ISSUE #1: PROMOTE STRONG "ANTI-DEGRADATION" PROCEDURES
The state's most recent water quality report (305(b) report) acknowledges
that 69.7 percent - or approximately 20,490 miles - of our state's waters meet
all water quality standards.
The Clean Water Act requires states to develop procedures that will protect
these waters from further degradation. ONLY under limited circumstances should
the state allow degradation to these precious waters.
Defining "Degradation" - a Lowering of Water Quality:
Tennessee's Proposal: Tennessee's proposed standards define degradation as
alterations of waters by the addition of pollutants or removal of habitat.
Tennessee's proposal, however, allows for a de minimus impact exception allowing
for a five percent loss of assimilative capacity.
Our Response: The rules should generally prevent any lowering of water
quality. In addition, TCWN opposes any de minimus exception, as it
would enable permit applicants to avoid the evaluation of alternatives.
Permit applicants should be required to evaluate ANY negative impact to our
state's waters. If the degradation is socially or economically necessary,
the state may still grant an exception to the degradation.
The Burden on Applicants:
Tennessee's Proposal: Tennessee's proposed standards appropriately place
the burden on permit applicants to conduct all of the evaluation for
alternatives.
Our Response: For higher quality waters, the burden should be on permit
applicants to evaluate alternatives first. Therefore, we completely agree
with the state's proposal. The state should not facilitate the cost
of permitting pollution to our state's waters. Our major concern is
that permit applicants should prove that they have not only considered
alternatives but have fully evaluated the use of alternatives to discharging
pollution into our streams and rivers.
Ensuring the Public Is Provided with A Voice in Antidegradation Decision-making:
Tennessee's Proposal: Tennessee has outlined a process for public
participation that provides the public with an opportunity become involved with
a process where permit applicants seek to degrade Tier II waters. In
addition, the Department has agreed to hold a public hearing for any case where
a Tier II water may be degraded.
Our Response: We applaud the state's effort to incorporate meaningful
public involvement into the process once a permit applicant seeks to obtain a
variance to the state's water quality standards. Our main concern is that
the public will not be as involved prior to this decision-making process.
We urge the state to consider a more enhanced public involvement process
beginning with the initial application to the state for a permit. The
public can be helpful in evaluating the overall "quality" of a river
for antidegradation purposes.
Defining High Quality Waters:
Tennessee's Proposal: The state has generally defined "high quality waters" to include waters that:
1) provide "habitat for ecologically significant populations of
aquatic or semi-aquatic plants or animals" (including those proposed or listed
for formal state or federal status).
2) provide special recreational opportunities.
3) possess outstanding scenic or geologic values.
4) where existing conditions exceed water quality standards.
Our Response: In general, we agree with Tennessee's general definition
of high quality waters. But this definition must be clarified to include those waters the state currently recognizes as fully and partially
supporting water quality standards. Federal guidelines require "high quality" waters to include those which meet or exceed standards. This
includes MAJORITY of waters in the state - not a small minority (see below). In addition, if the state does NOT have information for certain
waters (50 percent of the state's waters are NOT assessed), then the state must ensure that water quality data is gathered BEFORE any further
determination is made regarding the permit action (see below).
<<<According to Tennessee:>>>
Total Assessed River Miles: 29,406.0
Fully Supporting (Meeting All Water Quality Standards): 20,490.0 (69.7 percent)
Partially Supporting (Meeting at least some water quality standards): 7,183.7 (24.4 percent)
Not Supporting (water quality criteria are violated regularly): 1,698.7 (5.8 percent)
The Need for Written Procedures Available to the Public:
The antidegradation procedures must be developed in clearly articulated written procedures that outline the process that will be used by the
Department. The state's proposed regulations do not include any procedures for the implementation of antidegradation protection. The
lack of such a written document was central in the recent controversy surrounding the proposed Sewage Treatment Plant in Spencer, Tennessee
near Falls Creek Falls State Park.
While the regulations are not necessarily expected to outline a process for antidegradation implementation, we urge the state to follow the
example of many other states who developed a comprehensive policy document that follows the promulgation of the regulations. Such a
document should be available to the public providing them with specific opportunities for involvement.
ISSUE #2: THE STATE'S PROPOSAL DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS NUTRIENT POLLUTION IN OUR STATE'S LAKES
Why is this important? Nutrients are a major source of pollution for Tennessee's rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs. The main sources
for nutrient enrichment are agricultural activities, wastewater plants, urban runoff, and improper application of fertilizers. Increased nutrient
levels stimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plants, which can ultimately lead to the depletion of oxygen levels needed to support fish
and other aquatic life.
The State should establish specific numeric criteria for nutrients in lakes and reservoirs. While Tennessee proposed specific numeric criteria
for nutrients in "wadeable" streams, it declined to propose numeric criteria for lakes and reservoirs. Nutrient pollution is a significant
problem in lakes and reservoirs and should be recognized as such by the State. The proposed narrative criteria for lakes are not adequate to
protect and restore these waters.
ISSUE #3: THE STATE'S PROPOSAL FAILS TO ADDRESS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF POLLUTION IN TENNESSEE: SILTATION
Why is this important? According to the state's water quality report (2002 305(b) Report) siltation is the most frequently cited pollutant in
Tennessee, impacting 27.9 percent of assessed streams. Generally associated with land disturbing activities such as agriculture and
construction, silt alters the biological, chemical, and physical properties of waters. Siltation may also result in significant economic
impacts due to increased water treatment costs, filling in of reservoirs, loss of navigation channels, and increased likelihood of
flooding. The State should establish specific numeric criteria for turbidity. The current narrative criteria for turbidity do not provide
an adequate means for measuring turbidity levels in lakes and streams. These criteria are loosely stated, leaving their application open to
varying interpretations. Specific numeric criteria are needed in order to calculate how additional sources of turbidity will contribute to the
health of a water body.
ISSUE #4: THE STATE'S PROPOSAL FOR ECOREGIONAL CRITERIA SHOULD BE A "LIVING" DOCUMENT
The State's Proposal to Define Criteria for Eight Different Ecoregions Has Some Merit But Should Not Be Permanently Established in The Regulations.
The State has proposed a set of "ecoregional" criteria for dissolved oxygen, biological integrity, nutrients, and pH. While the process of
establishing ecoregional criteria has some merit, the state's proposal is highly complex, difficult to understand, and has not yet been fully
evaluated by an independent team of experts. Much of this data is
"new" science and has not been applied over a sufficient period of time to
allow for adequate evaluation. By putting this science permanently into regulations, significant problems may arise. For example, in the
Harpeth River watershed, the State's proposed criteria for dissolved oxygen would allow would DO levels to drop as low as 3.0 mg/L. However,
there is scientific evidence that suggests that allowing such low levels of DO in the Harpeth would be harmful to the biological integrity of the
river. Because new scientific information will continually become available, Tennessee's regulations should allow for adaptive
management. This can be achieved by placing the ecoregional criteria into a "living" policy document that would be open to analysis and
review by a larger community of scientists and experts. The water quality standards should include more generally stated criteria that set
an appropriate target level, but allow variances due to natural conditions.
ISSUE #5: BACTERIA LEVELS SHOULD BE CONSISTENT FOR ALL STATE WATERS REGARDLESS OF TIER DESIGNATION
Why is this important? Disease-causing organisms that can be transferred through water are a serious human health threat. The main sources for
pathogens are untreated or inadequately treated human and animal fecal matter. According to the 2002 305(b) Report, Tennessee has 32 streams
and rivers posted for no water contact due to high pathogen levels.
For recreational uses, the State has proposed a less stringent coliform criterion for water bodies other than lakes, reservoirs, State Scenic
Rivers, or Tier II or Tier III waters. Many waters, other than those specified, are used for recreation on a regular basis. Because of the
significant health risks associated with these pathogens, the more stringent criterion should apply to all waters.
Written comments will be accepted until close of business on April 4, 2003.
Comments should be directed to:
Mr. Greg Denton
Division of Water Pollution Control
Planning and Standards Section
6th Floor, L&C Annex
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243
Fax: 615-532-0045
Email: Gregory.Denton@state.tn.us
(If you e-mail your comments, include your full name and address, and follow that e-mail up
with a mailed hard copy.)
The proposed revisions to standards can be accessed at http://www.state.tn.us/environment/water