Watershed-based National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permitting
Technical Guidance
August 2007
*»«*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office ofWastewater Management
Water Permits Division
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 833-B-07-004
p^*"^
Ml
712
-J *N13
-------
WATERSHED-BASED
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
(NPDES) PERMITTING TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
EPA 833-B-07-004
August 2007
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
Water Permits Division
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Foreword
Watershed-based NPDES permitting provides potential for flexibility and innovation to achieve
new efficiencies and environmental progress in watersheds. This technical guidance is a follow
up to the 2003 Watershed-based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permitting Implementation Guidance and provides greater detail concerning a number of permit
development and issuance questions not addressed previously. It is designed to help NPDES
authorities develop and issue NPDES permits that fit into an overall watershed planning and
management approach with input from watershed stakeholders.
Benjamin H. Grumbles
Assistant Administrator for Water
Disclaimer
This Guidance expresses the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) support
for watershed-based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting,
including development of multisource watershed-based permits. Implementation of watershed-
based permitting will be governed by existing requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
EPA's NPDES implementing regulations. CWA provisions and regulations contain legally
binding requirements. This document does not substitute for those provisions or regulations. The
recommendations in this Guidance are not binding; the permitting authority may consider other
approaches consistent with the CWA and EPA regulations. The use of non-mandatory words like
"should," "could," "would," "may," "might," "recommend," "encourage," "expect," and "can" in
this Guidance means solely that something is suggested or recommended and not that it is legally
required or that the suggestion or recommendation imposes legally binding requirements, or that
following the suggestion or recommendation necessarily creates an expectation of EPA approval.
When EPA makes a permitting decision, it will make each decision on a case-by-case basis and
will be guided by the applicable requirements of the CWA and implementing regulations, taking
into account comments and information presented at that time by interested persons regarding
the appropriateness of applying these recommendations to the particular situation. This Guidance
incorporates, and does not modify, existing EPA policy and guidance on watershed-based
permitting. EPA may change this Guidance in the future.
-------
Contents
Page
Glossary of Terms v
List of Abbreviations viii
Introduction: EPA and Watershed-based Permitting 1
Purpose of this Document 1
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed
Framework 3
Section One: The NPDES Program and a Watershed Approach 3
What is a Watershed Approach? 3
What is the role of the NPDES program in a watershed approach? 4
How is the NPDES program integrated into a watershed approach? 5
Section Two: Why Should a Permitting Authority Consider a Watershed Framework? 6
What factors lead to consideration of an NPDES watershed framework? 6
What are the potential benefits of applying an NPDES watershed approach? 8
Section Three: Navigating the Watershed Permitting Process 9
Navigator Element 1: Create Watershed and Source Data Inventories 11
Navigator Element 2: Apply a Watershed Permitting Analytical Approach 14
Navigator Element 3: Construct an NPDES Watershed Framework 23
Section Four: How is Performance Measured Under an NPDES Watershed Approach? 40
Chapter 2: Guide for Multisource Watershed-based NPDES Permitting 43
Section One: Multisource Watershed-based Permits 43
What is the geographic scope of the multisource watershed-based permit? 43
Who is covered by the multisource watershed-based permit? 44
How is a multisource watershed-based permit administered? 45
How might trading be considered in a multisource watershed-based permit? 46
Section Two: Cover Page 48
Key Technical Questions 48
Section Three: Effluent Limitations 51
Key Technical Questions 51
Section Four: Monitoring Requirements 58
Key Technical Questions 59
Section Five: Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements 61
Key Technical Questions 61
Section Six: Special Conditions 64
Key Technical Questions 64
Section Seven: Public Notice 66
Key Technical Questions 67
Chapter 3: Watershed-based Permitting Case Studies 69
Big Darby Creek Watershed, Ohio: Construction Watershed-based General Permit 69
Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Virginia: Watershed-based General Permit for Nutrient
Discharges and Nutrient Trading 69
Lake Lewisville Watershed, Texas: City of Denton Watershed Protection Program 70
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Michigan Statewide Watershed-based MS4 Storm water General Permit 70
Neuse River Watershed, North Carolina: Neuse River Compliance Association
Watershed-based Permit 71
North Carolina Statewide Approach: Basinwide Planning and Permitting 71
Sand Creek Watershed, Colorado: Watershed-based Selenium Standard 71
Tualatin River Watershed, Oregon: Clean Water Services Integrated Municipal Permit 72
References 73
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1-1. The watershed management process (Davenport 2002) 4
Exhibit 1-2. Goals, questions, and results associated with Navigator elements 10
Exhibit 1-3. Potential data inventory datatypes, uses, and sources 12
Exhibit 1-4. Example permit analysis matrix 15
Exhibit 1-5. Priority setting to construct an NPDES watershed framework 38
Exhibit 1-6. Example watershed environmental performance measures based on EPA's National
Water Program Fiscal Year 2007 Guidance 41
Exhibit 1-7. Example watershed program performance measures by NPDES watershed
framework implementation option 41
Exhibit 2-1. Example of a cover page for a watershed-based permit administered as an individual
permit issued to an individual discharger or to co-permittees 49
Exhibit 2-2. Example of a cover page for a watershed-based permit administered as a general
permit 50
Exhibit 2-3. Example effluent limitations and monitoring requirements for nutrients 57
Exhibit 2-4. Options for establishing appropriate sampling locations 59
Exhibit 2-5. Example permit text for reporting requirements 63
Exhibit 2-6. Example permit reopener 65
Exhibit 2-7. Example permit text for ambient monitoring 66
iv Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Glossary of Terms
This glossary includes definitions or explanations of some of the terms used in this Guidance.
Where there is a definition or explanation in the federal regulations for a term included in the
glossary, that definition or explanation, or a portion thereof, is included with an appropriate
citation. The citations also note instances where the regulatory definition or explanation is not
used verbatim, but has been adapted or modified to be consistent with the format of the glossary.
To the extent that a definition or explanation provided in this glossary differs from that found in
EPA regulations or other official documents, it is intended for use in understanding this
Guidance only.
Baseline: A term used in water quality trading to denote the pollutant control requirements that
apply to buyers and sellers in the absence of trading. Sellers must first achieve their applicable
baselines before entering the trading market to sell credits. Buyers can purchase credits to
achieve their applicable baselines.
Bedload: Portion of sediment load transported downstream by sliding, rolling, and bouncing
along the channel bottom. Generally consists of particles more than one millimeter in diameter.
Best Management Practices (BMPs): Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices,
maintenance procedures, and other treatment controls and pollutant removal devices (structural
and nonstructural) to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States.
BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and activities to control plant
site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage
[Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) 122.2]. Treatment controls may also
include systems of controls (e.g., a series of devices designed to progressively reduce the
discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. For nonpoint sources, BMPs are defined as
methods, measures or practices selected by an agency to meet its nonpoint source control needs.
BMPs include but are not limited to structural and nonstructural controls and operation and
maintenance procedures. BMPs can be applied before, during and after pollutant-producing
activities to reduce or eliminate the introduction of pollutants into receiving waters [40 CFR
130.2(m)].
Composite Sample: Sample composed of two or more discrete aliquots (samples). The aggregate
sample will reflect the average water quality of the compositing or sample period.
Co-Permittee: A term used in this Guidance to refer to one of a group of wastewater dischargers
who all are covered by the same NPDES permit.
Credit: A measured or estimated unit of pollutant reduction representing a level of control
beyond that needed from a particular source to meet a baseline requirement (a water quality
based effluent limitation for an NPDES permittee or allocation for a nonpoint source) and which
may be exchanged in a trading program.
Discharge Monitoring Report: The forms used (including any subsequent additions, revisions, or
modifications) by NPDES permittees to report self-monitoring results [see 40 CFR 122.2].
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Flow-Proportional Composite Sample: A composite sample in which the volume or timing of the
individual aliquots is based on discharge flow.
Grab Sample: A sample taken from a wastestream on a one-time basis without consideration of
the flow rate of the wastestream and without consideration of time of sampling.
Load: The amount of matter or amount of thermal energy that is introduced into a receiving
water. Loading may be either human-caused (pollutant loading) or natural (background loading)
[40 CFR 130.2(e)].
Load Allocation: The portion of a receiving water's loading capacity that is attributed either to
one of its existing or future nonpoint sources of pollution or to natural background sources. Load
allocations are best estimates of the loading, which may range from reasonably accurate
estimates to gross allotments, depending on the availability of data and appropriate techniques
for predicting the loading. Wherever possible, natural and nonpoint source loads should be
distinguished [40 CFR 130.2(g)].
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water
pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States.
Nonpoint Source: Diffuse pollution sources (i.e., without a single point of origin or not
introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet). The pollutants are generally carried off
the land by storm water. Atmospheric deposition and hydromodification are also sources of
nonpoint source pollution.
Nutrients: Chemical elements and compounds found in the environment that plants and animals
need to grow and survive. Nutrients include compounds of nitrogen (nitrate, nitrite, ammonia,
organic nitrogen) and phosphorus (orthophosphate and others), both natural and man-made.
Permitting Authority: EPA or a state, tribe, or territory that is authorized to administer the
NPDES permit program. Forty-five states and one territory (the Virgin Islands) are authorized to
administer the NPDES permit program.
Point Source: Any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance including, but not limited to,
any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock,
concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), landfill leachate collection system, vessel or
other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include
return flows from irrigated agriculture or agricultural stormwater runoff [40 CFR 122.2].
Pollutant Loading Cap or Cap: A term used in this Guidance to refer to cumulative pollutant
loadings for all point and nonpoint sources established and assigned to different watersheds or
waterbodies through a TMDL or other watershed analysis.
Technology-based Effluent Limitation (TBEL): An effluent limitation for a pollutant that is based
on the capability of a treatment method to reduce the pollutant to a certain concentration. TBELs
for POTWs are derived from the secondary treatment regulations at 40 CFR Part 133. TBELs for
non-POTWs are derived from national Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (effluent
vi Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
guidelines) for specific industries, or on a case-by-case basis from the best professional judgment
of the permit writer [see 40 CFR 122.44(a)(l)].
Time-Proportional Composite Sample: A composite sample in which the sample volume of each
aliquot and the time between sampling individual aliquots are constant.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): The sum of individual WLAs for point sources and load
allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background [40 CFR 130.2(i)]. TMDLs often
include a margin of safety in addition to WLAs and load allocations.
Total Nitrogen: The sum of organic, nitrite, nitrate and ammonia species of nitrogen in water or
wastewater. For compliance determination and reporting purposes, total nitrogen is calculated as
the sum of the Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and the nitrite and nitrate nitrogen.
Total Phosphorus: The sum of organic and inorganic forms of phosphorus.
Trading: An arrangement where a pollutant source, typically a point source discharger,
compensates another party in exchange for pollutant reduction credits and uses those credits to
meet an applicable regulatory obligation. A buyer or user of credits in a trade compensates
another party for creating this overcontrol and uses the resulting pollutant reductions, typically to
meet its regulatory obligation. A seller or provider of credits in a trade has controlled pollutant
loadings beyond what is needed to meet its baseline requirement and can receive compensation
from a buyer wishing to use the surplus reductions.
Trading Ratio: A ratio developed to either discount or normalize the value of pollutant credits
between a buyer and seller in a trade or between a source and a downstream waterbody. Trading
ratios may be used to account for pollutant attenuation because of fate and transport, watershed
characteristics, distance, time, different forms of a pollutant, uncertainty, or a desire to retire
credits. For example, a location ratio is used to convert the amount of pollutant discharged at a
specific point to the amount that reaches the waterbody of concern in a TMDL or watershed
analysis. For additional information, see EPA's Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit
Writers.
WasteloadAllocation (WLA): The proportion of a receiving water's total maximum daily load
that is allocated to one of its existing or future point sources of pollution [40 CFR 130.2(h)].
Water Quality-based Effluent Limitation (WQBEL): An effluent limitation that is designed to
achieve an applicable water quality standard, including those that are based on a WLA specified
in an approved TMDL [see 40 CFR 122.44(d)].
Watershed Analysis: A term used in this Guidance to refer to an analysis of pollutant sources and
loadings (similar to a TMDL) completed for a waterbody where a TMDL is not required or
where a TMDL has not been performed. A watershed analysis is used to determine appropriate
WQBELs for the point sources in the watershed.
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance vii
-------
List of Abbreviations
AML
AWL
BMPs
CFR
CWA
DMR
ELGs
EPA
Ibs
Ibs/day
MDL
MG
MOD
mg/L
NPDES
POTW
TBEL
TMDL
TSD
WLA
WQBEL
U.S.C.
average monthly limitation
average weekly limitation
best management practices
Code of Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
Discharge Monitoring Report
effluent limitations guidelines and standards or effluent guidelines
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
pounds
pounds per day
maximum daily limitation
million gallons
million gallons per day
milligrams per liter
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
publicly owned treatment works
technology-based effluent limitation
total maximum daily load
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control
wasteload allocation
water quality-based effluent limitation
United States Code
VIM
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Introduction: EPA and Watershed-based Permitting
For more than a decade, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has supported and
encouraged a watershed approach to addressing water quality problems. Awareness and
understanding of this approach has grown over time, but with demonstrated gaps in
implementation. On December 3, 2002, the EPA Office of Water Assistant Administrator issued
a policy memo entitled, Committing EPA 's Water Program to Advancing the Watershed
Approach (Mehan 2002). This policy memo not only reaffirmed EPA's commitment to the
watershed approach, but also re-energized efforts to ensure that the Agency as a whole fully
integrates the approach into its programs and supports regulatory authorities that implement
water programs on a watershed basis.
In December 2003, EPA issued the Watershed-based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permitting Implementation Guidance (Implementation Guidance) (USEPA
2003c) that describes EPA's recommended steps and ideas for watershed-based permitting
implementation under the NPDES permit program. This approach, aimed at achieving new
efficiencies and environmental results through the NPDES program, provides a process for
considering all stressors within a hydrologically defined drainage basin or other geographic area
(e.g., municipality), rather than addressing individual pollutant sources on a discharge-by-
discharge basis. The December 2003 guidance followed a long series of EPA guidance, policy,
and training supporting a watershed-based approach to addressing water quality concerns.
Purpose of this Document
This document, the Watershed-based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permitting Technical Guidance (Technical Guidance), is a supplement to the 2003
Implementation Guidance and provides greater detail concerning a number of permit
development and issuance questions not addressed previously. This document is focused on
helping NPDES authorities develop and issue NPDES permits that fit into an overall watershed
planning and management approach with input from watershed stakeholders. It consists of three
chapters, each of which is summarized below.
Chapter 1 is Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed
Framework. This Chapter discusses the role of the NPDES program in an overall
watershed approach and presents a tool called the NPDES Watershed Navigator
(Navigator). The Navigator is simply a series of questions to guide permitting authorities
and others through the process of analyzing watershed data and determining how to
develop a framework for structuring and managing implementation of the NPDES
program so that the entire watershed is considered in the permit development process.
Chapter 2 is Guide for Multisource Water shed-based NPDES Permitting. One of the
potential outcomes of the process described in Chapter 1 is a decision to develop a
multisource watershed-based permit, which is a permit that would allow point sources in
a watershed to apply for and obtain permit coverage under the same permit for one or
more pollutants. Chapter 2 presents permitting options designed to ensure that sources
achieve and maintain WQBELs derived from applicable water quality standards while
providing opportunities for reducing implementation costs and improving administrative
efficiencies using a watershed-based approach. The options presented give the permitting
Introduction: EPA and Watershed-based Permitting
-------
authority maximum flexibility to customize a multisource watershed-based permit while
meeting federal, state or local requirements and site-specific concerns.
In Chapter 3, Watershed-basedNPDES Permitting Case Studies, EPA has developed a
series of case studies describing how watershed approaches have been implemented
across the country.
It is important to note that many of the NPDES implementation options discussed in this
document (e.g., synchronizing permit issuance or expiration dates or water quality trading), as
well as implementation of other water resource programs that may be used to meet watershed
goals (e.g., water quality standards assessment or watershed management planning under the
CWA section 319 nonpoint source program), are addressed in other guidance or training
provided by EPA and other agencies. Although most of the approaches and programs discussed
in this document are not new, this is the first time that EPA has developed an integrated guidance
regarding their relationship to the NPDES program within a watershed framework. Where
appropriate, this document points readers to existing resources that provide additional technical
assistance in implementing specific watershed-based approaches. For example, EPA's Water
Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers (USEPA 2007) complements this Guidance and helps
facilitate incorporating water quality trading into NPDES permits. Also, EPA's Watershed
Academy provides a variety of training related to watershed planning and management (see
EPA's Watershed Academy Web site at http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/).
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using
an NPDES Watershed Framework
Although significant water quality improvements have been made through CWA programs
during the past 35 years, the complex mix of remaining water quality problems and sources of
pollution, including both point and nonpoint sources, calls for an integrated environmental
management approach that can provide creative, comprehensive solutions. EPA and its state
partners continue to promote a watershed approach to water quality management as a way to
meet this need. This Chapter helps permitting authorities and others involved in the NPDES
permitting process work through the analytical process of developing and applying an NPDES
watershed framework as part of an overall watershed approach.
Section One: The NPDES Program and a Watershed Approach
As EPA and state partners have worked to implement a watershed approach, one significant
finding is that a true watershed approach should begin to identify opportunities for
environmental program integration at a watershed-level. Integrating implementation of CWA
programs on a watershed-basis, rather than focusing on individual programs, pollutant sources,
and waterbody segments, will enhance all stakeholders' efforts to protect watersheds from the
cumulative impacts of a multitude of activities. The potential role of the NPDES program will be
an important part of any discussion of program integration on a watershed-basis. The remainder
of this section reviews the concept of a watershed approach, discusses the role of the NPDES
program in a watershed approach, and considers how the NPDES program might be integrated
into a watershed approach.
What is a Watershed Approach?
As defined in the Watershed Approach Framework (USEPA 1996a), "[T]he watershed approach
is a coordinating framework for environmental management that focuses public and private
sector efforts to address the highest priority problems within hydrologically defined geographic
areas, taking into consideration both ground and surface water flow." A watershed approach has
three basic components:
Geographic Focus: Watersheds are nature's boundaries. They are the land areas that
drain to surface waterbodies, and they generally include lakes, rivers, estuaries, wetlands,
streams, and the surrounding landscape. Ground water recharge areas are also considered.
Sound Management Techniques Based on Strong Science and Data: Sound scientific
data, tools, and techniques are critical to inform the process. Actions taken include
characterizing priority watershed problems and solutions, developing and implementing
action plans, and evaluating their effectiveness within the watershed.
Partnerships/Stakeholder Involvement: Watersheds transcend political, social, and
economic boundaries. Therefore, it is important to involve all the affected interests in
designing and implementing goals for the watershed. Watershed teams may include
representatives from all levels of government, public interest groups, industry, academic
institutions, private landowners, concerned citizens, and others.
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework
-------
EPA has promoted the use of a watershed approach to manage, protect, and restore water
resources through implementing an iterative, dynamic watershed management planning process.
This process involves a series of steps to characterize existing conditions, identify problems and
set priorities, define management objectives, develop protection or remediation strategies, and
implement and adapt selected actions as necessary. The outcomes of this process are often
documented or referenced in a watershed management plan. The watershed planning process
includes participation from a variety of stakeholders in the watershed to develop goals and
objectives, as well as to assist with the implementation of the plan.
Exhibit 1-1. The watershed management
process (Davenport 2002)
Phase 1
Defining The
Problem
Phase 2
Setting Goals
and Identifying
Solutions
/ \ /
uilding a
'ect Tea
Phase 4
Measuring Success
and Making
Adjustments
N,
Phase 3
Implementing
Controls
PARTNERSHIP
What is the role of the NPDES
program in a watershed approach?
EPA believes that the NPDES program is
an important part of an integrated
watershed approach, and several Agency
guidance documents and policy statements
highlight and describe the NPDES
program's role in implementing such an
approach.
The NPDES Watershed Strategy
(USEPA 1994a) supports using a watershed
approach for NPDES permitting in
conjunction with other CWA programs.
The NPDES program is both a key
customer and an essential partner in
supporting other Office of Water program
activities and achieving many of EPA's
broader water quality goals. For example:
NPDES permits implement portions of TMDLs and other watershed plans
Water quality standards decisions affect the content of NPDES permits and decisions that
point sources must make about treatment or process changes; point source discharges
might impact the hydrology of a stream and the structure of an aquatic community
Sources of pollutants are either subject to NPDES program requirements (e.g., municipal
and industrial stormwater) or represent potential nonpoint source trading partners for
point sources in a water quality trading program and
NPDES permit conditions may be written specifically to protect sources of drinking
water.
Over the past several years, EPA has continued to advance an NPDES watershed framework as
described in the NPDES Watershed Strategy. In addition to the December 2002 policy
memorandum Committing EPA 's Water Program to Advancing the Watershed Approach (Mehan
2002), which provides direction to EPA program offices for implementation of a watershed
approach, on January 7, 2003, EPA released the Watershed-based NPDES Permitting Policy
Statement (Mehan 2003). This statement communicates EPA's policy on implementing NPDES
permitting activities on a watershed basis, discusses the benefits of watershed-based permitting,
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
presents an explanation of the process and several mechanisms to implement watershed-based
permitting, and outlines actions to encourage watershed-based permitting. It is both a formal
commitment and a strategy for fully integrating the NPDES permitting program into the
watershed approach.
As noted in the introduction, in December 2003, the Office of Water issued the Watershed-based
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting Implementation
Guidance (EPA 2003 c) to more fully describe the concept of and the process for developing and
issuing NPDES permits on a watershed basis.
How is the NPDES program integrated into a watershed approach?
Integrating NPDES permits and the NPDES program into a watershed approach means
developing and using a watershed-based analysis as part of the permitting process and using that
analysis to identify a range of NPDES implementation options and, potentially, other program
options to achieve watershed goals. A water shed permitting analytical approach is the data
gathering and analysis performed to support development and issuance of NPDES permits (and
complementary activities) that consider the diverse pollutant sources and stressors within a
defined geographic area (i.e., watershed boundaries). The primary difference between a
watershed permitting analytical approach and the more common, historical approach to
permitting is that a watershed permitting analytical approach explicitly considers the impact of
multiple pollutant sources and stressors, including nonpoint source contributions, when
developing point source permits. A watershed permitting analytical approach also considers
watershed goals during the permitting process. In many ways, a watershed permitting analytical
approach is similar to the analysis undertaken to develop a TMDL. Elements 1 and 2 of the
Navigator, introduced later in this Chapter, serve as a guide to a watershed permitting analytical
approach.
Once a permitting authority has completed a watershed permitting analytical approach, it can
begin to construct an NPDES watershed framework. This framework could consist of a variety
of watershed-based permitting implementation options and tools or other water program tools
appropriate for a specific watershed. For example, NPDES implementation options might
include coordinating individual permits; issuing municipal permits that include integration of
multiple programmatic requirements (e.g., wastewater treatment plant, stormwater, and
combined sewer overflow requirements); issuing multisource watershed-based permit; or
implementing a water quality trading program. Other program options might include approaches
such as developing monitoring consortiums to support a watershed study or TMDL development;
implementing a rotating basin approach; or supporting source water protection plan
development.
The permitting authority and other stakeholders in the watershed would coordinate
implementation of watershed-based permitting options and other tools according to their
priorities. The set of priority options selected for implementation would constitute what this
document refers to as an NPDES watershed framework for the watershed. The specific options
and tools selected for short-term and longer-term implementation will depend on the
characteristics of the watershed and the permitting context. For example, in an urban area the
best option may be integration of wet-weather programs and permitting within the watershed. A
watershed where there are water quality impacts from multiple point source nutrient discharges
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework
-------
could be well suited to a point source water quality trading program. If nonpoint sources also are
significant contributors within the watershed, the water quality trading program could be
expanded to include nonpoint sources. In many cases, it might be advantageous to use a
multisource watershed-based permit as a mechanism for implementing a water quality trading
program. In a watershed where there are many sources of a common pollutant, but the
contributions of those sources are not well quantified, a watershed-based permit or trading
program might not be feasible. However, it still might be appropriate to address some aspects of
NPDES permitting in the watershed on a watershed basis or to take actions involving related
clean water programs. For example, coordinating point source and ambient monitoring in the
watershed could help provide a better picture of the relationships between sources and their
pollutant contributions. These are just a few examples of approaches to implementing the
NPDES program that may be included in an overall NPDES watershed framework for a specific
watershed. Element 3 of the Navigator in Section 3 of this Chapter describes some of these
permitting options and discusses tools for and examples of setting priorities for implementation.
Stakeholders in different watersheds across the country have developed a variety of frameworks
targeted to address specific pollutant or stressor types and water quality concerns. Chapter 3 of
this Technical Guidance is a collection of watershed-based permitting case studies that highlight
specific watershed frameworks implemented to address a pollutant, stressor, or water quality
concern in various watersheds around the country.
Section Two: Why Should a Permitting Authority Consider a
Watershed Framework?
Implementing the NPDES program within a watershed framework could initially require
additional time and effort on the part of the permit writer, the permittee, and other stakeholders.
However, there are potential environmental and administrative benefits to this process.
Developing comprehensive and simultaneous solutions to water quality problems, as well as
setting priorities for implementing those solutions, should result in better and, potentially, faster
water quality improvements for the resources invested. Several permitting options under an
NPDES watershed framework have the potential to streamline the administration of the NPDES
permitting process with the promise of reducing administrative costs over time. The drivers and
potential benefits associated with an NPDES watershed approach are discussed below.
What factors lead to consideration of an NPDES watershed framework?
There are several factors that lead to consideration of a watershed approach to NPDES
permitting, depending on the issues and concerns in a watershed. In some watersheds,
environmental conditions are the catalyst. In others, regulatory and programmatic factors can
influence the permit writer or other stakeholders to consider using a watershed approach. In most
cases, these drivers are related to efforts to effectively and efficiently achieve water quality
goals. Some of the factors that might motivate consideration of an NPDES watershed approach
are provided below.
Waterbody Impairment and TMDL Development and Implementation. Waterbodies
that do not meet water quality standards are placed on a state's list of impaired waters,
and the development of a TMDL usually is required. TMDL development involves
determining the amount of a pollutant the waterbody can receive while still attaining
water quality standards and assigning a portion of that load to each source in the
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
watershed. A watershed permitting approach considers all sources in the watershed when
determining permit provisions. Thus, a watershed-based permit could be an effective way
of implementing the TMDL, particularly if the watershed-based permit were designed to
match the geographic scope of the TMDL and address all facilities for which the TMDL
and WLAs were developed. An NPDES watershed framework likely will be a more
effective way to implement TMDL WLAs for certain sources. Multisource watershed-
based permits might also be useful in situations prior to TMDL development. The
Chesapeake Bay is an example of a watershed using an NPDES watershed approach to
address water quality impairments before developing TMDLs. In addition, permitting
authorities can provide data from a watershed permitting analysis to assist in TMDL
development and implementation. This type of approach was used in the Passaic River
Basin in New Jersey to develop TMDLs for segments impaired by phosphorus. Finally, a
multisource watershed-based permit could obviate the need for a TMDL in situations
where the only causes of impairment are point sources, and the permit establishes
controls on the point sources that will result in attainment of water quality standards.
Upstream Pollutant Contributions. Many waterbody segments experience water
quality problems attributable to upstream sources rather than just local discharges.
Traditional approaches to NPDES permitting often provide little consideration of
upstream sources except as background concentrations of a pollutant. Often attainment of
water quality standards and other water quality goals is dependent on addressing
upstream pollutant contributions. A watershed permitting approach accounts for upstream
pollutant contributions and also promotes early and continuous involvement of parties
responsible for upstream sources.
Nonpoint Source Challenges. Achieving water quality standards and goals in most
watersheds requires pollutant load reductions not only from point sources, but also
nonpoint sources. Involving nonpoint sources in efforts to improve water quality can be
challenging given the lack of regulatory mechanisms. A watershed permitting approach
can include nonpoint source pollutant loadings in the overall watershed analysis; involve
nonpoint source representatives in the process; and be used to coordinate, prioritize, and
provide incentives for addressing nonpoint source reductions.
Local Support for Water Quality Improvements. An NPDES watershed framework
can be used to achieve local goals in a watershed where there is local support and
interest. Where watershed stakeholders have already put time, effort, and other resources
into watershed planning, an NPDES watershed framework could be a logical extension of
those efforts and benefit from the watershed analyses already completed and local
implementation efforts already underway. Permit writers should ensure that NPDES
permits are consistent with watershed plans by complementing community efforts, such
as smart growth and sustainable development, supporting the protection of critical areas
identified in the watershed plan, and addressing priority pollutants identified in the
watershed plan.
Large Financial Investments. Capital costs and operation and maintenance investments
in clean water and drinking water infrastructure are significant. An NPDES watershed
framework can address disparities between project needs and current spending on clean
water and drinking water infrastructure by simultaneously considering all needs and
setting priorities on the basis of potential water quality outcomes. An NPDES watershed
framework promotes (1) better infrastructure management, (2) more efficient water use,
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework
-------
(3) full cost pricing for revenue and conservation, and (4) watershed-based approaches to
infrastructure planning.
Multiple Regulatory Challenges. Many communities face the challenge of meeting
multiple regulatory requirements at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. Regulatory
requirements may overlap, be redundant, or, in some instances, conflict (e.g., increasing
water use efficiency to meet a local water use reduction requirement might conflict with
meeting concentration-based NPDES effluent limitations). As a result, the regulated
community might feel burdened by uncoordinated regulatory activities, and regulators
have the associated burden of administering multiple regulatory programs. Through an
NPDES watershed framework, it is possible to coordinate and streamline regulatory
requirements, producing programmatic efficiencies and ensuring compliance with
measurable environmental results.
What are the potential benefits of applying an NPDES watershed approach?
EPA has promoted using an NPDES watershed approach for more than a decade. Real-world
applications of an NPDES watershed framework help highlight associated benefits to water
quality to permitting authorities, permittees, and other stakeholders; however, some of the
potential benefits of applying an NPDES watershed framework remain theoretical. Presented
below is a discussion of potential and observed benefits of using an NPDES watershed
framework.
Water Quality Benefits. The primary benefit of an NPDES watershed framework is that
it can more effectively and efficiently improve water quality than uncoordinated, single-
source oriented water resource management programs. Using a watershed permitting
approach can adjust the focus of the NPDES program from the "end of the pipe" to
broader watershed considerations such as ambient monitoring, permit conditions that
more directly consider upstream and downstream impacts, and pollutant loadings from all
stressors (e.g., nonpoint sources as well as point sources). Applying an NPDES watershed
framework will not only help to achieve improvements in water quality, but can also
expedite these improvements. Many current water quality goals have a time-sensitive
component (e.g., achieving a percent reduction in a pollutant load by the year 2015). The
potential to achieve significant water quality improvements in the near term is one of the
most compelling benefits of applying an NPDES watershed framework.
Benefits for the Permitting Authority. NPDES permitting authorities are facing
significant permit backlogs and other challenges related to developing and issuing
NPDES permits. As a result, permitting authorities are working to improve the integrity,
efficiency, and environmental results of their NPDES programs. Applying an NPDES
watershed framework has the potential to streamline the permitting process, if not in the
initial permit issuance, then certainly in subsequent reissuances. For example, for sources
in a watershed where developing and issuing watershed-based permits is a viable option,
permitting authorities have the option of developing one permit to cover multiple sources
or discharges rather than developing and issuing multiple permits. A watershed
permitting approach might initially require a greater investment of time and resources,
but, in the long run, it has the potential to cut down on the time necessary to write a
permit and to conduct the associated administrative activities, such as planning and
facilitating public hearings.
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Benefits for Permittees. An NPDES watershed framework includes opportunities to
consolidate actual permits or permit requirements, such as monitoring and reporting. In
addition, an NPDES watershed framework could assist dischargers who wish to set
priorities for potential solutions (e.g., determine which pollutants and which sources to
focus on first to achieve the greatest water quality improvements). The end result would
be implementation of strategies and approaches that could generate both cost savings and
improved environmental conditions.
Section Three: Navigating the Watershed Permitting Process
As discussed in Section 2 above, a number of factors might lead an NPDES permit
writer or other stakeholders to select a candidate watershed for application of an
NPDES watershed approachbut what kind of analysis and decision making are needed, and
what is the outcome of this process? EPA has developed a basic decision-making tool called the
NPDES Watershed Navigator (the Navigator) to help those involved in the NPDES program
work through a watershed permitting analytical approach and construct an NPDES watershed
framework in a watershed. The Navigator consists of a series of questions that facilitates analysis
of watershed data and determines how best to structure and manage implementation of the NPDES
program in a way that considers the entire watershed. The Navigator consists of three elements:
Element 1: Create Watershed and Source Data Inventories This element identifies
the types of data recommended to conduct a watershed permitting analysis. The process
outlined in this section results in watershed and source data inventories that can be used
in Element 2.
Element 2: Apply a Watershed Permitting Analytical Approach Using the watershed
and source data inventories, this element presents several ways to analyze the data to
identify implementation options that could form an NPDES watershed framework. Such
options might include establishing a monitoring consortium, developing a water quality
trading program, or issuing a multisource, watershed-based permit, among many others.
The approaches that could be applied in a given watershed will depend on the data
available, the nature of the water quality concerns, the sources of pollutants or stressors,
and the relationships among those sources.
Element 3: Construct an NPDES Watershed Framework. Through Element 2 of the
Navigator, a permitting authority and other stakeholders are likely to identify several
implementation options that, together, would constitute an NPDES watershed framework.
This element discusses these options in more detail and presents an example of priority-
setting. Chapter 3 of this Technical Guidance presents case examples of how NPDES
watershed frameworks were applied in different permitting contexts.
Each element of the Navigator has a goal, specific activities to be undertaken, and a specific set
of results to help readers make decisions in the remaining elements. Exhibit 1-2 illustrates the
goal, questions, and anticipated results for each Navigator element. Although stakeholder
involvement is not specifically listed as an element of the Navigator, it is a key step in
conducting a watershed permitting analytical approach and applying an NPDES watershed
framework within a watershed. EPA encourages stakeholder involvement in all stages of the
Navigator process. Early stakeholder involvement will strengthen the overall NPDES watershed
framework by empowering stakeholders and enabling their participation in the process.
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework
-------
Exhibit 1-2. Goals, questions, and results associated with Navigator elements
£
ID
3
<
o
o
3f
£'
5'
in
-h
O
vt
HK
fl)
0_
a
O_
ID
ID
3
NAVIGATOR
ELEMENT
41 Create Watershed and Source Data Inventories
Goal
To collect and sort
available watershed
data to understand
watershed conditions
relative to water
quality standards and
watershed goals.
Questions
1. What types of data should be
gathered?
2. How are gaps in the
watershed and source data
assessed?
3. How is a data inventory
organized?
Results
Inventory of watershed
data for each candidate
watershed
Inventory of pollutant
source data for each
candidate watershed
List of data gaps for each
candidate watershed
NAVIGATOR
ELEMENT
2
Apply a Watershed Permitting Analytical Approach
Goal
To conduct a targeted
and iterative analysis
of data to identify a
suite of potential
watershed-based
NPDES approaches to
attaining water
quality goals.
Questions
1. Are there common stressors or
sources of pollutants of concern in
the watershed?
2. Are pollutants and stressors common
to sources in the watershed best
addressed at a watershed level?
3. What are critical environmental
conditions for the pollutants or
stressors of concern?
4. In what quantities or to what degree
do point and nonpoint sources
contribute pollutants or stressors in
the watershed?
5. How are point and nonpoint sources
related spatially and temporally?
Results
List of potential
implementation options
NAVIGATOR
ELEMENT
3
Construct an NPDES Watershed Framework
Goal
To set priorities for
potential watershed-
based NPDES
approaches identified
in Element 2 and
develop an overall
implementation
strategy.
Questions
1. What are the implementation
options to consider in constructing
an NPDES watershed framework?
2. How should prioritites for
implementing the components of an
NPDES watershed framework be set?
Results
Criteria for permitting
priorities
List of implementation
options arranged by priority
10
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
A discussion on stakeholder involvement in a watershed permitting analytical approach and an
NPDES watershed framework is provided in Appendix A. The remainder of this section guides
the reader through the three elements of the Navigator.
Navigator Element 1: Create Watershed and Source Data Inventories
Once a candidate watershed has been selected for a watershed permitting analytical
approach, the permitting authority and other stakeholders should begin to collect
and sort available data. The challenge at this point is determining which data will
help stakeholders understand conditions in the watershed in relation to water quality
standards and watershed goals. In addition, data gaps should be identified. Carefully studying the
drivers for considering a watershed permitting approach should help the permitting authority and
other stakeholders focus on the most relevant types and sources of data for the watershed and
avoid spending time and money gathering data that are not useful. The permitting authority
should be careful, however, not to prematurely dismiss a watershed concern or set of watershed
or source data when conducting a watershed permitting analytical approach. If time and budgets
permit, analyzing a more comprehensive data set in Element 2 might point to potential watershed
issues or implementation options that stakeholders had not yet considered.
Question #1: What types of data should be gathered?
The types of data gathered for this element of the Navigator fall into two broad categories:
watershed data and pollutant source data. Watershed data include data on the physical and
natural features of the watershed and information about watershed goals and conditions.
Pollutant source data include data on locations and characteristics of both point and nonpoint
sources. These data are analyzed in Element 2 of the Navigator to help identify specific
implementation options under an NPDES watershed framework that would be most effective in
the watershed. Exhibit 1-3 below identifies the types of data that might be collected for
watershed and pollutant source data inventories and some typical uses of these data. Again, note
that the more clearly and narrowly the driver for using an NPDES watershed approach in a
particular watershed is defined, the more focused the effort of creating watershed and source data
inventories can become.
If a watershed assessment or characterization has been developed to support an earlier project in
the watershed, much of the information listed in Exhibit 1-3 might have already been gathered
into one place (e.g., a TMDL study, a nonpoint source watershed plan). Otherwise, the
permitting authority, in cooperation with other stakeholders, should collect and sort available
data that are relevant to the issues of concern in the watershed. In addition to using these data in
Element 2, some data might be used for environmental indicators to measure performance (see
Section Four of this Chapter).
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework 11
-------
Exhibit 1-3. Potential data inventory data types, uses, and sources
Data type
Typical uses
Sources
Watershed data
Watershed
boundaries
Delineating geographic boundaries for
evaluation and coordinating activities
Defining scale for additional data collection
U.S. Geological Survey Elevation Derivatives for
National Application (EDNA) database and
interactive map: http://edna.usgs.gov
Hydrology
Defining locations of waterbodies and
tributaries
Providing an understanding of how water
flows through the watershed
Defining flows at critical conditions (low and
high flows) and variations in flow for water
quality modeling
U.S. Geological Survey's National Water
Information System web site (NWISWeb):
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/
Topography
Deriving slopes of stream segments and
watershed areas for estimating nonpoint
source loads and water quality modeling
Evaluating altitude changes and the effect on
projected precipitation for runoff
characterization
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources
Conservation Service:
http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/el
evation/index.html
Soils
Identifying areas with potentially high erosion
rates and poor drainage for estimating
nonpoint source loads
Natural Resources Conservation Service's State
Soil Geographic Database (STATSGO) and Soil
Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO):
http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/
statsgo/
http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/
ssurgo/
Climate
Correlating loading conditions and in-stream
data (e.g., elevated in-stream concentrations
during storm events)
Providing data for wet-weather watershed
modeling
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), maintained
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA):
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
Aquatic life
and habitat
Identifying areas that support aquatic life and
areas that are impaired or are at risk of
impairment
Defining stressors that might contribute to
impairment
Identifying lack of shade or riparian cover
Assessing the general health of the
watershed through biological criteria and
biological assessments
Identifying potential habitat protection areas
U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) Program's ecological
studies:
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/
http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/pls/htmldb/
f?p=mdc:mdc_home:4392457933367716
State water quality agency information:
http://cfpub2.epa.gov/npdes/stateinfo.cfm
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/
regions.htm
http://www.epa.gov/waters/305b/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/
Watershed organizations
Wildlife
Identifying wildlife species for special
protection
Identifying potential sources of bacteria and
nutrients
State or local wildlife agencies:
http://offices.fws.gov/statelinks.html
Land use and
land cover
Identifying potential point and nonpoint
sources (e.g., land use, impervious surfaces)
Simulating loadings in watershed water
quality models
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC)
Consortium:
http://www.mrlc.gov/index.asp
Demographics
Projecting potential future waterbody uses
and potential population growth in the
watershed
Identifying potential environmental justice
concerns
U.S. Census Bureau:
http://www.census.gov/
Watershed organizations
Local planning agencies
12
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Data type
Typical uses
Sources
Watershed data
Water quality
standards
Identifying designated uses and criteria that
apply to waterbodies and waterbody
segments in the watershed
Identifying water quality standards
implementation policies (e.g., critical flows,
mixing zones)
State water quality agency information:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/
regions.htm
Water quality
assessments
and impaired
waters
Determining the condition and the water
quality status of water bodies (e.g., impaired,
threatened, attaining standards)
Identifying potential causes and sources of
impairment
EPA's STORE! database:
http://www.epa.gov/STORET/index.html
State water quality agency information:
http://www.epa.gov/waters/305b/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/
TMDLs
Identifying waterbody impairments, sources,
pollutant loads, and reductions needed for
attainment
State water quality agency information:
http://www.epa.gov/waters/305b/index.html
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/
EPA Regional offices:
http://cfpub2.epa.gov/npdes/stateinfo.cfm
Source Water
Protection
Plans
Identifying source waters areas for special
protection
State water quality agency information:
http://cfpub2.epa.gov/npdes/stateinfo.cfm
State departments of health
State source water protection contacts:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/
Source Data
Point sources
Locating point sources within the watershed
Identifying existing permit conditions for point
sources
Characterizing point sources and point
source pollutant loadings
Establishing the relationships (e.g.,
geographic, water quality impact) between
point sources and among point and nonpoint
sources in the watershed (e.g., for trading)
EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS):
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/index.html
EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System
(ICIS):
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/systems/
modernization/timeline, html
State water quality agency information:
http://cfpub2.epa.gov/npdes/stateinfo.cfm
eNOI registrations (for states where EPA is the
NPDES authority):
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/enoi.cfm
Nonpoint
sources
Identifying types or categories of nonpoint
sources
Identifying locations of specific nonpoint
sources
Identifying existing nonpoint source
management measures
Characterizing nonpoint sources and
nonpoint source pollutant loadings
Establishing the relationships (e.g.,
geographic, water quality impact) among
nonpoint sources and between nonpoint and
point sources in the watershed (e.g., for
trading)
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Census of
Agriculture (livestock and cropland)
MRLC (land use categories)
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Local conservation districts
Watershed organizations
U.S. Census Bureau (septic tank use):
http://quickfacts.census.gov
National Small Flows Clearinghouse (failing septic
systems in the nation by county):
http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/nsfcjndex.htm
Bureau of Land Management (silviculture sources):
http://www.blm.gOV/wo/st/en/info/directory.2.html
Source: USEPA 2005a
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework
13
-------
Question #2. How are gaps in the watershed and source data assessed?
As previously stated, the inventory should focus on the most relevant types and sources of data
necessary to address specific issues of concern in the watershed. Once these critical data types
are determined, the Watershed and Source Data Gap Assessment Worksheet found in Appendix
B, or a similar tool, will assist in assessing the availability, source, format, and quality of any
existing data needed for the approach, and determine what additional types of data should be
sought. If necessary, the permitting authority could alter the worksheet to include those data
types relevant to a specific watershed.
Question #3. How is a data inventory organized?
After completing the data gap assessment, the permitting authority should organize detailed
information about the available data in a formal data inventory using either a text document,
spreadsheet, or database. The organizational structure will depend on the type and amount of
data sources, as well as the ultimate use of the inventory. If it is necessary to query the data, the
data could be entered into a searchable database (e.g., Access). The inventory should be updated
as needed as additional data are assembled to ensure that a complete summary of data is
available to stakeholders in the water shed. Section 5.10 of EPA's Handbook for Developing
Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters (USEPA 2005a) provides detailed guidance
on creating a comprehensive monitoring and watershed data inventory.
Navigator Element 2: Apply a Watershed Permitting Analytical Approach
After collecting and sorting watershed data and pollutant source data, the
permitting authority should begin the process of analyzing these data. The goal of
this process is to conduct a targeted and iterative analysis of the data that will allow
stakeholders to identify a suite of potential watershed-based NPDES approaches to
attaining water quality goals in Element 3. The Navigator approaches this analysis by asking five
critical questions about the stressors, pollutants, and sources:
1. Are there common stressors or sources of pollutants of concern in the watershed?
2. Are pollutants and stressors common to sources in the watershed best addressed at a
watershed level?
3. What are critical environmental conditions for the pollutants or stressors of concern?
4. In what quantities or to what degree do point and nonpoint sources contribute pollutants
or stressors in the watershed?
5. How are point and nonpoint sources related spatially and temporally?
These questions and potential implementation options arising from the answers to these
questions are discussed below. More detailed descriptions of the implementation options are
provided under Element 3 of the Navigator.
14 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Question #1. Are there common stressors or sources of pollutants of concern in the
watershed?
The first task in analyzing the available data for a candidate watershed is to sort the data to
narrow the scope of the analysis, if this task was not already performed as part of the data
collection and sorting process. This task involves identifying relationships among existing
NPDES permits, nonpoint sources, and pollutants or stressors of concern that might
appropriately be addressed under an NPDES watershed framework. Exhibit 1-4, below, presents
an example of how such information might be arrayed in a simple matrix.
Exhibit 1-4. Example permit analysis matrix
Pollutant or Stressor
°8
01 3
12 O
E*
ii
w ^9
Q.^
ST0000001
ST0000002
ST0000003
ST0000004
ST0000005
ST0000006
NPS1
Total
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Total
Phosphorus
Soluble
Phosphorus
Temperature
Copper
Total
Suspended
Solids
Pollutants or stressors under consideration in this part of the analysis might include pollutants
limited through existing NPDES permits, pollutants discharged by a point source and considered
during the permitting process but not limited in the permit, pollutants contributed by nonpoint
sources, and stressors on the waterbody or watershed (e.g., lack of riparian buffer resulting in
excessive nutrient runoff, hydrologic modifications that reduce dissolved oxygen levels). This
type of matrix is a quick and easy approach that highlights commonalities among sources and
allows broad groupings of sources, pollutants, and stressors for further analysis. For example,
considering Exhibit 1-4, one might decide to further analyze a grouping of permits ST0000001,
ST0000002, ST0000004, and ST0000005 and nonpoint source NFS 1 with the pollutants total
nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total suspended solids. While not every point source in the
grouping is contributing every pollutant in the grouping to the waters in the watershed (for
example, the point source holding permit ST0000005 does not discharge phosphorus), the
overlap of common sources and pollutants indicates the potential for addressing these sources
and pollutants under an NPDES watershed framework. At this point, a permit writer could
proceed by asking the remaining four questions about the selected grouping of sources and
pollutants or stressors.
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework
15
-------
In addition to allowing the scope of the watershed
analysis to be narrowed, this basic approach to IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS BASED
sorting data could also lead to identification of ON POTENTIAL ANSWERS TO
critical data gaps not previously recognized. For QUESTION #1
example, consider a watershed where nutrient
loadings are a concern that is driving consideration _ Several urban wet-weather sources
of a watershed approach, but when available data identified
are sorted, no effluent data for nutrients is found for » Wet-weather integration
one or more point sources in the watershed that » indicator development for
might be expected to be discharging nutrients (e.g., stormwater management
publicly owned treatment works). A data gap has _ Few common pollutants across
been identified. This data gap may point to a sources
specific implementation option under an NPDES » Permit synchronization
watershed framework, such as modifying the
monitoring requirements in the permits or ~ Common stressors unknown because
, , . & M , , . , F . , of lack of data
developing a water shed-wide or regional
monitoring program to ensure that sufficient » Monitoring consortium
, , . , . , ., , , development
water shed-wide nutrient data are available.
Several common sources and
.... , stressors
Question #2. Are pollutants and stressors
common to sources in the watershed best » C°"!:1!lue ,tO ^^ f ' .
,, , , ,, ,0 additional watershed-based
addressed at a watershed level? approaches are possible
The second question in this element of the
Navigator examines the nature of the pollutants or stressors common to the sources in the
grouping, identified through Question #1 above, to determine if they could be addressed at a
watershed or regional level. This determination is important in deciding how to proceed with
implementing an NPDES watershed approach because, for such an approach to be useful,
pollutants of concern within the watershed should have more than just localized effects that can
be addressed through the permitting authority's normal process for developing WQBELs in
individual permits.
The question of whether common pollutants and stressors may be addressed at a watershed level
actually is answered in two parts: (1) by determining whether these pollutants and stressors have
watershed-wide, regional, or far-field effects and (2) by determining whether the form of the
pollutant or stressor is the same or if the effects of different pollutants or stressors can be equated
across the grouping of sources.
To understand the first issue, the presence or absence of far-field effects, it is important to
consider the difference between localized effects and far-field effects. Localized effects, or near-
field effects, are impacts that are evident within a smaller, more immediate area close to the
source of the pollutant or stressor. On the other hand, far-field effects are those impacts felt in a
wider area and where there potentially are cumulative impacts from multiple sources.
In most cases one could address pollutants with localized effects (e.g., acute and chronic effects
of pollutants such as cyanide or chlorine) by controlling and monitoring them through individual
permits or nonpoint source controls that apply effluent limitations or practices reflecting
individual controls designed to ensure attainment of water quality standards in the immediate
16 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
vicinity of the discharge. Where several point source dischargers experience problems with
localized effects of specific pollutants, however, a watershed permitting approach might be
helpful. For instance, a monitoring consortium could be established to quantify pollutant sources,
assess the impacts of pollutant discharges, and develop site-specific water quality criteria for the
waterbody.
Nutrient discharges from point and nonpoint sources often present both near-field and far-field
concerns. For example, a state might have water quality criteria for nutrients to protect waters in
the immediate vicinity of each source, but the fate and transport of nutrients discharged
throughout the watershed could affect a downstream lake. If the state has water quality criteria or
goals for nutrients in the lake, these could be translated into necessary nutrient loading
reductions throughout the watershed (see Question #5).
The second issue, determining whether the form of the pollutant or stressor is the same or
whether a common measurement can be applied across the grouping of sources, recognizes the
fact that some pollutants are discharged in more than one form (e.g., phosphorus, nitrogen,
oxygen demand). For an NPDES watershed approach to be most effective, it should be possible
to limit or measure the pollutant or stressor of concern in the same form or to convert different
forms to a common measurement.
After determining whether pollutants common to dischargers within the watershed have known
watershed-wide or regional effects - or are likely to have such effects - and can be limited or
measured in a common form, appropriate groups of permits and pollutants or stressors can be
considered at a watershed level. EPA's Water Quality Trading Assessment Handbook (USEPA
2004), provides a methodology for determining the suitability of pollutants for development of a
trading program. Many of the same questions and
procedures considered in the Water Quality Trading
Assessment Handbook are more generally IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS BASED
applicable to determining the suitability of a ON POTENTIAL ANSWERS TO
pollutant for any watershed-based NPDES QUESTION #2
approach.
Common pollutants or stressors are
For those pollutants likely to have only localized not be!* jessed at the
& . , , . . watershed level
effects or in cases in which measurements cannot
be converted to a common form across dischargers, » Permit synchronization
WQBELs should be determined using the - Common pollutants and stressors
procedures in EPA's Technical Support Document lend themselves to being addressed
for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (USEPA at a watershed level
1991), modified as necessary for conventional and » Continue to Question #3-
nonconventional pollutants, or similar state additional watershed-based
, r- j- i i -i i approaches are possible
procedures for individual permit development.
Key References:
Applicable Water Quality Standards, TMDLs, or watershed goals that set loading targets
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (USEPA 1991) or
similar state procedures
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework 17
-------
Water Quality Trading Assessment Handbook (USEPA 2004) (see especially "The Six
Step Suitability Analysis")
Question #3.
concern?
What are the critical environmental conditions for the pollutants or stressors of
The next question a permitting authority should consider when analyzing watershed and source
data is what the critical environmental conditions are for the pollutants or stressors of concern.
Critical environmental conditions are environmental conditions in the waterbody where controls
designed to protect those conditions will ensure attainment of water quality standards and goals
for all other conditions. These conditions could include a combination of factors (e.g., stream
flow, temperature) and might actually occur infrequently. Depending on the pollutant or stressor
of concern and the sources of those pollutants and stressors, critical conditions might occur
during low stream flow, runoff events, rainfall events, or hot and dry periods.
The permitting authority, and other stakeholders, might first look to the applicable water quality
standards or written water quality goals for the waterbody for information about critical
conditions. Water quality standards generally define critical conditions for those pollutants
subject to numeric water quality criteria, usually a
critical low flow (e.g., a 1Q10 low flow, which is
the lowest 1-day average flow that occurs, on
average, once every 10 years or a 7Q10 low flow)
for streams and rivers for aquatic life criteria and
some measure of low flow or mean flow (e.g.,
harmonic mean) for human health criteria. In
addition, the applicable water quality criteria could
be dependent upon characteristics of the receiving
water, such as pH or hardness. This information
will define one set of critical conditions, typically
related to prevention of localized impacts in a water
column. If a TMDL has been completed for a
pollutant, the critical conditions might be
adequately identified for that pollutant for both
near-field and far-field effects. For other pollutants,
however, the permitting authority should examine
the nature of the pollutant or stressor, its impacts,
and potential sources to ensure an understanding of
critical conditions. For instance, EP A's Protocol for
Developing Pathogen TMDLs (USEPA 2001) states
that critical conditions for bacteria depend on the
source behavior. That is, sources of bacteria are
diverse and could include a combination of sources;
therefore, there might be multiple sets of critical
conditions. Pollutant sources and stressors could be
evaluated under various conditions to determine the
scenario where the greatest impacts are likely. Are
conditions most critical during the wet season? The
dry season? During certain wet-weather events or
IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS BASED
ON POTENTIAL ANSWERS TO
QUESTION #3
Critical environmental conditions
unknown because of insufficient
data
» Monitoring consortium
development
Critical conditions are well defined,
but vary by pollutant
» Consider narrowing the scope of
the watershed analysis
» Continue to Question #4
additional watershed-based
approaches possible
Critical conditions are well defined
and consistent for pollutants of
concern
» Wet-weather integration (if wet-
weather conditions are critical)
» Indicator development for
watershed-based stormwater
management (if wet-weather
conditions are critical)
» Continue to Question #4
additional watershed-based
approaches are possible
18
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
low flow conditions? Are the critical conditions the same throughout the year? EPA's technical
protocols for TMDL development provide helpful background information on potential critical
conditions for various pollutants. In addition to the pathogen TMDL protocol, see EPA's
Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs (USEPA 1999a) and Protocol for Developing
Nutrient TMDLs (USEPA 1999b) for additional background information.
Understanding critical conditions helps to ensure that all key sources of the pollutants of concern
have been identified and provides an indication of the level of complexity that might be involved
in further analysis of the watershed. For example, if critical conditions for some pollutants occur
during the wet season while critical conditions for other pollutants of concern occur only during
low flow or dry conditions, the permitting authority should consider pursuing a more complex
analysis of the watershed that considers a range of conditions (i.e., wet and dry) or, alternatively,
simplifying the analysis by focusing on a single set of conditions and, therefore, potentially
reducing the number of pollutants addressed through a watershed-based NPDES approach. It is
possible to proceed without defining critical conditions, but potential implementation options
under an NPDES watershed framework might be limited to administrative options, such as
permit synchronization, or developing permit conditions that promote additional data gathering.
Key References:
Applicable water quality standards
State impaired waters on the section 303(d) list
Draft or completed TMDLs
Regional or watershed monitoring data
Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs (USEPA 1999a)
Protocol for Developing Nutrient TMDLs (USEPA 1999b)
Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs (USEPA 2001)
Data collected and sorted in Navigator Element 2
Question #4. In what quantities or to what degree do point and nonpoint sources contribute
pollutants or stressors in the watershed?
After defining critical conditions in the watershed, the permitting authority and other
stakeholders should analyze the available data to determine whether point and nonpoint source
contributions of pollutants of concern at critical conditions have been quantified through
monitoring or have been modeled. If a TMDL has been developed, this information should be
available. When a TMDL has not been developed for a particular pollutant, contributions from
continuous point sources would be quantifiable using data available through NPDES permits,
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), and other permit records, such as permit applications,
fact sheets, or statements of basis. Because monitoring is not always required for discharges from
noncontinuous point sources, such as stormwater or concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs), models or estimates of these contributions might be needed. Similarly, nonpoint
source contributions of pollutants that are not measured may be modeled or otherwise estimated.
Methodologies for estimating or modeling contributions for individual nonpoint sources may
differ from watershed to watershed and from state to state and will vary in complexity,
depending on the available data and the individual watershed's needs or desired programmatic
outcomes. A simple method for estimating individual nonpoint source loads could involve
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework 19
-------
determining the load attributable to all nonpoint sources in the watershed (for example, by
subtracting the known loading from point sources from a known overall loading) and estimating
the load from each individual nonpoint source on the basis of relative percent land cover. If more
certainty is needed in the estimate, a modeling tool, such as EPA's BASINS (Better Assessment
Science Integrating Point & Nonpoint Sources) available online at http://www.epa.gov/
waterscience/BASINS/ could be used. In addition, the state's TMDL program might provide
guidance on acceptable methods for estimating nonpoint source contributions to overall pollutant
loads. Finally, some agencies, like the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) program, are beginning to systematically monitor nonpoint source
contributions to water quality problems in some watersheds. (NAWQA data are available online
at http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/index.html.)
Quantifying relative contributions of sources within the watershed allows stakeholders to assess
the feasibility of various watershed-based approaches to NPDES permitting. For example, the
contributions of the various sources in the
watershed should be quantified to determine
whether supply and demand of water quality credits
are reasonably aligned so that a trading program is I
viable. EPA's Water Quality Trading Assessment
Handbook (USEPA 2004) provides more detail on
quantifying various source contributions to assess
the feasibility of establishing a trading program in a
watershed. If this task of quantifying and estimating
various source contributions has not been
completed, it should be considered as a potential
implementation option under an NPDES watershed
framework.
IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS BASED
ON POTENTIAL ANSWERS TO
QUESTION #4
Understanding the relative contributions of point
and nonpoint sources within the watershed also is
necessary for answering a key question at this point
in the analysis: Do point sources in the watershed
contribute enough of the pollutant load, relative to
nonpoint sources, to warrant continuing with an
NPDES water shed approach? In other words, if the
majority of the pollutant load in the watershed is
contributed by nonpoint sources, most
implementation options under an NPDES
watershed framework may not be effective means
of attaining water quality standards and goals in the
watershed. An exact accounting of contributions
from each individual source should not be
necessary to answer this question. Rather, the
question could be answered with a rough estimate
of relative contributions from the different types of
sources. With input from stakeholders, criteria for
what constitutes a significant contribution from
point sources should be developed. These criteria
Relative contributions unknown
because of insufficient data
» Monitoring consortium
development
» Watershed management plan
development
» TMDL development and
implementation support
» Statewide rotating basin planning
Pollutants predominantly
contributed by nonpoint sources
» State-approved watershed
management plan development
and implementation
» Section 319 nonpoint source
management program and
watershed planning
Point sources are significant
contributors
» NPDES permit development on a
watershed basis
» Water quality trading
» Permit synchronization
» Continue to Question #5
additional watershed-based
approaches are possible
20
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
can depend on a variety of considerations, including the specific type of pollutant, priorities for
protecting specific uses, or the resources available to the regulatory authority for addressing
point sources and nonpoint sources. If only a small percentage of the total contributions of a
pollutant in the watershed is from point sources, WQBELs may be considered for that pollutant
using standard permitting procedures for individual point sources and federal or state nonpoint
source programs (e.g., Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Programs) may be used to
address nonpoint sources.
Key References:
State impaired waters on the section 303(d) list
Draft or completed TMDLs
Regional or watershed monitoring data
EPA guidance documents on nonpoint source funding at
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/funding.html
Data collected and sorted in Navigator Element 2 (permits, DMRs, permit supporting
documentation)
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (USEPA 1991) or
similar state procedures
Question #5. How are pollutant sources and stressors spatially and temporally related?
Finally, consideration should be given to defining the spatial and temporal relationships among
contributing sources. An understanding of the spatial and temporal relationships among multiple
point sources will foster a robust watershed analysis, allowing consideration of the widest
possible range of options for watershed-based NPDES approaches. Understanding relationships
among sources is especially important for implementing a successful trading program. For
pollutants with watershed-wide or regional effects, contributions at one point in a watershed are
not necessarily equivalent to contributions at another point in the watershed in terms of their
overall impact on the watershed.
Consider the example of a lake that has experienced nuisance aquatic plant growth and dissolved
oxygen sags resulting from nutrient enriched water. Total phosphorus has been identified as a
pollutant of concern. Nine sources of phosphorus have been shown to contribute loads to the
basin. These sources are along the river that feeds the lake. One of the sources, a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW), is a permitted point source upstream of the lake, but 20 miles
downstream of an irrigation return flow to the river. A farm, an agricultural nonpoint source, is
the only source discharging phosphorus to the irrigation return ditch. In addition, there is an
agriculture diversion that diverts 75 percent of the river flow between the farm and the POTW.
Total phosphorus discharges from the farm and the POTW would not have the same relative
impact on the downstream lake. First, the phosphorus is likely to be in different formssoluble
from the POTW and non-soluble from the farm. Second, the distance between the farm and the
POTW and the significant agricultural diversion between the two sources mean that even
phosphorus discharges from the two sources that are in the same form would not have equal
impact on the lake. The regulatory authority would need to quantify the relationship between the
effects of a pound of phosphorus discharged by the farm and a pound of phosphorus discharged
by the POTW to determine an approach for effectively managing water quality in the lake.
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework 21
-------
It might be helpful to use equations and models that have been developed to estimate the decay
rate, or attenuation, of water quality pollutants to account for spatial relationships in calculating
the relative contributions of various sources in a watershed. For example:
EPA provides information on calculating
pathogen die-off rates in its Protocol for
Developing Pathogen TMDLs (USEPA
2001).
Various approaches to evaluating the
relationships between nutrient sources and
water quality responses are evaluated in
EPA's Protocol for Developing Nutrient
TMDLs (USEPA 1999b).
Principles of Surface Water Quality
Modeling and Control (Thomann and
Mueller 1987) is a popular reference text
that presents comprehensive discussions of
fate and transport and modeling techniques
for a variety of pollutants in different types
of aquatic systems.
IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS BASED
ON POTENTIAL ANSWERS TO
QUESTION #5
Spatial and temporal relationships
unknown because of insufficient
data
» NPDES permit development on a
watershed basis
» Monitoring consortium
development
» TMDL development and
implementation support
» Statewide rotating basin planning
» Permit synchronization
Spatial and temporal relationships
well defined
NPDES permit development on a
watershed basis
Water quality trading
Permit synchronization
Statewide rotating basin planning
An example of a watershed-based permitting
solution that accounts for spatial relationships is
Connecticut's General Permit for Nitrogen
Discharges. Connecticut issued a permit for the 79
POTWs within the Long Island Sound watershed
that discharge at least 20 pounds of total nitrogen
per day. The permit addresses only nitrogen
discharges and supplements permits issued to each
facility for the discharge of non-nitrogen pollutants. The permit covers all 79 POTWs but
functions in a manner similar to individual permits in that each POTW has an individual, end-of-
pipe limitation for total nitrogen. Connecticut assigned each discharge a total annual nitrogen
allocation on the basis of discharge volume to reduce nitrogen loading and raise dissolved
oxygen levels in western Long Island Sound. To facilitate a trading program, however, end-of-
pipe nitrogen loads had to be related to one another in a way that accounted for attenuation on
the basis of the location of each POTW in the watershed and its relative effect on dissolved
oxygen in the Long Island Sound. Total nitrogen reductions at points close to the low dissolved
oxygen zone in the Long Island Sound are considered more valuable than total nitrogen
reductions from more distant sources that are naturally attenuated.
In addition to spatial variation, loadings from various sources could fluctuate daily, monthly,
seasonally, or year-to-year. For example, certain beef cattle operations confine animals only for a
few weeks in the spring for calving. The sediment, nutrient, and pathogen loadings for such a
facility can be higher during these seasonal periods of confinement than would be expected
during the remainder of the year when the cattle remain on pasture. Temporal fluctuations in
pollutant contributions would also be expected from industrial facilities with variable production
cycles, from all wet-weather sources, from recreational areas that experience seasonal use
22
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
fluctuations, from wastewater lagoon systems that discharge for a few days each year, from crop
agriculture, and from any other source where activity is not constant over time. Likewise, the
water quality effects of some pollutants might also show temporal variability. For example,
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) has a greater effect on dissolved oxygen levels during
warmer months. Permits for point source BOD contributors often include seasonal effluent
limitations for oxygen-depleting substances to account for this fact. These temporal fluctuations
could be important in determining how loadings from different sources within the watershed will
affect indicators of water quality. For example, if nutrient loadings are of concern to a
downstream lake, short-term fluctuations in loadings might be relatively unimportant. But if
nutrient loadings contribute to depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations in a stream segment
near the source, nutrient discharges over a shorter period of time could be of greater concern.
Key References:
Water quality models (e.g., BASINS, QUAL2K, AQUATOX, CORMIX, WASP6,
HSPF) recommended in TMDL Protocol documents
Monitoring Guidance for Determining the Effectiveness ofNonpoint Source Controls
(USEPA 1997a)
Water Quality Trading Policy (USEPA 2003 a)
Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers (USEPA 2007)
Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control (Thomann and Mueller 1987)
Protocol for Developing Sediment TMDLs (USEPA 1999a)
Protocol for Developing Nutrient TMDLs (USEPA 1999b)
Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs (USEPA 2001)
Navigator Element 3: Construct an NPDES Watershed Framework
Element 2 of the Navigator presented five key questions to help assess the current
conditions in the watershed and identify potential watershed-based approaches for
achieving water quality standards and goals. Given the unique conditions
characterizing each watershed and the variety of tools available through the CWA
and state laws, a wide variety of possible approaches could be identified through this analysis.
For a given watershed, a permitting authority may choose to implement all or only a subset of
these approaches according to the permitting authority's and other stakeholders' priorities.
Element 3 of the Navigator describes a range of possible implementation options that could form
an NPDES watershed framework for a specific watershed. This Element also suggests a simple
method of setting priorities for applying these approaches in an overall implementation strategy.
Question #1. What are the implementation options to consider in constructing an NPDES
watershed framework ?
An NPDES watershed framework might encompass a variety of tools and approaches for
implementing the NPDES program on the basis of the results of the watershed permitting
analytical approach. Although an NPDES watershed framework should focus primarily on
programs and approaches directly related to NPDES program implementation and activities,
other water programs influence NPDES implementation and may also be included.
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework 23
-------
Implementation options to consider under an NPDES watershed framework include the
following:
NPDES Permit Development and Issuance on a Watershed-basis
Water Quality Trading
Wet-Weather Integration
Indicator Development for Watershed-based Stormwater Management
TMDL Development and Implementation Support
Monitoring Consortium Development
Permit Synchronization
Statewide Rotating Basin Planning Approach
State-Approved Watershed Management Plan Development and Implementation
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program and Watershed Planning
Source Water Protection Plan Development and Implementation.
Stakeholders might identify and desire to implement only one or two of these approaches or, in
some cases, stakeholders could design a comprehensive framework that incorporates a suite of
these approaches. A discussion of each of these potential approaches follows.
NPDES Permit Development and Issuance on a
Watershed Basis
The watershed permitting analytical approach might show
that the conditions in the watershed are well understood, that
there are common stressors or pollutants of concern among
sources in the watershed, and that point sources have a
significant impact in the watershed. In this case, the NPDES
permit writer, along with point source dischargers and other
watershed stakeholders, might determine that developing and
issuing NPDES permits on a watershed basis is an
appropriate approach for addressing point source loads of one
or more pollutants. The types of permits that might be
considered for a watershed will vary depending on the
specific conditions and types of dischargers within a
watershed. These permit types include coordinated individual
permits, integrated municipal permits, and multisource
watershed-based permits. Each of these permit types is
discussed in greater detail below.
Coordinated Individual Permits. This permitting approach is the closest to traditional NPDES
permitting in that each discharger receives an individual permit. The difference is that WQBELs
and other conditions of coordinated individual permits are developed using a holistic analysis of
the watershed conditions rather than being established to ensure attainment of water quality
standards on a permit-by-permit basis. Collectively, the individual permits are designed to meet
watershed-specific goals (e.g., comprehensive watershed monitoring, nutrient reduction,
Watershed characteristics
leading to consideration of this
option: common stressors or
sources of pollutants of concern;
critical environmental conditions
are defined; point and nonpoint
source contributions are
understood, at least for the
pollutant(s) of concern; point
sources contribute a notable
portion of the pollutant load or
there are significant differences
among the loadings contributed
by various point sources, or there
are a number of point sources
with similar types of discharges.
24
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
management of biosolids or manure). The permitting authority may issue permits to single
dischargers or modify existing single discharger permits. To strengthen the coordination among
individual permits, the permitting authority could consider synchronizing their expiration and
reissuance or effective dates (see discussion on "Permit Synchronization" below).
Integrated Municipal NPDES Permit Coverage. This approach may bundle a number of point
source permit requirements for a municipality (POTWs, combined sewer overflows (CSOs),
biosolids, pretreatment, and stormwater, including municipally owned industrial activities such
as public works and utility yards) into a single permit. In cases where the treatment plants,
stormwater, CSOs (if applicable), and other municipally controlled point source activities are all
under single ownership, the permitting authority could consider one permit that covers and
integrates all NPDES requirements. Ideally, these activities would take place within the
boundaries of the same watershed. This approach may reduce the administrative burden for both
the permittee and permitting authority (e.g., one application, one public notice and public
hearing, one compliance report) and allow the permitting authority to develop permit conditions
(limitations and monitoring requirements) that specifically address existing watershed goals and
watershed management plans. The Clean Water Services integrated municipal NPDES permit in
the Tualatin Watershed in Oregon is an example of this type of permit. For more detailed
information on related approaches, see the discussion under "Wet-Weather Integration" in this
section.
Multisource Water shed-based Permit. This type of permitting approach is also a single permit
and would cover multiple sources included in the same watershed, watershed plan, or TMDL. It
would allow several point sources in a watershed to apply for and obtain permit coverage under
the same permit. This type of permit might be appropriate in situations where a watershed plan
or TMDL identifies the need to address a specific pollutant. A watershed plan or TMDL
implementation plan might include agreed-upon controls necessary to achieve watershed goals.
Stakeholders could then identify point sources that would be logical to group under a single
permit. Some permitting authorities have chosen to issue a single watershed-based permit that
supplements or overlays the existing individual permits for the covered facilities. This approach
allows the permitting authority to focus effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, trading
provisions, and other special permit conditions that are developed on a watershed basis in a
single permit and clearly links the permitted facilities in a way that simply incorporating
watershed-based permit conditions into individual permits does not accomplish. The permit
would identify all point sources that have agreed to the controls and the individual specific
requirements for each point source. An example is a permit that includes control requirements
for nutrients issued to all POTWs in the watershed and requires specific nutrient reductions that
reflect agreed-upon goals and, possibly, trades. This permit might be issued in addition to the
existing individual permits and, if so, would include limitations or controls to address only the
watershed-specific common pollutant or pollutants. Other pollutants would continue to be
addressed through each facility's individual permit. This approach is similar to the approach used
to permit wastewater treatment plant discharges in North Carolina contributing nutrients to the
Neuse River watershed or to Connecticut's Long Island Sound nitrogen permit.
Another type of multisource watershed-based permit might address all pollutants of concern in
the watershed for similar types of discharges. For example, a single permit might implement a
comprehensive watershed plan with each facility regulated as a co-permittee. Assuming the
watershed plan included procedures for addressing a number of stressors and identified specific
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework 25
-------
point sources, the permit might include controls for the point sources and all requirements that
would otherwise be found in individual permits for the point sources.
In addition to using individual permits, NPDES permit writers might also consider using general
permits as multisource watershed-based permits. These permits would be similar to many
existing general permits, except that the watershed boundary (in addition to type of discharge)
would be a criterion defining eligibility for coverage or the applicability of certain conditions in
the permit. The permit might include requirements that reflect watershed-specific goals (e.g.,
comprehensive watershed monitoring, nutrient reduction, management of biosolids or manure).
Point sources would request coverage through a Notice of Intent (NOI) once the permit is issued
rather than through the application process used for individual permits. A general permitting
approach could be further refined on the basis of the category or source of discharger and would
allow coverage of common sources (e.g., all POTWs, CAFOs, or stormwater) in the watershed.
The limitations and requirements within a category or subcategory of sources would largely be
the same, but specific limitations and requirements might differ among categories or
subcategories.
Multisource watershed-based permits may facilitate water quality trading and provide a vehicle
for cooperative efforts (such as watershed-wide monitoring) necessary for meeting watershed
goals. This approach also focuses public participation on a single permit.
Chapter 2 of this Technical Guidance provides more detail on writing multisource watershed-
based permits.
Watershed characteristics
leading to consideration of this
option: common stressors or
sources of pollutants of concern;
critical environmental conditions
are defined; point and nonpoint
source contributions are
understood; disparities exist
between sources in ease or cost
of reducing loads, providing the
potential for cost efficiencies.
Water Quality Trading
EPA's Water Quality Trading Policy (USEPA 2003 a)
encourages using voluntary trading programs to achieve
water quality improvements at reduced costs on a watershed
basis. The policy discusses water quality trading as a
market-based approach that increases flexibility to meet
water quality goals while increasing efficiencies. The policy
recognizes the connections between water quality trading
and the NPDES Program, as well as other CWA programs
and requirements. According to the policy, "Provisions for
water quality trading should be aligned with and
incorporated into core water quality programs ... by
incorporating provisions for trading into TMDLs and
NPDES permits" (USEPA 2003a).
The watershed permitting analytical approach described in Element 2 might reveal that the
relationship among point sources or between point and nonpoint source contributions in a
watershed is conducive to trading. Watersheds that have one or more TMDLs or an equivalent
pollutant budget with allocations made to point sources and, if applicable, nonpoint sources
might consider water quality trading to achieve water quality standards and goals. Water quality
trading will allow point sources to identify opportunities to purchase lower cost, environmentally
equivalent or superior pollutant reductions from one or more trading partners. Water quality
trading might be considered on a watershed-wide scale or on a smaller scale through site-specific
offsets or intraplant trades. The appropriate type of water quality trading activities might not be
26
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
immediately apparent from the results of the NPDES watershed analytical approach, so
stakeholders may conduct additional analysis to determine the feasibility of water quality trading
at different scales. EPA's Water Quality Trading Assessment Handbook (USEPA 2004) provides
a process for assessing the likely viability of watershed-scale trading in the context of a TMDL.
As water quality trading activities increase, EPA expects that there will be an increase in the
number of NPDES permits that incorporate or allow for water quality trades. A trading program
should be reflected in the NPDES permits for facilities involved in the program. EPA identifies
several flexible approaches for incorporating provisions for trading into NPDES permits,
including the "use of watershed general permits, where appropriate, to establish pollutant-
specific limitations for a group of sources in the same or similar categories to achieve net
pollutant reductions or water quality goals" (USEPA 2003a).
To assist NPDES permitting authorities in developing and implementing water quality trades,
EPA has developed a toolkit for NPDES permitting authorities and other interested stakeholders
entitled Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers (USEPA 2007). Through the toolkit,
users can obtain technical information on how to develop an NPDES permit that contains
effective limitations and conditions for implementing water quality trades.
Wet-Weather Integration
Watersheds characterized by municipalities with wet- Watershed characteristics
weather discharges (e.g., stormwater, CSOs, sanitary leading to consideration of this
sewer overflows, peak excess flows at POTWs, nonpoint option: identified critical
sources) may identify wet-weather integration as a conditions occur during wet
, .. , ... c TVTTIT^T-C ^ i j weather; predominantly urban or
potential programmatic outcome or an NPDES watershed , . . . , ,
r , . r °. . , , ,- , , urbanizing watershed, or
analysis. Municipal wet-weather discharges are currently watershed with multiple wet-
addressed through various EPA and state regulatory and weather problems competing for
policy frameworks that reflect different statutory and the same resources.
policy mandates. Wet-weather integration is an approach
to addressing wet-weather discharges in a holistic manner
to provide for greater efficiency, more comprehensive planning, less redundancy among
permitting requirements, and, most importantly, better water quality outcomes.
Municipal wet-weather discharges share a number of common characteristics. Besides being
driven by rainfall and snowmelt events, they discharge similar types of pollutants: pathogens,
floatable material, nutrients, sediment and suspended solids, metals, oxygen-demanding
substances, as well as other conventional and toxic pollutants. In addition, they may be
hydraulically connected such that controlling one source has impacts elsewhere in the system.
Because of this connectivity, focusing on one programmatic area, such as CSO control, may lead
to or ignore problems related to discharges from storm sewers. For example, sewer separation as
a CSO control often increases the amount of flow and pollutant load in separate storm sewers
unless management practices are used that reduce the overall flow to both the combined and
separate systems.
Integrating individual municipal wet-weather programs under a single or coordinated program is
the centerpiece of this approach. It is focused on urban areas and an urban footprint that
encompasses permitted wastewater treatment facilities and sewer systems. Integrated evaluation
and priority setting for water quality issues and coordination among different water quality
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework 27
-------
programs should not only expedite the resolution of water quality impairments, but should
significantly enhance the protection of unimpaired resources. EPA recommends that all relevant
information on wet-weather programs be shared and stored in a single system and a process put
in place that provides for a single decision-making nexus for all programs. Wet-weather
integration might involve both NPDES permit programs and other programs and includes:
Unifying individual NPDES permits and programs, and consolidating and streamlining
their overlapping requirements
Coordinating with water quality standards programs and enforcement and compliance
programs across an urban area (municipal footprint)
Coordinating with the development and implementation of TMDLs
Considering the water quality goals and objectives of existing watershed management
plans and the resources needed to address pollutant loads and setting priorities
Planning and developing solutions across all municipal wet-weather programs to achieve
the best environmental benefits at a reasonable or lower cost.
Wet-weather integration has the potential not only to produce a single local program that
consolidates individual municipal wet-weather programs, but also to consolidate the separate
NPDES permits into one integrated wet-weather permit similar to the integrated municipal
permit discussed above under "NPDES Permit Development and Issuance on a Watershed
Basis." An integrated wet-weather permit provides permitting authorities and permittees the
opportunity to manage all the consequences of rainfall within the urban area, considering the
unique characteristics of a municipality's infrastructure.
Wet-weather management focuses on both quantity and quality of stormwater. In fact, managing
quantity is an important facet of this approach. In all wet-weather programs, the quantity of water
discharging via collection systems (including nonpoint source runoff) has a profound effect on
receiving water quality. Therefore, managing wet-weather with a focus on reducing stormwater
quantity in sewer systems will have a ripple effect on all wet-weather discharges. A guiding
principle for the integration of wet-weather permitting programs is reducing the volume of water
entering sewer systems (sanitary, combined, and storm sewers). Achieving net reductions in
volume of water that enters sewer systems can provide many benefits including the following:
Better management of separate, combined and storm sewer systems and permit programs
Preservation of sewer system conveyance capacity
Reduction of stress on existing infrastructure
Reduction in CSOs and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs)
Reduction in stormwater volume and pollutant load
Relief from localized or downstream flooding
Reduction in erosion, scour and other hydrologic and hydraulic impairments that
accompany stormwater discharges
Less impairment attributable to urban runoff and sewer overflows
Better effluent quality on average from POTWs due to lower loads during wet-weather
In many cases, improved ground water recharge.
28 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Municipalities undertaking wet-weather integration and focusing on reducing the amount of
rainfall entering the sewer systems might find it necessary to shift from traditional wet-weather
management approaches to more innovative approaches. Conventional approaches to managing
stormwater focus on effectively and efficiently conveying and either managing or treating
stormwater using end-of-pipe technologies. Innovative approaches to stormwater management
focus on reducing inflow and infiltration to sewer systems through design techniques that
promote management of rainfall at the source through natural infiltration (e.g., low impact
development (LID) and smart growth), proper sewer system maintenance and operation, and
water conservation techniques. Addressing the quantity of stormwater entering sewer systems
might involve a combination of management practices, similar to the combination of practices
required under the NPDES Stormwater Program (e.g., Phase II municipal separate storm sewer
system (MS4) six minimum control measures) and the CSO Policy (e.g., nine minimum controls
and capacity, management, operation, and maintenance activities).
A discussion of each type of innovative wet-weather management approach focused on reduced
inflow and infiltration to the sewer system is presented below.
Promoting Natural Infiltration: Low Impact Development/Green Infrastructure and Smart
Growth. Innovative techniques that promote natural infiltration are increasingly considered as
alternatives to conventional approaches to managing runoff. Techniques under the umbrella of
LID/green infrastructure focus on using small, cost-effective landscape features, such as rain
gardens, permeable pavement, and green roofs, that allow a developed site to maintain its
predevelopment hydrology by retaining rainfall on site. EPA has highlighted opportunities to
increase the development and use of these green infrastructure techniques in water program
implementation in a memorandum from Assistant Administrator for Water, Benjamin H.
Grumbles, to the EPA Regional Administrators. The memorandum notes that, "green
infrastructure can be both a cost effective and an environmentally preferable approach to reduce
stormwater and other excess flows entering combined or separate sewer systems in combination
with, or in lieu of, centralized hard infrastructure solutions" (Grumbles 2007).
Another approach that promotes natural infiltration is smart growth, a type of growth management
strategy that emphasizes the preservation of open space and redevelopment of urban areas as
opposed to new development in outlying areas. Preserving open space and undertaking
redevelopment promote natural infiltration by limiting the spread of impervious surfaces as well as
promoting the preservation of an area's natural hydrologic function. For more information about
smart growth and LID, visit EPA's web pages at http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth and
http://www.epa.gov/nps/lid, respectively. Resources on LID and smart growth are available from
the Low Impact Development Center at www.lowimpactdevelopment.org and Smart Growth
Online at www.smartgrowth.org.
Maintaining and Operating Sewer Systems to Reduce Inflow. Another strategy for wet-weather
management is to improve maintenance and operation of sewer systems as a means of reducing
inflow. The concept of developing and implementing operation and maintenance (O&M)
programs for separate and combined sewer systems to reduce inflow and infiltration (I/I) is not
new. In fact, proper operation and regular maintenance programs for the sewer system is the first
of the Nine Minimum Controls under EPA's Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy (USEPA
1994b). Focusing O&M programs on inflow and infiltration reduction is a strategy for managing
wet weather. Similar to the concept of promoting natural infiltration, developing and
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework 29
-------
implementing O&M programs to reduce I/lisa form of source control that will limit the volume
of water entering the system and allow the system to operate more efficiently and effectively.
O&M is one of many management practices used to address CSOs and SSOs. The concept of
wet-weather integration could also use a combination of management practices similar to those
required under the CSO Nine Minimum Controls or SSO Capacity, Management, Operation and
Maintenance activities.
Given the age and condition of infrastructure across the country, effective O&M programs are
only part of the solution to reducing I/I. In a growing number of communities, aging sewer
systems are in need of rehabilitation and replacement to effectively control I/I. The Clean
Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress (USEPA 2003b) presents the financial needs
for publicly owned municipal wastewater collection and treatment, as well as CSO correction,
municipal stormwater management, and nonpoint source control. According to this report,
facilities participating in the survey need approximately $8.2 billion for correcting I/I to the
sewer system and $16.8 billion for sewer rehabilitation or replacement (USEPA 2003b).
Practicing Water Conservation. Water conservation is an important tool for reducing the amount
of water entering sewer systems. WaterSense, EPA's voluntary partnership program, promotes
water conservation in agricultural, residential, municipal, industrial, commercial, and landscaping
uses. In addition, EPA has issued guidelines for public water systems in states that require
development of water conservation plans as a condition for receiving a loan under the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund. Economics can play an important role in conservation; thus, EPA has
incorporated the concept of full-cost pricing as a pillar of action in the Agency's sustainable water
infrastructure initiative to encourage conservation and maintain infrastructure. Full-cost pricing
factors in all past and future operation, maintenance, and capital costs and uses a rate structure that
promotes conservation, such as time-of-day pricing or seasonal rates. EPA provides a wide range
of resources on water conservation and full-cost pricing through the Agency's Water Use
Efficiency Program Web site at http://www.epa.gov/owm/water-efficiency.html. For more
information about EPA's sustainable water infrastructure initiative and the full-cost pricing pillar,
visit http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure/
Indicator Development for Watershed-based
Stormwater Management Watershed characteristics
leading to consideration of this
Excessive stormwater runoff is often the cause for aquatic option: multiple sources of
life impairment because of the relationship among pollutant loads; critical
stormwater runoff volume, pollutant loadings, and habitat conditions identified and occur
degradation. The connections between these stressors are during wet weather.
very complex, posing a unique challenge for effectively
managing stormwater and tracking progress toward water
quality standards attainment. As a result, EPA and some states are considering the development
of stormwater/hydrologic targets, or indicators, for use in developing and implementing
stormwater TMDLs. Indicators might include a percent reduction in annual surface runoff
volume or a percent reduction in peak runoff rates for a specific design storm. Using
stormwater/hydrologic indicators is based on the premise that the hydrologic condition of a
watershed where streams have aquatic life impairments related to stormwater is a surrogate for
the pollutant and non-pollutant stressors contributing to those impairments.
30 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
The state of Vermont has developed a site-specific approach for calculating
stormwater/hydrologic indicators for use as surrogate TMDL targets. The approach provides a
tailored estimation of target stormwater runoff volumes and stream characteristics using
reference watersheds to define the hydrologic conditions that represent the stream channel
conditions and pollutant loadings necessary to meet aquatic life criteria. In addition to providing
a tailored target for TMDLs, this site-specific approach will also generate information to support
the development of stormwater permit limitations on a watershed basis. The approach developed
by Vermont to generate watershed-based stormwater/hydrologic TMDL targets involves the
following activities:
Watershed delineation of both impaired and unimpaired streams
Calculation of stormwater runoff volume from watershed and climate data
Generation and comparison of flow duration curves for both impaired and unimpaired
streams (using fairly simple models, such as the Generalized Watershed Loading
Functions)
Calculation of percent stormwater runoff volume reductions needed to attain water
quality standards (USEPA 2005b).
The recommended steps to developing and implementing a stormwater TMDL using site-specific
stormwater/hydrologic indicators are:
1. Express the TMDL target using a surrogate measurement of stormwater impairments,
such as percent impervious cover or stormwater runoff volume
2. Calculate reductions in loadings for use as a stormwater WLA for a category of
discharges rather than individual end-of-pipe loading requirements
3. Implement the TMDL by outlining state and local approaches to
a. applying BMPs strategically using a phased program addressing smaller, more
frequent storms in the most sensitive areas first
b. conducting regular ambient monitoring to measure response to BMP implementation
c. comparing monitoring results to water quality standards.
Innovative TMDLs that use stormwater indicators provide information for a watershed-based
approach to NPDES stormwater permitting. Calculating percent impervious cover or runoff
volume reduction as a single categorical stormwater loading promotes implementation using an
adaptive, watershed-based approach. Consequently, a watershed-based stormwater permit could
be an effective mechanism for implementing this phased program for attaining water quality
standards. The permit could require development and implementation of the phased BMP
program and periodic plan updates. The monitoring program required by the permit might
include stormwater effluent monitoring, where appropriate, but also could focus on cooperative
ambient monitoring (e.g., a monitoring consortium) by the regulated community. The ambient
monitoring could include biological monitoring, with follow-up stressor identification analysis to
verify the appropriateness of selected BMPs.
TMDL Development and Implementation Support
Pollutants with watershed-wide or regional effects might impair one or more waterbodies or
segments of waterbodies within the candidate watershed. A state's list of impaired waterbodies
developed pursuant to CWA section 303(d) identifies impaired waterbodies or segments of water
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework 31
-------
bodies and the pollutants causing impairment. If a
TMDL for the impaired water has not been developed Watershed characteristics
or is not already in process, the state might consider leading to consideration of this
development of the TMDL as the core of its watershed option: impaired segments) in
, T ~ . . , , watershed; pollutants with
approach. In fact, a permitting authority might watershed-wide or regional
determine that TMDL development is the highest effects- point sources
priority implementation effort within the watershed and contributing pollutants of
that other potential watershed-based permitting concern.
approaches should follow completion of scheduled
TMDLs. EPA has produced a series of technical and policy guidance documents addressing
TMDL development. Additional information on TMDLs and these guidance documents can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/
On the other hand, in cases where a TMDL has been developed or is in process, the permitting
authority should consider possible watershed-based permitting approaches in addition to the use
of traditional individual permits to implement the TMDL. Examples of such approaches include
trading programs, multisource watershed-based permits, and watershed-based conditions in
permits that address pollutants not covered by a TMDL.
Even when TMDL development is the highest priority and other watershed-based approaches are
delayed, the NPDES program can adopt an immediate watershed focus by including, as
appropriate, conditions in permits that will contribute to TMDL development (e.g., ambient
monitoring requirements). EPA has developed guidance on establishing monitoring consortiums
within a watershed (see subsection below). These consortiums could be able to provide a unique,
watershed-based method of implementing monitoring requirements to support TMDL
development.
Monitoring Consortium Development Watershed characteristics
Identifying and implementing effective watershed Iead1ng *° «'*«"on of th's
. . .. 1111 option: data gaps relative to
management strategies requires quality, watershed-level, defining critical environmental
ambient monitoring data. Application of the watershed conditions, point and nonpoint
analytical approach might highlight gaps in existing source contributions, temporal,
ambient monitoring data for a watershed and point to the and spatial relationships; need
need for additional data collection. Watershed-level for long-term coordinated
ambient data, if they exist, are most likely collected by evaluation of management
the state as part of its overall water quality management measures to determine
...... ,, . . .. . ,. T implementation effectiveness.
responsibilities tor use in activities such as TMDL
development and permitting. Where there are data gaps,
developing and implementing watershed-level monitoring programs might be the highest priority
activity under an NPDES watershed framework.
More importantly, even once a framework for implementing water programs is in place, long-
term monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of those programs is pivotal. Without good data on
which to base ongoing management decisions, even the best watershed-based program cannot
realize its full potential.
To ensure a watershed-based approach to collecting new ambient monitoring data, stakeholders
should consider a cooperative data collection effort by sources within the watershed. A group
32 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
using a coordinated, cooperative approach to collecting water quality data is referred to as a
monitoring consortium. EPA has developed guidance on establishing monitoring consortiums
within watersheds titled Mom taring Consortiums: A Cost-Effective Means to Enhancing
Watershed Data Collection and Analysis (USEPA 1997b).
A consortium offers a watershed-based method of implementing many monitoring needs (e.g.,
TMDL development, water quality trading, watershed-bounded multi-source permit
development). In addition, monitoring consortiums assist participants in pooling funds and
sharing expertise while collecting data to identify trends, evaluate attainment of water quality
standards, develop management strategies, and improve data consistency and
comprehensiveness.
Permit Synchronization
Another implementation option to consider under an Watershed characteristics
NPDES watershed framework is permit synchronization. leading to consideration of this
This implementation option focuses on coordinating option: some overlap in
expiration and reissuance of existing NPDES permits pollutants discharged by sources
within a specified watershed. This option might be part of ^eslnttLT16^!!^^
the rotating basin approach described below. The schedule ,. ,,. . . ,
. ° . rr . achieve efficiencies by
for permit reissuance for a watershed is based on a simultaneously analyzing
predetermined timetable, often following a rotating basin watershed data for the same
approach. The state of Michigan uses this approach. pollutant(s).
According to the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality, permit synchronization has several benefits including coordination of NPDES support
activities such as biological and water quality surveys, industrial pretreatment inspections, and
compliance inspections that provide up-to-date information at the time of permit issuance. An
important benefit of this approach is that watershed-based needs, such as monitoring
requirements or WLAs, are reflected equitably in all permits even within the standard individual
permit approach, because all permits in a watershed are being considered simultaneously.
While permit synchronization is driven by watershed data analysis, this option is also related to
program administration. Therefore, in addition to the five questions posed under Element 2 of the
Navigator, the feasibility of permit synchronization as an implementation option might depend
on answers to the following questions:
1. What types of permits (e.g., general or individual) currently are issued to dischargers in
the watershed?
2. What is the current timing of permits in the watershed?
3. Is it necessary to delay issuance of some permits to synchronize permit issuance on a
watershed basis? Are all stakeholders in support of the synchronization concept and the
process to achieve synchronization?
Several states are using permit synchronization (e.g., Michigan, Maryland, West Virginia).
Pennsylvania, on the other hand, has tried and discontinued permit synchronization. To obtain
more information on permit synchronization lessons learned, contact a state's Permitting for
Environmental Results NPDES Program Integrity point of contact found on EPA's Web site at
www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/per_contacts.pdf
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework 33
-------
Statewide Rotating Basin Planning Approach
Watersheds in which a watershed permitting analytical
Watershed characteristics
leading to consideration of this
option: data gaps relative to
defining critical environmental
conditions, point and nonpoint
source contributions, temporal,
and spatial relationships; need
for long-term coordinated
evaluation of management
measures to determine
implementation effectiveness.
approach shows a lack of adequate watershed data might
also benefit from a statewide rotating basin planning
approach. This implementation option entails delineating
state watershed boundaries and grouping the watersheds into
basin management units, usually by the state water pollution
control agency. After delineating and grouping the basin
management units, states then implement a watershed
management process according to a statewide rotating
schedule. The process, which varies from state to state,
usually comprises five activities: (1) data collection and monitoring, (2) assessment, (3) strategy
development, (4) basin plan review, and (5) implementation. This implementation option has the
potential to generate the data necessary to support future activities under an NPDES watershed
framework, such as the development and issuance of NPDES permits on a watershed basis. A
number of states use a rotating basin planning approach including Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Washington. More
information on developing and implementing a statewide rotating basin planning approach is
available from EPA, including Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach (USEPA 1995) and
A Review of Statewide Water shed Management Approaches (USEPA 2002b).
Watershed characteristics
leading to consideration of this
option: multiple sources of
pollutants or causes of
environmental degradation; point
and nonpoint contributions
understood; local interest in
protecting high quality
watersheds.
State-Approved Watershed Management Plan
Development and Implementation
Watershed management planning is an iterative process for
documenting watershed goals; known, suspected, and
potential pollutant sources and loadings; potential
management strategies; and evaluation tools. Many local
watershed organizations develop watershed management
plans to provide a roadmap for their site-specific water
restoration and protection activities. Depending on the level
of technical detail, watershed management plans can often
serve as the basis for grant-funded projects (see "Section 319
Nonpoint Source Management Program" below).
Elements 1 and 2 of the Navigator might reveal that a watershed could benefit from a formal
process or approach to guide future management activities, which may or may not include
developing and issuing NPDES permits on a watershed basis. The need might be evident because
of the variety of watershed data collected by multiple, uncoordinated stakeholders and projects
(i.e., duplicative efforts or large gaps in watershed data), or because of a well-defined set of
problems that require formal goals and actions. These scenarios point to a watershed that might
benefit from the development and implementation of a watershed management plan. Through a
watershed management planning process, one that either follows a state recommended approach
or is less formal in nature, watershed stakeholders have the opportunity to formulate goals,
identify data needs, and evaluate potential pollutant control strategies. The information collected,
organized, and analyzed to support the development of a watershed management plan can serve
as the foundation for future implementation options under an NPDES watershed framework.
EPA's web-based Watershed Academy presents a module on watershed management planning at
34
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
www.epa.gov/watertrain/planning/index.htm. EPA has developed additional resources to aid
watershed management planning. The Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to
Restore and Protect Our Waters (USEPA 2005a) is a comprehensive document that addresses
each phase of the watershed management planning process. A Watershed Plan Builder Tool,
an interactive, web-based tool, is also available. This tool, available at
http://iaspub.epa.gov/watershedplan/watershedPlanning.do?pageId=48&navId=35,
complements the handbook and is designed to help local watershed organizations develop
integrated watershed plans to meet state and EPA requirements and promote water quality
improvement. The tool walks practitioners through the key planning steps and produces a
customized watershed plan that is tailored for a particular watershed and populated with relevant
links to EPA, other federal agencies, and state water programs.
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program
and Watershed Planning Watershed characteristics
leading to consideration of this
No matter how stringent permit requirements are for option: critical environmental
point sources, conditions in some watersheds simply will conditions defined; point and
not improve without reductions in nonpoint source nonpoint source contributions
pollutant contributions. Watersheds that have significant understood; contributions
nonpoint source pollutant contributions, identified under dominated by nonpoint sources.
Question #4 of Element 2, might benefit from incentives
that promote voluntary nonpoint source participation. Section 319 of the CWA provides grant
funding authority to solve water quality problems in watersheds affected by nonpoint source
pollution, especially those that are impaired. Funding provided through the section 319 grant
program (and other associated funding programs such as Farm Bill programs for agricultural
nonpoint sources) can play a significant role in achieving necessary nonpoint source pollutant
reductions.
EPA recently published section 319 grant guidelines that contain nine elements for developing
effective watershed plans for threatened and impaired waters. The guidelines include a focus on
estimating pollutant load reductions that are (1) necessary to achieve watershed goals and
(2) associated with selected nonpoint source pollution control management measures. For more
information about the section 319 guidelines, see EPA's Supplemental Guidelines for the Award
of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants to States and Territories in FY 2003 (USEPA 2002c).
Although the focus of the nine elements is on nonpoint source pollution control, the information
compiled and analyzed to meet the nine elements can facilitate future implementation options
under an NPDES watershed framework, such as water quality trading and development of
multisource watershed-based permits. Development of a watershed plan that meets the section
319 guidelines might also provide a mechanism for obtaining grant funding necessary to address
nonpoint source pollution control, providing a much needed incentive for nonpoint source
participation. EP A's Draft Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect
Our Waters (USEPA 2005a) provides a step-by-step approach for developing a watershed plan
that addresses each of the nine elements.
Source Water Protection Plan Development and Implementation
The watershed data inventory under Element 1 would reveal whether a watershed contains
surface water intakes or ground water wells that supply public drinking water. If one or both
types of drinking water supplies are present within the watershed boundaries, developing and
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework 35
-------
implementing source water protection plans are significant Watershed characteristics
implementation options under an NPDES watershed leading to consideration of this
framework. The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act option: watershed contains
Amendments required states to develop and implement source of public drinking water.
Source Water Assessment Programs that establish a process
for identifying potential sources of contamination to public
drinking water supplies. The assessment process was to be completed as of 2003, although some
states required additional time to complete the assessments. The assessment process varied from
state to state, but included the following basic activities:
Delineating source water protection areas (also referred to as protection zones)
Conducting contaminant source inventories
Determining the susceptibility of the public water supply to contamination from the
inventoried sources
Sharing the assessment information with the public
Operators of public water systems and other stakeholders involved in source water protection
efforts can use the assessment information to develop and implement source water protection
strategies. Strategies can range from creating buffer zones using conservation easements to
collecting household hazardous waste. In the context of an NPDES watershed framework, this
potential implementation option could be used in a number of ways. The information collected
for purposes of a source water assessment could aid in the watershed permitting analytical
approach by contributing to the watershed data inventory. In terms of source water protection
activities, NPDES permitting authorities might consider the proximity of point sources to surface
water intake structures when developing permit limitations. For example, to decrease risk, permit
writers might generate more stringent permit limitations for the point sources in the source water
protection zone closest to the surface water intake structures than for those in the protection zone
farthest from the intake structures. Information on source water protection is available on EPA's
Web site at http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/
Question #2. How should priorities for implementing the components of an NPDES
watershed framework be set?
A wide range of approaches might be available under an NPDES watershed framework to
address a pollutant, stressor, or water quality concern. In some watersheds, one particular
watershed-based tool might clearly be the most effective in achieving watershed goals and
gaining water quality improvements. Most watersheds, however, are likely to require a suite of
tools to address pollutant loadings or stressors and make strides towards water quality
improvements. Below is an example of an approach to setting priorities for implementation
options under an NPDES watershed framework. The example assumes that the permitting
authority and other stakeholders have identified the following implementation options for this
specific NPDES watershed framework:
Watershed-based multisource permit development
Water quality trading
Wet-weather integration
Indicator development and tracking for watershed-based stormwater management
36 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
TMDL development and implementation support
Monitoring consortium development (including additional watershed and point source
data collection)
The first step in the suggested approach is to determine |MpLEMENTATION OPTION GROUPING
whether and how to group implementation options tor FYAAAPI F
priority setting. Three initial groupings to consider in
this example are (1) watershed analysis, (2) pollutant Watershed Analysis
source analysis, and (3) permitting. These groupings * Additional watershed data collection
represent three major activities that could be undertaken «, Monitoring consortium development
in implementing an NPDES watershed approach that . _..n. , . . .
r , , , , . . , . * TMDL development support
focuses on watershed-based permitting as the primary
implementation option. Grouping implementation * 'ndicator ^pment and trackin§
. , . n ^1 for watershed-based stormwater
options in this manner allows assessment ot the management
implementation options in a process-oriented manner.
Potential implementation options can also be grouped Pollutant Source Analysis
under other categories, such as TMDL development and * Additional source data collection
implementation or data collection. In some cases, there Monitoring consortium development
might not be any obvious groupings, so it will make sense 4 TMDL development support
to assess each potential implementation option
individually. For the sake of this example, the potential Permitting
implementation options listed above have been organized * TMDL implementation support
in this process-oriented manner. Water quality trading
* Wet-weather integration
Once potential implementation options are listed and
grouped, the permitting authority, with input from other * Watershed-based multisource permit
stakeholders as appropriate, should consider establishing
criteria for setting priorities and determining the manner in which the criteria will be used to
evaluate potential options or groups of options. Criteria could consider factors such as
environmental impact, availability of resources, and current planning priorities. It is at this point
in developing an NPDES watershed framework that the permitting authority and other
stakeholders might need to look beyond technical feasibility and environmental impact to include
administrative criteria (e.g., availability of funding) to set priorities among the possible
implementation options.
One screening level method for priority setting is to develop a scoring process for all potential
implementation options. For example, a scoring scale from one to three for a series of criteria
could be used to evaluate each implementation option on how it compares to each criterion. The
criteria can be weighted, with those most important to stakeholders receiving a higher weighting
factor than others. Implementation options with the highest weighted total scores would be
initially identified as potentially higher priority approaches. Such a procedure does not provide
mathematical precision in ranking potential implementation options. It simply helps stakeholders
get a general sense of which approach seems to best fit the group's multiple and, sometimes,
competing priorities. The group could use the results of such an analysis to further refine its
selection of the highest priority projects or approaches.
Exhibit 1-5 provides an example of how such an analysis might work in ranking six hypothetical
watershed permitting projects or approaches. The scoring criteria, their definitions, and scores
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework 37
-------
are illustrative only. EPA encourages stakeholders to work together to establish an agreeable set
of criteria and a system for applying them to potential approaches.
Exhibit 1-5. Priority setting to construct an NPDES watershed framework
O "o
-------
1 = The ability of the implementation option to yield environmental benefits is
questionable.
Staffing and Technical Expertise:
3 = Staff are available for the implementation option and have the specific expertise
needed to complete it.
2 = Either staff time or expertise are not available to fully implement the
implementation option; additional staff training or some shifting of staff time to the
project would be necessary.
1 = Neither staff time or expertise are available to fully implement the implementation
option; implementation would require major shifts in staffing priorities.
Cost and Available Funding:
3 = Costs for the implementation option have been accurately determined, and the
current budget provides funding to cover the cost.
2 = Costs for the implementation option can be or have been accurately determined, and
some budget revisions might be necessary to fund the project.
1 = Either the cost for the implementation option is undetermined, or it cannot be funded
under the current budget.
Stakeholder Priorities and Interest:
3 = Key stakeholders have expressed a specific interest in this implementation option
and will provide resources and expertise to assist with its completion.
2 = Key stakeholders have expressed a specific interest in this implementation option
but may not have resources or expertise to assist with its completion.
1 = Key stakeholders have expressed little interest in the implementation option or have
responded negatively to the implementation option.
Consistency with Strategic Plan:
3 = The implementation option would fulfill specific goals in the organization's
strategic plan.
2 = The implementation option generally fits within the framework of the organization's
strategic plan.
1 = The implementation option is unrelated to the goals and framework of the
organization's strategic plan.
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework 39
-------
Section Four: How is Performance Measured Under an NPDES
Watershed Approach?
Measuring success under an NPDES watershed approach is potentially challenging because it
encompasses a wide range of existing programs with their own specific set of metrics. As a
result, performance of an NPDES watershed approach can involve drawing upon the existing
measures of success related to each of the implementation options or developing a specific set of
new performance measures. Each program will play an important role in meeting environmental
performance goals such as progress toward attaining water quality criteria; moving waters from
impaired or threatened status to full attainment of designated uses and not threatened; or
improvement of waters in relation to biological indicators. EPA, states, tribes, and territories
might already have established specific measures of environmental performance and
environmental performance goals and these may be appropriate environmental performance
measures for an NPDES watershed approach. Exhibit 1-6 presents examples of outcome-based
environmental performance measures based on EPA's National Water Program Fiscal Year
2007 Guidance (USEPA 2006b). These measures assume performance is measured statewide. A
permitting authority would need to adapt these performance measures or add other measures in
order to apply them to a specific watershed where the permitting authority is implementing an
NPDES watershed framework. For example, under aquatic life protection, the permitting
authority could adapt the measure for percentage of river miles and lake acres with improved
water quality and increased fish consumption in Exhibit 1-6 to simply track progress toward
attainment of aquatic life uses and associated water quality criteria for a specific watershed or
waterbody. The permitting authority might also add to this list performance measures that are not
a direct measure of environmental performance, but indirectly indicate environmental
improvement, such as progress toward meeting a pollutant load reduction goal.
Appropriate programmatic measures of success will depend on the final suite of implementation
options under an NPDES watershed framework for a specific watershed. As with environmental
performance measures and goals, EPA, states, tribes, and territories might already have some
programmatic measures and goals in place. Exhibit 1-7 presents potential programmatic
performance measures for tracking the progress of implementation options under an NPDES
watershed framework.
40 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Exhibit 1-6. Example watershed environmental performance measures based
on EPA's National Water Program Fiscal Year 2007 Guidance
Environmental goal
Source water protection
Aquatic life protection
Waters safe for swimming
Overall watershed protection
Environmental performance measure
Percent of source water areas for community water systems that will achieve
minimized risk to public health
Percentage of river miles and lake acres identified as having a fish
consumption advisory in 2002 for which water and sediment quality have
improved and allow for increased consumption of safe fish
Percentage of shellfish-growing acres monitored that are approved or
conditionally approved for use
Percentage of waters identified in 2000 as unsafe for swimming that have
been restored
Percent of days of the beach season that beaches monitored by beach safety
programs will be open and safe for swimming
The number of watersheds where water quality standards are met in at least
80 percent of assessed water segments
The number of watersheds where all water segments maintain their water
quality and at least 20 percent of assessed water segments show
improvement of conditions since 2002
Exhibit 1-7. Example watershed program performance measures by NPDES
watershed framework implementation option
Implementation option
Watershed-bounded multisource
permit development
Water quality trading
Wet-weather integration
Indicator development and
tracking
TMDL development and
implementation
Monitoring consortium
development
Permit synchronization
Statewide rotating basin planning
approach
Watershed management plan
development and implementation
Section 319 nonpoint source
management program
Source Water Protection Plan
development and implementation
Program performance measure
Number of individual NPDES permits developed and issued using a
watershed permitting analytical approach
Number of general NPDES permits developed and issued using a
watershed permitting analytical approach
Number of point source-to-nonpoint source trades
Number of point source-to-point source trades
Number of NPDES wet-weather permits incorporating runoff volume
reduction strategies that are based on a watershed analysis
Number of watersheds with indicator development projects
Number of watershed-based indicators developed to serve as TMDL
stormwater targets
Number of TMDLs implemented through NPDES permits that incorporate
permit limitations developed using a watershed-based analysis
Number of watersheds with monitoring consortia
Number of NPDES permits developed using data collected by watershed
monitoring consortia
Number of watersheds or sub-watersheds with synchronized permit
expiration and reissuance
Number of water quality programs using data from a rotating basin
planning approach
Number of watershed management plans initiated as a result of the
watershed permitting analytical approach
Number of watersheds analyzed through a watershed permitting analytical
approach with significant nonpoint source pollutant load contributions that
initiate section 319 watershed management plans
Number of watersheds with surface water intakes with protective NPDES
permit limitations for sources based on proximity to the source water
Chapter 1: Approaches to Water Quality Management Using an NPDES Watershed Framework
41
-------
42 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Chapter 2: Guide for Multisource Watershed-based NPDES
Permitting
Chapter 1 of this Technical Guidance helps permitting authorities construct an NPDES
watershed framework by analyzing watershed data and determining how best to structure and
manage implementation of the NPDES program so that the entire watershed is considered in the
permit development process. An NPDES watershed framework might include actions such as
issuing permits to single dischargers, modifying existing single discharger permits to incorporate
watershed-based provisions, or synchronizing permit reissuance dates or effective dates to
facilitate consideration of watershed-wide concerns during permit development. One of the
potential implementation options within an NPDES watershed framework is a multisource
watershed-based permit, which is a permit that would allow point sources in a watershed to apply
for and obtain permit coverage under the same permit for one or more pollutants.
This Chapter describes the concept of multisource watershed-based permitting and presents
approaches for developing each component of a multisource watershed-based permit. Section
One answers some basic questions about multisource watershed-based permits and the remaining
sections are organized to correspond with the major components of an NPDES permit. For each
NPDES permit component, the Chapter presents an overview of issues related to watershed-
based permitting, key questions for permitting authorities to consider, and, for some permit
components, example NPDES permit text.
Section One: Multisource Watershed-based Permits
Where a permitting authority chooses to issue a multisource watershed-based permit, EPA
recommends that it first determine the geographic scope of the permit, then determine which
facilities within that geographic area will be covered by the permit and how the permit will be
administered.
What is the geographic scope of the multisource watershed-based permit?
By the time a permitting authority has decided to issue a multisource watershed-based permit,
EPA expects that the geographic scope of that permit would be relatively well defined. The
Navigator tool presented in Chapter 1 leads permitting authorities through a series of questions
about the pollutants of concern and pollutant sources in a watershed that help identify whether a
multisource watershed-based permit would be an effective permitting approach in a candidate
watershed. These questions also help to refine the geographic scope of the permit. Typical
approaches to defining the geographic scope of a permit, in terms of both watershed and
jurisdictional boundaries, include:
Single watershed in a state (one watershed in the jurisdiction of one state). Choosing
this option would result in a permit for specific dischargers within a particular watershed
or river basin. It would not account for situations where a watershed crossed state
boundaries. This approach is likely the most straightforward type of permit to issue and
manage of the two options presented here because of its narrow geographic scope.
State-wide permit with watershed-specific requirements (multiple watersheds located
in one state). This option would produce, in effect, a statewide watershed-based approach
Chapter 2: Guide for Multisource Watershed-based NPDES Permitting 43
-------
for developing and issuing permits. Under this option, the NPDES permitting authority
might issue a single statewide permit that covers multiple watersheds or basins within the
state's boundaries or create permit bubbles within such a permit. Unlike most statewide
general permits, each watershed might have watershed-specific permitting requirements.
For example, the permitting authority might create a permit bubble by assembling all
point sources between a basin's headwaters to a defined point downstream, such as the
first segment impaired for the pollutant of concern. The permitting authority might then
establish pollutant loading caps for each bubble or basin. These caps would be
implemented through individual facility allocations and effluent limitations for individual
discharges and any requirements governing interactions among sources within or across
permit bubbles or basins (e.g., trading). This approach would provide a broad geographic
scope for potential trading within the permit.
Who is covered by the multisource watershed-based permit?
A multisource watershed-based permit addresses the point source dischargers of concern within
the defined watershed or geographic area (e.g., state, basin, permit bubble). It also might address
an entity, such as a watershed association, engaged to help administer such a permit. For
example, a multisource watershed-based permit might be developed to cover:
Specified dischargers within a defined area as co-permittees (hereinafter permit for
co-permittees) where the permitting authority issues a watershed-based permit that
applies to multiple individual dischargers within a specified geographic region.
Specified dischargers under the control of a single entity (hereinafter permit for
facilities controlled by single entity) where the permitting authority issues a permit to a
single entity with control of multiple sources.
In a permit for co-permittees, the co-permittees might choose to develop an association to
function as an administrative body. The individual dischargers ultimately would be responsible
for meeting all permit requirements, but they would have the opportunity to take advantage of
membership in the association to accomplish some administrative functions more efficiently. For
example, the permit might specify that the association could undertake certain tasks such as
tracking interim compliance, compiling reported data, and facilitating any trading. In addition,
under this option, the permit might include an overall pollutant loading cap for the permittees
making up the association and facility-specific effluent limitations for each facility based on
facility-specific WLAs. Together, the individual facility WLAs would meet the cap. Trading or
offsets might be allowed between sources within the association in order to meet the overall
loading cap, but EPA recommends that the permit should clearly define the responsibilities of
individual dischargers if the cap is exceeded.
Where there is no association or corporate entity to work with the dischargers seeking coverage
under a watershed-based permit, the permitting authority might issue such a permit to the group
of dischargers as a permit for co-permittees without specifying a role for an association. Without
an association, the permit might serve as the only mechanism linking the individual dischargers.
The permit could still include both a cap and facility-specific WLAs and the permitting
authority, rather than an association, would aggregate the individual discharger data. EPA
recommends that the permit also clearly define the responsibilities of the individual dischargers
if the cap is exceeded. The permit might allow trading among co-permittees, but EPA
44 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
recommends that both the permittees and the permitting authority clearly understand
responsibilities for the administration of trades.
A permit for facilities controlled by a single entity might function much like a permit for co-
permittees that are part of an association. Where all of the facilities are controlled by a single
entity, an overall pollutant loading cap might be assigned to the single entity controlling the
individual facilities. Technology-based standards and protection of receiving waters in the
immediate vicinity of each discharge would be unique to each facility and, therefore, would be
addressed through facility-specific effluent limitations in such a permit as required in 40 CFR
122.44 (a) and (d). The single entity, however, potentially has the opportunity to trade loading
allocations among its own facilities as long at it meets the overall loading cap and does not
exceed any individual facility limitations that may not be met through trading. An example of
this type of permit is an integrated municipal permit, which might bundle a number of point
source requirements for a municipality (publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), combined
sewer overflows (CSOs), biosolids, pretreatment, and stormwater, including municipally owned
industrial activities such as public works and utility yards) into a single permit.
How is a multisource watershed-based permit administered?
A permitting authority might administer NPDES permits for multiple dischargers as either
individual permits or as a general permit, depending on state regulations, practice, and
preference. General permits are subject to specific requirements addressing coverage area,
sources regulated, and water quality-based limitations (see 40 CFR 122.28). For example,
general permits typically are used to address a category or subcategory of facilities with similar
operations and similar wastes, discharging within some common geographic, political, or other
appropriate boundary, and that require the same or similar effluent limitations and the same or
similar monitoring requirements. In addition, a facility usually applies for coverage under a
general permit by submitting a NOT to obtain coverage after the permit is issued. In contrast, an
individual permit usually is issued to a specific facility with limitations based on a site-specific
characterization of the effluent discharged and its impact on the receiving water. An individual
permit is developed in response to a permit application submitted by the facility.
In many cases, a multisource watershed-based permit might be administered as an individual
permit issued to multiple permitted entities. Though administratively similar to an individual
permit, such a permit would share some characteristics with general permits. These
characteristics would include coverage of multiple discharges in the same geographic area and
effluent limitations that, while not necessarily the same for each facility, would be for the same
parameters and would be based on the same WLA formula. Such a permit could also incorporate
limitations for point sources based on a trading scheme. Note that a multisource watershed-based
permit might also be issued directly to existing dischargers (i.e., no separate application may be
required) given that the permitting authority already could have the necessary information for
permit development through the existing application process.
As discussed in Chapter 1, some permitting authorities, such as Connecticut, have issued a single
watershed-based permit that supplements or overlays existing individual permits for covered
facilities. Connecticut's permit limits nitrogen discharges from POTWs in the Long Island Sound
watershed. This approach allows the permitting authority to focus the effluent limitations,
monitoring requirements, trading provisions, and other special permit conditions that are
Chapter 2: Guide for Multisource Watershed-based NPDES Permitting 45
-------
developed on a watershed basis in a single permit and clearly links the permitted facilities in a
way that simply incorporating watershed-based permit conditions into separate individual
permits does not accomplish. Of course, as noted above, permitting authorities might consider
modifying existing individual facility permits to incorporate watershed-based permit conditions,
consistent with applicable regulations.
How might trading be considered in a multisource watershed-based permit?
Point source-point source trading involves matching a discharger seeking to purchase water
quality credits, in lieu of installing new technology to meet applicable WQBELs, with a
discharger that has reduced its pollutant load below its baseline requirement, thus generating a
credit. Point source-nonpoint source trading involves a point source purchasing credits from a
nonpoint source that has generated credits pursuant to approved criteria. A multisource
watershed-based permit potentially serves as a good mechanism for implementing water quality
trading.
As previously discussed, EPA's January 13, 2003, Water Quality Trading Policy (Trading
Policy) (USEPA 2003 a) encourages the development and implementation of water quality-based
trading frameworks and programs that are consistent with the CWA and its implementing
regulations. In the Trading Policy, EPA states that it believes market-based approaches, such as
water quality trading, provide greater flexibility and have potential to achieve water quality and
environmental benefits greater than would otherwise be achieved under more traditional
regulatory approaches. It recommends that water quality trading be integrated into core water
quality programs by incorporating provisions into NPDES permits and TMDLs.
The Trading Policy provides details on the characteristics of water quality trading programs (e.g.,
type of pollutant, impaired versus unimpaired water quality conditions) that EPA supports. For
example, it expresses EPA's support for trading nutrient (e.g., total phosphorus, total nitrogen)
and sediment load reductions. It also recognizes the potential for environmental benefits from
trading pollutants other than nutrients and sediments but says that these trades may warrant more
scrutiny. The Trading Policy does not support any trading activity that would cause a toxic
effect, exceed a human health criterion, or cause an impairment of water quality. It also states
that EPA does not support trading of persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) at this time but
would consider a limited number of pilot projects to obtain more information regarding trading
of PBTs.
The Trading Policy supports trading used as a means to maintain water quality in unimpaired
waters and supports trading in impaired waters where it is consistent with a TMDL or used to
achieve progress toward attaining water quality standards before TMDL development. It also
states that EPA does not support trading that delays implementation of an approved TMDL.
46 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
OF A
* Water quality trading that is consistent with CWA requirements, specifically including water quality
program requirements
* Trading that occurs pursuant to adequate legal authority and mechanisms, including legislation, rule
making, provisions for trading in NPDES permits, a TMDL or watershed plan and private or third-
party contracts
* Trading provisions that establish clear units of trade compatible with permit limitations
* Clear criteria for the creation and duration of credits (e.g., At what point are credits available for
trading? Is there a start-up period for a new technology or best management practice (BMP) before
credits are generated? Do credits expire, such as when a BMP becomes less effective over time?)
* Standardized protocols for quantifying the generation, use and reporting of credits and for
addressing uncertainty, including uncertainty associated with estimating nonpoint loads and
reductions
* Trading that is subject to effective compliance and enforcement provisions, including record-
keeping, monitoring, reporting and inspection requirements, as well as compliance audits when
appropriate and periodic accounting and reconciliation periods. Compliance and enforcement
provisions that include clear enforceable mechanisms consistent with NPDES regulations and address
actions taken in the event of default by a source generating credits (e.g., How will a potential
buyer's effluent limitations be enforced in the event that a trade fails?)
* Public participation and access to information regarding the program
In addition to the recommended elements of a trading program described in the Trading Policy,
EPA recommends that trading program identify who is eligible to trade with whom, what can be
traded (e.g., which, if any, limitations may be satisfied through trading), when trades can occur,
and conditions under which trades cannot occur (e.g., when they would result in localized
exceedances of water quality standards).
There are both formal and informal state trading programs. A formal program often is
established pursuant to legislation, such as the programs in Virginia (see, Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Nutrient Credit Exchange Program, Code of Va., sec. 62.1-44.19:12 through 19:19)
and Connecticut (Public Act 01-180: An Act Concerning Nitrogen Reduction in Long Island
Sound). Typically, such programs establish a trading infrastructure or agent (e.g., the Virginia
Nutrient Credit Exchange Association in Virginia or the Nitrogen Credit Exchange in
Connecticut). These programs, which can be referenced in NPDES permits, specify the basic
framework for trading. A more informal program might rely on general or existing state
authority or regulations to conduct trading and might address some of the elements listed above
through permits.
EPA's Trading Policy is flexible in the approaches it supports for incorporating provisions for
trading into NPDES permits. The Trading Policy supports using general permits to authorize
trading and describe appropriate conditions and restrictions. It also recognizes that state law,
regulation, or a formal state trading program may define what trades are eligible to fulfill
NPDES permit requirements. Where authorized, necessary, and appropriate, the Trading Policy
also recognizes that it is possible that a state could issue a multisource watershed-based permit
Chapter 2: Guide for Multisource Watershed-based NPDES Permitting 47
-------
with no formal trading program in place and that the permit itself could specify conditions for
trading.
To provide additional guidance and support for trading, EPA issued, in November 2004, the
Water Quality Trading Assessment Handbook (USEPA 2004). This document is designed to help
determine where and when trading might be used in watersheds to make cost-effective pollutant
reductions that achieve water quality standards and goals.
EPA's Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers (USEPA 2007) assists NPDES
permitting authorities and other interested stakeholders that want to facilitate point source-point
source and point source-nonpoint source water quality trading through NPDES permits. The
Toolkit fully describes various approaches for developing and incorporating permit conditions
and limitations to support five water quality trading scenarios: (1) single point source-single
point source trading; (2) multiple-facility, point source trading; (3) point source credit exchange;
(4) point source-nonpoint source trading; and (5) nonpoint source credit exchange. Through the
Toolkit, NPDES permitting authorities obtain a comprehensive discussion and analysis of key
concepts of water quality trading addressed in the 2003 Trading Policy and information to
facilitate permit development for the different trading scenarios. The Toolkit provides both real-
world examples of water quality trading, as well as hypothetical case studies to illustrate the
permit development process for each trading scenario. Refer to the Section Six of this Chapter,
as well as the Toolkit, for additional information on issues related to implementing water quality
trading through NPDES permits.
Section Two: Cover Page
The cover page is a standard element of an NPDES permit. It typically contains the name and
location of the permittee, a statement authorizing the discharge, the name of the receiving waters,
and the effective date of the permit.
This section provides two examples of a cover page. Of course, the NPDES permitting authority
will determine the appropriate cover page format and content based on state requirements and
any standard text. The examples given highlight the kinds of information that will be included in
this part of the permit and the differences in what is included in a cover page based on how the
permit is administered.
Key Technical Questions
What information is included on the permit cover page?
The information on the cover page of a multisource watershed-based permit reflects a number of
important decisions made by the NPDES permitting authority that affect the overall permit,
including who has permit coverage, the type of permit used to provide coverage, the geographic
scope of the permit, and the pollutants addressed by the permit.
In developing a multisource watershed-based permit, the permitting authority considers factors
such as the geographic area within which the permitted dischargers are located, similarities in
characteristics of the discharges, and the establishment of appropriate effluent limitations,
monitoring, and reporting requirements for the permitted entities. These decisions would be
48 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
reflected in information provided on the cover page such as the specific facilities and pollutants
covered by the permit.
How does the method of administering the permit affect the cover page?
Where the permitting authority chooses to implement a multisource watershed-based permit as
an individual permit issued to multiple sources, it might already have the required information
in-hand through individual permit applications to determine which facilities will be covered by
the permit (i.e., permit applicability). The cover page would likely include basic information
about the permit and the facilities covered.
Where a permitting authority chooses to implement the multisource watershed-based permit as a
general permit, EPA recommends that the permitting authority provide notification to entities
that are eligible for coverage under the general permit. Such entities may need to file NOIs to
obtain coverage under a general permit. EPA also recommends that these requirements, as well
as information regarding the applicability of the general permit and conditions of coverage under
the permit (e.g., ability of the permitting authority to require, upon notice, application for an
individual permit) be reflected on the cover page.
Example NPDES permit text is provided below. Exhibit 2-1 is a sample cover page for several
co-permittees, or an association with co-permittees, administered as an individual permit.
Exhibit 2-2 is for a multisource watershed-based permit administered as a general permit.
Exhibit 2-1. Example of a cover page for a watershed-based permit administered
as an individual permit issued to an individual discharger or to co-permittees
COVER PAGE
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
Incompliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq, the "Act"),
is/are authorized to discharge through discharge serial number(s):
to receiving waters in , in accordance with effluent limits, monitoring requirements and
other conditions set forth herein.
This permit will become effective on
This permit and the authorization to discharge will expire at midnight,
Signed this day of
, Director
Chapter 2: Guide for Multisource Watershed-based NPDES Permitting 49
-------
Exhibit 2-2. Example of a cover page for a
watershed-based permit administered as a general permit
COVER PAGE
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
Incompliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 etseq. (the "Act")
eligible dischargers are authorized to discharge wastewater in accordance with the effluent limits,
monitoring requirements, and other requirements set forth herein. The authorization to discharge wastewater
under this permit will be valid only for eligible discharges for which an administratively complete and
acceptable Notice of Intent (NOI) has been submitted.
The may deny coverage under this permit and require submittal of an
application for an individual NPDES permit based on a review of the NOI or other information. The
authorization is for the discharge of , as defined in this permit, from facilities listed in
Attachment 1 to this permit that have submitted an administratively complete and acceptable NOI
discharging to the receiving waters listed in Attachment 1. This permit authorizes these facilities to
discharge in accordance with conditions set forth in Parts A and B hereof.
NOI REQUIREMENTS
[This example does not address specific application/NOI requirements, but they could be minimal (e.g., a
simple notice of intent to be covered under the permit). In some cases, the permitting authority may
require all facilities identified for coverage under a watershed-based permit to automatically be subject to
permit limits and conditions. Some jurisdictions may develop acknowledgment requirements where a
facility submits a form or letter acknowledging their coverage under a watershed-based permit.]
LIMITS ON COVERAGE
Point source discharges are not covered by this permit when one or more of the following conditions exist:
1.
CONDITIONS
The authority granted by this permit is subject to the following conditions:
1. Any discharge from a facility authorized by this permit may, following notice by the permitting
authority, be required to apply for and obtain an individual NPDES permit. Any interested person
may petition to take action under this paragraph. The will require any owner or operator authorized to discharge under this
permit to apply for a separate, individual NPDES permit only after the owner or operator has been
notified in writing that a permit application is required. The applicant must submit the individual
permit application or, at the discretion of , information to
supplement the existing permit application within 90 days of receipt of notice. This notice must
include the following: (1) a brief statement of the reasons for this decision, (2) an application form
or instructions for submitting information to supplement the existing application, (3) a statement
setting a deadline for the owner or operator to file the application or submit the supplemental
information, and (4) a statement that on the effective date of the individual NPDES permit, as it
applies to the individual permittee, coverage under this permit will automatically terminate. The
may grant additional time to submit the application upon
written request from the applicant. If an owner or operator fails to submit, in a timely matter, an
individual NPDES permit application or supplemental information required by the under this paragraph, then the applicability of this permit to the permittee
is automatically terminated at the end of the day specified for application submittal.
50 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Exhibit 2-2 (continued): Example of a cover page for a
watershed-based permit administered as a general permit
2. Any owner or operator potentially authorized to discharge by this permit may request to be excluded
from the coverage of this permit by applying for an individual permit. The owner or operator must
submit an individual application on approved NPDES application forms or, at the discretion of , information to supplement its existing individual permit application, with
reasons supporting the request, to the .
3.
[For facilities not covered under this permit, the permitting authority likely would modify the facility's
existing individual permit to include any effluent limits for the pollutants of concern and other requirements
that otherwise would have been addressed in this permit.]
Signed this day of
, Director
Section Three: Effluent Limitations
EPA recommends that permitting authorities consider several technical issues when developing
effluent limitations for a watershed-based permit. How these issues are resolved is central to how
a multisource watershed-based permit will be structured and can influence other permit
requirements (e.g., monitoring, reporting, compliance, and special conditions, including trading).
These issues are presented as a series of technical questions and are discussed below. Following
this discussion, Exhibit 2-3 provides example permit text as guidance for establishing effluent
limitations.
Key Technical Questions
What types of effluent limitations might be included in a multisource watershed-based permit?
NPDES federal regulations at 40 CFR Part 122 require that NPDES permits include both TBELs
and WQBELs, as appropriate. The permitting authority develops effluent limitations that meet
any applicable technology-based requirements and are protective of the receiving water quality
as required by water quality standards. These limitations are included as the final limitations in
the NPDES permit.
The federal technology-based requirements for POTWs are based on secondary treatment
standards and include standards for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids
(TSS), and pH. Effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs or effluent guidelines) for
non-POTWs include technology-based limitations for a variety of pollutants, including
conventional, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants (40 CFR 405 through 499). In addition, the
federal NPDES regulations include the authority to develop technology-based limitations for
non-POTWs on a case-by-case basis using best professional judgment (40 CFR 125.3(c)). Water
quality standards are established by states, territories, and tribes and are approved by EPA.
Chapter 2: Guide for Multisource Watershed-based NPDES Permitting 51
-------
Which stressors or pollutants might be addressed through a multisource watershed-based
permit, and how might the permit express effluent limitations?
The Navigator tool, discussed in detail in Chapter 1 of this Guidance, includes a series of
questions that help a permitting authority identify a suite of watershed-based implementation
approaches to the NPDES program. One of these potential approaches is, of course, a
multisource watershed-based permit. Important factors in determining that this type of permit is
appropriate in a watershed are identifying common stressors or sources of pollutants of concern
in the watershed that are best addressed at the watershed level and understanding the
relationships between those sources. Where a stressor, pollutant, or group of stressors or
pollutants is common to multiple sources in a watershed and the relationships between those
sources are well understood, that stressor or pollutant might be addressed by the permitting
authority through a multisource watershed-based permit.
The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.45(d) require that all permit limitations for continuous
discharges be expressed, unless impracticable, as both average monthly limitations (AMLs) and
maximum daily limitations (MDLs) for all discharges other than POTWs, and as AMLs and
average weekly limitations (AWLs) for POTWs. In certain circumstances, as described below,
EPA has indicated that these averaging periods may not be appropriate for all types of pollutants.
EPA recommends that permitting authorities consider the following examples of types of
pollutants or stressors and corresponding effluent limitations when drafting a watershed-based
permit.
Toxic Pollutants. Many NPDES permits include effluent limitations for toxic pollutants.
In most cases, the primary concern related to toxic pollutant discharges is short-term
toxic effects in the water column near the point of discharge. EPA's 1991 Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD) (USEPA 1991) states
that water quality-based effluent limitations should typically be expressed as MDLs and
AMLs for all types of dischargers. The TSD notes that toxic pollutant concentration
peaks could be missed and the discharger's potential for causing acute toxic effects could
be missed by considering a weekly average rather than a daily maximum. Therefore, the
TSD notes that permit writers should use MDLs in lieu of the AWL for toxic pollutants
for all dischargers, including POTWs, because using AWLs is impracticable.
Nutrients. In many cases, nutrients are well suited to being addressed through a
multisource watershed-based permit. Also, different forms of nutrients can be converted
to a common form. For example, if the pollutant of concern in the watershed is total
nitrogen, the permit writer might consider establishing effluent limitations for total
nitrogen in a watershed-based permit. A discharger subject to the permit may be required
to measure total nitrogen or, in cases where a particular form or forms of nitrogen also
are of concern, the discharger may be required to monitor TKN, nitrate, and nitrite (as N)
and then calculate its total nitrogen discharge. Finally, many nutrient pollution issues are
best addressed on a watershed-basis, and the spatial and temporal relationships between
nutrient discharges can be defined.
The long-term nature of many of the impacts of nutrients, especially in downstream
waterbodies such as lakes and estuaries, leads to questions about whether and when it is
appropriate to establish effluent limitations on nutrients with longer averaging periods.
EPA has provided some direction on answering these questions. EPA supported using
52 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
annual limitations, rather than MDLs, AWLs, and AMLs, to meet criteria for nutrients in
the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries in a memorandum from James Hanlon,
Director of the EPA Office of Wastewater Management, to EPA Region 3 and the
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, dated March 3, 2004 (Annual Permit Limits for
Nitrogen and Phosphorus for Permits Designed to Protect Chesapeake Bay and its Tidal
Tributaries from Excess Nutrient Loading under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (Hanlon 2004)). In this memorandum, EPA affirmed that because of
the long exposure period for nutrient loadings to the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal
tributaries, the focus on the far-field effects of such nutrients (rather than the immediate
vicinity of the discharge) and concerns specific to the average pollutant load rather than
the maximum load, it is impracticable to express effluent limitations for nitrogen and
phosphorus discharges in the Bay watershed developed to address nutrient criteria for the
Bay and its tidal tributaries in terms of average monthly, average weekly, or maximum
daily limitations.
The circumstances in the Chesapeake Bay that make annual limitations appropriate are not
necessarily unique. For other areas of the country, the memorandum states that "The
establishment of an annual limit with a similar finding of 'impracticability' pursuant to 40
CFR 122.45(d) may be appropriate for the implementation of nutrient criteria in other
watersheds when: attainment of the criteria is dependent on long-term average loadings rather
than short-term maximum loadings; the circumstances match those [in the Chesapeake Bay
and its tidal tributaries]; annual limits are technically supportable with robust data and
modeling.. .and appropriate safeguards to protect applicable water quality standards are
employed." EPA recommends that annual effluent limitations be used only in these limited
circumstances. Most pollutants, other than nutrients, and certainly any toxic pollutants with
localized short-term effects, generally have limitations with shorter averaging periods. When
considering annual limitations or other longer-term limitations, the permitting authority
should confirm that such limitations are consistent with state regulations.
Even for nutrients, the behavior of the pollutant and the type of criteria will affect
whether longer-term limitations are appropriate or necessary. For example, in free-
flowing streams where there are no impoundments, annual limitations for phosphorus
might not be needed or appropriate. Certain forms of phosphorus removal are not
temperature dependent, and monthly average limitations might be most appropriate to
protect water quality. Furthermore, in cases where nutrient water quality criteria and
WLAs to protect those criteria are expressed on a shorter-term basis (generally to protect
against local nutrient impacts in rivers or streams), EPA recommends that effluent
limitations derived from those criteria or allocations be expressed on a shorter-term basis,
such as MDLs or AMLs, during sensitive parts of the year.
Bacteria. EPA's current bacteria criteria recommendations are based on geometric mean
density and single sample maximum density of enterococci and E. coll bacteria. Where
these criteria have been adopted into approved water quality standards, EPA has
recommended permit limitation derivation procedures in its May 2002 Draft
Implementation Guidance for Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria (USEPA
2002d). Some permitting authorities continue to use fecal coliform criteria for effluent
limitations in addition to limitations based on enterococci and E. coli or in cases where
fecal coliform is still the indicator criteria in the approved water quality standards. Urban
Chapter 2: Guide for Multisource Watershed-based NPDES Permitting 53
-------
wet weather sources can be significant contributors to bacteria in waterbodies and are
potential candidates for a multisource watershed-based permit that addresses bacteria.
Bacteria contributions can come from both point and nonpoint sources. A multisource
watershed-based permit that addresses bacteria might give urban areas a more efficient
tool for managing their discharges by considering all point source contributions and
providing the permittee with the flexibility to focus on the most significant sources.
Sediment. Sediment is the fragmented material that originates from weathering and
erosion of rocks or unconsolidated deposits and is transported by, suspended in, or
deposited by water. Most sediment discharges are from soil erosion carried by surface
runoff and discharged via point sources (e.g., stormwater) or nonpoint sources (e.g.,
cropping without buffer zones) and within-channel erosion of banks and bedload
sediments.
Some states have narrative criteria for sediments or use turbidity as a surrogate and some
have total suspended solids or settleable solids numeric criteria. TBELs to address
sediment often are expressed as concentration or loading limitations (generally for total
suspended solids). In addition, a TMDL or another watershed analysis may be developed
to address sediments so that the waterbody meets water quality standards. Most
technology-based requirements or requirements based on numeric criteria for TSS,
settleable solids, or turbidity would likely be maximum daily or monthly average values.
TMDLs might establish longer-term targets. In many watersheds, the point sources with
the greatest potential contribution to excessive sediment loads would be stormwater
sources that would be controlled largely through BMPs.
Temperature. NPDES permits might need to establish effluent limitations that control
the discharges of heat to meet water quality standards. Effluent limitations on
temperature often are MDLs or AMLs and may be seasonal, with the most stringent
required reductions in discharge temperature required during the summer months. Both
point and nonpoint sources of temperature impacts are controllable and, therefore, present
opportunities for point-point and point-nonpoint source trading under a multisource
watershed-based permit.
Oxygen Demand. Dissolved oxygen is a candidate for coverage under a multisource
watershed-based permit. Low dissolved oxygen levels instream might be traced to the
effects of pollutants such as nutrients or sediment. A TMDL or watershed analysis could
identify one or more pollutants and multiple sources contributing to low dissolved
oxygen levels. Effluent limitations might be expressed as MDLs, AWLs, AMLs, or
longer-term limitations depending on the nature of the pollutants and impacts (see, for
example, the discussion of nutrients above).
When might mass-based or concentration-based effluent limitations be included in a
multisource watershed-based permit?
While the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.45(f) require that limitations generally be
expressed in terms of mass, these regulations also allow a permit writer to express limitations in
other units (e.g., concentration units) where the applicable standards are in other units or to
supplement mass units. Where limitations are expressed in more than one unit, the permittee
must comply with both. Mass-based limitations are particularly useful when addressing
cumulative or watershed-wide impacts, such as the impacts of multiple, upstream sources on a
54 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
downstream lake. Mass-based limitations might be expressed as an average mass loading (e.g.,
Ibs/day as a monthly average) or as a cumulative loading over a longer period of time (e.g., total
pounds per year). Concentration-based limitations would likely be used in a multisource
watershed-based permit to implement a minimum or floor level of treatment (e.g., a
concentration-based effluent guideline, secondary treatment standards, or a state treatment
standard) or to protect local water quality in accordance with water quality standards for
receiving water in the immediate vicinity of the discharge.
If trading is allowed and occurs within the scope of the watershed-based permit, what effect
will that have on effluent limitations?
At the permitting authority's discretion, trading may be allowed through, or in conjunction with, a
watershed-based permit. Trading can occur in several ways and have different impacts on effluent
limitations. For example, trading could be reflected in the relevant effluent limitations in the
permit. Changing effluent limitations in the permit is a modification that requires public notice and
the opportunity for comment. More likely, trading would be incorporated into NPDES permits
through limitations that recognize the potential for trading during the permit term and express an
alternate set of effluent limitations based on the quantity of credits purchased or sold. This
approach does not involve repeatedly modifying the limitations in the permit. For more detailed
information on effluent limitations that incorporate trading and methods for tracking trades, see
Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers (USEPA 2007).
While a multisource watershed-based permit may have more complex permitting requirements,
because it may include aggregate limitations, provisions for trading, and conditions applicable
only to specific discharges, each permitted discharger is always responsible for meeting the
conditions of its permit (40 CFR 122.41(a)).
What are location and delivery ratios and what is their relationship to effluent limitations?
The water quality of a lake, reservoir, or estuary is affected by pollutants differently than one of
its tributaries receiving a discharge. For example, because of degradation and removal in its
travel time, a pound of pollutant discharged to an upstream tributary might not result in a pound
of that pollutant entering the lake, reservoir, or estuary. A location ratio accounts for this
difference for a specific facility and is used when calculating an effluent limitation for an
upstream facility on the basis of potential downstream impacts on a lake, reservoir, or estuary. A
location ratio allows credits to be traded between sources by converting their loadings or
reductions into credits needed or available at the waterbody of concern.
A delivery ratio accounts for the distance between trading partners and any unique watershed
features that will affect pollutant fate and transport between trading partners. Trading partners
that are in close proximity to one another with fewer intervening hydrological features are likely
to have a lower delivery ratio than facilities that are farther apart with significant intervening
hydrological features (e.g., an agricultural diversion) between them.
EPA recommends that permits using location or delivery ratios describe them in the fact sheet
and, if multiple facilities and trading partners are possible, as part of the effluent limitations
section of the permit. More detailed information on location and delivery ratios (and other
trading ratios) is available in Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers (USEPA 2007).
Chapter 2: Guide for Multisource Watershed-based NPDES Permitting 55
-------
What is a pollutant loading cap and how might such a cap be used in a multisource
watershed-based permit?
A pollutant loading cap is the total loading requirement for a specific pollutant and could be
applied to a group of point source dischargers. The cap represents the total pollutant load from
the permitted dischargers within a watershed that will meet the loading requirement derived from
water quality standards. If there is a TMDL for a waterbody, EPA recommends that the pollutant
loading cap for point sources in the watershed-based permit be based on the TMDL and consist
of the sum of the point source WLAs in the TMDL.
A multisource watershed-based permit does not have to specifically include a pollutant loading
cap in addition to facility-specific limitations that meet CWA requirements; however, a cap can
be used in combination with facility-specific limitations to provide compliance flexibility. For
example, a watershed-based permit might include a provision stating that a facility is deemed to
be in compliance with the permit provided that the facility either meets its facility-specific
effluent limitations or the group of permittees (e.g., through an association) meets the applicable
cap. A pollutant loading cap is most effective when a third party, such as a watershed
association, can facilitate and track compliance with the cap. Exhibit 2-3 provides an example of
effluent limitations for nutrients in a multisource watershed-based permit and recommends
including an appendix in the permit that lists specific mass limitations for each co-permittee and
an aggregate limitation (cap) for the group.
Are there other effluent limitations that could be considered for use in a multisource
watershed-based permit?
As discussed in Section 1 of this Chapter, a multisource watershed-based permit might be
administered as an individual permit issued to multiple permitted entities. Such a watershed-
based permit would be administered as a supplement or overlay to the existing individual permits
for the covered facilities (e.g., Connecticut's Long Island Sound nitrogen permit). This approach
allows the permitting authority to focus the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, trading
provisions, and other special permit conditions that are developed on a watershed basis in a
single permit and clearly links the permitted facilities in a way that simply incorporating
watershed-based permit conditions into individual permits does not accomplish. Although such a
permit might address protection of water quality of a downstream waterbody, such as a lake,
reservoir, or estuary, WQBELs for certain dischargers designed to address local criteria (for
example in waters that are tributaries to the lake, reservoir or estuary) might be necessary to
ensure that the discharge of pollutants is limited to levels that will not cause or contribute to an
excursion of any applicable water quality standard.
Regardless of how a multisource watershed-based permit is structured, the effluent limitations
section of the permit likely will have the same basic characteristics. If a large number of co-
permittees are to be covered under the permit, the permitting authority might consider using an
appendix or schedule to display all applicable effluent limitations and other permit conditions
(e.g., allocations and delivery ratios if trading is allowed).
Exhibit 2-3 contains an example effluent limitations table for a multisource watershed-based
permit. This example addresses nutrients and includes both shorter-term (monthly average) and
longer-term (annual loading) effluent limitations. The attachment referred to in Exhibit 2-3,
would include a list of dischargers and their effluent limitations. See Appendix C of this
56 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Technical Guidance for an example of such an attachment. Location ratios and delivery ratios (if
applicable) could be added to the table to facilitate trading.
Exhibit 2-3. Example effluent limitations and
monitoring requirements for nutrients
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit, each is authorized to
discharge wastewater to provided the discharge meets the effluent limits and monitoring
requirements set forth herein.
Parameter
Flow Rate
Flow Volume
Total Nitrogen
Total Nitrogen (mass) (A)
Total Phosphorus
Total Phosphorus (mass) (A)
Units
MGD
MG
mg/L
Ibs
Ibs/day
mg/L
Ibs
Ibs/day
Effluent Limitations
Total
Annual
NA
Report
NA
(B)
NA
NA
(B)
NA
Total
Monthly
NA
Report
NA
Report
NA
NA
Report
NA
Average
Monthly
Report
NA
Xmg/L
NA
Permit writer
calculates
based on
cone, limit
and flow
Xmg/L
NA
Permit writer
calculates
based on
cone, limit
and flow
Monitoring
Frequency
(Q
Continuous
Calculated
1 / week
Calculated
1 / week
Calculated
Sample Type
(D)
Meter
Calculated
8-hour
composite
Calculated
8-hour
Composite
Calculated
Report - monitor only, no limit
NA - not applicable
Total Nitrogen = Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen + Nitrite Nitrogen + Nitrate Nitrogen
Annual Total Nitrogen (N)/Phosphorus (P) Mass Load (Ibs/year) = Sum of Jan. through Dec. Monthly Total N/P Mass Loads
(or sum of last 12 months mass loads for a rolling 12-month limit)
Monthly Total N/P Mass Load =
N/P Concentration (mg/L) for Monitoring Period * Total Flow for Monitoring Period (MGD) * 8.34 * # of days in Monitoring Period
(e.g., if monitoring is I/week, determine total flow for the week and use 7 as the number of days in monitoring period; if more than
one sample is taken during a monitoring period, the sample concentrations may be averaged and the average concentration used
as the concentration for that monitoring period)
Monthly Average Total N/P Mass Load =
Sum of Daily Discharges of Total N/P / Number of Daily Discharges Measured During the Calendar Month
(A) Permit writer could express mass limitations in pounds or kilograms.
(B) Permit writer would insert total annual mass loading limitations for each co-permittee as calculated from a
watershed analysis or refer the reader to an attachment (see Appendix C of this Guidance for an example) that
might include a list of total annual loading limits for TN and TP for each co-permittee along with an aggregate
limit for an association with co-permittees; delivery factors; and corresponding pounds delivered.
(C) Permit writer determines monitoring frequency by type of discharger and coordinated with existing permits and
permitting authority rules.
(D) Permit writer would determine sample type.
Chapter 2: Guide for Multisource Watershed-based NPDES Permitting
57
-------
Section Four: Monitoring Requirements
EPA recommends that the monitoring requirements section of a multisource watershed-based
permit, like other NPDES permits, detail requirements for pollutant parameter sampling, flow
measurement and analytical test procedures. The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.48(b)
require that all NPDES permits, at a minimum, specify monitoring requirements that include the
type, interval, and frequency of monitoring sufficient to yield data that are representative of the
monitored activity (see also 40 CFR 122.41(j)(l)). Further, 40 CFR 122.44(1) specifies that
NPDES permit monitoring requirements be established to assure compliance with effluent
limitations, and include the following:
Monitor the mass (or other measurement specified in the permit) for each pollutant
limited in the permit
Monitor the volume of effluent discharged from each outfall
Establish other measurements as appropriate and needed to implement applicable
regulations and requirements
Require use of approved analytical methods specified at 40 CFR Part 136 of the NPDES
regulations
Generally require reporting of monitoring results at a frequency established through the
permit on a case-by-case basis but in no case less than once per year [see Section Five of
this Chapter for a discussion of reporting requirements].
State rules might require monitoring conditions in permits that are more stringent than federal
regulations.
The NPDES permit establishes monitoring and reporting requirements to implement applicable
federal and state requirements and any state monitoring strategies. The permitting authority
might consider adjusting or adding monitoring requirements to a facility's individual NPDES
permit through permit reissuance or modification or including them in a separate overlay permit
that includes monitoring requirements in addition to those in the facility's individual permit. For
either approach, EPA recommends that the permit writer carefully consider the existing
monitoring requirements in a facility's individual permit and coordinate the type and frequency
of the additional monitoring with the existing monitoring requirements. Furthermore, the
monitoring location should be consistent with the compliance point specified in the permit in
order to be able to accurately measure compliance with effluent limitations and fulfill the
requirement that monitoring yield data representative of the monitored activity.
Monitoring conditions for a permit issued to an association with co-permittees or a permit issued
to co-permittees not part of an association are similar to those for individual permits because all
permitted facilities must conduct monitoring as needed to assure compliance with effluent
limitations (40 CFR 122.44(h)(l)). A watershed-based permit might also include ambient
monitoring. EPA recommends that monitoring requirements be coordinated with the effluent
limitations, reporting, compliance, and trading components of the watershed-based permit and
that permitting authorities examine each of the following key technical questions and related
options when developing the monitoring requirements for a watershed-based permit.
58 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Key Technical Questions
Who is required to conduct monitoring?
A permit must require representative monitoring to assure compliance with permit limitations
(40 CFR 122.41(j)(l)). EPA recommends that the permit make it clear that the individual co-
permittees ultimately are responsible for ensuring that effluent monitoring is completed and
reported to the permitting authority and that any enforcement actions for failure to monitor and
report will be against the individual co-permittee. As required by 40 CFR 122.41, the permitting
authority must ensure that monitoring allow permittees and agency compliance personnel to
gauge whether dischargers are meeting their individual effluent limitations and any other
requirements (e.g., conditions for trading).
With respect to ambient monitoring, EPA recommends that the permitting authority consider
only one study or monitoring program per waterbody. The authority could do this by contacting
all facilities that discharge into the waterbody and encourage them to jointly work to conduct the
study. For further discussion of ambient monitoring consortiums, see EPA's Watershed
Academy Information Transfer Series document titled Monitoring Consortiums: A Cost-Effective
Means to Enhancing Watershed Data Collection and Analysis (USEPA 1997).
What sampling locations are specified in the permit for compliance monitoring?
EPA recommends that the permitting authority consider whether the sampling location for
compliance with limitations in a watershed-based permit should be established by reference to
the sampling location in each facility's individual permit or whether the watershed-based permit
should specifically list the monitoring location for each permittee or co-permittee (see
Exhibit 2-4).
Exhibit 2-4. Options for establishing appropriate sampling locations
Sampling Location
Option 1Example of referencing sampling location in each facility's individual NPDES permit
Monitoring for compliance with effluent limitations must be at a location identical to that used to
determine compliance with effluent limits established in its individual NPDES permit:
.
Option 2Example of establishing sampling location within the multisource permit
Monitoring for compliance with effluent limitations established in the permit is required at the
following locations:
-------
and effluent to determine treatment efficiency. Ambient monitoring might be considered based
on a state's waterbody assessment methodology or, in some cases, a discharger association might
propose an ambient monitoring network. For additional discussion of ambient and in-plant
monitoring, see Section Six of this Chapter, which addresses Special Conditions.
What monitoring frequency is specified in the permit?
Monitoring frequency in a permit generally is established on the basis of the number of samples
needed for adequate monitoring of overall treatment system performance with respect to the
parameters of concern. In making a final determination regarding monitoring frequency, EPA
recommends that the permitting authority consider the following:
Characteristics of the treatment system, the effluent, and the receiving stream
Flow rate and variability
Seasonality
Factors unique to sampling, including analytical methods.
EPA recommends that monitoring be coordinated with existing individual NPDES permits, state
rules, and any EPA or state guidance or monitoring strategy.
What types of samples are required?
Samples may be collected as grab samples or composite samples as required by the test
procedures listed in 40 CFR Part 136 and based on effluent concentration and flow variability.
Permits generally require flow monitoring to calculate the mass of a pollutant discharged as
authorized by 40 CFR 122.44(i)(l) and 122.48(b). Mass loadings are then used to determine
compliance with mass-based limitations. For example, to characterize the total load over a given
time period, the sample concentration (or average concentration for multiple samples) is
multiplied by the flow volume for the monitoring period. Therefore, accurate flow monitoring
for the monitored period is critical.
How are tiered monitoring requirements used?
As an alternative to establishing a single monitoring frequency for all discharges covered by a
permit, the permitting authority could incorporate tiered monitoring requirements into a
watershed-based permit consistent with state regulations or policy. The tiered monitoring
requirements for a watershed-based permit could be based upon the following:
differences in facility design flows
industrial and municipal sources
seasonal variability in flow or discharges
location of facility in the watershed (e.g., tidal or non-tidal areas).
For example, facilities with high actual or design flows (e.g., facilities with a flow of 10 MGD or
greater) might be required to monitor more frequently than facilities with lower actual or design
flows (e.g., facilities with flows less than 10 MGD). This approach would afford the permitting
authority more data to adequately characterize the pollutant loads from the largest dischargers.
60 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Which analytical methods are used to measure various pollutants?
According to 40 CFR 122.44(i)(l)(iv), samples collected as part of a self-monitoring program
required under an NPDES permit must be analyzed in accordance with EPA approved analytical
methods specified in 40 CFR Part 136 (Guidelines for Establishing Test Procedures for the
Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act) or other method specified in the permit where
approved methods are not available.
Section Five: Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
This section of a multisource watershed-based permit includes the requirements for reporting and
recordkeeping and would be similar to the corresponding section of an individual permit. Federal
regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(1)(4) require permitting authorities to include in permits
requirements for permittees to submit self-monitoring results at intervals specified in the NPDES
permit. Further, 40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(i) requires that monitoring results be reported using the
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) or other form specified by the NPDES permitting
authority.
The NPDES permitting authority will determine the appropriate content and frequency for
reporting and recordkeeping requirements consistent with any state requirements. Furthermore,
EPA recommends that the permit coordinate reporting and recordkeeping requirements with
effluent limitations, monitoring, compliance, and trading requirements. In developing reporting
and recordkeeping requirements for watershed-based permits, EPA recommends that permit
writers consider several key technical issues.
Key Technical Questions
How should monitoring results be reported?
EPA recommends that the permitting authority consider whether to require the facility to submit
a modified DMR that incorporates watershed-based effluent limitations or to submit a separate
DMR for the watershed-based permit that is independent of the DMR required by the existing
individual NPDES permit. Requiring a modified DMR is recommended only where watershed-
based permit limitations are incorporated into an existing individual NPDES permit.
Submitting a separate DMR is recommended for multisource watershed-based permits that
replace or overlay existing individual permits. These permits will have different permit numbers
than the existing individual NPDES permits. The DMR required by an additional or overlay
permit would be independent of the DMR submitted in compliance with existing individual
NPDES permits, so overall compliance and enforcement would be tracked separately for each
permit. EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System
(ICIS) do not have the capability to track compliance for an existing individual NPDES permit
and an overlay permit that would be submitted on the same DMR form. Example supplemental
DMR forms for nutrient effluent limitations accommodating trading are provided in
Appendix D.
What is the appropriate reporting frequency?
The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.48 state that permits should specify monitoring types,
intervals, and frequency sufficient to yield data representative of the monitored activity and
Chapter 2: Guide for Multisource Watershed-based NPDES Permitting 61
-------
reporting requirements determined on the basis of the impact of the regulated activity. EPA
recommends that multisource watershed-based permits require monthly reporting at a minimum.
The permitting authority can require more frequent reporting depending on the nature and effect
of the discharge (40 CFR 122.48(c)). The permitting authority should establish a reporting
frequency consistent with existing individual NPDES permit requirements or develop reporting
requirements on the basis of how effluent limitations, monitoring, and compliance
determinations are expressed. There are exceptions to this recommendation, however. For
example, even if effluent limitations are established as annual limitations, such as annual loading
limitations, EPA recommends that the permitting authority strongly consider requiring monthly
reporting of monitoring results to ensure timely review of progress toward achieving the total
annual limitation. In addition to monthly reporting, the watershed-based permit could include a
requirement for an annual summary or for reporting cumulative (year-to-date) loading to
facilitate evaluating compliance with total annual loading limitations. Exhibit 2-5 provides
example permit text for reporting requirements.
What are the recordkeeping requirements for a watershed-based permit?
As required by 40 CFR 122.41(j)(2), permits must include requirements for permittees to retain
records for at least three years. The permitting authority may extend this time period by request
and might wish to do so in some cases (e.g., where a trading agreement lasts for a full five-year
permit term). Monitoring records must be representative of the discharge (40 CFR 122.41(j)) and
include the following:
Date, place, and time of sampling
Individual(s) who performed the sampling
Date of analysis
Individual(s) who performed the analysis
Analytical methods used
Analytical results.
If trading is allowed and occurs within the scope of a permit, what effect will that have on
reporting?
In addition to the standard reporting and recordkeeping requirements for monitoring results, EPA
recommends that the NPDES permitting authority consider whether to include reporting and
recordkeeping requirements specifically related to trading in the permit. For example, the
permitting authority might consider requiring a permittee to submit a supplemental trading form
when trades are conducted. For further discussion of recommended reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for trading and an example of a trade reporting form, see Water Quality Trading
Toolkit for Permit Writers (USEPA 2007).
62 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Exhibit 2-5. Example permit text for reporting requirements
Standard Reporting Requirements
Monitoring results must be reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) form or forms approved by the
permitting authority. [40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(i)]
DMRs must be submitted monthly to the permitting authority, signed and certified as required by the standard
provisions. If trading was conducted during the month, a trading report must also be submitted (see reporting
requirements for trading).
Monthly reports are due on the 1st day of the second month following the end of each calendar month of
monitoring. Annual compliance reports are due on February 1 following each calendar year.
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the following information
shall be recorded:
The date, exact location, and time of sampling or measurements
The name of the individual who performed the sampling or measurements
The date(s) analyses were performed
The name of the individual who performed the analyses
The analytical techniques or methods used, including the current method detection limit (MDL)
The results of the analyses
The must arrange all reported data in tabular form so that the specified
information is readily discernible. The data must be summarized in such a manner as to clearly illustrate whether
the facility is operating in compliance with discharge requirements.
Calculations for all limits that require averaging of measurements must use an arithmetic mean unless otherwise
specified by the permitting authority.
Special Reporting Requirements (example for annual limits included in a permit)
In addition to regular monthly reporting, at the end of the calendar year, will
submit an annual compliance summary report to . In this report, the facility's
loadings will be presented as monthly, quarterly, and total annual loads. If the annual load
discharged is greater than the annual load limit for , will provide a
description of the specific additional actions or activities that will be undertaken during the next quarter to
achieve compliance. will describe the
means by which credits will be acquired to achieve compliance^
Plans required by this subsection must be submitted to the permitting authority with the DMR for the last month
of the quarterly reporting period.
If trading is being conducted in accordance with Section of this permit,
must submit, along with the DMR, a trade summary for the period covered by the DMR using the Trade
Summary Table.
Chapter 2: Guide for Multisource Watershed-based NPDES Permitting 63
-------
Section Six: Special Conditions
There are a number of requirements, such as BMPs or preventive requirements, that are
addressed through special conditions in NPDES permits. These conditions are not included in the
effluent limitations section of this discussion of multisource watershed-based permits because
they are not specific numeric limitations. They may, however, be related to or impact the effluent
limitations section of the permit. This section addresses considerations for NPDES permit writers
developing special conditions for watershed-based permits.
Key Technical Questions
What programs or unique circumstances require special conditions in the permit?
EPA recommends that the special conditions section of an NPDES watershed-based permit
include additional conditions such as trading requirements and specific provisions that allow the
permit to be reopened. The permitting authority might also consider whether to add special
conditions to account for growth in the watershed by specifying requirements for adding new
facilities to the watershed-based permit or expanding existing facilities. Each of these potential
types of special conditions is discussed below.
Trading. A watershed-based permit that authorizes trading might provide a flexible and cost-
effective means of protecting water quality and maintaining loading provisions in a TMDL or
other watershed plan. For example, a permit condition might say that, to meet the effluent
limitations, dischargers may employ treatment technologies, pollution prevention, or operational
measures at their facilities or buy credits. For some facilities in a watershed, incorporating new
technology to meet WQBELs might not be as cost-effective as buying credits. The basic premise
of trading is simple: within a specified geographic area, a pollutant loading cap is distributed
among dischargers as facility WLAs, which are translated into effluent limitations in an NPDES
permit. The dischargers within the geographic area then buy or sell credits from each other or
from another source (e.g., nonpoint source or through a credit exchange) to meet their effluent
limitations, provided they do not, as a group, exceed the cap.
EPA recommends that the permitting authority consider whether trading provisions in
watershed-based permits should be relatively simple statements authorizing trading among
specified trading partners or more complex permit conditions that include equations for
calculating credits, conditions for trading with nonpoint sources, the timing of credit use and
generation, special reporting requirements, and other details. EPA recommends that permitting
authorities without a formal trading program incorporate as many specific trading provisions that
the permitting authority deems necessary in the permit itself. For permitting authorities with a
formal trading program, the authority might consider referencing the trading program in the
permit instead of including detailed trading provisions. EPA recommends that trading
requirements identify the legal authority to conduct trades; potential trading partners; the types of
trades that may be conducted; how credits may be generated, bought and sold; how trades are
reported and tracked; and provisions for compliance and enforcement. The specifics of how
trading is conducted and reflected in NPDES permits may vary. For more detailed information
on incorporating trading provisions in NPDES permits, see Water Quality Trading Toolkit for
Permit Writers (USEPA 2007).
64 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
New or Expanded Facilities. EPA recommends that a watershed-based permit account for
growth in the watershed from the construction of new dischargers or expansions of existing
dischargers. In some cases, a TMDL or watershed plan may have a point source load reserve.
The permitting authority might also consider whether to incorporate provisions to address growth
in a watershed by reducing WLAs to existing dischargers or requiring a new or expanded
discharge to offset the new or increased load through mitigation. For example, the permit might
require new or expanded facilities to offset their new or increased loads by acquiring facility
credits from one or more permitted facilities in the same tributary or from nonpoint sources
generating credits through the use of BMPs.
Reopener. Under 40 CFR 122.41 and 122.62, an NPDES permit may be modified, revoked and
reissued, or terminated for cause. NPDES permitting authorities might wish to include a reopener
condition to address unique situations potentially posed by a watershed-based permit. Such
situations may include adjustments to the WLA specified in the permit on the basis of new or
revised water quality modeling results, or revisions to a TMDL or watershed plan that affect the
overall loading requirement for the waterbody and the individual requirements on the covered
facilities. Although a reopener condition might not be required to modify a watershed permit
focused on a limited number of pollutants, such a permit condition may be useful to specifically
identify those contingent conditions where changes may be warranted. Exhibit 2-6 presents
example permit text for a permit reopener.
Exhibit 2-6. Example permit reopener
The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the permit issuing authority from reopening and
modifying, revoking and reissuing, suspending, or terminating the permit as authorized Title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 122 and 123 ,
as applicable.
This permit may be reopened to adjust the WLA and corresponding
effluent limit(s) specified in on the basis of .
What special monitoring requirements might be included in the permit?
EPA recommends that the permitting authority consider whether to include in the special
conditions any requirements for ambient monitoring or other special monitoring it deems
necessary in order to gather data for use in other watershed activities or to ensure that trading is
not causing localized exceedances of water quality standards. This monitoring is separate from,
and in addition to, the routine compliance monitoring required by an NPDES permit. EPA
recommends that the permitting authority carefully assess the need for such requirements.
Factors to consider include what needs would be fulfilled by the data gathered and the potential
burden on permittees.
Ambient monitoring. In addition to traditional discharge monitoring requirements, the permitting
authority might consider whether ambient monitoring should be used to determine if water quality
standards and pollutant reduction requirements and goals are being achieved. Ambient monitoring
might be considered for certain dischargers at specific locations throughout the watershed or could
be coordinated with existing watershed ambient monitoring efforts. Permitting authorities might
Chapter 2: Guide for Multisource Watershed-based NPDES Permitting 65
-------
want to refer to EPA's 1996 Interim Guidance for Performance-based Reductions ofNPDES
Monitoring Frequencies (USEPA 1996b) to explore how to reduce monitoring burden. This
document can be found at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/perf-red.pdf. Exhibit 2-7 presents
sample permit text for ambient monitoring.
Exhibit 2-7. Example permit text for ambient monitoring
must conduct ambient monitoring to ensure that reductions in
discharged to are producing the expected reductions at Sampling must be conducted as follows: Sampling must be conducted at the location approved by the permitting authority.
also must conduct ambient monitoring at designated locations in
the to determine whether water quality standards are being met.
Sampling must be conducted as follows: . Sampling must be
conducted at monitoring locations approved by the permitting authority.
In-plant monitoring (if applicable). The permitting authority should consider whether in-plant
monitoring should be required to ensure the proper operation and maintenance of the facility and
its controls. Such monitoring is especially useful for permits that allow trading between a
facility's outfalls (i.e., intraplant trading). Monitoring results could be used to detect changes in
waste loads, characterize effluent, and assess treatment efficiency.
BMP Monitoring. Finally, the permitting authority should consider whether BMP monitoring
requirements should be specified for point sources employing BMPs or trading with nonpoint
sources that use BMPs to generate credits purchased by point sources. Such monitoring results
would be used to measure BMP effectiveness and ensure proper installation, operation, and
maintenance of the BMP.
Section Seven: Public Notice
The public notice is an important part of the NPDES permitting process and is required by law at
40 CFR 124.10. It is the primary method of advising all interested parties of a proposed action
with respect to an NPDES permit or the contents of a draft NPDES permit. The goal of the
public notice of a draft permit is to solicit public review and comments on the draft permit. The
permitting authority may decide to hold a public hearing if there is significant public interest
expressed during the 30-day comment period following issuance of the draft permit or if an issue
needs to be clarified during the permitting process (40 CFR 124.12(a)(l),(2)).
The federal regulations at 40 CFR 124.10 require the public notice to contain the following, at a
minimum:
Name and address of the office processing the permit action
Name and address of the permittee or applicant and, if different, of the facility regulated
by the permit
A brief description of the business conducted at the facility and activity described in the
permit application or the draft permit
66 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Name, address, and telephone number of a contact from whom interested persons may
obtain additional information
A brief description of the comment procedures
For EPA-issued permits, the location and availability of the administrative record
A general description of the location of each existing or proposed discharge point and the
name of the receiving water and the sludge use disposal practices
Any additional information considered necessary.
In many ways, a multisource watershed-based permit can help streamline the public notice
process by grouping the public notice process for many facilities under one public notice action.
NPDES permitting authorities also may consider using innovative outreach approaches in
conjunction with traditional public notice methods to ensure that all affected stakeholders have
the opportunity to comment on a draft permit. The geographic scope and type of permit will
generally drive the decision on which public notice methods are most appropriate. EPA
recommends that the permitting authority consider the following technical issues when
developing a public notice for a watershed-based permit.
Key Technical Questions
When must public notice be provided?
The federal regulations at 40 CFR 124.10 require public notice of a proposal to issue a permit.
The notice should be given within the geographic area of the proposed or existing discharge
following completion of a draft permit. The permitting authority must allow at least 30 days for
the public to submit comments on the draft permit. If public interest warrants a public hearing or
other public meeting, the permitting authority must also provide public notice of the hearing or
meeting as specified at 40 CFR 124.10. States should already have public notice procedures in
place that comply with NPDES regulatory requirements.
States should anticipate significant public interest when issuing a multisource watershed-based
permit, especially if the permit allows trading as a means to comply with effluent limitations.
EPA recommends that states consider using aggressive outreach approaches for watershed-based
permits and seek to ensure meaningful stakeholder involvement during the comment period. For
example, the permitting authority could hold a series of meetings before, during, and after the
public comment period. The meetings could be open to the public, but targeted to reach key
stakeholder groups in the watershed. See Appendix A for more detailed information on
stakeholder involvement.
How should permitting authorities effectively and efficiently provide public notice of a
watershed-based permit?
Public notice of watershed-based permits must meet the minimum federal requirements. EPA
recommends that permitting authorities go beyond those minimum requirements to get the state's
stakeholders (private and nonprofit organizations, local government units, and citizens) involved
in the process. To effectively and efficiently provide notice, in addition to the traditional legal
notice in a newspaper, the permitting authority could use its existing database lists of
stakeholders. The permitting authority might also identify and partner with organizations that
Chapter 2: Guide for Multisource Watershed-based NPDES Permitting 67
-------
currently conduct outreach in the watershed to improve involvement among stakeholders.
Furthermore, the permitting authority could identify the most commonly used channels of
communication among stakeholders and select the most appropriate method for providing an
effective public notice of permit actions. EPA recommends that the permitting authority be
prepared to use a variety of communication tools to ensure that all stakeholders are notified of
the watershed-based permitting actions and have the opportunity to provide meaningful input to
the process.
Will the type of permit affect the public notice process?
The type of permit used and the geographic scope could have a direct impact on the procedures
for public notice. For example, if the permit is being issued to multiple co-permittees, the
permitting authority could issue one public notice for the permit. If separate individual permits
with watershed-based provisions are used, public notices would have to be issued for each
permit. To streamline the public notice process and increase stakeholder involvement, the
permitting authority could coordinate issuance of the individual permits and then group the
public notices for each permit under one public notice action.
What additional information should a public notice for a watershed-based permit contain?
In addition to the minimum requirements at 40 CFR 124.10, EPA recommends that the public
notice contain the following to facilitate watershed-based permitting:
Description of the geographic scope of the permit
Explanation of the concept of a watershed-based permit
Description and explanation of any planned trading activities
Where to obtain additional information on the watershed-based permitting process
Graphics to illustrate the relationship of the watershed and facilities to local jurisdictional
boundaries and other familiar landmarks.
What other permit-related actions might trigger the need for public notice?
If trading is allowed and occurs within the context of the watershed-based permit, the permitting
authority may have to provide public notice of certain actions (i.e., if incorporating a trade
requires more than a minor modification, such as a trade that results in changes to effluent
limitations). Public notice may also be required for other actions, such as addition of facilities to
or removal of facilities from a multisource watershed-based permit.
68 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Chapter 3: Watershed-based Permitting Case Studies
In watersheds across the country, permitting authorities and other watershed stakeholders have
constructed a variety of NPDES watershed frameworks to address specific pollutant or stressor
types and water quality concerns. EPA has developed a series of watershed-based permitting
case studies to highlight real-world examples of implementing an NPDES watershed framework
and to illustrate the concepts presented in Chapters 1 and 2.
There are currently eight case studies highlighted in this Chapter. Others are under development
and will be added as they are completed. The case studies are available in their entirety on EPA's
NPDES Web site at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/watersheds.These case studies illustrate a
variety approaches implemented as part of an NPDES watershed framework including, in some
instances, development of a multisource watershed-based permit.
A brief description of each completed case study is provided below, and the full text of each of
these case studies is available at the above EPA Web site.
Big Darby Creek Watershed, Ohio: Construction Watershed-based General
Permit
The Big Darby Creek watershed is in central Ohio, draining agricultural areas and suburbs to the
northwest and west of Columbus. The Big and Little Darby Creeks have been designated as State
and National Scenic Rivers, and the watershed is known to provide habitat for several state and
federally listed endangered species. Two major policy and planning documents justified the need
for a construction general permit in the Big Darby watershed: the Big Darby Creek TMDL,
approved by EPA on March 31, 2006, and the regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan
(i.e., Central Scioto Plan Update or CSPU). The state issued a construction general permit for
the Big Darby watershed on September 12, 2006 (effective October 27, 2006).
This case study focuses on using a watershed general permit to require control measures and
BMPs for construction stormwater that address recommendations from the TMDL.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Virginia: Watershed-based General Permit for
Nutrient Discharges and Nutrient Trading
In March 2003, the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) adopted new nutrient reduction goals as
part of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. The CBP established nutrient allocations for each of the
eight tributary basins (i.e., subwatersheds), and each state within the Chesapeake Bay drainage
then developed tributary strategies to achieve the nutrient reduction goals for each subwatershed.
To facilitate meeting the nutrient load reduction goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement in
Virginia, on March 24, 2005, the Governor of Virginia signed legislation authorizing the creation
of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Credit Exchange Program (Exchange Program).
Virginia's Exchange Program requires Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(VPDES) permitted facilities on the CBP Significant Discharger List as well as new and
expanding facilities, to register for coverage under a new associated General Permit to
collectively meet annual nutrient allocations established for the Chesapeake Bay subwatersheds.
The General Permit establishes annual effluent loading limits for nitrogen and phosphorus for all
Chapter 3: Watershed-based Permitting Case Studies 69
-------
dischargers and establishes the conditions by which credits (the difference in pounds between the
facility's limit and the mass actually discharged) may be exchanged. In addition, nutrient credits
may be purchased by existing facilities whose proposed expansion would otherwise cause the
facilities to exceed their allocation or by new and expanded facilities that do not have an
assigned WLA. Facilities can make these nutrient credit transactions through the Nutrient Credit
Exchange Association or independently with facilities located in the same subwatershed.
This case study focuses on the tributary strategy components of the General Permit issued to
significant and new/expanding dischargers as part of Virginia's Exchange Program.
Lake Lewisvilie Watershed, Texas: City of Denton Watershed Protection
Program
The Lake Lewisville watershed has been experiencing significant development pressures, so in
2001, the City of Denton, Texas, the largest city in the watershed, developed several watershed-
based programs to address water quality concerns and storm water permitting requirements.
While Lake Lewisville is not currently listed as impaired under the state's CWA section 303(d)
list, the city has taken some proactive measures to protect the water quality of the lake. The city
has leveraged multiple funding sources for this. Specifically, Denton has implemented a water
quality monitoring program, employed land use planning and management tools, and
disseminated critical information to the public aimed at changing residential land use practices.
This case study focuses on an overall watershed approach in the Lake Lewisville watershed that
affects implementation of the NPDES program for municipal and industrial sources. The
program also provides information and analysis for future watershed-based permitting efforts
such as development of a multisource watershed-based permit and water quality trading.
Michigan Statewide Watershed-based MS4 Stormwater General Permit
For approximately 20 years before implementing a watershed-based permitting approach in the
Rouge River watershed, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) had been
seeking ways to bring communities together under either a voluntary or regulatory approach to
achieve water quality goals. Using a watershed-based permitting approach in the Rouge River as
a test case, MDEQ learned that a watershed-based regulatory program could be achieved if it
were offered as an alternative to some other regulatory mechanism. The voluntary, watershed-
based permit developed in the Rouge River was reissued as a statewide, watershed-based
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for stormwater Phase
II in 2002 and was renamed the Watershed-based Permit.
The goal of the statewide permit is to provide a watershed-based approach for implementing and
coordinating stormwater Phase II compliance efforts. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
(MS4s) regulated under Phase II may choose to participate in the watershed approach under the
general Watershed-based Permit, or they may opt to seek coverage under MDEQ's more
traditional MS4 stormwater general permit, called the Jurisdictional Permit.
This case study focuses on development of the Rouge River watershed-based stormwater permit
and its adaptation for use as a statewide permit. The discussion includes the process for adapting
requirements to address watershed-specific needs.
70 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Neuse River Watershed, North Carolina: Neuse River Compliance Association
Watershed-based Permit
The Neuse River is classified as a Nutrient Sensitive Water because of the long-term
eutrofication of its estuary. In 1996, the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill
1339, which set a goal of reducing nitrogen loads to the estuary by 30 percent by 2003 (with
1995 as the baseline year). In 1997, the Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management
Strategy (Strategy) was developed to meet this goal and included a set of permanent rules (the
Rules) to support implementation of the Strategy and meet the reduction goal.
One of the Rules passed by the General Assembly, the Wastewater Discharge Rule (Rule T15
NCAC 2B.0234), establishes specific nutrient control requirements for point source dischargers
in the watershed and includes a provision which allows point sources to form a compliance
association to work collectively to meet the combined TN WLA [1.64 million pounds of total
nitrogen (TN) per year at the estuary]. This WLA was established in a Phase I TMDL (1999). In
2002, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water
Quality issued a watershed-based permit to a group of dischargers organized as the Neuse River
Compliance Association to regulate the discharge of total nitrogen into the Neuse River.
This case study focuses on the components of the watershed-based permit issued to the
Association and the group compliance mechanisms used by the co-permittees.
North Carolina Statewide Approach: Basinwide Planning and Permitting
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) employs a basinwide approach to
protecting the state's water resources; it undertakes planning, monitoring, modeling, permitting,
and compliance assessment activities at the basin scale. DWQ prepares basinwide plans on a
5-year cycle. The purposes of the plans are to frame a number of water quality factors, including
current conditions, potential and existing threats, short- and long-range protection goals, and
management options for both point and nonpoint sources of pollutants.
This case study focuses on the history of North Carolina's basinwide planning program and the
planning process used along with the benefits of implementing that process.
Sand Creek Watershed, Colorado: Watershed-based Selenium Standard
Suncor Energy (U.S.A.), Inc., formerly Conoco Denver Refinery, convened the Selenium
Stakeholder Group to discuss the scientific merit and feasibility of implementing Colorado's
proposed lower selenium standard for point sources discharging to the South Platte River and its
tributaries, specifically Sand Creek. Members of the group predicted that applying the lower
standard would result in Sand Creek being inappropriately placed on Colorado's CWA section
303(d) list of impaired waters because ambient background selenium concentrations would
exceed the lower standard.
The dischargers worked with state and federal agencies to develop a proposal in which the
dischargers would collect the biological, chemical, and physical data necessary to justify a higher
selenium standard for western plains stream ecosystems. Pending the results of the study, the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment granted a temporary modification of the
selenium standard for Sand Creek and Segment 15 of the South Platte River. The goal of the
Chapter 3: Watershed-based Permitting Case Studies 71
-------
program is to develop a science-based water quality standard for selenium that is protective of,
and appropriate for, western plains stream ecosystems. The approach allows for adaptive
implementation in which stakeholders work cooperatively and proactively to solve problems
outside the regulatory arena.
This case study focuses on NPDES dischargers in the Sand Creek watershed working together
using a watershed approach to develop a site-specific water quality criterion.
Tualatin River Watershed, Oregon: Clean Water Services Integrated Municipal
Permit
Clean Water Services (CWS) is a public utility (special services district) that operates four
municipal wastewater treatment facilities, each with its own permit under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). CWS also, has two industrial stormwater permits and
is a co-permittee in a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). The Tualatin River is the
receiving stream for each of the above permitted discharges. Oregon's Department of
Environmental Quality (OR DEQ) issued TMDLs for the Tualatin River for ammonia,
phosphorus, temperature, bacteria, and tributary dissolved oxygen (DO). In February 2004, OR
DEQ issued a single watershed-based, integrated municipal permit to CWS. This permit
incorporates the NPDES requirements for all four of CWS's advanced wastewater treatment
facilities, its two industrial storm water permits, and its MS4 permit. A significant feature of the
integrated permit is its inclusion of provisions for water quality credit trading involving
temperature (thermal load), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and ammonia.
The watershed-based permit has resulted in various benefits to CWS, the permitting authority,
and the environment. For both CWS and OR DEQ, one permit is easier to administer and
implement. The integrated permit provides economies of scale for both CWS and OR DEQ in
terms of resource use. Both organizations are now better able to focus their resources on the most
critical resource problems, and the integrated permit provides greater protections for the
environment than what might have been realized under the previous array of permits. Since the
integrated watershed based permit was issued, CWS has planted nearly 10 miles of riparian
shading, preventing 101 million kilocalories (Kcal) per day of thermal energy from impacting the
Tualatin River.
This case study focuses on the components of the watershed-based permit issued to CWS. It also
summarizes key components of CWS's thermal load trading program.
72 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
References
The following are referenced in this document. Links to publications with electronic versions
available have been provided and were last accessed July 6, 2007.
Claytor, Richard A., and Whitney E. Brown. 1996. Environmental Indicators to Assess
Stormwater Control Programs and Practices. Prepared by the Center for Watershed
Protection, Silver Spring, Maryland, in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Davenport, Thomas. 2002. The Watershed Project Management Guide. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida.
Grumbles, Benjamin H. 2007. Using Green Infrastructure to Protect Water Quality in
Stormwater, CSO, Nonpoint Source and other Water Programs. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Memorandum. March 5, 2007. Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/greeninfrastructure_h2oprograms_07.pdf
Hani on, James. 2004. Annual Permit Limits for Nitrogen and Phosphorus for Permits Designed
to Protect Chesapeake Bay and its Tidal Tributaries from Excess Nutrient Loading under
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wastewater Management Memorandum. March 3, 2004. Washington,
DC. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/npdes/pdf/ches_bay_nutrients_hanlon.pdf.
Mehan, G. Tracy, III. 2002. Committing EPA 's Water Program to Advancing the Watershed
Approach. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Memorandum.
December 3, 2002. Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/memo.html.
Mehan, G. Tracy, III. 2003. Water shed-based NPDES Permitting Policy Statement. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Memorandum. January 7, 2003.
Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/watershed-permitting-policy.pdf.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2002. Neuse River
Compliance Association NPDES Permit No. NCC000001.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/00001nrcapermit-ptlmod200401.pdf
Thomann, R.V. and J.A. Mueller. 1987. Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and
Control. Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0264.pdf.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994a. NPDES Watershed Strategy. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994b. Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Policy. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0111 .pdf.
References 73
-------
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. Watershed Protection: A Statewide
Approach (EPA 841-R-95-004). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC. http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/statewide/.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1996a. EPA Watershed Approach Framework.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/framework.html.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1996b. Interim Guidance for Performance-
based Reductions of NPDES Monitoring Frequencies. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/perf-red.pdf.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997a. Monitoring Guidance for Determining
the Effectiveness of Nonpoint Source Controls (EPA 841-B-96-004). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997b. Monitoring Consortiums: A Cost-
Effective Means To Enhancing Watershed Data Collection And Analysis (EPA 841-R-97-
006). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/its03/mon_cons.pdf.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999a. Protocol for Developing Sediment
TMDLs (EPA 841-B-99-004). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/sediment/pdf/sediment.pdf
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999b. Protocol for Developing Nutrient
TMDLs (EPA 841-B-99-007). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Protocol for Developing Pathogen
TMDLs (EPA 841-R-00-002). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http ://www. epa.gov/owow/tmdl/pathogen_all .pdf
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002a. National Water Quality Inventory 2000
Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002b. A Review of Statewide Watershed
Management Approaches. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/approaches_fr.pdf
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002c. Supplemental Guidelines for the
Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants to States and Territories in FY 2003. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319/319guide03.html.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002d. Draft Implementation Guidance for
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria (EPA-823-B-02-003). U.S. Environmental
74 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/bacteria/bacteria.pdf.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003a. Water Quality Trading Policy. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/fmalpolicy2003.pdf.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003b. Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000
Report to Congress. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/2000rtc/toc.htm.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003c. Watershed-based National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting Implementation Guidance (EPA 833-
B-03-004). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/watershedpermi tting_fmalguidance.pdf
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Water Quality Trading Assessment
Handbook (EPA 841-B-04-001). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC. http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/handbook/.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005a. Handbook for Developing Watershed
Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters (EPA 841-B-05-005). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/nps/watershed_handbook/.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005b. Stormwater TMDLs-Region 1. Draft
February 16, 2005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006b. National Water Program Fiscal Year
2007 Guidance. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/npmguidance/owater/2007/2007_ow_npmguide.pdf.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Water Quality Trading Toolkit for
Permit Writers (EPA 833-R-04-007). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/waterqualitytrading/WQTToolkit.html.
References 75
-------
APPENDIX A
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN A WATERSHED PERMITTING
ANALYTICAL APPROACH AND AN NPDES WATERSHED
FRAMEWORK
APPENDIX A A-1
-------
Identifying Stakeholders and Facilitating their Participation
Throughout the NPDES Watershed-based Permitting Implementation Guidance, EPA emphasizes the
importance of providing stakeholders with opportunities to participate in watershed-based
permitting. The introduction to the NPDES Watershed Navigator reiterates that stakeholder
involvement is key to conducting a watershed
permitting analytical approach and applying
an NPDES watershed framework within a Why Involve Stakeholders?
-ITI 7Q"j~f^t*c n Ofi
Stakeholders are more than just the puMc-they
, , . , , , , are representatives of communities, organizations,
Early and continuous stakeholder agendeS; institutionS; and households that can
involvement can result in a core of supporters significantly impact the watershed-based
that have ownership over the watershed permitting process. By supplying data, financial
permitting analytical approach and an resources, technical expertise, or a personal
NPDES watershed framework. Ideally opinion, stakeholders can make contributions that
stakeholder involvement will result in wil1 enrich both the Process and the final strate§y-
empowered stakeholders who are willing to lnk.some caseslthey T\ht,7en bke the catalysts for
, , , ^ , this process. Give stakeholders the opportunity to
implement the results of the process. share their time and talents_and let them know
Although incorporating stakeholder that they are heard
involvement is important, it is not always
easy. Stakeholder involvement arguably
requires additional time and resources for any project, particularly when the project involves
contentious issues such as developing new permit limitations or seeking collaboration from
unregulated entities in the watershed. Emphasis on intensive stakeholder involvement might raise
concerns among individuals interested in integrating a watershed approach into NPDES
permitting. Questions demonstrating these concerns include the following:
How will the need for comprehensive stakeholder involvement affect the timely issuance
of NPDES permits?
How will a breakdown in stakeholder involvement during the process affect the final
outcome?
How can a watershed permitting analytical approach and an NPDES watershed
framework continue without full support of all watershed stakeholders?
A well thought-out plan for stakeholder involvement that includes an emphasis on outreach has
the potential to alleviate these concerns. The remainder of this section focuses on developing and
implementing a stakeholder involvement and outreach strategy for use in the context of
conducting a watershed permitting analytical approach and applying an NPDES watershed
framework.
Developing the Stakeholder Involvement and Outreach Strategy
A stakeholder strategy is a plan of action for education and participation that goes beyond basic
regulatory requirements, such as public notices and public hearings. Because every watershed is
composed of unique stakeholders, the details of a strategy will also be unique to a specific
watershed. Yet, each strategy is likely to share basic components that are essential to generating
meaningful stakeholder input. These basic components might include a comprehensive list of
A-2 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
stakeholders, an assessment of stakeholders' characteristics, tailored educational materials, and a
suite of participation opportunities. A strategy that reflects the interests and concerns of
stakeholders within the watershed is likely to generate meaningful participation. Some of the
activities associated with the development of the stakeholder involvement and outreach strategy
are:
Identifying a comprehensive list of stakeholders
Assessing stakeholder awareness of watershed issues
Educating stakeholders on watershed issues, the watershed approach, and NPDES
permitting
Identifying opportunities for stakeholders to participate in steps throughout the watershed
permitting analytical approach and an NPDES watershed framework
This section provides a detailed discussion of the suggested activities and anticipated results, as
well as a list of helpful resources for undertaking this step. Each activity recommended for
stakeholder strategy development and implementation is discussed below.
What Motivates Stakeholders to Take Action?
Successful strategies for stakeholder involvement build upon an understanding of stakeholders'
attitudes, values, concerns, and beliefs to motivate participation. Meaningful stakeholder
involvement results from stakeholders obtaining information on problems and potential
solutions and deciding that there is need for them to take action. Those actions could range
from attending regular meetings to obtaining and sharing watershed data. Without
understanding the process and the role that they can play, stakeholders are unlikely to
participate. Therefore, raising awareness and educating stakeholders are important precursors
to action. Illustrating how problems or issues relate to something stakeholders care about is also
essential to motivating stakeholders to take action. No matter how glossy or fun educational
materials might be, outreach messages have to reflect stakeholders' values, beliefs, and
concerns and demonstrate potential benefits to prompt stakeholders to take action.
APPENDIX A A-3
-------
Activity: Identify Comprehensive List of Stakeholders
Initiating a very broad stakeholder strategy will help ensure that anyone directly or indirectly
impacted by the watershed permitting analytical process and an NPDES watershed framework
has an invitation to participate. In some cases, stakeholders might actually initiate the process,
which might ensure initial stakeholder
involvement to a degree. Even if stakeholders
do initiate the process, EPA encourages the
permitting authority to ensure that the reach
Observation. This technique involves watching the
activities and interactions of stakeholders. The
focus is on listening and recording information on
opinions and relationships.
Techniques for Obtaining Information
From and About Stakeholders
of stakeholder participation is extended to
capture all potential interested parties. The
scope of interested stakeholders can
gradually focus over time as the overall
project scope becomes focused.
Interview. An interview helps with understanding
what a representative stakeholder thinks about
specific issues. It generates very detailed
information and can establish an interpersonal
connection.
Focus Group. This technique is essentially a group
interview. The goal is for participants to state
what they think about a series of questions and to
serve as a catalyst for generating thoughts and
observations that they might not have thought of
individually.
Survey. This approach is useful for acquiring
detailed information on perception and values
from a broad audience. It might vary in length and
question type, depending on where and how it is to
be administered and the type of information it is
Identifying stakeholders is an iterative
process. The process might begin with a
small group of individuals who are
knowledgeable about the watershed and
could result in a comprehensive network of
individuals and organizations that represent
the diverse interests within the watershed.
Individuals responsible for initiating the
process (e.g., permitting authority, group of
point sources, watershed organization) might
also initiate the stakeholder identification
process, tapping into local contacts that are
familiar with the watershed. Together, this
small group could brainstorm a list of the
usual suspectsindividuals and
organizations that are active within a
watershed and are obvious stakeholders. Using this initial list, the permitting authority can
identify less obvious, but equally important, stakeholders such as long-time watershed residents
and frequent water resource users. To expand the list of stakeholders, the permitting authority
might use one or more techniques such as questionnaires, focus groups, and personal interviews.
This formal process could continue until all potential interests within the watershed make it onto
the comprehensive list. Compiling and maintaining a list of active stakeholders will help to
manage this process. It is important to check with local environmental organizations because
they may have gone through a similar exercise for other projects that require stakeholder
involvement and could be willing to share their contact list for this process.
Activity: Assess Stakeholder Awareness of Watershed Issues
While compiling the stakeholder list and establishing an initial connection with stakeholders, the
permitting authority might use that interaction as an opportunity to gather more than just contact
information. For example, such interaction could be used to assess what stakeholders know, and
do not know, about issues in the watershed and the NPDES permitting process. As mentioned
earlier in this section, action is predicated on awareness and education. Finding out just how
A-4
Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
aware stakeholders are about watershed issues will help to determine if more education is
necessary or if launching immediately into action is appropriate.
EPA recommends that the permitting authority try to capture the concerns, issues, and
perceptions of stakeholders; this type of information will play a significant role throughout the
process, particularly in developing effective educational materials, planning involvement
opportunities, and generating a feasible strategy. Using the theory that perception is reality,
understanding the attitudes and beliefs of stakeholders will help identify potential challenges
related to:
Stakeholder collaboration (e.g., one interest group believes that another interest group is
responsible for problems within the watershed and will work together only under certain
conditions)
Watershed permitting analytical approach implementation (e.g., nonpoint source interest
groups do not think that nonpoint source pollution is causing water quality impairment,
therefore, these groups do not agree to install recommended best management practices)
There are a number of recommended tools and techniques for assessing stakeholders' level of
awareness, concerns, values, and perceptions. An in-depth discussion of these tools and
techniques are available in existing EPA resources such as Getting In Step: A Guide for
Conducting Watershed Outreach Campaigns (USEPA 2003 a) and Community Culture and the
Environment: A Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place (USEPA 2002).
Activity: Educate Stakeholders on Watershed Issues and the NPDES Permitting
Process
Tailored educational materials are an important component of an overall stakeholder
involvement strategy. These materials are important tools for increasing awareness and
encouraging action; therefore, it is important that they contain clear, succinct, and meaningful
information tailored to a specific audience. If stakeholders within the watershed have conducted
watershed-level education and outreach, appropriate educational materials on basic watershed
issues might already exist. If there are not educational partners within the watershed, it might be
helpful to develop materials specific to a watershed approach and how the NPDES permitting
process fits into that approach.
When developing educational materials, EPA recommends that the permitting authority should
use information about stakeholders such as demographics, knowledge of watershed issues, and
information distribution channels to determine what the educational materials should contain,
how to present information, and how the final product will reach the target audience(s).
Information contained in EPA's Getting In Step: A Guide for Conducting Watershed Outreach
Campaigns provides a detailed approach for conducting effective outreach that incorporates social
marketing techniques (USEPA 2003a).
In addition, the Nonpoint Source Outreach Toolbox, intended for use by state and local agencies
and other organizations interested in educating the public on nonpoint source pollution or
stormwater runoff, is available at http://www.epa.gov/nps/toolbox. The toolbox contains a
variety of resources to help develop an effective and targeted outreach campaign, including a
searchable catalog of nearly 800 print, radio, and TV ads and outreach materials.
APPENDIX A A-5
-------
Activity: Identify and Implement Opportunities for Stakeholders to
Participate
Public involvement includes not only identifying stakeholder concerns, but also the mechanisms
for stakeholders to express ideas and become a part of the overall process. Early and continuous
involvement is important because stakeholders will play an important role throughout the
process, including implementation. There are opportunities for stakeholders to participate in
every step of the watershed permitting analytical approach and an NPDES watershed framework.
EPA recommends that a permitting authority consider how much stakeholder involvement can
realistically occur given time and financial constraints. Keep in mind, the more stakeholders are
involved in the process, the more likely they are to be involved when it comes time for
implementationthe time when stakeholder involvement is imperative for success!
When identifying opportunities for stakeholder participation, the permitting authority might look
for activities that will meet regulatory requirements and even activities that go beyond these
requirements. Public meetings can be an effective mechanism for stakeholders to voice their
concerns and perspectives, while becoming educated on the problems, process, and potential
solutions. Beyond public meetings, stakeholders can participate in a number of ways ranging
from conducting specific research assignments on watershed issues to planning and hosting
watershed site visits. Provided below are details related to planning and conducting public
meetings, as well as creative ideas for stakeholder action.
Planning and Conducting Public Meetings
There is a range of public meeting styles and formats that can both engage stakeholders and
generate the outcomes necessary to move the process forward. The key is integrating the goals
and interests of stakeholders into the goals of the process. Initial public meetings can establish
relationships among stakeholders and the individuals responsible for managing the process.
Other meetings can provide stakeholders with the opportunity to identify scenarios, exchange
ideas, evaluate options, and achieve consensus. The goal of each meeting will influence the
meeting format and structure (e.g., brainstorming session, small group meetings, forum, public
hearing), important considerations when planning and facilitating.
To initiate planning, articulate the goals and objectives of each public meeting to determine the
appropriate meeting format, agenda, location, and facilitation approach. Described below are a
few examples of public meeting formats and suggestions for using these formats.
Brainstorming sessions. This type of meeting is effective for exchanging ideas,
concerns, and perspectives and generating options without passing judgment.
Brainstorming sessions should make participants feel comfortable and generate a high
level of participation. Stakeholders can participate in brainstorming sessions as a large
group or in multiple small groups with report out sessions to the larger group.
Small working groups. Through this type of meeting, stakeholders can establish
relationships with other members of the group while problem solving. Small working
groups are useful for tackling discrete problems, such as evaluating scenarios that might
prove too difficult to accomplish in a large group setting. Small groups can work on the
same problem or scenario, or have different issues to address with report-out sessions at
the end of the meeting.
A-6 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
Public hearings. This is the most formal type of public meeting, often used to generate a
formal public record that captures the issues and concerns of stakeholders. Public
hearings generally consist of presentations followed by a question and answer session.
These meetings, which may be required at certain points in the permitting process, are
useful for capturing the varying perspectives of stakeholders and identifying
recommended alternatives.
Open houses. This type of meeting is useful for generating interest and conducting initial
education. Open houses are very informal, often consisting of information booths and
agency representatives that circulate through the meeting room. These relaxed meetings
can serve as a way for stakeholders to get more information on watershed issues and
determine if they would like to participate in future activities.
"Sunshine" meetings. These meetings often take place after the commencement of a
watershed management process as a way to update stakeholders on progress and
activities. They are an interactive progress reporting mechanism, as opposed to printed
updates, to keep stakeholders actively involved and interested. Sunshine meetings not
only keep stakeholders informed of recent activities and challenges, but also ensure that
lines of communication remain open and perspectives have not changed during the course
of the process.
Public meetings can integrate several of the formats described above, depending on the stated
goals and objectives. In addition, several of these formats, such as brainstorming sessions and
sunshine meetings, could lend themselves to integration into regularly scheduled meetings of one
or more stakeholder groups. Permitting authorities can take advantage of these meetings to add
NPDES permitting topics to the existing meeting agenda. These meetings provide the
opportunity for the permitting authority to go to the stakeholders rather than always requiring the
stakeholders to go to the permitting authority. Meeting format becomes even more important
when the goal is to achieve consensus among stakeholders. Achieving consensus among all
stakeholders can prove difficult for many reasons, including size of the group, polarization of
views, and insufficient time on the agenda. Using the appropriate meeting format can alleviate
some of the challenges associated with consensus-based decisionmaking. EPA's guide titled
Getting In Step: Engaging and Involving Stakeholders in Your Watershed provides tips and techniques
for planning and facilitating stakeholder meetings (USEPA 2003b).
The activities described above should produce the following resources:
Comprehensive list of stakeholders
Plan for developing targeted educational materials
Plan for conducting public meetings and other stakeholder involvement activities
These resources are essential to developing and implementing a stakeholder involvement
strategy throughout the watershed permitting analytical approach and an NPDES watershed
framework.
APPENDIX A A-7
-------
Resources for Identifying Stakeholders and Facilitating their
Participation
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Community Culture and the Environment:
A Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place. Washington, DC. Available at
www.epa.gov/ecocommunity/pdf/ccecomplete.pdf
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003a. Getting in Step: A Guide for Conducting
Watershed Outreach Campaigns. Washington, DC. Available at
www. epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents/getnstep. pdf
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003b. Getting in Step: Engaging and Involving
Stakeholders in Your Watershed. Washington, DC. Available at
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/outreach/documents/stakeholderguide.pdf
A-8 Watershed-based Permitting Technical Guidance
-------
APPENDIX B
WATERSHED AND SOURCE DATA GAP ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
OBAPPENDIXB B-1
-------
CD
Watershed and Source Data Gap Assessment Worksheet
Instructions:
For each data type, using the key below indicate the status of the data and any basic information available about the data sources and
data quality. Additional details should be cataloged in a spreadsheet or database to facilitate queries and more complex data analyses.
Data Status Key:
' + Data exist and has been obtained
' Data exist, source is known, but has not been obtained
U Existence or source of data Unknown
X Data do not exist
NA Data not applicable
Watershed Data
Status
Data Type & Supplemental Information
Watershed boundaries
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
CD
Q.
CT
ffl
CD
Q.
Tl
CD
Hydrology
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
CD
O
O
5L
5;
Q)
O
CD
-------
o
CD
>
Tl
Tl
m
z
g
X
CD
Status
Data Type & Supplemental Information
Topography
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
Soils
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
Climate
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
CD
CO
-------
CO
-4 Watershed-based Permitti
Status
Data Type & Supplemental Information
Land Use & Land Cover
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic
Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
Demographics
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic
Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
Aquatic Life & Habitat
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic
Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
Wildlife
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic
Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
CD
O
O
5L
5;
Q)
O
CD
-------
o
CD
>
Tl
Tl
m
z
g
X
CD
Status
Data Type & Supplemental Information
Water Quality Standards
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
TMDLs
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
Source Water Protection Plans
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
CD
Ol
-------
CD
Point Source Data
Status
Data Type & Supplemental Information
Location of Point Sources
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
Point Source Permit Conditions
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
Point Source Monitoring Data
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
CD
Q.
CT
ffl
CD
Q.
-o
CD
Point Source Compliance Data
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
CD
O
O
5L
5;
Q)
O
CD
-------
o
CD
Tl
Tl
m
z
g
X
CD
Nonpoint Source Data
Status
Data Type & Supplemental Information
Location of nonpoint sources
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
Location of BMPs
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
Nonpoint Source Pollutant Loading
Data description:
Source:
Format (circle one): Hard copy Electronic Software
Location (Web site, file name, address):
Quality of data:
CD
-------
APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE SUPPLEMENTAL EFFLUENT LIMIT TABLE FOR
CO-PERMITTEES (INCLUDES ANNUAL LOAD LIMIT, LOCATION
RATIO, AND ASSOCIATION POLLUTANT LOADING CAP)
OBAPPENDIX C C-1
-------
o
ro
Example Supplemental Effluent Limit Table for Co-Permittees
(Includes Annual Load Limit, Location Ratio, and Association Pollutant Loading Cap)
NPDES
Permit No.
Facility Name
Total Annual
Load Limit
(TN Ibs/yr)
Location Ratio
(Ibs/yr) of TN
Delivered to
Waterbody of
Concern
Total Annual
Load Limit
(TP Ibs/yr)
Location Ratio
(Ibs/yr) of TP
Delivered to
Waterbody of
Concern
CD
Q.
CT
ffl
(/)
CD
Q.
Tl
CD
Aggregate TN Limitation
(Ibs/yr)
Aggregate TP Limitation
(Ibs/yr)
CD
O
8
c
5;
Q)
^
o
CD
-------
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLE SUPPLEMENTAL
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT FORMS FOR
NUTRIENT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS ACCOMMODATING TRADING
APPENDIX D D-1
-------
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT
Watershed-Based Permit
PERMITTEE NAME
PERMITTEE ADDRESS
FACILITY LOCATION
RECEIVING WATER
FROM
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
MONITORING PERIOD
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
TO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
Parameter
Effluent Limitations
Quantity or Loading
AVERAGE
TOTAL
Units
AVERAGE
TOTAL
Quality or Concentration
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
Units
Frequency of
Analysis
0)
nT
en
3-
CD
Q.
i
!T
0)
CO
CD
Q.
Tl
CD
i
3
CD
O
"
Summary of Trade Transactions Made
Parameter
Trading Partner
Actual
Discharge
(see above)
Delivery Ratio
Adjusted
Quantity of
Credits
Purchased (I.e.,
accounting for
Delivery Ratio)
Load Used for
Compliance
Determination1
Adjusted
Quantity of
Credits Sold
(I.e., accounting
for Delivery
Ratio)
Load for
Compliance
Determination2
Source of
Credits
Generated
1 Actual Discharge - (Delivered Credits Purchased - Delivered Credits Retired)
2 Actual Discharge + (Delivered Credits Sold)
Summary of Transactions to Offset (e.g., Restoration) Funds
o
CD
EFFLUENT-MONTHLY
-------
Tl
Tl
D
X
D
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT
Watershed-Based Permit
PERMITTEE NAME
PERMITTEE ADDRESS
FACILITY LOCATION
RECEIVING WATER
FROM
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
CUMULATIVE PERIOD
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
TO
YEAR MONTH DAY
Cumulative Reporting
9
CO
Parameter
Cumulative Discharged Load by Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Summary of Trade Transactions -CUMULATIVE TO DATE
Parameter
Trading
Partner
Actual
Cumulative
Discharge
Delivery
Ratio
Adjusted
Quantity of
Credits
Purch.
(accounting
for Delivery
Ratio)
Load Used for
Compliance
Determination1
Adjusted
Quantity of
Credits Sold
(accounting
for Delivery
Ratio)
Load for
Compliance
Determination2
Summary: Sources of
Credits Generated
1 Actual Discharge - (Delivered Credits Purchased - Delivered Credits Retired)
2 Actual Discharge + (Delivered Credits Sold)
Summary of Transactions to Offset (e.g., Restoration) Funds - CUMULATIVE TO DATE
CUMULATIVE REPORT
-------
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT
Watershed-Based Permit
PERMITTEE NAME
PERMITTEE ADDRESS
FACILITY LOCATION
RECEIVING WATER
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER
INTERNAL LOCATION
FROM
MONITORING PERIOD
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
TO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
Parameter
Permit
Limits
Quantity or Loading
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
Units
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
Quality or Concentration
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
Units
Frequency of
Analysis
I
CD
Q.
cr
0)
tn
CD
Q.
Tl
CD
CD
O
3"
3
o'
c
El
0)
o
CD
IMPLANT MONITORING
-------
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT
Watershed-Based Permit
TI
m
g
x
D
PERMITTEE NAME
PERMITTEE ADDRESS
RECEIVING WATER
RECEIVING WATER MONITORING LOCATION
FROM
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER
RECEIVING WATER LOCATION*
MONITORING PERIOD
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
TO
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
Parameter
Quality or
Concentration
Units
Frequency
of Analysis
"Receiving Water Location" refers to a location upstream and/or downstream of the discharge point. Separate forms would be submitted for individual locations.
RECEIVING WATER
-------
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT
Watershed-Based Permit
PERMITTEE NAME
PERMITTEE ADDRESS
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
FACILITY LOCATION
RECEIVING WATER
YEAR:
0)
nT
en
3-
CD
Q.
CT
0)
tfl
CD
Q.
Tl
CD
i
g
CD
O
"
CD
o
CD
Parameter
Effluent
Limitations
Cumulative Reporting
Parameter
Cumulative Load Discharged by Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Summary of Trade Transactions
Parameter
Trading
Partner
Delivery Ratio
1st Quarter Net
Credits*
2nd Quarter Net
Credits*
3rd Quarter Net
Credits*
4th Quarter Net
Credits*
ANNUAL
Adjusted Net
Credits* After
Delivery Ratio
*Net Credits = (Delivered Credits Purchased) - (Credits Retired) - (Credits Sold)
Summary of Transactions to Offset (e.g., Restoration) Funds or Other Method of Credit Generation (e.g, treatment, BMPs)
ANNUAL SUMMARY
-------
|