Promoting TMDL Innovations in Region 1

1. Promoting TMDL Innovations in Region 1 Anne Leiby US EPA, Region 1 State-EPA Symposium on Environmental Innovation and Results Denver, CO Tuesday, January 24, 1:45 – 3:15

2. 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)

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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.

7. Innovation #2: Impervious Cover

8. Impervious Cover

9. 12% IC Threshold % IC and ALUS

10. ALUS and Streams > 11% IC

11. Southwest Coast Effect – Green on Top, Red on Bottom Meets ALUS Fails ALUS > = 11% IC

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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

17. 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