Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Wet Weather Partnership by mikesanye

VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 22

									             Richmond’s Tenacious
              Standards Revision
                   Initiative
            “You may as well expect
              pears from an elm.”
             Don Quixote. Part ii. Chap. xl.

Presented to: National Perspectives,
 Developments, and Advanced CSO
Solutions Workshop, April 24, 2008
At Last Year’s Meeting I Confidently
Concluded:
• Triennial Review
    comment period would
    end May 30 2008.
•   Change E. coli WQS from
    126 to 206 or a special
    standard for CSO
    communities
•   Future Costs Result in the
                                 “Diligence is the mother of
    Best Water Quality
                                 good fortune.” Don Quixote.
•   Scientifically based         Part ii. Chap. xliii.
•   EPA “approvable”
•   Equitable
•   Protected public health
                                    Richmond CSO Control Program
                                         Geometric Mean & Associated Risk Level
                                         Maximum Month (August) for Reach 13
                             700
                                                                 EPA Recommends Risk Level
                                                                 Less Than 10 illness per 1000
                             600
Geometric Mean (cfu/100ml)




                                               $242 million                                                  45% Urban
                             500
                                                                  Separation 5 times as                      Reduction
    E. Coli Monthly




                                                                  expensive as Alternative E                Unattainable
                             400

                             300
                                   206                                         $400 million
                             200                                                                            Minimum 45%
                                   126                                                                      reduction in
                             100                                                                            background loads
                                                                                                            required to attain
                              0
                                                                                                            compliance w/ 126
                                     No CSO                   Phases I & II   Alternative E    Separation
                                     Control                  CSO Control
                                                               Complete         Current WQS Based on
                                                                                Risk Level of 8 illness per 1000
Perspectives on Statewide E. coli Standard at 206
 • EPA’s Clarifications in 2004 Final Rule for Coastal and Great Lakes
    Recreation Waters
     – EPA indicated risk level associated with 126 geometric mean was arbitrarily
       set
     – EPA indicated no reason for different risk levels between marine and fresh
       waters
     – EPA indicated 206 geometric mean is protective of primary contact recreation
 • Advantages of Statewide Freshwater Bacteria WQS at 206 E.coli
    Geometric Mean
     – Focus limited resources on dirtiest waters
     – Save time & money by avoiding TMDLs
     – Save community resources by setting attainable/appropriate standard
 • Increase TMDL program credibility – more voluntary participation
 • Outcomes of Setting the Freshwater Bacteria WQS at 126
     – Higher wildlife reductions will continue to be required
     – If 126 standard is not attainable, UAA would be required with currently only
       two options
         • Primary Contact Recreation
         • Secondary Contact Recreation (anti-degradation would prevent backsliding)
Perspectives on Statewide E. coli Standard
at 206
Current Freshwater and Marine Water Risk
Levels
                                                        Acceptable
                                                        Swimming
                                                        Associated
                                  Geometric Mean       Gastroenteritis
                   Bacteria      Indicator Density     Rate per 1000
    Water Body     Indicator        (cfu/100mL)         Swimmers
    Freshwater       E. coli            126                  8

    Marine Water   enterococci           35                  19



                           EPA stated that there is
                          no reason to establish a
                          higher level of projection
                           for freshwaters than for
                                 marine waters
Perspectives on Statewide E. coli Standard at 206
Current Designated Uses
                                                      Acceptable
                                                       Swimming            Geometric
                                                      Associated         Mean Indicator
                         Water        Bacteria    Gastroenteritis Rate      Density
  Designated Use         Body         Indicator   per 1000 Swimmers       (cfu/100mL)
  Primary Contact
                      Freshwater       E. coli             8                  126
     Recreation
 Secondary Contact
                      Freshwater       E. coli        Not Known               600
    Recreation


   • Currently only two choices in a UAA
       – Primary Contact Recreation
       – Secondary Contact Recreation (anti-degradation would prevent backsliding)
   • Secondary Contact Recreation option is obviously undesirable
   • EPA Indicated 206 Geometric Mean is Protective of Primary Contact
      Recreation
       – More attainable standard will reduce the number of UAAs that would result in
         Secondary Contact Recreation
Positive Benefits for both Assessment and TMDL
Programs, from: DEQ Policy Question for
Revisions to Bacterial Quality in VA Water Quality
Standards 4-27-07

 • … more reasonable and cost-effective
   management plans to attain the water
   quality standards. (page 2)
 • … more reasonable primary recreation
   criteria there would be less incentive for
   pursuing secondary contact designation in …
   waters. (page 3)
Virginia Dept of Health Commented
• Inquire from DEQ Director and Secretary of
    Natural Resources for their position on one
    particular issue.
•   Should the bacteria criteria for freshwater in VA
    Water Quality Standards be revised based on an
    illness rate of 1%, which would be an increase
    from the existing 0.8 rate?
•   Protective of primary contact recreation and
    would be acceptable to EPA.
•   Reasonable given the marine illness rate is
    almost twice the freshwater illness rate.
“The more thou stir it, the worse it
will be.” Don Quixote. Part i. Book. iii. Chap. vi.
• … concern is that … could be
    perceived by the public as a
    step in the wrong direction
    for water quality protection.
•   Risk levels and illness rates
    can elicit reactions that are
    based on emotion and not
    fact and do not weigh the
    positive aspects of such a
    change.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Commented
• … sets a significant and improper precedent that our
  formally adopted water quality standards can be
  weakened (via the triennial review or other means)
  without compelling and thorough new information.
• The existing criteria of a geometric mean of 126
  CFU/100 ml based on a risk level of 0.8% was formally
  adopted by Virginia based on the best available data for
  freshwater recreation at the time.
• In the future, if new scientific information is developed
  in accordance with federal and state requirements that
  justify a change in criteria or designated uses for specific
  waters then the Commonwealth could consider such
  revisions at that time.
    City of Richmond Commented
• Protects public health
• Compliance can be
    demonstrated with CSO
    Control Plan E
•   Completes the WQS
    coordination process
•   Alternative A: Statewide
    WQS of 206 cfu/100 ml for
    E. coli
•   Alternative B: Special         “It is the part of a wise man to
    Standard for Portions of the      keep himself to-day for to-
    James River                       morrow, and not to venture all
                                      his eggs in one basket.” Don
                                     Quixote. Part i. Book. iii. Chap. ix.
Virginia State Water Control Board
Actions – 16 October 2009
• Standards adopted
    without a a changed or
    special bacteriological
    standard
•   Staff to reevaluate the
    existing bacteria criteria
    to determine if revisions
    are appropriate once EPA
    publishes new or revised
    bacteria criteria, currently
    anticipated by 2012.
                                   • Many go out for wool, and
                                     come home shorn themselves.
                                     Don Quixote. Part ii. Chap. xxxvii.
    STEP 5                      STEP 4                         STEP 3                 STEP 2                STEP 1
                              Agree on the data
                               and analyses to                  Establish a
   Collect data                                                                      Implement the       Issue permit requiring
                                support LTCP                 coordination team
 and develop draft                                                                     NMCs and         implementation of Nine
                              development and                to oversee LTCP
  LTCP, with the                                                                      evaluate their   Minimum Controls (NMCs)
                                 alternative                 development and
  public involved                                                                       efficacy        and LTCP development
                               evaluation, and                 WQS review
                                WQS reviews



                                                                      Responsible Entity

          STEP 6                                                          Water Quality Agency(s)
                                                                                                           STEP 11
                               Implement                                 (NPDES and WQS Authorities)
                           and, through WQ                                NPDES Authority with
 Review and accept       monitoring, evaluate                             Coordination Team
  draft LTCP and        effectiveness of priority                                                             Implement
evaluate attainability controls (e.g. for sensitive
                                                                           CSO Community                   post-construction
      of WQS              areas) and controls                                                                 compliance
                            common to all                                  WQS Authority                     monitoring to
                              alternatives                                                                evaluate attainment
                                                                                                               of WQS
               WQS attainable,
  WQS revisions
                no revision
  may be needed
                 necessary




                                                                                                                            Figure 1
 Propose revisions                                                             Review and
                                            Revise LTCP,                                                      Implement
 and revise WQS,                                                              approve LTCP,
                                            as appropriate                                                      LTCP
    if needed                                                                and modify permit



 STEP 7                                    STEP 8                                STEP 9                     STEP 10
Why the Watershed Approach?              Bact
                                         WQS
       Watershed Approach
                   CSO
                                     DISCHARGE
     TRADING    Stormwater
                                    CONTRIBUTORS
                Agricultural



                               REGULATORY PROCESSES
                                                           STREAM
                               →TMDL
                                                            USES
 •   Environmental             →Triennial Review

 •   Consensus Approach
 •   Quality of life                     WLA

 •   Makes sense
 •   Cost Savings for the
     Public - Rate/Tax                    ARE
                                                      NO
                                                            UAA
     Payers
                                         WLA
                                      ACHIEVABLE


                                YES
    Path Forward to Obtain Compliance
    Anticipated Activities if UAA Required for
    126 Standard
•    Complete WQS Triennial Review in 2008
•    Complete TMDL
•    Complete Implementation Plan
•    Complete draft UAA: If the draft UAA shows that another designated
     use category (may include subcategory or partial use) is required,
     subsequent triennial review may be required for the SWCB to adopt
     new designated uses.
•    Complete WQS Triennial Review: SWCB adopts new designated uses
•    Finalize UAA
•    Complete WQS Coordination Process and update CSO LTCP if
     required
•    Complete Phase II Permit as required by CSO Policy
•    Resume implementation of large CSO control improvements
City of Richmond, Virginia - DPU
Stormwater – MS4 Permit
• Stormwater Management Program
  – Water Quality
  – Drainage/Flooding
• Erosion Sediment Control
• Chesapeake Bay Program
• Proposed Stormwater Utility 2009
  – Operations and Maintenance
     • BMP Maintenance
  – Capital Improvements
TMDL development resumed February 11 2009
    “Total Maximum Daily Load
    Development for the James River and
    Tributaries – City of Richmond”
• Process public noticed February 11
    2009
•   Report dated March 3 2009
•   Applicable Standards (126 cfu /
    100 ml)
•   TMDL Endpoint and Water Quality
    Assessment
•   Modeling
     – Annual Average Loads
     – Final Allocation Scenarios (%
       Reductions)
• Implementation
• Two public meetings, March 10
    2009
                 Percent Reductions to Sources of E. coli
Stream        Wildlife Direct   Barren,       Livestock   Cropland,      Straight Pipes   Human and    COR CSO
                                Commercial,   Direct      Pasture, LAX   and SSO          Pet Land     Program
                                Forest,                                                   Based (IR)   Project Plan
                                Wetlands
Almond Cr           0                0            91           0             100              85         Plan E
                                                                                                          +52
Bernards Cr         0               38            99          93             100              96           NA

Falling Cr          0                0              0          0             100              13           NA
Gillies Cr          0                0              0          0             100              95         Plan E
                                                                                                          +95
Goode Cr            0                0              0          0             100              96           NA
No Name Cr          0                0              0          0             100             94.5          NA
Powhite Cr          0                0            40           0             100              86           NA
Reedy Cr            0                0              0          0             100               0           NA
James River         0               62            91          99             100              99         Plan E
(lower)
James River         0                0              0          0             100               0         Plan E
(tidal)
COR Interest: CSO, MS4 and
WWTP Compliance with WQS
• Model development
    and calibration
•   Correct wasteload
    allocations
•   Reasonable assurance
    of use attainment
•   Extend the comment
    period to resolve      “It
                             is past all controversy that
    technical issues       what costs dearest is, and
                           ought to be, most valued. “
•   WLAs precise and       Don Quixote. Part i. Book iv.
    accurate               Chap xi.
•   Compliance
Acknowledgements:
Ed Cronin, Greeley & Hansen
Lisa Ochsenhirt, Aqualaw

Conclusion: “I drink when I have
occasion, and sometimes when I have no
occasion.” Don Quixote. Part ii. Chap. xxxiii.
Robert C. Steidel, Deputy Director
City of Richmond Virginia, Department of Public Utilities
“We Touch People’s Lives Every Day”
Robert.Steidel@richmondgov.com
804-646-8311

								
To top