Water Resources Workshop

Water Resources Workshop

Standards, Use Attainability, Impairments

and TMDLS

Richard Eskin

Maryland Department of the Environment

February 20, 2004

Triennial Review• Currently underway for uses, criteria, and

antidegradation.• Draft Regulations were published in the

Maryland Register, Vol. 31, Issue 2, January 23, 2004, beginning on p. 128.

• Comment period has been extended to April 30.• Hearings currently scheduled:

– February 23, 2004: Hagerstown, MD– February 25, 2004: Dorchester, MD– February 26, 2004: Baltimore, MD

Designated Uses Review• Reclassification of Aquatic Life Use

– Roaring Run (tributary to North Branch of the Patapsco River),

– Un-named tributary to the North Branch of the Patapsco River, and

– Rock Run in Cecil County

from Use I to Use III. • Basis for revisions: DNR has requested these

designated use changes based on an analysis of the current distributions of naturally reproducing trout populations in these segments. Monitored temperature is consistent with the proposed designated use for these streams.

Water Quality Criteria Updates• National Recommended Water Quality Criteria:

2002 (EPA-822-R-02-047) November 2002– Supercedes prior Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 304(a) criteria.

– Compilation of 158 pollutants.

• EPA revised the methodology it uses to develop water quality criteria for protection of human health resulting in many changes.

Numeric WQ Criteria: Bacteria

• New Standards based on Beaches Act (2000)

• Highlights– Bacterial Indicator: Transition from fecal

coliform standard to Enterococci spp./E. coli– Criteria: two part, based on frequency of use

• Steady State Geometric Mean (minimum of 5 samples)

• Single Sample Maximum Allowable Density

– Establishment of Frequency of Use – local Health officials

Narrative Criteria

Biocriteria: – Establish management and policy framework– Set standards for implementation procedures

Antidegradation• Antidegradation provides a tiered system for

protecting the good quality of waters that have always met or exceeded their standards.

• Antidegradation provides a framework for protecting hard-won gains once water quality goals are reached.

• Three antidegradation tiers under EPA regulations– Tier 1: Must not degrade below minimum water quality

requirement (“fishable/swimmable”) applies to all waters – Tier 2: Protects water better than the minimum water quality

from degrading to the minimum.– Tier 3: Protects the highest quality waters (i.e., Outstanding

Natural Resource waters).

Antidegradation

• Maryland currently has an antidegradation policy that protects the quality of water that is better than the standards for that use (Tier II).

• We are proposing implementation procedures for determining and protecting water quality where it is better than the minimum required.

Tier 2 Implementation

• Two components:

– How to determine when water quality is “better” than the minimum required, and

– What to do when there is an application for a new or increased discharge to that water body.

When is water quality better?• If the MBSS IBI score is at least 4 out 5 (80%

of possible score), for B- and F- IBIs the water is considered higher quality.

• If the one-sided 90% confidence interval around the mean of the available data for a specific water quality parameter is better than the numeric criterion, the water is considered higher quality for that parameter. See next slide for example.

Dissolved oxygen

5 mg/l standard

Copper

90% CI around mean of available

data9 ppb chronic copper standard

How do we know where theTier 2 waters are?

• A draft list has been prepared based on MBSS data.

• It has been published with the draft regulation and is subject to comment just like the regulation.

Tier II & Assimilative Capacity

• The assimilative capacity is the difference between the water quality at the time the water body was designated as Tier 2 (baseline) and the water quality criterion.

• A maximum cumulative reduction of 25% (allows for natural variability) of the assimilative capacity from all sources is allowed. This is essentially a water quality cap.

Review Requirements

• Apply to both permit applications and amendments to water and sewer plans.

• Three key questions:1. Is there a no-discharge possibility?

2. If not, has everything been done to minimize the impact.

3. If there is still a necessary impact, a Social and Economic Justification (SEJ) may be necessary.

Components of the SEJ

• Impacts from treatment beyond the costs to meet technology- or water quality-based controls.

• Cost and benefits of maintaining high quality.

• Determine whether the costs of pollution controls would limit development in the watershed that includes the Tier 2 water.

Other Criteria

• Water Color: 75 Units Cobalt-Platinum Scale - in-stream numeric criteria

Triennial Review Contact Info

• Water Quality Standards– Joseph Beaman (jbeaman@mde.state.md.us)– George Harman (gharman@mde.state.md.us)

• Water Use: Permit and Discharge issues– Contact for WMA

Chesapeake Bay Standards

• Currently being developed.• Will follow EPA Region III guidance fairly

closely.• Will have an informal, informational review

this spring. Will essentially be a first draft of regulations.

• UAA will be abbreviated, but sufficient to enable review of the new standards

Chesapeake Bay Standards

• UAA will – Contain Bay Program attainment tables,– Explanation regarding natural conditions for

deep channel,– Some development of “human caused

conditions that can’t be remedied”– Some cost estimates.

• UAA will be expanded for draft regulations

Impairments

• 2004 303(d) list has completed the review period and comments are being compiled, and responses developed.

• At this time we anticipate submitting the List to EPA by April.

• Most new impairments were for degradation of biological communities.

TMDLs

• Revising 1998 schedule to reflect resources, need for outreach, method development.

• Summary of changes published in MdR Feb. 6, 2004, p. 231.

• Comment period open for 30 days.– Extends completion from 10 years to 13 years

consistent with EPA guidance.

TMDLs

• Change due date for each year from Dec. to Sept.

• Clarify that TMDLs aren’t the only way to address impairments.

• Provides a two year schedule.

• Commits to also working on post-1998 lists.