Promoting TMDL Innovations in Region 1

Anne LeibyUS EPA, Region 1

State-EPA Symposium on Environmental Innovation and ResultsDenver, CO

Tuesday, January 24, 1:45 – 3:15

Background: Motivators for TMDL Innovations in Region I Problem-solving orientation Support and collaboration of senior leadership at

state and federal level Urgency of problem*:

Low production of TMDLs in region Region 1 had approved 11% of total TMDL universe = 219

of 2040 impaired waters (places region 2nd from bottom for approval pace of TMDLs)

Unwillingness to take risk/desire to protect environment

A+ TMDLs = standard and agency culture Focus on point source TMDLs 7 of 10 regions involved in lawsuits (Regions 5,1,2 have no

lawsuits, but also slowest pace of production)*(figures as of December, 2003)

Development of TMDL Innovations in Region 1

First Meeting of Regional State-Federal Innovations Group (June, 2002)

TMDL Summit (January, 2003) MOU between states, Region 1 (April, 2003):

Increase pace of TMDL development Address stormwater Develop “other pollution controls” to meet water quality

(through non-TMDL methods) – known as “(4b)”

TMDLs appear on national IAC-ECOS Joint Work Plan (April, 2004)

Increase Pace of TMDL Development/Stormwater Innovations Environmental Effectiveness: focus on

actual problems: Transition to non point source TMDLs Implementation as key to environmental

improvement

Efficiency: Develop standard protocols for bundling or grouping common types of TMDLs

Resulted in development of: MA Pathogen TMDLs and Impervious Cover Methodology

Innovation #1: MA Watershed Pathogen TMDLs Goal: to develop state-wide TMDL designed to

eliminate pathogen contamination throughout all 27 MA watersheds (representing 375 waterbodies/TMDLs)

Method: 1 generic template – apply throughout state Use existing data No “traditional” loads – translate water quality

standards into concentration that applies at end of pipe throughout water body

Focus efforts on implementation efforts/guidance Automatically apply to future waters determined to be

impaired for pathogens

MA Pathogen Watershed TMDL - Challenges National precedents?

Concentration-based approach w/o more segment-specific info may not be acceptable

Intersection with permit program Reasonable assurance that environment will be better

off Stakeholders

Is this really a TMDL? Raises larger stormwater issues generally

Bottom Line: addressing challenges and moving forward.

Lesson Learned: Involve key stakeholders earlier in process.

Innovation #2: Impervious Cover

Impervious Cover

Streams with <50 sq miles drainage upstream

0102030405060708090

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

% IC Upstream

% o

f R

efer

ence

C

omm

unit

y

n=125

Meet WQC

Fail WQC

% IC and ALUS

12% IC Threshold

>= 11% IC

Meets ALUS

Fail ALUS

ALUS and Streams > 11% IC

Southwest Coast Effect – Green on Top, Red on Bottom

Pequonnock R

iver

Mill R

iv er

Norw

alk River

Rip

powaum

River

Byram

River

Meets ALUS

Fails ALUS

> = 11% IC

Impervious Cover – Region 1 Proposed Approach Use % Impervious Cover as a surrogate for pollutants

and causes related to aquatic life use impairments (but if identity of pollutant is known which is believed to

be contributing to the impairment of the use, an individual allocation should be done)

Achieving % IC reductions set forth in future TMDLs means: disconnecting IC that is directly connected to water bodies and installing BMPs

Innovation #3: “Other Pollution Controls” Approach to Meeting Water Quality: 4b

Innovative Efforts are focused on: Clarifying guidance Understanding current universe of 4bs around country Implementation focus – developing ”other pollution

controls” designed to meet water quality standards more efficiently and effectively than a TMDL approach

Developing supportable 4b scenarios with states Innovations Challenges:

Role of adaptive management Degree of risk (approx. 129 4bs in 2004) Proof required at time of approval that water quality

standards will be met

Challenges to Implementing TMDL Innovations in Region 1 Precedent-setting nature of changes Stakeholder interests/involvement Resources (“innovations” vs. “core program”) Time – intensive nature of work Incentives to “innovate” are often few:

Not much $ (but: SIG grants, $ follows good ideas) Leaders are few (but: they do exist at all levels within

agencies) Those promoting viewed as “outside the mainstream” –

which is a hard place to be in most bureacracies

Lessons Learned in Region 1:

Prioritize innovations that provide the most significant environmental results

Involve stakeholders early on Seek alignment of goals with states and national

program offices Prioritize innovations that provide transferable results Celebrate the power of the individual change agents Change “national scorecards” for what success

means Don’t give up – change takes time and persistence –

the benefits can be great.

So, What Are The Possible Benefits of Innovation? Forces continuous improvement Significant environmental outcomes Increased efficiencies – leveraging of scare

resources Empowerment of staff/management that tackle

problems in creative, problem-solving manner Culture Change – build trust across traditional

office/agency/stakeholder lines Apply lessons learned (including those from failed

attempts) to improve upon future work

Region 1 Contacts:

MA DEP Rick Dunn 508-767-2874

CT DEP Christopher Bellucci 860-424-3735

EPA Region 1 Mike Hill 617-918-1398 Anne Leiby 617-918-1076