Tie r I A nt ide gr ada ti on P oli c y: The Ne e d forIm ple m e nt at ion M e th ods

EPA : “ [Tie r I

is] th e a bs olute fl oo r o f w a te r q

ua lity ” pr ov idi ng“ a

min imum le ve l of

pr ote c tio n” to a ll w a te rs . Ore g on: “The pur

pose of the Antideg radation Pol icy is . . . to protect, maintain, and e nhance exis ting surf ace water quality to ensure the full protec tion of all exi sting be nefic ial uses.”

What Oregon Has What Oregon Does Not Have ( LOW ER QUALITY

THAN CRITERIA) Tie r I go al: to m ain tai n o r lo we r p olluti on le v e ls

e xis ti ng ,,,, P o s t

- T M D L Ø ,,,, P r e - T M D L Ú ,,,, Nar rative c riteria Û load  I mplementation  No Actions  No 30 3( d) or TM DL = No Ac tio ns A c t i o n s QL* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,,,, No 303(d) =  N o T M D L = N o A c t i o n s Ü crit erion

 Tier I Irevie w for Ù  35 y ear s of  Nonpoint Sources e xis ti ng ,,,, NPD ES & §4 01 Ce rt

. ,,,, deg radation ,,,, No Tier I IReview Þ load 

,,,, 1975 Ý
( HIGH ER QUALITY

THAN CRITERIA ) Tier I &II goals: to prev ent or restrict pollution i ncrease s

* Q L= quant i t at i on l i mi t

. Si mi l ar t o a det ect i on l i mi t , t he Q Li s t he l eve l at wh i ch
s amp l i ng t ech nol ogy ca n qua nt i f y t oxi cs .J une 7, 2010

To: DEQ Staff Fr om: Nina B ell, Northwe st Environmental Advocates Re: Using Ti er I A ntidegradation Policy Re qui rem ents to Address G aps in Water

Quali ty P rote ction for Oregon’s Wate rs DE Q s ta ff

pr e pa re d a me mor and

um c on c e rn ing“ Autho ri tie s Re late d to No np oint (No n- NPD ES) Source Pollution P reve ntion and Control,” November 17, 2009, as par

t of the ong oing tr iennial revie w of Or eg on’s human hea lth criteria f or tox ics. In that memo, DEQ c oncluded that: (1) DEQ ha s “extremely

broad” authority

to regulate all pollution sources; (2) “the EQ C hasn’t provided to DEQ the same tools for c ontrol of nonpoint sources of pollution as for point source s”; and (3) TMDL s are the “pr imary mecha nism” for re g ulating nonpoint sourc e pollution. Despite these finding s, the staff ha s rejec ted nea rly all proposals to use the a ntideg radation policy pr ov isi on s o f O re g on ’s wate r q ua lity sta nd ard s a s a

me c ha nis m to e ff

e c t no np oint so ur c e c on tr ols outside the context of TMDL s. This memo describe s the g aps in the policy and how r

ulemaking to addre ss those g aps would provide the Commi ssion with a path to achievingg reater nonpoint so ur c e c on tr ols of

toxic s and

oth e r p oll uta

nts

. The fede r all y- m anda te d ant ide gr ada ti on po lic y a nd im ple m e nt at ion m e th ods (tog ether

“ anti de g ra datio n r e qu ir e me nts ” ) c on sis t of thr e e tie rs of

pr ote c tio n. Th e dis c us sio n b e low is limit ed to Tier I

(protec tion of exi sting uses) and Tier I I(protec tion of high qua lity water), and omits Tier I I I(protec tion of outstanding wa ters). A lthough some a spects of Tie r I Iare discussed and addr essed, the r ecommende d approa ch is ac tually limit ed to Tier I . Fe dera l rules re quire that state s “ ide nti fy

the me tho ds fo r i mpl e me nti ng ” the anti de g ra datio n p oli c y . A dd re ssi ngthi s require ment in the context of Tier I protec tions is t he subjec t of this memo. Tie r I pr ot e c ti on in fede ral rule s require s that “[e]x isting instream water uses and the le vel of wate r q ua lity ne c e ssa ry to p ro te c t th e e xistin g us e s sh a ll b e ma int a ine d a nd pr ote c te d. ” EPA g uidance notes Tier I

protec tions constitut e “the absolute floor of water quality ” providing“a minimum level of pr otection to all water s.” Ore g on’s Tier I protec tions are “ to protect, maintain, and enha nce e x isting surfa ce w ater quality to ensure the full protection of a ll ex isting bene ficial us e s. ” B e c a

us e Ti e r I a pp lie s to a ll w a te rs , it

c an b e us e d to pr ote c t hi g he r q ua lity wate rs a s w e ll as to improve lower

quality water s. T h e a tt a ch ed d i a g ra m demonstrates the benef its of adopting c lear

and spec ific antidegradation require ments for nonpoint source s as par t of Ore g on’s Tier I

policy . Currently , Ore g on’s wate r quality standards do not e laborate on how the a g ency should impl ement Tier

Iprotec tions. L ike wi se , th e re is n o D EQ g uid anc e on imp le me nti ngTi e r I , a lth ou g h it c ou ld b e sa id t

hat so me Tier I protec tions (to “enhanc e” w ater quality) ar e implemented through pollution reductions c a lle d f or in T ota l MaximumDa ily L oa ds (T MD L ). TM DL s, ho we ve r, do no t a pp ly to a ll water s, they

take time to complete, a

nd implementation of the TMDL L oad Allocations assigne d to nonpoint sources is larg ely nonexis tent. In contra st, Tier I require ments apply

to all water s, do no t r e qu ir e the de ve lop me nt o f a TM DL , a

nd are wate r q

ua lity sta nd ard s th a t ot

he r a g e nc ie s mu st me e t. I n s ho rt , T ie r I

re qu ir e me nts c an a

nd sh ou ld b e imm e diate g oa ls a nd e xpe c tatio ns fo r a ll a c tiv iti e s th a t a ff

e c t w a te r q

ua lity , in c or

po rate d into O re g on ’s wate r q ua lity sta nd ard s.T h e l ef

t s i d e o f th e d i a g ra m demonstrates what Ore g on has in place now. Ø For water s where the exist ing pollution load is above a n applicable criter ion, and a TMDL has bee n completed, the TMDL is the trigg eringmecha

nism for any

pollution reductions. Ù For water s where the exis ting load is lowe r than the c riterion and the water is of highe r quality

than the standa

rd re qu ir e s, DE Q h a s an Inte rn a l Ma na g e me nt D ir e c tiv e (I MD ) t hat guid e s a

n a na ly sis of wh e the r t o allow any proposed incr ease s in pollut ant loads fr om NPDES sources or a ctivities regulated under Sec tion 401 certifications. There is, howe ver, no Tie r I Iconsideration of whether lowere d wate r q ua lity sh ou ld b e a llo we d f

ro m any no np oint so ur c e s th a t mi g ht i nc re a se po llutant l oa ds

. T h e r i g h t s i d e o f

th e d i a g ra m demonstrates what Ore g on does not have in place. Ú For water s identified as ha

ving a pollution l oad that excee ds a cr iterion and that have bee n place d on the 303(d) list, prior to DEQ’ s developinga TMDL , DEQ ha s no mecha nism for loweringpollutant loads nor any

require ments to do so. There is, howe ver, no r eason to wa it for a TMDL to be develope d to implement basic pollution control practice s, such as for ested ripa rian buff ers. Whil e the TMDL

may demonstrate that more ac tions bey ond basic c ontrols are nece ssary , there are cer tain controls that ar e ce rtain to be ne eded. Waiting for a TMDL to be completed be fore taking those basic pollution control ac tions merely postpones attainment of Or eg on’s wate r quality standards. Û Waters that violate Or eg on’s nar rative c riteria a

re not likely

to be listed on the 303(d) list and ther efor e will not be sche duled for a TMDL at all. In this case, while w ater quality is impaired, and standa

rds ar e not met, no pollution reduction ac tions will be take n beca use no TMDL

will be develope d. Ü L ike wi se , w he re wate r q ua lity c ri te ri a are be low

le ve ls at which toxic pollut ants ca n be dete cted a

nd quantified, ther e will be no 303(d) listi ng and no TM DL de ve lop e d e ve n if

wa te r q ua lity is v iol a tin g the c ri te ri a . T his is p art ic ula rl y imp or tant i n light of the fac t that roug hly half of O reg on’s new huma n health cr iteria will be be low the quantitation limi t (QL ). Waters may well violate these new c riteria, but no pollution reduc tion actions will be take n. In all three instances on this diag ram, nothingin Oreg on’s antideg radation policy trig g ers pollution controls for nonpoint source s aff ectingwater s that have unsa fe le vels of pollution despit e Or eg on’s stated policy to “protec t, maintain, and enha nce” Ore g on’s wate r quality . In fac t, there is nothing that will prevent fur ther de g radation of these alr eadyoverpo llute d w a te rs . L ikewise, ther e ar e no trig g eringmecha nisms to protect, maintain, or enha nce w ater quality that is highe r than the c riteria in the f ollowing two situations. Ý First, whe re w ater quality has erode d over the 35 y ear s since 1975 – the ke y date f or pre serving“existi ng uses” a nd the wate r qu a lity ne c e ssa ry to p ro te c t th e m – t

he re is n oth ingin p la c e to e ns ur e that O re g on pr ote c ts tho se us e s. Or e g on

ha s n o me c ha

nis m to ide nti fy

and a sse ss e xistin g us e s o r t o p ro vid e fo r t he ir pr ote c tio n. Ins te a d, c on tr ary to f e de ra l po lic y , O re g on

ha s a llo we d u se s to be c ome loc a lly exti rpate d, specie s to be forc ed to the edg e of e x tinction, and water quality to become mor e deg rade d without taking a ny action. This deg radation makes a mocke ry of the Commission’s policy to “protec t, maintain, and enha nce” water

quality

. Þ Second, whe re nonpoint sourc es wi ll l ow e r w a te r q

ua lity that c ur re nt m e e ts w a te r q

ua lity c ri te ri a , th e re are no Ti e r I Ime c ha nis ms to preve nt further

pollution, DEQ has no internal guidance , and the a g ency may well lack r e g u l a t o r y a u th o r i ty t o r e g u l a t e a

n o np o i n ts o ur c e th a ti s p l an n i n g t o l o w e r w a t e r qu a l i ty. The solu tion to all f

ive of the situation s described above , wher e Or eg on has established no trig g eringmecha

nism to protect, maintain, and enha nce a lrea dy

over- polluted water s or wate rswh e re sta

nd ard s are me t is the same : e xplic it T ie r I pr ote c tio ns . A s st a te d a

bo ve , a nd inh e re nt i n Or e g on ’s e xistin g Ti e r I

langua g e , T ie r I

pr ote c tio ns a

pp ly to a ll w a te rs , r e g ard le ss o f t he ir exis ting qua lity . There fore , if the existi ng Commi ssion policy of protec ting, maintaining , and enhanc ing w ater

quality wer e tra nslated into baseline pe rfor mance expectations for nonpoint so ur c e s, e sta

bli sh e d a s T ie r I

re qu ir e me nts , O re g on ’s wate r q ua lity sta nd ard s c ou ld b e g in t o re me dy Or e g on ’s wate r q

ua lity pr ob le ms. B e c a

us e Ti e r I re qu ir e me nts are wate r q ua lity standards, othe r ag encie s that establish manag ement pra ctices f or nonpoint source s would be require d to meet them in developingprac tices for activities under the ir jurisdiction. For example, a Tier I

require ment could be c ontinuous forested r iparian buf fer s of a r equire d min imum w idt

h to pr e ve nt e xce ss s e dim e ntatio n a nd toxic s ( c ur

re nt a nd his tor ic ) a sso c iate d w ith se dim e nt, a s w e ll a s to c a ptu re nutr ie nt r

un of f. Th e se bu ff

e rs a lso pr ov ide sh a de to b oth ma int a in and enha nce te mperature, the state ’s most widesprea d pollution problem. Mini mum buffer widths could also be esta

blished based on other

considerations, such as: (1) a pplication of phosphorus fer

tiliz ers whic h require s wider buf fer s to achieve pollutant removal; (2) the slope of the land wh ic h a ff

e c ts the e ff

ic a c y of bu ff e rs in a c hie vin g se dim e nt r e mov a l; a nd (3 ) s oil s, c lim a te , a nd the e ro siv e state of

the land a ff e c te d b y human a c tiv iti e s. L ikewise Tier

Iimplementation methods could rang e fr om ge nera l narrative require ments and perf ormanc e expectations to specif ic numeric provisions. They could include suc h baseline no np oint so ur c e c on tr ols a s: (1) zones in which no herbicide s, pesticides, soil amendments, or f ertilizers can be us e d b e c a us e of the ir lik e ly e ntr y int o w a te rs of

the state ; (2 ) us e of

the same Or e g on

De pa rtme nt o f F or e str

y pr a c tic e s c ur

re ntl y re qu ir e d to preve nt landslides onto houses and roa ds to protect strea ms and river s from land sli de s; (3 ) a na rr a tiv e pr oh ibi tio n o n c on tr oll a ble e ro sio n into w a te rs of the State ; (4) a re quirement that stre am banks be stable and pr eser ved in or re stored to a natural state; (5) calc ulated limits on controllable erosion esta blished throug h modified Universa l Soi l L os s E qu a tio ns , T ole ra ble Soi l L os s, or

oth e r m e tho ds ; (6) limit s on rates of

application of f

ertilizers and soil amendments conta ining toxics and nitrog en; (7 ) pr oh ibi tio ns on

do me sti c anim a ls, and

the ir wa ste s, be ingin a

nd ne ar s tr e ams, with specific nume ric re strictions (e.g ., location of fe ncing , water ing a rea s, and stream c rossing s); and (8) use of a ll known available a nd rea sonable methods of c ontrol and treatment. These a re but a fewof the a

pproac hes that could be taken to implement Tier I of Ore g on’s antideg radation policy . The g ener al rationale for the se appr oache s is set out in t he Oc tober 21, 2009 memorandum fr om the Mix ed Media Subcommitt ee r eg arding“Controlling Non- Point Sourc e Run of

f o f T oxic Contamin ants .” Al l ba se lin e c on tr ols fo r n on po int so ur c e s w ou ld a

pp ly as Tier Iprotec tions unless a TMDLdirec ted that more string ent controls we re ne cessa ry to meet load allocations and water quality standards.