Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Overview
Background on TMDLs
Update: TMDLs Under Development and Milwaukee
TMDLs
Background on TMDL Implementation for Permitted MS4s
Margin of Safety
Reservoirs
Stratified = 30 g/L
Not Stratified = 40 g/L
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
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
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
Bacteria
4. Lac Courte Oreilles
Phosphorus
5. Lake Mallalieu
Phosphorus
1
2
3
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.
1. The aerial extent of the MS4 and its boundary may not match that of
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
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
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
Agenda
Project Background and Key Concepts
Analysis Process and Lessons Learned
Analysis Results
Implementation Plan
Questions
Page 22
Stormwater Utility
Became Effective January 1, 1996 (2nd Utility in Wisconsin)
Funds most aspects of stormwater management and
NR 216 Permit
Page 23
Page 24
The Lower Fox River now has TMDLs for sediment and
phosphorus
Page 26
Page 27
29 Municipal Stormwater
Permits
34 Wastewater Permits
o
20 industrial
14 municipal
15 Large Livestock
Operations
Page 28
Page 29
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
Apple Creek
Pollutant Target
TSS
52%
TP
40%
Mud Creek
Pollutant Target
TSS
43%
TP
48%
Pollutant Target
TSS
72%
TP
40%
Garners Creek
Pollutant Target
TSS
60%
TP
69%
Pollutant Target
TSS
72%
TP
40%
Page 31
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
$2,500 - $10,100
$500 - $2,000
Biofilter
$35,000- $65,000
$12,000- $18,000
Permeable Pavement
$38,000 - $73,000
$13,000 - $20,000
BMP
Page 33
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 citys
MS4 (Optional)
Excluded Areas
WisDOT right-of-way, other
MS4s such as county,
university, etc. (Must be
excluded unless agreement
is in place)
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
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%
Existing
21%
14%
Garners Creek
Pollutant Target Existing
TSS
60% 78%
TP
69% 59%
Page 41
Enhanced Settling
Enhanced Street Cleaning
Biofilters/Porous Pavement
on Parking Lots
Page 42
No New City
Funded BMPs
Maintenance of
Existing
Public/Private
BMPs
BMP
Implementation for
Future
Development
Apple Creek
Pollutant Target Existing
TSS
52%
80%
TP
40%
60%
Page 43
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%
Page 44
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
Page 45
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
Page 46
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%
Page 47
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
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
Thank You!