DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4203M)
EPA-833-D-00-002
DRAFT- DECEMBER 20, 2000
DRAFT
GUIDANCE ON
IMPLEMENTING
THE WATER QUALITY-BASED PROVISIONS
IN THE CSO CONTROL POLICY
-------
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
NOTICE
The Guidance On Implementing The Water Quality-Based Provisions in the CSO Control
Policy is designed to address questions raised since the publication of the CSO Control Policy in
1994 on integrating CSO long-term control plan (LTCP) development process with water quality
standards reviews. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responding to these questions
by expanding on the Agency's existing guidance.
The guidance included in this document cannot impose legally binding requirements on
EPA, States, Tribes, or the regulated community. It can not substitute for Clean Water Act
(CWA) requirements, EPA's regulations, or the obligations imposed by consent decrees or
enforcement orders. Further, this guidance might not apply to a particular situation based upon
the circumstances.
-------
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
FOREWORD
EPA issued the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy in April 1994 (59 FR
18688). To date, EPA has released seven guidance documents and worked with stakeholders to
foster implementation of the Policy. EPA continues to affirm the Policy's key themes, such as
providing clear levels of control, permitting flexibility, allowing a phased approach to
implementation of CSO controls considering a community's financial capability, and reviewing
and revising, as appropriate, water quality standards. In practice, however, many challenges
remain, and implementation of the Policy has not met some initial expectations.
The CSO Policy's first key expectation was implementation of the nine minimum
controls (NMCs) by January 1997. Nearly 90-percent of communities have moved forward with
the implementation of the NMCs. The CSO Policy also calls for the development of a long-term
control plan (LTCP) which includes measures that provide for compliance with the Clean Water
Act, including attainment of water quality standards. Long-term control planning consistent with
the CSO Policy is key to the success of local CSO control efforts. Currently, approximately 75-
percent of all CSO communities are involved in the LTCP process.
The CSO Policy provides that "'[d]Development of the long-term plan should be
coordinated with the review and appropriate revision of water quality standards (WOS) and
implementation procedures on CSO-impacted receiving waters to ensure that the long-term
controls will be sufficient to meet water quality standards " (59 FR 18694). In the six years since
EPA issued the CSO Control Policy, implementation of this principle has not progressed as
quickly as expected.
Given local resource constraints, CSO communities need clear guidance on how they
should implement the CSO control and other wet weather water pollution control programs to
attain water quality standards. Water quality standards reviews are an essential step in
integrating the development and implementation of affordable, well-designed and operated CSO
control programs with the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA). However, the Agency
recognizes that State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Directors will need to set priorities
for water quality standards reviews based on a number of factors including court-mandated total
maximum daily load (TMDL) analyses. EPA plans to actively participate in the process and
facilitate the process wherever possible.
As part of EPA's FY 1999 Appropriation, Congress directed EPA to develop guidance on
the conduct of water quality standards and designated use reviews for CSO-receiving waters.
Further, Congress urged EPA to provide technical and financial assistance to States and EPA
Regions to conduct these reviews. In response, EPA hosted three stakeholder listening sessions
in the spring of 1999 and an experts workshop on September 24, 1999. The purpose of these
meetings was to obtain participants' views on the impediments to implementing the water
quality-based provisions in the CSO Policy, and actions that EPA should take to overcome these
-------
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
impediments. The attached document entitled Guidance on Implementing the Water Quality-
Based Provisions in the CSO Control Policy will address many of the stakeholder concerns.
The objective of this guidance is to lay a strong foundation for integrating CSO long-term
control planning with water quality standards reviews. Reaching early agreement among CSO
communities, States, and EPA on the data to be collected and the analyses to be conducted to
support the long-term control plan development and water quality standards reviews can
facilitate water quality standards reviews for CSO-receiving waters.
The guidance describes the process for integrating LTCP development and
implementation with the water quality standards review. This process is the essence of EPA's
renewed commitment to facilitating the review and revision, as appropriate, of water quality
standards for CSO-impacted receiving waters. Integrating CSO long-term control planning with
water quality standards reviews requires greater coordination among CSO communities, States,
EPA, and the public. Although this coordination is an intensive process, it provides greater
assurance that CSO communities will implement affordable CSO control programs that support
the attainment of appropriate water quality standards.
As outlined in the guidance, EPA will continue to implement the CSO Policy through its
existing statutory and regulatory authorities. The principle mechanisms are the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program and the water quality
standards program. NPDES authorities are and will continue to be responsible for implementing
the CSO Policy. EPA will ensure that NPDES state program authorities implement all aspects
of the CSO Policy, including the integration of LTCP development with the review and revision,
as appropriate, of water quality standards. Both EPA and State NPDES authorities shall assure
that communities develop and implement LTCPs that meet the requirements of the Clean Water
Act. EPA will work to ensure that both NPDES and water quality standards authorities
participate with the State or Interstate Water Pollution Control Director in developing and
reviewing LTCPs in conjunction with water quality standards reviews.
EPA is responsible for assuring that State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Directors implement all aspects of the CSO Control Policy, including the integration of the
development and implementation of the CSO LTCP with the review and revision, as appropriate,
of water quality standards for CSO-receiving waters. Both EPA and States need to ensure that
communities develop and implement plans that meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Michael B. Cook
Director
Office of Wastewater Management
Geoffrey H. Grubbs
Director
Office of Science and Technology
-------
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD
I.
INTRODUCTION
1. Why is EFA developing this draft guidance? ...1
2. What are EPA's goals? 2
3. What is included in this draft guidance? 2
A. Existing program framework 3
B. Reviewing water quality standards 5
C. Integrating CSO LTCP development and implementation with water
quality standards reviews 6
D. The watershed approach 7
II. EXISTING PROGRAM FRAMEWORK:
1. CSO program framework
A. What is the statutory authority for controlling CSOs? 9
B. What are the technology-based requirements for controlling CSOs? 9
C. What are the water quality-based requirements for controlling CSOs? 9
D. What options are available in developing a LTCP that meets with the
intent of the water quality-based provisions of the CSO Control
Policy? 10
E. How do CSO LTCP monitoring and modeling activities support water
quality standards reviews? 11
2. Water quality standards program framework
A. Who is responsible for water quality standards? 14
B. How does a State develop and adopt water quality standards? 14
C. How do States classify their uses? 15
D. How do States protect recreational uses, particularly in urban areas? 16
E. What are the appropriate criteria for protecting primary contact
recreation? 18
F. Where are the bacteria criteria applied? 20
G. How do States protect aquatic life uses? 21
H. How have some States developed more refined aquatic life uses? 21
I. Why are refined aquatic life uses important in the urban environment?.. 22
J. What steps are necessary to develop a system of tiered aquatic life uses
and subcategories for urban systems? 23
K. What is the process for assigning subcategories of uses to individual
water bodies? 24
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
III. REVIEWING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
1. How often are water quality standards reviewed? 26
2. What type of water quality standards revisions are possible? 26
3. What type of analyses are required to remove or lower the level of protection for a
use? : 27
4. On what basis do States generally justify their determination that a use is not
attainable in CSO receiving waters? 28
5. Are there ways to simplify the UAA process? 30
6. What is a variance and when is it appropriate? 31
IV. INTEGRATING CSO LTCP DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION WITH
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEWS
1. How do you integrate development of CSO LTCPs by communities and
reviews of water quality standards by States? 33
2. How have States reconciled their water quality standards with overflows
remaining after a well-designed and operated CSO LTCP has been
developed? 41
V. THE WATERSHED APPROACH
1. What is EPA's overall approach to watershed-based planning? 44
A. What information sources are available on watershed approaches? 44
B. How does watershed planning related to TMDL development? 45
C. How does watershed planning affect capital planning? 46
D. Who sets priorities for TMDLs? 46
2. How does CSO planning for into a watershed approach? 46
3. How do States with CSO communities use watershed approaches? 47
VI. CONCLUSIONS 48
FIGURES
1. Coordination of LTCP development and water quality standards review and
revision 34
TABLES
1. Types of CSO data supporting water quality standards reviews 13
2. Categorical uses 15
3. Qualitative uses 16
4. Summary of EPA recommended water quality criteria for bacteria 19
5. Aquatic life use classes 21
6. Water body classifications 22
7. Developing a refined aquatic life designated use system 24
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
APPENDICES
I. Annotated Bibliography of CSO Guidance Documents
II. Removal of Designated Uses - 40 CFR 131.10(g) and (h)
III. List of Guidance on Use Attainability Analyses (UAAs)
IV. Questions/Infonnation for a Recreational UAA
V. WQS Economic Impact Analysis
VI. Integration of Wet Weather Source Controls (CSOs, SSOs, Storm Water) Within
a Watershed Framework
-------
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Why is EPA developing this draft guidance?
This draft guidance demonstrates the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
renewed commitment to assure that both communities with combined sewer systems and States
participate in implementing the water quality-based provisions in the Combined Sewer Overflow
(CSO) Control Policy. The CSO Control Policy anticipates the "review and revision, as
appropriate, of water quality standards and their implementation procedures when developing
CSO control plans to reflect site-specific wet weather impacts of CSOs". However, EPA is
concerned that during the development of the CSO long-term control plan sufficient information
may not be available for a State to justify a revision to water quality standards.
Congress, in the conference report on EPA's FY 1999 Appropriations, urged the Agency
to facilitate the water quality and designated use reviews for CSO-receiving waters by
developing guidance for States and Regional Offices. During three listening sessions and a
September 1999 EPA-Water Environment Federation (WEF) experts workshop, EPA sought and
received a wide range of diverse perspectives on impediments to implementing the water quality-
based provisions in the CSO Control Policy.1 EPA talked with State and EPA staff, CSO
communities and their consultants, and environmental and watershed organizations. The
listening sessions and the experts workshop confirmed a need for guidance and clarifications in
the existing regulatory requirements and options available to the State in revising water quality
standards.
In response, EPA is preparing guidance to lay a strong foundation for integrating water
quality standards reviews with the development and implementation of an affordable, well-
designed and operated long-term control plan (LTCP). Integrating the LTCP and water quality
standards review processes occurs by increasing the level of coordination and cooperation among
CSO communities, constituency groups, States and EPA. Through increased coordination and
cooperation, CSO communities and States will be better able to address the many scientific,
technical, and economic issues involved in developing LTCPs that comply with permit
1 EPA summaries of the listening sessions and of the experts workshop include: (1)
Summaiy of the Listening Sessions (EPA-823-R-99-017) and (2) Summaiy of Participant Comments at the
EPA-WEF Experts Workshop (EPA-823-R-99-016)). You can find these documents at
www.epa.gov/ost/cso or request hard copies from:
U.S. EPA/NSCEP
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419
Phone: 1-800-490-9198 or (513) 489-8190
FAX: (513)489-8695
Web Site: www.epa.gov/ncepi.htm
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
requirements based on applicable water quality standards and in determining if revisions in water
quality standards are appropriate.
2. What are EPA's goals?
EPA's goal is for CSO communities to develop and implement affordable long-term
control plans (LTCPs) that achieve compliance with applicable water quality standards and with
other Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act) requirements. Phasing the implementation of CSO
controls and evaluating their efficacy as they are installed allows communities and States to
manage the complexities of: (1) improving the quality of urban water bodies affected by many
sources; (2) financing the high costs of structural CSO controls; and (3) integrating LTCP
development and implementation with water quality standards reviews.
In developing a LTCP, EPA expects communities to identify priority controls, such as
eliminating or treating an overflow which impacts a bathing area. These controls should be
common to all LTCP scenarios, and therefore should be implemented expeditiously. Following
installation of these controls, communities and States will need to monitor and collect post-
construction compliance data to evaluate the effectiveness of the controls in improving water
quality and supporting the uses of the water body. If the data show that the preferred option in
the draft LTCP is unlikely to comply with the water quality standards, the NPDES authority
should work with the CSO community to evaluate other CSO control alternatives identified in
the draft. If, however, the preferred option in the draft LTCP does not comply with water quality
standards and chemical, physical or economic factors appear to preclude attainment of the use,
the data collected during the planning process may be used to support revisions to water quality
standards, including adoption of uses that better reflect the water quality that can be achieved
with an affordable level of CSO control.
Greater levels of coordination are needed to integrate CSO control planning and
implementation with water quality standards reviews. This draft guidance will clarify the roles
and responsibilities of CSO communities, the NPDES and water quality standards authorities,
community and environmental organizations, and EPA in this process.
EPA plans to actively participate in the process and will encourage others to actively
participate. With increased coordination and cooperation, and the active participation of all
entities in integrating the CSO long-term control planning processes and water quality standards
reviews, communities should be able to fully comply with the water quality standards.
3. What is included in this draft guidance?
This draft guidance focuses on improving the implementation of the water quality-based
provisions in the CSO Control Policy by: (1) improving the level of coordination and
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
cooperation among CSO communities, State Water Directors2, community and environmental
organizations, and EPA; (2) integrating the development and implementation of the LTCP with
the review of water quality standards; and (3) reconciling water quality standards with well-
designed and operated CSO LTCPs.
A. EXISTING PROGRAM FRAMEWORK
This draft guidance summarizes the statutory and regulatory requirements governing the
CSO control program and water quality standards program. The discussion also covers policy
and existing guidance documents that support the integration of LTCP development and
implementation with water quality standards reviews.
CSO Program Framework
Under the CSO Control Policy, communities with combined sewer systems are expected
to develop LTCPs that comply with water quality standards. By law, discharges that remain after
implementation of the LTCP must not interfere with the attainment of water quality standards.
More detailed information on the process for developing and implementing a LTCP is provided
in the Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Long-Term Control Plans. Relevant portions
of existing CSO program guidance manuals are identified to assist in developing, implementing
and evaluating LTCPs. Appendix I includes an annotated bibliography of all the CSO guidance
documents.
EPA offers two approaches for CSO communities to consider in developing LTCPs.
These are:
The "presumption approach" with performance criteria (i.e., 4-6 overflow events
or 85% by volume capture) as an initial planning target for the LTCP followed by
post-construction monitoring for compliance with water quality standards;
The "demonstration approach," developing and implementing a LTCP that meets
applicable water quality standards followed by post-construction monitoring for
compliance with water quality standards;
In selecting the "demonstration approach" there are a number of alternative strategies that
a community can select from in developing a LTCP to meet applicable water quality standards.
The choice of appropriate strategy will be site-specific. Alternatives include:
Developing and implementing a LTCP that meets currently applicable water
quality standards, including separation of combined sewers to eliminate all
overflows;
2. State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Directors, State Water Directors or States should include
State and Interstate entities responsible for NPDES permits, enforcement and water quality standards.
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
Using a TMDL, if appropriate, to demonstrate that water quality standards can be
attained through a combination of CSO and other controls;
Working with the State Water Director, including both the water quality standards
and NPDES authorities, to integrate water quality standards reviews with the
development and implementation of an affordable, well-designed and operated
CSO control program.
Water Quality Standards Program Framework
The Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act) establishes the statutory framework governing
the development of water quality standards and their use. Congress set an interim goal in section
101(a)(2) of the Act to provide, wherever attainable, water quality for the protection and
propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on the water. Section 303 of
the Act directs States and Tribes, where authorized, to adopt water quality standards that protect
human health and welfare, enhance the quality of water, and serve the purposes of the Act by
providing water quality, wherever attainable, for the uses in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act. The
CWA requirements for water quality standards are further elaborated by EPA regulations for the
program, found at 40 CFR 131.
With the public participating, States adopt water quality standards that set the water
quality goals for the water body, serve as the legal basis for TMDLs and the applicable permit
requirements for point sources, and provide the program goals for .non-point source management
programs. Sections 301(b) and 402(a) of the CWA specifically require the national pollutant
discharge elimination system (NPDES) permits to comply with water quality standards.
The CWA requires States to review their water quality standards at least once every three
years. Any new or revised water quality standards must be approved by EPA before the
standards can be used for CWA purposes, such as the basis for a TMDL or a permit limit.
States have considerable discretion in adopting water quality standards and tailoring
standards to reflect particular climatic, hydrologic and seasonal conditions. This discretion,
however, is not unlimited. State water quality standards must protect public health and the
environment by enhancing and maintaining the quality of the water. To protect the uses
designated in their water quality standards, States adopt: (1) a suite of criteria to protect the most
sensitive of the designated uses; and (2) an anti-degradation policy including implementation
procedures to protect water quality. In designating uses for a water body and adopting criteria to
protect those designated uses, States consider the attainability of the uses, as well as the
protection of downstream uses.
The most common State use classification systems are based on general categories of
uses (e.g. fish and aquatic life and recreation, etc.) or qualitative uses (e.g. Class AA -
remarkable, Class A - excellent, etc.). Tables 2 through 7 illustrate the various types of State
uses classification systems.
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
States protect recreational uses by adopting the appropriate criteria (E. Coli or
enterococci). In urban areas, where water-based recreational opportunities may be limited, States
should protect children who frequently splash in waters that otherwise would be considered too
shallow for adults.
This draft guidance also discusses applying the appropriate criteria at the point of contact
rather than at the "end-of-pipe" and use of less stringent criteria when water is unlikely to be
ingested or when the recreational use is unlikely to occur, e.g., during the winter. Some States
are building flexibility into their water quality standards while also protecting public health by
adopting sub-categories of uses, e.g., for CSOs and precluding swimming during or immediately
following a CSO event when bacterial counts remain elevated.
This draft guidance provides examples of how some States are defining more explicitly
the type of aquatic life that exists in the water body. These State use classification systems
provide the public with a better understanding of the type offish and other aquatic life to be
protected by the water quality standards. By more explicitly defining the aquatic life in a water
body, States and the public are better able to evaluate the potential of the water body to support
healthier aquatic communities. Also identified are the steps and data that would be necessary to
develop a tiered aquatic life system with subcategories for urban systems.
B. REVIEWING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Depending on the CSO impacts, possible water quality standards revisions include:
1. Applying the bacteria criteria at the point of contact rather than at the end-of-pipe
(e.g., adopting a mixing zone);
2. Segmenting the water body to preserve recreation in areas where it actually
occurs;
3. Revising the use by creating subclasses to recognize intermittent exceedances of
bacteriological criteria.
This section of the draft guidance describes the regulatory requirements, analyses, and
documentation needed to demonstrate that there are non-water quality related reasons (i.e.,
chemical, physical, or economic) for a water body not fully supporting the designated uses. The
draft guidance identifies the six bases, any one of which States may use to justify revisions to
designated uses (see 40 CFR §131.10(g)(l)-(6)). Appendix II provides additional information on
how and when designated uses may be removed.
Also outlined are the circumstances under which States may not change their designated
uses. For example, States may not change a use if the use is an existing use or the use can be
attained by implementing effluent limits required under sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act and
by implementing cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for non-point source
controls (40 CFR 131.10(h)(2)).
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
States proposing revisions to designated uses that lower the level of protection afforded a
water body (e.g reducing the number of recreational use days) must submit to the public and to
EPA a use attainability analysis (UAA; see 40 CFR 131.10(j))- A UAA is a structured scientific
assessment of the physical, chemical, biological and economic factors affecting the attainment of
the use. The UAA must provide sufficient information for the State, public and EPA to
determine that the use is not attainable. The UAA should also provide sufficient information for
the State to adopt an alternative use and the criteria to protect it. States may designate an
alternative use based on the demonstrated water quality improvements from an affordable, well-
designed and operated CSO control program.
Substantial guidance is available on conducting aquatic life-use UAAs and on performing
economic analyses for recreation and aquatic life uses (see Appendix III). This draft guidance
builds on these documents by identifying how a LTCP can serve as the foundation for a UAA.
In particular, Appendix IV identifies the questions likely to guide the development of a
recreational UAA and provides references to the CSO guidance documents where similar
information is expected as part of a LTCP. The guidance explains in greater detail the analyses
needed to justify revisions based on "substantial and widespread economic and social impact"
(i.e., 40 CFR 131.10(g)(6)). EPA is providing this additional information because most CSO-
related water quality standards revisions are likely to be based on substantial and widespread
economic and social impact. Appendix V explains in greater detail the analyses needed to
justify revisions based on "substantial and widespread economic and social impact" (i.e., 40 CFR
131.10(g)(6)) and includes a case example.
This document identifies ways in which the UAA can be simplified. Common sense and
good judgment play a role. An important way to simplify UAAs is for the community, State and
EPA to reach agreement prior to initiating the UAA on the data to be collected, analyses to
conducted and the critical factors to be used in interpreting the results. To assist in simplifying
UAAs for recreation, the Agency will develop an example of a UAA for a recreational use water
body.
C. INTEGRATING CSO LTCP DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
WITH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEWS
The implementation of CSO controls included in a well-designed and operated LTCP,
may lead to the determination that a water body has the potential of supporting improved aquatic
life. Under this circumstance, States would upgrade their designated aquatic life use for the
water body. Alternatively, implementation of a well-designed and operated LTCP may not
necessarily ensure the attainment of water quality standards within the CSO receiving water.
Where existing standards cannot be met, CSO communities, States, and EPA will need a more
intensive process than that described in the Guidance for Long-Term Control Plans. The
objective of this more intensive approach, shown in Figure 1, is for the State Water Director,
EPA and the CSO community to reach early agreement on the data and analyses that will be
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
sufficient to support both the development and implementation of the LTCP and the water
quality standards review.
State Water Directors and EPA may need to establish priorities and develop schedules to
participate in the more intensive process. For example, if the CSO receiving water body has
been included on the State's 303(d) (impaired waters) list for bacteria or other pollutants
common to CSO discharges, the State will need to coordinate the schedule for developing a
TMDL with the schedule (in the permit, administrative order or judicial order) for developing the
CSO LTCP before deciding upon the schedule for the water quality standards review.
This draft guidance describes the steps for integrating the development and
implementation of the LTCP with the review of water quality standards. Where available
information is not sufficient to support a water quality standards review, EPA expects that
communities will install the controls common to all relevant LTCP alternatives while collecting
additional information that would support revisions to water quality standards. Where available
information indicates that water quality standards revisions are not appropriate, EPA expects that
communities will implement a LTCP that complies with the water quality standards.
A few States have developed the mechanisms in their water quality standards program
framework to integrate water quality standards reviews with the development and
implementation of a well-designed and operated CSO control program. Use of continuous
simulation modeling and allowances for a limited number of overflows to define the use are
examples. Another approach under consideration in some States is adopting a high flow cutoff.
However, at this time, EPA has not developed a national policy on a high flow cutoff for bacteria
and recreational uses and no State has yet submitted a high flow cutoff proposal to EPA for
review and approval.
D. THE WATERSHED APPROACH
This section discusses how CSO control planning and implementation fit into the
watershed approach. EPA recognizes that urban water quality may be affected by a combination
of CSO, storm water discharges, sanitary sewer overflows and non-point source runoff. These
sources may be most effectively addressed on a watershed basis or through TMDL analyses.
Although EPA strongly endorses and provides financial assistance to local watershed efforts, this
guidance includes only a limited discussion of the urban wet weather watershed approach. The
discussion is limited because of the urgency for preparing this guidance and the lack of resources
to fully explore trade-offs and inter-relationships of urban wet weather sources on a watershed
basis.
Some States do use a watershed approach in one or more of their water programs, such as
monitoring, designating uses, reviewing water quality standards or issuing permits. If CSO
LTCPs are integrated with an on-going TMDL or watershed analysis, EPA expects that
communities will implement high priority controls while TMDLs or watershed plans are
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
completed. An iterative, phased implementation of CSO controls fits well with the watershed
approach. Appendix VI includes an example of how integration of CSO controls with watershed
planning and implementation is occurring in one locale.
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
II. EXISTING PROGRAM FRAMEWORK:
1. CSO Program Framework
A. What is the statutory authority for controlling CSOs?
Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are point source discharges to the waters of the
United States and are therefore subject to section 402(a) of the CWA and the implementing
regulations for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. The
CSO Control Policy, issued on April 19, 1994, provides a national framework and guidance for
controlling CSOs consistent with CWA requirements. The Policy is a comprehensive national
strategy to ensure that municipalities, permitting authorities, water quality standards authorities,
EPA and the public engage in a comprehensive and coordinated planning effort to achieve cost
effective CSO controls that ultimately meet appropriate water quality standards.
B. What are the technology-based requirements for controlling CSOs?
The minimum technology-based controls are the nine minimum controls (NMCs)3 as
determined on a site-specific basis by the NPDES authority. The CSO Control Policy calls for
all communities to implement the NMCs. The NPDES entity determines whether the NMCs
satisfy the technology-based requirements of the CWA based on factors in the NPDES
regulations.4
C. What are the water quality-based requirements for controlling CSOs?
Under the CSO Control Policy, communities with combined sewer systems are expected
to develop LTCPs to provide for the attainment of water quality standards and compliance with
other CWA requirements. By law, discharges that remain after implementation of the CSO
controls must not interfere with the attainment of water quality standards. In developing LTCPs,
communities should examine a range of CSO control alternatives and evaluate the potential CSO
reductions and water quality improvements from each alternative. The CSO Control Policy
recommends that communities give the highest priority to eliminating, relocating or treating
overflows to protect the designated uses in sensitive areas. Sensitive areas include: areas of
. Nine Minimum Controls include: proper operation and maintenance of collection systems; maximum use
of the collection system for storage; maximum flow to the POTW for treatment; eliminated dry weather overflows;
control of solid and floatable materials in CSOs; pollution prevention; public notification; and monitoring.
4. The factors in 40 CFR 125.3(d)(2) cover BCT and (3) BAT. These factors include the reasonableness of
the relationship between the costs of attaining a reduction in the effluent and the effluent reduction benefits, the age
of the equipment and facilities involved, process employed, engineering aspects of the various types of control
techniques, process changes and non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements).
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
primary contact recreation, drinking water supplies, shellfish beds, and waters with threatened
and endangered species and their critical habitats.
In developing their LTCPs, communities evaluate controls to address a reasonable range
of alternatives. For example, the LTCP should evaluate controls that achieve zero overflow
events per year, an average of one to three, four to seven and eight to twelve overflow events per
year. Alternatively, communities could evaluate controls that would achieve 100 percent, 90
percent, 85 percent, 80 percent and 75 percent capture for treatment. The CSO Control Policy
also recommends that communities evaluate modifying the operation of the POTW or expanding
primary and/or secondary treatment capacity to handle larger flows during storm events. This
analysis of control alternatives should be sufficient to make a reasonable assessment of costs and
the expected performance of the various alternatives.
D. Wliat options are available in developing a LTCP that meets with the intent of
the water quality-based provisions of the CSO Control Policy?
The CSO Control Policy offers two approaches for CSO communities to consider in
developing LTCPs. These are:
The "presumption approach" with performance criteria (i.e., 4-6 overflow events
or 85% by volume capture) used as an endpoint for LTCP development and
implementation;
The "demonstration approach," developing and implementing a LTCP that
includes a suite of CSO controls sufficient to meet applicable water quality
standards;
In all cases, the CSO community will need to undertake a post-construction monitoring
program to ensure compliance with water quality standards.
The "presumption approach" presumes the LTCP provides an adequate level of control to
meet the water quality-based requirements of the CWA if the LTCP meets the performance
criteria described in the CSO Policy. There are a number of alternative strategies that a
community can select from when using a "demonstration approach" in developing a LTCP that
should be sufficient to meet applicable water quality standards. The choice of an appropriate
strategy will be site-specific. Alternatives include:
Developing and implementing a LTCP that meets currently applicable water
quality standards, including separation of combined sewers to eliminate all
overflows;
Using a TMDL, if appropriate, to demonstrate that water quality standards can be
attained through a combination of CSO and other controls;
Working with the State Water Director, including both the water quality standards
and NPDES authorities, to integrate water quality standards reviews with the
10
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
development and implementation of an affordable, well-designed and operated
CSO control program.
The CSO Control Policy lays out four criteria for successful use of the "demonstration
approach." A LTCP based on the "demonstration approach" should show that:
The CSO control program will protect water quality standards unless the standard
can not be met as a result of natural conditions or other pollution sources;
The overflows remaining after implementation of the control program will not
prevent the attainment of water quality standards;
The planned control program will achieve the maximum pollution reduction
benefits reasonably attainable; and
The planned control program is designed to allow cost effective expansion or cost
effective retrofitting if additional controls are subsequently determined to be
necessary to meet water quality standards, including designated uses.
Where water quality standards can not be met because of natural conditions or other
pollution sources, a total maximum daily load (TMDL) or other means should be used to
apportion pollutant loads.
Regardless of whether the presumption or demonstration approach is used, the CSO
control program ultimately selected must be sufficient to meet water quality standards and other
CWA requirements. The CSO Community should undertake a post-construction water quality
assessment program of monitoring and collecting sufficient data to demonstrate compliance with
water quality standards, including protection of designated uses.
E. How do CSO LTCP monitoring and modeling activities support water quality
standards reviews?
One of the objectives in integrating CSO control planning and water quality standards
reviews is for CSO communities to help collect information and conduct analyses, whenever
possible, which will support both processes. Early involvement of State and EPA water quality
standards and monitoring personnel in developing and reviewing the monitoring plans also helps
CSO communities collect the data and conduct the analyses to support both the requisites of CSO
control planning, including water quality standards reviews.
Many CSO communities focus monitoring and modeling activities primarily on the
dynamics of the combined sewer system (frequency, duration, flow rate and volume of CSO
discharges). Communities interested in pursuing water quality standards reviews will need to
collect sufficient information to quantify the impacts of CSOs on the receiving water. EPA's
Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance for Monitoring and Modeling (EPA 832-B-99-002)
provides information on developing a comprehensive monitoring and modeling plan that focuses
both on the dynamics of the combined sewer system and the water quality impacts of CSOs.
11
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
CSO monitoring programs include both CSO effluent and ambient in-stream monitoring
and, where appropriate, biological assessments, toxicity testing and sediment sampling to
evaluate the effect of overflows on ambient water quality and the designated uses. These
analyses also help to identify the water quality benefits of control alternatives, and to project the
effect of remaining overflows on water quality standards attainment (See Table 1) CSO
monitoring programs should:
Assess attainment of water quality standards (including designated uses);
Define the baseline conditions in the receiving water (chemical, biological, and
physical parameters);
Assess the relative impact of CSOs;
Gain sufficient understanding of the receiving water to support evaluation of
proposed CSO control alternatives, including any receiving water modeling that
may be needed;
Support the review and revision, as appropriate, of water quality standards.
The monitoring parameters identified in the CSO Control Policy include "oxygen
demanding pollutants, nutrients, toxic pollutants, sediment contaminants, pathogens,
bacteriological indicators (e.g., Enterococcus, E. coif) and toxicity." This information is
necessary to characterize CSO discharges and their water quality impacts, and to evaluate CSO
control plan alternatives. States use this information to determine whether water quality
standards revisions may be appropriate, or if more extensive CSO controls are needed. It is
important for the permittee, State, and EPA to agree on the information and analyses that are
necessary to support both the CSO control plan and the review of water quality standards. The
data needed to revise water quality standards are similar to the data needed to assess the
attainment of water quality standards.
12
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
Table 1 - Types of CSO Data Supporting Water Quality Standards Reviews
Timing of CSO events and their impacts on primary contact recreational periods or fish
spawning.
Amount of precipitation causing a CSO event.
Average time between CSO events.
Season during which CSOs tend to occur more frequently.
Estimate of the number, frequency, and duration of CSO events per year.
Flow data for CSO-impacted waters.
Appropriate meteorological, soils, land use and watershed modeling data.
Identification of the designated uses.
Use impairment data, including the severity and geographic extent of impairment (e.g.
frequency and duration of beach closures).
Location of sensitive areas relative to CSO outfalls (e.g., swimming areas, shellfish
beds, fish spawning areas, drinking water supply intakes)
Severity, extent, duration, and frequency of water quality criteria excursions.
Pollutants in CSOs that cause or contribute to water quality criteria excursions (e.g.,
bacteria, BOD, nutrients, toxics).
Pollutant loadings from other point sources (storm water, NPDES-permitted facilities),
and from non-point sources (agricultural lands, roadways, and forestry operations).
Collaborative monitoring through consortiums is a cost-effective way to stretch
monitoring resources, improve coordination or share expertise and the cost of data collection and
management5 Many community organizations also support data collection with volunteer
monitoring programs. Volunteer monitoring data can have a high degree of credibility,
particularly where quality assurance and quality control procedures are documented.6
Involving community organizations in evaluating and comparing data on the operation,
maintenance and replacement costs of CSO control alternatives over different time frames can
help communities select the least cost control alternative. Broad participation can also help these
organizations to better understand the scientific, technical and funding issues involved in the
control of CSOs and other stressors that impair urban waters. By sharing solid information
freely, community organizations can promote consensus on CSO control options and
5. See U.S. EPA. 1997. Monitoring Consortiums: A Cost-Effective Means To Enhance Data Collection
And Analysis (EPA 841-R-97-006).
6.The Directory of Volunteer Monitoring Programs shows that 89 percent of those registering use
documented quality assurance and quality control procedures following state- or EPA-approved plans. EPA has
published The Volunteer Monitor's Guide to Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA 841-B-96-003) and
organizations such as River Watch provide technical guidance (see http://www.riverwatch.org/Catalog).
13
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
recommend complementary environmental enhancements that maximize improvements in the
CSO-receiving water and provide greater environmental benefits to the watershed as a whole.
With this understanding, these groups can facilitate communication with the larger community
and generate support for CSO controls and their funding.
2. Water Quality Standards Program Framework
A. Wlw is responsible for water quality standards?
The CWA gives the responsibility for developing, adopting and reviewing water quality
standards directly to States, Territories, and authorized Tribes. EPA reviews and approves or
disapproves new or revised State water quality standards. For water quality standards submitted
after May 30, 2000, only when EPA approves the standard may that standard be used for C'WA
purposes, such as for TMDLs and for NPDES permits7. Under section 303(c)(4) of the CWA,
EPA promulgates Federal water quality standards when:
EPA has disapproved a new or revised standard because the State has failed to
adopt water quality standards consistent with the CWA and implementing
regulations; or
The Administrator makes a determination that a new or revised standard is
necessary to meet the requirements of the Act.
S. How does a State develop and adopt water quality standards?
Under existing EPA regulations and guidance, States have considerable discretion in
adopting water quality standards for a water body8. Water quality standards programs are
different in each State, reflecting the diversity in climate, hydrology, and ecological conditions
across the country.
will:
Under section 303(c)(2), the CWA requires States to adopt water quality standards which
Protect the public health or welfare;
Enhance and maintain the quality of water; and
Serve the purposes of the Act.
The goal of the CWA (section 101(a)(2)) that guides the water quality standards program
is: "wherever attainable ... water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of
7. 65 FR 24641, April 27,2000.
8.40CFRPartl31.
14
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
fish, shellfish and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water..." Under section 303(c)(2)(A) of
the CWA, States are to establish their standards taking into consideration their use and value of
the water body for:
Public water supplies,
Propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife, and
Recreation in and on the water.
In designating uses for a water body and adopting criteria to protect those designated
uses, States consider the attainability of those uses, often weighing the environmental, social and
economic consequences of their decisions. States adopt a suite of criteria necessary to protect the
most sensitive of the designated uses and an anti-degradation policy and implementation
procedures to protect water quality.
EPA's water quality standards regulations limit State discretion when adopting and
revising uses.9 For example, States may not adopt waste transport as a use for a water body.
Further, when designating uses and adopting applicable criteria, States must ensure the protection
of downstream water quality standards (see 40 CFR 131.10(b)). In revising designated uses
(discussed in more depth below), States may not remove an existing use or remove a designated
use if it can be attained with the technology-based controls under sections 301(b) and 306 of the
CWA and by implementing cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for non-
point source control (see 40 CFR 131.10(h)(2)).'
C. How do States classify their uses?
State designated use classification systems fall into two general types -- "categorical"
and "qualitative." The "categorical" approach uses categories that primarily focus on specific
CWA uses (see Table 2).
Table 2 - Categorical Uses
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Domestic Water Supply
Industrial Water Supply
Fish and Aquatic Life
Recreation
Irrigation
Livestock Watering and Wildlife.
Navigation
For example, a State may have the
classification system at the left. These uses
reflect the basic uses specified in the Act. Any
specific water body will likely have more than
one use assigned to it (e.g., Green River - Uses 1,
3, 4, 6). For this State, there is only one aquatic
life and recreation designated use, no
subcategories are specified, and the uses do not
imply qualitative judgements.
.40 CFR 131.10.
15
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
Table 3 - Qualitative Uses
Class AA -
Remarkable
Class A -
Excellent
Class B -
Good
Water quality in this class
shall markedly and uniformly
exceed the requirements for
all or substantially all uses.
Water quality in this class
shall meet or exceed the
requirements for all or
substantially all uses.
Water quality in this class
shall meet or exceed the
requirements for all or
substantially all uses.
Characteristic
uses shall include
Characteristic
uses shall include
Characteristic
uses shall include
The "qualitative" approach, on
the other hand, provides uses generally
ranked in a qualitative manner as in
Table 3. The use classes clearly
provide a qualitative judgement of the
expected water quality, and a selection
of "categorical" uses are included in
the "characteristic use" section. Only
one designated use (either AA, A, or B)
is assigned to any specific water body.
States have developed a wide
range of combinations of these two
basic approaches and have refined
these basic approaches, especially for
aquatic life uses.
D. How do States protect recreational uses, particularly in urban areas?
States generally try to protect and maintain the recreational uses of their waters wherever
possible consistent with the "swimmable" goal of the Act. Some States adopt primary contact
recreation uses (swimming, some types of boating", such as kayaking) for all State waters.
Others evaluate site-specific factors such as actual use, existing water quality, potential for water
quality improvement, access, recreational facilities, location, safety considerations and physical
attributes of the water body (depth, width, substrate, safety, etc.). Physical attributes of the water
body may be considered, but no single physical factor can be the only basis for deciding that
primary contact recreation is not appropriate. Swimming may occur unless access is prohibited,
particularly in areas where children may not have other swimming opportunities. In addition,
children will splash and swim in shallow waters that may otherwise be considered too shallow
for full body immersion by adults.
Where primary contact recreational use of the water body does not occur during the
whiter, EPA's water quality standards regulation at 40 CFR 131.10(f) allows States to adopt a
seasonal recreation use. A seasonal use defines the recreational season, such as April - October,
applies the water quality criteria associated with the primary contact recreation use during that
season, and applies less stringent water quality criteria during other months. When people are
not using the water for recreation, States may adopt a less stringent water quality criteria to
protect for incidental ingestion. These criteria are based on EPA's recommendation for
secondary contact waters (i.e. not to exceed a geometric mean five times EPA's recommended
water quality criteria for primary contact recreation). These less stringent criteria may be applied
as long as they do not impair the use during the recreational season.
16
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
States have also adopted a CSO sub-category of recreational uses. Since the sub-category
lowers the level of protection for the water body, EPA regulations at 40 CFR 131.100") require a
use attainability analysis (UAA). Such a sub-category allows for less than swimming every day
during the recreational season when a community can not afford a CSO LTCP that controls or
treats all overflows. How long the recreational use should be suspended and what other water
quality criteria will apply during these events should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Such
determinations should consider the proximity of outfalls to sensitive areas, the amount of rainfall,
time of year, etc.
To ensure public safety when the recreational use is suspended, EPA policy is for the
public to be notified and prevented, wherever possible, from using the water body for recreation.
One of the NMCs under the CSO Control Policy is public notification of overflows.
Recreational use should be suspended for periods when bacterial levels are elevated, which is
usually longer than the storm or runoff event causing the overflow. As with any change in water
quality standards, States must ensure that water quality standards of downstream waters are not
impaired. As noted, any change to water quality standards must be submitted to EPA for
approval or disapproval.
For water bodies where a State demonstrates through a UAA that primary contact
recreation should not occur, a recreation use and water quality criteria to protect secondary
contact activities may be appropriate. Secondary contact activities are those where participants
would have little direct contact with the water and where ingestion of water is unlikely.
Examples of secondary contact activities may include wading, canoeing, motor boating, and
fishing. EPA's policy is that any secondary contact criterion adopted by a State should be
appropriate for the anticipated use and not exceed a geometric mean five times EPA's
recommended water quality criteria for primary contact recreation. Applying a less stringent
criterion to a water body where only "secondary contact" activities occur should result in no
greater risk of gastrointestinal illness than do water bodies designated with primary contact
recreation.
17
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
E. What are the appropriate criteria for protecting primary contact recreation?
EPA strongly recommends that States adopt Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria
1986 to protect public health when waters are used for primary contact recreation. The criteria
indicators are E.coli or enterococci for fresh water and enterococci for marine water. Table 4
lists the criteria. EPA stresses the need for States to adopt the 1986 criteria because
epidemiological studies show that E.coli and enterococci are better indicators of gastrointestinal
illness than fecal coliform. Twelve (12) of the 34 States with CSO communities have adopted
the 1986 criteria.10 By the end of 2003, where States have not adopted the E.coli or enterococci
indicators, EPA may promulgate the 1986 criteria.1'
EPA recommends the geometric mean of the samples taken to not exceed the criterion
and the single sample maximum to be met for a water body to fully support its primary contact
recreation use. Some have misinterpreted the water quality criteria as requiring a minimum
number of samples in order to determine the attainment of the numeric water quality criteria.
This may be due to the recommendation that a geometric mean be based on five samples taken
over a 30-day period. The minimum number of samples used in the 1986 water quality criteria
for bacteria is for accuracy purposes only; clearly, more frequent sampling yields more accurate
results when determining the geometric mean. It is the geometric mean of the samples collected
in conjunction -with a single sample maximum that determines attainment of the numeric water
quality criteria, regardless of the number collected.
To assure water quality criteria for bacteria are generally protective in all circumstances,
EPA recommends:
Frequent monitoring of known bathing areas to determine if the water body is
attaining the water quality criteria;
Conservative use of mixing zones for bacteria where mixing zones are authorized;
Prohibiting mixing zones from impacting known primary contact recreation areas;
Using the appropriate single sample maximum in the assessment of primary
contact recreation; and
Conducting a sanitary survey when higher than normal levels of bacteria are
measured.
. States with CSO communities using enterococci for marine waters and enterococci/E.co/z for fresh
water include: CA, CT, DE, IN, ME, MI, NH, NJ, OH, OR, TN, VT
u. Guidance to State, Tribes, and Regions on the Water Quality Standards Program Priorities for FY2000
-2002, January, 1999 [EPA-823-B-99-005] and Draft Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for Bacteria 1986. February, 2000).
18
-------
o
o
o
r*
cT
«s
tf
W
M
§
a
u
N
Q
.2
o
es
o
cs
U
C3
S
M ^
S-s
o
-
o
o
oo
0
vo
>. >> q
3 -0 «
vo
c-~-
CN
tl
PQ -5
s S
P
as "o
53 .2
*^3 £3
o o
C-l
o
o
I
ffl
W)
*T-H
1/3
(U
Q
IT)
es
+j
o
CO
- ,
S3 03 S
u "
.g
S
6
OJ
^ "o
o
o
o
o
es
1 2 o
en
2
fe
es -j-
^ 8
4) O
"S 53
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
A sanitary survey is an examination of a watershed to detect unauthorized sanitary
discharges from sources such as:
Failed septic tank leach fields or cesspools,
Sewage leakage from broken pipes,
Sanitary sewer overflows from hydraulically overloaded sewers, or
Overflows from storm sewers that may contain illegal sanitary sewer connections.
In addition, EPA recommends that sanitary surveys identify other possible sources of
fecal pollution, including confined animal areas, wildlife watering points, and recreational spots,
such as dog running/walking areas. The Agency is developing the data to publish additional
health-based water quality criteria to protect for other non-gastrointestinal health risks, such as
skin and respiratory infections.
In both fresh and marine waters, excess nutrients along with the warm water temperature
of recreational waters provide an ideal growth medium for potentially harmful pathogens. High
levels of indigenous Aeromonous hydrophila can infect cuts and scratches, and high levels of
Vibrio parahenolyticus or Vibrio vulnificus contaminate shellfish with life-threatening
consequences for vulnerable individuals. In addition to controlling nutrients for recreational
waters based on aesthetics (e.g., weeds, algal scums, and low transparency), greater levels of
nutrient control for more sensitive aquatic species should also provide a greater level of
protection for public health.
Thus far, EPA has published Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Lakes and
Reservoirs (EPA-822-BOO-001) and Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual: Rivers and
Streams (EPA-822-B-00-002). The Agency also plans to make available for review a manual for
estuarine and coastal waters in December 2000. The general guidelines in the Technical
Guidance Manuals provide information States can use as they develop nutrient criteria to protect
various designated uses such as water supply, aesthetic qualities of recreation, and different types
of aquatic species. Although health-based recreational guidelines are not included in the
document, EPA believes that if the current criteria protect sensitive aquatic species, the criteria
should also protect public health.
F. Wliere are the bacteria criteria applied?
Many States apply the ambient water quality criteria for bacteria directly to the discharge
("end-of-pipe") with no allowance for in-stream mixing. Other States provide mixing zones for
bacteria, and derive permit limits that account for in-stream dilution and apply the criteria at the
point where recreation occurs. In these cases, CSO outfalls, sufficiently removed from
recreational areas, may not pose a public health threat. States could also segment a water body to
protect the recreation in the area where it is most likely to occur and prohibit recreation in other
areas of the water body where CSOs and other discharges pose significant public health threats.
20
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
G. How do States protect aquatic life uses?
Some States use a single designated use (e.g., fish and aquatic life), simple subcategories
(e.g., warm water fishery, cold water fishery), or qualitative class (e.g., Class A). These generic
aquatic life use designations, either categorical or a qualitative do not recognize the natural
biological variations that occur among water bodies (swift flowing small streams, large
meandering rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, etc.) or climatic conditions, altitude, geology, soils,
land use, hydrologic conditions found in different ecological regions. Different ecological
regions have natural variations in biologically healthy aquatic life, as measured by indices of
species richness, diversity, composition, and condition of the aquatic habitat which can flourish
in any particular water body. More precise definitions of the type of aquatic life to be protected
give municipalities and the public a better understanding of the species to be protected and the
level of control needed. Some examples of more precise use definitions are trout and salmon or
blue gill, crappy and large mouth bass, and self-supporting fishery, stocked fishery or critical life
stages of species.
In order to help better define and protect different aquatic communities, EPA and the
States continue to develop biological assessment tools and criteria to more accurately describe
the natural range of aquatic communities. Once additional natural aquatic communities are
defined, EPA recommends that States refine their designated uses to reflect natural differences.
H. How have some States developed more refined aquatic life uses?
Several States have refined their aquatic life uses to reflect different biological systems
within their borders. Most States (at least, those with cold water fish) have use categories
for warm water and cold water fish. Some States have refined these classes further by focusing
on the fish populations, as in Table 5:
Table 5 - Aquatic Life Use Classes
Class 3 Protected for use by aquatic wildlife.
Class
3A
Class
3B
Class
3C
Class
3D
Class
3E
Protected for cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic
organisms in their food chain.
Protected for warm water species of game fish and other warm water aquatic life, including the necessary
aquatic organisms in their food chain.
Protected for nongame fish and other aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food
chain.
Protected for waterfowl, shore birds and other water-oriented wildlife not included in Classes 3 A, 3B, or 3C,
including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain.
Severely habitat-limited waters. Narrative standards will be applied to protect these waters for aquatic wildlife.
21
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
Other States have developed subcategories based on physical characteristics and/or
ecological systems, as in Table 6:
Table 6 - Water Body Classifications
Classification of State waters.
(a) State waters are classified as either inland waters or marine waters.
(b) Inland waters.
(1) All inland waters are either fresh waters, brackish waters, or saline waters;
(2) All inland fresh waters are classified as follows, based on their physical
characteristics, ecological systems, and other natural criteria:
(A) Streams (perennial or intermittent);
(B) Springs and seeps, natural lakes, and reservoirs;
(C) Elevated wetlands;
(D) Low wetlands;
(3) All inland waters which are brackish waters or saline waters are classified as follows,
based on their physical characteristics, ecological systems, and other natural criteria:
(A) Coastal wetlands;
(B) Estuaries;
(C) Anchialine pools; and
(D) Saline lakes
(c) Marine waters ...
/. Why are refined aquatic life uses important in the urban environment?
EPA believes that urban watersheds can and do support aquatic life and that improvement
and restoration of healthy urban aquatic communities is an attainable goal of the CWA. States,
with EPA's support, are developing biological assessment tools and biological criteria to assess
the health of then: waters in relationship to the "biological integrity" goal of the CWA.
Biological integrity for a particular water body is the natural (or minimally impacted) condition
of the water body.
There are a number of water quality and non-water quality factors that affect the
attainment of natural aquatic communities in urban areas, including the amount of impervious
surface, human activity resulting in permitted and non-permitted discharges, and the type and
extent of hydrologic modifications. Some recent literature suggests the full restoration of natural
aquatic life communities may not be feasible in small watersheds with heavily urbanized areas.
Schueler found significant impairment of aquatic life where levels of impervious cover in urban
22
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
areas were in the range of 8-percent to 20-percent.13 Yoder etal found this threshold level is
also influenced by other factors such as pollutant loadings, watershed development history,
riparian buffers, CSOs, and types of land use.14 More sensitive aquatic life, such as brook trout,
may be unable to survive in watersheds with as little as 1- to 2-percent impervious land cover.15
However, States that base their aquatic life use classification systems on biological criteria and
on a range of use subcategories which lead to the biological integrity goal for a water body have
a framework for evaluating possible attainable improvements in urban aquatic life ecosystems.
EPA recognizes the need for additional guidance to better define the factors to consider
in designating and protecting appropriate aquatic life uses in urban areas. Such guidance would
address a variety of urban stressors, a broad range of geographic areas, and the full range of
imperviousness in urban areas. This guidance would help additional States adopt subcategories
of aquatic life uses and water quality criteria that more accurately and precisely define actual and
attainable aquatic communities. Once this information is developed, States, watershed
organizations, and local communities will be able to identify the recovery potential of the aquatic
communities, adopt appropriate water quality standards, and design affordable restoration and
protection strategies.
/. What steps are necessary to develop a system of tiered aquatic life uses and
subcategories for urban systems?
A two-step process is outlined below in Table 7. First, the State defines the biological
communities for various water body types in areas with minimal human impacts (Column A)
based on EPA bioassessment/biocriteria methodologies.'6 Second, the State defines reasonably
attainable biological communities for the urban-impacted areas (Column B).
13
. Schuler, T. R. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques 1: 100-111.
14
. Yoder, C. O., et.al. 1999. Assessing the status of aquatic life designated uses in urban and suburban
watersheds, pp.16-28. In Everson, A., et al.(eds.). National Conference on Retrofit Opportunities for Water
Resource Protection in Urban Environments, Chicago, II. EPA-625-R-99-002.
15
16
Maryland Biological Stream Survey, http://www.dnr.State.md.us/streams.mfass/brook.html
- Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters. 1990. EPA-440/5-90-004.
- Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams and Small Rivers, Revised Edition. 1996.
EPA 822-B-96-001.
- Draft Estuarine And Coastal Marine Waters Bioassessment and Biocriteria Technical Guidance. 1997.
EPA822-B-97-001. .
- Lake and Reservoir Bioassessment and Biocriteria: Technical Guidance Document. 1998. EPA 841-B-
98-007.
- Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates, and Fish. Second Edition. 1999. EPA 841-B-99-002.
23
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
Table 7 - Developing A Refined Aquatic Life Designated Use System
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6
Column A
For refined use designations reflecting the
range of natural biological communities in the
area . . .
Develop bioassessments able to differentiate
between the natural biological communities in
the different water body types.
Conduct bioassessments of the different water
body types to collect data reflecting non-
impacted waters (reference condition).
Refine the aquatic life designated use
categories to reflect the natural biological
communities within each water body type
(e.g., lakes/impoundments, small streams,
rivers, estuaries, wetlands).
Develop biological criteria that protect the
natural community (reference condition) for
each designated use category.
For each designated use applied to a water
body type, determine the range of allowable
change from the reference condition that meets
the "fishable" goal of the CWA.
Adopt refined designated use categories,
biological criteria defining those uses, and
protective chemical and physical water quality
criteria into water quality standards.
Column B
In addition, qualitative subcateeories refiectins;
achievable biological communities in urban-impacted
areas . . .
Refine bioassessment protocols to differentiate
between the range of urban impacts (e.g.,
imperviousness, land use type [industrial, residential,
etc], development history, hydrologic modification)
in the different water body types of concern.
Conduct bioassessments to capture the biological
impacts from a range of urban conditions.
Determine the achievable biological condition for the
range of urban impacts.
Develop qualitative subcategories for each designated
use based on achievable biological conditions (e.g.,
based on % imperviousness, land use, etc.).
Develop biological criteria that reflect the attainable
biological community for each qualitative
subcategory.
For each urban impacted subcategory, determine if its
biological criteria fall within the range of allowable
change from reference condition and meet the
"fishable" goal of the CWA
Adopt subcategories, biological criteria defining
those subcategories, and protective chemical and
physical water quality criteria into water quality
standards.
Once a refined designated use system is developed, individual water bodies may be assigned
refined designated uses, as appropriate.
K. What is the process for assigning subcategories of uses to individual water
bodies?
Revision of use classification systems requires a revision to State water quality standards
subject to EPA review and approval or disapproval as outlined in EPA's water quality standards
regulations. EPA encourages States to use the use attainability analysis (UAA) model to
24
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
develop an appropriate scientific, technical or economic justification for the change when
reclassifying waters with a less protective use than the current designated use.
The new designated use must be equal to or better than the "existing" use.17 No UAA is
required if the State adopts a new designated use that is either equivalent to the reference
condition for that particular water body type or meets the "fishable/swimmable" goal of the
CWA and the State adopts criteria equal to, or more stringent than the current designated use.
Under the EPA's water quality standards regulations, a combination of a new use sub-category
and less stringent criteria would trigger a UAA.18 In certain circumstances other supporting
documentation may be acceptable.
The proper supporting information that should accompany aquatic life use refinements in
a use classification system, whether or not a formal UAA should address:
Does the refined designated use and its description of the aquatic community
(biocriteria) reflect the reference condition (i.e., natural state) for the kinds of
waters to which the new classification is to be applied?
o Are any newly proposed water quality criteria necessary to protect the use
scientifically defensible?
Even if a UAA is not required, these are important questions for the State to address.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 131.10(c) allow States to adopt categories of a use and set
appropriate criteria to reflect varying needs of the use. When refining the aquatic life use
categories, the State needs to explain how the proposed biological description correctly reflects
the aquatic life use potential for that water body.
17 Existing uses are those uses actually attained in the water body on or after November 28, 1975, whether
or not they are included in the water quality standards (40 CFR 131.3). See also 40 CFR 131.10(g)
18
8.40 CFR 131.6(b) and 131.10(j)(2).
25
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
III. REVIEWING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
/. How often are water quality standards reviewed?
The CWA requires States to review their water quality standards at least once every three
years. EPA expects that the recent revisions to EPA's water quality standards regulations
("Alaska Rule" 65 FR 24641, April 27, 2000) will result in States submitting more frequent
revisions to their standards, because any new or revised standards can not be used for CWA
purposes until EPA approves them. The extent to which this occurs depends in part on State
authorizing statutes, regulatory requirements, and administrative procedures. Some States have
more lengthy processes, particularly where the legislature enacts water quality standards into
State law before the new or revised standards are submitted to EPA or where an independent
board adopts the standards revised by the State agency responsible for the water quality standards
program. Limited resources may be another constraint.
Where CSO communities collect the information outlined in this document and follow
the process for developing and implementing their draft LTCP (as shown in Figure 1) and
coordinate with State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Directors throughout the planning
and implementation processes, States will have a stronger basis on which to conduct timely water
quality standards reviews. State water quality standards reviews could result in:
Identification of information needed to support water quality standards actions,
Variances,
Water quality standards revisions, or
No revisions to the water quality standards.
2. Wliat type of water quality standards revisions are possible?
State water quality standards reviews may include any element of the standard including
uses, criteria, the anti-degradation policy and other policies affecting the implementation of the
water quality standards program, e.g., variances, compliance schedules, etc. For example, a
review of the suite of criteria to a particular water body may result in adding new criteria,
revising criteria based on national guidance (e.g., adopting E. coli or enterococci) or setting a
site-specific criterion, if appropriate. In addition, States may review implementation policies on
where criteria are applied, e.g., applying the bacteria criteria at the point of contact rather than at
the end-of-pipe (e.g., adopting a mixing zone). Another option may be segmenting the water
body to preserve recreation in areas where it actually occurs.
To protect recreational uses as much as possible, some States are looking at creating
subclasses of recreational uses that recognize intermittent exceedances of bacteriological criteria
due to uncontrolled CSO discharges. This approach retains the recreational use, but lowers the
level of protection for the use by specifying the maximum number of days when recreation can
not safely take place. For example, the subcategory may state that during the recreation season,
26
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
recreation can be suspended up to a certain number of days. The number of allowable days that
the use could be suspended would be based on a site-specific use attainability analysis (see 3.
below). The analyses would project the number of days that bacteriological levels are likely to
be elevated after implementing the maximum affordable level of control from a well-designed
and operated CSO control program. Before lowering the level of protection for a use, States
must provide an opportunity for the public to review the proposal and analyses justifying the
revision (see 40 CFR 131.20(b)). States must also ensure that any revision provides for the
attainment and maintenance of downstream water quality standards (see 40 CFR 131.10(b)).
States may not remove:
An "existing" use, i.e., a use actually attained in the water body on or after
November 28, 1975 (see 40 CFR 131.3(e) and 131.10(h)(l)); or
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 (see 40 CFR 131 . 10(d) and
3. What type of analyses are required to remove or lower the level of protection for
a use?
EPA's water quality standards regulations at 40 CFR 131.10(j) require use attainability
analyses (UAAs) whenever a State fails to adopt, removes or lowers the level of protection for
the protection and propagation offish, shellfish and wildlife, or for the protection of recreation in
and on the water. Once such a use is designated, it cannot be modified unless the State
demonstrates through a UAA that attaining it is not feasible.
A UAA is a structured scientific assessment of the physical, chemical, biological and
economic factors affecting the attainment of the use. Included in the regulation are six bases that
address circumstances beyond those related to water quality, which preclude the attainment of
the use. A description of how and when designated uses may be removed is presented in
Appendix II. Any one of the following factors can be used to justify changes in the designated
use:
1 . Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the use; or
2. Natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low flow conditions or water levels prevent
the attainment of the uses, unless these conditions may be compensated with
sufficient effluent discharges; or
3. Human-caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use
and cannot be remedied or would cause more damage than to leave in place; or
4. Dams, diversions or other types of hydrological modifications preclude the use,
and it is not possible to restore the water body or operate the modification in such
a way that would result in attainment; or
27
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
5. Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body unrelated to
water quality preclude attainment of aquatic life uses; or
6. Controls necessary to attain the use would cause substantial and widespread social
and economic impact.
The UAA should provide sufficient information for the State to determine that the
designated use is not attainable. It should also provide the basis for adopting an alternative use
and the criteria to protect it. To support the 101(a) "fishable/swimmable" goal uses, the State
should adopt an attainable alternative use as close as possible to the goal uses. As noted, the
public must also have an opportunity to review the UAA and the alternative use before the State
submits the revisions and the UAA to EPA for approval or disapproval.
Guidance is available on conducting UAAs (Appendix III). Although most of this
guidance addresses aquatic life uses and the economic analyses, several EPA Regional Offices
have developed guidelines for recreational use UAAs. Appendix IV builds on these documents
by identifying questions which are likely to guide the development of a UAA for recreation.
Appendix IV also provides references to the CSO guidance documents where similar information
is expected as part of a UAA.
4, On what basis -would States generally justify their determination that a use is
not attainable in CSO receiving waters?
Revisions to water quality standards based on CSO discharges would most likely be
appropriate when the controls necessary to attain the standard would cause "substantial and
widespread economic and social impact."19 The Interim Economic Guidance For Water Quality
Standards'0 identifies the analyses States use to support this determination.
For the public sector, the Guidance includes the tools for States to evaluate:
Who within the community would bear the costs of the CSO LTCP,
Whether these costs are substantial, and
Whether changes in socioeconomic conditions indicate widespread impacts.
In determining whether the costs of the draft LTCP are substantial, the annualized per
household project costs, including existing and new costs, are divided by the annual median
household income. If the result (termed a municipal affordability screener) is less than 1%, the
State could decide that the annualized project costs are minimal and that financial and economic
19
20
.40CFR131.10(g)(6).
. Interim Economic Guidance For Water Quality Standards: Workbook (EPA-823-B-95-002, March,
1995).
28
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
impacts do not warrant revising the water quality standard on that basis. If the municipal
affordability screener is between 1% - 2% (a mid-range impact) or greater than 2% (a large
impact), additional analyses may be appropriate. These secondary analyses include indicators
such as:
Bond rating,
Overall net debt,
Unemployment rate,
Median household income,
Property tax revenue as a percent of full market value of taxable property, and
Property tax collection rate.
The results of these secondary assessment scores are summarized as a cumulative
assessment score (<1.5 minimal impact; 1.5 - 2.5 mid-range; and >2.5 strong). The State
combines the municipal affordability screener and the secondary assessment score in a matrix to
help determine whether the impacts are "substantial."
The derivation of the 2% yardstick is based on EPA studies across environmental
programs that collected financial information from communities around the country. The studies
found that two cutoffs were appropriate for determining the difficulty the community would have
in affording additional project costs. Based on the data across many Federal and State programs,
EPA found that for a water bill of:
Less than 1% of median household income per year may not be difficult for the
consumer,
Between 1% and 2% more information is needed, and
Greater than 2% may be difficult for the consumer.
The Interim Economic Guidance
recommends evaluating the change in
socioeconomic indicators:
Median household income,
Community unemployment rate,
Overall net debt as a percent of full
market value of taxable property,
Percent of households below the
property line,
Impact on community development
potential, and
Impact on property value.
If the impacts are found to be
substantial, the State would also have to
demonstrate that they are widespread before
proposing a water quality standards revision.
There are no explicit criteria on which to
evaluate widespread impacts. The extent to
which estimated changes can be interpreted
as significant will depend on the health of the
community before compliance. Therefore,
EPA cannot identify an acceptable or
unacceptable estimated change for each
indicator. Appendix V gives an example that
will help explain the effect of the controls on
water and sewer bills.
29
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
If the State and EPA agree that the community can not afford sufficient CSO controls to
comply with permit requirements based on currently applicable water quality standards and no
longer cause or contribute to the impairment of the designated use, EPA policy is that States
adopt the "highest" attainable use.21 Therefore, the CSO community would be expected to install
the maximum affordable level of CSO controls. The State can then revise the water quality
standards based on water quality improvements to be achieved by the maximum affordable level
of CSO control.
5. Are there ways to simplify the UAA process?
Simplifying the UAA process begins with an inclusive process. With an inclusive
process a broad range of State, local and Federal entities can actively participate in the scientific,
technical and funding discussions related to the CSO LTCP. An inclusive CSO LTCP process
simplifies the UAA process by broadening the cadre of knowledgeable individuals familiar with
the CSO issues and the likelihood of identifying other opportunities for further water quality and
use improvements with different types of CSO controls. These individuals increase the
likelihood of identifying other watershed opportunities for further water quality and use
improvements. They can also facilitate communication with the community-at-large by
explaining why additional controls or water quality standards revisions are needed.
Common sense and good judgment play an important role in determining the amount of
data and level of analyses needed to justify changes in the designated use. The UAA process is
simplified when the CSO community, the State and EPA agree on the scope of the UAA, the data
to be collected, and the analyses to be conducted before the UAA is begun.
The amount of data to be collected and analyses to be conducted will depend on the
particular water body. Some are inexpensive. Others are more difficult, for example examining
the effect of continued CSOs on a productive estuary. For the process to work smoothly,
everyone should agree on:
Study design and objectives,
Data to be used and the methods and procedures to collect it,
Analyses to be conducted, and
Critical factors to be used in interpreting the results.
Another way to simplify the UAA process is for the State to tailor the UAA to the factor
most likely precluding the attainment of the use. A less rigorous UAA may be appropriate for a
particular aquatic life use when the physical features of the water body prevent attainment.
Where physical features are the limiting factor for a particular aquatic life use, there may be no
21. See March 15, 2000 decision of the District Court for the District of Idaho in Idaho Mining Association
v.Browner (No. CV98-0390-S-MHW).
30
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
need to conduct extensive water quality analyses. In CSO-impacted waters, where pathogens are
often the limiting factor in attaining recreational uses, there may be no need to conduct extensive
biological monitoring.
The UAA is also simplified where existing data are available. For example, a State that
has a biologically-based, refined classification system for aquatic life protection has generated
extensive biological monitoring data to support the classification system. The data would
include numerical values or procedures for calculating numerical values applicable to a particular
type of aquatic life. Because they have data and an agreed-to-basis for interpreting that data,
UAAs will be easier for States with such scientifically-based aquatic life use classification
systems. EPA continues to encourage States to adopt a biologically-based refined aquatic life
protection classification system.
Another way to simplify the UAA process is to follow other models that have been used
to support water quality standards revisions. Some States have an outline of the data and
analyses needed, as well as examples of UAAs that have been used to support water quality
standards revisions. Following State outlines and examples and other general models in the
guidance documents referenced above should provide a good starting point.
EPA intends to develop an example UAA for recreation to help CSO communities and
States identify simplifying assumptions to support portions of a UAA. If groups of water bodies
share similar characteristics, "generic" assumptions could be developed. However, every water
body and combined sewer system is different, and additional data will be needed to demonstrate
that the generic assumptions are applicable to the circumstances of a particular water body. Such
assumptions might include:
Physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the water body,
Existing and designated uses,
Hydraulic characteristics of the combined sewer system,
Number and volume of the overflows,
Response of the system to different types of storm events,
Type of controls to be implemented.
6.
What is a variance and when is it appropriate?
A variance is a temporary change in the water quality standards for three to five years,
with renewals possible. Variances provide a "bridge" if additional data or analyses are needed
before the State can make a determination that the designated use is not attainable and adopts an
alternative use. Because a variance is a change in the water quality standard, the same
requirements apply for a variance as for a new or revised standards, e.g., public review and
comment, and EPA approval or disapproval.
31
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
When adopting a variance for an individual discharger for specific pollutants, such as
bacteria, States have to demonstrate that the designated use is not an existing use (40 CFR
131.10(h)(l) or that the designated use is not attainable with the technology-based controls in
sections 301(b) and 306 of the CWA and with cost effective and reasonable best management
practices for non-point sources (40 CFR 131.10(h)(2)).
To preserve existing uses, variances are set as close as possible to the numerical criterion
for the designated use. Other pollutant limits or discharger effluent limits are not affected by a
variance. For example, a State may adopt a bacteria variance for specific CSO outfalls, but other
point source dischargers would have to continue to comply with the bacteria limits in their
permits.
Since the underlying use remains, the rigor of the analyses and the level of demonstration
used for a variance is generally less than that required for a permanent change in the use.
However, States need to demonstrate that one of the six bases for a change in a use apply.22 EPA
expects that sufficient information will be available in a draft LTCP to justify a variance.
In approving a variance, EPA looks at the conditions the State has included in the
variance (e.g., implementation of portions of the CSO LTCP and water quality monitoring).
Further environmental progress can be attained when variances include provisions such as:
Prohibition on further degradation of water quality or impairment of the
designated use;
Permit requirement for implementing high priority CSO controls (e.g.,
eliminating, treating or directing overflows from sensitive areas);
Collection of additional monitoring data;
Conduct of analyses that address complex questions related to attaining the use or,
if not attainable, an alternative use; or
Evaluation of whether further environmental benefits could be attained in the
water body or watershed by supplementing CSO controls with other
environmentally beneficial projects linked to the CSO receiving water body.
Once the agreed-to portion of the LTCP is implemented and the effect on water quality is
evaluated, the State will be better able to judge whether the use .can be attained with additional
controls or it needs to revise the water quality standards.
22
40CFR131.10(g)(l)-(6).
32
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
IV. INTEGRATING CSO LTCP DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION WITH
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEWS
1. How do you integrate development of CSO LTCPs by communities and reviews
of water quality standards by States?
EPA believes that communities and States can integrate water quality standards reviews
with the development and implementation of affordable, well-designed and operated CSO
control programs by integrating the development and implementation of CSO LTCPs with water
quality standards reviews. One purpose of the CSO Control Policy is "to coordinate the
planning, selection, design and implementation of CSO management practices and controls to
meet the requirements of the CWA and to involve the public fully during the decision making
process." The Policy also includes four key principles, one of which is the "review and revision,
as appropriate, of water quality standards and their implementation procedures when developing
CSO control plans."
Given the above principle and the importance of early and frequent coordination among
municipalities, State Water Directors, NPDES authorities, if different,23 and the public, this
guidance lays out a process (Figure 1) for those communities interested in coordinating the
development of LTCPs with the review of State water quality standards. The process is intended
to ensure that all key groups engage in a comprehensive and coordinated planning effort to
achieve cost-effective CSO controls that ultimately meet appropriate water quality standards. It
is an iterative process as shown in Figure 1 and the accompanying narrative. The purpose and
major objectives of the process and flow chart are to:
Delineate clear roles and responsibilities for CSO communities, NPDES
authorities, State Water Directors, EPA and others;
Secure early agreement on the process and scope of the data and information
needed to support a LTCP and a water quality standards review;
Ensure early input of the public in the LTCP and water quality standards review
processes;
Ensure the acceptance of a draft LTCP is closely coordinated with decisions on
water quality standards revisions, if appropriate;
Ensure that the final LTCP and the water quality standards are reconciled.
The flow chart in Figure 1 lays out a series of steps that provide greater assurance that
affordable, well-designed and operated LTCPs support the attainment of appropriate water
quality standards. Figure 1 is intended to expand upon and explain, but not to replace, the
process described in the Combined Sewer Overflow Guidance for Long-Term Control Plan (EPA
832-B-95-002).
23
NPDES authorities may be authorized States, or EPA Regional Offices, or federally recognized Tribes.
33
-------
CL
UJ
o
Is
a
cs
I
M
"2
a
a
CO
0>
3
73
a
C5
4-"
g
"3
U
5
CM
O
.2
*-
cs
o
U
§
p
1
fa
CM
CL
UJ
CO
co
a.
UJ
CO
>
Agreement on scope of
LTCP, including data
?
and analyses needed
to support alternative
^
selection and WQS
reviews
r
CL
UJ
CO
o>
Q.
UJ
CO
oo
D.
UJ
f-
D.
UJ
CO
CO
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
Step 1 - The NPDES Authority issues a permit requiring NMCs and LTCP. The
NPDES authority issues a permit or other enforceable mechanism that requires the CSO
community to implement the NMCs and develop a LTCP. The permit or enforceable order
should require that the CSO community immediately proceeds with the implementation of the
NMCs and evaluation of the efficacy of the NMCs in controlling the number and quality of the
overflows. This information should assist the community in designing the LTCP.
Step 2 - The NPDES Authority forms a coordination team to oversee LTCP process.
The NPDES authority organizes a team to coordinate the development of a draft LTCP. The
coordination team will promote timely discussion of issues, identify sources of information, and
provide technical assistance. At a minimum, the coordination team should include decision-
making representatives from the CSO community, NPDES authority, State Water Director and
EPA. The coordination team may include representatives from local community stakeholders,
including those involved in watershed planning efforts, other point sources, and non-point source
representatives, and persons involved in TMDL development, if applicable.
This process requires significant coordination and cooperation and full participation by
the community, State and EPA. State Water Directors with their NPDES and water quality
standards entities and EPA will need to set priorities among CSO communities and the affected
water bodies. For example, if the CSO receiving water body has been included on the State's
303(d) (impaired waters) list for bacteria or other pollutants common to CSO discharges, the
State will need to coordinate the schedule for developing a TMDL with the schedule (in the
permit, administrative order or judicial order) for developing the CSO LTCP before deciding on
the schedule for the water quality standards review. Once the review is scheduled, States and
EPA can phase their active participation among communities and water bodies, depending on the
progress of the community.
EPA and State authorities in the NPDES and water quality standards programs need to
actively participate and should foster coordination among entities. EPA involvement may be
extensive in some cases (e.g., where particular controversy exists or where there are interstate
issues on a common body of water).
Some States and EPA Regional Offices have successfully used "kick off or periodic
meetings with CSO communities to respond to common issues or questions. Communities have
also expanded their own coordination efforts beyond their local constituency groups by involving
downstream communities affected by overflows and other State and EPA personnel.
Step 3 - Coordination teams agree on process and scope of LTCP. The objective of
this step is to ensure that there is early agreement on the planned process (i.e. key milestones and
dates) and scope of the LTCP (e.g., presumption or demonstration approach), including the data
and analyses needed to support selection of control alternatives and review of water quality
standards.
The State Water Director, CSO communities and EPA should agree on:
35
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
The amount and type of data needed (i.e. characterization, monitoring and
modeling of the sewer system and its impacts on the receiving water body and
data that will be needed for post construction compliance monitoring to be
included in the community's Monitoring and Modeling Plan.24);
The range of alternative control levels to be evaluated, including cost and
performance information for each alternative examined;
Relevant sensitive areas; and
A timetable for completion of key events.
Together, the CSO community and the coordination team review historical data and
information on the combined sewer system and receiving water quality to develop a profile of
conditions, identify additional information to collect and the components of the monitoring and
modeling plan. The monitoring and modeling plan needs to:
Support a thorough evaluation of the combined sewer system;
Characterize the response of the system to various precipitation events;
Determine the efficacy of the NMCs;
Determine the characteristics of the CSO effluent, and the effect of overflows on
ambient water quality; and
Describe post-construction compliance monitoring.
The monitoring and modeling plan identifies the parameters of concern in the receiving
water and water quality standards. In many cases, the principal concern will be pathogens.
Biological assessment, toxicity testing and sediment sampling may also be included in the plan,
where appropriate. All appropriate entities should reach agreement with the community on the
monitoring and modeling plan needed to support both the draft LTCP and the water quality
standards review. At a minimum, the NPDES authority, State Water Director and the
community are critical to securing this agreement. Coordination during this step provides greater
certainty that ultimately, the NPDES authority will approve the LTCP.
The State is responsible for making the determination, based on a use attainability
analysis, that a use is attainable or that another appropriate attainable use needs to be adopted. It
is expected that the UAA will be based in large part on data collected as part of the LTCP
process. The State Water Director should agree on the amount and type of data needed, taking
into consideration the nature and extent of the site-specific CSO impacts when making this
judgment.
The coordination team should seek to optimize the development and analysis of the
information on CSO impacts in a manner that will support the water quality standards review and
the evaluation of the improvements in water quality during the implementation of the controls.
The amount and type of data will depend on the nature and extent of the site-specific CSO
impacts and the availability of data. The LTCP can serve as the foundation for a water quality
standards review.
24,
. Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance For Monitoring and Modeling. (EPA 832-B-002, January, 1999).
36
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
The common components of a CSO LTCP and a water quality standards review include:
Water quality monitoring and modeling;
Hydraulic monitoring and modeling;
Detailed descriptions of existing and designated uses;
Analyses of the potential for use attainment; and
Analyses of control costs.
The objective of this step is for the coordination team (community, State, and EPA) to
agree on the additional data and analyses and the critical factors to be used in interpreting the
information, the schedule for the studies and the participating parties before the community,
State, other Federal agency (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey) or EPA initiates any of the studies.
Integrating water quality standards reviews with the development and implementation of an
affordable level of CSO control necessitates that all parties agree in advance on the information
and analyses which are appropriate to support a water quality standards revision that can be
adopted consistent with the CWA and EPA's implementing regulation at 40 CFR 131.10.
Depending on the CSO impact, possible water quality standards revisions could include:
Applying the standard at the point of contact rather than at the end-of-pipe;
Segmenting the water body to preserve the designated use in areas where it
actually occurs;
Revising the use by creating subclasses to recognize intermittent exceedances of
bacteriological criteria.
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 131.10(j) require a UAA whenever the State proposes to
reduce the level of protection for the water body. If the State Water Director agrees that a UAA
is appropriate, UAA guidance is available (Appendix III). Appendix IV identifies the questions
and information for a recreational UAA and provides references to the CSO guidance documents
where similar information is expected as part of the LTCP.
As discussed previously, before States can adopt a use that lowers the level of protection
for a water body, they must:
Provide an opportunity for the public to review the proposal and analyses
justifying the revision (40 CFR 131.20(b));
Ensure that any revision provides for the attainment and maintenance of
downstream water quality standards (40 CFR 131.10(b)).
In addition, States may not lower the level of protection of, or remove:
An "existing" use, i.e., a use actually attained in the water body on or after
November 28, 1975 (40 CFR 131.3(e) and 131.10(h)(l)): or
A use that can be attained by the imposition of effluent limits required under
section 301(b) or 306 of the CWA and cost-effective and reasonable best
37
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
management practices for non-point source control (40 CFR 131.10(d) and
Step 4 - Community develops a draft LTCP with the public involved. With
agreement on the scope of the LTCP and the data collection and analyses, the CSO community
develops a draft LTCP. For each CSO control level examined, the CSO community evaluates
the constractability, costs, performance, water quality benefits, and consideration of sensitive
areas. The CSO community also identifies other sources of pollution impacting the CSO
receiving water which may preclude the attainment of water quality standards, regardless of the
level of CSO control. At a minimum, the CSO community considers the following levels of
control:
Zero overflow events (e.g., 100% capture for treatment ), eliminating the
contribution of CSOs to water quality standards violations; and
Levels of control that would be necessary to achieve the following average
number of overflow events:
one to three overflow events per year,
four to seven overflow events per year,
eight to twelve overflow events per year;
Treat or direct CSOs away from sensitive areas.
Alternatively, the CSO community, in the LTCP, could evaluate controls to achieve
varying levels of capture rather than limiting the number of overflow events. In this case the
alternative control levels should include various percentages of the wet weather flow volume
entering the combined sewer system during wet weather under average annual conditions (e.g.
90%, 85%, 80%, 75% of the combined sewage collected in the combined sewer system during
wet weather events).
During the development of the draft LTCP, communities often hold workshops to
identify priorities for controls and control alternatives to examine. Workshops on the LTCP,
combined with discussion of the analyses needed to support a water quality standards review, can
promote coordination and inform the public about the effect of various levels of CSO control on
the use of the water body and the attainment of water quality standards. Such workshops can
also promote a timely dialogue among the CSO community, the public, the State, and EPA about
additional control alternatives and appropriate water quality standards revisions. Information on
the water quality standards program should be available to support workshop discussions.23 Prior
to submitting a LTCP, States may require communities to hold a public hearing, take comment
on the LTCP, and show how the comments were addressed.
Step 5 - Draft LTCP reviewed and accepted by State and EPA, as appropriate. The
CSO community submits the draft LTCP, including the data and analyses assessing the
2S. Elder, D., G. Killam and P. Koberstein, Chapter 4, Water Quality Standards and the Public's Role, in
The Clean Water Act: An Owner's Manual. River Network, Portland, OR, 1998; U.S. EPA, Introduction to Water
Quality Standards (EPA-823-F-99-020, October, 1999; U.S. EPA, Developing Criteria To Protect Our Nation's
Waters (EPA-823-F-98-002, April, 1998).
38
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
attainability of current water quality standards, to both the NPDES authority and to the State
Water Director.
In addition to proposing a CSO control strategy, the LTCP outlines the post-construction
operational plan and compliance monitoring activities that the community will undertake to
assure that the controls function as planned. Post-construction compliance monitoring ensures
that any remaining CSOs do not contribute to excursions of water quality standards or non-
compliance with other requirements of the CWA. The CSO Control Policy provides that "...the
selected controls should allow cost-effective expansion or cost-effective retrofitting if additional
controls are subsequently determined to be necessary to meet water quality standards..."
The State Water Director and the NPDES authority (if different) need to review the draft
LTCP and the information to support a water quality standards review. The CSO communities
need to work with regulatory agencies to confirm that the basis of the LTCP is acceptable, e.g.,
the data, the alternatives examined and the schedule for implementing controls common to all
alternatives examined. If the draft LTCP is insufficient, the NPDES authority returns the draft to
the community for revision.
Where data and analyses are inadequate to support a water quality standards review, the
State Water Director, in consultation with the coordination team, should identify the parameters
for which additional information is needed. The data collected and analyses conducted by the
CSO community may be sufficient to justify a water quality standards revision or may show that
a water quality standards revision is not justified. If the State and EPA agree that the data and
analyses support a water quality standard revision (recognizing the revision may produce more or
less stringent standards), this would represent a commitment from the State to proceed with
proposing water quality standards revisions.
If the data and analyses show that currently applicable water quality standards, can be
attained and that revisions to the water quality standards are not justified, the State notifies the
community and the coordination team. The NPDES authority would then work with the
community to finalize the LTCP, as described in Step 9. At this point, the CSO community
begins to implement controls common to all alternatives as described in Step 6. Priority controls
are those measures and activities that are common to all control alternatives, including efforts to
treat or re-direct CSOs impacting sensitive areas.
In this step, coordination between the NPDES authority and water quality standards
authority becomes paramount. Up-front planning is likely to be necessary to ensure that the
analysis and decisions made by the two entities are synchronized.
Step 6 - NPDES Authority approves priority controls beyond the NMCs common to
the preferred alternative approved for the community to implement. The LTCP is likely to
include priority CSO control activities that are common to all control alternatives examined, such
as eliminating a recurring overflow to a bathing area. The CSO community should begin to
implement these controls as soon as the analysis of the alternatives has been approved.
39
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
The NPDES authority may need to revise or reissue the NPDES permit or other
enforceable mechanism (e.g., administrative or judicial order) requiring the implementation of
these priority controls. In addition, the permit or other enforceable mechanism, would include
the requirements contained in a variance, if adopted by the State, and monitoring to be conducted
to evaluate the efficacy of the controls in reducing overflows and improving water quality. This
information could support reducing the size or re-configuring the additional controls, based on
the water quality improvements already achieved.
Step 7 - The State proposes water quality standards revisions and holds a public
hearing. To reach this step, the CSO community, NPDES authority and State Water Director
should have agreed that the LTCP contains adequate data and information to support the
selection of CSO controls and identify needed revisions to the water quality standards. The State
should proceed as expeditiously as possible to revise the water quality standards.
With the implementation of CSO controls, the State may determine that a water body has
the potential of supporting improved aquatic life. Under this circumstance, the State would
upgrade the aquatic life use for the water body. In other cases, the State may refine the
recreational uses to reflect the level of control from an affordable, well-designed and operated
control program. Other revisions applicable to recreation may include:
Applying the standard at the point of contact rather than at the end-of-pipe;
Creating subclasses of the current designated use to recognize intermittent
exceedances of bacteriological criteria;
Segmenting the water body to preserve the designated use in areas where it
actually occurs.
Prior to submitting a proposed water quality standard revision to EPA for review, EPA's
water quality standards regulations require the State to hold a public hearing and request
comment on the proposed revisions. This public hearing is an opportunity for the CSO
community to be actively involved and to help explain the proposed CSO control alternatives
and their relationship to the proposed water quality standards revision. This is a key decision
point for the public to have input on the selection of the final CSO control program, given its
relationship to the attainment of water quality standards.
At the time the revisions are proposed, EPA's water quality standards regulations at 40
CFR 131.21(b) require any analyses, including the UAA, used in support of the revision to be
made available for public review and comment. Subsequent to public review and comment and
appropriate revisions, the State submits the revisions, supporting analyses and public comments
to EPA for review.
Step 8 - EPA takes final action on WQS revisions. Before the revisions in the water
quality standards may be used for CWA programs, including TMDLs and NPDES permits, EPA
must approve or disapprove the proposed revisions (see 65 FR 24641, April 27, 2000). Again,
where there has been close coordination and cooperation, EPA approval is more likely. EPA
must approve a State's new or revised standard within 60 days or disapprove within 90 days.
40
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
Step 9 - Draft LTCP revised, as necessary. The public hearing process and other
events leading up to this point should result in the selection of a CSO control program and
agreement on the changes, if any, to water quality standards. If the water quality standards
decisions differ from those that the CSO community anticipated, the community would have to
revise the LTCP.
The CSO community should work closely with the regulatory authorities to confirm the
project implementation schedule for the selected CSO control program. Key milestones include,
for example, design completion, attainment of funding, construction milestones, completion
dates, and implementation of post-construction monitoring. Guidance on these issues is
available in Combined Sewer Overflow Guidance for Long-Term Control Plan.
Step 10 - NPDES authority accepts LTCP and revises permit. The NPDES authority
coordinates the review of the revisions and, if appropriate, approves the final LTCP which
provides that CSO discharges do not contribute to excursions of water quality standards or non-
compliance with other CWA requirements. The NPDES authority issues a permit or
administrative order or proceeds with revisions to an enforceable order requiring implementation
of the approved LTCP.
Step 11 - Approved final LTCP implemented. The CSO community implements the
control measures, described in the approved LTCP and required in its NPDES permit or other
enforceable mechanism. The LTCP includes a post-construction operational plan and compliance
monitoring program to ensure compliance with the requirements of the CWA. If, after
implementing the controls outlined in the LTCP, the CSO community finds that they are still
contributing to the non-attainment of the applicable water quality standards, the community will
use the monitoring data to support adjustments in the operating plans or in the operation and
maintenance schedules or to develop cost-effective expansion or cost-effective retrofitting of
additional controls.
2. How have States reconciled their water quality standards with overflows
remaining after the well-designed and operated CSO LTCPs have been
developed?
By using the flexibility in their water quality standards program framework, a few States
have the mechanisms in place for integrating water quality standards reviews with the
development and implementation of a well-designed and operated CSO control program.
One approach is to use continuous simulation modeling and volumetric stream flow to
develop TMDLs, waste load allocations and water quality-based permit limits. This approach
takes into account episodic events, integrating wet weather variables such as storms (their
frequency, duration and intensity), surface runoff, and land-use patterns. Daily flow data are
available on about 6,200 reaches with U.S. Geological Survey gaging stations and estimated
flows can be calculated where measured values are unavailable. Guidance is available through
BASINS applications (see www.epa.gov/ost/basins).
41
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
One State approach (Oregon) allows the discharge of untreated domestic waste, with
exceptions, based on a storm event greater than the one-in-flve-year 24-hour duration storm in
the winter and greater than the one-in-ten-year 24-hour duration storm in summer. This only
applies where the State has approved a basin- or geographic-specific bacteria control
management plan that:
Identifies the specific hydrologic conditions under which the numeric criteria
would be waived,
Identifies the public notification and education processes to inform the public
about an event and the plan,
Describes the water quality assessment conducted to determine the bacteria
sources and loads associated with the specified hydrologic conditions, and
Describes the bacteria control program that is being implemented in the basin or
specified geographic area.
Another State (Washington) addresses remaining overflows by allowing on average, a
once-per-year exemption to several parts of its mixing zone policy. The exemption waives
provisions related to the maximum size of the mixing zone, the applicable acute criteria, and to
the overlapping mixing zone criteria. However, the State does not waive the mixing zone policy
provision that prohibits the mixing zone from contributing to a loss of sensitive or important
habitat, substantially interfering with the existing uses of the water body, damaging the
ecosystem, or adversely affecting public health.
Another approach two States (Massachusetts and Maine) are using is to subdivide their
uses into CSO subclasses. Based on a UAA and under specified circumstances, one State
temporarily suspends the primary contact recreational use and the bacteria criteria during CSO
events; the other State also suspends shell fishing. Although these States developed and will
implement their approaches differently, the approaches have a great deal in common. For
example, both States:
Maximize the protection of sensitive use areas;
Require State-approved well-designed control programs (in one State, controls
must meet the recreational goal use 95% of the time; the other State suspends uses
for the shortest duration practicable, in the smallest area possible, and where the
public impacts are minimal);
Call for UAAs consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR 131.10;
Use variances when they don't know whether the designated uses can be fully
attained and require additional water quality data collection before deciding that
the use is not attainable;
Make implementation of CSO controls a condition for the community to use the
criteria and use suspension;
Review progress periodically.
Some States are also considering adopting a high-flow cutoff into their water quality
standards that suspends bacteria criteria and thus, the recreational uses under certain defined
conditions of high wet weather flows in the receiving water. While the concept of a flow cutoff
42
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
for extremely high flows or dangerous velocities may have merit, they need to be based on
rigorous scientific assessment and reflect public input. Additionally, such a cutoff should apply
on a case-by-case basis (rather than State-wide, for example), be tailored to the water body
(rivers, as distinct from lakes), and set the cutoff at a point where it only applies under certain
limited conditions. Water body flow and velocity vary greatly, depending on a combination of
many factors, such as the amount of impervious surface, slope, soil texture, vegetative cover, soil
compaction, soil moisture, etc. The conditions affecting velocity also vary with the depth and
width of the water body's channel. If a State adopts a flow cutoff, several questions would need
to be answered:
Will the cutoff protect the other uses?
What is the resulting velocity?
Would the velocity preclude all recreational uses (including kayaking) that
typically occur during high velocity flows?
Do the high flows have a minimal effect on the velocity of the flow, posing little
or no danger to persons using the waters for recreation?
For how many days would the cutoff apply?
Will the State adopt the cutoff statewide, as a discharger-specific variance, or
create recreational subcategories that correlate to the cutoff?
Has a use attainability analysis shown that an affordable well-designed and
operated control program could not achieve a higher level of CSO control than
that afforded by the cutoff?
What effect would the high flow cutoff have on implementing controls for all
sources of bacterial contamination to the water body (e.g., CSOs, storm water,
leaking septic systems, feed lots, row crops, etc)?
EPA has not developed a national policy on a high flow/velocity cutoff for bacteria and
recreational uses similar to the 4B3/7Q10 low flow cutoff for aquatic life criteria. Guidance
implementing such a policy should include scientifically valid methodologies for maintaining
and protecting the section 101(a)(2) recreational uses when normal flow returns and for
protecting downstream uses. EPA envisions a methodology that States could apply on a site-
specific basis using the water body channel and landscape characteristics. States could also
create a subcategory of the recreational uses to which the cutoff would apply. Since use of a high
flow/velocity cutoff reduces the level of protection for the water body, a UAA would be required
for its application to a specific water body. It would be particularly important to demonstrate
that a community could not afford a higher level of control (or, for example, additional storm
water or agricultural BMPs). As with other changes in designated uses, the public must have an
opportunity to comment on the proposed revision to the water quality standard before a State
adopts and submits it to EPA for approval or disapproval.
43
-------
V.
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
THE WATERSHED APPROACH
EPA recognizes that urban water quality may be affected by a combination of CSOs,
storm water and sanitary sewer overflow discharges, and non-point source runoff. These sources
may be addressed most effectively through TMDL analyses or other watershed basis. Although
EPA strongly endorses and in some cases provides financial assistance to local watershed efforts,
this document includes only a limited discussion of the urban wet weather watershed approach.
The Agency limited the focus of this guidance based on the urgency and narrowness of the
Congressional committees' request for guidance and the lack of resources to fully explore trade-
offs and interrelationships of urban wet weather sources on a watershed basis.
1. Wliat is EPA }s overall approach to watershed-based planning?
EPA encourages the use of a watershed approach to prioritize actions to achieve
environmental improvements, promote pollution prevention, and meet other important
community goals. Watersheds provide a natural framework around which to manage water
quality improvement and protection programs. Sound scientific analyses, including TMDLs that
address both the point and the non-point sources of the pollutants impairing the water body,
support the watershed approach. The watershed approach is an inclusive, collaborative process
. that involves many diverse interests who use the data and information to define the goals, set
priorities, and develop a suite of integrated controls that achieve the water quality goals for the
water body.
Under a watershed approach, local stakeholders coordinate the development of a
comprehensive watershed plan that provides for collection of environmentally relevant data and
provides the basis for identifying appropriate regulatory and non-regulatory actions to be
implemented to improve water quality. A watershed approach does not provide any additional
liability protection or change the legal status of discharges to waters of the United States.
Watershed plans can be considered, however, when developing enforcement schedules for
bringing unauthorized discharges into compliance with the CWA.
A watershed approach to controlling CSOs and other wet weather discharges has the
potential to improve the basis for water quality management decisions, provide an equitable and
cost-effective allocation of responsibility among dischargers, and, in so doing, deliver the same
or greater levels of environmental improvement sooner and at a cost savings. A watershed
approach emphasizes the role of CSO communities and other local stakeholders in identifying
water quality priorities and increases the opportunity for using risk-based approaches to
environmental protection.
A. Wliat information sources are available on watershed approaches?
Several EPA documents explain the principles of watershed-based water quality
planning. EPA's NPDES Watershed Strategy (March, 1994) outlines national objectives and
implementation activities for integrating NPDES program functions into a broad watershed
approach and provides support for development of State-wide basin management approaches.
The Watershed Framework (May, 1996) describes EPA's expectations for State and Tribal
44
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
implementation of watershed approaches. The 1998 Clean Water Action Plan has, at its core, an
emphasis on local watershed planning. It calls upon State, Federal, and local agencies,
watershed-based organizations, and the public to identify watersheds most in need of restoration
and to cooperate in the development of watershed restoration action strategies and
implementation of these strategies.
In addition, EPA lists many excellent publications and web-based resources for watershed
groups on the Agency's web site at www.epa.gov/owow.
B. How does watershed planning relate to TMDL development?
A TMDL is a watershed plan, developed to attain a particular water quality standard. The
watershed planning process and TMDL analyses generate valuable information on total pollutant
loadings and the relative contribution of the pollutant sources. Since TMDLs must be developed
to meet existing water quality standards, the permit (or other enforceable mechanism) for
implementation of the LTCP also must provide for the attainment of water quality standards.
Consequently, it is important that LTCPs be developed and implemented in explicit coordination
with TMDL evaluations and other watershed management planning.
The TMDL considers seasonal variations and reasonably foreseeable increases in
pollutant loads in allocating the reductions in pollutant loadings needed to attain and maintain
water quality standards. Participation in watershed planning and support of State- or EPA-
developed TMDLs may yield efficiencies for CSO communities. For example, using an existing
watershed organization as the public advisory group for CSO control planning and
implementation, the community gains knowledgeable individuals committed to finding solutions.
By participating in watershed/TMDL analyses, a CSO community can help provide the
information to support an equitable allocation of pollutant loading reductions among all point
and non-point sources. This is particularly important where CSO receiving waters are affected
by numerous sources and need a watershed-level effort to allocate pollutant loadings. Where
pollutant sources from different States contribute to the impairment of a shared water body or a
downstream water body, States may need to involve EPA in the development of the TMDL in
order to bring all jurisdictions into the planning process.
The CSO Control Policy, and EPA's Guidance for Long-Term Control Plan, encourage
creative thinking and innovative approaches in addressing CSOs. In urban areas, water quality
may be impacted by many sources. These can include wastewater, storm water, and upstream
point and non-point pollution sources. TMDL analyses may evaluate a number of different
options to attain water quality standards, including:
Eliminating or treating all CSOs,
Imposing more stringent controls for sanitary sewer overflows, leaking septic
tanks, storm water discharges, animal feeding operations,
Developing stronger enforceable non-point source control programs, or
Revising the water quality standard for a particular pollutant and the applicable
permit requirements.
45
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
Watershed planning and TMDL analyses can promote flexibility and innovation for
addressing CSOs and other pollutant sources. The planning and analyses may identify more
cost-effective allocation of pollutant reductions using a combination of BMPs and CSO controls
which together yield greater environmental benefits than would CSO controls alone. Participants
can identify complementary environmental projects, such as upstream storm water controls,
along with nonstructural CSO controls, that may enhance the aquatic habitat and foster
improvements in both recreation and aquatic life uses.
C. How does watershed planning affect capital planning?
EPA is exploring how to support capital investments in combined and separate sanitary
sewer collection systems that are consistent with and support broader watershed planning
objectives. Many municipalities are well positioned to coordinate with other watershed
stakeholders in the development of long-term control plans addressing needs and deficiencies in
storm water and wastewater infrastructure. CSO communities may find it advantageous to take a
leadership role in local watershed planning, particularly where CSOs and other urban wet
weather discharges contribute heavily to water quality impacts or where a municipality has
substantial data, resources, or incentive to take a leadership role.
Z>. Wlio sets the priorities for TMDLs?
States set the priorities for conducting a TMDL or a court sets the schedule. Therefore,
the State should coordinate the schedule for the development of a TMDL with the schedule for
deciding on any appropriate revisions to the water quality standards. This is particularly
important where a court-ordered schedule directs that a TMDL be established prior to the State's
water quality standards review. In this circumstance, a State-adopted variance may be especially
appropriate.
2. How does CSO planning fit into a watershed approach?
The approach identified in Figure 1 for coordinating LTCP development and water
quality standards review lends itself well to coordination with watershed stakeholders to address
wet weather sources of pollution. The data collection, planning, and coordination activities
identified in Figure 1 can be an integral part of a comprehensive watershed planning and
implementation process, in which stakeholders identify water quality and environmental
problems through a comprehensive watershed assessment. The process would involve
coordination of the LTCP development process, the process for reviewing and (as appropriate)
revising water quality standards, and other programs to improve water quality in a more efficient
and effective fashion.
The watershed planning process typically begins with identification of stakeholders who
can contribute significantly to the implementation of coordinated periodic management activities,
who are significantly impacted by water quality problems, who will need to undertake control
measures because of legal or regulatory requirements, or who oversee their implementation. This
process would include satellite municipalities whose collection systems significantly contribute
to wet weather problems; owners of agricultural, industrial, or other pollutant sources outside the
46
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
urban area that contribute to impairment; and members of the public. Where possible, the
stakeholder identification process should be integrated with identification of the coordination
team formed to oversee the LTCP and water quality standards processes (Step 2 of Figure 1).
Under this process, each regulated stakeholder would be required to implement
appropriate minimum measures without delay. For example, the CSO community would be
responsible for implementing the nine minimum controls required in Step 1.
The parties to the watershed planning process would coordinate efforts to assess the
sources of impairment in the watershed and the degree to which sources contribute to
impairment. If the assessment indicates the need for pollution controls beyond minimum
measures, the parties should agree on recommendations for allocation of water quality
management responsibilities based on sources' relative contributions to impairment. This
approach is reflected in Step 3 of Figure 1, where the CSO community, the coordination team,
and other involved entities agree on the amount and types of data needed, development of a
monitoring and modeling plan, and gathering of the essential data needed to support the draft
LTCP and a draft UAA, where appropriate.
The watershed plan should identify recommendations for interim and final LTCP goals,
including recommendations to NPDES authorities for establishing or adjusting enforceable
requirements. Responsibilities for funding both planning and remediation projects should be
defined. When allowed under State law and consistent with any applicable total maximum daily
load (TMDL), the NPDES authority could agree to phase additional water quality regulatory
requirements to accommodate the planning process and to synchronize requirements such as
monitoring among participants. Special consideration would be warranted for sensitive and
high-exposure areas such as beaches and drinking water supplies.
EPA expects that communities will implement high priority controls, such as eliminating
or fully treating overflows to sensitive areas while TMDLs or watershed plans are being
developed. The iterative nature of CSO control planning and phased implementation of the
controls makes this easier. For example, as communities implement their initial controls and
evaluate the water quality improvements, they may be able to reduce the size or re-configure
additional controls, based on the water quality improvements already achieved. Watershed
plans can be taken into account when developing enforcement schedules for bringing
unauthorized or unpermitted discharges into compliance with the CWA, but watershed plans
(including the planning process) are not a bar to enforcement actions.
Appendix VI provides an example (Louisville/Jefferson County MSD, Kentucky) of
program integration using watershed-based monitoring and management strategies and a unified
reporting format that considers the watershed as a whole.
3. How do States with CSO communities use watershed approaches?
States with CSO communities apply the watershed approach in different ways. Using the
watershed as the basis for managing all State water quality programs (e.g., Delaware and Ohio)
47
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
promotes logical scheduling. When data are collected on a rotating basis, they support several
activities:
Water quality standards reviews,
"303(d) list" development of non-attained waters,
TMDL analyses, and
Permit issuance.
Others use the watershed approach selectively for monitoring, designating uses, review
water quality standards or issuing permits.
Monitoring (Indiana)
Use designations (Delaware River Basin Commission, Washington),
Water quality standards reviews (Colorado), and
Permit issuance (Georgia, Kentucky, Nebraska, West Virginia).
Watershed plans and TMDLs afford the opportunity to identify complementary projects
that could save resources or gain additional environmental benefits for the community.
Targeting CSO controls to eliminate overflows to parks or swimming areas may stimulate public
improvement projects that yield greater environmental benefits and offset the costs of eliminating
the overflows. Or, stream bank stabilization might improve aquatic life more than large storage
facilities for combined sewers would have.
V.
CONCLUSIONS
EPA believes that ultimately communities and States can integrate water quality
standards reviews with the development and implementation of an affordable, well-designed and
operated CSO control programs. EPA expects that as CSO communities implement priority
controls, they will collect information on the efficacy of the controls in improving water quality.
This information should support a determination that when completed, the LTCP will comply
with the requirements in the current water quality standards or that additional affordable controls
will support the standards. The information gathered can assist the State in determining that the
use is not attainable and in identifying another attainable use. Once reconciliation occurs, CSO
communities and States will have carried out the water quality-based provisions in the CSO
Control Policy.
48
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
APPENDIX I
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF CSO GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Long-Term Control Plan (EPA 832-B-95-002)
The main goal of this document is to describe how municipalities can develop
comprehensive long-term control plans that recognize the site-specific nature of CSOs
and their impacts on receiving water bodies. The document describes how to develop a
long-term control plan that includes technology-based and water quality-based control
measures that are technically feasible, affordable, and consistent with the CSO Control
Policy.
Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls (EPA 832-B-95-003)
The goal of this guidance document is to provide information on nine minimum
technology-based controls that communities are expected to use to address CSO
problems, without extensive engineering studies or significant construction costs, before
long-term measures are taken. Communities are expected to implement the nine
minimum controls and submit documentation no later than January 1, 1997.
Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Screening and Ranking (EPA 832-B-95-004)
This guidance presents a process for screening and ranking combined sewer systems with
CSOs that have adverse impacts on water quality, aquatic life, or human health. Its
primary purpose is as an informal tool to help permitting authorities establish CSO
permitting priorities. It may also help permittees rank their CSOs in order to best allocate
their limited resources.
Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Funding Options (EPA 832-B-95-007)
This guidance will help permittees as they develop CSO control funding plans. The
guidance presents plain-English descriptions of a broad spectrum of options that may be
available to fund me capital, debt service, and operational costs of CSO controls. It
describes the benefits and limitations of various funding options.
Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Permit Writers (EPA 832-B-95-008)
This guidance is intended primarily for NPDES permitting authorities and permit writers
and describes how to develop and issue NPDES permits with CSO conditions that reflect
the CSO Policy. It provides example permit language and stresses the need for
coordination between permittees, permit writers, water quality standards authorities,
enforcement authorities, and the public.
Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment and Schedule
Development (EPA 832-B-97-004)
This guidance discusses how a community's financial capability and other factors
identified in the CSO Policy may be used to negotiate reasonable compliance schedules
for implementation of CSO controls. It presents a two-phase process for assessing
financial capability, based on EPA's experience in the Construction Grants, State
Revolving Fund, enforcement, and water quality standards programs. It stresses the need
49
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
for flexibility and evaluation of site-specific factors in the development of
implementation schedules for CSO controls.
Combined Sewer Overflows - Guidance for Monitoring and Modeling (EPA 832-B-99-002)
This manual explains the role of monitoring and modeling in the development and
implementation of a CSO control program. It expands discussions of monitoring and
modeling introduced in the CSO Control Policy and presents examples of data collection
and simulation of sanitary and storm water flows in the combined sewer system. To use
this manual, a municipality should already be familiar with the basic functioning of its
CSS, basic monitoring procedures, and the general purpose of modeling.
EPA has printed a limited number of copies of each guidance document and has made them
available through several sources:
EPA's Water Resource Center ((202)260-7786)
National Small Flows Clearinghouse (1-800-624-8301 or
http ://www. estd. wvu. edu/nsfc)
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) (1-800-553-6847 or
http ://www/ntis. gov)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) (1-800-276-0462 or
http://www.aspensvs.com/eric/catalog/)
State environmental offices
EPA Regional Offices
50
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
APPENDIX II
REMOVAL OF DESIGNATED USES - 40 CFR 131.10 (g) AND (h)
[excerpted from: EPA's Water Quality Standards Handbook:
Second Edition, Chapter 2.7 (1994)]
The basic steps for determining how and when a designated use may be removed are as
follows:
Step 1 - Is the Use Existing? Once a use has been designated for a particular water
body or segment, the water body segment cannot be reclassified for a different use except under
specific conditions. If a designated use is an existing use (as defined in 40 CFR 131.3) for a
particular water body, the existing use cannot be removed unless a use requiring more stringent
criteria is added. However, uses requiring more stringent criteria may always be added because
doing so reflects the goal of further improvement of water quality. Thus, a recreational use for
wading may be deleted if a recreational use for swimming is added, or the State may add the
swimming use and keep the wading use as well.
Step 2 - Is the Use Specified in Section 101(a)(2)? If the State wishes to remove a
designated use specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act, the State must perform a
use attainability analysis.
Step 3 - Is the Use Attainable? A State may change activities within a specified use
category but may not change to a use that requires less stringent criteria, unless the State can
demonstrate that the designated use cannot be attained. For example, if a State has a broad
aquatic life use, EPA generally assumes that the use will support all aquatic life. The State may
demonstrate that for a specific water body, such parameters as dissolved oxygen or temperature
will not support trout but will support perch when technology-based effluent limitation are
applied to point source dischargers and when cost-effective and reasonable best management
practices are applied to non-point sources.
Step 4 - Is a Factor from 131.10(g) Met? Even after the previous steps have been
considered, the designated use may be removed, or subcategories of a use established, only under
the conditions given in section 131.10(g). The State must be able to demonstrate that attaining
the designated use is not feasible because:
1. Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the use; or
2. Natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low flow conditions or water levels prevent
the attainment of the uses, unless these conditions may be compensated with
sufficient effluent discharges; or
3. Human-caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use
and cannot be remedied or would cause more damage than to leave in place; or
4. Dams, diversions or other types of hydro logical modifications preclude the use,
and it is not possible to restore the water body or operate the modification in such
a way that would result in attainment; or
5. Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body unrelated to
water quality preclude attainment of aquatic life uses; or
51
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
6. Controls necessary to attain the use would cause substantial and widespread social
and economic impact.
Step 5 - Provide Public Notice. As provided for in section 131.10(e), States must
provide notice and opportunity for public hearing in accordance with section 131.20(b). Of
course, EPA intends for States to make appropriate use of all public comments received through
such notice.
52
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
APPENDIX III
LIST OF GUIDANCE ON USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES (UAAs)
EPA has published:
Technical Support Manuals for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses (Volumes
I-III, Rivers and Streams, Estuaries, Lakes, 1983 and 1984)
http://www.epa.gov/ost/Iibrai-y/wqstaiidards/123.pdf These three volumes each
contain sections on assessing physical, chemical and biological characteristics of
the specific water body type.
EPA has developed more recent guidance on assessing biological characteristics in the
following documents:
Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating Biological
Integrity of Surface Waters (1990) - EPA/600/4-90/030 (PB91-171363).
This manual describes guidelines and standardized procedures for the use of
macroinvertebrates in evaluating the biological integrity of surface waters. IT was
developed to provide bio-monitoring programs with benthic invertebrate methods
for measuring the status and trends of environmental pollution on freshwater,
estuarine, and marine macroinvertebrates in fields and laboratory studies. These
studies are carried out to added biological criteria for the recognized beneficial
uses of water, to monitor surface water quality, and to evaluate the health of the
aquatic environment.
Fish Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biological Integrity of
Surface Waters (1992) - EPA/600/R-92/111.
This manual describes guidelines and standardized procedures for the use offish
in evaluating the biological integrity of surface waters. It was developed to
provide bio-monitoring programs with fisheries methods for measuring the status
and trends of environmental pollution on freshwater, estuarine, and marine
habitats in field and laboratory studies. These studies are carried out to assess
biological criteria for the recognized beneficial uses of water, to monitor surface
water quality, and to evaluate the health of the aquatic environment.
Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological
Condition ofWadeable Streams (1998) - EPA/620/R-64/004F.
This manual describes guidelines and standardized procedures for evaluating the
biological integrity of surface waters of stream. It was developed to provide the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) with bioassessment
methods for determining the status and monitoring trends of the environmental
conditions of freshwater streams.
Biological Criteria: Technical Guidance for Streams and Small Rivers, Revised
Edition (1996) - EPA/822/B-96/001.
This document helps States and Tribes develop and use biocriteria for streams and
small rivers. The document includes a general strategy for biocriteria
53
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
development, identifies steps in the process, and provides technical guidance on
how to complete each step, using the experience and knowledge of existing state,
regional and national surface water programs. The document is designed
primarily for water resource managers and biologists familiar with standard
biological survey techniques. It should be used in conjunction with Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers.
Lake and River Bioassessment and Biocriteria, Technical Guidance Document
(1998) - EPA/841/B-98/007.
This document is intended to provide managers and field biologists with
functional methods and approaches that will facilitate the implementation of lake
bioassessment and biocriteria programs. Procedures are provided for program
design, reference condition determination, field biosurveys, biocriteria
development and data analysis. The document also provides information on the
application and effectiveness of lake bioassessment to existing EPA and
State/Tribal programs. This guidance was developed through the experience of
existing state, regional and national lake monitoring programs and several lake
programs are used as case studies and examples to illustrate specific concepts and
methods.
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers, Second
Edition (1999) - EPA/841/B-99/002.
This document provides Stated and local water quality monitoring agencies with a
practical technical reference for conducting cost-effective biological assessments
of lotic systems. The Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) are essentially a
synthesis of existing methods that have been employed by various State water
resource agencies. Protocols for three aquatic assemblages (i.e., periphyton,
benthic macroinvertebrates, fish) and habitat assessment are presented. All of
these protocols have been tested in streams in various parts of the country.
Estuarine and Coastal Marine Water Bioassessment and Biocriteria Technical
Guidance (to be published Fall 2000).
This technical guidance document is based on the concept that bioassessment and
biocriteria programs for estuaries and near coastal waters are interrelated and
critical components of comprehensive water resource protection and management.
This guidance provides detailed descriptions of the appropriate habitat
measurements that can be used to determine the homogeneous biological areas
within an estuary (classification) and then describes four levels of investigative
intensity or sampling tiers that can be used to collect the necessary bioassessment
data that is used in biocriteria derivation. Numerous different sampling methods
and techniques that an investigator could choose are explained. The document
also provides guidance on the process for deriving biocriteria from the
bioassessment data and provides real-world examples from different estuaries
around the country where bioassessments have been conducted and biocriteria
developed.
54
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
In addition, EPA has published:
Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards: Workbook, 1995.
http ://www. epa. go v/ost/econ
The Water Environment Research Foundation published:
A Suggested Framework for Conducting UAAs;
Interpreting Results and a Comprehensive UAA Technical Reference.
55
-------
I
1
co .g
e>
&
H
>-J
&
^
Q
W
P
1
^
y
&j
rS
fTJ
%
^
s
0
j2
K
WHAT ARE THE UAA QUESTIONS
35
O bH
S g
>--J
.&
'o
g
o
53
00
a
"as
3«
_g g
If
S 2
S ,2
CO
G CH
O CO
il
3 &
£3 w
0 ^
-s a.
ftJQ 03
r* O
?i '
^ 1
0 CJ
2? r}
S3 .
eo ^g
d> -
"S C
o C
co cd
Q U
o-
- What is the existing primary contact
recreational use?
- Does this use occur in dry weather?
- Does this use occur during wet weather
u
CO
D
oo
^n
R.
CO
ra
cd
U
1
CO
0
S
ci
1
3
u
=:
1
6
.
u
HM
o
"o
"o
i!
o
U
0
U
r-
^
T t
£X
:§
^
^^i
G\
O
1
6
oVT
cs
d
S?
g
£
W
rp1
CN
d
PH"
Z
O
M
s
:§
oo
ocj
CN
d
of
CN
*o
X
W
PH"
^
u
o
i
o
=§
-------
o
o
o
H
O
O
S
II
3 w
O
1*1
a
* ^ ,i(
r^J t~t O
,a o CD s
ji c 3 "a
jjO-tS co
.S "« *j IT
n s S t;
3 cy'S .«
>, JD ^ »
"S ^ ^0 &
i-^ 1> C3
. ^ oj" ^
»-* O ^ to
C^3 & C5
^ M ^ -2
S 0 O
° <*3 H >,
u i 8
,J^ . fj , ^H
*^ o) o 3
Mil
n 2 -2 fl .
S £ S CD
CD CD " i-
ssii
5 ^ C3 >
5 KS JU g
r-< -_i "S U
.3 3 .3 "
-H C^5 ' ' S
1 a 8,8
p^ o CD a
^ ^3 o P §
irt S a £ «
^ 8 | |^
^ J s «" a
.3 « -a on §
.> g ^ 3 °
D *^ "* -^ "S
§ "E o g -|
Pil ^ 1o *73 CU
- What is the existing water quality during
dry periods and during rain events for :
pH,
bacterial indicators (e.g., E. coli,
enterococci),
nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous,
secchi depth, chlorophyll a), if a lake;
biochemical oxygen demand,
total suspended and dissolved solids,
narratives (e.g., "free from" floatables,
objectionable deposits)?
4-*
13 H
S C3
t5.a .
-B 53
^
vo
cs
s
i
o
cxT
CN
ro
T3
^
O
~a
U
o
OH
O
U
o
C-O
4
4;
I
1
S
CN
of
OH
I
O
-o
a
o
O
a
o
OH
O
O
-------
o
o
es
n
CQ
-
e
2
O
p*
y
H-l
s
1
ffi
p
g
1
§
|
1
g
WHAT ARE THE UAA QUESTIONS
si
£ §
H a
a
1
'5.
'o
§.
CO
?
_0
CO
>
o
1
<3
w
-o
a
1
1/3
)f its sewers;
a3
1
S
1
a
"ePS
o 42
J-l <
° §
H S
0-
- What are the dry and wet weather flows
"3
o
'1
Q.
1
s
tO
tg>
o
a
O
&JQ
C3
1
-S
,
P B
il
0 g.
"73 w
io «
.i .«
*^3 co
03 to
> *
% '"
t? pt
w S
- What are the physical characteristics of
the water body where the recreational
activities occur (e.g., width, depth,
substrate)?
-, "O
a O
111
S<"c3 "
.§ & |
T3 jrj CO
^ O *-
« ^ 8
ri fe o .
0 ^ ff
^3
o &o
.2 ^US.
co S , S
S ^ S a.
g S 2 o
o _^ o1 u
S. M
O * S i3JQ
&S g 1
co S !s s
r-< ^* Tj
< o, o .3
- Will elimination/full treatment of all
overflows support the designated
recreational use or not interfere with its
attainment?
1
°c3
ts
<-
>
«^H
o
_
-------
O
o
o
PP
§
W
u
H
Q
H
a
hJ
fc
Q
f->
|~"j
K
£
HH
Q
W
H
U
W
INFORMATION EXP
00
§
l(
H
WHAT ARE THE UAA QUES
w ^
03
ts
0
o
KJ
8
G
s
c
.0
'e and evaluations focusing on perf
v~
o
1
a
T3 "~* ~
S Tl >
w TO *- at
- Did the CSO control alternative
examine all reasonable structural
nonstmctural technologies and
management practices and select
cost alternative for each control li
evaluated?
"« *- ^ SP
e o ** ci
"*C S S (U ^rt
" i O ^2 £5 ftjj
1 j 1 1| J 5
|j|l^|||
1 s I -- i 1 J*"*
tx, *-< -C"1 .2 fl> S (U D
till 1 !li
| 1 is I'S £| g,g-
"^ Q ^ 'O O ^ t~i - J?-
'3 ^ ^ «s S SP "2 D o
^j "~1 ^ * -5*2- o ^ *t3
1 "o" | f4^ ^ -5 § .§
T ^ C3 Q ""* & c^ "^ »^ (20
03 5» -^* ^ . ^ Q^ w -^
/^ *^ *3 -*"* S "S ^ -
*»J ^" CD ?^ 'S rj *"* O 1-^
mcial analyses in Combined Sewer
'e Development (EPA-832-B-97-00
s in a UAA (see Interim Economic
23-B-95-002, March, 1995]). Whei
impacts are widespread before a w
>read" analyses, the State looks at tl
household income, unemployment
lining industries, percent of househ
nity to carry more debt, and local a:
litiSlfll
E-l <>3 C3 i^j-S 3 S C3 0
0>
s£ %'
!""* Q ^
« e S S
- Will the level of control to attaii
longer interfere with the attainme
designated use cause substantial <.
widespread social and economic i
ON
ro
oC
T
I
O
e
a
T3
I
o
"o
-------
O
(=1
U
O-t
o
s
fe
<;
Q
w
EG
£<
Z
0*i
s
w
cu
tx'
a
2
o
P
<
S
g
S
OQ
WHAT ARE THE UA A QUESTION
si
o o
CO .^
P ts
5 T3 03
1 ' ^ o
o ^
« IS -^
^T* A *7a
> £ ^
^ ^a -E31
4.^ s « ca
03 rS
^ ^2 *c3
^ c3 ^
o-2J3
° § 1
J2 ^ ?
« O w"o
S ca *ca vi
lit?
S .23 53 g
||||
>: cct tsi
U to 'S J3
jg 8 ^ -a
*r^ ca i ^ cc
« £ 0 «
^5 c 'o &
^ B3
^? .-^ (D CO
- What level of improvement is projecte
with the "preferred" plan on water quali
recreational use (e.g., number of days/y
or during the recreational season that tli
criteria levels protect/preclude "safe"
recreational use of the water body)?
W
ft
d>
o
c
ca
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
APPENDIX V
WQS ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The analysis begins by estimating substantial impacts followed by an analysis of
widespread impacts. The model for calculating substantial impacts is:
Municipal Affordability Screener = Annualized Per Household Project Costs
(MAS) Annual Median Household Income
Cutoffs: MAS < 1.0%, affordable or no impact
MAS >1.0% and < 2.0%, more review needed
MAS >2.0% unaffordable, large impact
Secondary Affordability Tests as appropriate
The following example is based on CSO communities. This analysis was completed
several years ago; therefore, national rates, e.g., unemployment, may not be accurate today.
EXAMPLE
Two communities in the eastern United States, Town A and City B, have CSO problems
that contribute to violations of water quality standards for pathogens. These two communities
are joined together in a major metropolitan area. For Town A, the total annualized residential
costs for water and sewer services with CSO controls will be $600 per household per year. For
City B, the total annualized residential costs with CSO controls will be $725 per household per
year. If sufficient CSO controls were implemented to meet existing water quality standards, the
county in which these two communities are located would have total annualized costs of $650
per household.
For Town A, the annual median household income is $46,500. Therefore, the following
calculation provides the Municipal Affordability Screener (MAS):
MAS
'Town A
$600
$46,500
= 1.29%
61
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20,2000
For City B, the annual median household income is $39,000. Therefore, the following
calculation provides City B's MAS:
MAS
City B =
$725
$39,000
= 1.86%
The results of the MAS analysis indicate that additional information is needed, and
further review and analysis should be performed. The Interim Economic Guidance provides the
economic methods for secondary affordability tests, which supplement the MAS results, when
further review and analysis is appropriate. The secondary test is designed to build on the
characterization of the financial burden identified by the MAS. The secondary tests identify the
community's ability to obtain financing and describe the general socioeconomic health of the
community by considering the following additional debt, socioeconomic and financial
management indicators:
Bond Rating
Overall Net Debt as a Percentage of Full Market Property Value
Unemployment Rate
Median Household Income
Property Tax Revenue as Percentage of Full Market Property Value
Property Tax Collection Rate
The two communities decided to substitute "Debt per Capita" for "Overall Net Debt as a
Percentage of Full Market Value" and eliminate "Property Tax Revenue as a Percentage of Full
Market Value". The Interim Economic Guidance encourages substitutions for indicators if they
improve the information and strengthen the analysis.
For Town A, the five secondary indicators are:
« "Bond Rating" of Al - considered a strong indicator of good economic health
« "Debt per Capita" of about $1,200 - considered a mid-range to strong indicator of
good economic health
« "Unemployment Rate" of 3.3%, which is more than 1 percentage point lower than
the national average of 4.7% - considered a strong indicator of good economic
health
"Median Household Income (MHI)" for Town A was $29,000 during the last
census compared to a State average of $35,000. MHI at least 10% less than the
State MHI indicates weakness in the economic health.
» "Property Tax Collection Rate" is 97% - considered a mid-range to strong
indicator of good economic health.
62
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
Except for the MHI indicator, all of Town A's secondary test indicators are strong or at
the high end of the mid-range. Based on its placement in the "Substantial Impacts Matrix" in the
Interim Economic Guidance, Town A would not be expected to incur substantial economic
problems from the CSO control program.
For City B, the five secondary indicators are:
"Bond Rating" of Baa - considered a mid-range indicator of economic health
"Debt per Capita" of approximately $400 - considered a strong indicator of good
economic health
"Unemployment Rate" of 5.5%, which is within 1 percentage point of the national
average of 4.7% - considered a mid-range indicator of good economic health
"Median Household Income (MHI)" for City B in the last census was $25,000
compared to a State average of $35,000. MHI of at least 10% less than the State
MHI is considered an indicator of weak economic health
"Property Tax Collection Rate" is 95% - considered a mid-range indicator of
economic health
Most of City B's secondary test indicators are mid-range. Based on its locations in the
"Substantial Impacts Matrix" in the Interim Economic Guidance, City B is borderline and
additional information may be needed to determine if it will incur substantial economic problems
impacts from the proposed CSO control program as it is currently proposed.
Based on this limited review of Town A and City B, it appears that these communities
will not incur substantial economic impacts from the CSO control program. City B may
experience borderline adverse economic impacts. Widespread impact analyses may not be
appropriate because the adverse economic impacts will be substantial only on a worst-case basis.
If further analyses were needed, they would involve assessing the change in the following
indicators after the CSO controls are implemented:
1. Median Household Income (MHI)
2. Unemployment Rate
3. Rate of Industrial Development
4. Developing and Declining Industries
5. Percent of Households below the Poverty Line
6. Ability of the Community to Carry more Debt
7. Local and Regional Growth.
63
-------
-------
DRAFT - DECEMBER 20, 2000
APPENDIX VI
INTEGRATION OF WET WEATHER SOURCE CONTROLS (CSOs, SSOs, STORM
WATER) WITHIN A WATERSHED FRAMEWORK
The Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) has worked to
integrate the five programs covered by NPDES permits, including CSOs, using watershed-based
monitoring and management strategies. Further, MSD has developed a Combined Annual
Report (a unified report format) that considers the permit requirements and watershed issues as a
whole.
MSD had identified the lack of coordinated monitoring and assessment data as the
biggest obstacle to improving water quality. Each permit program had its own staff, priorities,
operating procedures, sampling program databases, and lists of facilities. Little information
sharing took place between programs, and field personnel were spread thin, with two- and three-
person teams trying to cover enormous areas during the same wet weather event, often gathering
different samples at the same locations. It was nearly impossible to establish long-term
monitoring sites throughout the MSD for each of the five NPDES programs.
In 1995, the MSD received an EPA Section 104(b)(3) grant to evaluate its monitoring
activities and oversight strategies, with a goal of improving its NPDES programs. The study led
to sweeping changes in the MSD organizational structure, including consolidation of all water
quality staff and resources within its five permit programs.
The MSD service area was broken into six sub-areas, roughly corresponding with
watershed boundaries, each with a dedicated environmental team. Next, an Information
Technology Division was formed to be a central repository of monitoring data and GIS
resources. Finally, MSD developed a comprehensive watershed-based monitoring program that
includes physical, chemical, and bioassessment components. Data collected in the monitoring
program will be used to develop watershed and water quality models of several of the larger
basins.
In 1999, MSD won the right to submit a Combined Annual Report for all of its permitted
water quality programs. MSD believes that the combined report will allow analysis and
prioritization of water quality problems from all the permit programs to benefit the watershed.
This will allow the MSD to target their resources where they will generate the greatest
improvements in water quality.
64
-------
------- |