RECEIVED

CLERK’S OFFICE

AUG

26

2004

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARTATE

OP IWNOIS

Pollution Control Board

IN

THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED

35 Ill.

Adm. Code 304.l23(g~,

)

R04-26

304.123(h), 304.1 23(i), 304.123(j), and 304.123(k)

)

(Rulemaking

-

Water)

ThSTIMONY OF PAUL J. TERRIO

My name is Paul Terrio and I am a Hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in

Urbana, Illinois.

I have worked with the USGS forjust over 20

years and the majority ofthat time

has been in illinois.

For the past

12 years, I have served as the Water Quality Specialist for the

Illinois District of the USGS.

I hold a degree in Hydrology from the University ofArizona.

My testimony today will consist ofbriefstatements regarding the rationale for theproposed

interim phosphorus standard; including the role ofphosphorus in the aquatic environment, the

reasoningbehind proposing

a standard fortotal phosphorus, and the basis for the proposed effluent

standard of I mgfL (milligram per liter).

Nitrogen and phosphorus are the primarynutrients

required for virtually all plant life on

earth, both terrestrial and aquatic (Hem 1982,

American Public Health Association

1998,

Terriol99S).

These nutrients are each available to water bodies naturally, as well

as through

anthropogenic inputs to watersheds such as commercial fertilizer and wastewater effluent.

Other

elements, such as carbon and potassium, are also required forbiological organisms, but generally are

present in natural waters in amounts sufficient to support biological growth and seldom ar~

“limiting” nutrients.

A limiting nutrient is the nutrient present in shortest supply and that which will

be exhausted first,

limiting furthergrowth potential

(O’Shaughnessy and McDonnell 1973).

Nitrogen is also typically present in concentrations sufficient to support aquaticalgal and

4

---

plant growth, but might be the

limiting nutrient

in some locations or at some times, such as during

low-flow periods when the supply ofsoluble nitrogen is exhausted from the water column

(American Public Health Association

1998,

Dodds and Welch 2000, Francoeur et al

1999).

Because

ofits’

soluble nature and plentiful sources, nitrogen concentrations in Illinois water bodies are

virtuallyalways

sufficient for aquatic plant growth (Terrio

1995).

Concurrent non-limiting levels

ofnitrogen and phosphorus can result in excessive and problematic plant and algal growth, a

condition known as eutrophication.

In most fresh water environments, phosphorus is considered to

be the limiting nutrient or the nutrient in shortest supply (American Public Health Association 1998,

Hem

1982,

U.S. Geological Survey 1999).

Because the available supply ofphosphorus in water

bodies is typically less than that ofnitrogen, further reductions in the sources ofphosphorus might

prevent the occurrence ofproblematic or eutrophic conditions

in water bodies redeiving wastewater

treatment effluents.

The presence and behaviorofphosphorus in the aquatic environment is complex (Hem

1985,

U.S. Geological Survey 1999).

Phosphorus

can be present in organic and inorganic form, in plant

and animal matter, absorbed

to particulate material, sequestered in behthic sediments, or in the water

column in particulate ordissolved form.

Phosphorus

is transformed and cycled betweenorganically

bound forms and oxidized inorganic forms and occurs in natural waters and wastewater primarily as

phosphate (American Public Health Association 1998 and Hem

1982).

Orthophosphate,

often

referred to

as soluble reactive phosphorus, is the form most readily available for incorporation by

organic life forms.

However, because ofthe continual cycling ofphosphorus and the presence of

inorganic, organic, soluble, and absorbed phosphorus forms in water bodies, the orthophosphate

form alone does not provide an accurate and complete assessment ofphosphorus in an aquatic

environment.

Total phosphorus analysis provides a more comprehensive quantification because it

incorporates phosphorus present in dissolved, particulate, and biological forms.

5

---

Several investigations regarding the practicality, feasibility,

and economics of treating

municipal wastewaters to low levels ofphosphorus have been or are being conducted, including

studies by the Illinois Association ofWastewater Agencies (IAWA) and the Water Environment

Research Foundation.

A report commissioned by the IAWA,

“Technical Feasibility and Cost to

.lvIeet

Nutrient

Standards in the State ofIllinois

“,

states that most existing treatment facilities in

Illinois could be retrofitted oraugmented with biological or biological and chemical processes to

achieve monthly average effluent total phosphorus concentrations of0.5

mg/L on

a reliable and

consistent basis.

Most existing wastewater treatment facilities would

need additional tankage to

incorporate anaerobic

and anoxic systems into the treatment process

to increase phosphorus

removal.

ManyMidwestern states (Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio) have some form

ofa

1.0 mg/L total phosphorus effluent standard in place, while other states (Minnesota) have

pending revisions to incorporate such a standard

(USEPA website:

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/wgsi~.

-

The costs ofachieving an average of 1.0 mg/L total phosphorus

in affected sewage treatment

plant effluents may be estimated from recent examples.

Two principal methods for phosphorus

removal, biological removal and chemical precipitation, are available.

While biological phosphorus

removal may be

a superior method in terms oflower final effluent concentrations and minimal

operations and maintenances

costs, this method would probably entail higher capital costs, would

not be compatible with all existing plant configurations and will not be necessary to meet the

proposed phosphorus effluent standard.

Biological phosphorus removal maybecome the metho4 of

choice for new or extensively updated plants looking to future nutrient removal requirements

beyond the proposed effluent standard.

These facilities would be designed with additional tankage

and related needs.

Many existing plants would have to add tankage to achieve biological

6

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

IN THE

MATTER OF:

PROPOSED 35

Ill.

Adm. Code

304.123(g),

)

R04-26

304.123(h), 304.123(i), 304.123(j), and 304.123(k)

)

(Rulemaking

-

Water)

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT MOSHER

My name is Robert Mosher and I have been employed by Illinois EPA for almost

19 years.

I

have been assigned to the Water Quality Standards Unit for

18 ofthose years and have participated

in

the development and adoption of numerous water quality and

effluent standards.

Prior to my

employment by the Agency I worked for Monsanto Company in the development oflaboratory

toxicity tests using aquatic organisms and the determination ofthe aquatic toxicity values for

individual chemicals and

industrial wastewater effluents.

I hold

a M.S. degree in zoology from

Eastern Illinois Universitywhere I specialized

in the effects of wastewater discharges on stream

ecology.

My testimony today will describe the proposed changes to

the phosphorus effluent standard.

Underlying principles behind the rule, brought forth in

subsection (g), are that certain wastewater

discharges are significant sources ofphosphorus and that facilities that

are new orundergoing

expansion are opportune venues

for building in phosphorus removal

capabilities.

Costs for the

addition ofphosphorus removal

equipment will be most reasonable when they can be designed into

the original construction.

Therefore, only new or expanding municipal wastewater treatment

facilities with a design average flow ofone million gallons per day (MGD) are subject to the

proposed phosphorus effluent limit of 1.0

mgIL

total phosphorus on a monthly average basis.

Likewise, other types ofnew or expanded wastewater treatment facilities are subject to

the limit if

L

1

---

they would discharge phosphorus at the same pound

loading as a one

MGD municipal sewage

treatment plant.

The value of25

pounds per day was determined from the pound loading ofa

typical municipal

wastewater effluent that contains, with no special phosphorus removal

equipment

in place,

on average about 3.0 mg/L total phosphorus.

Both the size of facilities covered and the

concentration ofphosphorus to be met in subject effluents have precedent in the existing phosphorus

effluent standard.

Subsection (h) recognizes the fact that sometimes the generally prescribed phosphorus

effluent limit will be

either unnecessarily stringent or not protective enough depending on the nature

ofthe receiving water body.

Phosphorus

is generally believed to be the nutrient in

shortest supply in

freshwater ecosystems, i.e., the limiting nutrient

factor, and therefore its concentration mayoften

limit plant growth.

If it can be demonstrated that a water body receiving an effluent

has algae or

noxious aquatic plant growth that

is not limited by phosphorus, but rather another nutrient orwater

quality factor, then no phosphorus effluent limit must be imposed.

On the other hand, if it is

demonstrated that

1

mgfL total phosphorus will be inadequate to control noxious plant growth

in the

receiving water and further phosphorus control below a monthly average of 1.0 mg/L

is feasible at a

facility, the Agency may impose

a lower phosphorus limit to protect that water body.

Subsection (i)

is intended to clari&which wastewater treatment facilities are not

subject to

the phosphorus

effluent limitation.

Subsection (j) stipulates that compliance with the effluent phosphorus standard fulfills the

obligation ofthe discharger to meet water quality standards, specifically, the narrative standard

prohibiting offensive conditions that includes a statement on unnatural plant or algal growth.

Subsection (K) recognizes that the phosphorus effluent standard will likely someday be

supplemented by water quality standards

for phosphorus that may dictate the removal ofthese

proposed effluent limits,

other effluent phosphorus limits orwater quality based effluent limits.

At

2

---

such time the phosphorus standard will probably be reworked to compliment the-newwater quality

standards.

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY

By:__________________

SanjayK

Sofat

Assistant

Counsel

Division of Legal

Counsel

DATED:

August

25,

2004

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021

North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois

62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

THIS FILING PRINTED

ON

RECYCLED PAPER

3

---

February 2,2004

—

.~

-

ENVU~DNMENTAL

L~~w

&

Poucv

CENTER

-

IWNOIS

INDIM4A

MICHIC3#.N

MINNESOTA

ONtO

WISCONSIN

Renee Cipriano, Director

Marcia

Wilihito,

Chief

Bureau

of

Water

Illinois E.P.A

1021 N.

Grand

Ave. East

P.O.

Box

19276

Springfield, illinois

62794-9276-

Dear Renee

and MarciE

We sincerely

appreciate

the commitment ofGovernor Blagojevich and the Agency to

improve on past

efforts

to

address

nutrient pollution in illinois

waters,

We

feel strongly

that

more must be done now

and

In the future to

prevent

further

degradation

of

water quality from

nutrient loading,

and

to restore healthy conditions In tters

already

suffering

from

excessive

nutrients.

Our hope that we

can

agree on acommon strategy with

specific

steps

to move

forward

and address

the Issues on a statewide basis,

ratherthan debating

them Inthe context of

Individual

permits.

As we made clear at our January

14

meeting, we do not believe It is

legal or defensible as

a policy matter for the Agency to contlnuó generally to Issue NPDES permits without limits for

phosphorus given federal

law, Illinois law, and the facts regarding detriments to illinois

waters

and those downstream.

While therewas apparently some confusion within the Agency, we did

not in connection

with

the

settlement ofthe Fox RiverWater Reclamation District permit appeal

or otherwise agree that

it

was appropriate to issue permits without nutrient limits for new or

increased discharges in the Fox watershed oranywhere else.

-

Not to start a legal debate but to make our position clear, IEPA should be writing nutrient

limits for

at least three reasons:

1. Section 39(a) ofthe illinois Environmental Protection Act clearly places the burden on

the applicant to offer “proof’ that its proposed permit “wifi not cause the a violation ofthis Act

or ofregulations thereof.”

Pennits that allow discharges that may cause orcontribute to

violations of water quality standards violate 40 CFR

122.44(d) and the illinois regulations that

incorporate those federal

requirements.

35

III. Adin. Code 309.141.

Accordingly, the Agency

should not be granting NPDES permits

for discharges without proof by the applicant that the

discharge will

not cause or conthbute

to

violations

of

state dissolved oxygen standards.

Insofar

35

E~sr~V:sc~n~

D~uv~,

Swu t300

C14~CAco.

ILLINOIS

bObOI2IiO

‘hONE

312)

b73~a5QU

i,-~x 3I2~

7L~.373Q

wwwe)pc.org

cipcWeIpc0r8

~-ip.’*

.~5QY—~1z.

‘I

a

---

as applicants never offer anything like such proof, the Agency should not be issuing permits

without nutrient limits.

2. Similarly, it is apparent that many

illinois discharges

are

causing or contributing to

violations of state narrative standards prohibiting creation of“offensive conditions.”

Certainly,

dischargers are not offering proofthat theft

discharges

will not cause such conditions.

40 CFR

122.44(d)explicitly states that a

permit may

not be

granted

fora

discharge that may

cause or

contribute to a violation ofnarrative standards.

3. Underthe antidegradation regulations, lowering of

water

quality

may

only be

allowed

if it is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development. 40 CFR

131.12;

35111. Adm.

Code 302.105(c).

A lowering of water quality is not necessary if it

can

practicably

be avoided.

Given that

no

one denies

that

it

is practicable to

treat sewerage effluent to a level of

1

mgfL

phosphorus or lower, no permit for a new or increased discharge should be allowed for

morephosphorus than that.

Because

applicants cannotprove that their discharges wilt not cause or contributeto

violations ofdissolved oxygen or offensive conditions

standards

(or atleast have never tried to

do

so), the Agency should probably not

grant any

permits involving

discharge of

nutrients

unless

the discharge concentrations are

below

ambient

levels.

Further, there

are

also practical economic reasons for imposing nutrient limits now.

Currently

many dischargers are building or expanding sewerage treatment. plants

and

making

treatment choices that will prove to be unwise if later nutrient standards impose treatment

requirements that

will

require

costly retrofitting.

More critically, a land, sub-surface or other “no

discharge” alternative that looks more costly nowbecause theAgency does not require nutrient

controls will be rejected by many POTWs in favor of conventional treatment systems that will be

more costly in

a few years

after

nutrient

standards are

developed.

One may predict building ofa large amount ofconventional treatment capacity in the

next four years without nutrient controls

if

the Agency continues to grant

permits

without

nutrient limits.

The water quality of many streams will be severely

degraded

by discharges from

these plants.

When numeric nutrient standards

are

established, the entities that have

conventional plants that cannot economically meet the standards

will seek variances, use re-

designations

and

other relief that, if granted, would result in

many

Illinois

streams that

could

have been protected orrestored if nutrient limits were imposed being nutrient-impaired for

decades.

Having stated these legal

and

environmental issues

so that you

can

see the bases for our

concern, those joining

in this letter would like to reach a reasonable accord.

We know that the

BlagojevichAdministration is committed to addressing nutrient pollution in flhinois

and

we

sincerely appreciate the time

and

effort you

and

your staff

are

devoting to identifying ways to

move forward.

We

would welcome

a specific commitment to propose a numeric standard to the

IPCB by Spring 2006.

For the interim period, attached “Dear

Design Engineer” letter, modeled

on a letter sent by the Agency two years ago,

generally

states

what we think a reasonable

compromise

in this situation is for the Agency

and

the environment and what we hope the

2

---

Agency will do.

Basically, we would like to

see

discharges of

nutrients

minimized.

We believe

that the highest quality illinois waters should not receive new orincreased nutrient discharges.

No waters, however, should receive new or increased discharges with more

than

1

mg~L

of

phosphorus except perhaps in very

special

cases where economic proofofthe need for such an

exception

can

be adequately demonstrated.

We recognize

that this

is a difficult situation

and are

open to other ideas.

We look

forward to talking to you furtherabout these issues.

Sincerely,

Albert Ettinger

Senior Staff Attorney

Environmental

Law and

Policy Center

atm

illinois Chapter Sierra Club

)e.~*~

64/?)

Jean Flemma

Executive Director

Prairie

Rivers

Network

3

---

~*

18,2002

Ra

RcviMons

In the Perwtt2ng Pmoedrn 2W AU

New and

Expanded SewapTtwr

Plain.

Deer DSp

The

pwpca

ofthis isv lam

.S~

.b4.

Frtnfrn.I.

I

neatSaps

m NPDES pC

proças

admjcbt~doa

withk

the

DlvWa~at

Wets’ hflsdlce ConS ad

bow’tbay

itlets ~

appIiado~

dociz~anbmke4it wppat oftpC

ippti~dotThea.

~“r

pok

maw

~

Pollu*a

CocrolBocd Ragalelcma thcpSce 1~..4flc

nquS~

con theApmy *r

~

of

pins

that

suthorhea

newer

faenasud

Mtth~,

&waswatarInto ~ns

ofthe

Sfl

The Agency Saada4 i~

pumIt review and ~

pt~as

to canplywith this, new e~h..a

with

MMh,,SI

MdIIIn ~e

and b~Scm

upon both the pc*

applicantand Apacystift

In

otm

sairtplit

thk It!. bnpostnt

fr

the

W

gjro*es1~

tomtst4

the

‘zntpatncs ofeea4y eatcomprehensive ¾eflf~c

planab;

The

fIStS

?ofltà

Content

Bond

adopad

new aS-dapadation rr’~~~

on

Vebnaey

2t, lfl

Thea mlii b~nis..flLrh..

on

Pabnay t,

2002

and

can

be

downloaded

torn

a.

3csrd

at

~

01-013

Ofl102

Ooielcn

and Otod?

utiag

Mobs A~nbct rrL..adb, theareplatimis requiretate

A~oyp~rXt.

us

~

analysis frail

oew end cxpinded thjthaeps

~

W5

(~th¼g

NPDES

pemM).

The pdmaay ~we

ofthe

w2Sdepadton analystS Is to

that ~w (orcçaeded) dSbnpi

do na case dsgedsdos

in the.

water Into wblcb dlstharge own imuees abiotate~y

oscesazy. If degndatt

Is libly to occa~

the

de*dstiai

mug be held to S

amalMt amoimt pncdcelly acldnsMe and srk dessIffh

mnt be

thtlyj’adSd bysbeua

ofS~oject

En

dma pee;

be

pvovWed based wiaib

on cod and the r-qt~

cite

iilifrmnt

Review by the

Apacy took planspiithdly ~

Sdgn was compfld

~

ff.~.t~(tI

nil

&—-w

was being provided

by the

Apacy) and wee based on wflsha x actS

pripoad

tatInse

~

wou’d ~a.dy

meet

effluent gtdaSs

It Is nowny

fix the AgencY (and The pubLic)m bt~~~-”

Involved InS

much enlist.

The

revised snd-dsgSudca renlaS~fton len

MS

tMáuIalte

r-

‘n117t

water

quality sundtt (althcqh ocapUsacs with these adait

Is ad!! ...anry)

and mars at what

kind oftutnes sysm cab. ‘~‘ign,4

m heve the Mist athens bn1w on

the recctvbig wter.

—

t

ILUNOIS

ENVIRONMEr.rrAL

PROTECTION

21717*2.4610

1021

tam

Case

AnJa

Sit

P.O. 8ox 19276,

Smac. *ssa

Re~

CnMJC, D~o

Ccaa H.

Rym,

Co~srct

---

In a letter ofJuly

18, 2002, Tom McSwiggin, then Manager ofthe Permit Section

ofthe Division ofWater Pollution Control, wrote you regarding revisions in the

nar,nittinn

.,rne...A,,no

fe~r

all

nan,

anA

avnant4a.l

en,ann

tva,tmant

nionte

‘rh0t

lafla..

Revisions in Penniulog Procedures

Any

discharge of uead wwswt

to

sur~on

WIIm

has

the

potadal

to cawe

the

quality of the

receiving wawt

become degraded.

Therefore, sy~ms

that do not discharge should be ~cst4~

a~4

must

be

deemed

not ~asibIe b~Ga

&

dl.4151g sytrn

can

be

considered.

Examples

of

jw~-

dlscbnglng ayr.s

are golf coats; agziculziuzt Imid, and otha types ofspay iniptio; seepagefields,

and

other types ofsubsucfrcg dlschai~Psg~in.lI~.t~cn

should also be considers

ftr

ccuImunJtie~

so

Potential environmenul impec~

should bee~in~~M

and 1m40.4 In die prelimlnazy enginesing report

(or facilityplan Ifthe project Is

to

receive fSdthg through thel~Aloan propam. t)

for ink option

considered.

To expedite the review cmt

‘a NPDES pamit

pUs’$’~r

should be submitted with the

engineering repoSSility

plan

In cases

there a disclrging

system

I. the

recommended coasbocticu

aSSv,

Plans and w~lfrat~t

should n~

be

tajá4

~rjj the engineeSg repat#ftcIIhy pIsn h~a•

been approved byS

Agency.

The

new Dosed rules essanthflynterge the engineeringrepor~illty

plan and NPDES pemifappikation

procedures into one jzu~u

that tin be completed betre

*

St

S4

4J...Jltw~

~Ø

constt (ste permit)

can he

ken.t

The ftants

be

Included in the engineering reporbtcflftypit axs.~.thm&

Pa the

Agency implema the Based’sad-degradation npladais, addldonalr

hems

may cons. mligb.

The Agency will tempt

to

—

the rsg”I.S’

community

apprised of thai as

they develop,

In the

meantime, we have compiled a listofcommcnly-asadeeaca in the psiD~sntng

ofsewage

L~kfl

plant

peaS applications. Ta apSIS the

thg ofpe~ S

Agency has included these a

an s~cbmnesg

this Ia

Ennlng thatyo~

saffdcii not make any ofthese common errom on abenlasioust the’

Agency should

help

rethn the bwdanand time ~

Ittabs the Agency

toreview the

abmthaL

The

Agency tacks

you f~ycw’

continuing

coopcdth

and .ptnco

In

this

mater u n

begin

ImpSanSg

these

new nquhtnfl

If you

have questions or comacta ca these

changes, please

con~o’z

mimfnlpal engineer asS

phnre

nutS

given above.

VaySy ycun,

or~p

/

Mr,

Ftk

Se~at

DivSonatWater P’4”’—’ Cocci

TOM~IS~•

---

and dischargers in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and many other states have been

meeting

1mg/L effluent limits for years. The practicality ofmeeting this effluent limit is

confirmed by the recent study of the illinois Association ofWastewater Agencies.

Accordingly, the Agency believes that a discharge ofmorethan

1 mgfL ofphosphorus

will generally not be necessary to accommodate important economic or social activity

and the Agency will normally require an effluent limit oft mgfL phosphorus in all

permits subject to antidegradation requirements.

In summary, until the development ofnumeric nutrient standards,

the Agency will

not generally require nutrient effluent limits designed to

meet the dissolved oxygen or

offensive conditions standards.

An exception here would be the situatioti in which a total

maximum daily load study

shows the need for such controls.

On theother hand, an effluent limit of I mgfL phosphorus will generally be

imposed on all dischargers to lakes or streamsproposing new or increased loadings with

a reasonable potential to discharge that.Level ormore ofphosphorus. A I mgfL

phosphorus limit will be imposed unless

the discharger limits its total loading of

phosphorus to that allowed under a prior permit (in which.case there is no degradation as

to phosphorus) orthe applicantproves that, for reasons particular to

it,

it is economically

infeasible for it to limit its discharge ofphosphorus to

1

mgfL.

Any applicant considering

offering proofthat it cannot feasibly limit its phosphorus discharge to

1

mg’L should

consult theenclosed

U.S. EPA

Interim Economic Guidance forWater Quality Standards.

Sincerely,

---

rnterim

Economic Guidance for Water Quality

Standards

--

U.S.

L~FA

?age

t

at

it)

U.S. Environmental ProSctlon Agency

:Q4~

Water Quality Standards•

_____

ReaMAdditions

I

Con~

Us

I ~fini~1fl~

Ssdi:

J

\

,/

EPA Moire

~

~

WaS

San

‘Water Quality Sbndass

Policy 6 GuIdance

_____

plait

ancsChaplar5

WhatareWaterQuaiity

PolIcy & Guidance

Laws

& Regulauons

Interim

Economic Guidance for Water Quality

Policy & Guidance

Standards

State, Tribal &

Territorial Standards

5.

Antldegradation:

Role of Economic Analysis

Open

for Comment

Under the

Water

Quality Standards program, each State must develop,

adopt and

Recent Actions

retain

a statewide

antldegradation

policy and establish procedures for its

Training,

Meetings,

iniplementation.The

antldegradation

policy

is

intended to protect current water

and

Educational

quality;

in

only a limited

set of cases

can economic

grounds be

used to ailow

for a

Materials

lowering

of

water

quality.

in particular,

if the

quality of

the water exceeds ievels

necessary to support the propagation of fish,

sS1elIfist~,and

wildlife and

recreation

in

and

on

the water (I.e.

“hi9h-quallty water), then economic considerations

can

be

taken Into

account

Before

any lowering ofwater quality in

high-quality waters,

however,

an

antidegradation

review must determine that

the

lowering

is

necessary

in

order

to accommodate

Important economic or social

development

in the area

in

whIch the waters are

located.

Antidegradation is not a “no

growth”

rule

and

was never designed nor

intended

to

be

one. It is a

policy that allows

the public to make

decisions about

important

environmental

actions. Where the

State

intends

to

provide

for

development,

it may

decide that some lowering of water quality in

“high-quality

waters” is necessary to

accommodate Important economic

or

socIal

development.

Any

such

reduction in

water

quality, however, must

protect

existing uses fully and must

satisfy the

requirements

for

Intergovernmental

coordlnat~n

and public

participation.

While the terminology is

different,

the tests to determine

substantial and

widespread

economic impacts (used when

removing a use or granting a variance)

are

basIcally

the

same as those used to determine If there might be interference

with

an

Important

social

and economic development (antidegradatlon). As

such,

antidegradatlon

analysis is the mirror image of the analyses described

In Chapters

2, 3

and

4. VarIances

and downgrades refer to

situations where additional

treatment needed

to

meet

standards may result in worsening

economic conditions;

while

antidegradation

refers to situations where lowering

water quality may result

In

Improved

social

and

economic conditions.

When performing

an antidegradatlon

review, the first question is whether the

pollution

controls needed

to

maintain

the high-quality water will

Interfere with

the

proposed development. If

not,

then the

lowering

of water quality

is not warranted.

If,

on the other hand, the pollution

controls

will

Interfere with development,

then

the

review must show that the

development would be an important economic

and

social one. These two steps

rely

on

the same tests

as the determination of

substantial and widespread Impacts.

It should

be stressed

at

the

outset that

substantial

economic impacts does not mean driving

profits

to

zero, nor precluding

all other municipal expenditures.

The following

sections describe

the steps involved

in

performing an

economic

impact

analysis

as

part

of an

antidegradatlon

review. These steps are outlined in

1;Ie

://l:\Wild2Oand2ONaturatZOPtaces\antidcgradation\lnterim2OEconornic2OGui...

1/29/2004

---

SURVEY

OF

STATES,

TRIBES

AND

TERRITORIES NUTRIENT STANDAJmS

July 2003