LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

1. LTCPs and Water Quality Standards Julia Moore, P.E. Limno-Tech, Inc.

2. Expectations of the CSO Policy The development of the long-term control plan should be coordinated with the review and appropriate revision of WQ standards and their implementation procedures on CSO-impacted receiving waters to ensure that the long-term controls will be sufficient to meet WQ standards. LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

3. EPA’s Expectations • CSO permittees develop and implement affordable LTCPs that will achieve compliance with water quality standards • Phased implementation • Priority controls for overflows to sensitive areas • Coordination among permittees, state agencies, environmental organizations, and EPA LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

4. Importance of Water Quality Standards Reviews • Local resource constraints • Permittees need clear guidance on implementation of CSO and other wet weather water pollution control programs to maximize water quality benefits • Any CSO discharge is likely to violate bacteria standards in waters designated for primary contact recreation LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

5. Water Quality Standards Reviews Are Not Easy • Challenges • Scientific and political complexity • Lack of precedent (or little precedent) • Uncertain roles and responsibilities, limited resources • Solutions • Leadership and direction are emerging • Initiate case studies in data rich communities to illustrate acceptable approaches LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

6. EPA Draft Designated Use Plan Issued July 28, 2004, plan calls for: • UAA workshop for EPA staff • Four regulatory workshops • Funding for 10 pilot projects • Methods to use bioassessment to refine aquatic life uses • Web-based clearinghouse LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

7. CSO Program Framework • The CSO Policy offers two approaches for LTCP development • Presumption • Demonstration • Either approach should include site-specific, cost-effective CSO controls that will provide for the attainment of water quality standards LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

8. CSO Program Framework • Under the presumption approach: • Data collected during system characterization must suggest that use of the presumption approach can be reasonably expected to result in the attainment of water quality standards • Post-construction compliance monitoring must be used to document WQ standards attainment LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

9. CSO Program Framework • Under the demonstration approach there are a number of strategies: • Developing LTCP to meet current WQ standards • Developing LTCP to meet revised WQ standards • Note: revised WQ standards must be in place before LTCP can be approved • Using a TMDL to demonstrate WQ standards can be attained through CSO and other controls • Developing LTCP which will eliminate all CSOs (e.g. separation) LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

10. CSO Program Framework • CSO monitoring programs should: • Assess attainment of WQ standards • Define baseline conditions in the receiving water • Assess the relative impact of CSOs • Gain sufficient understanding of the receiving water to support the evaluation of proposed CSO control alternatives • Support the review and revision of WQ standards LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

11. Types of CSO Data Supporting WQ Standards Reviews • Timing of CSO events • Amount of precipitation causing CSO events • Number, volume, frequency, and duration of CSO events per year • Pollutants in CSO that cause or contribute to water quality excursions • Pollutant loadings from other point sources • Precipitation, soil, land use and watershed modeling data LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

12. Types of CSO Data Supporting WQ Standards Reviews • Flow data for CSO-impacted waters • Identification of designated uses and existing use impairments • Locations of sensitive areas • Cost-performance considerations for CSO control options • Financial impact of CSO control options LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

13. Water Quality Standards Program Framework • Options for WQ standards revisions • Changing the designated use • Creating CSO sub-categories • Segmenting the water; using a mixing zone • Adopting a seasonal use • Applying a “high-flow” cutoff • Adopting a variance LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

14. Water Quality Standards Program Framework • States may not remove: • An “existing” use, i.e., a use actually attained in the water body on or after November 28, 1975 • A use that can be attained by the imposition of effluent limits required under sections 301(b) or 306 of the CWA and cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for non-point source control • States must also ensure any WQ standards revisions provide for the attainment and maintenance of downstream WQ standards LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

15. STEP 4 STEP 3 STEP 2 STEP 1 STEP 5 Agree on the data and analyses to Establish a Collect data Implement the Issue permit requiring support LTCP coordination team and develop draft NMCs and implementation of Nine development and to oversee LTCP LTCP, with the evaluate their Minimum Controls (NMCs) alternative development and public involved efficacy and LTCP development evaluation, and WQS review WQS reviews Responsible Entity STEP 6 Water Quality Agency(s) (NPDES and WQS Authorities) Implement STEP 11 and, through WQ NPDES Authority with Review and accept monitoring, evaluate Coordination Team draft LTCP and effectiveness of priority Implement evaluate attainability controls (e.g. for sensitive post-construction CSO Community of WQ standards areas) and controls compliance common to all monitoring to WQ standards Authority alternatives evaluate attainment of WQS WQS attainable, WQS revisions no revision may be needed necessary Propose revisions Review and Revise LTCP, Implement and revise WQS, approve LTCP, as appropriate LTCP if needed and modify permit STEP 7 STEP 8 STEP 9 STEP 10

16. Common Components of LTCPs and WQ Standards Reviews • Water quality monitoring and modeling • Hydraulic monitoring and modeling • Detailed descriptions of existing and designated uses • Analyses of the potential for use attainment • Analyses of control costs LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

17. Example—Water Quality Modeling Results LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

18. Example—Analyses of the Potential for Use Attainment EXCERPTED FROM LTCP—The City currently requires persons wishing to recreate on the Lazy River when flows exceed 2,000 cfs to obtain a permit from the City and sign a waiver recognizing the inherent danger in such activities. The City has continually demonstrated their belief that recreation should not occur in the Lazy River when flows exceed 2,000 cfs for safety reasons, and therefore purports that the occurrence of particularly high flow precludes the attainment of recreation use. LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

19. Use Attainability Analyses (UAAs) • Required for any change in use • Structured scientific assessment of the physical, chemical, and biological factors affecting use • Six bases • Capital- and time-intensive LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

20. Six Bases for Revising Use Attainment • Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the use • Natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low flow conditions or water levels prevent the attainment of the uses • Human-caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and cannot be remedied LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

21. Six Bases for Revising Use Attainment • Dams, diversions or other types of hydrological modifications preclude the use, and it is not possible to restore the water body • Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body unrelated to water quality preclude attainment of aquatic life uses • Control necessary to attain the use would cause substantial and widespread economic and social impacts LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

22. Factors with Application for CSO-Impacted Waters • Human-caused conditions or sources of pollution that cannot be remedied • Need to establish “attainable restoration goals” for urban systems • Hydrologic modifications preclude the use • Pose logistical and safety constraints • Shipping channels • Flood control projects • Substantial and widespread economic and social impact LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

23. Example – Adopting a CSOSubcategory MASSACHUSETTS • Massachusetts amended its WQ standards in 1996 to include refined use designations for CSO-impacted waters • Refined use selection/implementation based on UAA and LTCP controls LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

24. Example – Adopting a CSOSubcategory MASSACHUSETTS • Class B: Water meets fishable-swimmable standards • Class B(CSO or partial): Some CSO discharges remain; UAA required • Class C: CSO discharges allowed to remain; UAA required; considered last resort LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

25. Where are the Bacteria Criteria Applied? • Many states apply bacteria criteria “end-of-pipe” rather than point of contact • When CSO outfalls are sufficiently removed from recreational areas this may be an important distinction • State could also segment receiving water to protect recreation in the areas where it actually occurs LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

26. Bacterial Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes States • The BEACH Act of 2000 required adoption of new bacterial standards by April 2004 • Based on 1986 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria • Will replace fecal coliform with either E.coli or enterococci LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

27. Summary of EPA Recommended Bacteria Criteria LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

28. Variances • Temporary change to existing water quality standards • Designated use must NOT be an existing use • Designated use can NOT be immediately attainable with implementation of technology-based controls and BMPs • Preserves the existing use • Applicable only to discharger LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

29. Example – Providing a Variance for CSO Waters MAINE • Legislation codifies standard procedure for providing variances to CSO-impacted waters during LTCP implementation • Removes designated uses for short time after wet weather events and snow melt LTCPs and Water Quality Standards

30. Example – Providing a Variance for CSO Waters MAINE • Permittees submit flow and load data to DEP to assist in determination of impacted area and duration • LTCP must be submitted AND approved • Variance may be revoked for failure to comply with LTCP implementation schedule • Public hearings and notice must accompany variance LTCPs and Water Quality Standards