Is There Life after Residual Designation Authority (RDA) ? GZA - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
is there life after residual designation authority rda
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Is There Life after Residual Designation Authority (RDA) ? GZA - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 11, 2024 13 likes •345 views

Is There Life after Residual Designation Authority (RDA) ? GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Presentation to: The New Hampshire Water and Watershed Conference Plymouth, NH March 26, 2011 INTRODUCTION Environmental Founded in 1964 Scientists 25

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Is There Life after Residual Designation Authority (RDA) ?

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

Presentation to:

The New Hampshire Water and Watershed Conference

Plymouth, NH March 26, 2011

slide-2
SLIDE 2
  • Founded in 1964
  • 25 offices throughout Northeast
  • Over 500 employees
  • Highly diversified technical services
  • Proactive by design

INTRODUCTION

Environmental Scientists Natural Resources Professionals Regulatory Specialists Water Resources Engineers Geologists and Hydrogeologists

slide-3
SLIDE 3

OVERVIEW

  • Residual Designation Authority
  • Long Creek Watershed, Maine
  • Charles River Watershed,

Massachusetts

  • Comparisons
  • Lessons Learned
slide-4
SLIDE 4

NPDES BACKGROUND

Major Categories of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits

Municipalities (MS4) Construction (CGP) Industrial Facilities (MSGP) Discharges prior to 2/4/1987

slide-5
SLIDE 5

What is Residual Designation Authority (RDA)?

  • Two ways stormwater

may be considered “designated discharges”

– TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) – Violations of Water Quality Standards

  • Pressure from

environmental petitions

  • r potential lawsuits
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Applications of RDA

Waterways in the Burlington area June 2003: CLF petition to the VT Agency of Natural Resources

www.bestplaces.net

www.fredmurphy.com

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Applications of RDA

Long Creek near South Portland, Maine NPDES permit for post‐construction discharges (i.e., existing development)

March 2008: CLF petitions EPA for RDA Dec 2008: Record of Decision Nov 2009: Permit in place, developed in conjunction with:

  • EPA
  • DEP
  • CLF
  • Stakeholders

www.bestplaces.net

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Applications of RDA

Charles River, Massachusetts CLF in “collaboration” with the Charles River Watershed Association and EPA (no formal petition filed)

CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED

www.wikitree.com

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Applications of RDA

Chesapeake Bay watershed RDA being considered Dec 2010: TMDL

www.camerondavidson.com

slide-10
SLIDE 10

From effective date of permit:

Long Creek Watershed South Portland, Maine

  • Four

municipalities

  • Two State

transportation agencies

  • At least two

utilities

  • Many

commercial and retail properties

slide-11
SLIDE 11

From effective date of permit:

Long Creek Watershed South Portland, Maine

Urban Impaired Stream (303‐d listed) Ample water quality data and studies Numerous unpermitted discharges Ideal candidate for RDA/petition

slide-12
SLIDE 12

From effective date of permit:

Long Creek Watershed South Portland, Maine

Proactive approach to deter threat of RDA petition Financial funding for WMP from State/DEP Participation from numerous stakeholders Collaborative effort DEVELOPMENT OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN (WMP)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

From effective date of permit:

Long Creek Watershed South Portland, Maine

Welcome to Long Creek

slide-14
SLIDE 14

From effective date of permit:

Long Creek Watershed South Portland, Maine

slide-15
SLIDE 15

From effective date of permit:

Long Creek Watershed South Portland, Maine

slide-16
SLIDE 16

From effective date of permit:

Long Creek Watershed South Portland, Maine

Identify prioritized structural retrofits Outline maintenance and

  • ther non‐

structural BMPs Propose financial mechanism and administrative structure

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN (WMP) = ROAD MAP FOR ACHIEVING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

slide-17
SLIDE 17

From effective date of permit:

Long Creek Watershed South Portland, Maine

  • Continue stakeholders process
  • Identify all “designated discharges”
  • >1 acre of impervious cover (IC)
  • Existing development
  • Finish WMP
  • Develop PLA
  • Credits
  • Easements
  • Financial algorithm
  • Receive ARRA funding for projects
  • Establish District (i.e., LCWMD)
  • Develop permits
  • General (GP)
  • Individual (IP)

HAVE ROAD MAP (WMP), NOW WHERE DO WE GO?

Include as talking points in previous slides

REMEMBER TIMELINE? 2007 ‐ 2008: Stakeholders convene March 2008: CLF petition Dec 2008: EPA’s ROD Jan 2009: WMP submitted Nov 2009: Permit in place

slide-18
SLIDE 18

From effective date of permit:

Long Creek Watershed South Portland, Maine

  • New permit effective October 29, 2009 thru October 29, 2014
  • 180‐day notice period issued by DEP sent in December 2009

Assessment of impervious area Evaluation of permit options

  • General permit requirements

Implementation of collaborative WMP Annual reporting Monitoring and assessment of stream Inspection and maintenance of BMPs Execute Participating Landowners Agreement (PLA) Pay fees ($3,000/acre of IA/year) Allow District to conduct work by granting easements

MEPDES POST‐CONSTRUCTION DISCHARGE OF STORMWATER IN LONG CREEK WATERSHED

slide-19
SLIDE 19

From effective date of permit:

Long Creek Watershed South Portland, Maine

  • Inspection and Maintenance
  • Monitoring and assessment of stream
  • Conduct independently
  • Contribute to group efforts
  • Stream restoration fees
  • Annual reporting
  • Existing development must retrofit

property to meet revised standards

  • VERY CO$TLY!!
  • $30K to $50K per acre of IA

INDIVIDUAL PERMIT OPTION: CMR Chapter 521

slide-20
SLIDE 20

From effective date of permit:

Long Creek Watershed South Portland, Maine

FACTORS LONG CREEK OVERVIEW RDA CLF threatened and filed petition Regulatory Oversight

EPA and DEP

Affected Parties

4 Municipalities 2 Transportation Agencies 2+ Utilities Numerous commercial properties Minimal residential properties

Designated Discharge

>1 acre of Impervious Cover (IC)

Impairment

“Adverse impact of impervious surfaces” (e.g., land use, %IC, urban runoff, etc.)

Target

Reduce effective IC

Approach

Watershed Management Plan (WMP) Extensive outreach to stakeholders Lengthy stakeholders process

slide-21
SLIDE 21

From effective date of permit:

Long Creek Watershed South Portland, Maine

WATERSHED STATISTICS LONG CREEK OVERVIEW Land Area

3.5 square miles (mainly in one municipality)

Waterbody

Main branch: 3.84 miles long 4 Tributaries: 5+ additional miles Shallow, narrow streambed Sand, silt and clay with some rocks

%IC

28% 7 subwatersheds: 10‐62% IC

Primary Land Use

Commercial

Population Growth

Low

WQ Data

Extensive amount (low DO, chlorides/ionic strength, altered flow, temperature, aquatic

  • rganisms, etc.)
slide-22
SLIDE 22

IS RDA PROBLEM SOLVED? CAN SAME SOLUTION BE APPLIED ELSEWHERE?

slide-23
SLIDE 23

From effective date of permit:

Upper Charles River Watershed Milford, Bellingham, & Franklin, Massachusetts

Three municipalities Headwaters of larger Charles River watershed

www.mass.gov

slide-24
SLIDE 24

From effective date of permit:

Upper Charles River Watershed Milford, Bellingham, & Franklin, Massachusetts

Urban Impaired Stream (303‐d listed) Ample water quality data and studies

(TMDLs for nutrients)

Mix of discharges

(non‐permitted and permitted)

Another candidate for RDA/petition

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Upper Charles River Watershed Milford, Bellingham, & Franklin, Massachusetts

  • 2± acres of impervious

surfaces

– Aggregation of contiguous lots

  • Commercial, industrial,

educational, hospitals, condominiums

  • Exempts single family

homes or areas covered by the MS4 permit GENERAL PERMIT FOR DESIGNATED DISCHARGES IN THE CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITIES OF MILFORD, BELLINGHAM AND FRANKLIN, MASSACHUSETTS

slide-26
SLIDE 26

From effective date of permit:

Upper Charles River Watershed Milford, Bellingham, & Franklin, Massachusetts

  • 65% Phosphorus removal
  • CMPP
slide-27
SLIDE 27

From effective date of permit:

Upper Charles River Watershed Milford, Bellingham, & Franklin, Massachusetts

SUSTAINABLE STORMWATER FUNDING DEVELOPMENT

east‐wenatchee.com

slide-28
SLIDE 28

From effective date of permit:

Upper Charles River Watershed Milford, Bellingham, & Franklin, Massachusetts

SUSTAINABLE STORMWATER FUNDING

crwa.org

slide-29
SLIDE 29

From effective date of permit:

Upper Charles River Watershed Milford, Bellingham, & Franklin, Massachusetts

FACTORS UPPER CHARLES OVERVIEW RDA

CRWA and CLF threatened petition

Regulatory Oversight

EPA (minimal DEP involvement)

Affected Parties

3 Municipalities to enforce 0 Transportation Agencies (exempt since MS4) Numerous commercial and industrial properties Large residential properties

Designated Discharge

>2 acre of Impervious Cover (IC)

Impairment

Phosphorus equated to adverse impact of impervious surfaces (e.g., land use, %IC, urban runoff, etc.)

Approach

Certified Municipal Phosphorus Program (CMPP) Draft Permit followed by stakeholder cooperation

Target

Phosphorus reduction

slide-30
SLIDE 30

From effective date of permit:

Charles River Watershed Milford, Bellingham, & Franklin, Massachusetts

WATERSHED STATISTICS UPPER CHARLES OVERVIEW Land Area

48 sq. miles (spread throughout 3 municipalities)

Waterbody

Main branch: 70 miles long Only headwaters included in 3 towns (~15 miles)

%IC

14% Franklin 15% Bellingham 20% Milford

Primary Land Use

42.5% Residential 7.9% Commercial/industrial

Population Growth

High

WQ Data Extensive Amount

slide-31
SLIDE 31

RDA COMPARISON

WATERSHED INFORMATION UPPER CHARLES LONG CREEK Land area

48 sq. miles 3.5 sq. miles

% Impervious Cover (IC)

14‐20% 28%

Land Use

Residential Commercial

Municipalities (within watershed)

3 (disbursed) 4 (primarily 1)

“Designed Discharge”

> 2 acres of IC > 1 acres of IC

Proposed Approach

CMPP WMP

District/Permit Development

Proposed Implemented

Annual Cost of Compliance

$?/acre of IC $3000/acre of IC

Target for reduction

Phosphorus IC

Perceived Role of “Enforcer” Aggressive

Cooperative

Available WQ Data

Extensive Extensive

Waterbody (Total miles/in WS/plus Tribs)

70/15/>>15 3.84/3.84/<10

slide-32
SLIDE 32

From effective date of permit:

RDA PROCESS

SOME LESSONS LEARNED

  • Recognize differences and similarities
  • Among stakeholders
  • From watershed to watershed
  • County/SWCD involvement (i.e., facilitation)
  • Jump start “stormwater utility district” development
  • Develop supporting documents (e.g., AI, PLA, etc.)
  • Stakeholder involvement
  • Identify all ASAP and engage often
  • “Put yourself in your neighbors shoes”
  • Maintain positivity and air of cooperation
  • Identify potential costs early in the process

POSITIVE PRESS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS IS KEY TO SUCCESS!!!!

slide-33
SLIDE 33

For More Information

http://www.epa.gov/NE/npdes/stormwater/index.html

Rosalie Starvish rosalie.starvish@gza.com 413‐523‐0219 Robyn Saunders robyn.saunders@gza.com 207‐879‐9190