Water Quality Standards Handbook - Chapter 5: General Policies (40 CFR 131.13) | Handbook | US EPA

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/chapter05.cfm#section52[7/21/2015 6:46:48 PM]

Water: Handbook Contact Us

You are here: Water Science & Technology Surface Water Standards & Guidance Water Quality Standards Handbook

Water Quality Standards Handbook - Chapter 5: General Policies (40 CFR 131.13)

Water Quality Standards Handbook - Chapter 5: General

 Policies (40 CFR 131.13)

EPA-820-B-14-004

September 2014

Table of Contents

Introduction

5.1 Mixing Zones

5.1.1 Recommended Contents of State and Tribal Mixing Zone Policies

5.1.2 Situations in Which Mixing Zones May Not Be Appropriate

5.1.3 Mixing Zones for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material

5.1.4 Mixing Zones for Aquaculture Projects

5.2 Critical Low Flows for Water Quality Criteria Implementation

5.3 Variances from Water Quality Standards

Introduction

As specified in 40 CFR 131.13, states and authorized tribes may, at their discretion, adopt certain policies into their

 water quality standards (WQS) that generally affect how their WQS are applied or implemented. Examples of such

 general policies include those affecting mixing zones, critical low flows, and WQS variances. 1/ As the regulation

 indicates, states and tribes are not required to adopt general policies. However, if a state or tribe chooses to adopt a

 general policy, such policies are subject to EPA review and approval or disapproval under Section 303(c) of the Clean

 Water Act (CWA) if they constitute new or revised WQS (see Chapter 1 of this Handbook). This chapter provides an

 overview of three types of general WQS policies. In particular, Section 5.1 of this chapter discusses mixing zones,

 Section 5.2 discusses critical low flows, and Section 5.3 discusses variances.

5.1 Mixing Zones

A mixing zone is a limited area or volume of water where initial dilution of a discharge takes place and where certain

 numeric water quality criteria may be exceeded. The CWA does not require that all criteria be met at the exact point

 where pollutants are discharged into a receiving water prior to the mixing of such pollutants with the receiving water.

 Sometimes it is possible to expose aquatic organisms to a pollutant concentration above a criterion for a short

 duration within a limited, clearly defined area of a waterbody while still maintaining the designated use of the

 waterbody as a whole. Where this is the case, a state or authorized tribe may find it appropriate to allow ambient

 concentrations of a pollutant above the criterion in small areas near point-source outfalls (i.e., mixing zones).

Mixing zones do not constitute new state or tribal criteria or changes to the state- or tribe-adopted and EPA-approved

 criteria. Therefore, the narrative and/or numeric criteria for the waterbody are still the applicable criteria within the

 boundaries of the mixing zone. A mixing zone simply authorizes an applicable criterion to be exceeded within a

 defined area of the waterbody while still protecting the designated use of the waterbody as a whole. Since 1983, the

 guidance in this Handbook has described mixing zones as areas where criteria may be exceeded rather than areas

 where criteria do not apply.

By authorizing a mixing zone, states and tribes allow some portion of the waterbody to mix with and dilute particular

 wastewater discharges before evaluating whether the waterbody as a whole is meeting its criteria. In addition to the

 WQS regulation at 40 CFR 131.13 described above, the use of dilution is supported by the National Pollutant Discharge

 Elimination System (NPDES) permitting regulation at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(ii), which requires the permitting authority to

 consider, where appropriate, “the dilution of the effluent in the receiving water” when determining whether a discharge

Water Home

Drinking Water

Education & Training

Grants & Funding

Laws & Regulations

Our Waters

Pollution Prevention &

 Control

Resources & Performance

Science & Technology

Water Infrastructure

What You Can Do

Analytical Methods &

 Laboratories

Applications & Databases

Climate Change & Water

Contaminants of Emerging

 Concern

Drinking Water

Monitoring & Assessment

Research & Risk

 Assessment

Surface Water Standards &

 Guidance

Wastewater Technology

Share

Advanced Search A-Z Index
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Chapter 5: General Policies (40 CFR 131.13) | Handbook | US EPA

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/chapter05.cfm#section52[7/21/2015 6:46:48 PM]

 causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an instream excursion above a criterion. Depending on

 the state or tribal WQS and implementation policies, a consideration of dilution could be expressed in the form of a

 dilution allowance or a mixing zone. A dilution allowance typically is expressed as the flow or portion of the flow of a

 river or stream and is typically applied in flowing waters where rapid and complete mixing occurs. A mixing zone is

 typically applied in any waterbody type in which incomplete mixing occurs. For more information, see Chapter 6 of the

NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual (2010).

While mixing zones serve to dilute concentrations of pollutants in effluent discharges, they also allow increases in the

 mass loading of the pollutant to the waterbody (more so than would occur if no mixing zone were allowed). Therefore,

 if not applied appropriately, a mixing zone could adversely affect mobile species passing through the mixing zone as

 well as less mobile species (e.g., benthic communities) in the immediate vicinity of the discharge. Because of these and

 other factors, mixing zones should be applied carefully so that they do not result in impairment of the designated use

 of the waterbody as a whole or impede progress toward the CWA goals of restoring and maintaining the physical,

 chemical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Keeping this in mind, a state or tribe has the discretion to

 choose whether to authorize mixing zones and adopt a mixing zone policy. However, as described below, if a state or

 tribe chooses to adopt a mixing zone policy, such a policy is generally considered a new or revised WQS that must be

 adopted into state or tribal law and approved by the EPA before it is effective for CWA purposes.

An important note is that “mixing zone” is used in multiple ways. A mixing zone policy is a legally binding state or

 tribal policy that is adopted into WQS and describes the general characteristics of and requirements associated with

 mixing zones without taking into account site-specific information. The EPA generally views such mixing zone polices

 as constituting new or revised WQS that require EPA review and approval or disapproval under Section 303(c) of the

 CWA. Consistent with the four-part test described in What is a New or Revised Water Quality Standard Under CWA

 Section 303(c)? Frequently Asked Questions (2012) and Chapter 1 of this Handbook, a state or tribal mixing zone

 policy is a legally binding provision that is adopted into state or tribal law (part one), and it addresses the criteria

 component of WQS (part two). Additionally, a mixing zone policy expresses a desired condition in the waterbody to

 allow flexibility in meeting the applicable criteria within certain areas of the waterbody (part three), and if it is a new

 provision or revises an existing policy (part four), it clearly meets the requirements to be a new or revised WQS.

On the other hand, an individual, site-specific mixing zone is authorized for a particular point-source discharge in

 accordance with a state or tribal mixing zone policy and accounts for the site-specific characteristics of a particular

 discharge and receiving water. An individual mixing zone is defined and implemented through the NPDES permitting

 process. The EPA does not view individual mixing zones as constituting new or revised WQS requiring EPA review under

 Section 303(c). Like a mixing zone policy, an individual mixing zone is a legally binding provision that is established

 pursuant to state or tribal law (part one), and it addresses the criteria component of WQS (part two). However, unlike a

 mixing zone policy, an individual mixing zone does not express or establish a desired condition in the waterbody (part

 three). Instead, the individual mixing zone is used to establish appropriate water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs)

 for a specific discharger’s NPDES permit. An individual mixing zone also does not establish a new provision or revise

 an existing provision (part four). Rather, it implements a WQS (i.e., the state or tribal mixing zone policy) for a specific

 discharger using site-specific information.

Additionally, any time an effluent is discharged into a receiving water, there will be a zone of actual or physical mixing

 in which the discharge and receiving water naturally mix regardless of whether a mixing zone, in the regulatory sense,

 has been authorized. Such actual mixing is described using field studies and a water quality model and is used in

 establishing an individual, site-specific mixing zone for a particular discharge.

The authorization of mixing zones under incompletely mixed discharge and receiving water situations pre-dates the

 CWA. The EPA's current mixing zone guidance, contained in this Handbook, the Technical Support Document for Water

 Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD) (1991), and the NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual (2010), evolved from previous

 guidance from the EPA and its predecessor agencies on the use of mixing zones as a regulatory tool to address the

 incomplete mixing of wastewater discharges in receiving waters. This Handbook describes the EPA’s recommendations

 for state and tribal mixing zone policies. The other two documents listed above describe the technical and permitting

 aspects of defining individual, site-specific mixing zones for point-source discharges during the NPDES permitting

 process. Additional information on mixing zones can also be found in the EPA’s Compilation of EPA Mixing Zone

 Documents (2006) and Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Water Quality Standards (1998).

5.1.1 Recommended Contents of State and Tribal Mixing Zone Policies

The EPA recommends that states and authorized tribes adopt, at a minimum, a definitive statement into their WQS

 specifying whether the state or tribe intends to authorize mixing zones. Consistent with the discussion above, where a

 mixing zone is authorized, water quality criteria are met at the edge of the mixing zone during critical low-flow

 conditions (which are described in Section 5.2 of this chapter) so that the designated use of the waterbody as a whole

 is protected. If a state or tribe chooses to adopt a mixing zone policy, such a policy should ensure the following:
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Chapter 5: General Policies (40 CFR 131.13) | Handbook | US EPA

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/chapter05.cfm#section52[7/21/2015 6:46:48 PM]

Mixing zones do not impair the designated use of the waterbody as a whole.

Pollutant concentrations within the mixing zone are not lethal to organisms passing through the mixing zone.

2/

Pollutant concentrations within the mixing zone do not cause significant human health risks considering likely

 pathways of exposure.

Mixing zones do not endanger critical areas such as breeding or spawning grounds, habitat for threatened or

 endangered species, areas with sensitive biota, shellfish beds, fisheries, drinking water intakes and sources, or

 recreational areas.

Because pollutant concentrations may exceed numeric criteria within mixing zones, these elevated concentrations could

 adversely affect the productivity of the waterbody and have unanticipated ecological consequences. Therefore, the EPA

 recommends that the use of mixing zones in the development of WQBELs in NPDES permits be carefully evaluated and

 appropriately limited on a case-by-case basis in light of the overarching requirement to protect the designated use of

 the waterbody as a whole pursuant to 40 CFR 131.10.

Due to potential additive or synergistic effects of certain pollutants that could result in the designated use of the

 waterbody as a whole not being protected, state and tribal mixing zone policies should specify, and permitting

 authorities should ensure, that mixing zones do not overlap. Additionally, the EPA recommends that permitting

 authorities evaluate the cumulative effects of multiple mixing zones within the same waterbody. The EPA has

 developed a holistic approach to determine whether a mixing zone is appropriate based on such cumulative effects

 considering all of the impacts to the designated uses of the waterbody (see Allocated Impact Zones for Areas of NonCompliance (1995)). If the total area affected by elevated concentrations within all mixing zones combined is small

 compared to the total area of the waterbody in which the mixing zones are located, then mixing zones are likely to

 have little effect on the designated use of the waterbody as a whole, provided that they do not impinge on unique or

 critical habitats. As understanding of pollutant impacts on ecological systems evolves, states and tribes may find

 specific cases in which no mixing zone is appropriate.

States and tribes that choose to adopt mixing zone policies should describe the general procedures for defining and

 implementing mixing zones in terms of location, maximum size, shape, outfall design, and in zone water quality, at a

 minimum. Such policies should be sufficiently detailed to support regulatory actions, issuance of permits, and

 determination of best management practices for nonpoint sources.

The EPA recommends that specific characteristics of an individual mixing zone for a specific discharger be defined on a

 case by case basis using the state or tribal mixing zone policy. This site-specific assessment would ideally take into

 consideration the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the discharge (including the type of pollutant

 discharged) and receiving waterbody; the life history and behavior of organisms in the receiving waterbody; and the

 designated uses of the waterbody.

Location

States and authorized tribes should restrict the potential locations of mixing zones as a way to protect stationary

 benthic organisms and human health from the potential adverse effects of elevated pollutant levels. In addition, states

 and tribes should prohibit mixing zones where they may endanger biologically important and other critical areas that

 the state, tribe, or federal government has identified. These include breeding and spawning grounds, habitat for

 threatened or endangered species, areas with sensitive biota, shellfish beds, fisheries, drinking water intakes and

 sources, and recreational areas.

Pollutant concentrations above the chronic aquatic life water quality criterion may prevent sensitive taxa from living and

 reproducing successfully within the mixing zone. In this regard, benthic and territorial organisms may be of greatest

 concern in protecting aquatic life within a mixing zone. The higher the pollutant concentrations occurring within the

 mixing zone, the more taxa are likely to be adversely affected, thereby affecting the structure and function of the

 ecological community and, potentially, the designated use of the waterbody as a whole.

For protection of human health, states and tribes should restrict mixing zones such that they do not result in

 significant human health risks when evaluated using reasonable assumptions about exposure pathways. For example,

 where drinking water contaminants are a concern, the mixing zones should not encroach on drinking water intakes

 and sources. Where fish tissue residues are a concern (either because of measured or predicted residues), mixing

 zones should not result in significant human health risks to average and sensitive subpopulations of consumers of fish

 and shellfish after considering exposure duration of the affected aquatic organisms in the mixing zone and the

 patterns of fisheries use in the area. Where waters are designated for primary contact recreation, mixing zones for

 bacteria should not result in significant human health risks to people recreating in such waters. In all cases, it is critical
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Chapter 5: General Policies (40 CFR 131.13) | Handbook | US EPA

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/chapter05.cfm#section52[7/21/2015 6:46:48 PM]

 that the designated use of the waterbody as a whole is protected.

Size

In order to protect the designated uses of the waterbody as a whole, pollutant concentrations within any mixing zone

 should not be lethal to mobile, migrating, and drifting organisms in the waterbody or cause significant human health

 risks considering likely pathways of exposure. One means of achieving these objectives is to limit the size of the

 mixing zone.

Most states and authorized tribes allow mixing zones as a matter of policy but also specify general spatial dimensions

 that limit their size. States and tribes have developed various methods of defining the maximum allowable size of

 mixing zones for various types of waters. State and tribal policies dealing with streams and rivers often limit mixing

 zone widths, cross sectional areas, and/or flow volumes and allow lengths to be determined on a case by case basis.

 For lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters, dimensions are usually specified by surface area, width, cross sectional area,

 and/or volume. The EPA recommends that states and tribes use methods that result in quantitative measures sufficient

 for permitting authorities to develop WQBELs in a transparent and straightforward manner.

If a mixing zone is authorized for a specific discharge, the permitting authority then defines the actual size of an

 individual, site-specific mixing zone for the specific discharge on a case-by-case basis using the general size

 restrictions in the state or tribal mixing zone policy. The area or volume of an individual mixing zone or group of

 mixing zones should be as small as practicable so that it does not interfere with the designated uses or with the

 established community of aquatic life in the segment for which the uses are designated.

In general, where a state or tribe has both acute and chronic aquatic life water quality criteria as well as human health

 criteria for the same pollutant, states and tribes may establish independent mixing zone size specifications that apply

 to each criteria type. For aquatic life criteria, there may be up to two types of mixing zones: one for the acute criterion

 and one for the chronic criterion (see Figure 5.1).

In the zone immediately surrounding the outfall, both the acute and the chronic criteria may be exceeded, but the acute

 criterion is met at the edge of this zone, which is often referred to as the acute mixing zone or the zone of initial

 dilution. The acute mixing zone is sized to prevent lethality to passing organisms in order to protect the designated

 use of the waterbody as a whole.

In the next mixing zone, which is often called the chronic mixing zone, the chronic criterion may be exceeded, but the

 acute criterion is met. The chronic criterion is met at the edge of the chronic mixing zone. The chronic mixing zone is

 sized to protect the designated use of the waterbody as a whole.

Where the state or tribe also has human health criteria for the pollutant of concern, the human health mixing zone is

 sized to prevent significant human risks in order to protect the designated use of the waterbody as a whole.

For a particular pollutant found in a particular discharge, the magnitude, duration, frequency, and any authorized
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Chapter 5: General Policies (40 CFR 131.13) | Handbook | US EPA

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/chapter05.cfm#section52[7/21/2015 6:46:48 PM]

 mixing zone associated with each of the criteria types (i.e., human health and acute and chronic aquatic life) will

 determine which criterion most limits the allowable discharge. In all cases, the permitting authority should evaluate the

 size of the site-specific mixing zone to determine its effect on the designated use of the waterbody as a whole. Section

 2.2.2 of the TSD (1991) contains information for determining whether a mixing zone’s size is appropriate.

State and tribal mixing zone policies should identify zones of passage within waterbodies that contain migrating, freeswimming, or drifting organisms. Zones of passage are continuous water routes of such volume, area, and quality as to

 allow the passage of free swimming and drifting organisms without significant adverse effects on their populations.

 Many species migrate for spawning and other purposes. Not only do migrating species (e.g., anadromous and

 catadromous species) need to be able to reach suitable spawning areas, their young (and in some cases the adults)

 require a safe return route to their growing and living areas. Elevated pollutant concentrations within a mixing zone

 can create barriers that hinder or prevent safe migration. Therefore, mixing zones should be sized and located

 appropriately within the waterbody to provide a continuous zone of passage that protects migrating, free-swimming,

 and drifting organisms.

Shape

The waterbody type, outfall design, and characteristics of the discharge will determine the shape of a mixing zone. The

 shape should be a simple configuration that is easy to locate in a waterbody and that avoids impingement on

 biologically important areas. In lakes, a circle with a specified radius is generally preferable, but other shapes may be

 appropriate in the case of unusual site requirements.

"Shore hugging" plumes should be avoided in all waterbodies. Shore areas are often the most biologically productive

 and sensitive areas of a waterbody, and they are often used for recreation. Shore-hugging plumes generally do not mix

 as well with receiving waters and, thus, do not dilute as well as mixing zones with other shapes that do not hug

 shorelines. Because shore-hugging plumes tend to keep unmixed water over the benthic area or in the recreational

 area, they are more likely to adversely affect the designated uses of the waterbody.

Outfall Design

Because outfall design affects the amount of initial mixing that occurs, state and tribal mixing zone policies should

 instruct dischargers to utilize the best practicable engineering design of the outfall to maximize initial mixing.

 Sometimes, modifying the design of the diffuser, the location of the outfall, or other outfall design characteristics can

 reduce significant adverse impacts to the waterbody because different design characteristics have different effects on

 mixing. Many different factors affect how well the outfall design allows the discharge to mix with the receiving water

 including the following: 

The height of the outfall with respect to the surface and bottom of the waterbody. 

The distance of the end of the pipe to the nearest bank (i.e., whether the outfall is in the middle of the

 waterbody or close to one side). 

The angle of the discharge. 

The type of diffuser that is used (i.e., single-port or multi-port diffuser).

Section 4.4.1 of the TSD (1991) describes recommendations for outfall design in more detail.

In-zone Water Quality

States and authorized tribes should ensure that a minimum level of water quality is maintained within a mixing zone.

 Mixing zones should attain the “free from” narrative water quality criteria that are applicable to all waters in a state or

 reservation. For example, the EPA recommends that mixing zones be free from the following: 

Materials in concentrations that will cause acutely toxic conditions to aquatic life. 3/

Materials in concentrations that settle to form objectionable deposits. 

Floating debris, oil, scum, and other material in concentrations that form nuisances.

Substances in concentrations that produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity. 

Substances in concentrations that produce undesirable aquatic life or result in a dominance of nuisance species.

5.1.2 Situations in Which Mixing Zones May Not Be Appropriate

As discussed above, states and authorized tribes are not required to allow mixing zones. Even if a state or tribe

 chooses to allow mixing zones generally, it may also choose to define in its policy circumstances under which mixing

 zones are prohibited (e.g., for particular pollutants and/or waterbodies). Likewise, where the state or tribe generally

 allows mixing zones, the permitting authority may decide that a mixing zone is not appropriate for a particular
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Chapter 5: General Policies (40 CFR 131.13) | Handbook | US EPA

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/chapter05.cfm#section52[7/21/2015 6:46:48 PM]

 discharge on a site-specific basis. 4/ States and tribes should conclude that mixing zones are not appropriate in the

 following situations: 

Where they may impair the designated use of the waterbody as a whole. 

Where they contain pollutant concentrations that may be lethal to passing organisms. 

Where they contain pollutant concentrations that may cause significant human health risks considering likely

 pathways of exposure. 

Where they may endanger critical areas such as breeding and spawning grounds, habitat for threatened or

 endangered species, areas with sensitive biota, shellfish beds, fisheries, drinking water intakes and sources,

 and recreational areas.

Additionally, states and tribes should carefully consider whether mixing zones are appropriate where a discharge

 contains bioaccumulative, pathogenic, persistent, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic pollutants or where a

 discharge containing toxic pollutants may attract aquatic life.

Bioaccumlative pollutants are one example of a pollutant for which mixing zones may not be appropriate because they

 may cause significant human health risks such that the designated use of the waterbody as a whole may not be

 protected. 5/ Therefore, the EPA recommends that state and tribal mixing zone policies do not allow mixing zones for

 discharges of bioaccumulative pollutants. The EPA adopted this approach in 2000 when it amended its 1995 Final

 Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System at 40 CFR Part 132 to phase out mixing zones for existing

 discharges of bioaccumulative pollutants within the Great Lakes Basin and ban such mixing zones for new discharges

 within the Basin.

Because fish tissue contamination tends to be a far-field problem affecting entire or downstream waterbodies rather

 than a near-field problem being confined to the area within a mixing zone, a state or tribe may find it appropriate to

 restrict or eliminate mixing zones for bioaccumulative pollutants in certain situations such as the following:

Where mixing zones may encroach on areas often used for fish harvesting, particularly for stationary species

 such as shellfish.

Where there are uncertainties in the protectiveness of the water quality criteria or the assimilative capacity of

 the waterbody.

Chapter 3 of this Handbook and Chapter 5 of Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the

 Protection of Human Health (2000) provide additional information about bioaccumulation, and Section 4.3.4 of the TSD

 (1991) discusses preventing bioaccumulation problems for human health in calculating WQBELs.

Another example of a pollutant for which a mixing zone may not be appropriate is bacteria. Because bacteria mixing

 zones may cause significant human health risks and endanger critical areas (e.g., recreational areas), the EPA

 recommends that state and tribal mixing zone policies do not allow mixing zones for bacteria in waters designated for

 primary contact recreation. The presumption in a river or stream segment designated for primary contact recreation is

 that primary contact recreation can safely occur throughout the segment and, therefore, that bacteria levels will not

 exceed criteria throughout the segment. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated that illness rates are higher when

 the criteria are exceeded compared to when those criteria are not exceeded (see Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the EPA's

Recreational Water Quality Criteria (2012)). Therefore, people recreating in or through a bacteria mixing zone (where

 bacteria levels may be elevated above the criteria levels) may be exposed to greater risk of gastrointestinal illness than

 would otherwise be allowed by the state or tribal criteria for protection of the recreation use. Given this presumption,

 states and tribes should carefully evaluate whether authorizing a mixing zone that results in elevated levels of bacteria

 in a river or stream designated for primary contact recreation will adversely affect the designated use. If so, then states

 and tribes should not authorize such mixing zones because they could result in a significant human health risk.

A third example of a situation in which the EPA recommends that states and tribes prohibit a mixing zone is when an

 effluent is known to attract biota. In such cases, a continuous zone of passage around the mixing area will not protect

 aquatic life. Although most toxic pollutants elicit a neutral or avoidance response, there are some situations in which

 aquatic life are attracted to a toxic discharge and, therefore, can potentially incur significant exposure. For example,

 temperature can be an attractive force and may counter an avoidance response to a particular pollutant. Therefore, the

 organisms would tend to stay in the mixing zone rather than passing through or around it. Innate behavior such as

 migration may also counter an avoidance response and cause fish to incur significant exposure.

5.1.3 Mixing Zones for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material

In conjunction with the Department of the Army, the EPA has developed guidelines at 40 CFR Part 230 for evaluating

 discharges of dredged or fill material into navigable waters, which include provisions at 40 CFR 230.11(f) for
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Chapter 5: General Policies (40 CFR 131.13) | Handbook | US EPA

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/chapter05.cfm#section52[7/21/2015 6:46:48 PM]

 determining the acceptability of mixing zones for such material. Discharges of dredged or fill material are generally

 temporary and result in short term disruption to the waterbody rather than constituting a continuous discharge with

 long-term disruption beyond the fill area. In authorizing and establishing mixing zones for dredge and fill activities,

 the state or authorized tribe’s primary consideration should be achieving and protecting the designated uses of the

 waterbody pursuant to 40 CFR 131.10. As such, states and tribes should evaluate the particular pollutants involved for

 their effects on the designated use. Technical guidance for determining the potential for contaminant-related impacts

 associated with the discharge of dredged material can be found in Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for

 Discharge in Waters of the U.S. – Testing Manual: Inland Testing Manual (1998).

5.1.4 Mixing Zones for Aquaculture Projects

Under Section 318 of the CWA, permitting authorities may allow discharges of certain pollutants associated with

 approved aquaculture projects. Consistent with 40 CFR 122.25, an aquaculture project is a defined, managed water

 area into which certain pollutants are discharged for the maintenance or production of harvestable freshwater,

 estuarine, or marine plants or animals. The EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 125.11 provide that aquaculture project

 approval must not result in the enlargement of a pre-existing mixing zone beyond the area designated for the original

 discharge and that the designated project area (which is also defined at 40 CFR 122.25) must not include a portion of a

 waterbody large enough to expose a substantial portion of the indigenous biota to the conditions within the

 designated project area. For example, a designated project area should not include the entire width of a stream

 because all of the indigenous organisms might be exposed to pollutant discharges that would exceed WQS. The areas

 designated for approved aquaculture projects should be treated in the same manner as other mixing zones.

5.2 Critical Low Flows for Water Quality Criteria Implementation

Pursuant to 40 CFR 131.11(a), states and authorized tribes must adopt those water quality criteria that protect

 designated uses. To ensure that adopted criteria are protective of the designated uses, states and tribes generally

 establish critical low-flow values to support implementation of the applicable criteria through such programs as NPDES

 permitting.

Critical low-flow conditions present special challenges to the integrity of the aquatic community and the protection of

 human health. Dilution is one of the primary mechanisms by which the concentrations of contaminants in effluent

 discharges are reduced following their introduction into a receiving water. Low flows in the receiving water typically

 aggravate the effects of effluent discharges because, during a low-flow event, there is less water available for dilution,

 resulting in higher instream concentrations of pollutants. Therefore, the allowable dilution (which may be only a

 portion of the critical low flow depending on the state or tribal WQS and implementation procedures) for purposes of

 determining the need for and establishing WQBELs in NPDES permits should ensure protection of the applicable criteria

 at the calculated critical low-flow value.

The EPA has historically encouraged states and tribes to specify directly within their WQS which calculated critical lowflow values should be used to determine the available dilution for the purposes of determining the need for and

 establishing WQBELs. Such critical low-flow values have historically been reviewed and approved or disapproved by the

 EPA as new or revised WQS under Section 303(c) of the CWA. Likewise, revisions to those critical low-flow values would

 generally constitute new or revised WQS subject to EPA review and approval or disapproval (see Chapter 1 of this

 Handbook and What is a New or Revised Water Quality Standard Under CWA Section 303(c)? Frequently Asked

 Questions (20123) (PDF)) (4 pp, 108K, About PDF).

Most states and tribes generally follow the guidance in the TSD (1991) when adopting critical low-flow values for

 criteria implementation. The EPA recommends that states and tribes adopt the critical low-flow values for use in

 steady-state analyses so that criteria are implemented appropriately. If criteria are implemented using inappropriate

 critical low-flow values (i.e., calculated values that are too high), the resulting control of toxic pollutants may not be

 fully protective because the resulting ambient concentrations could exceed criteria when such low flows occur. In the

 case of aquatic life, more frequent excursions than are allowable (e.g., more than once in three years) could result in

 unacceptable effects on aquatic organisms and designated uses if the appropriate value is not used in the calculations.

In addition to steady-state models, the TSD recommends the use of three dynamic models to perform wasteload

 allocations. Because dynamic wasteload models do not generally use specific steady-state critical low-flow values but

 accomplish the same effect by factoring in the probability of occurrence of stream flows based on the historical flow

 record, this Handbook discusses only steady-state conditions.

In Appendix D of the TSD and Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocations, Book VI: Design

 Conditions – Chapter 1: Stream Design Flow for Steady-State Modeling (1986), the EPA describes and recommends two

 methods for calculating acceptable critical low-flow values: the traditional hydrologically based method developed by
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Chapter 5: General Policies (40 CFR 131.13) | Handbook | US EPA

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/chapter05.cfm#section52[7/21/2015 6:46:48 PM]

 the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and a biologically based method developed by the EPA.6/ The hydrologically

 based critical low-flow value is determined statistically using probability and extreme values, while the biologically

 based critical low flow is determined empirically using the specific duration and frequency associated with the

 criterion.

Additionally, the two documents listed above describe the flow values that the EPA recommends for implementing acute

 and chronic criteria using both methods. Table 5.1 below summarizes these recommendations.

Using the hydrologically based method, 1Q10 represents the lowest one-day average flow event expected to occur once

 every ten years, on average, and 7Q10 represents the lowest seven-consecutive-day average flow event expected to

 occur once every ten years, on average. Using the biologically based method, 1B3 represents the lowest one-day

 average flow event expected to occur once every three years, on average, and 4B3 represents the lowest fourconsecutive-day average flow event expected to occur once every three years, on average.

States and tribes may designate other critical low-flow values to implement the applicable criteria, provided they are

 scientifically justified. The EPA has also recommended critical low-flow values that differ from the above

 recommendations for specific pollutants such 30Q5, 30Q10, and 30B3 for implementing chronic criteria for ammonia.

The EPA does not view the fact that many streams within a state or tribe have no flow at 7Q10 as adequate justification

 for designating alternative flows. Note that, when a criterion specifies a four day average concentration that should not

 be exceeded more than once every three years, this condition should not be interpreted as implying that a 4Q3 low

 flow is appropriate for use as the hydrologically based critical low-flow value for assessing impacts on the receiving

 water.

The EPA recommends the harmonic mean flow for implementing human health criteria. The concept of a harmonic

 mean is a standard statistical data analysis technique. The EPA's model for human health effects assumes that such

 effects occur because of a long-term exposure to low concentrations of a toxic pollutant (e.g., two liters of water per

 day for seventy years). The harmonic mean flow allows for estimating the concentration of toxic pollutant contained in

 those two liters of water per day when the daily variation in the flow rate is high. Therefore, the EPA recommends use

 of the harmonic mean flow in computing critical low flows for human health criteria rather than using other averaging

 techniques.

In addition to the documents listed above, see the EPA’s Flow 101 webpage and Advanced Notice of Proposed

 Rulemaking for Water Quality Standards (1998) for additional information on critical low flows.

The EPA notes that the USGS has documented that, in some areas of the United States, there have been changes to the

 critical low flows in freshwater rivers and streams or increased duration and frequency of low flow occurrence. The

 source of the reductions may often be anthropogenic in origin such as over-pumping of groundwater, hydrologic

 alteration including impoundments, or surface water withdrawals. Some of these reductions may persist long enough

 to cause changes to the critical low-flow values. In addition, prolonged droughts have resulted in a reduction of the

 low-flow minimums released on regulated rivers or revisions to drought control manuals to allow for further

 reductions of the low-flow values. During prolonged droughts, there may also be a trend towards increased pumping

 of groundwater, which may, in turn, lead to a reduction of surface water flows. New water intakes may also

 permanently change a waterbody’s critical low flow. 

The following documents provide additional information on changing flow patterns:

The USGS’s National Water Census - Streamflow webpage.

The USGS’s Groundwater Depletion in the United States (1900-2008) (2013).

The USGS’s Alteration of Streamflow Magnitudes and Potential Ecological Consequences: a Multiregional

 Assessment (2011).

The EPA’s Report on the Environment – Fresh Surface Water webpage.

It may be prudent for states and tribes to review and revise, as appropriate, their critical low-flow values during the

 triennial review process to account for changes to historical flow patterns. Also, NPDES permitting authorities should

 be aware that these altered historical flow patterns in rivers and streams may render historical flow records less

 accurate in predicting current and future critical flows. Where appropriate, permitting authorities should consider
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Chapter 5: General Policies (40 CFR 131.13) | Handbook | US EPA

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/chapter05.cfm#section52[7/21/2015 6:46:48 PM]

 alternate approaches to establishing critical low-flow conditions that account for these climatic and anthropogenic

 changes when conducting reasonable potential analyses and in establishing protective WQBELs (see NPDES Permit

 Writers’ Manual: Inclusion of Climate Change Considerations).

5.3 Variances from Water Quality Standards

A WQS variance is a time-limited designated use and water quality criterion for a specific pollutant(s) or water quality

 parameter(s) that reflect the highest attainable condition during the term of the WQS variance. A WQS variance may

 apply to an NPDES-permitted discharger or waterbody/waterbody segment(s). The regulation at 40 CFR 131.13

 provides that states and authorized tribes may adopt into their WQS general variance policies that describe how they

 intend to apply and implement variances. Although such variance policies require EPA review and approval, states and

 tribes are not required to adopt variance policies in order to adopt individual variances. Nevertheless, as opposed to

 individual mixing zones (discussed in Section 5.1 of this chapter), the individual variances themselves must be adopted

 into WQS (or other legally binding state or tribal requirements) and approved by the EPA before they can be effective

 for CWA purposes.

Although the legal authority to adopt a WQS variance is the same as a revision to a designated use, the purpose of a

 variance is different from that of a designated use revision (described in Chapter 2 of this Handbook). A variance is

 intended to serve as a mechanism to provide time for states, tribes, and stakeholders to implement actions to improve

 water quality over an identified period of time when and where the designated use currently in place is not being met.

 When utilizing a variance, the state or tribe retains the designated use that is currently in place as a long-term goal. As

 first articulated in 1977 in Decision of the General Counsel on Matters of Law Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 125.36(m).

 No. 58, a state or tribe may adopt a WQS variance if the state or tribe can satisfy the same substantive and procedural

 requirements as a designated use removal, which are described in 40 CFR 131.10(g).

A variance is also different from a permit compliance schedule. While both tools can provide time to meet regulatory

 requirements, which tool is appropriate depends upon the circumstances. Variances can be appropriate to address

 situations where it is known that the designated use and criterion are unattainable today (or for a limited period of

 time), but feasible progress could be made toward attaining the designated use and criterion. A permit compliance

 schedule, on the other hand, may be appropriate when the designated use is attainable, but the discharger needs

 additional time to modify or upgrade treatment facilities in order to meet its WQBEL such that a schedule and resulting

 milestones will lead to compliance “as soon as possible” with the WQBEL based on the currently applicable WQS. See

 CWA Section 502(17) for a definition of “schedules of compliance” and 40 CFR 122.47.

A variance may be appropriate where a state or tribe determines that the designated use cannot be attained for a period

 of time because the discharger cannot immediately meet a WQBEL, which is written to meet a particular WQS, or a

 waterbody/waterbody segment cannot immediately meet the criteria to protect the designated use. Under such

 circumstances, the variance provides a targeted, time-limited revision to the WQS that reflects the highest attainable

 condition. These new time-limited WQS then serve as the basis for pollution control requirements during the term of

 the variance. For WQS variances that apply to aquatic life, wildlife, and recreational uses (i.e., the Section 101(a)(2)

 uses), this means that attainment of the designated use is infeasible under at least one of the six factors at 131.10(g)

 for at least the term of the variance.

The practical effect of the variance is an NPDES permit containing a WQBEL that complies with a less stringent criterion

 than would otherwise be in effect in the absence of the variance. However, the underlying designated use and criteria

 remain in effect for Section 303(d) listing and total maximum daily load development regardless of whether the

 variance is for a single discharger, multiple dischargers, or a waterbody/waterbody segment. At the end of the variance

 term, the discharger’s WQBEL must ensure compliance with the underlying designated use and criterion or the state or

 tribe must obtain a new variance. To obtain a new variance, the state or tribe must again demonstrate that the

 designated use is not attainable at the point of discharge and again submit the variance to the EPA for review and

 approval or disapproval.

In many cases, a WQS variance is an environmentally useful tool because a variance exists only for a defined term and

 retains designated use protection for all pollutants and sources, with the sole exception of those specified in the

 variance. Even the discharger with a variance for a particular pollutant is required to meet applicable criteria for all

 other pollutants. Thus, a variance can result in water quality improvements over time and, in some cases, full

 attainment of designated uses by maintaining existing water quality protections while allowing time for advances in

 treatment technologies, control practices, or other changes in circumstances. 

States and tribes typically adopt a WQS variance for an individual discharger for a specific pollutant in a specific

 waterbody. However, where multiple dischargers have similar attainment challenges, a state or tribe may streamline its
Water Quality Standards Handbook - Chapter 5: General Policies (40 CFR 131.13) | Handbook | US EPA

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/chapter05.cfm#section52[7/21/2015 6:46:48 PM]

EPA Home Privacy and Security Notice Contact Us

Last updated on Monday, February 09, 2015

 variance process by adopting a multiple-discharger WQS variance. Such a variance applies to several dischargers but

 may be supported by a single technical rationale justifying the need for the variance. The EPA has previously published

 information on both individual- and multiple-discharger variances at 40 CFR Part 132. For additional information on

 variances, also see Discharger-Specific Variances on a Broader Scale: Developing Credible Rationales for Variances that

 Apply to Multiple Dischargers (2013).

1/ Throughout this document, the term “states” means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of

 Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The

 term “authorized tribe” or “tribe” means an Indian tribe authorized for treatment in a manner similar to a state under

CWA Section 518 for purposes of Section 303(c) WQS.

2/ Lethality is a function of the magnitude of a pollutant concentration and the duration an organism is exposed to that

 concentration. Section 4.3.3 of the TSD (1991) describes various methods for preventing lethality to organisms passing

 through a mixing zone.

3/ Acutely toxic conditions are those that are lethal to aquatic organisms that may pass through the mixing zone. The

 underlying assumption for allowing a mixing zone is that pollutant concentrations in excess of acute and chronic

 criteria, but below acutely toxic concentrations, may exist in small areas without causing adverse effects to the

 designated use of the waterbody as a whole.

4/ The 1996 memorandum EPA Guidance on Application of State Mixing Zone Policies in EPA-issued NPDES Permits

 describes the circumstances under which the EPA may include a mixing zone in an NPDES permit when the EPA is the

 permitting authority.

5/ However, note that some chemicals of relatively low toxicity such as zinc will bioconcentrate in fish without harmful

 effects resulting from human consumption.

6/ In some EPA documents such as those cited, critical low flow is also called “design flow” or “stream design flow.”

 These terms are different from a facility or effluent design flow.