CWN's Use Attainability Analysis Tool Kit
On behalf of the Clean Water Network, we are thrilled to unveil this guide on Use
Attainability Analysis (UAA), a process whereby a state may remove or downgrade a
water body’s designated use for specific reasons. It is critical that our network of
community, state and national clean water advocates understands the UAA process.
The Network’s UAA Tookit: Was it Useful? Did you use it or just put in your bookshelf?
The Network published a groundbreaking publication in 2007 entitled “UAA: The Clean water Network’s Use Attainability Analysis Tool Kit.” It featured everything you want to know about UAA’s but were afraid to ask. Clean Water Act expert Gayle Killam from River Network was the report’s principal author.
The toolkit, which provides guidance on the UAA process, whereby a state may remove or downgrade a water body’s designated use for specific reasons, was a clean water (Harry Potter) bestseller. In many states the list of waters requiring clean up because they fail to meet water quality standards continues to grow, while most state budgets for environmental protection are not keeping up. Clean water advocates need to be aware of the efforts to remove waters from 303 (d) by weakening standards rather than to actually fix the water quality problems. The UAA Toolkit was designed to tackle this problem head on.
The UAA report has been out a whole year and now is the time to check in for feedback. We want to hear your stories and experiences. Was the Toolkit useful to you? Did you experience serious challenges on the UAA front?
To kick things off, we want to share with you this story from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in Pennsylvania. Any guidance and thoughts on the situation as reported below, from others experienced in challenging UAAs and downgrades is much appreciated.
PA Use Attainability Analysis Case
In 2003, Heidelburg Township, PA petitioned for a downgrade of the designated use of the headwaters of Hammer Creek from High Quality-Cold Water Fishery (HQ-CWF) (Tier II) to Trout Stocked Fishery (TSF). Heidelburg has for some time been seeking to build a sewage treatment plant in the area and has found it difficult to meet anti-degradation special protection standards.
In June 2007, PA DEP issued a draft stream evaluation report
recommending that the headwaters be downgraded from HQ-CWF to CWF. Looking at historic water quality data and conducting its own stream sampling in 2003 and 2004, PA DEP determined that the stream did not attain its HQ use. Further, it found that the HQ use could not be attained by implementing cost effective and reasonable BMPs, and that human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent attainment of the use and cannot be remedied.
This particular conclusion greatly concerns the CBF. The headwaters of Hammer Creek is impacted by agriculture. There are good sources of limestone influenced springs that feed its headwaters. After leaving the heavy agricultural area, the stream flows through a forested portion of the Highlands Region known as the Furnace Hills, where water quality is improved. This entire area is slated for downgrade.
CBF felt that with appropriate application of BMPs to create forested riparian buffers and eliminate nutrient and sediment runoff in the ag-impacted headwaters, water quality would improve significantly. It already improves significantly because of the existing downstream forested area. In fact, a small unnamed tributary in this forested area scored high enough during DEP's evaluation to be recommended for an upgrade to Exceptional Value status. This goes to show that, if impacts are removed, the Hammer Creek headwaters have the potential for exceptional water quality.
DEP actually goes so far as to admit in its report that "BMPs installed to date have led to some water quality improvements and additional BMPs could result in further improvements," but then goes on to say "it is unlikely that those improvements would be significant enough to result in the HQ-CWF use attainment." There is no data, modeling or assessment analysis of the effectiveness of BMPs cited to support this conclusion.
CBF is greatly concerned about his precedent, particularly with respect to ag-impacted watersheds. They know how to fix ag-impacted watersheds, and the BMPs to be employed are among the most cost-effective you can find to address water quality impairments. If agencies start taking the position that you cannot remedy ag-impacted watersheds by installing BMPs to achieve designated uses, we might as well throw the entire TMDL process out the window.
At this point, DEP will consider comments and issue a final evaluation report within the next six months. This report then forms the basis of a recommendation regarding redesignation, which is made to our Environmental Quality Board (the reg making body). We plan on commenting and building a coalition of local and statewide support in opposition to the downgrade, in the hopes that DEP will see its conclusions are in error and contrary to the law regarding downgrading to less restrictive uses.
Any guidance and thoughts on this Pennsylvania case from others experienced in challenging UAAs is much appreciated. Please send your comments to Natalieroy@cleanwaternetwork.org. We will make sure CBF gets them as well as share them with others in the Network tackling the same issues. We anticipate creating a site on the network website dedicated to this topic.
