in the Yahara Watershed

Dave Taylor

Director of Special ProjectsMadison Metropolitan Sewerage DistrictPhone: 608-222-1201, ext. 276Email: [email protected]


2/35

Presentation at a Glance

About MMSD

Regulatory drivers

Compliance strategies

Yahara WINS

Challenges/opportunities


3/35

Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District

Mission

Protecting public health and

the environment

Vision

Enriching life through clean

water and resource recovery


4/35

Regional Service Area-Centralized Treatment

Nine Springs WWTP


5/35

New regulatory obligations.

TP and sediment (TSS)

Significant reductions requiredfrom all sources.

Limitations with traditionalcompliance approaches.

Watershed adaptivemanagement as a promisingalternative.

Regulatory Drivers


6/35

Phosphorus and/or Sediment

NR 102-numeric waterquality criteria

NR 151-runoff management

Rural and urban

NR 217-implementation

framework for point sources

Rock River TMDL


7/35

Rock River TMDL

Approved by EPA in September,2011

Addresses impairments causedby TP and TSS

3 broad source categories

Nonpoint (primarily ag)

Municipal stormwater

Muncipal/industrial wastewaterand other point sources

Reductions required from allsource categories


8/35

Rock River TMDL-Point Sources withDischarges to the Yahara Watershed


9/35

Rock River TMDL-MS4 (Stormwater) Dischargers with

Outfalls in the Yahara Watershed

DNR

MG&E

Tiedeman Pond


10/35

Example of Rock

River TMDL Allocations


11/35

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


12/35

Potential P Reduction Approaches

Traditional-treatmentand/or control Pollution prevention and source

reduction

Water quality trading

Adaptive management

Combination


13/35

Traditional Compliance Approaches

Independent actions

Discharge focused solutions

Expensive

May not achieve desired

environmental outcomes

Permitdriven

Permitdriven

Generallynot permitdriven


14/35

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

Very expensive

Resource intensive


15/35

Missed Opportunities

Improvement limited tosmall part of the watershed

No opportunity to improvequality in Yahara lakes

Minimal opportunity forpartnerships


16/35

Water Quality Trading

Different sources have differentcontrol costs

Entities with higher controlcosts fund practices with lowercosts

Purchaser receives credit forreductions

WDNR has developed a drafttrading framework

Point to nonpoint example


17/35

Wide Range of Unit Costs for both Ag andUrban 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


18/35

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


19/35

Watershed Adaptive Management

Watershed based solutions

Reduce pollution at source

Collaboration

Engage all sources-poolresources

Invest in lowest cost solutions

Improved environmentaloutcomes

Lower cost Doesnt come with an instruction manual!


20/35

Adaptive Management vs. Trading

Adaptive Management

Watershed focus

Endpoint-meeting water qualitycriteria

Compliance by water qualitymonitoring

High level of collaboration withdiverse group of stakeholders

High degree of flexibility

Trading

Discharge limit focus

Endpoint-meeting permit

required reduction

Compliance by calculation

High level of collaboration withnarrow group of stakeholders

Limited flexibility-must conformwith statewide framework


21/35

MMSD Preliminary Evaluation of AM Option

Focus is on Yahara watershed

$59M preliminary cost estimate

TMDL used to calculate totalwatershed load reduction for TP

Costs distributed proportional tophosphorus load reduction in TMDL

Interest by many stakeholders


22/35

$59 M Total PW Cost

Distribution of Adaptive Management Costs


23/35

Adaptive Management Pilot Project (Yahara WINS)

Why do a pilot project?

This approach has never been triedbefore

Get some experience on a small scalefirst-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


24/35

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

Fitchburg

Madison

Middleton

Monona

Stoughton

Arlington

Cottage Grove

DeForest

Maple Bluff

McFarlandOregon

Shorewood Hills

Waunakee

Blooming Grove

Bristol

Burke

Cottage Grove

DunnMiddleton

Westport

Windsor

CLA

Clean Wisconsin

Dane County

MG&E

MMSDSand County Foundation

Stoughton Utilities

USGS

WDNR

Yahara Pride Farm Group


25/35

TP-Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Adaptive

Management

Estimated Cost ($/yr)

Traditional

Stormwater

Control-Low

($/yr) (1)

Traditional

Stormwater

Control-High

($/yr) (1)

Potential

Cost

Savings

($/yr)

Stormwater MS4 2,141 $57,000 $430,000 $1,300,000 $373,000 to

$1,243,000

Traditional Approach

($/yr)

Adaptive Management

($/yr)

Potential Cost Savings

($/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 capitalcost of constructed BMPs in Wisconsin and their modeled phosphorus reduction. Data was assembled by AECOM,

Middleton, WI.

(2)Wastewater costs represent the incremental compliance costs i.e. the additional costs that would be passed on to

City above the amount that they are currently billed for wastewater services

Business Case for Pilot Participation


26/35

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)


27/35

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


28/35

Some Additional Details

MMSD is the banker

Dane County is the broker

Participant funding levelbased on TMDL required Preductions

Robust water qualitymonitoring and I/E efforts


29/35

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


30/35

Challenges-Some Examples

Being the first

Consistent messaging

Differing regulatory expectations

Equity

Investing outside of municipalboundaries

Speaking new languages

Effluent dominated streams


31/35

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.


32/35

Yahara Watershed Example

May respondquickly

May take much

longer to respond(> 15 years)


33/35

Differing Regulatory Expectations

Timelines

MS4s

Adaptive management

TMDL

Compliance methodologies

Concentration

Load

Modeling

Others


34/35

Some Concluding Thoughts

Adaptive Management

Requires collaboration

Offers potential for improvedenvironmental outcomes at alower cost

No two projects will look thesame

Will not work for everyone

Some adjustments may beneeded to enablingregulation


35/35

Yahara WINs on MMSD Website

www.madsewer.org

Documents

Luncheon Plenary 4-25-2013 Exploration of Economic Incentives -- Water Quality Trading and Wastershed-based Water Quality Management Strategies in Dane Cty Dave Taylor