1

STORMWATER PROGRAM – AN UPDATEThelma Murphy, EPA – Region 1April 18, 2014

2

PRESENTATION OVERVIEW Stormwater Rulemaking

Status and revised strategy Stormwater Permits Program

Multi-Sector General Permit Construction General Permit Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

Permits Residual Designation Authority

Brief summary Petition review

Integrated Planning

3

o #1 cause of beach closures and advisory days in 2012

o There are thousands of waters listed for impairments from stormwater sources throughout the U.S.

o New Hampshire: 83% of surface water quality impairments are due primarily to stormwater

o New York: Stormwater is a major and contributing source of impairments in 77% of water bodies assessed

o Increased volume and velocity of stormwater discharges cause stream bank erosion and loss of aquatic habitat

o Projected 800,000 – 1 million acres/yr of development will increase the amount of stormwater, causing flooding and water quality impacts

Stormwater Is a Large and Growing Source of Water Pollution

Beach Closures

Major Cause of

Impairments

Growing Problem

Stormwater causes beach closures and

advisory days

Stormwater causes repetitive flooding that destroys roads, bridges, and other infrastructure

Stream Bank Erosion

Stormwater causes stream bank erosion

4

STORMWATER RULEMAKING/STRATEGY

PLANNED FOCUS OF A PROPOSED STORMWATER RULE

5

Establish performance standards for discharges from newly developed and redeveloped sites

Builds upon innovative approaches developed by many communities and developers already

Helps to revive urban streamsCreates level playing fieldPrevents pollutionAvoids costly stream restorationReduces floodingCreates local jobs

6

STRATEGY - ACTION AREASFederal Partnerships

Education, Technical Assistance, and engagement with key partners

Recognition and incentive programs

Strengthen the MS4 program

7

STORMWATER PERMITS

8

UNIVERSE OF NPDES FACILITIESCAFO

3%

Stormwater Phase I

52%

Stormwater Phase II

35%

Direct Discharge

Permits 10%

Stormwater Permittees make up 87% of the Permitted Universe

9

INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES - MSGP Covers 11 categories of industrial activities Related to manufacturing, processing, or

materials storage areas Includes federal, state, and municipally-

owned and operated facilities Industrial facilities with “no exposure” of

their industrial activities or materials to stormwater are not required to have permit coverage.

Must certify no-exposure

10

PERMIT STATUS-MSGP Draft permit proposed 9/27/13 Comment period ended 12/26/13 Expected reissuance – October 2014 Changes from 2008 permit:

NEPA review for discharges subject to new source performance standards

Electronic submissions required Revised requirements for historic properties and

endangered species eligibility Benchmarks for saline waters Effluent limitation guidelines for air

transportation

11

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES - CGP

Permit issued 2/17/12

Large construction (>5 acres) in category (x) of industrial activity

Small construction (1-5 acres) in stand alone section

Includes the Construction and Development Effluent Guidelines

12

MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES- MS4: Covers MS4s in “urbanized areas” Urbanized areas based on

decennial census (e.g., 2000, 2010, etc.)

Permitting authorities can also designate additional small MS4s that are outside of urbanized areas

Includes non-traditional MS4s within urbanized areas, such as:Military basesPublic universitiesPrisons, etc.

13DRAF

T PE

RMIT

SNH Small MS4 DraftPublic Noticed: 12/23/08 – 2/20/09Revised permit public noticed: 2/12/13 – 8/15/13

MA Small MS4 DraftsNorth Coastal- Public noticed: 2/4/10 – 3/31/10Interstate Merrimack South Coastal – Public noticed: 11/4/10 – 3/11/11Revised draft MA MS4: Spring 2014

14

WHY NEW DRAFT PERMITS ? Significant public comments (over 700)

New census defined urbanized areas

New approved total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)

SIX MINIMUM MEASURES Public Education and

Outreach Public Involvement and

Participation Illicit Discharge Detection and

Elimination Construction Site Runoff

Control Post-Construction Stormwater

Management for New and Re-development

Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations 15

16

WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS Discharges to impaired waters without approved

TMDLs Development of a water quality response plan Adaptive management

Discharges to impaired waters with an approved TMDL Approved TMDLs in NH – chloride, bacteria and

phosphorus Approved TMDLs in MA – bacteria, phosphorus and

nitrogen Inclusion of requirements to address the TMDL- salt

reduction plan; illicit detection and education, and phosphorus reduction plan

17

OVERVIEW OF DRAFT MS4 PHOSPHORUS CONTROL PLAN

MS4s that have discharges to phosphorus TMDL lakes and ponds shall develop a Phosphorus Control Plan (PCP) for those watershed areas served by MS4 drains

The PCP shall be designed to achieve reductions in annual phosphorus loadings from applicable MS4 storm drains that are consistent with the established wasteload allocations of the applicable TMDL

The MS4 shall incorporate the PCP into its SWMP The MS4 shall implement the PCP

18

PHOSPHORUS CONTROL PLAN COMPONENTS & PROPOSED SCHEDULE – NH DRAFTPCP Component Year

1*Year 2*

Year 3*

Year 4*

Year 5*

Cost & funding source assessmentLegal analysisEstimate baseline P load & reductionScope of PCPDescribed planned non-structural controlsDescribe planned structural controlsInventory & priority ranking for locations of structural retrofitsImplementation schedulePerformance evaluation* From effective date of permit

NEXT STEPS Respond to comments – timing depends on

number of comments received

Publication of Notice of Availability of final permit in Federal Register

Permit implementation

19

20

RESIDUAL DESIGNATION

21

RESIDUAL DESIGNATION This authority is provided in CWA Section 402 (p)

(6) and described in EPA Regulations at 40 CFR Section 122.26 (a)(9)(i)(C)&(D) and 122.26 (f).

Allows stormwater discharges not automatically required to obtain CWA NPDES discharge permits to be designated as requiring a permit under certain conditions

21

22

THREE PRONGS OF RDA 40 CFR 122.26(a)(9)(i)(C) - stormwater

controls are needed for the discharge based on wasteload allocations that are a part of TMDLs that address the pollutant(s) of concern

40 CFR 122.26(a)(9)(i)(D) – determination that the discharge or category of discharges in a geographic area contributes to a violation of a WQS or is a significant contributor of pollutants

40 CFR 122.26(f) – petition for a NPDES permit for a discharge which contributes to a violation of a WQS or is a significant contributor of pollutants

RDA STORMWATER PETITIONS On July 10, 2013, EPA Regions 1, 3, and 9

received petitions requesting that EPA make “a determination, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(a)(9)(i)(D), that non de-minimis, currently non-NPDES permitted stormwater discharges from commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) facilities are contributing to violations of water quality standards in certain impaired waters, and therefore require NPDES permits pursuant to section 402(p) of the CWA.”

Pollutants: lead, zinc, copper, phosphorus, nitrogen, sediment, BOD, and COD

23

COMMON FACTORS ANALYZEDFACTORS ANALYSIS RESULTS1. Likelihood of exposure of pollutants to precipitation at CII sites

Petitioners presented data from the National Stormwater Quality Database to support the contention that CII sites are sources of pollution. There is likely exposure of the identified pollutants in CII stormwater discharges, given their significant amounts of impervious cover

2. Sufficiency of available data to evaluate the contribution of stormwater discharges from unregulated CII sites to specific water quality impairments

Petitioners presented 303d list for each Region• Petitions provide insufficient data directly connecting stormwater discharges from a particular CII site, or category of CII sites, to any specific water body impairments, taking into account existing controls• Regions do not have that level of information reasonably available , given the broad scope of the petition• Additional information on a watershed or localized basis would be necessary to adequate support a specific designation

3. Whether other federal, state, or local programs adequately address the known stormwater discharge contribution to a water quality standard violation

Regional specific

24

REGION 1 RESPONSE Region 1 will consider the use of RDA to address

impaired waters in a targeted manner where there is adequate evidence and documentation that stormwater discharges from one or more CII facilities causing or contributing to water quality impairments Using a phased approach given the vast number of

properties that could potentially be designated based on the scope of the petition Begin with the evaluation of unregulated CII facilities within a

watershed where EPA or a state agency has already determined that stormwater is contributing to a WQS violation

EPA will consult with States about whether RDA is an appropriate tool in the specific watersheds

As time, resources, site specific information, and knowledge of stormwater controls allow, additional phased designations may follow the initial ones

25

REGION 3 RESPONSE Basis for denying petitions

Insufficient data on which to base a designation of CII sites in the Region Because of the wide range of potential sources of the pollutants listed in the petition, it is

generally not possible to identify which sources contribute to a violation of WQS without a watershed-specific analysis.

Existing water quality protection programs cover the majority of CII stormwater discharges in the Region

GIS analysis indicated that the majority of impervious cover is located in the regulated MS4 area and where the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and associated accountability framework are implemented

Chesapeake Bay TMDL MS4 Permits New/Redevelopment Standards Outside Regulated MS4s Industrial Permits and Regulations beyond Federal Requirements Effective State Programs

Pending outcome of existing programs, Region is prepared to evaluate use of RDA to address impaired waters in a targeted manner where there is adequate evidence

26

REGION 9 RESPONSE

RDA is an important part of the Region’s ongoing stormwater program The Region has exercised RDA in Guam and will continue to do so in other

areas as information supports targeted designations Basis for denying petitions

Insufficient data on which to base a designation of CII sites in all watershed listed in the Petition

Because of the wide range of potential sources of the pollutants, would need a watershed-specific analysis to identify which sources contribute to a violation of WQS

Existing water quality protection programs cover the majority of CII stormwater discharges in the Region

GIS analysis indicated that the majority of impervious cover associated with CII sources is located in Phase I MS4s

Phase I MS4 permits are on 4th -5th iteration, cover larger geographic areas than other parts of the US, implement TMDLs, and require programs to control discharges from a large number of CII sites

GI retrofit projects addressing CII sources in various watersheds in the Region

27

28

RDAS IN REGION 1

Charles River RDA – based on 40 CFR 122.26(a)(9)(i)(C) and 122.26(a)(9)(i)(D) Pollutant – Phosphorus Final permit not issued

Long Creek RDA – based on 40 CFR 122.26(a)(9)(i)(D) Pollutant – Impervious Cover as a surrogate Permit issued in 2009

29

INTEGRATED PLANNING

30

WHAT IS THE INTEGRATED APPROACH?

An opportunity for municipalities to propose to meet CWA requirements by: sequencing wastewater and stormwater projects

in a way that allows the highest priority environmental projects to come first, and

potentially using innovative solutions, such as green infrastructure

31

OUTLINE OF FRAMEWORK

Background Principles

Overarching Principles Guiding Principles

Elements of an Integrated Plan Implementation

Permits Enforcement

32

OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES FORINTEGRATED APPROACH

Maintains existing regulatory standards that protect public health and water quality

Allows a municipality to balance various CWA requirements in a manner that addresses the most pressing public health and environmental protection issues first

The responsibility to develop an integrated plan rests with municipalities

33

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT

Reflect State requirements and planning efforts

Use existing flexibilities in the CWA and its implementing regulations

Maximize effectiveness of infrastructure dollars through analysis of alternatives and the selection and sequencing of actions

Incorporate innovative technologies and practices (green infrastructure)

34

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT

Evaluate and address community impacts and considers disproportionate burdens

Technology-based and core requirements are not delayed

Financial strategy is in place

Opportunity for meaningful stakeholder input

35

INTEGRATED PLAN ELEMENTS

Element 1 ― Water Quality, Human Health, Regulatory Issues

Element 2 ― Existing Systems and Performance

Element 3 ― Stakeholder Involvement

Element 4 ― Evaluating and Selecting Alternatives

Element 5 ― Measuring success

Element 6 ― Improvements to Plan

36

INTEGRATED PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Role of Permits ― Incorporate all or part of an integrated plan into NPDES permit where legally permissible

Role of Enforcement ― All or part of an integrated plan may be able to be incorporated into the remedy of an enforcement action

In some cases, both permits and enforcement

orders may implement components of an Integrated Plan

37

QUESTIONS