Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Metro Area Engineers Meeting April 17, 2014
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Brooke Asleson
Twin Cities Metro Area CHLORIDE PROJECT
Water Quality Problems ó Chloride is toxic to aquatic life ◦ 230mg/L Chronic, 860 mg/L Acute
ó Chloride is a permanent pollutant, once in our waters there is no feasible way to remove it ó University of Minnesota study found that 78% of
the chloride used is being retained in the TCMA ó 40 waters on DRAFT 303(d) list for chloride in
the TCMA (roughly 10% assessed)
ó Groundwater levels of chloride in the TCMA are increasing - 30% of wells above the standard ó USGS groundwater data also shows Significant
increase in chloride since 1996 in Upper Mississippi River Basin
Public Safety Concerns
ó 365,000* tons of road salt are applied in TCMA each year
ó We need safe roads, parking lots and sidewalks in winter months ó Currently no alternative de-icer without
negative impacts to the environment ó Applied at all levels; State, County, City,
Businesses and Homeowners ó Public expectations are difficult to meet ó Challenging winter conditions
*this is an estimate based on purchasing records
TCMA Chloride Management Plan ó Assist local partners to better manage the balance
between the clean water and public safety How? ó Develop Chloride Management Plan for the 7-county
metro: ◦ Identify sources of chloride in TCMA ◦ Set goals to protect all surface waters ◦ Complete Chloride TMDLs for all impaired waters ◦ Layout implementation strategies to help achieve
water quality goals This is a partnership process driven by the
stakeholders
Goals & Shared Vision ó Understand the public safety needs & limitations ó Understand the environmental condition ó Evaluate those conditions against desired water
quality goals ó Set realistic and achievable goals ó Develop a collaborative strategy to meet those goals
TCMA Chloride Project: Timeline
Comprehensive Stakeholder
Process
Targeted Chloride
Monitoring Evaluate Waters
Identify Sources of Chloride
Develop Protection
Goals
Complete TMDLs
Develop Implementation
Strategies
Began process in 2010
Scheduled to complete project in early 2015
MPCA project team
Inter-Agency Advisory Team
MPCA, MnDOT, Met Council, BWSR, DNR, USGS, Dept. of Health, U of M
Technical Advisory
Committee WMOs, WDs, Cities, Counties, MnDOT
Outreach Group WMOs, WDs, MS4s, road salt
applicators, Citizens
Implementation Plan Committee
Winter Maintenance Professionals, Cities, Counties, MnDOT,
WMOs/WDs
Education & Outreach
Committee MPCA, MnDOT &
local education specialists
Monitoring Sub-Group
MPCA, DNR, Met Council, USGS, local
partners
Technical Expert Group
Hands-on road salt applicators and suppliers
Outreach & General Communications ó MPCA Road Salt & Water
Quality Website
ó October 2011 - Poster at WRC
ó August 2012 - Salt Dilemma Display
ó Jan. 2013 - EPA’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Webinar Series: Road Salt Pollution Prevention Strategies
ó Numerous press releases and media interviews since 2010 ó Road Salt Symposium annually
since 2010 ó Various meetings since 2010
Project Monitoring • Monitoring Sub-Group
• Advised on monitoring methods • Collected chloride data • Shared results with MPCA
• Included 74 Lakes, 27 Streams & 8 Stormsewers
• Sampled once each season (4 events/year) • Fall 2010 – Spring of 2013 • Involved several local partners:
• Capitol Region WD, City of Prior Lake, DNR, Met Council, Minnehaha Creek WD, Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board, MPCA, Mississippi WMO, Ramsey County Environmental Services, Ramsey-Washington Metro WD, Rice Creek WD, Three Rivers Park District, USGS
Final Metro Chloride Assessment (Oct. 2013)
• Assessed 335 lakes, wetlands, & stream/river reaches* *represents roughly 10% of all waters in the Metro
• 7-county Twin Cities Metro Area only and just Chloride • 40 waterbodies listed as impaired Shingle Creek & Nine
Mile Creek TMDLs completed already • 250 waterbodies meet standards • 39 waterbodies had some data, but insufficient • Only 30% (101/335) of the waters assessed were part of
TCMA project monitoring
Chloride Impairments - Lakes Reach name Reach Description
Year added to
ListBasin
Lake or wetland AUID (County +
Lake)Battle Creek Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 82-0091-00Brownie Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 27-0038-00Carver Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 82-0166-00Como Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 62-0055-00Diamond Wetland 2014 UMiss 27-0022-00Kasota Pond North Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 62-0280-00Kasota Pond West Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 62-0281-00Kohlman Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 62-0006-00Little Johanna Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 62-0058-00Loring (South Bay) Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 27-0655-02Mallard Marsh Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 62-0259-00Parkers Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 27-0107-00Peavey Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 27-0138-00Pike Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 62-0069-00Powderhorn Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 27-0014-00Silver Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 62-0083-00South Long Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 62-0067-02Spring Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 27-0654-00Sweeney Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 27-0035-01Tanners Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 82-0115-00Thompson Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 19-0048-00Valentine Lake or Reservoir 2014 UMiss 62-0071-00
Chloride Impairments - Streams Reach name Reach Description Year added to List Basin River AUID
Bass CreekUnnamed wetland (27-0096-00) to Eagle Cr
2002 UMiss 07010206-784
Bassett Creek Medicine Lk to Mississippi R 2010 UMiss 07010206-538
Battle Creek Battle Creek Lk to Pigs Eye Lk 2008 UMiss 07010206-592
Crow River, South Fork Buffalo Cr to N Fk Crow R 2010 UMiss 07010205-508
Elm CreekHeadwaters (Lk Medina 27-0146-00) to Mississippi R
2014 UMiss 07010206-508
Judicial Ditch 2 Headwaters to Sunrise R 2012 StC 07030005-525
Minnehaha Creek Lk Minnetonka to Mississippi R 2008 UMiss 07010206-539
Raven Stream E Br Raven Str to Sand Cr 2010 MnR 07020012-716
Raven Stream, East Branch
Headwaters (Lk Pepin 40-0028-00) to Raven Str
2010 MnR 07020012-543
Rush Creek, South Fork Unnamed lk (27-0439-00) to Rush Cr 2014 UMiss 07010206-732
Sand Creek Porter Cr to Minnesota R 2014 MnR 07020012-513
Sand Creek T112 R23W S23, south line to Raven Str 2010 MnR 07020012-662
Unnamed creek Armstrong Lk to Wilmes Lk 2010 UMiss 07010206-745
Unnamed creek Headwaters to Medicine Lk 2014 UMiss 07010206-526
Unnamed creek Unnamed ditch to wetland 2014 UMiss 07010206-718
Unnamed creekUnnamed lk (62-0205-00) to Little Lk Johanna
2014 UMiss 07010206-909
Lake Name WBID
Centerville Lake 02-0006-00
Fish Lake 19-0057-00
Hiawatha Lake 27-0018-00
Calhoun Lake 27-0031-00
Crystal Lake 27-0034-00
Wirth Lake 27-0037-00
Lake Of The Isles 27-0040-00
Ryan Lake 27-0058-00
Medicine Lake 27-0104-00
Taft Lake 27-0683-00
Gervais Lake 62-0007-00
Keller Lake (Main) 62-0010-02
Wakefield Lake 62-0011-00
Beaver Lake 62-0016-00
Crosby Lake 62-0047-00
Bennett Lake 62-0048-00
McCarron Lake 62-0054-00
Johanna Lake 62-0078-00
Wabasso Lake 62-0082-00
Unnamed Lake 62-0278-00
High Risk Waters - Lakes
High Risk Waters - Streams Stream Name WBID
Clearwater Creek 07010206-519
Diamond Creek 07010206-525
Rush Creek 07010206-528
County Ditch 17 (Spring Brook) 07010206-557
Unnamed Creek (Pleasure Ck) 07010206-594
Fish Creek 07010206-606
Dutch Lake Outlet 07010206-678
Painter Creek 07010206-700
Classen Lake Creek 07010206-703
Unn Creek 07010206-704
Unnamed Stream In Plymouth 07010206-738
Unnamed Stream (Sand Ck) 07010206-744
Unnamed Stream Receiving Wtr From Medicine Lk 07010206-785
Unnamed Trib To County Ditch 17 07010206-904
Minnesota River 07020012-505
Credit River 07020012-517
Bluff Creek 07020012-710
Bevens Creek 07020012-718
Unnamed Stream (Perro Ck) 07030005-612
Unnamed Stream (Trib To Long Lk) (Furgala Creek) 07030005-765
Vermillion River 07040001-507
Monitoring Results – Interactive Map
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/r0pgb86
Source Identification ó Researched existing studies and information – In
TCMA 75% of chloride is from de-icing materials, 25% other such as water softening (U of M research)
ó Refined estimate of Parking Lot & Sidewalk application rates for MN (6.4 tons/acre/year)
ó Working with MPCA staff to identify all permitted entities with potential chloride discharges ◦ Includes Waste Water Treatment Plants (water softening) ◦ Industrial dischargers
ó Others potential sources to consider: ◦ Septic Systems (only where there are issues)
◦ Fertilizers (literature values)
Protection ó Protecting waters from continued degradation is
crucial ó Consensus from IPC & TAC is to focus on the
BMPs rather than a number as goals (numeric vs. performance based) ó Working with TAC to determine how to best
implement a performance based approach
Chloride TMDLs ó Adopting performance based approach for
TMDLs ó Individual TMDL equations are required for each
impairment (TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS + RC)
ó WLAs will be categorical for MS4s ó Will not be calculating percent reductions –
rather focus on implementing BMPs ó Existing loading information not needed with this
approach (this eliminates collecting application rates, accounting for differences in winters and choosing a baseline year)
ó TMDLs will be an appendix to Chloride Management Plan – still a vision, nothing drafted yet
Performance Based Approach ó Primary objective is to get all winter maintenance
programs performing at a level that is using minimal amount of salt
ó Prevention is the only option for reducing salt loadings (removal is not viable for winter maintenance and point sources)
ó Same BMPs for protection as for impaired waters
ó Winter Maintenance Assessment tool in development is critical to assisting as a planning tool for this approach
Performance Based Approach - TMDLs ó Establish equitable wasteload and load
allocations ó Focus less on specific numbers to meet,
more on making progress with BMPs ◦ Need specific number to meet TMDL
requirements ◦ Measure progress by degree of implementation
and trends in ambient monitoring ñ Not by accounting for salt applied and comparing to
individual numeric targets
ó Allow flexibility in implementation
Performance Based Approach ó Coordinating with MS4 program to ensure
compliance with NPDES requirements for the TMDLs ó Working with TAC to determine the performance
“goals” ◦ Will set milestone goals in management plan ◦ Developing tool to assist with assessing current
practices/program
ó Collecting water quality data will be critical to determining if implementation of BMPs is resulting in improved water quality
Currently developing a computer based tool that will provide a way for winter maintenance organizations to: ó Document current practices ó Chart a path towards improved practices
(salt reduction) ó Develop a strategy unique to each operation
Winter Maintenance Assessment Tool
ó Looks at small areas of winter maintenance where improvements can be made, much more manageable
ó Provides insight into current operations ó Allows a flexible approach for improving winter
maintenance ó Offers insight that is unique to winter
maintenance practices of parking lots, sidewalks, low speed roads, and high speed roads
ó Offers a unique collection of many salt reduction informational resources (written and communicated)
Winter Maintenance Assessment Tool
ó Increased awareness of current practices ó A clear list of places where the organization
is doing well or could improve ó In rate reduction mode, a list of predicted
practice changes and the associated salt savings
What this tool can accomplish?
Research for this project started in 2011 and has continued into 2014 ó Road Salt Symposium survey. The 200 attendees at the 2013 Road Salt
Symposium were surveyed for unpublished research information that could be used in the rate reduction section of the tool.
ó Literature Searches. Many hours of internet research was done to mine data that exists on the salt savings potential of various maintenance practices.
ó Phone calls, phone interviews with members of the advisory team and industry experts to gain insight into various winter maintenance practices.
ó Email correspondence with members of the technical expert team and industry experts to gain insight into various winter maintenance practices.
ó The implementation plan committee formed and led by the MPCA consists of a broader range of professionals dealing with water quality and winter maintenance. This group has approved the concept of the tool and contributed to refining it at a higher level.
Stakeholder Process – Development
The technical expert team has been formed that reflects maintenance leaders in Minnesota. These leaders represent winter maintenance of high speed roads, low speed roads, parking lots, sidewalks, deicer sales and equipment. This team has reviewed all of the logic in the questions, input screens and reports. The members are: ó Tom Broadbent -EnviroTech
Services ó Bob Vasek- MnDOT ó Mike Greten -Dakota
County ó Mike Scherber-Hennepin
County ó Craig Eldred -City of
Waconia ó Ryan Foudray -Prescription
Landscape ó Joe Wiita-Scott County
ó Brian Brown-Three Rivers Park District
ó Kevin Nelson-City of St. Paul ó Mike Kennedy-City of
Minneapolis ó Matt Morriem-City of St.Paul ó Jeff Warner -Force America ó Mark Fischbach-MnDOT
Now? In next 5 years?
Practices code Salt savings calculation?
Citation Comments
NO
Always 3 For example rock salt does not work well at pavement temperatures below 15 f.
Most of the time
2
Don’t adjust our product selection based on pavement temperatures
1
Don’t know 1a
69. We select the appropriate material for the pavement temperature
Efficiency Section: Deicers Subsection
ADVANCED BEST PRACTICES 2. How many anti-icing systems do you calibrate: All 34. Where do you anti-ice: All areas where we salt 62. Do you use a salt/sand mix: uncommon 66. Are you using liquids for deicing: Yes 76. Do your snow piles melt into your salt or salt/sand piles: No 133. Do you have a written winter maintenance policy: yes 137: How often do you update your policy: each year BEST PRACTICES 1. How often do you calibrate your spreaders: Yearly 35. When do you anti-ice: On a regular schedule 134. Does the crew understand the winter maintenance policy: some of
them 172. How do you dispose of truck wash water. Sanitary sewer POOR PRACTICES 3. How many liquid pre-wet systems do you calibrate: less than half 36. How do you treat frost: Apply granular after frost is formed 63. As you increase liquids do you decrease granular: No 75. Do you prevent moisture from entering your salt shed: Poor quality
buildings 77. Any leaching out of your storage area: Yes 173. Where does your salt storage runoff go. Storm sewer
Legend:
- Poor Practice
- Best Practice
- Advanced Best Practice
Summary: 30 Poor Practices 80 Best Practices 20 Advanced Best Practices
Current Winter Maintenance Practices City of Roundville Winter of 2011-2012
Entry # 114 Joe Smith 8-18-2013 763-444-5555 [email protected]
Current Winter Maintenance Practices City of Roundville Winter of 2011-2012
For maintenance of: High speed roads, low speed roads
Improve Best Practices 35. When do you anti-ice: Current: On a regular schedule Predicted: Before a predicted frost or snow 134. Does the crew understand the winter maintenance policy: Current: some of them Predicted: All of them Improve Poor Practices 3. How many liquid pre-wet systems do you calibrate: Current: less than half Predicted: more than half 75. Do you prevent moisture from entering your salt shed: Current: Poor quality buildings Predicted: Ok quality buildings or a mix of good and bad buildings 173. Where does your salt storage runoff go. Predicted: Storm sewer Predicted: collect and reuse in brine
Legend:
- Poor Practice
- Best Practice
- Advanced Best Practice
Summary: 30 Poor Practices 80 Best Practices 20 Advanced Best Practices
Predicted Changes in Winter Maintenance Practices
City of Roundville Winter of 2011-2012
Entry # 114 Joe Smith 8-18-2013 763-444-5555 [email protected]
5 Year Prediction: 15 Poor Practices 80 Best Practices 35 Advanced Best Practices
Predicted Changes in Winter Maintenance Practices
City of Roundville Winter of 2011-2012 For maintenance of: High speed roads, low speed roads
ó Use tool to assess at a detailed level, their operations ó Use as a teaching tool to supervisory staff, forcing each
person to think about the questions asked and comparing it to their routine practices.
ó Compare results with organizations of similar size or traffic
ó Set a baseline for operations & a goal for improvements
ó Use by organization like APWA, Street Superintendents Association, MNLA or others to recognize and award top achievers in an unbiased format.
ó Comply with MPCA requests, perhaps easier than writing a report.
Possible Uses for Winter Maintenance Organizations
Chloride Management Plan ó Bringing it all together ó Goals of the CMP: ◦ Create a common
understanding of the problems ◦ Set realistic goals for everyone
to work towards ◦ Layout flexible strategies for
achieving the goals ◦ Provide resources available to
assist with implementation ◦ Track progress
Next Steps – next 6 months
ó Complete modeling for TMDLs
óWork with TAC & IPC to develop goals for performance based approach (to be used for Protection and TMDLs)
ó Prepare draft TMDLs and Management Plan for stakeholder review and input ó Create & Test Winter Maintenance
Assessment Tool prototype
We Want Your Input!!
ó There will be opportunities to provide your input on: ◦ Draft Management Plan ◦ Draft TMDLs ◦ Winter Maintenance Assessment tool
ó Please provide us with any other ideas you have on how we can help you achieve water quality goals!
THANK YOU!!
Brooke Asleson
Watershed Project Manager 651/757-2205
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/r0pgb86
