EO12866 Baseline WQS for Indian Reservations 2040-AF62 Proposed Rule EA 20221027

Economic Analysis for Proposed Federal Baseline Water Quality Standards for Indian Reservations

                               October 27, 2022

                                 Prepared for:
                 United States Environmental Protection Agency
                                Office of Water
                       Office of Science and Technology
                        1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
                            Washington, D.C. 20460

Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations	viii
Executive Summary	1
1.	Introduction	9
1.1	Background	9
1.1.1	Regulatory Background	9
1.2	Purpose and Scope of the Analysis	10
1.3	Report Organization	11
2.	Applicability and Current Regulatory Framework	13
2.1	Indian Reservations and Waters Subject to the Analysis	13
2.2	Current Regulatory Framework on these Lands/Waters	14
3.	Derivation of Economic Analysis Criteria	16
3.1	Overall Assumptions for Purposes of this Analysis	16
3.1.1	Applicable Designated Uses	16
3.1.2	Aquatic Life Criteria	17
3.1.3	Human Health Criteria	17
3.2	Geographic-Specific Assumptions	19
3.2.1	Fish Consumption Rates	19
3.2.2	Great Lakes Initiative	19
3.3	Economic Analysis Criteria	20
4.	Potential Benefits	26
4.1	Human Health Benefits	26
4.1.1	Reduced Health Risk from Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic Plant Consumption	27
4.1.2	Benefits from Improved Water Quality in Drinking Water Sources	28
4.1.3	Reduced Risk of Gastrointestinal Illnesses from Recreation	29
4.2	Market Benefits	29
4.2.1	Commercial Fisheries	30
4.2.2	Enhanced Property Values	30
4.3	Nonmarket Water Quality Benefits	31
4.3.1	Cultural and Traditional Use Benefits	31
4.3.2	Recreational Benefits	32
4.3.3	Nonuse Benefits	32
4.4	Summary of Benefits	33
5.	Method for Estimating Potential Costs: Point Sources	35
5.1	Identification of Potentially Affected Permittees	35
5.1.1	Methodology for Sampling	37
5.1.2	Extrapolation Process	39
5.2	Determining Reasonable Potential	39
5.3	Projecting Effluent Limits	41
5.4	Identifying Control Scenarios	45
5.4.1	Process Optimization	45
5.4.2	Source Controls (Pollution Prevention Programs)	46
5.4.3	Effluent Treatment	47
5.4.4	Alternative Compliance Mechanisms	48
6.	Method for Identifying Potential Impairments and Characterization of Nonpoint Sources	50
6.1	Available Data to Evaluate Impairments	50
6.2	Identifying Potential Impairments	52
6.3	Nonpoint Source Discharge Categories	53
6.3.1	Agriculture	53
6.3.2	Forestry	54
6.3.3	Mining	54
6.3.4	Septic Systems	55
6.3.5	Atmospheric Deposition	56
6.3.6	Contaminated Sediments/Legacy Sources	56
6.4	Identifying Potential Control Actions and Costs	57
7.	Potential Compliance Costs	59
7.1	Potential Compliance Costs for Point Sources	59
7.2	Potential Compliance Costs for Nonpoint Sources and Stormwater	65
7.3	Uncertainties in the Analysis	65
7.3.1	Data Limitations	65
7.3.2	Point Source Load Reductions	67
7.3.3	Response to Requirements	67
References	68
Appendix A - Facility Analyses	73
Appendix B - Source Control and Alternative Compliance Mechanism Supplemental Information and Costs	138
Appendix C - Effluent Treatment Control and Costs	142
Appendix D - Pollutant Impacts	152

List of Exhibits
Exhibit ES-1 Summary of Estimated Potential Costs (2020 $Millions) for Major Facilities	7
Exhibit 2-1 Indian Reservations with Waters in Yellow and White Included in this Analysis	14
Exhibit 3-1 Detection Limits and Aquatic Life Economic Analysis Criteria (ug/L)	21
Exhibit 3-2 Detection Limits and Human Health Economic Analysis Criteria (expressed in ug/L, unless specified otherwise)	22
Exhibit 4-1 Human Health Effects Associated with Pollutants with Potential Impairments based on Economic Analysis Criteria	27
Exhibit 4-2 Summary of Benefits from Promulgating WQS for Indian Reservation Waters	34
Exhibit 5-1 NPDES Facilities that May be Affected by the Proposed Baseline WQS	36
Exhibit 5-2 Sample NPDES Dischargers for Reasonable Potential Analyses	38
Exhibit 5-3 Pollutants Triggering RP for Sample NPDES Dischargers	40
Exhibit 5-4 Summary of WQBELs for Sampled Facilities (ug/L unless specified otherwise)	42
Exhibit 5-5 Summary of Potential Effluent Treatment Technologies	48
Exhibit 6-1 Available Water Quality Data for Tribal Waters for Parameters with Economic Analysis Criteria	51
Exhibit 6-2 Number of Reaches on Indian Reservation Waters that are Potentially Impaired by Economic Analysis Criteria and Parameter*	52
Exhibit 6-3 Potential Control Actions Required for Nonpoint Sources of Contamination	57
Exhibit 7-1 Estimated Potential Costs (2020 dollars) for Facilities Discharging to Indian Reservation Waters	61
Exhibit 7-2 Estimated Potential Costs (2020 dollars) for Industrial Facilities Discharging Upstream of Indian Reservation Waters	62
Exhibit 7-3 Estimated Potential Costs (2020 dollars) for Sample Sewerage Treatment Plants Discharging Upstream of Indian Reservation Waters	63
Exhibit 7-4 Summary of Estimated Potential Costs (2020 $Millions) for Major Facilities	64
Exhibit A-1: Summary of Available Effluent Data for CRSJV (ug/L)	74
Exhibit A-2: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for CRSJV (ug/L)	75
Exhibit A-3: Summary of Limits for Parameters with Reasonable Potential (ug/L)	75
Exhibit A-4: CRSJV Estimated Incremental Costs (1.2 MGD)	76
Exhibit A-5: Summary of Available Effluent Data for Mesa Northwest (ug/L)	77
Exhibit A-6: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for Mesa Northwest (ug/L)	77
Exhibit A-7: Summary of Limits for Mesa Northwest for Parameters with Reasonable Potential (ug/L)	78
Exhibit A-8: Summary of Available Effluent Data for Mt. Pleasant WWTP	79
Exhibit A-9: Summary of Limits for Mt. Pleasant for Parameters with Reasonable Potential (cfu/100 mL)	79
Exhibit A-10: Summary of Available Effluent Data for Pearl River WWTP (ug/L)	81
Exhibit A-11: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for Pearl River WWTP (ug/L)	81
Exhibit A-12: Summary of Limits for Pearl River WWTP for Parameters with Reasonable Potential (ug/L)	82
Exhibit A-13: Pearl River WWTP Estimated Incremental Costs (1.50 MGD)	83
Exhibit A-14: Summary of Available Effluent Data for City of Hardin WTP (ug/L)	84
Exhibit A-15: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for City of Hardin WTP (ug/L)	85
Exhibit A-16: Summary of Limits for City of Hardin WTP for Parameters with Reasonable Potential (ug/L)	85
Exhibit A-17: City of Hardin Estimated Incremental Costs (2.16 MGD)	86
Exhibit A-18: Summary of Available Effluent Data for Salamanca WWTP (ug/L)	87
Exhibit A-19: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for Salamanca WWTP (ug/L)	88
Exhibit A-20: Summary of Limits for Salamanca WWTP for Parameters with Reasonable Potential (ug/L)	88
Exhibit A-21: Salamanca WWTP Estimated Incremental Costs (2.00 MGD)	89
Exhibit A-22: Summary of Available Effluent Data for City of Phoenix WWTP (ug/L)	89
Exhibit A-23: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for City of Phoenix WWTP (ug/L)	90
Exhibit A-24: Summary of Calculated Limits for Parameters with Reasonable Potential for City of Phoenix WWTP (ug/L)	91
Exhibit A-25: City of Phoenix WWTP Estimated Incremental Costs (230 MGD)	92
Exhibit A-26: Summary of Available Effluent Data for Town of Florence WWTP (ug/L)	94
Exhibit A-27: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for Town of Florence WWTP (ug/L)	95
Exhibit A-28: Summary of Calculated Limits for Parameters with Reasonable Potential for Town of Florence WWTP (ug/L)	95
Exhibit A-29: Town of Florence WWTP Estimated Incremental Costs (2.5 MGD)	97
Exhibit A-30: Summary of Available Effluent Data for Coachella Mid-Valley WRC (ug/L)	99
Exhibit A-31: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for Coachella Mid-Valley WRC (ug/L)	100
Exhibit A-32: Summary of Calculated Limits for Parameters with Reasonable Potential for Coachella Mid-Valley WRC (ug/L)	101
Exhibit A-33: Coachella Mid-Valley WRC Estimated Incremental Costs (9.9 MGD)	103
Exhibit A-34: Summary of Available Effluent Data for Pagosa Area WWTP (ug/L)	104
Exhibit A-35: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for Pagosa Area WWTP (ug/L)	105
Exhibit A-36: Summary of Calculated Limits for Parameters with Reasonable Potential for Pagosa Area WWTP (ug/L)	106
Exhibit A-37: Pagosa Area WWTP Estimated Incremental Costs (3.9 MGD)	108
Exhibit A-38: Summary of Available Effluent Data for CF Industries Nitrogen (ug/L)	109
Exhibit A-39: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for CF Industries Nitrogen (ug/L)	109
Exhibit A-41: Summary of Available Chlorine Effluent Data for Neal South (ug/L)	112
Exhibit A-42: Summary of Chlorine Reasonable Potential Analysis for Neal South by Outfall (ug/L)	112
Exhibit A-44: Summary of Available Effluent Data for Pocatello WPCF (ug/L)	114
Exhibit A-45: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for Pocatello WPCF (ug/L)	115
Exhibit A-46: Summary of Calculated Limits for Parameters with Reasonable Potential for Pocatello WPCF (ug/L)	115
Exhibit A-47: Pocatello WPCF Estimated Incremental Costs (12 MGD)	116
Exhibit A-48: Summary of Available Effluent Data for City of Devils Lake WWTF (ug/L)	117
Exhibit A-49: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for City of Devils Lake WWTF (ug/L)	117
Exhibit A-50: Summary of Calculated Limits for Parameters with Reasonable Potential for City of Devils Lake WWTF (ug/L)	118
Exhibit A-51: Summary of Available Effluent Data for MG Waldbaum (ug/L)	119
Exhibit A-52: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for the MG Waldbaum (ug/L)	119
Exhibit A-53: Summary of Calculated Limits for Parameters with Reasonable Potential for MG Waldbaum (ug/L)	120
Exhibit A-54: MG Waldbaum Estimated Incremental Costs (0.70 MGD)	121
Exhibit A-55: Summary of Available Effluent Data for Los Alamos WWTF (ug/L)	121
Exhibit A-56: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for Los Alamos WWTF (ug/L)	122
Exhibit A-57: Summary of Calculated Limits for Parameters with Reasonable Potential for Los Alamos WWTF (ug/L)	122
Exhibit A-58: Summary of Available Effluent Data for Los Alamos Lab, Outfall 001 (ug/L)	124
Exhibit A-59: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for Los Alamos Lab, Outfall 001 (ug/L)	124
Exhibit A-60: Summary of Calculated Limits for Parameters with Reasonable Potential for Los Alamos National Laboratory, Outfall 001 (ug/L)	125
Exhibit A-61: Summary of Available Effluent Data for the Phillips 66 Ponca City Refinery (ug/L)	126
Exhibit A-62: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for Phillips 66 (ug/L)	126
Exhibit A-63: Summary of Calculated Limits for Parameters with Reasonable Potential for Phillips 66 (ug/L)	127
Exhibit A-64: Phillips 66 Ponca City Refinery Estimated Incremental Costs (5.32 MGD)	127
Exhibit A-65: Summary of Available Effluent Data for Kenyon Industries, Inc. (ug/L)	128
Exhibit A-66: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for Kenyon Industries, Inc. (ug/L)	129
Exhibit A-67: Summary of Calculated Limits for Parameters with Reasonable Potential for Kenyon Industries, Inc. (ug/L)	129
Exhibit A-68: Kenyon Industries Estimated Incremental Costs (0.55 MGD)	130
Exhibit A-69: Summary of Available Effluent Data for Bustamante WWTF (ug/L)	131
Exhibit A-70: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for Bustamante WWTF (ug/L)	132
Exhibit A-71: Summary of Calculated Limits for Parameters with Reasonable Potential for Bustamante WWTF (ug/L)	132
Exhibit A-72: Bustamante WWTF Estimated Incremental Costs (39 MGD)	132
Exhibit A-73: Summary of Available Effluent Data for Domtar A.W., LLC WRC (ug/L)	134
Exhibit A-74: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for Domtar A.W., LLC WRC (ug/L)	134
Exhibit A-75: Summary of Available Effluent Data for the Baraboo WWTP (ug/L)	135
Exhibit A-76: Summary of Reasonable Potential Analysis for the Baraboo WWTP (ug/L)	136
Exhibit A-77: Summary of Calculated Limits for Parameters with Reasonable Potential for the Baraboo WWTP (ug/L)	136
Exhibit A-78: City of Baraboo WWTP Estimated Incremental Costs (2.53 MGD)	137
Exhibit B-1 Potential Initial and Annual Cost for P2 Program for Copper[a]	138
Exhibit B-2 Potential Level of Effort to Investigate Technological Feasibility for a Variance	139
Exhibit B-3 Potential One-Time Cost to Apply for and Review WQS Variances for Economic and Social Impacts (40 CFR 131.10(g)(6))	140
Exhibit B-4 Potential Costs for a Dilution Study	140
Exhibit C-5 Parameters Provided for Costing RO and Ion Exchange Systems for Wastewater	149
Exhibit D-1 Parameters with Potential Human Health Criteria Impairments and Adverse Health Impacts[a]	152
Exhibit D-2 Parameters with Potential Aquatic Life Impairments and Adverse Impacts to Aquatic Species[a]	153

Acronyms and Abbreviations
AL	Aquatic life
AML	Average monthly limit
ATSDR	Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AWQC	Ambient water quality criterion
BAF 	Bioaccumulation factor
BHC	Benzene hexachloride
BLS	Bureau of Labor Statistics
BLM	Biotic Ligand Model
BMP	Best management practice
BOD	Biochemical oxygen demand
BOD5	Five-day biochemical oxygen demand
BW	Body weight
°C 	Degrees Celsius
CBOD	Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
CFR	Code of Federal Regulations
cfu 	Colony-forming units
CV	Coefficient of variation
DL	Detection limit
CWA	Clean Water Act
DDT 	Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DI	Drinking water intake
DOC	Dissolved organic carbon
ECHO	Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA	United States Environmental Protection Agency
FCR	Fish consumption rate
FI	Fish intake
FWS	United States Fish and Wildlife Service
GAC	Granular activated carbon
GIS	Geographic information system
GLI	Great Lakes Initiative
gpd	Grams per day
HCH	Hexachlorocyclohexane
HH	Human health
HUC	Hydrologic Unit Code
ICIS	Integrated Compliance Information System
kg	Kilograms
L	Liter
LTA	Long-term average
MCL	Maximum contaminant level
MCLG	Maximum contaminant level goal
MDL	Maximum daily limit
MGD	Million gallons per day
mg/L	Milligrams per liter
MRDS 	Mineral Resources Data System (from USGS)
N/A	Not applicable
NEMI 	National Environmental Methods Index
NHD	National Hydrography Dataset
NOAA	National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES	National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M	Operation and maintenance
PAH 	Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCBs 	Polychlorinated biphenyls
POTW	Publicly owned treatment works
P2	Pollution prevention
RfD 	Reference dose based on noncancer human health effects
RMZ	Regulatory mixing zone
RP	Reasonable potential
RPA	Reasonable potential analysis
RSC 	Relative source contribution
T&E	Threatened and endangered
TAS 	Treatment in a similar manner as a state
TBEL	Technology-based effluent limit
TCDD	2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
TDS	Total dissolved solids
THM	Trihalomethane
TRC	Tissue residual concentration
TSS 	Total suspended solids
ug/L	Micrograms per liter
USGS	United States Geological Survey
WLA	Wasteload allocation
WPCF	Water pollution control facility
WQBEL	Water quality-based effluent limit
WQC	Water quality criterion
WQP	Water quality portal
WQS	Water quality standards
WRF	Wastewater reclamation facility
WRP 	Water reclamation plant
WTP	Water treatment plant
WWTF	Wastewater treatment facility
WWTP	Wastewater treatment plant

Executive Summary
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to establish federal water quality standards (WQS) for Indian reservation waters that currently do not have WQS in effect under the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act), with limited exceptions. Such WQS (referred to as baseline WQS) would establish human health and environmental objectives as the basis for CWA protections for these Indian reservation waters. This report is an economic analysis that provides estimates of the potential compliance actions and costs that may be associated with such baseline WQS and identifies the potential benefits and beneficiaries of the standards.
Background
Although over 300 tribes with Indian reservations could apply to administer their own WQS program under the CWA, only 80 tribes have been found eligible to administer a WQS program (i.e., have obtained approval for treatment in a similar manner as a state, or TAS). EPA has approved WQS for 47 of these tribes and has promulgated federal WQS for one tribe (the Colville Reservation).
As a result, 50 years after enactment of the CWA, over 80% of Indian reservations do not have this foundational protection for their waters as authorized by Congress in the CWA. Therefore, EPA is proposing to promulgate baseline WQS for Indian reservation waters that do not have CWA-effective WQS in place. The term "reservation" includes all lands formally designated as reservations by the United States, and lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of tribal governments ("tribal trust lands") that may not be located within the boundaries of formal reservations.
Having such baseline WQS, together with WQS already approved or promulgated by EPA, would ensure that all tribes have access to full water quality protections for their reservations under the CWA.
Purpose and Scope of Analysis
The purposes of this document are to estimate the costs that could arise as a result of promulgating baseline WQS and identify the potential benefits and beneficiaries of the baseline WQS. The document also describes how the proposed standards could benefit stakeholders (e.g., health, improved recreation opportunities).
WQS themselves do not impose costs on any entity. The purpose of the cost analysis is to identify, using available water quality and discharge data and information, the potential control actions and costs that publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), industrial point source dischargers, and other regulated point source dischargers may incur as a result of implementing the baseline WQS.
The proposed baseline WQS may impact dischargers to waters located within the boundaries of the Indian reservations themselves, as well as dischargers to waters of other jurisdictions shared with, or upstream from, the reservations. The proposed baseline WQS may result in new or more stringent water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for discharging facilities. The estimates of nationwide control costs in this analysis reflect the potential impacts of such new or more stringent WQBELs.
Although the focus of the cost analysis is to estimate control costs for point sources, attaining the proposed baseline WQS would likely depend on additional actions such as nonpoint source controls. Nonpoint source controls, whether required through a nonpoint source program or implemented voluntarily, may lead to nonpoint sources incurring costs as an indirect result of the proposed baseline WQS. Conversely, implementing nonpoint source controls may relieve a portion of the estimated indirect burden on and cost to point sources within the same watershed. However, quantitative evaluation of the potential control needs beyond those addressed under the NPDES program is not possible given the limited available data. Thus, EPA identified the types of controls and unit costs that may be incurred for nonpoint sources but did not develop nationwide nonpoint source cost estimates.
Costs are anticipated to be accompanied by benefits resulting from the control actions. Economic impacts in the form of municipal and industrial expenditures financed through user fees and profits would be accompanied by increased employment, incomes, revenues, and profits to sectors supplying treatment technologies and services (which may be within or external to tribal areas). The scope of this analysis is limited to qualitatively identifying and describing the potential benefits of promulgating baseline WQS for Indian reservation waters.
This economic analysis covers Indian reservation waters where the proposed baseline WQS would apply, with certain exceptions. Specifically, the economic analysis covers all Indian reservation waters with the following exclusions, per the proposed rule, and exceptions, for the purposes of the economic analysis:
Exclusion: Indian reservation waters where EPA has approved TAS for the tribe and the tribe has adopted WQS that EPA has approved  -  currently the 47 tribes mentioned above. Exception: The economic analysis does not make any adjustments for future TAS approvals.
Exclusion: Indian reservation waters where EPA has promulgated other federal WQS for a tribe  -  currently the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (see 40 CFR 131.35, finalized in 1989). Exception: The economic analysis does not make any adjustments for future such promulgations.
Exclusion: Indian reservation waters where a tribe cannot adopt its own WQS because EPA has explicitly found that a state has jurisdiction to administer WQS for those waters  -  currently for 12 tribes in four states, plus any tribal waters for which state jurisdiction is granted in the future. Exception: The economic analysis does not make any adjustments for future such jurisdictional findings. Additional exception: The economic analysis does not examine any Indian reservation lands in Oklahoma due to the lack of appropriate geospatial information. For example, for most Oklahoma tribes the only lands potentially covered by the proposed baseline WQS would be checkerboarded tribal trust lands for which EPA has no reliable geospatial information.
Exclusion: Indian reservation waters where the Regional Administrator uses authority in the proposed rule to approve an additional exclusion in the future on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the affected tribe. Exception: The economic analysis does not make any adjustments for such future actions.
Current Regulatory Framework
The current regulatory framework is the set of currently applicable requirements under the CWA without this proposed rule. These requirements include the following two elements of the NPDES program.
Technology-based effluent limits (TBELs). These include secondary treatment standards for POTWs prior to discharge  -  including five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids removal, and pH  -  and best available treatment standards for industrial dischargers, including requirements established for their industry through EPA's effluent limitations and guidelines regulations (effluent guidelines), when available. TBELs are based on best professional judgement on a case-by-case basis in the absence of national guidelines.
WQBELs. These limits are established whenever a discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an excursion above any applicable CWA WQS. For example, even where there are currently no applicable WQS for a water body, WQBELs may be needed to comply with the applicable WQS of a downstream jurisdiction at the boundary of the reservation.
Some tribes may have adopted standards solely under tribal law, and those standards may have guided EPA permit writers when setting effluent limits. In addition, some facilities may have effluent limits based on requirements in neighboring states. For purposes of this economic analysis, point source costs only reflect incremental changes that are needed to comply with new or more stringent effluent limits derived from the proposed baseline WQS.
Economic Analysis Criteria Used in the Economic Analysis
EPA is proposing to promulgate narrative criteria with binding numeric translation procedures designed to protect the designated uses promulgated by this rule. The binding numeric translation procedures include the ability to rely on EPA's national CWA section 304(a) recommended quality criteria to protect human health and aquatic life. The numeric values and their relevant assumptions identified in this document were developed solely for the purposes of this economic analysis. They are not final criteria that would apply to Indian reservation waters and are referred to as "economic analysis criteria" for purposes of this document.
The economic analysis criteria include EPA's national CWA section 304(a) recommended water quality criteria to protect human health and aquatic life with some exceptions discussed below.
For purposes of this analysis, EPA made the following assumptions:
 Standards for all waters, including coastal environments, are assumed to be protective of fish and shellfish harvesting for human consumption, and of the protection and propagation of aquatic life.
 All Indian reservation waters are assumed to be designated for protection of cultural and traditional uses and rely on criteria developed to protect drinking water sources (excluding coastal saltwater environments).
 All Indian reservation waters are assumed to be designated for primary contact recreation, which would rely on EPA's 2012 recreational water quality criteria.
EPA calculated most water quality criteria for the protection of human health based on consumption of water and organisms (e.g., fish), as well as on consumption of organisms only, using the latest federal methodology and using a fish consumption rate (FCR) of 142 grams per day to account for subsistence fishing practices (EPA, 2000).
In March 1995, EPA published a regulation at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 132, Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System, commonly known as the Great Lakes Initiative (GLI), which provides detailed methodologies to develop criteria for Great Lakes waters. Great Lakes states and tribes are required to adopt WQS as protective as the water quality criteria, methodologies, policies, and procedures in the GLI. For the purposes of this analysis, EPA calculated criteria specific to the Great Lakes region for Indian reservation waters located in the Great Lakes system using the more stringent of the GLI-calculated criteria or the criteria calculated using the methodologies, policies and procedures used to develop criteria for the rest of the country.
The economic analysis criteria were calculated based on the assumptions outlined above. In addition, for these pollutants, EPA identified the lowest detection limits (DLs) for readily available methods approved in the 40 CFR Part 136 Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants. The DL is the minimum concentration that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the concentration is greater than zero. When identifying control costs, EPA assumed that if a calculated WQBEL for a parameter is less than the DL, the discharger may have to ensure that it controls the discharge of that parameter to a level where it is not detected in the discharger's effluent.
Benefits Evaluation
Improved water quality in Indian reservation waters will benefit tribes as well as anyone who recreates on Indian reservation waters or values environmental quality regardless of their current or anticipated uses of Indian reservation waters. Water quality improvements on Indian reservations are particularly important to tribal communities because natural resources are often integral to the tribes' subsistence, spirituality, culture, and daily life. Ceremonial and subsistence harvests of fish and shellfish can play a central role in daily nutrition and tribal gatherings. Indian reservations also attract visitors from around the world, generating millions of dollars in revenue each year and creating thousands of jobs (Navajo Tourism Department, 2012).
Although the proposed baseline WQS for Indian reservation waters would likely yield benefits to tribal members, estimating the dollar value of these improvements to tribal members may not be feasible recognizing the difficulty often expressed by tribes to place a monetary value on ecosystem services, given the belief that these resources are sacred and beyond any earthly value. In addition, estimating the value of water quality improvements to visitors of Indian reservations is also challenging due to the paucity of site-specific visitation, use (e.g., recreational fishing) and valuation data.
Therefore, EPA assessed benefits from the baseline WQS proposed rule qualitatively. Potential benefits include reduced human health risks from fish/shellfish consumption and water recreation and consumption, larger fish and shellfish populations, enhanced property values, improved water supplies, improved water quality for cultural and traditional uses, enhanced recreational uses, and other nonuse values. Section 4 discusses these benefit categories in more detail.
Method for Evaluating Potential Costs for Point Sources
EPA used a multi-step method for evaluating the effect of the proposed baseline WQS applying to point sources. This method included the following steps: identification of potentially affected permittees, process for selecting a sample of permits and for extrapolating results, determining the need for WQBELs (reasonable potential analysis), and projecting effluent limits.
The potential control actions to meet those limits are based on likely sources of the pollutants in the effluent and the effectiveness of different methods to reduce effluent concentrations. Dischargers would most likely pursue the lowest cost means available for meeting effluent limits. Dischargers would most likely first evaluate whether they can optimize current treatment processes to increase pollutant removal efficiencies (e.g., adding chemicals to increase flocculation efficiency in an existing chemical precipitation treatment unit). As part of this effort, dischargers may also try to identify potential upstream sources of pollution through a source control program (e.g., pollution prevention (P2)). If optimizing processes and/or source control are insufficient for the discharger to meet their effluent limits, dischargers may pursue installing effluent treatment technology. If none of the control scenarios discussed above result in meeting all relevant effluent limitations, dischargers would likely pursue some form of relief from the requirements through alternative compliance mechanisms such as WQS variances or dilution credits (e.g., new or revised mixing zones).
Method for Identifying Potential Water Quality Impairments
EPA downloaded available instream monitoring water quality data in Indian reservation waters from the EPA and U.S. Geological Survey's Water Quality Portal (WQP) and compared it to the economic analysis criteria to identify stream reaches from the National Hydrography Dataset that do not meet the proposed baseline WQS. Although not necessarily representative of all Indian reservation surface waters, the locations for which monitoring data exceed the economic analysis criteria are places where additional nonpoint controls could improve water quality.
EPA did not estimate the costs of reducing pollution from nonpoint sources to meet the economic analysis criteria for this analysis. This type of analysis would require site-specific knowledge and modeling that are beyond the scope of this analysis. Nonpoint source discharges are difficult to quantify because they are intermittent, variable, and occur under hydrologic or climatic conditions associated with precipitation events. In addition, nonpoint sources are not subject to regulatory programs under the CWA.
Results
Point Source Costs
EPA identified facilities discharging to Indian reservation waters as well as facilities within a five-mile radius and discharging upstream from Indian reservation waters (refer to Appendix A). EPA focused its analysis on the 57 major facilities identified. Seven of those facilities discharge directly to Indian reservation waters, and all seven are sewerage systems. Of the other 50 major facilities discharging upstream from Indian reservation waters, 9 are industrial facilities, and 41 are sewerage systems. EPA evaluated all 7 direct dischargers to Indian reservation waters and all 9 upstream industrial facilities and selected a sample of 10 upstream sewerage systems from which to extrapolate for purposes of estimating potential point source costs.
EPA evaluated compliance scenarios and associated costs for the sample facilities based on available information about the facilities, their treatment systems, and current effluent quality. EPA determined whether a facility would most likely achieve compliance through optimization, P2, and source control; additional effluent treatment; or alternative compliance mechanisms (such as WQS variances). P2 programs have a one-time cost component for development and a recurring annual cost component for implementation. WQS variances are represented solely by a one-time cost component for developing the supporting justifications for the purpose of this analysis. Additional effluent treatment has a capital cost component which can be annualized using an assumed discount rate over a period of years and a recurring annual cost for operation and maintenance. In some cases, available information did not clearly point to one compliance alternative. In such cases, EPA estimated a range of costs for compliance.
EPA extrapolated costs to the remaining major upstream sewerage systems from the sample based on facility flow. Exhibit ES-1 summarizes the estimated potential costs for major facilities by facility category.
Exhibit ES-1 Summary of Estimated Potential Costs (2020 $Millions) for Major Facilities
Facility Category
Total One-Time Costs
Total Annual Costs
(n = 20 yr; i = 3%)
Total Annual Costs
(n = 20 yr; i = 7%)
Low estimate
Facilities discharging to Indian reservation waters (7)
                                                                         $0.24
                                                                         $0.15
                                                                         $0.18
Upstream industrial facilities (9)
                                                                         $0.12
                                                                         $1.79
                                                                         $2.20
Sampled upstream sewerage systems (10)
                                                                         $2.37
                                                                         $3.43
                                                                         $4.18
Extrapolated upstream sewerage systems (31)
                                                                         $3.38
                                                                        $10.14
                                                                        $12.38
Total (low estimate)
                                                                         $6.10
                                                                        $15.51
                                                                        $18.94
High estimate
Facilities discharging to Indian reservation waters (7)
                                                                         $0.41
                                                                         $0.72
                                                                         $0.80
Upstream industrial facilities (9)
                                                                         $0.12
                                                                         $2.23
                                                                         $2.63
Sampled upstream sewerage systems (10)
                                                                         $0.30
                                                                        $11.77
                                                                        $14.17
Extrapolated upstream sewerage systems (31)
                                                                         $0.40
                                                                        $15.81
                                                                        $18.84
Total (high estimate)
                                                                         $1.23
                                                                        $30.54
                                                                        $36.45

Total One-Time Costs is the sum of P2 and WQS variance one-time costs. Total Annual Costs is the sum of annualized effluent treatment and annual P2 costs. Total One-Time Costs are larger in the low estimate summary than in the high estimate summary because one-time WQS variance costs are often used in lieu of annualized effluent treatment costs for facility-specific low estimates for certain pollutants. Detailed analyses for each evaluated facility are presented in Appendix A. Total cost estimates range from $15.51 million in annualized costs over 20 years at a 3 percent discount rate (with $6.1 million in one-time costs) to $30.54 in annualized costs over 20 years at a 3 percent discount rate (with $1.23 million in one-time costs). Using a discount rate of 7 percent over 20 years, total annualized costs range from $18.94 million (also with $6.1 million in one-time costs) to $36.45 million (also with $1.23 million in one-time costs).
Potential Water Quality Impairments
EPA's analysis of water quality data available for Indian reservation waters identified potential impairments of Indian reservation waters for 25 pollutants for either human health, aquatic life, or both types of economic analysis criteria. EPA identified 215 reaches that are potentially impaired for at least one pollutant, and 500 total potential impairments across all reaches and pollutants.
Uncertainties in the Analysis
There are a number of uncertainties in the analysis associated with data limitations, potential pollutant load reductions achievable, and the methods dischargers would use to comply with potential requirements and permit conditions that affect the estimated costs.
For the economic analysis criteria, EPA used a conservative approach to estimate certain concentration criteria values (e.g., copper criteria derived from conservative dissolved organic carbon concentration assumptions to the biotic ligand model, selenium criteria assuming all waters are lentic, ammonia criteria assuming a water temperature of 25 degrees Celsius), which may differ from the approach that would be employed to establish numeric values for specific tribes. However, some of the economic analysis criteria may be less stringent than site-specific criteria that could be derived using local water quality data (e.g., dissolved metals in areas with hardness lower than 100 milligrams per liter). Therefore, costs may be over- or under-estimated depending on the pollutant and approach.
EPA was unable to quantify and monetize benefits, which could potentially outweigh some or all of the costs.
EPA relied on NPDES data for individual permits of major dischargers only and was unable to estimate costs associated with either general permits or individual permits for minor dischargers due to a lack of available data for these facilities.
Complete data were not readily available for all pollutants at all NPDES-permitted facilities and, when only limited data were available, they may not be representative of typical conditions. For example, for this analysis EPA was able to assemble information from final permit documents but not from permit applications. In addition, information on existing controls was not always available. Therefore, costs for point source dischargers may be over or under-estimated.
The lack of available in-stream monitoring data for some water bodies and the use of a single set of economic analysis criteria instead of site-dependent economic analysis criteria prevent reliable estimation of impairment status of ambient conditions.
Assumptions made in the analysis when ambient data were not available (e.g., using a value equal to one-half the DL or zero if one-half of the DL exceeds the most stringent criteria) may lead to over- or under-estimating the need for additional NPDES permit limits and the associated costs for point source dischargers.
For point sources, it is uncertain whether any particular control option would guarantee meeting the economic analysis criteria. For example, the effluent reductions achievable through P2 activities and the level of controls needed are highly site-specific and cannot be accurately estimated without a detailed analysis of a given facility's service area and existing plant processes and operations.
The costs of controls are likely facility-specific and may be higher or lower than shown. Thus, it is uncertain how much system improvements will cost without facility-specific source identification studies.
Introduction
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to establish federal water quality standards (WQS) for Indian reservation waters that currently do not have WQS in effect under the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act), with limited exceptions. Such WQS (referred to as baseline WQS) would establish human health and environmental objectives as the basis for CWA protections for these Indian reservation waters. This report is an economic analysis that provides estimates of the potential compliance actions and costs that may be associated with the proposed baseline WQS and identifies the potential benefits and beneficiaries of the proposed baseline WQS.
Background
Regulatory Background
The CWA sets the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of the United States. In the CWA, Congress established the national objective to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters," and to achieve "wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on the water" (CWA sections 101(a) and 101(a)(2)).
The CWA establishes the basis for the current WQS regulation and program. CWA section 303 addresses the development of state and authorized tribal WQS. WQS reflect the CWA national objectives for each water body. The core components of these standards are designated uses, water quality criteria, and antidegradation requirements. Designated uses establish the environmental objectives for a water body, while water quality criteria define the minimum conditions necessary to achieve those environmental objectives. The antidegradation requirements complement designated uses and criteria by providing a framework for maintaining and protecting water quality.
In 1987, Congress amended the CWA to add several provisions, including section 518(e) which allows the Administrator to treat an Indian tribe in a similar manner as a state (TAS) for purposes of various CWA provisions, including section 303(c), provided that the tribe meets certain eligibility criteria. In 1991, EPA issued a final rule to implement section 518(e) for the WQS program (40 CFR 131.8). The rule adopts the criteria contained in CWA section 518 that tribes must meet to be eligible to administer a WQS program and establishes procedures for the EPA Regional Administrator to receive and make determinations on tribal applications. The rule was re-interpreted in 2016 to streamline the application process for tribes to obtain TAS.
Although over 300 tribes with Indian reservations could apply to administer their own WQS program under the CWA, only 80 tribes have been found eligible to administer a WQS program (i.e., have obtained approval for treatment in a similar manner as a state, or TAS). EPA has approved WQS for 47 of these tribes and has promulgated federal WQS for one tribe (the Colville Reservation).
As a result, 50 years after enactment of the CWA, over 80% of Indian reservations do not have this foundational protection for their waters as authorized by Congress in the CWA. Therefore, EPA is proposing to promulgate baseline WQS for Indian reservation waters that do not have CWA-effective WQS in place. The term "reservation" includes all lands formally designated as reservations by the United States, and lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of tribal governments ("tribal trust lands") that may not be located within the boundaries of formal reservations.
Having such baseline WQS, together with WQS already approved or promulgated by EPA, would ensure that all tribes have access to full water quality protections for their reservations under the CWA.
In EPA's proposed rule, the baseline WQS would apply to all Indian reservation waters of the United States except for:
Indian reservation waters where EPA has approved TAS for the tribe and the tribe has adopted WQS that EPA has approved  -  currently the 47 tribes mentioned above, plus any that EPA may approve in the future.
Indian reservation waters where EPA has promulgated other federal WQS for a tribe  -  currently the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (see 40 CFR 131.35, finalized in 1989), plus any for which EPA promulgates other federal WQS in the future.
Indian reservation waters where a tribe cannot adopt its own WQS because EPA has explicitly found that a state has jurisdiction to administer WQS for those waters  -  currently for 12 tribes in four states, plus any tribal waters for which state jurisdiction is granted in the future.
Indian reservation waters where the Regional Administrator uses authority in the proposed rule to approve an additional exclusion in the future on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the affected tribe.
Purpose and Scope of the Analysis
The purposes of this document are to estimate the costs that could arise as a result of promulgating baseline WQS and to identify the potential benefits and beneficiaries of the baseline WQS. The document also describes how the proposed WQS could benefit stakeholders (e.g., health, improved recreation opportunities).
Water quality standards themselves do not impose costs on any entity. The purpose of the cost analysis is to identify, using available water quality and discharge data and information, the potential control actions and costs that publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and industrial point source dischargers may incur as a result of implementing the baseline WQS.
The proposed baseline WQS may impact dischargers to waters located within the boundaries of the Indian reservations themselves, as well as dischargers to waters of other jurisdictions shared with, or upstream from, the reservations. The proposed baseline WQS may result in new or more stringent water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) contained in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for these facilities. The estimates of nationwide control costs in this analysis reflect the potential impacts on dischargers of such new or more stringent WQBELs.
Although the focus of the cost analysis is to estimate control costs for point sources, attaining the proposed baseline WQS would likely depend on additional actions such as nonpoint source controls. Nonpoint source controls, whether required through a nonpoint source program or implemented voluntarily, may lead to nonpoint sources incurring costs as an indirect result of the proposed baseline WQS. Conversely, implementing nonpoint source controls may relieve a portion of the estimated indirect burden on and cost to point sources within the same watershed. However, quantitative evaluation of the potential control needs beyond those addressed under the NPDES program is not possible given the limited available data. Thus, EPA identified the types of controls and unit costs that may be incurred for nonpoint sources but did not develop nationwide nonpoint source cost estimates.
Costs are anticipated to be accompanied by benefits resulting from the control actions. Economic impacts in the form of municipal and industrial expenditures financed through user fees and profits would be accompanied by increased employment, incomes, revenues, and profits to sectors supplying treatment technologies and services (which may be within or external to tribal areas). The scope of this analysis is limited to qualitatively identifying and describing the potential benefits of promulgating baseline WQS for Indian reservation waters.
Report Organization
This report is organized as follows:
Section 2: Applicability and Current Regulatory Framework  -  describes the lands and waters to which this rule applies and the current regulatory framework for these lands and waters.
Section 3: Derivation of Economic Analysis Criteria  -  describes the method EPA used to derive "economic analysis criteria" for the purpose of this analysis. EPA is not proposing the specific numeric criteria in this economic analysis as the WQS that would appear in a regulation.
Section 4: Potential Benefits  -  provides a qualitative discussion of the benefits and beneficiaries of the proposed baseline WQS.
Section 5: Method for Estimating Potential Costs: Point Sources  -  describes the method for estimating point source control costs for potential revisions to NPDES permits to meet the economic analysis criteria.
Section 6: Method for Identifying Potential Impairments and Characterization of Nonpoint Sources  -  describes the method for identifying waters that may be impaired based on comparison of available monitoring data to the economic analysis criteria, and provides a characterization of potential nonpoint sources than that may affect water quality.
Section 7: Potential Control Costs  -  provides estimates of potential costs to comply with the proposed baseline WQS and discusses the uncertainties associated with the estimates.
References  -  provides the references used in the analysis.
The appendices provide detailed analyses and additional information:
Appendix A: provides data and information on individual sample facilities used to estimate point source costs.
Appendix B: describes pollution prevention programs and estimated costs.
Appendix C: provides details for various effluent treatment technologies, including estimated costs, where available.
Appendix D: provides additional information on pollutant impacts in support of the potential benefits evaluation in Section 4.
Applicability and Current Regulatory Framework
This section describes the lands and waters to which the proposed baseline WQS would apply. It also describes the current regulatory framework under the CWA. The current regulatory framework serves as the economic baseline, which is a reference point that reflects the world without the proposed regulation and is the starting point for determining the potential benefits and costs of the proposed regulation.
Indian Reservations and Waters Subject to the Analysis
This economic analysis covers Indian reservation waters where the proposed baseline WQS would potentially apply, as described under Background above, with certain exceptions. Specifically, the economic analysis covers all Indian reservation waters with the following exclusions, per the proposed rule, and exceptions, for the purposes of the economic analysis:
Exclusion: Indian reservation waters where EPA has approved TAS for the tribe and the tribe has adopted WQS that EPA has approved  -  currently the 47 tribes mentioned above. Exception: The economic analysis does not make any adjustments for future approvals.
Exclusion: Indian reservation waters where EPA has promulgated other federal WQS for a tribe  -  currently the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (see 40 CFR 131.35, finalized in 1989). Exception: The economic analysis does not make any adjustments for future such promulgations.
Exclusion: Indian reservation waters where a tribe cannot adopt its own WQS because EPA has explicitly found that a state has jurisdiction to administer WQS for those waters  -  currently for 12 tribes in four states, plus any tribal waters for which state jurisdiction is granted in the future. Exception: The economic analysis does not make any adjustments for future such jurisdictional findings. Additional exception: The economic analysis does not examine any Indian reservation lands in Oklahoma due to the lack of appropriate geospatial information. For example, for most Oklahoma tribes the only lands potentially covered by the proposed baseline WQS would be checkerboarded tribal trust lands and on-reservation Indian allotments for which EPA has no reliable geospatial information.
Exclusion: Indian reservation waters where the Regional Administrator uses authority in the proposed rule to approve an additional exclusion in the future on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the affected tribe. Exception: The economic analysis does not make any adjustments for such future actions.
Exhibit 2-1 provides a map of the Indian reservations with waters depicted in light and dark yellow that are represent the areas that would be affected by the proposed rule and are included in this analysis.
Exhibit 2-1 Indian Reservations with Waters in Light and Dark Yellow
Included in this Analysis

Current Regulatory Framework on these Lands/Waters
The current regulatory framework is the set of currently applicable requirements under the CWA without this proposed rule. These requirements include the following elements of the NPDES program:
Technology-based effluent limits (TBELs). These include secondary treatment standards for POTWs prior to discharge  -  including five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS) removal, percent removal of BOD5 and TSS, and pH  -  and best available treatment standards for industrial dischargers, including requirements established for their industry through EPA's effluent limitations and guidelines regulations (effluent guidelines), when available. TBELs are based on best professional judgement on a case-by-case basis in the absence of national guidelines.
WQBELs. These limits are established whenever a discharge causes or has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion above any applicable CWA WQS. For example, even where there are currently no applicable WQS for a water body, WQBELs may be needed to comply with the applicable WQS of a downstream jurisdiction at the boundary of the reservation.
Some tribes may have adopted standards solely under tribal law, and those standards may have guided EPA permit writers when setting effluent limits. In addition, some facilities may have effluent limits based on requirements in neighboring states. For purposes of this economic analysis, EPA assumed that all permitted facilities meet their current effluent limits or would be required to take the steps needed to meet those limits under the current regulatory framework. This means that the incremental cost to a point source considered in this analysis is the incremental cost of complying with WQBELs derived from the proposed baseline WQS. In other words, the analysis only represents costs to point source dischargers that may be imposed as a result of implementing the proposed rule and do not reflect any costs required under the current regulatory framework. Thus, the analysis assesses point source costs only when incremental changes are needed to comply with new or more stringent effluent limits derived from the proposed baseline WQS.
Derivation of Economic Analysis Criteria
EPA is proposing a national rule to establish baseline WQS to safeguard water quality for certain Indian reservation waters by ensuring that the core CWA framework to protect water quality is in place for these waters until such time as the tribe applies for TAS to administer a WQS program and adopts its own tribal WQS for EPA approval consistent with CWA section 303(c). EPA is proposing to establish the following WQS: designated uses consistent with the CWA protection and restoration goals for aquatic life and users of surface water, and a designated use that protects cultural and traditional uses; water quality criteria to protect those uses; an antidegradation policy with associated implementation procedures; and general WQS polices such as a mixing zone policy and compliance schedule authorizing provision. The antidegradation policy and other general WQS policies are not part of the economic analysis.
EPA is proposing to promulgate narrative criteria with binding numeric translation procedures designed to protect the designated uses promulgated by this rule. The binding numeric translation procedures include the ability to rely on EPA's national CWA section 304(a) recommended water quality criteria to protect human health and aquatic life. The numeric values and their relevant assumptions identified in this document were developed solely for the purposes of this economic analysis. They are not the final criteria that would apply to Indian reservation waters and are referred to as "economic analysis criteria" for purposes of this document. EPA permit writers would follow the narrative requirements in deriving the specific limits in the permit.
The economic analysis criteria include EPA's national CWA section 304(a) recommended human health and aquatic life water quality criteria published pursuant to section 304(a) of the CWA, with exceptions discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 below. Section 3.3 presents a list of pollutants and their criteria calculated and used in this analysis.
Overall Assumptions for Purposes of this Analysis
This section describes the general assumptions used for developing the economic analysis criteria. These assumptions apply to all geographic areas evaluated for this analysis. Regional-specific assumptions (e.g., Great Lakes area) and economic analysis criteria are provided in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively.
Applicable Designated Uses
For the purposes of this analysis, EPA made the following assumptions:
All waters, including coastal environments, are assumed to have designated uses and water quality criteria for the protection of fish and shellfish harvesting for human consumption, and for the protection and propagation of aquatic life.
All Indian reservation waters are assumed to be designated for protection of cultural and traditional uses and rely on criteria developed to protect drinking water sources (excluding coastal saltwater environments).
All Indian reservation waters are assumed to be designated for primary contact recreation, which would rely on EPA's 2012 recreational water quality criteria.
Aquatic Life Criteria
For purposes of this analysis, the economic analysis criteria are based on EPA's national CWA section 304(a) recommended aquatic life criteria available online, including most dissolved metals, except for a few pollutants discussed below.
Due to the high variability of temperature across the country, no single temperature was appropriate for a nationwide assessment, and EPA did not assess temperature as a pollutant. Similarly, nationwide values for total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations are not appropriate; therefore, EPA did not derive economic analysis criteria for nutrients.
EPA did not derive economic analysis criteria for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and focused the analysis for this pollutant on human health criteria, which are much more stringent. An economic assessment of this pollutant was not conducted for aquatic life.
For copper, EPA ran the Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) model. EPA assumed a neutral pH (pH = 7) across the country, which is reasonable for most regions given daily and seasonal fluctuations typically observed. The BLM model is not very sensitive to temperature, and EPA selected a temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (°C) as representative of a temperature applicable across the U.S. EPA calculated copper criteria based on a dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentration of 2 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Finally, EPA used conservative values for all missing parameters by selecting the median of the tenth percentile distributions across Level III eco-regions for all missing parameters (EPA, 2016a).
Other pollutant exceptions are listed below:
For selenium, EPA used the final 2016 criteria, and made the conservative assumption that all freshwaters are lentic.
EPA calculated ammonia economic analysis criteria for both freshwater and saltwater assuming a neutral pH of 7 across all waters and a conservative temperature of 25 °C.
For dissolved oxygen, EPA identified a minimum value of 5 mg/L (i.e., dissolved oxygen measurements below 5 mg/L indicate a water quality issue).
Human Health Criteria
For purposes of this analysis, as with the aquatic life criteria, the economic analysis criteria are based on EPA's national CWA section 304(a) recommended human health criteria. EPA calculated most economic analysis criteria for the protection of human health based on consumption of water and organisms (e.g., fish), and consumption of organisms only, using EPA's 2015 human health criteria updates or a combination of the most recent updated equation for a given pollutant and the 2015 updated assumptions. Updates to federal criteria assumptions published in 2015 included a body weight of 80 kilograms (kg) per adult, a drinking water intake of 2.4 liters (L) per person per day, and revised fish consumption rates (FCRs) by trophic level.
To reflect potentially greater fish consumption among tribal members than by the general population, EPA also used an FCR of 142.4 grams per day (gpd) (the sum for trophic levels 2, 3, and 4), which is higher than the 21.3 gpd FCR used to derive the federal criteria.
Most human health criteria are calculated based on the pollutant reference dose (for non-carcinogens) or cancer potency factor (for carcinogens), bioconcentration factor, and FCR as follows (EPA, 1980), with the inputs described above:
AWQC (non‐carcinogen) = (RfD xRSC) x BWDI+(FIxBAF)
AWQC (carcinogen)=10-6q1*xBWDI+(FIxBAF)
Where:
AWQC	= 	ambient water quality criterion (mg/L)
BW	= 	human body weight (kg)
RfD 	= 	reference dose based on noncancer human health effects (mg/kg BW-day)
RSC 	= 	relative source contribution (%)
DI	= 	drinking water intake (L/day)
FI	= 	human fish intake (kg fish/day)
BAF 	= 	bioaccumulation factor (L/kg fish)
q1*	= 	cancer potency factor (kg BW-day/mg).
In 2001, EPA published a revised methylmercury criterion based on the concentration of methylmercury in fish tissue. For the purpose of this economic analysis, EPA calculated economic analysis criteria for methylmercury using the following equation (EPA, 2001a):
TRC=BWx(RfD-RSC)i=24FIi
Where:
TRC	= 	tissue residual concentration in methylmercury (mg /kg fish)
FIi 	= 	human fish consumption of trophic level i (kg fish/day)
RSC	= 	relative source contribution in methylmercury (mg/kg/BW-day).
For pathogens, and pathogen indicators, EPA used the 2012 recommended recreation geometric mean criterion for E. coli for the point source analysis and statistical threshold values for E. coli and Enterococci for analysis of ambient water quality and potential impairments (EPA, 2012a).
For pollutants for which federal criteria are based on drinking water regulations (e.g., maximum contaminant level (MCL)), or are not based on FCRs or toxic effects, EPA used the federal criteria as listed on its current National Recommended Human Health Criteria table (available online at: https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-human-health-criteria-table). These pollutants include: asbestos, barium, copper, manganese, nitrates, pH, and dissolved solids and salinity.
Finally, EPA did not evaluate the following three pollutants for protection of human health in this economic analysis because translation of these parameters to economic analysis criteria raises specific technical issues that require additional considerations beyond the scope of this economic analysis:
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD; Dioxin),
Arsenic, and
Thallium.
Geographic-Specific Assumptions
Fish Consumption Rates
Using national results from a food survey conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture, EPA identified 142.4 gpd as an approximation of average fish consumption for subsistence fishers in its methodology for deriving human health criteria (EPA, 2000). Therefore, for purposes of this economic analysis, EPA is assuming an FCR of 142.4 gpd. The assumption EPA made for FCR affects only economic analysis criteria for human health.
Great Lakes Initiative
In March of 1995, EPA published Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes Watershed, commonly known as the Great Lakes Initiative (GLI), which provides detailed methodologies to develop criteria for Great Lakes waters. Great Lakes states and tribes are required to use the water quality criteria, methodologies, policies, and procedures in the GLI, so EPA calculated criteria specific to the Great Lakes region for purposes of this analysis using these specific inputs. However, to ensure economic analysis criteria are based on the latest science, in its GLI calculations for purposes of this analysis, EPA used the updated the body weight of 80 kg, daily drinking water intake of 2.4 L/day, and FIs by trophic level presented in Exhibit 3-1; as well as an FCR of 142.4 gpd.
EPA recalculated the 18 numeric human health criteria defined by GLI formulas, compared the results to the economic analysis criteria calculated for the rest of the country with an FCR of 142.4, and used the more stringent of the two economic analysis criteria. For the remaining pollutants not covered by the GLI, EPA used the same economic analysis criteria as were calculated for the rest of the country with an FCR of 142.4 gpd.
EPA also recalculated the 15 numeric aquatic life criteria defined by GLI formulas and compared them to the economic analysis aquatic life criteria calculated for the rest of the country. For consistency across the two sets of economic analysis criteria, EPA assumed a hardness of 100 mg/L for calculating dissolved metal criteria. EPA compared the economic analysis aquatic life criteria for the GLI and the rest of the country and selected the more stringent of the two for application in the Great Lakes region for the purpose of this cost analysis. All aquatic life GLI economic analysis criteria were either identical or less stringent than the economic analysis criteria across the rest of the country, so for purposes of this analysis, EPA used the same aquatic life economic analysis criteria regardless of location. Section 3.3 presents a list of pollutants and their economic analysis aquatic life criteria evaluated in this analysis.
Economic Analysis Criteria
This section presents the economic analysis criteria used for purposes of this analysis based on the assumptions described above, as well as DLs for these economic analysis criteria, which represent the minimum level to which dischargers may need to measure each pollutant.
EPA identified the lowest available DL for readily available methods approved in the Code of Federal regulations (CFR) under 40 CFR Part 136 Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants. The DL is the minimum concentration that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the concentration is greater than zero. When identifying control costs, EPA assumed that if a calculated WQBEL for a parameter is less than the DL, the discharger may have to ensure that it controls the discharge of that parameter to a level where it is not detected in the effluent.
EPA searched the National Environmental Methods Index (NEMI) database for DLs listed under 40 CFR 136 approved methods for all human health and aquatic life pollutants. When available, EPA selected the lowest DL listed. When not available, EPA searched 40 CFR 136 to identify approved methods for a contaminant, reviewed readily available methods, and selected the lowest DL for the reviewed methods as the DL for that pollutant. For searches outside the NEMI database, EPA focused primarily on EPA approved methods when available.
Exhibit 3-1 lists the aquatic life economic analysis criteria derived for purposes of this economic analysis, as well as the lowest DLs for these economic analysis criteria, when available through the methodology described above. The exhibit provides chronic and acute criteria for both freshwater and saltwater environments, expressed in micrograms per liter (ug/L) unless specified otherwise. Blank DLs identify DLs that could not be determined from either the NEMI database or the methods listed under 40 CFR 136. Blanks in the economic criteria columns identify economic analysis criteria that were not evaluated as part of this analysis.
Exhibit 3-1 Detection Limits and Aquatic Life Economic Analysis Criteria (ug/L)
Pollutant
DL
Freshwater acute criterion
Freshwater chronic criterion
Saltwater acute criterion
Saltwater chronic criterion
4,4'- Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
                                     0.012
                                      1.1
                                     0.001
                                     0.13
                                     0.001
Acrolein
                                      0.7
                                       3
                                       3

Aldrin
                                     0.004
                                       3

                                      1.3

Alkalinity
                                     10000

                                     20000

alpha-Endosulfan
                                     0.014
                                     0.22
                                     0.056
                                     0.034
                                    0.0087
Aluminum (pH 6.5-9)

                                      750
                                      87

Ammonia
                                      10
                                     11000
                                     1400
                                     44000
                                     6600
Arsenic
                                      0.4
                                      340
                                      150
                                      69
                                      36
beta-Endosulfan
                                     0.004
                                     0.22
                                     0.056
                                     0.034
                                    0.0087
Carbaryl
                                     0.22
                                      2.1
                                      2.1
                                      1.6

Cadmium
                                     0.05
                                      1.8
                                     0.72
                                      33
                                      7.9
Chlordane
                                     0.014
                                      2.4
                                    0.0043
                                     0.09
                                     0.004
Chloride
                                       4
                                    860000
                                    230000

Chlorine
                                      10
                                      19
                                      11
                                      13
                                      7.5
Chlorpyrifos
                                     0.004
                                     0.083
                                     0.041
                                     0.011
                                    0.0056
Chromium (III)

                                      570
                                      74

Chromium (VI)
                                      0.3
                                      16
                                      11
                                     1100
                                      50
Copper*
                                      0.5
                                      4.4
                                      2.7
                                      4.8
                                      3.1
Cyanide
                                       5
                                      22
                                      5.2
                                       1
                                       1
Demeton
                                     0.25

                                      0.1

                                      0.1
Diazinon
                                     0.012
                                     0.17
                                     0.17
                                     0.82
                                     0.82
Dieldrin
                                     0.002
                                     0.24
                                     0.056
                                     0.71
                                    0.0019
Endrin
                                     0.002
                                     0.086
                                     0.036
                                     0.037
                                    0.0023
gamma-benzene hexachloride (BHC) (Lindane)
                                     0.004
                                     0.95

                                     0.16

Guthion
                                     0.009

                                     0.01

                                     0.01
Heptachlor
                                    0.0015
                                     0.52
                                    0.0038
                                     0.053
                                    0.0036
Heptachlor Epoxide
                                     0.001
                                     0.52
                                    0.0038
                                     0.053
                                    0.0036
Iron
                                       1

                                     1000

Lead
                                      0.6
                                      65
                                      2.5
                                      210
                                      8.1
Malathion
                                     0.011

                                      0.1

                                      0.1
Methylmercury

                                      1.4
                                     0.77
                                      1.8
                                     0.94
Methoxychlor
                                     0.02

                                     0.03

                                     0.03
Mirex
                                     0.015

                                     0.001

                                     0.001
Nickel
                                      0.5
                                      470
                                      52
                                      74
                                      8.2
Nonylphenol

                                      28
                                      6.6
                                       7
                                      1.7
Oxygen, Dissolved

                                       5
                                       5
                                       5
                                       5
Parathion
                                     0.01
                                     0.065
                                     0.013

Pentachlorophenol
                                     0.014
                                      19
                                      15
                                      13
                                      7.9
Selenium
                                      0.6

                                      1.5
                                      290
                                      71
Silver
                                      0.1
                                      3.2

                                      1.9

Sulfide-Hydrogen Sulfide

                                       2

                                       2
Toxaphene
                                     0.24
                                     0.73
                                    0.0002
                                     0.21
                                    0.0002
Tributyltin (TBT)

                                     0.46
                                     0.072
                                     0.42
                                    0.0074
Zinc
                                     0.05
                                      120
                                      120
                                      90
                                      81
pH (no units)

                                   6.5  -  9

                                  6.5  -  8.5
Note:
* Freshwater copper criteria listed in this exhibit assume a DOC of 2 mg/L. EPA also ran the BLM model with a DOC of 8 mg/L, which resulted in a freshwater acute criterion of 17 ug/L and a freshwater chronic criterion of 11 ug/L. EPA selected the most conservative economic analysis criteria for purposes of this analysis.
Exhibit 3-2 lists human health economic analysis criteria calculated for purposes of this economic analysis. For each set of assumptions EPA provides in this exhibit the human health economic analysis criteria assuming the consumption of drinking water and organisms (i.e., fish), and the consumption of organisms only. The exhibit also lists the lowest DLs for these economic analysis criteria, when available through the methodology described above. Blanks identify DLs that could not be determined from either the NEMI database or the methods listed under 40 CFR 136. All values in the exhibit are expressed in ug/L unless specified otherwise.
Exhibit 3-2 Detection Limits and Human Health Economic Analysis Criteria (expressed in ug/L, unless specified otherwise)

Tribal
GLI
Pollutant
DL
Water + Organism
Organism Only
Water + Organism
Organism Only
Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) Ether
                                      0.8
                                      200
                                      500
                                      200
                                      500
1,1-Dichloroethylene
                                     0.01
                                      300
                                     2000
                                      300
                                     2000
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
                                     0.005
                                     9000
                                     30000
                                     9000
                                     30000
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
                                     0.01
                                     0.41
                                      1.3
                                     0.41
                                      1.3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
                                     0.03
                                      0.1
                                      0.4
                                      0.1
                                      0.4
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
                                     0.02
                                      400
                                      500
                                      400
                                      500
1,2-Dichloroethane
                                     0.02
                                      9.1
                                      97
                                      9.1
                                      97
1,2-Dichloropropane
                                     0.01
                                     0.77
                                      4.6
                                     0.77
                                      4.6
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
                                      20
                                     0.02
                                     0.03
                                     0.02
                                     0.03
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
                                     0.01
                                      100
                                      600
                                      100
                                      600
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
                                     0.02
                                     0.011
                                     0.011
                                     0.011
                                     0.011
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene

                                     0.004
                                     0.004
                                     0.004
                                     0.004
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
                                     0.01
                                       2
                                       2
                                       2
                                       2
1,3-Dichloropropene

                                     0.24
                                      1.8
                                     0.24
                                      1.8
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
                                     0.01
                                      100
                                      100
                                      100
                                      100
2-Chloronaphthalene
                                     0.94
                                      200
                                      200
                                      200
                                      200
2-Chlorophenol
                                     0.31
                                      30
                                      100
                                      30
                                      100
2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol
                                      16
                                       1
                                       4
                                       1
                                       4
2,4-Dichlorophenol
                                     0.027
                                       6
                                       9
                                       6
                                       9
2,4-Dimethylphenol
                                     0.32
                                      100
                                      400
                                      100
                                      400
2,4-Dinitrophenol
                                     0.31
                                      10
                                      50
                                      10
                                      50
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
                                     0.02
                                     0.042
                                     0.25
                                     0.042
                                     0.25
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
                                      0.2
                                      80
                                      90
                                      80
                                      90
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
                                     0.046
                                     0.37
                                     0.42
                                     0.37
                                     0.42
3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol
                                     0.36
                                      200
                                      400
                                      200
                                      400
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
                                     0.13
                                     0.017
                                     0.022
                                     0.017
                                     0.022
4,4'-DDD

                                   0.000019
                                   0.000019
                                   0.000019
                                   0.000019
4,4'-DDE

                                   0.0000026
                                   0.0000026
                                   0.0000026
                                   0.0000026
4,4'-DDT
                                     0.012
                                   0.000004
                                   0.000004
                                   0.000004
                                   0.000004
Acenaphthene
                                      1.8
                                      10
                                      10
                                      10
                                      10
Acrolein
                                      0.7
                                       3
                                      60
                                       3
                                      60
Acrylonitrile
                                      0.5
                                     0.058
                                       1
                                     0.058
                                       1
Aldrin
                                     0.004
                                  0.00000012
                                  0.00000012
                                  0.00000012
                                  0.00000012
alpha-BHC
                                       0
                                   0.000058
                                   0.000058
                                   0.000058
                                   0.000058
alpha-Endosulfan
                                     0.014
                                       4
                                       4
                                       4
                                       4
Anthracene
                                     0.66
                                      50
                                      60
                                      50
                                      60
Antimony
                                      0.4
                                       5
                                      90
                                       5
                                      90
Asbestos

                                    7000000

                                    7000000

Barium
                                      0.8
                                     1000

                                     1000

Benzene- Upper CSF
                                     0.01
                                     0.48
                                      2.4
                                     0.48
                                      2.4
Benzidine
                                     0.08
                                    0.00013
                                    0.0016
                                    0.00013
                                    0.0016
Benzo(a) Anthracene
                                     0.01
                                    0.0002
                                    0.0002
                                    0.0002
                                    0.0002
Benzo(a) Pyrene
                                     0.016
                                    0.00002
                                    0.00002
                                    0.00002
                                    0.00002
Benzo(b) Fluoranthene
                                     0.018
                                    0.0002
                                    0.0002
                                    0.0002
                                    0.0002
Benzo(k) Fluoranthene
                                     0.017
                                     0.002
                                     0.002
                                     0.002
                                     0.002
beta-BHC (beta-HCH)

                                    0.0019
                                    0.0021
                                    0.0019
                                    0.0021
beta-Endosulfan
                                     0.004
                                       6
                                       6
                                       6
                                       6
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
                                      0.3
                                     0.028
                                     0.33
                                     0.028
                                     0.33
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
                                     0.46
                                     0.055
                                     0.057
                                     0.055
                                     0.057
Bis(Chlormethyl) Ether

                                    0.00014
                                    0.0026
                                    0.00014
                                    0.0026
Bromoform
                                     0.004
                                      5.2
                                      18
                                      5.2
                                      18
Butylbenzyl Phthalate
                                     0.34
                                     0.02
                                     0.02
                                     0.02
                                     0.02
Carbon Tetrachloride
                                     0.002
                                      0.3
                                      0.7
                                      0.3
                                      0.7
Chlordane
                                     0.014
                                   0.000047
                                   0.000047
                                    0.00003
                                    0.00003
Chlorobenzene
                                     0.01
                                      60
                                      100
                                      60
                                      100
Chlorodibromomethane
                                     0.001
                                     0.66
                                      3.1
                                     0.66
                                      3.1
Chloroform
                                     0.01
                                      60
                                      300
                                      60
                                      300
Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4-D)
                                      1.2
                                      790
                                     1800
                                      790
                                     1800
Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4,5-TP) [Silvex]
                                     0.17
                                      50
                                      60
                                      50
                                      60
Chrysene
                                     0.15
                                     0.02
                                     0.02
                                     0.02
                                     0.02
Copper
                                      0.5
                                     1300

                                     1300

Cyanide
                                       5
                                       4
                                      70
                                       4
                                      70
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
                                     0.36
                                       4
                                       4
                                       4
                                       4
Dibenzo(a,h) Anthracene
                                     0.03
                                    0.00002
                                    0.00002
                                    0.00002
                                    0.00002
Dichlorobromomethane
                                     0.003
                                     0.79
                                       4
                                     0.79
                                       4
Dieldrin
                                     0.002
                                  0.00000019
                                  0.00000019
                                  0.00000019
                                  0.00000019
Diethyl Phthalate
                                     0.49
                                      100
                                      100
                                      100
                                      100
Dimethyl Phthalate
                                     0.29
                                      300
                                      300
                                      300
                                      300
Dinitrophenois

                                      10
                                      100
                                      10
                                      100
Endosulfan Sulfate
                                     0.066
                                       5
                                       6
                                       5
                                       6
Endrin
                                     0.002
                                     0.005
                                     0.005
                                     0.005
                                     0.005
Endrin Aldehyde
                                     0.023
                                      0.2
                                      0.2
                                      0.2
                                      0.2
Ethylbenzene
                                     0.01
                                      17
                                      19
                                      17
                                      19
Fluoranthene
                                     0.21
                                       3
                                       3
                                       3
                                       3
Fluorene
                                     0.21
                                      10
                                      10
                                      10
                                      10
Gamma-BHC (HCH); Lindane
                                     0.004
                                     0.66
                                     0.66
                                     0.06
                                     0.06
Heptachlor
                                    0.0015
                                  0.00000088
                                  0.00000088
                                  0.00000088
                                  0.00000088
Heptachlor Epoxide
                                     0.001
                                   0.0000048
                                   0.0000048
                                   0.0000048
                                   0.0000048
Hexachlorobenzene
                                     0.001
                                   0.000012
                                   0.000012
                                   0.000012
                                   0.000012
Hexachlorobutadiene
                                     0.34
                                     0.001
                                     0.001
                                     0.001
                                     0.001
Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH)  -  Technical

                                    0.0014
                                    0.0015
                                    0.0014
                                    0.0015
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
                                     0.004
                                      0.6
                                      0.6
                                      0.6
                                      0.6
Hexachloroethane
                                     0.03
                                     0.02
                                     0.02
                                     0.02
                                     0.02
Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene
                                     0.04
                                    0.0002
                                    0.0002
                                    0.0002
                                    0.0002
Isophorone
                                      2.2
                                      31
                                      280
                                      31
                                      280
Manganese
                                      0.1
                                      50
                                      100
                                      50
                                      100
Methoxychlor
                                     0.02
                                     0.003
                                     0.003
                                     0.003
                                     0.003
Methyl Bromide
                                      0.1
                                      100
                                     2000
                                      100
                                     2000
Methylene Chloride
                                     0.02
                                      20
                                      200
                                      20
                                      200
Methylmercury

                                     0.04

                                     0.04
N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine
                                     0.46
                                    0.0045
                                     0.071
                                    0.0045
                                     0.071
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
                                     0.15
                                    0.00065
                                     0.42
                                    0.00065
                                     0.42
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
                                     0.81
                                     0.75
                                     0.84
                                     0.75
                                     0.84
Nickel
                                      0.5
                                      180
                                      240
                                      180
                                      240
Nitrates
                                       2
                                     10000

                                     10000

Nitrobenzene
                                     0.015
                                      10
                                      80
                                      10
                                      80
Nitrosamines

                                    0.00076
                                     0.065
                                    0.00076
                                     0.065
Nitrosodibutylamine

                                    0.0051
                                     0.031
                                    0.0051
                                     0.031
Nitrosodoiethylamine

                                    0.00076
                                     0.065
                                    0.00076
                                     0.065
Nitrosopyrrolidine

                                     0.016
                                      4.8
                                     0.016
                                      4.8
Pathogens and Pathogen indicators (cfu/100 mL)

                                      100
                                      100
                                      100
                                      100
Pentachlorobenzene

                                     0.02
                                     0.02
                                     0.02
                                     0.02
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
                                     0.014
                                     0.005
                                     0.005
                                     0.005
                                     0.005
Phenol
                                     0.14
                                     4000
                                     40000
                                     4000
                                     40000
PCBs
                                     0.028
                                   0.000009
                                   0.000009
                                  0.00000047
                                  0.00000047
Pyrene
                                     0.27
                                       4
                                       4
                                       4
                                       4
Selenium
                                      0.6
                                      130
                                      590
                                      130
                                      590
Solids Dissolved and Salinity

                                    250000

                                    250000

Tetrachloroethylene
                                     0.002
                                      3.4
                                      4.3
                                      3.4
                                      4.3
Toluene
                                     0.01
                                      35
                                      78
                                      35
                                      78
Toxaphene
                                     0.24
                                    0.00011
                                    0.00011
                                   0.0000082
                                   0.0000082
Trichloroethylene
                                     0.002
                                      0.4
                                       1
                                      0.4
                                       1
Vinyl Chloride
                                     0.02
                                     0.02
                                     0.24
                                     0.02
                                     0.24
Zinc
                                     0.05
                                     2600
                                     3600
                                     2600
                                     3600
Note:
cfu = colony-forming units
Economic analysis criteria for pathogens and pathogen indicators such as E. coli and Enterococci are not dependent on an FCR. To estimate costs associated with these pollutants, EPA used the 2012 Recreational Water Quality Criteria (EPA, 2012a), with estimated illness rates of 32/1,000. For evaluation of NPDES dischargers, EPA used the geometric mean concentration of 100 colony-forming units (cfu)/100 mL for E. coli as a pathogen indicator. For surface water quality and impairment purposes, EPA used the statistical threshold values of 320 cfu/100 mL for E. coli and 110 cfu/100 mL for Enterococci.
Potential Benefits
Promulgating baseline WQS for Indian reservation waters would promote the implementation of pollution control measures and best practices to help improve water quality and prevent future degradation of Indian reservation waters as well as potentially providing positive water quality benefits to waters in adjacent jurisdictions. Improved water quality in Indian reservation waters will benefit tribes as well as anyone who recreates on Indian reservation waters or values environmental quality regardless of their current or anticipated uses of Indian reservation waters.
Water quality improvements on Indian reservations are particularly important to tribal communities because natural resources are often integral to the tribes' subsistence, culture, traditions, and daily life. Fish and shellfish harvesting have been a mainstay of many Indian tribes for thousands of years. Tribal members harvest a variety of finfish species as well as clams, crab, oysters, shrimp, and many other species for commercial and ceremonial/subsistence use (Noble et al., 2016). Ceremonial and subsistence harvests of fish and shellfish can play a central role in daily nutrition and tribal gatherings. The distinctive beauty, story, art, and culture of reservations also attract millions of visitors from around the world, generating billions of dollars in revenue each year and creating tens of thousands of jobs (American Indiana and Alaska Native Tourism Association, 2018).
For tribes without TAS authority to administer a WQS program under the CWA, protecting water quality by relying on federally promulgated baseline WQS will allow continued uses of Indian reservation waters, including instream use (e.g., fishing and fish consumption, recreation, cultural activities, aesthetic enjoyment), off-stream uses (e.g., drinking water), and nonuse benefits (e.g., preservation of natural ecosystems and cultural heritage; EPA, 2004). Although implementation of baseline WQS is likely to yield significant benefits to tribal members, estimating the dollar value of these improvements to tribal members may not be feasible recognizing the difficulty often expressed by tribes to place a monetary value on ecosystem services, given the belief that these resources are sacred and beyond any earthly value. Estimating the value of water quality improvements to visitors of Indian reservations is also challenging due to the paucity of site-specific visitation, use (e.g., recreational fishing) and valuation data. Therefore, EPA assessed these benefits qualitatively, as described in the remainder of this section.
Human Health Benefits
Individuals are potentially exposed to pollutants present in Indian reservation waters via the consumption of contaminated fish or during recreational or ceremonial uses of surface waters. Populations served by drinking water utilities located downstream from contaminated Indian reservation waters may also be exposed to toxic pollutants via contaminated drinking water in cases of imperfect contaminant detection or treatment. Many of these pollutants may increase risks to human health. Toxic bioaccumulative pollutants are of particular concern because they do not volatilize or biodegrade; can be toxic to plants, invertebrates and fish; adsorb to sediments; and bio-concentrate in fish tissues (EPA, 2003).
As described in Section 6.2, existing water quality data show that Indian reservation waters may be impaired for 12 parameters based on the human health economic analysis criteria enumerated in Section 3.3, including one known carcinogen (nickel). Exhibit 4-1 summarizes the human health effects of the pollutants with human health economic analysis criteria impairments. EPA's review of available monitoring data showed potential impairments in 136 Indian reservation stream reaches for at least one human health toxicant. Appendix D provides the full list of contaminants reviewed by EPA and their associated human health effects.
Exhibit 4-1 Human Health Effects Associated with Pollutants with Potential Impairments based on Economic Analysis Criteria
Human Health Effects
Number of Pollutants with Potential Impairments
Number of Waterbodies with Potential Impairments
Gastrointestinal
                                                                              7
                                                                             93
Respiratory
                                                                              5
                                                                             60
Cardiovascular
                                                                              5
                                                                             60
Neurological
                                                                              4
                                                                             59
Reproductive
                                                                              4
                                                                             59
Hematological
                                                                              4
                                                                             76
Hepatic
                                                                              3
                                                                              3
Developmental
                                                                              3
                                                                              3
Immunological
                                                                              3
                                                                              3
Endocrine
                                                                              3
                                                                             20
Renal
                                                                              2
                                                                              2
Dermal
                                                                              2
                                                                             19
Ocular
                                                                              2
                                                                              2

EPA sets the proposed standards at levels that are protective of human health during exposure through ingestion of aquatic organisms and ingestion of water and aquatic organisms. Accordingly, reducing the frequency at which human health-based economic analysis criteria are exceeded should translate into reduced health risk. The most important benefits stem from reduced risk of illness associated with the consumption of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms that are taken from Indian reservation waters or reduced exposure to contaminated waters during recreation activities. The following subsections provide more detail on the types of human health benefits expected from promulgating baseline WQS for Indian reservation waters.
Reduced Health Risk from Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic Plant Consumption
Aquatic biological resources (e.g., fish, shellfish) are integral to the tribes' subsistence, spirituality, culture, and daily life. Tribal members and citizens consume fish, mussels, crustaceans, amphibians, frogs, turtles, and waterfowl as food. Several studies indicate that the daily fish intake of tribal members is higher than that of the general population (Chan et al., 1997; CRITFC, 1994; Fitzgerald et al., 1998), making tribal members particularly susceptible to adverse health effects from consuming contaminated fish tissue. For this analysis, EPA identified 142.4 gpd as an approximation of average fish consumption for subsistence fishers compared to 21.3 gpd for the general population (Section 3.2.1). Therefore, tribal members who consume fish caught in Indian reservation waters are the primary beneficiaries of water quality improvements in Indian reservation waters. Non-tribal recreational anglers who fish in Indian reservation waters and consume their catch may also benefit from reduced contamination of fish tissue.
Tribes also have a history of harvesting aquatic plants such as wild rice, Cattails and Wapato for consumption as food while aquatic plants such as Rat-tail, Stinkweed, Bitterroot, and Labrador Tea are used for medicinal purposes (Grijalva, 2020). Improved and protected water quality would reduce the risk of exposure from ingesting the aquatic plants, promote unobstructed growth of the plants, and protect additional cultural uses (e.g., using reeds, sedges, and rushes for basket-weaving, nets, and cordage).
Reduced Exposure to Carcinogens
Examples of health risks from exposure to carcinogens found in Indian reservation waters include skin, lung, liver, kidney, and bladder cancer, and leukemia. Nickel was found at levels exceeding the economic analysis criterion and is linked to lung and nasal cancers. Implementing WQS for Indian reservation waters may lead to a decrease in carcinogen concentrations in fish and shellfish tissue and, as a result, reduce cancer risk to tribal members and recreational anglers who consume fish, shellfish, and other crustaceans caught in Indian reservation waters.
Reduced Exposure to Non-carcinogenic Human Health Toxicants
Tribal members and recreational anglers consuming fish caught in Indian reservation waters are also at risk of developing other health problems. Adverse health effects from exposure to non-carcinogenic toxic pollutants include neurological, systemic, reproductive, immunological, or circulatory problems. Examples of pollutants posing non-cancer health risks include metals (e.g., aluminum, copper, cyanide, silver, and zinc) and toxic organic pollutants.
Individuals exposed to elevated levels of zinc may experience a range of adverse health effects. Possible symptoms of exposure to high levels of zinc in food and water may include abdominal cramps, vomiting, nausea, and general gastric irritation (EPA, 2005). Implementing WQS health toxicants in Indian reservation waters would reduce ambient pollutant concentrations in the Indian reservation stream reaches currently exceeding the economic analysis criterion and, as a result, reduce human health risk from exposure to contaminated fish and aquatic organisms.
Benefits from Improved Water Quality in Drinking Water Sources
Pollutants found in Indian reservation waters may affect the quality of water used for public drinking supplies. Public drinking water supplies are subject to legally enforceable MCLs established by EPA (EPA, 2012b). As the term implies, an MCL for drinking water specifies the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. The MCL is related to the MCL Goal (MCLG), which is the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to human health. EPA sets the MCL as close to the MCLG as possible, with consideration for the best available treatment technologies and costs. Pursuant to MCLs, public drinking water supplies are already treated for pollutants that pose human health risks. However, detection and treatment of the pollutants is imperfect, as evidenced by reported MCL violations for inorganic and other contaminants at community water systems (EPA, 2013; GAO, 2011).
Drinking water systems that currently draw water from Indian reservation waters could benefit from implementation of the proposed baseline WQS. One potential benefit is forgone public water system treatment costs from improvements in upstream water quality as a result of implementing baseline WQS. For example, water systems may be able to forgo treatment (and the associated costs which may include capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs) for chemicals with established MCLs if upstream controls prevent the contaminant from occurring within the water system at levels/frequency that would otherwise require treatment. However, EPA has not assessed locations of drinking water intakes along Indian reservation waters and so cannot quantify the extent of these benefits.
Reduced Risk of Gastrointestinal Illnesses from Recreation
Recreational activities such as swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, and whitewater activities involve frequent and prolonged water contact, during which ingestion of water is reasonably possible. Tribal members and participants in water-based recreation on Indian reservations may become exposed to waters contaminated with enteric pathogens, such as fecal bacteria and viruses during recreational activities (e.g., swimming, water skiing). Exposure to high pathogen levels in swimmable waters has been linked to a number of adverse health effects, including gastrointestinal illness, respiratory illness, eye ailments, and ear ailments (Abt Associates, 2006; Rodriguez-Tapia and Morales-Novelo, 2017). The cost of illness associated with recreational exposure can be significant. Therefore, establishing WQS for pathogens could reduce the risk of gastrointestinal diseases and other adverse health effects for tribal members and non-tribal users of water resources in Indian reservations.
Market Benefits
Some of the social benefits expected from implementation of baseline WQS on Indian reservation waters will manifest themselves in economic markets through changes in price, cost, or quantity of market-valued activities. Benefits related to goods and services traded in markets, such as increased yields from commercial fisheries, are typically measured using standard market approaches based on data including market prices and quantities (Boardman et al., 2001). Competitive prices can also be used to measure benefits related to avoided costs associated with market goods and services. Improved water quality resulting from implementation of baseline WQS for Indian reservation waters is expected to generate numerous market benefits, including water supply and use, commercial fishing or shellfishing, and increased property values near Indian reservation waters or downstream stream reaches.
Commercial Fisheries
Tribes harvest shellfish and finfish commercially in waters both on and off Indian reservations, according to the tribal treaties. Commercially harvested fish and shellfish are then sold to licensed seafood buyers who either sell fish and shellfish directly to the public or to other commercial entities. Salmon are especially important in tribal commercial fisheries. Tribal salmon from the Columbia River grossed $4 million in 2008 (CRITFC, 2016). Salmon also comprises the majority of the Gray's Harbor Fall commercial fish catch for the Quinault Tribe, while Steelhead dominates the winter harvest (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2016). Bivalves are an important commercial food source for tribal communities, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. For instance, the Quinault Indian Nation relies on razor clam fisheries along the Washington coast (Huppert and Trainer, 2014).
Pollutants found in Indian reservation waters or downstream can reduce fish populations by inhibiting reproduction, growth, and survival of aquatic species (EPA, 2009, 2011; Friedman et al. 1996; Niimi and Kissoon 1994) resulting in fewer and smaller fish. These changes may negatively affect commercial fishing and shellfishing conducted by tribal members and other fishers, as well as consumers of fish, shellfish, and other seafood products. Degraded water quality has already reduced tribal shellfish fisheries. Shellfish used to be an abundant food source, but 75 percent of mussel species found in North American lakes and streams are now endangered, and most of the shellfish harvest in the Pacific Northwest now comes from farming operations (Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, 2016; Noble et al. 2016). Shellfish bed closures due to pathogen contamination are expensive and have wide-ranging direct and indirect impacts on consumers and the fishing industries, resulting in millions of dollars of lost clam and oyster revenues (Ofiara and Seneca, 2006). For example, a commercial razor clam closure for the Quinault fishery would cause approximately $117,000 in lost income from a half year closure and $1.4 million for a full year closure (Huppert and Trainer, 2014). Additionally, news of a toxic substance in seafood or a disease outbreak can cause changes in consumer behavior and reduce demand for shellfish, resulting in significant economic losses (Ofiara and Seneca, 2006). Implementation of baseline WQS in Indian reservation waters that provide nursery habitat for commercially harvested fish and shellfish species would enhance species habitat. This would contribute to species reproduction and survival and to larger fish and shellfish harvests, which in turn would lead to an increase in producer and consumer surplus.
Enhanced Property Values
Excess sediment is one of the leading causes of water quality impairment in Indian reservation waters. Aesthetic degradation of land and water resources resulting from increased water turbidity due to sediments and other pollutants can reduce the market value of property and thus affect the financial status of property owners. For example, a hedonic price study by Bejranonda et al. (1999) found that "the rate of sediment inflow entering the lakes has a negative influence on lakeside property rent" (p. 216).
Implementation of baseline WQS on Indian reservation waters is expected to improve the aesthetic quality of the water resources by reducing pollutant discharges and thus, enhancing water clarity, odor, and color in the receiving and downstream stream reaches. Several studies (Bin and Czakowski, 2013; Boyle et al., 1999; Leggett and Bockstael, 2000; Poor et al., 2001; Tuttle and Heintzelman, 2014; Walsh et al., 2011) suggest that waterfront property is more desirable when located near unpolluted water. Therefore, implementation of baseline WQS for Indian reservation waters is expected to enhance property values near Indian reservation waters or downstream stream reaches. EPA was unable to find studies to support property value benefit valuations from improved water quality to Indian reservation waters since Indian reservation land is typically not sold in open markets. However, it is reasonable to assume that the owners would benefit from water quality improvements.
Nonmarket Water Quality Benefits
Promulgation of baseline WQS for Indian reservation waters is expected to provide ecological benefits through improvements in the habitats or ecosystems (aquatic and riparian) that are adversely affected by pollution. Many pollutants found in Indian reservation waters can adversely affect the survival, growth, and reproduction of aquatic organisms. Such effects are ecologically significant when they affect the size, structure, or function of populations. As discussed above, toxic pollutants found in Indian reservation waters may also contaminate fish tissue and therefore decrease the value of fishery resources.
Promulgation of baseline WQS can help reestablish productive ecosystems in damaged waterways and protect resident species, including threatened and endangered (T&E) species. EPA expects promulgation of baseline WQS for Indian reservation waters to enhance the general health of fish and invertebrate populations, increase their propagation to waters currently impaired, and expand fisheries for subsistence, recreational, and commercial purposes. The resulting improvements in water quality will also benefit recreational activities such as swimming, boating, fishing, and water skiing. Finally, EPA expects the promulgation of baseline WQS for Indian reservation waters to augment nonuse values (e.g., option, existence, and bequest values) of the affected water resources.
Cultural and Traditional Use Benefits
Promulgation of baseline WQS for Indian reservation waters is expected to reduce ambient pollutant concentrations in the affected waters and thus enhance uses of these waters for cultural and traditional uses. The impact of contaminants on water quality can affect the ability of tribes to maintain traditions and cultural landscapes, which form a connection between the land and the people (Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians and Karuk Tribe, 2019).