ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS RULE FOR THE STATE OF OREGON September 2003 Prepared for:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Office of Water Science 1201 Constitution Avenue, N. W. 5th Floor Connecting Wing Washington, D. C. 20460 Prepared by:

Science Applications International Corporation 11251 Roger Bacon Drive Reston, VA 20190 EPA Contract No. 68 C 99 252 SAIC Project Number 01 0833 04 6801 xxx September 2003 i Table of Contents Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES 1 1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1.2 Purpose of the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 1.3 Scope of the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 1.4 Organization of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 2.0 Baseline for the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 2.1 Water Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 2.1.1 Temperature Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 2.1.2 IGDO Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2.1.3 Beneficial Use Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 2.1.4 Antidegradation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 2.3 Point Source Dischargers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 3.0 Description of the Proposed Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3.1 Water Quality Criteria and Designated Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3.2 Antidegradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 3.2 Antidegradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 3.3 Potentially Impacted Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5 4.0 Method for Estimating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4.1 Temperature Criteria and Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4.1.1 Sample Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4.1.2 Determining Effect of Discharges on Receiving Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4.1.3 Identifying Potential Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 4.1.4 Estimating Costs of Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 4.1.5 Total Statewide Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 4.2 IGDO Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 4.3 Antidegradation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 4.3.1 Potential Number of Antidegradation Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6 4.3.2 Antidegradation Analysis Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 <IP_ADDRESS> Financial Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8 <IP_ADDRESS>Determination of Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 11 5.0 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 5.1 Temperature Criteria and Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 5.2 IGDO Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 5.3 Antidegradation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 5.4 Total Statewide Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 6.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 APPENDICES Appendix A Facility Analyses Appendix B Statewide Cost Calculations September 2003 ii List of Exhibits Exhibit ES 1. Comparison of Current Oregon and Proposed EPA Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES 1 Exhibit ES 2. Estimated Potential Annual Statewide Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES 5 Exhibit 2 1. Oregon Water Quality Criteria for Temperature and IGDO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 Exhibit 2 2. Oregon Designated Uses ( and Temperature Criteria) for Salmonid Habitat . . . 2 2 Exhibit 2 3. Waters Designated by the State of Oregon for Salmonid Rearing and Bull Trout Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 Exhibit 2 4. Waters Designated by the State of Oregon for Salmonid and Bull Trout Spawning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 Exhibit 2 5. NPDES Permitted Facilities in Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 Exhibit 2 6. Summary of NPDES Permitted Direct Dischargers in Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 Exhibit 3 1. Comparison of Current Oregon and Proposed EPA Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 Exhibit 3 2. Proposed EPA Criteria for Designating Bull Trout and Salmonid Uses . . . . . 3 2 Exhibit 3 3. Waters EPA Proposes to Designate for Salmonid Rearing and Migration and Bull Trout Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 Exhibit 3 4. Waters EPA Proposes to Designate for Salmonid and Bull Trout Spawning . . 3 4 Exhibit 3 5. Waters EPA Proposes to Designate for New or More Stringent Uses and Criteria for Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7 Exhibit 3 6. Estimated Number of Facilities Potentially Affected by the Antidegradation, IGDO, and Temperature Provisions of the Proposed Rule . . 3 8 Exhibit 4 1. Sample Facilities Potentially Affected by Revised Temperature Criteria . . . . . . 4 1 Exhibit 4 2. Estimated Number of Potentially Affected Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 Exhibit 4 3. Estimated Cost per Facility to Prepare Antidegradation Review . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8 Exhibit 5 1. Estimated Potential Statewide Costs Attributable to the Temperature Provision of the Proposed Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 Exhibit 5 2. Estimated Potential Facility Costs Attributable to the Antidegradation Provision of the Proposed Rule ($ 2003/ yr) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 Exhibit 5 3. Estimated Potential Annual Statewide Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 Exhibit 5 4. Limitations of the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 September 2003 iii List of Acronyms 7Q10 Minimum 7 day average flow recurring once in 10 years BMP Best management practice cfs Cubic feet per second CWA Clean Water Act DO Dissolved oxygen EA Economic analysis EPA Environmental Protection Agency ENR Engineering News Record EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act FWS Fish and Wildlife Service GIS Geographic information system IGDO Intergravel dissolved oxygen mgd Million gallons per day MPS Municipal preliminary screener MWMC Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration O& M Operation and maintenance ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife OMB Office of Management and Budget ONRW Outstanding natural resource water P2 Pollution Prevention PCS Permit compliance system POTW Publicly owned treatment works RMZ Regulatory mixing zone TMP Temperature management plan WQS Water quality standards September 2003 Executive Summary ES   1 Executive Summary The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is proposing water quality standards ( WQS) applicable to waters in the State of Oregon. This report provides estimates of potential incremental costs that point source dischargers may experience as a result of the proposed rule.

On July 23, 1996, the State of Oregon submitted revisions to its water quality standards to EPA for review, and approval or disapproval, pursuant to Clean Water Act ( CWA) section 303( c)( 2)( A). Certain of these revisions identified specific numeric temperature criteria to protect critical life stages of salmonids, including criteria for salmonid rearing, spawning, bull trout rearing and spawning, and intergravel dissolved oxygen ( IGDO) to protect salmonid incubation and fry emergence. EPA approved the majority of the revised standards submitted by Oregon, including approvals of the temperature and dissolved oxygen standards. EPA took no action with respect to Oregon's existing antidegradation implementation plan because Oregon had not submitted new or revised standards in 1996 on this issue.

EPA's approval action was challenged in 2001 by Northwest Environmental Advocates. The plaintiff also alleged that EPA had a nondiscretionary duty to promulgate an implementation plan for Oregon's antidegradation policy. On March 31, 2003, the U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled that EPA had violated the CWA and the Endangered Species Act ( ESA) when it approved certain water quality standards for the protection of salmonids that were contained in Oregon's 1996 submission because Oregon had failed to designate when and where these criteria would apply. The Court directed EPA to promulgate new temperature water quality criteria to address this deficiency. For similar reasons, the Court also vacated EPA's approval of a water quality criterion for intergravel dissolved oxygen. For this criterion, the Court found that the 6 mg/ l adopted by Oregon would not adequately protect threatened and endangered salmonid species, and ordered EPA to promulgate new water quality criteria for this pollutant parameter. The Court also ordered EPA to promulgate an antidegradation implementation plan for Oregon waters. EPA's proposed rule addresses the Court's rulings.

In evaluating the potential impact of EPA's proposed rule, EPA calculated the incremental costs of the rule's provisions ( e. g., the cost of reducing effluent temperatures based on current State standards and implementation procedures to temperatures that would be required under EPA's proposed new or more stringent standards and implementation procedures). EPA is proposing temperature criteria to protect salmon and bull trout life stages in Oregon waters, an intergravel dissolved oxygen criterion that protects salmonid spawning, and the locations and times of year ( i. e., " when and where") that salmon and bull trout life stages occur in Oregon waters. Exhibit ES 1 shows EPA's proposed salmonid and bull trout criteria and provides the State's current criteria for comparison.

Exhibit ES 1. Comparison of Current Oregon and Proposed EPA Criteria Designated Use Oregon Criteria Proposed EPA Criteria1 Bull Trout Protection 10

C 12

C spawning and rearing; 16

C migration Exhibit ES 1. Comparison of Current Oregon and Proposed EPA Criteria Designated Use Oregon Criteria Proposed EPA Criteria1 September 2003 Executive Summary ES   2 Salmonid Rearing 17.8

C 18

C; 16

C core juvenile rearing Salmonid Spawning 12.8

C 6 mg/ L IGDO ( minimum) 13

C 8 mg/ L IGDO ( minimum)

Salmonid Migration none 20

C 1. EPA is also proposing a 9

C spawning criterion for bull trout protection on a limited number of stream segments that are downstream of a man made reservoir.

EPA's proposed rule also establishes implementation procedures for providing three levels of water quality protection under the State's antidegradation policy. Under these procedures, the quality of high quality waters is to be maintained and protected unless the State finds, after public participation and intergovernmental review, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.

The water quality criteria and uses in EPA's proposed rule may affect facilities discharging to affected waters. EPA assumed that only facilities that discharge to rivers and streams with new or more stringent uses and criteria may be affected by the water quality criteria and designated uses provisions. ( EPA also assumed that facilities discharging directly to the Columbia River and the Pacific Ocean are not affected by this proposed rule, except for portions of the Columbia River where spawning occurs that would be affected for IGDO.) For IGDO, the current criterion of 6 mg/ L is less stringent than the revised IGDO criterion of 8 mg/ L. Therefore, all waters designated for salmonid spawning are potentially affected by the IGDO provision of the proposed rule, and facilities discharging to these waters are included in the set of potentially affected dischargers.

For temperature, the State's current temperature criteria for salmonid rearing is 17.8

C, with no differentiation for core juvenile rearing. The proposed rule establishes a 16

C temperature criterion for core juvenile rearing ( and 18

C otherwise for rearing). Therefore, EPA's proposed rule provides a more stringent criterion for waters it designates for core juvenile rearing ( 16

C), and facilities discharging to these waters may be affected. For salmonid spawning, the current State criterion of 12.8

C is slightly more stringent than EPA's proposed criterion of 13

C. However, the time period that the criterion applies may differ under the proposed rule. Therefore, EPA assumed that any waters for which it is designating a salmonid spawning period that is earlier or later than currently designated by the State ( e. g., current designation from October 1 to May 31, versus a proposed designation from September 1 to June 30) would be affected because EPA's criterion would apply during the extended time period. Facilities discharging to these waters may be impacted.

For antidegradation, EPA assumed that facilities discharging to streams not listed by the State as impaired waters ( i. e., not on the 303( d) list) are affected. Although high quality waters are not yet identified by the State, the unimpaired waters provide a reasonable approximation of high September 2003 Executive Summary ES   3 quality waters ( although some portion of these will be ONWRs and not affected by the procedures because no lowering of water quality is allowed for ONWRs).

Temperature Criteria and Uses EPA identified a total of 48 facilities ( 4 majors and 44 minors) that may be potentially affected by the proposed uses and temperature criteria. EPA evaluated all four major facilities and a sample of minor facilities from this group for potential cost impacts associated with the proposed rule. For each facility EPA reviewed discharge monitoring and receiving water data to calculate the downstream temperature at the edge of the regulatory mixing zone ( RMZ) because Oregon's current WQS state that a discharge may not cause an increase in the surface water temperature of greater than 0.14

C in waters exceeding the applicable criterion [ OAR 340 041 0205 ( b)( A)]. Therefore, EPA assumed that any discharge that results in a downstream temperature greater than 0.14

C above the applicable criterion would require additional controls; however, this is a conservative assumption with respect to estimating costs ( i. e., erring on the side of higher costs) because EPA's proposed rule allows an increment of 0.3

C above the applicable criterion. Based on the temperature reductions needed for compliance with the proposed criteria, EPA determined the necessary controls on point sources to reduce effluent temperatures. For minor facilities, EPA extrapolated sample facility costs to the universe of potentially affected minor facilities. Total potential annual costs associated with the temperature provision of the proposed rule are $ 198,920.

IGDO Criteria EPA identified a total of 192 facilities ( 43 major and 149 minor) that may potentially be affected by the proposed IGDO criteria. There are no IGDO data available for any of the affected waters, primarily because methods to measure IGDO have only recently been developed. Therefore, EPA estimated compliance with current and proposed IGDO criteria based on an estimated 3 mg/ L differential between the IGDO and dissolved oxygen ( DO) in the overlying water [ based on EPA ( 1986)]. Using this differential, the current Oregon IGDO criterion of 6 mg/ L corresponds to a minimum instream DO concentration of 9 mg/ L, and the EPA IGDO criterion of 8 mg/ L corresponds to a minimum instream DO concentration of 11 mg/ L ( U. S. EPA, 1986).

Current Oregon WQS specify a minimum water column DO criterion for spawning waters, as well as minimum IGDO criteria. The minimum water column DO for protection of salmonid spawning is 11.0 mg/ L, unless the minimum IGDO ( measured as a spatial median) is 8 mg/ L, then the minimum DO may be 9 mg/ L, or conditions of barometric pressure, altitude, and temperature preclude attainment of 11 or 9 mg/ L standards, then the minimum DO may be 95% of saturation.

EPA's proposed rule would only change the IGDO criterion, and would not change Oregon's 11 mg/ L ( or 9 mg/ L) instream DO criteria. Thus, if a stream is meeting the current State instream WQS, based on EPA ( 1986) the stream would also meet the EPA's proposed IGDO criterion, and no costs would be incurred as a result of this part of the proposed rule. If a stream is not meeting the current WQS, the costs of attaining compliance would be associated with existing Oregon WQS, not as a result of the proposed rule. Therefore, EPA estimated the cost of this provision to be zero. September 2003 Executive Summary ES   4 Antidegradation Procedures EPA estimated that 152 facilities ( 22 major and 130 minor) may discharge to high quality waters. NPDES permits are issued for a period of five years, after which they must be renewed. Therefore, over any 5 year period, all 152 existing permit holders will renew their permits. Since the State began implementing its antidegradation review procedures, few facilities have requested an increase in discharge to a high quality water such that an antidegradation review was required. Based on the frequency of past reviews, EPA assumed that no more than 5% of facilities that discharge to high quality waters would request more than a de minimis increase in loadings when they renew their permit. Thus, of the 152 permit renewals processed over any 5 year period, approximately 8 facilities ( 1 major POTW, 1 major industrial facility, 3 minor POTWs, and 3 minor industrial facilities) may require an antidegradation analysis. However, this is a conservative assumption with respect to estimating cost ( i. e., erring on the side of higher costs) because it implies, as a baseline, that the State is not currently implementing its antidegradation policy and implementation procedures, when in fact it is.

To estimate the potential costs of completing an antidegradation review, EPA first calculated the average capital costs to facilities it identified as requiring additional controls in economic analyses of recent water quality standards actions, including establishing criteria for toxic pollutants and upgrading receiving water use classifications in the States of Alabama, Iowa, California, and Idaho ( U. S. EPA, 2001a; 2001b; 1999; and 1997). EPA's estimates of capital costs for these facilities average $ 1 million for major POTWs, $ 230,000 for minor POTWs, $ 2.4 million for major industrial facilities, and $ 1 million for minor industrial facilities. Thus, preliminary engineering analysis and financial analysis costs could range between $ 10,000 and $ 72,000 for major facilities, and between $ 2,300 and $ 30,000 for minor facilities.

Multiplying the potential number of affected facilities with the estimated per facility analysis costs provides an estimate of the potential costs of the antidegradation provision to dischargers in the State. The average annual cost is one fifth of the 5 year estimates, or $ 14,180 to $ 42,540. The State cost to review 8 antidegradation requests over 5 years is $ 41,600, based on EPA's estimate of an average of $ 5,200 per review. The average annual cost is one fifth this amount, or $ 8,320. The total annual cost for the antidegradation provision in the proposed rule equals the sum of the entity costs ( ranging from $ 14,180 to $ 42,540) and State review costs ($ 8,320). Thus, potential total annual cost ranges from $ 22,500 to $ 50,860.

Total Statewide Costs EPA's total potential Statewide cost of the proposed rule is approximately $ 216,230 to $ 244,590 per year ( Exhibit ES 2).

Exhibit ES 2. Estimated Potential Annual Statewide Costs Attributable to the Proposed Rule ($ 2003/ yr)

Provision Estimated Annual Cost Temperature Uses and Criteria1 $ 198,920 IGDO Criteria $ 0 Exhibit ES 2. Estimated Potential Annual Statewide Costs Attributable to the Proposed Rule ($ 2003/ yr)

Provision Estimated Annual Cost September 2003 Executive Summary ES   5 Antidegradation Procedures2 $ 22,500  $ 50,860 Total $ 221,420  $ 249,780 1. Costs are annualized at 7% over 20 years. 2. Costs equal one fifth of cost estimates calculated for a five year period. September 2003 1.0 Introduction 1   1 1.0 Introduction The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is proposing water quality standards ( WQS) applicable to waters of the United States in the State of Oregon. This report presents EPA's analysis of potential costs associated with the proposed rule. Specifically, the report provides estimates of potential incremental costs that direct point source dischargers may experience as a result of the proposed rule through changes to their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit limits.

1.1 Background The Clean Water Act ( CWA) directs States, with oversight by EPA, to adopt WQS to protect the public health and welfare, enhance the quality of water, and serve the purposes of the CWA. Under Section 303, States' water quality standards must include at a minimum: ( 1) designated uses for all water bodies within their jurisdictions, ( 2) water quality criteria sufficient to protect the most sensitive of the uses, and ( 3) an antidegradation policy consistent with the regulations at 40 CFR 131.12. States are also required to hold public hearings once every three years for the purpose of reviewing applicable water quality standards and, as appropriate, modifying and adopting standards. The results of this triennial review must be submitted to EPA and EPA must approve or disapprove any new or revised standards. Section 303( c) also directs the EPA Administrator to promulgate WQS to supersede State standards that have been disapproved or in cases where the Administrator determines that a new or revised standard is needed to meet the CWA's requirements.

With respect to antidegradation, EPA requires that States identify implementation procedures to provide three levels of water quality protection under their policy. The first level of protection at 40 CFR 131.12( a)( 1) requires the maintenance and protection of existing in stream water uses, and the level of water quality necessary to protect these existing uses ( i. e., those uses actually attained on or after November 28, 1975). The second level of protection is for high quality waters, defined in 40 CFR 131.12( a)( 2) as waters where the quality of the water exceeds levels necessary to support the propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. The quality of high quality waters is to be maintained and protected unless the State finds, after public participation and intergovernmental review, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located. Finally, EPA designates the third and highest level of protection for Outstanding National Resource Waters ( ONRWs). If an authorized entity determines that the characteristics of a water body constitute an outstanding National resource, such as waters of National and State parks, wildlife refuges, and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, those characteristics must be maintained and protected ( see 40 CFR 131.12( a)( 3)).

On July 23, 1996, the State of Oregon submitted revisions to its water quality standards to EPA for review, and approval or disapproval, pursuant to CWA section 303( c)( 2)( A). Certain of these revisions identified specific numeric temperature criteria to protect critical life stages of salmonids, including criteria for salmonid rearing, spawning, bull trout rearing and spawning, and intergravel dissolved oxygen ( IGDO) to protect salmonid incubation and fry emergence. Oregon also revised the temperature criteria for salmonid rearing in the Lower Willamette River from September 2003 1.0 Introduction 1   2 70

F ( 21

C) to 68

F ( 20

C). In addition, Oregon adopted new or revised narrative criteria and other provisions establishing a process for adopting site specific numeric criteria or temporary revisions to its standards.

On September 15, 1998, prior to approving or disapproving the submitted standards revisions, EPA entered into formal consultation under Section 7( a)( 2) of the Endangered Species Act ( ESA) with both the National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) and Fish and Wildlife Service ( FWS) in regard to listed and endangered species including chinook, coho, sockeye, chum, coastal cutthroat, steelhead, and bull trout. On July 1, 1999, the FWS issued a biological opinion that EPA's approval of the standards revisions was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed threatened and endangered species, including bull trout. On July 7, 1999, NMFS issued a biological opinion that EPA's approval of the standards revisions was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed threatened and endangered species, including Snake River sockeye salmon, Upper Columbia River spring chinook salmon, Upper Columbia River steelhead, Snake River spring/ summer chinook salmon, Snake River fall chinook salmon, Upper Willamette River chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River chinook salmon, Southern Oregon/ California Coastal chinook salmon, Oregon Coast coho salmon, Southern Oregon/ Northern California coho salmon, Snake River Basin steelhead trout, Middle and Lower Columbia steelhead trout, Upper Willamette steelhead trout, Oregon Coast steelhead trout, Klamath Mountains Provice steelhead trout, Columbia River chum salmon, Umpqua River sea run cutthroat trout, southwestern Washington/ Columbia River coastal cutthroat trout, Columbia River Basin bull trout, and Klamath River Basin bull trout. As a result of the consultation, EPA and the State of Oregon also committed to perform specific conservation measures under Section 7( a)( 1) of the ESA. These measures were designed to address concerns over the implementation of Oregon's water quality standards, and also to further investigate uncertainties regarding the water temperatures necessary to protect specific life stages of endangered species.

On July 22, 1999, EPA approved the majority of the revised standards submitted by Oregon, including approvals of the temperature and dissolved oxygen standards. EPA disapproved the 68

F ( 20

C) numeric criteria for salmonid rearing in the Lower Willamette River because it did not include a justification for how the criterion would protect salmonid rearing given that elsewhere salmonid rearing was protected with a 64

F ( 17.8

C) criterion. Furthermore, EPA's own technical analysis of the criterion showed significant adverse impacts to salmonids. EPA took no action with respect to Oregon's existing water quality criteria for the Columbia River or its antidegradation implementation plan because Oregon had not submitted new or revised standards in 1996 on either issue.

During their consultation, EPA, NMFS, FWS, and others found that there was some scientific uncertainty regarding the precise effects of various temperature regimes on the life stages of threatened and endangered salmonids. Therefore, one of the conservation measures specified in the biological opinion required EPA to establish and lead a region wide effort to conduct a comprehensive review of the temperature requirements of critical life stages of salmonids in the Pacific Northwest, and ultimately to issue guidance recommending temperature criteria for their protection that could be used as a basis for further revision of Oregon's standards if warranted. The resulting two and one half year effort concluded in April 2003 with the issuance of the EPA September 2003 1.0 Introduction 1   3 Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality Standards.

Both EPA's approval action and NMFS Biological Opinion of " no jeopardy" were challenged in 2001 by Northwest Environmental Advocates. The plaintiff also alleged that EPA had a nondiscretionary duty to promulgate Federal water quality criteria for the lower Willamette River and the Columbia River and to promulgate an implementation plan for Oregon's antidegradation policy.

On March 31, 2003, the U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled in Northwest Environmental Advocates v. EPA & NMFS ( No. CV 01 510 HA) that EPA had violated the CWA and the ESA when it approved certain water quality standards for the protection of salmonids that were contained in Oregon's 1996 submission. Although the Court deferred to EPA's scientific judgment regarding the protectiveness of the specific numeric temperatures, the Court found that these criteria violated EPA's regulations because Oregon had failed to designate when and where these criteria would apply. The Court invalidated EPA's decision to approve the criteria because the absence of such " time and place" designations failed to protect the use categories created by Oregon, in this case salmonid rearing and bull trout rearing and spawning. The Court directed EPA to promulgate new temperature water quality criteria to address this deficiency.

For similar reasons, the Court also vacated EPA's approval of a water quality criterion for intergravel dissolved oxygen. For this criterion, the Court found that the 6 mg/ l adopted by Oregon would not adequately protect threatened and endangered salmonid species, and ordered EPA to promulgate new water quality criteria for this pollutant parameter. The Court also ordered EPA to promulgate an antidegradation implementation plan for Oregon waters. Finally, the Court vacated NMFS' finding of " no jeopardy" in connection with EPA's approval of these standards, and ruled that EPA had violated the ESA by relying on NMFS's erroneous " no jeopardy" finding. EPA's proposed rule addresses the Court's rulings.

The District Court ruled in favor of EPA on the Plaintiff's challenge to EPA's failure to establish Federal water quality criteria for temperature for the Columbia River. EPA also successfully defended its decision to approve certain narrative water quality criteria. Finally, the Court agreed that EPA had met its obligations under ESA 7( a)( 1) to implement programs to conserve threatened salmon.

1.2 Purpose of the Analysis Under Executive Order ( EO) 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is " significant" and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the order ( drafting an Economic Analysis ( EA) and submitting it for review by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB)). EO 12866 defines " significant" as those actions likely to lead to a rule having an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. 1 Agricultural, forestry related, and other nonpoint source discharges, as well as storm water discharges, are technically difficult to model and evaluate for potential cost impacts because they are intermittent, highly variable, and occur under different hydrologic or climatic conditions than continuous discharges from industrial and municipal facilities.

September 2003 1.0 Introduction 1   4 EPA's proposed rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities, and the State has flexibility in implementing the provisions within the NPDES permit program. Although implementation may ultimately result in new or revised NPDES permit conditions for some dischargers, EPA's action does not impose any of these requirements. In addition, EPA does not anticipate an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more. Nonetheless, consistent with the intent of EO 12866, EPA typically estimates ( within the limits of these uncertainties) the potential costs to NPDES permitted facilities, and the associated pollutant reductions, that ultimately may result from its water quality standards rules to inform the public regarding these potential impacts.

1.3 Scope of the Analysis EPA's analysis addresses NPDES permitted facilities discharging to stream segments affected by the proposed rule. The types of affected facilities may include industries and publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs) discharging to surface waters in the State ( i. e., point sources). Indirect dischargers to POTWs may also be affected as a result of tighter controls on POTWs. EPA did not consider the potential costs for sources that it does not have direct authority to regulate through the NPDES program ( i. e., nonpoint sources, such as agricultural and forestry related nonpoint sources). However, EPA recognizes that the State of Oregon regulates forestry and agricultural sources through its Forest Practices Act and Agricultural Water Quality Management Program. 1 1.4 Organization of the Report This report is organized as follows. Section 2 outlines the baseline for the analysis by describing the current State designated uses and criteria. Section 3 provides a description of the proposed rule and shows the potentially affected waters and point source dischargers. Section 4 summarizes the method for estimating costs, and Section 5 presents the results of the analysis. The appendix provides detailed analyses for the derivation of costs for the sample facilities. September 2003 2.0 Baseline for the Analysis 2   1 2.0 Baseline for the Analysis The section describes the baseline conditions relevant to evaluating the potential impact of EPA's proposed rule. In evaluating this impact, EPA calculated the incremental costs of the rule's provisions ( e. g., the cost of reducing effluent temperatures based on current State standards and implementation procedures to temperatures that would be required under EPA's proposed new or more stringent standards and implementation procedures). Thus, this section describes baseline conditions including current State standards and implementation procedures, and existing dischargers in the State.

2.1 Water Quality Standards Exhibit 2 1 summarizes the State's current criteria for waters designated for the protection of salmonid and bull trout spawning and rearing. Oregon WQS ( OAR 340 041 0202 through 340 041 0962) specify that the criteria shown in Exhibit 2 1 apply to waters identified by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ( ODEQ) as supporting the different designated uses.

Exhibit 2 1. Oregon Water Quality Criteria for Temperature and IGDO Parameter/ Use Current Oregon Criteria Temperature: Bull Trout ( includes spawning, rearing, and migration) 50 ° F ( 10 ° C)

Temperature: Salmonid Spawning 55 ° F ( 12.8 ° C)

Temperature: Salmonid Rearing 64 ° F ( 17.8 ° C)

Temperature: Lower Willamette 68 ° F ( 20 ° C)

Intergravel Dissolved Oxygen ( IGDO): Salmonid Spawning 6 mg/ L 2.1.1 Temperature Criteria Oregon's WQS include temperature criteria for the protection of salmonid spawning and rearing. For salmonid spawning, the standards specify that no measurable surface water temperature increase exceeding 55

F ( 12.8

C) is allowed as a result of anthropogenic activities in waters determined by ODEQ to support native salmonid spawning, egg incubation, and fry emergence from eggs and from gravels. For salmonid rearing, no measurable temperature increase exceeding 64

F ( 17.8

C) is allowed in a basin for which salmonid rearing is a designated use. A measurable temperature increase refers to an increase greater than 0.25

F ( 0.14

C) at the edge of the regulatory mixing zone.

Current WQS also specify a temperature criterion for the protection of bull trout habitat ( i. e., spawning, rearing, and migration). The temperature of waters identified by ODEQ as supporting or maintaining the viability of bull trout should not exceed 50

F ( 10

C) at any time during the year. September 2003 2.0 Baseline for the Analysis 2   2 2.1.2 IGDO Criteria Oregon's current WQS for salmonid spawning specify an absolute minimum criterion for IGDO of 6 mg/ L. Note that Oregon uses an IGDO concentration of less than 8 mg/ L to identify waters that may be impaired. For these waters, ODEQ may include the waters on the State 303( d) list, initiate pollution control measures, or where necessary, implement specific best management practices for control of nonpoint sources.

2.1.3 Beneficial Use Designations Exhibit 2 2 summarizes the current designated uses for each basin based on the designated use tables in the State's WQS and a 1998 letter from ODEQ to EPA Region 10 indicating when and where salmonid spawning and rearing apply.

Exhibit 2 2. Oregon Designated Uses ( and Temperature Criteria1) for Salmonid Habitat Basin Salmonid Spawning ( 12.8 ° C) ( Spawning Time Period) Salmonid Rearing ( 17.8 ° C) 2 Bull Trout ( 10 ° C) 3 North Coast

( Sep 15 May 31)

Mid Coast

( Sep 15 May 31)

South Coast

( Oct 1 May 31)

Umpqua  Umpqua R. Estuary to Head of Tidewater

 Head of Tidewater to confluence of N. and S. Umpqua Rivers

( Sep 15 May 31)

 N. Umpqua River Mainstem

( Sep 15 May 31)

 S. Umpqua River Mainstem

( Sep 15 May 31)

 All other tributaries to Umpqua, N. and S. Umpqua Rivers

( Sep 15 May 31)

Rogue  Rogue River Estuary

 Rogue River Estuary to Lost Creek Dam

( Oct 1 May 31)

 Rogue River Mainstem above Lost Dam and Tributaries

( Oct 1 May 31)

 Bear Creek Mainstem

( Oct 1 May 31)

 All other tributaries to Rogue River and Bear Creek

( Oct 1 May 31)

Willamette  Mouth of Willamette to Newberg

4  Willamette River, Newberg to Coast Fork

( Oct 1 May 31)

 Clackamas R., Santiam R., McKenzie R., Molalla R., Tualatin R., and all other streams and tributaries

( Sep 15 Jun 30)

 Other ecoregions

( Oct 1 May 31)

 Mainstem Columbia R. ( RM 86 to 120)

( Oct 1 May 31)

Sandy  Streams forming waterfalls near Columbia River Hwy

( Sep 15 Jun 30)

Exhibit 2 2. Oregon Designated Uses ( and Temperature Criteria1) for Salmonid Habitat Basin Salmonid Spawning ( 12.8 ° C) ( Spawning Time Period) Salmonid Rearing ( 17.8 ° C) 2 Bull Trout ( 10 ° C) 3 September 2003 2.0 Baseline for the Analysis 2   3  Sandy River

( Sep 15 Jun 30)

 Bull Run River and all tributaries

( Sep 15 Jun 30)

 all other tributaries to Sandy River

 Columbia River ( RM 120 to 147)

Hood  Columbia River ( RM 147 to 203)

 Mainstem Hood River to Powderdale Dam

( Sep 15 Feb 15)

 Mainstem Hood R. upstream of Powderdale Dam to confluence with M. and E. Fork

( Sep 1 Jul 15)

 Middle Fork Hood River

( All Year)

 West Fork Hood River

( All Year)

 E. Fork Hood R. downstream of confluence with Emil Cr, Neal Cr, and Whiskey Cr

( Sep 15 Jul 15)

 E. Fork Hood R. upstream of confluence with Emil Creek

( Sep 15 Aug 31)

 Miles Creek drainage

( Oct 1 Jun 30)

Deschutes  Columbia River ( RM 203 to 218)

 Deschutes River and east side tributaries

( Oct 1 June 30)

 Deschutes River and West side tributaries

( Sep 1 Jun 30)

John Day  N. Fork John Day R. upstream to Camas Creek and Mouth Middle Fork John Day R. upstream to US Highway 395

( Mar 1 Jul 15)

 N. Fork John Day R. above Camas Creek and Middle Fork John Day R. above US Highway 395

( Aug 15 Jul 15)

 All other tributaries

( Oct 1 Jun 30)

Umatilla  Umatilla Subbasin

( Oct 1 Jun 30)

 Willow Creek Subbasin

( Oct 1 Jun 30)

 Columbia River ( RM 247 to 309)

( Oct 1 May 31)

Walla Walla

( Oct 1 Jun 30)

Grande Ronde  Imnaha River upstream of confluence with Big Sheep Cr

( Oct 15 Jul 15)

 Imnaha River above and including Big Sheep Creek

( Aug 1 Jul 15)

 Mainstem Snake River ( RM 176 to 260)

( Oct 1 June 30)

 Mainstem Grande Ronde River ( RM 39 to 165)

( Oct 1 June 30)

 All other basin waters

( Oct 1 Jun 30)

Powder

( Mar 1 Jun 30)

Exhibit 2 2. Oregon Designated Uses ( and Temperature Criteria1) for Salmonid Habitat Basin Salmonid Spawning ( 12.8 ° C) ( Spawning Time Period) Salmonid Rearing ( 17.8 ° C) 2 Bull Trout ( 10 ° C) 3 September 2003 2.0 Baseline for the Analysis 2   4  Mainstem Snake River ( RM 260 to 335)

( Oct 1 June 30)

 All other basin waters

( Mar 1 Jun 30)

Malheur River  Malheur R ( Namorf to Mouth)/ Willow Creek ( Brogan to Mouth)/ Bully Creek ( Reservoir to Mouth)

 Willow Creek ( Malhuer Reservoir to Brogan)/ Malheur R. ( Beulah Dam and Warm Springs Dam to Namorf)

( Mar 1 Jun 30)

 Reservoirs

 Malhuer River and Tributaries Upstream of Reservoirs

( Mar 1 Jun 30)

 Snake River ( RM 335 to 395)

( Oct 1 Jun 30)

Owyhee  Snake River ( RM 295 to 409)

( Oct 1 Jun 30)

 Owyhee River ( RM 0 to 18)

 Reservoirs

5  Owyhee River ( RM 18 to Dam), Tributaries Upstream from Owyhee Reservoir, and Designated Scenic Waterway

5 ( Mar 1 Jun 30)

5 Malheur Lake  Natural Lakes  All Rivers and Tributaries

5 ( Mar 1 Jun 30)

5 Goose and Summer Lakes  Goose Lake

5  Fresh water lakes, reservoirs, and streams

5 ( Mar 1 Jun 30)

5  Highly alkaline and saline lakes Klamath  Klamath R. from Klamath Lake to Keno Dam and Lost R. ( RM 5 to 65) and Lost R. Diversion Channel  All other basin waters

5 ( Mar 1 Jun 30)

5

Source: ODEQ Water Quality Standards Designated Use Tables, Letter from ODEQ to EPA Region 10 ( June 22, 1998) 1. Criteria apply only to waters where use occurs. 2. Criterion applies all year round unless a more stringent criterion applies for part of the year or the waters are designated for bull trout. 3. Criterion applies all year round for protection of bull trout spawning, rearing, and migration. 4. This section of the basin is only required to achieve 68

F. 5. Salmon and steelhead species are not present.

Exhibits 2 3 and 2 4 show the waters that the State currently designates for salmonid rearing and spawning and bull trout use protection as provided in Exhibit 2 2. September 2003 2.0 Baseline for the Analysis 2   5 Exhibit 2 3. Waters Designated by the State of Oregon for Salmonid Rearing and Bull Trout Protection Exhibit 2 4. Waters Designated by the State of Oregon for Salmonid and Bull Trout Spawning September 2003 2.0 Baseline for the Analysis 2   6 Exhibit 2 5. NPDES Permitted Facilities in Oregon 2.1.4 Antidegradation Policy Oregon's WQS contain an Antidegradation Policy "... to guide decisions that affect water quality such that unnecessary degradation from point and nonpoint sources of pollution is prevented, and to protect, maintain, and enhance existing surface water quality to protect all existing beneficial uses" ( OAR 340 041 0026). This policy simply states that the State's WQS ( the standards and policies set forth in OAR 340 041 0120 through 340 041 0962) are intended to implement the Antidegradation Policy.

The Court found this policy to be vague, that is, that the State is lacking implementation procedures. The State adopted antidegradation implementation procedures in 2001, and is currently implementing its antidegradation policy based on those procedures. EPA identified a few antidegradation reviews that have been submitted by dischargers and reviewed by the State.

2.3 Point Source Dischargers EPA's Permit Compliance System ( PCS) database indicates that there are 1,448 facilities permitted to discharge to Oregon surface waters. EPA classifies 95% of these facilities as minor dischargers ( facilities discharging less than 1 million gallons per day ( mgd) and not likely to discharge toxic pollutants in toxic amounts) or general permit facilities ( general permits are permits issued an entire category of dischargers). The map in Exhibit 2 5 shows the location of the facilities with individual permits. Exhibit 2 6 provides a summary of all permits by industry and permit type. September 2003 2.0 Baseline for the Analysis 2   7 Exhibit 2 6. Summary of NPDES Permitted Direct Dischargers in Oregon1 Standard Industrial Classification Number of Facilities2 Majors Minors Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 01 Agricultural Production   Crops  1 02 Agricultural Production   Livestock and Animal Specialties  3 07 Agricultural Services   09 Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping  4 Mining 10 Metal Mining  1 13 Oil and Gas Extraction   14 Nonmetallic Minerals  6 Construction 15 General Contractors and Operative Builders   16 Heavy Construction   Manufacturing 20 Food and Kindred Products 2 11 24 Lumber and Wood Products 1 30 26 Paper and Allied Products 12 1 27 Printing and Publishing   28 Chemicals and Allied Products 2 5 29 Petroleum and Coal Products   32 Stone, Clay, and Glass Products  4 33 Primary Metal Industries 4 2 34 Fabricated Metal Products  2 35 Industrial Machinery and Equipment  1 36 Electronic and Other Electronic Equipment 1 3 37 Transportation Equipment  2 38 Measuring, Analyzing, and Controlling Instruments  1 Transportation and Public Utilities 40 Railroad Transportation   41 Local and Interurban Passenger Transit   42 Trucking and Warehousing   44 Water Transportation  2 45 Transportation by Air  2 46 Pipelines, except Natural Gas   47 Transportation Services   48 Communications   49 Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services; except 4952 53 18 4952 Sewerage Services ( POTWs) 49 152 Wholesale Trade 50 Wholesale Trade   Durable Goods  1 51 Wholesale Trade   Nondurable Goods  7 Exhibit 2 6. Summary of NPDES Permitted Direct Dischargers in Oregon1 Standard Industrial Classification Number of Facilities2 Majors Minors September 2003 2.0 Baseline for the Analysis 2   8 Retail Trade 52 Building Materials, Hardware, Garden Supply, and Mobile Home Dealers   53 General Merchandise Stores   54 Food Stores   55 Automotive Dealers and Service Stations   59 Miscellaneous Retail   Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 65 Real Estate  4 Services 70 Hotels and Other Lodging Places  3 73 Business Services   75 Auto Repair, Services, and Parking   76 Miscellaneous Repair Services  1 79 Amusement and Recreational Services   80 Health Services   82 Educational Services  4 83 Social Services  2 84 Museums, Botanical, Zoological Gardens  1 86 Membership Organizations   87 Engineering, Accounting, Research, Management, and Related Services  1 Public Administration 91 Executive, Legislative and General Government, except Finance   92 Justice, Public Order, and Safety  1 94 Administration of Human Resource Programs   95 Administration of Environmental Quality and Housing Programs  1 96 Administration of Economic Programs   97 National Security and International Affairs   99 Nonclassifiable Establishments  1 No SIC Code ( blank in PCS)  28 Total 76 306 `` = none 1. Accessed on August 4, 2003. 2. There are also 1,065 general permit dischargers that EPA did not include in the analysis. Most of these dischargers are small commercial facilities ( e. g., gas stations and car dealers), individual miners, fish hatcheries, and small agricultural operations ( e. g., cattle feed lots and dairy farms). Data for general permit facilities are extremely limited, and flows from such facilities are usually negligible. Also, EPA could not determine if any of these facilities discharge to affected stream segments because location information are not available in EPA's PCS database. 3. Permitted under a general storm water permit. September 2003 3.0 Description of the Proposed Rule 3   1 3.0 Description of the Proposed Rule This section describes EPA's proposed rule, including the waters affected by the various provisions. This section also provides descriptions of the facilities that discharge to affected waters and that, depending on State implementation of EPA's proposed rule, may be affected by the proposed water quality standards.

3.1 Water Quality Criteria and Designated Uses EPA is proposing temperature criteria to protect salmon and bull trout life stages in Oregon waters, an intergravel dissolved oxygen criterion that protects salmonid spawning, and the locations and times of year ( i. e., " when and where") that salmon and bull trout life stages occur in Oregon waters. Exhibit 3 1 shows EPA's proposed salmonid and bull trout criteria and provides the State's current criteria for comparison. To identify when and where salmonid and bull trout life stages occur, EPA developed a set of decision rules in conjunction with the ODEQ, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA), and the U. S. FWS. These criteria are summarized in Exhibit 3 2. Exhibits 3 3 and 3 4 illustrate the waters potentially affected by the proposed rule.

Exhibit 3 1. Comparison of Current Oregon and Proposed EPA Criteria Designated Use Oregon Criteria Proposed EPA Criteria Bull Trout Protection 10

C 12

C spawning and rearing; 16

C migration Salmonid Rearing 17.8

C 18

C; 16

C core juvenile rearing Salmonid Spawning 12.8

C 6 mg/ L IGDO ( minimum) 13

C 8 mg/ L IGDO ( minimum) Salmonid Migration none 20

C 1. EPA is also proposing a 9

C spawning criterion for bull trout protection on a limited number of stream segments that are downstream of a man made reservoir.

3.2 Antidegradation EPA's proposed rule establishes implementation procedures for providing three levels of water quality protection under the State's antidegradation policy. The first level of protection is defined at 40 CFR 131.12( a)( 1) and requires the maintenance and protection of existing in stream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect these existing uses. Existing uses are defined as those uses actually attained on or after November 28, 1975. This first level of protection is the baseline of water quality protection afforded to all waters of the United States. The second level of protection is for high quality waters. EPA defines high quality waters in 40 CFR 131.12( a)( 2) as those where the quality of the water exceeds levels necessary to support the propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. Finally, EPA designates the third and highest level of protection for ONRWs. If an authorized entity determines that the characteristics of a water body constitute an ONRW, such as waters of September 2003 3.0 Description of the Proposed Rule 3   2 National and State parks and wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, those characteristics must be maintained and protected [ see 40 CFR 131.12( a)( 3)].

Exhibit 3 2. Proposed EPA Criteria for Designating Bull Trout and Salmonid Uses Designated Use and Proposed Criterion Criteria Bull Trout Spawning and Rearing ( 12

C except on waters where spawning occurs downstream of a manmade reservoir the temperature criterion is 9

C) ° Waters where ODEQ distribution and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ( ODFW) timing information shows summertime bull trout current and potential use. ° Any additional waters identified by U. S. FWS as spawning/ natal stream rearing critical habitat. ° Waters identified by U. S. FWS for bull trout spawning use downstream of man made reservoirs. ° All waters upstream of the waters identified in above, except where a relatively large tributary not identified above enters the downstream portion of a river identified above.

Core Juvenile Salmonid Rearing and Bull Trout Migration ( 16

C) ° Waters where ODFW distribution and timing information shows chinook spawning occurs on or prior to Sept. 15. ° Waters where ODEQ distribution and ODFW timing information shows bull trout presence ( i. e. bull trout migration, foraging, and/ or sub adult bull trout rearing) in July or August. ° Waters where scientifically credible information shows high density salmon or steelhead rearing. ° All waters upstream of the waters identified above, except where a relatively large river not identified above enters the downstream portion of a river identified above.

Non core Juvenile Salmonid Rearing and Migration ( 18

C) ° Waters where ODFW distribution and timing information shows chinook, chum, coho, or steelhead rearing occurring in July or August. ° Waters where ODFW distribution information shows rainbow or coastal cutthroat trout rearing use or where resident trout use is likely, except where redband or lahotan trout is the only trout use ( Note: redband and/ or lahotan trout is a separate use designation with a 20

C criterion in Oregon's rule, but not included in EPA's proposed rule). ° All waters upstream of the waters identified above.

Salmonid Migration ( 20

C) ° Waters where ODFW distribution and timing information indicates there is no rearing use in July or August or information suggests a lower mainstem river is primarily a migration corridor during the period of summer maximum temperatures, plus there is some evidence that temperatures are naturally this warm. Exhibit 3 2. Proposed EPA Criteria for Designating Bull Trout and Salmonid Uses Designated Use and Proposed Criterion Criteria September 2003 3.0 Description of the Proposed Rule 3   3 Salmonid Spawning ( 13

C) in Waters with a Summer Maximum Criterion of 16

C ° Waters where ODFW distribution information shows chinook spawning occurs ( and no steelhead spawning occurs) from 2 weeks after beginning of spawning ( unless beginning is peak spawning, in which case the start date is beginning of spawning) or Oct. 15 ( whichever is earlier) to May 15. ° Waters where ODFW distribution information shows chinook spawning and steelhead spawning occurs from 2 weeks after beginning of chinook spawning ( unless beginning is peak spawning, in which case the start date is beginning of spawning) or Oct. 15 ( whichever is earlier) to June 15. ° Waters where ODFW distribution information shows steelhead spawning occurs ( and no chinook spawning occurs) from Oct. 15 to June 15. ° From Oct. 15 to May 15 for any other waters where salmon spawning ( e. g., coho or chum) occurs.

Salmonid Spawning ( 13

C) in Waters with a Summer Maximum Criterion of 18

C ° Waters where ODFW distribution information shows salmon ( chinook, coho, chum) or steelhead spawning from Oct. 15 to May 15.

Salmonid Spawning ( 13

C) in Waters with a Summer Maximum Criterion of 20

C ° Waters where ODFW distribution information shows salmon or steelhead spawning from the beginning of spawning to the end of fry emergence. September 2003 3.0 Description of the Proposed Rule 3   4 Exhibit 3 3. Waters EPA Proposes to Designate for Salmonid Rearing and Migration and Bull Trout Protection Exhibit 3 4. Waters EPA Proposes to Designate for Salmonid and Bull Trout Spawning September 2003 3.0 Description of the Proposed Rule 3   5 3.2 Antidegradation EPA's proposed rule establishes implementation procedures for providing three levels of water quality protection under the State's antidegradation policy. The first level of protection is defined at 40 CFR 131.12( a)( 1) and requires the maintenance and protection of existing in stream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect these existing uses. Existing uses are defined as those uses actually attained on or after November 28, 1975. This first level of protection is the baseline of water quality protection afforded to all waters of the United States. The second level of protection is for high quality waters. EPA defines high quality waters in 40 CFR 131.12( a)( 2) as those where the quality of the water exceeds levels necessary to support the propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water. Finally, EPA designates the third and highest level of protection for ONRWs. If an authorized entity determines that the characteristics of a water body constitute an ONRW, such as waters of National and State parks and wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, those characteristics must be maintained and protected [ see 40 CFR 131.12( a)( 3)].

Under these procedures, the quality of high quality waters is to be maintained and protected unless the State finds, after public participation and intergovernmental review, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located. In allowing this, the State must assure that the resulting water quality remains adequate to fully protect existing uses. Further, it must also assure that all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements are implemented for all new and existing point sources, and all cost effective and reasonable best management practices are implemented for nonpoint source control. No degradation of ONRW would be allowed.

3.3 Potentially Impacted Facilities The water quality criteria and uses in EPA's proposed rule may affect facilities discharging to affected waters. EPA identified these facilities using its PCS database. In doing so, EPA assumed that only facilities that discharge to rivers and streams with new or more stringent uses and criteria may be affected by the water quality criteria and designated uses provisions. ( EPA also assumed that facilities discharging directly to the Columbia River and the Pacific Ocean are not affected, except for portions of the Columbia River where spawning occurs that would be affected for IGDO.) For IGDO, the current criterion of 6 mg/ L is less stringent than the revised IGDO criterion of 8 mg/ L. Therefore, all waters designated for salmonid spawning ( see Exhibit 3 4) are potentially affected by the proposed rule, and facilities discharging to these waters are included in the set of potentially affected dischargers. EPA identified these facilities by overlaying PCS facilities with the waters designated for salmonid spawning using geographic information system ( GIS) software.

To identify waters for which the proposed rule provides new or more stringent uses and temperature criteria ( Exhibit 3 5), EPA compared criteria and uses designated for salmonid spawning and rearing and bull trout protection for waters under the proposed rule with those criteria and uses to the criteria and uses for waters that are currently designated by the State 2EPA is also proposing for a limited number of stream segments a 9

C spawning criterion for bull trout protection downstream of man made reservoirs. EPA identified one facility that discharges below a reservoir to a segment designated for bull trout spawning at 9

C. However, EPA assumed any controls necessary for compliance with the current State bull trout criterion of 10

C would also enable compliance with EPA's proposed bull trout temperature criterion. Therefore, costs associated with this provision of the proposed rule are zero because controls implemented to meet the current State criteria will also achieve EPA's proposed criteria.

September 2003 3.0 Description of the Proposed Rule 3   6 ( shown in Exhibits 2 3 and 2 4). 2 As shown in Exhibit 2 3, the State's current temperature criteria for salmonid rearing is 17.8

C, with no differentiation for core juvenile rearing. The proposed rule establishes a 16

C temperature criterion for core juvenile rearing ( and 18

C otherwise for rearing). Therefore, EPA's proposed rule provides a more stringent criterion for waters it designates for core juvenile rearing ( 16

C), and facilities discharging to these waters may be affected. EPA identified these facilities by overlaying PCS facilities with the waters designated for core juvenile rearing using GIS software.

For salmonid spawning shown in Exhibit 2 4, the current State criterion of 12.8

C is slightly more stringent than EPA's proposed criterion of 13

C. However, the time period that the criterion applies may differ under the proposed rule. Therefore, EPA assumed that any waters for which it is designating a salmonid spawning period that is earlier or later than currently designated by the State ( e. g., current designation from October 1 to May 31, versus a proposed designation from September 1 to June 30) would be affected because EPA's criterion would apply during the extended time period. Facilities discharging to these waters may be impacted. EPA identified these facilities by overlaying PCS facilities with the waters for which an earlier or later salmonid spawning period applies under the proposed rule using GIS software.

For antidegradation, EPA assumed that facilities discharging to streams not listed by the State as impaired waters ( i. e., not on the 303( d) list) are affected. Although high quality waters are not yet identified by the State, the unimpaired waters provide a reasonable approximation of highquality waters ( although some portion of these will be ONWRs and not affected by the procedures because no lowering of water quality is allowed for ONWRs). EPA identified these facilities by overlaying PCS facilities with waters that are not on the State's 303( d) list using GIS software. Exhibit 3 6 summarizes the potentially affected facilities by provision. The dischargers are grouped by discharger type ( e. g., major or minor) and category ( e. g., POTW or industry category). Note that there are some facilities affected by more than one provision. September 2003 3.0 Description of the Proposed Rule 3   7 Exhibit 3 5. Waters EPA Proposes to Designate for New or More Stringent Uses and Criteria for Temperature September 2003 3.0 Description of the Proposed Rule 3   8 Exhibit 3 6. Estimated Number of Facilities Potentially Affected by the Antidegradation, IGDO, and Temperature Provisions of the Proposed Rule Category Number of Facilities Major Minor Total Antidegradation1 Chemicals  4 4 Fishing  4 4 Food 1 5 6 Metals/ Metals Manufacturing 1 2 3 Mining  3 3 POTWs 14 65 79 Public Services 5 4 9 Pulp and Paper

Wood and Lumber 1 18 19 Miscellaneous  25 25 Total 22 130 152 IGDO2 Chemicals 1 3 4 Fishing  4 4 Food 1 5 6 Metals/ Metals Manufacturing 3 1 4 Mining  2 2 POTWs 29 85 114 Public Services 2 6 8 Pulp and Paper 7  7 Wood and Lumber  17 17 Miscellaneous  26 26 Total 43 149 192 Temperature3 Fishing  2 2 Food  1 1 POTWs 3 29 32 Pulp and Paper 1  1 Wood and Lumber  7 7 Miscellaneous  5 5 Total 4 44 48 1. Estimated as facilities discharging to waters not on the State's 303( d) list. 2. Estimated as facilities discharging to waters designated for salmonid spawning, except for those portions of the Columbia River where spawning occurs. 3. Estimated as facilities discharging to waters designated for core juvenile rearing, or an extended ( earlier, later, or both) spawning period, under the proposed rule. September 2003 4.0 Method for Estimating Costs 4   1 4.0 Method for Estimating Costs This section describes EPA's method for estimating potential costs to the NPDES permitted facilities identified in Section 3.

4.1 Temperature Criteria and Uses 4.1.1 Sample Facilities EPA identified a total of 48 facilities ( 4 majors and 44 minors) that may be potentially affected by the proposed uses and temperature criteria. EPA evaluated all four major facilities and a sample of minor facilities from this group for potential cost impacts associated with the proposed rule. Exhibit 4 1 identifies the sample facilities by name and permit number.

Exhibit 4 1. Sample Facilities Potentially Affected by Revised Temperature Criteria NPDES Number Facility Name Flow ( mgd) Type Category OR0026263 Medford Regional WRF 20 Major POTW OR0020427 Stayton WWTP 3.9 Major POTW OR0020346 Sweet Home WWTP 1.4 Major POTW OR0000515 Weyerhaueser Company 22.2 Major Wood and Lumber OR0030261 Douglas County DPW 0.28 Minor POTW OR0027791 Government Camp SD 0.10 Minor POTW OR0022314 Oakridge WWTP 0.47 Minor POTW OR0030660 Shady Cove WWTP 0.45 Minor POTW OR0020419 Siletz WWTP 0.16 Minor POTW 4.1.2 Determining Effect of Discharges on Receiving Water For facilities discharging to streams with more stringent uses and temperature criteria, including an extended spawning time period, EPA evaluated the effect of the discharge on the receiving water using monthly effluent and receiving water data. Oregon's current WQS specify that numeric temperature criteria be measured as the 7 day moving average of the daily maximum temperatures. If there are insufficient data to establish a 7 day moving average, the numeric criteria should be applied as an instantaneous maximum ( OAR 340 041 0006). When possible, EPA calculated the average of the maximum 7 day moving averages for each month. In other words, EPA took the maximum 7 day moving averages for each month in a given year, and averaged these values across years ( usually the last three years of data). If daily temperature data were not available, EPA evaluated the average of the maximum monthly values. September 2003 4.0 Method for Estimating Costs 4   2 T T DT D MZ E S = +   + ( )

( ) 1 D Q Q S E = To determine the effect of the discharge on the downstream temperature, EPA calculated the temperature at the edge of the regulatory mixing zone ( RMZ) using the following equation ( ODEQ, 2001):

where, T MZ = temperature at the edge of the RMZ T E = effluent temperature T S = stream background temperature D = RMZ dilution ratio.

The effluent temperature is the average of maximum monthly effluent temperature determined above ( e. g., average of maximum 7 day moving average, average of maximum monthly temperature) for the time period of concern. EPA assumed that the background stream temperature is the applicable criterion when the water body currently exceeds the criterion; otherwise, EPA used the maximum receiving water temperature ( i. e., average of maximum 7 day moving average temperatures, average of maximum monthly temperatures) in those situations where the water body is currently attaining the criterion. For example, if the receiving water is designated for core salmonid rearing and the maximum receiving water temperature for July and August is 17

C, the effluent temperature used in the above equation would be the maximum monthly effluent temperature between July and August, and the stream temperature would be 16

C. The dilution ratio is calculated from the following equation ( ODEQ, 2001):

where, Q S = portion of stream flow available for dilution Q E = effluent flow.

The 7Q10 ( minimum 7 day average flow recurring once in 10 years) stream flow, and the average effluent flow is used to calculate the dilution ratio, when necessary. EPA's proposed rule specifies that only 25% of the 7Q10 flow be used in the dilution calculation. In many cases, facilities already have calculated dilution ratios through stream modeling ( e. g., CORMIX) or mixing zone studies. In these cases, if less than 25% of the 7Q10 flow is used in the model, EPA used the facility calculated value, otherwise EPA calculated the dilution ratio from the above equation, assuming 25% of the stream 7Q10 low flow is available for dilution.

4.1.3 Identifying Potential Controls Oregon's WQS state that a discharge may not cause an increase in the surface water temperature of greater than 0.14

C in waters exceeding the applicable criterion [ OAR 340 041 0205 ( b)( A)]. Therefore, EPA assumed that any discharge that results in a downstream temperature greater than 0.14

C above the applicable criterion would require additional controls; however, this is a conservative assumption with respect to estimating costs ( i. e., erring on the side of higher costs) because EPA's proposed rule specifies an increment of 0.3

C above the applicable criterion. The September 2003 4.0 Method for Estimating Costs 4   3 State's current WQS also require facilities discharging to impaired waters to develop and implement a temperature management plan ( TMP). A TMP should describe the best management practices, measures, and control technologies that would be implemented by the facility to reduce the effect that their effluent temperature has on downstream temperatures. Facilities are required to continue implementation of the measures outlined in their TMPs until stream temperatures are lowered to criterion levels or ODEQ determines that all feasible steps have been taken to meet the criterion and that the designated uses are not being adversely impacted ( OAR 340 041 0026).

EPA used TMPs from facilities that have already developed them to determine the necessary controls on point sources to reduce effluent temperatures. For example, in the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission ( MWMC) TMP, both short and long term control options are discussed. Short term temperature control options include:

° Identifying treatment management procedures that could be altered to reduce the thermal loads to the waste stream ( i. e., process optimization such as switching to fine bubble aeration, installation of shade cloths, etc.) ° Reviewing temperature characteristics of major industrial dischargers ( i. e., pollution minimization including source controls) ° Developing a list of potential alternative discharge options ( e. g., land application, storage ponds).

The long term options include:

° Reducing the volume of discharge by reusing effluent ° Recycling certain waste streams to reduce thermal load ° Using some or all of the effluent for irrigation ° Storing heated wastewater ° Off stream cooling/ evaporation ponds ° Installing treatment technology to reduce temperatures.

EPA considered these control options, as well as options from other TMPs ( e. g., land application of effluent), to determine the most cost effective measure for reducing temperatures at each sample facility.

To determine the necessary controls, EPA first evaluated whether low cost control options would be feasible, and then considered more costly controls, if necessary. EPA considered the lowest cost option to be the adjustment of existing treatment ( process optimization). EPA considered process optimization feasible where relatively low temperature reductions on the order of 1

C to 2

C were needed or monitoring data indicate that influent temperatures increase during the treatment process ( i. e., net positive temperature increase from influent to effluent).

If adjusting existing operations would not be feasible or would not be sufficient to achieve the desired temperature reductions, EPA considered whether waste minimization/ pollution prevention would achieve standards. Decision considerations for pollution prevention ( P2) included the level of temperature reduction achievable through waste minimization/ pollution prevention techniques, appropriateness of waste minimization/ pollution prevention for temperature ( e. g., high influent September 2003 4.0 Method for Estimating Costs 4   4 temperatures), and knowledge of the manufacturing processes generating the high temperatures. P2 measures for temperature would include monitoring of influent water to determine the source contributing to high influent temperatures ( e. g., industrial and commercial dischargers to a POTW). P2 would also include the implementation of best management practices ( BMPs) once the source is identified.

If P2 measures alone would not reduce pollutant levels to those needed to comply with projected effluent limits, EPA considered a combination of P2 and process optimization. If these relatively low cost controls could not achieve the projected effluent limits, EPA considered additional treatment such as the long term options in MWMC's TMP. EPA evaluated the feasibility of various options to determine the least cost method. For example, an evaporation pond may not be feasible for a major facility with a large flow because the necessary amount of land may not be available.

4.1.4 Estimating Costs of Controls For facilities contributing to an exceedance of the current State WQS ( i. e., downstream temperature greater than 0.14

C above the State criterion, if applicable), EPA first estimated the controls necessary for compliance with the current criterion. EPA then determined if those controls would also enable the facility to meet the proposed revised criterion. If those controls enable compliance with the proposed criterion, EPA assumed that the facility would not incur costs associated with the proposed rule ( i. e., all control costs are associated with meeting the current standards). Otherwise, EPA estimated the incremental costs associated with meeting the proposed criterion, that is, the additional costs required ( after compliance with the State's current designated uses and criteria) to achieve a new limit based on EPA's proposed uses and criteria.

EPA estimated the cost of pollution controls for point sources using available estimates from the literature. EPA did not conclude that treatment process optimization or waste minimization/ pollution prevention would be used by any of the sample facilities to achieve EPA's proposed uses and criteria.

EPA estimated capital costs for those facilities for which new/ additional treatment was needed. EPA evaluated the feasibility and costs of controls such as prohibiting discharge during the months of concern and cooling towers.

The no discharge options include land application or effluent reuse. Costs for land application and reuse include excavation, backfill, piping, and pumps. EPA assumed facilities would need to transport wastewater about one mile to the land application or reuse site. EPA used R. S. Means ( 2001) unit costs for each of the components and calculated the unit measurements from the effluent flow being treated. Capital costs include the cost of the equipment, labor, installation, and a markup for overhead and profit. Operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs are annual costs associated with maintaining the equipment and monitoring. EPA assumed annual O& M costs would equal 5% of the total capital costs.

Cooling towers costs are based on the following cost equations developed for EPA's proposed 316( b) Phase II rule ( 2002b): September 2003 4.0 Method for Estimating Costs 4   5 Capital Q Q =   × + +   4 10 63 263 23209 5 2 * . *

O M Q Q & * . * =   × + +   7 10 65037 12041 6 2 where, Q = effluent flow in gpm ( gallons per minute).

These are the cost equations for nonfouling, film fill fiberglass cooling towers with no blow down. Capital costs are multiplied by 5% to account for contingencies ( i. e., unforeseeable costs) and another 20% to incorporate retrofit costs because the equations shown above provide capital cost estimates for towers at new facilities ( U. S. EPA, 2002b).

EPA escalated all costs to 2003 dollars using the Engineering News Record ( ENR) Construction Cost Index.

4.1.5 Total Statewide Costs EPA evaluated the potential cost impacts for the four major facilities potentially affected by the proposed rule. For minor facilities EPA only evaluated a sample and therefore extrapolated the results to all minor facilities. EPA calculated a per facility cost by dividing the total costs by the number of sample facilities. EPA then multiplied the per facility cost by the total number of minor facilities.

4.2 IGDO Criteria There are no IGDO data available for any of the affected waters, primarily because methods to measure IGDO have only recently been developed. Therefore, EPA estimated compliance with current and proposed IGDO criteria based on an estimated 3 mg/ L differential between the IGDO and dissolved oxygen ( DO) in the overlying water [ based on EPA ( 1986)]. Using this differential, the current Oregon IGDO criterion of 6 mg/ L corresponds to a minimum instream DO concentration of 9 mg/ L. The EPA IGDO criterion of 8 mg/ L corresponds to a minimum instream DO concentration of 11 mg/ L ( U. S. EPA, 1986).

Current Oregon WQS specify a minimum water column DO criterion for spawning waters, as well as minimum IGDO criteria. The minimum water column DO for protection of salmonid spawning is 11.0 mg/ L, unless:

° The minimum IGDO ( measured as a spatial median) is 8 mg/ L, then the minimum DO may be 9 mg/ L ° Conditions of barometric pressure, altitude, and temperature preclude attainment of 11 or 9 mg/ L standards, then the minimum DO may be 95% of saturation.

EPA's proposed rule would only change the IGDO criterion, and would not change Oregon's 11 mg/ L ( or 9 mg/ L) instream DO criteria. Thus, if a stream is meeting the current State instream WQS, based on EPA ( 1986) the stream would also meet the EPA's proposed IGDO criterion, September 2003 4.0 Method for Estimating Costs 4   6 and no costs would be incurred as a result of this part of the proposed rule. If a stream is not meeting the current WQS, the costs of attaining compliance would be associated with existing Oregon WQS, not as a result of the proposed rule. Therefore, EPA estimated the cost of this provision to be zero.

4.3 Antidegradation Procedures Under the proposed rule, before the lowering of water quality can be permitted, an antidegradation review must be conducted. The result of this review must be that no costeffective pollution prevention alternatives and enhanced treatment techniques are available to the entity that would eliminate or significantly reduce the extent to which the increased loading results in a lowering of water quality. In addition, the review must show that the pollution controls necessary to maintain the existing water quality will interfere with economic and/ or social development in the area, and that this economic and social development is important.

Therefore, to develop an estimate of the incremental impact of the proposed rule, EPA first estimated the number of facilities located on high quality waters that might request an increase in loadings when they renew their permit. Second, EPA estimated the costs of preparing an antidegradation analysis to justify the need for these facilities to increase discharges, as well as State costs to review the analysis and make a determination.

4.3.1 Potential Number of Antidegradation Requests As shown in Section 3, EPA estimated that 22 major facilities and 130 minor facilities may discharge to high quality waters. NPDES permits are issued for a period of five years, after which they must be renewed. Therefore, over any five year period, all 152 existing permit holders will renew their permits. For this analysis, EPA assumed that all current dischargers will remain active ( although some existing facilities may cease operations, new facilities may begin discharging such that the net effect on the total number of dischargers to high quality waters is unchanged).

Since the State began implementing its antidegradation review procedures, few facilities have requested an increase in discharge to a high quality water such that an antidegradation review was required. Based on the frequency of past reviews, EPA assumed that no more than 5% of facilities that discharge to high quality waters would request more than a de minimis increase in loadings when they renew their permit. The proposed rule allows for certain de minimis changes that do not constitute a " lowering" of water quality sufficient to trigger an antidegradation review. Thus, of the 152 permit renewals processed over any 5 year period, EPA assumed that approximately 8 facilities would require an antidegradation analysis. However, this is a conservative assumption with respect to estimating cost ( i. e., erring on the side of higher costs) because it implies, as a baseline, that the State is not currently implementing its antidegradation policy and implementation procedures, when in fact it is. The breakdown of potentially affected facilities by discharge category is shown in Exhibit 4 2. September 2003 4.0 Method for Estimating Costs 4   7 Exhibit 4 2. Estimated Number of Potentially Affected Facilities Number of Facilities Total Municipal Facilities ( POTWs) 1 Industrial Facilities Major Minor Major Minor Total Permitted Facilities 152 14 65 8 65 Expected Number of Antidegradation Reviews Every Five Years2 8 1 3 1 3 Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. 1. EPA included small, sanitary discharges from apartment complexes and other residential and commercial complexes in the minor POTW category because they are more similar to municipal facilities than industrial facilities. 2. Estimated as 5% of permit renewals, based on information from the State, and rounded to the nearest whole facility.

4.3.2 Antidegradation Analysis Requirements The cost impact of the proposed rule includes only the cost of performing the analyses that implement the antidegradation procedures. Entities seeking an antidegradation review will incur costs to develop financial and economic and social impact analyses, and the State will incur costs to review the analyses and make a determination.

U. S. EPA ( 1995) contains guidelines for completing the financial and economic and social impact analyses and interpreting the results. Most of the information required for these analyses is available from easily accessible sources. The socioeconomic indicators, and the information required to calculate the various ratios, are often available on the Internet or by directly contacting sources such as the U. S. Census Bureau, Standard & Poors, Moody's, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and State and local government agencies. The portion of the analysis requiring estimation of pollution control costs may be performed by the entity if a qualified staff member is available. A facility may also wish to utilize a consultant to estimate the pollution control cost and develop the financial analysis.

An antidegradation review of a proposed development that would result in a lowering of water quality must address two factors. First, the review must establish that the pollution controls necessary to maintain the high quality of a water will interfere with the proposed development. Second, the review must demonstrate that the development would be an important economic and social one.

The first factor can be addressed through an financial impact analysis. The entity proposing to increase their loadings must determine what pollution controls would be necessary to prevent lowering of water quality. Those controls must be the most appropriate and cost effective means of maintaining water quality. The entity then calculates the annual cost of the pollution controls, which includes the annualized capital cost, if any, as well as the annual operation and maintenance costs. In addition, public entities determine how these costs are passed on in annual household service fees.

The second factor requires an analysis of changes in social and economic measures that would be foregone if the proposed development that would lower water quality is not allowed. This might September 2003 4.0 Method for Estimating Costs 4   8 include estimates of foregone increases in tax revenue, employment, personal income, and property values in the affected community.

EPA assumed that the cost incurred by facilities in complying with the proposed rule is the cost of a preliminary engineering analysis and the subsequent financial analysis for which EPA provides guidance and a workbook. The engineering analysis comprises an analysis of the existing industrial processes at a facility, the treatment processes used to treat wastes generated, and the current effluent quality. The analysis must identify the least cost controls for attaining no increase in loadings, and develop approximate costs for implementing required controls. However, detailed design work is not required to develop these likely cost estimates   cost estimates based on a pre conceptual design analysis will provide sufficient information for the financial analysis. EPA assumed that this level of analysis, in conjunction with the financial impact analyses described below, could cost between 1% and 3% of the installed cost of additional pollution controls.

To estimate the potential analytical costs, EPA first calculated the average capital costs to facilities it identified as requiring additional controls in economic analyses of recent water quality standards actions, including establishing criteria for toxic pollutants and upgrading receiving water use classifications in the States of Alabama, Iowa, California, and Idaho ( U. S. EPA, 2001a; 2001b; 1999; and 1997). EPA's estimates of capital costs for these facilities average $ 1 million for major POTWs, $ 230,000 for minor POTWs, $ 2.4 million for major industrial facilities, and $ 1 million for minor industrial facilities. Thus, preliminary engineering analysis and financial analysis costs could range between $ 10,000 and $ 72,000 for major facilities, and between $ 2,300 and $ 30,000 for minor facilities ( see Exhibit 4 3).

Exhibit 4 3. Estimated Cost per Facility to Prepare Antidegradation Review Cost Municipal Facilities ( POTWs) Industrial Facilities Major Minor Major Minor Installed Controls1 $ 1,000,000 $ 230,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 1,000,000 Low Estimate of Review Cost ( 1% of Installed Capital Cost) $ 10,000 $ 2,300 $ 24,000 $ 10,000 High Estimate of Review Cost ( 3% of Installed Capital Cost) $ 30,000 $ 6,900 $ 72,000 $ 30,000 1. Average capital costs to facilities that EPA identified as requiring additional pollution controls in analyses of recent water quality standards actions, including establishing criteria for toxic pollutants and upgrading receiving water use classifications, in the States of Alabama, Iowa, California, and Idaho ( U. S. EPA, 2001a; 2001b; 1999; 1997).

<IP_ADDRESS> Financial Analysis Once the entity has estimated its potential pollution control costs, a financial analysis then indicates whether or not these costs would result in a substantial financial impact. The required financial analysis is different for public sector and private sector facilities.

Public Sector September 2003 4.0 Method for Estimating Costs 4   9 Public sector facilities perform a preliminary analysis in which they calculate a Municipal Preliminary Screener ( MPS) value:

MPS = Average Total Pollution Control Cost per Household/ Median Household Income.

The average total pollution control cost per household is the sum of the existing costs ( i. e., current sewer rates) plus those attributable to the proposed pollution control. The value of the MPS is evaluated against thresholds of 1% and 2%, and in conjunction with the secondary test, described below. If the MPS is less than 1%, then the control requirements are not expected to have a substantial financial impact on households or interfere with economic development unless the secondary test indicates a fairly weak economy. MPS values above 2% are an indicator that the impact could be substantial, and values in between are indeterminate, placing greater emphasis on the health of the local economy.

The secondary analysis provides an indication of a community's socioeconomic health and its ability to obtain financing. Specific indicators are used to demonstrate the debt, socioeconomic, and financial management conditions within the community:

° Debt indicators  bond rating  a measure, if available, of the credit worthiness of the community  overall net debt as a percent of full market value of taxable property  a measure of debt burden on residents within the community ° Socioeconomic indicators  unemployment rate  a measure of the general economic health of the community  median household income  a measure of the wealth of the community ° Financial management indicators  property tax revenue as a percent of full market value of taxable property  a measure of the funding capacity available to support debt based on the wealth of the community  property tax collection rate  a measure of how well the local government is administered.

In the analysis, each indicator is assigned a score from 1 to 3. Indicator values judged to be weak receive a score of 1, a score of 2 is for indicators judged to be midrange, and 3 is for strong indicators. The workbook in U. S. EPA ( 1995) provides guidelines for assigning values to each indicator based on comparisons to established values, or to national and state indicator values. The scores are totaled and divided by six to obtain a mean score, which is used to indicate overall conditions within the affected community. An average of less than 1.5 is termed weak, 1.5 to 2.5 is termed midrange, and greater than 2.5 is termed strong.

A joint consideration of the secondary test score and the MPS is used to determine whether implementing pollution controls would have a substantial financial impact. If the results indicate that pollution controls would have adverse financial impacts on the community and, therefore, interfere with the proposed development, then the entity must also show that the development would be of economic and social importance to the community. September 2003 4.0 Method for Estimating Costs 4   10 Private Sector Primary and secondary tests are also performed for private sector entities. The primary measure of impact for private sector entities is the estimated decline in the profit ratio [ measured as pre tax earnings ( revenues minus costs) divided by revenues] expected as a result of incurring the pollution control expenditures. However, unlike the financial analysis for public sector entities, there is no established standard by which to categorize the potential loss of profits as significant or insignificant. Instead, the profit ratios with and without pollution controls can be compared with industry wide profit ratios to evaluate the relative strength of the entity and how incremental pollution control costs might affect its financial strength. However, if the discharger was already in financial trouble ( i. e., not profitable or profit far below industry norms), it may not claim that substantial financial impacts are caused by compliance with water quality standards ( U. S. EPA, 1995).

Three secondary measures are utilized to further define the financial impact of the pollution control project. The recommended liquidity measure indicates how easily an entity can pay its short term expenses, and is measured using the current ratio:

Current Ratio = Current Assets/ Current Liabilities.

An entity is considered liquid if its current ratio is greater than 2. Ratio values less than 2 indicate potential liquidity problems. However, the ratio value should be compared with industry averages as well as this rule of thumb value.

Solvency is a measure of how easily an entity can pay its fixed and long term liabilities. Although there are various solvency ratios, the recommended one is the Beaver's Ratio ( U. S. EPA, 1995), which is an indicator of bankruptcy:

Beaver's Ratio = Cash Flow/ Total Liabilities.

An entity is considered solvent if its Beaver's Ratio is greater than 0.20. A ratio of less than 0.15 indicates insolvency and a high bankruptcy risk. A ratio between 0.15 and 0.20 is indeterminate, but indicates some bankruptcy risk.

An additional solvency or leverage ratio, the debt to equity ratio, provides insight into how much debt is held relative to equity, whether additional debt can be obtained, and whether existing debt can be paid. The term leverage refers to the use of debt to leverage equity to acquire more assets and hopefully provide a bigger return on equity. One of the various forms of the debt to equity ratio is:

Debt to Equity Ratio = Long term Liabilities/ Owner's Equity.

The ratio value should be compared to similar businesses in the region or industry averages to determine whether the entity's degree of leverage is typical or whether it is highly leveraged, which indicates an increased risk of business failure as well as a higher difficulty in borrowing to finance incremental control costs. September 2003 4.0 Method for Estimating Costs 4   11 If these financial tests indicate that pollution controls would have adverse financial impacts on the business entity and, therefore, interfere with the proposed development, then an entity must also show that the development would be of economic and social importance to the community.

<IP_ADDRESS> Determination of Importance This part of the analysis also proceeds differently for public and private sector entities. In both cases, the entity must first identify the relevant geographical area. For public sector entities, this is usually the municipality served by the entity. For private sector entities, it is typically the area in which most of the affected workers live and where dependent businesses are located. However, the workbook only provides guidelines; it does not provide a quantitative means for making a determination of importance for either public or private sector entities.

Public Sector U. S. EPA ( 1995) suggests using the following socioeconomic indicators to determine whether or not the development would be important to the affected community. Each indicator is analyzed as to how it would change due to the proposed development:

 median household income  community unemployment rate  overall net debt as a percentage of full market value of taxable property  percent of households below the poverty line  impact on community development potential  impact on property values.

Private Sector U. S. EPA ( 1995) suggests using the level of employment that would be gained, as well as any potential decrease in the need for social services such as unemployment insurance claims or subsidized housing due to the development, as indicators of importance. Other factors to consider include potential impacts on local tax revenues and service fees that might help improve the level of services throughout the area.

<IP_ADDRESS> State Review Costs for the proposed antidegradation provision will include the cost of the State review. EPA assumed that the State's review of the engineering cost analysis and financial impact analysis could require up to 24 hours. The review process includes validating source data and checking calculations, as well as evaluating the engineering design and the conclusions regarding potential financial and community impacts. The State will also need to evaluate the information provided regarding the importance of the proposed development to the economic and social conditions of the affected community. The proposed rule also recommends a notification and public comment period. Based on time estimates to review and respond to comments on an individual permit issue to a single concentrated animal feeding operation ( U. S. EPA, 2002a), EPA assumed that, on September 2003 4.0 Method for Estimating Costs 4   12 average, the notification and response to comments activities will require an average of 100 hours. Thus, the total time requirement to process each request is 124 hours.

EPA assumed a national average hourly compensation rate of $ 42.24 to estimate the cost of State activities ( BLS, 2003). This rate is for State and local government workers in professional speciality and technical occupations ( for first quarter of 2003). The hour requirement and compensation rate estimates result in an average cost of $ 5,200 per review. September 2003 5.0 Results 5   1 5.0 Results This section presents the results of the analysis, and describes the limitations and uncertainties associated with these results.

5.1 Temperature Criteria and Uses Exhibit 5 1 provides a summary of the number of potentially affected facilities and the estimated potential costs associated with the temperature provisions of the proposed rule. Appendix A provides detailed analyses for each of the sample facilities. ( A data appendix, provided under separate cover, contains underlying data for the facility analyses.) Appendix B shows the extrapolation of costs for minor dischargers.

Exhibit 5 1. Estimated Potential Statewide Costs Attributable to the Temperature Provision of the Proposed Rule ($ 2003) 1 Category Facilities Evaluated ( Total Affected) Annual Capital Annual O& M Total Annual Costs Major Municipal 3 ( 3) $ 0 $ 5,190 $ 5,190 Major Industrial 1 ( 1) $ 421,500 $ 34,260 $ 74,050 Minor Dischargers2 5 ( 44) $ 0 $ 119,680 $ 119,680 Total 8 ( 48) $ 421,500 $ 159,130 $ 198,920 1. Annual costs represent total potential costs for all facilities affected by the proposed rule. Total annual costs are the sum of annual capital costs ( i. e., total capital costs that have been annualized at 7% over 20 years) and annual O& M expenditures. 2. Costs for evaluated facilities extrapolated to all affected potentially facilities.

5.2 IGDO Criteria Potential costs associated with meeting the revised minimum IGDO standard of 8 mg/ L are zero.

5.3 Antidegradation Procedures Multiplying the potential number of affected facilities from Exhibit 4 2 with the estimated perfacility analysis costs ( Exhibit 4 3) provides estimates of the potential costs of the antidegradation provision to dischargers in the State ( Exhibit 5 2). Over a 5 year period, the cost estimates range from $ 70,900 to $ 212,700. The average annual cost is one fifth of the 5 year estimates, or $ 14,180 to $ 42,540.

The State cost to review 8 antidegradation requests over five years is $ 41,600, based on EPA's estimate of an average of $ 5,200 per review. The average annual cost is one fifth this amount, or $ 8,320. The total annual cost for the antidegradation provision in the proposed rule equals the sum of the entity costs ( ranging from $ 14,180 to $ 42,540) and State review costs ($ 8,320). Thus, potential total annual cost ranges from $ 22,500 to $ 50,860. September 2003 5.0 Results 5   2 Exhibit 5 2. Estimated Potential Facility Costs Attributable to the Antidegradation Provision of the Proposed Rule ($ 2003/ yr)

Facility Type Low Estimate High Estimate Major Minor Major Minor Municipal ( POTWs) 1,2 $ 10,000 $ 6,900 $ 30,000 $ 20,700 Industrial2 $ 24,000 $ 30,000 $ 72,000 $ 90,000 Subtotal $ 34,000 $ 36,900 $ 102,000 $ 110,700 Total Every 5 Years $ 70,900 $ 212,700 Average Annual Cost3 $ 14,180 $ 42,540 1. EPA included small, sanitary discharges from apartment complexes and other residential and commercial complexes in the minor POTW category because they are more similar to municipal facilities than industrial facilities. 2. The cost estimates are based on number of facilities estimated to require antidegradation reviews over a 5 year period. 3. Average annual costs equal one fifth of the 5 year costs.

5.4 Total Statewide Costs EPA's total potential Statewide cost of the proposed rule is approximately $ 216,230 to $ 244,590 per year ( Exhibit 5 3).

Exhibit 5 3. Estimated Potential Annual Statewide Costs Attributable to the Proposed Rule ($ 2003/ yr)

Provision Estimated Annual Cost Temperature Uses and Criteria1 $ 198,920 IGDO Criteria $ 0 Antidegradation Procedures2 $ 22,500  $ 50,860 Total $ 221,420  $ 249,780 1. Costs are annualized at 7% over 20 years. 2. Costs equal one fifth of cost estimates ( to discharger and State) calculated for a five year period.

EPA's estimate is subject to a number of limitations associated with the data available for the analysis. These uncertainties are described in Exhibit 5 4. September 2003 5.0 Results 5   3 Exhibit 5 4. Limitations of the Analysis Limitation/ Assumption Potential Impact on Costs Comment EPA did not consider cost savings where the proposed uses and criteria are less stringent than the current State uses and criteria ( e. g., EPA temperature criterion for bull trout protection is 12

C and the current State criterion is 10

C).

Facilities may be allowed to discharge at higher temperatures under the proposed uses and criteria than under current State uses and criteria, and may therefore incur cost savings associated with fewer controls.

EPA did not consider cost savings where the proposed implementation procedures are less stringent than the current State implementation procedures ( e. g., EPA allows a discharger to increase the downstream temperature by 0.3

C and the current State procedures only allow 0.14

C).

Facilities may be allowed to discharge at higher temperatures under the proposed implementation procedures than under current State implementation procedures, and, may therefore incur cost savings associated with fewer controls.

Receiving water data may not be representative of current stream conditions. ? Monitoring stations may be several miles upstream of the discharge before confluences with major tributaries. STORET data are only as recent as 1998.

The average annual requests for antidegradation review may be higher or lower than EPA's estimate. ? EPA based its estimate of the annual reviews on the frequency of requests among dischargers in Oregon over a limited time period. More frequent requests in the future could result in higher annual costs; less frequent requests could result in lower costs.

The State effort for antidegradation review is based on an estimate of the average amount of time to process an individual permit, which may over or understate the average review hours. ? EPA used an hour estimate from a final NPDES rule for CAFOs. The average amount of time required to documentation submitted for an antidegradation review may be higher or lower.

Key: + = Costs are potentially overstated ? = Affect on costs is unknown. September 2003 6.0 References 6   1 6.0 References Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS). 2003. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. http:// data. bls. gov/ servlet/ SurveyOutputServlet? jrunsessionid= 1061853963147268772, accessed 8/ 25/ 03.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ( ODEQ). 2001. Temperature Management Plans: Internal Directive for Existing Point Source Dischargers.

R. S. Means. 2001. Cost Works Building Construction Cost Data.

U. S. EPA. 2002a. Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Request for the Final Regulatory Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Feedlot Effluent Limitations Guidelines. Washington, D. C.: U. S. EPA, Office of Water.

U. S. EPA. 2002b. Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. Office of Water, EPA 821 R 02 003.

U. S. EPA. 2001a. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama. Washington, D. C.: U. S. EPA, Office of Water.

U. S. EPA. 2001b. Economic Analysis of the Revised Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Iowa. Washington, D. C.: U. S. EPA, Office of Water.

U. S. EPA. 1999. Economic Analysis of the California Toxics Rule. Washington, D. C.: U. S. EPA, Office of Science and Technology.

U. S. EPA. 1997. Economic Analysis of the Final Water Quality Standards for Idaho. Washington, D. C.: U. S. EPA, Office of Science and Technology.

U. S. EPA. 1995. Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards, Workbook. Office of Water, EPA 823 B 95 002.

U. S. EPA. 1986. Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen ( Freshwater). Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. EPA 440/ 5 86 003. Appendix A: Facility Analyses Glide Idleyld Park ( Douglas County Public Works) Government Camp Sanitary District Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility Oakridge Sewage Treatment Plant Shady Cove Sewage Treatment Plant Siletz Sewage Treatment Plant Stayton Wastewater Treatment Plant Sweet Home Wastewater Treatment Plant Weyerhaeuser Company September 2003 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A   1 Glide Idleyld Park ( Douglas County Public Works)

Facility Description Glide Idleyld Park ( NPDES No. OR0030261) is located in Glide, Oregon. The facility is owned and operated by the Douglas County Public Works Department. The facility was built in 1980 and treats domestic wastewater and septic tank effluent from about 500 households from Glide and Idleyld Park. EPA classifies the discharge as a minor discharge. The facility has an average dry weather design flow of 0.28 mgd, and discharges to the North Umpqua River at river mile 29 in the Umpqua basin.

Treatment Processes The facility's 2000 permit evaluation sheet indicates that current treatment processes consist of two parallel oxidation ditches with clarification, aerobic digestion, sedimentation, filtration, and gas chlorination.

Applicable Designated Uses and Criteria The North Umpqua River is currently designated for salmonid spawning from September 15 to May 31 and salmonid rearing the remainder of the year. EPA revised the time period for which the salmonid spawning criterion apply to September 1 to May 15, and the salmonid rearing criteria to 16

C ( from 17.8

C) for core juvenile rearing. The rearing criterion applies as a summer maximum. Exhibit A 1 summarizes the applicable criterion and designated uses.

Exhibit A 1. Designated Use and Applicable Criteria, Glide Idleyld Park Designated Use Parameters Affected Current Oregon Criteria EPA Proposed Criteria Salmonid Spawning Temperature 12.8

C, Sep 15  May 31 13

C, Sep 1  May 15 Salmonid Rearing Temperature 17.8

C Core juvenile rearing: 16 ° C Summary of Effluent Data and Limits There are no effluent temperature data available for this facility. The facility does not have a limit for temperature in their 2000 permit. However, the North Umpqua River at river mile 29.0 is currently listed on the State's 303( d) list for salmonid rearing during the summer.

Summary of Receiving Water Data There is no receiving water monitoring station with recent ( e. g., data from 1990 or later) and sufficient temperature data available. 3EPA's proposed implementation procedures would result in a dilution ratio of 365: 1. Given the high dilution allowed, the facility is not likely to cause an increase of greater than 0.14

C above the applicable criterion.

September 2003 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A   2 Controls Needed No effluent data exist for this facility. However in 1997, ODEQ evaluated the impact of the effluent on the receiving water and determined that because of the high dilution ratio ( 1452: 1 under current implementation procedures), the effluent was not contributing to a measurable temperature increase instream. 3 Therefore, the facility would not likely incur costs associated with this rule. September 2003 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A   3 Government Camp Sanitary District Facility Description Government Camp Sanitary District ( NPDES No. OR0027791) is located in Clackamas County in Oregon. In 2000, the facility expanded by moving to a new site and constructing a new sequencing batch reactor ( SBR) plant with ultraviolet ( UV) disinfection. The facility has an annual average daily flow of 0.104 mgd and treats domestic wastewater for a population of 753 residents in Government Camp. EPA classifies the discharge as a minor discharge. The facility intermittently discharges treated wastewater ( for 15 30 minutes about 10 times per day) to Camp Creek at river mile 6.0 in the Sandy basin.

Treatment Processes The facility's 2002 permit renewal application indicates that current treatment processes consist of screens, sequencing batch reactors, aerobic digestion, equalization, and UV disinfection. Sludge is sent to a lime stabilization tank and is then land applied.

Applicable Designated Uses and Criteria Camp Creek is currently designated for salmonid rearing all year round. EPA revised the salmonid rearing criteria to 16

C ( from 17.8

C) for core juvenile rearing. The rearing criterion applies as a summer maximum. Exhibit A 2 summarizes the applicable criterion and designated uses.

Exhibit A 2. Designated Use and Applicable Criteria, Government Camp Designated Use Parameters Affected Current Oregon Criteria EPA Proposed Criteria Salmonid Rearing Temperature 17.8

C Core juvenile rearing: 16 ° C Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit A 3 shows maximum 7 day moving averages of effluent temperature for the facility for each month from July 2000 through June 2003 ( in months where data are available). The exhibit also shows the average of the maximum monthly temperatures. The underlying daily temperatures are provided in a separate data appendix.

Exhibit A 3. Maximum Average Effluent Temperatures, Government Camp (

C) 1 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2000 na na na na na na 15.9 16.1 15.1 13.4 11.0 na 2001 9.6 9.0 9.0 8.6 13.0 15.1 17.1 18.4 18.6 17.1 10.6 10.0 2002 9.6 8.0 9.7 9.1 8.9 13.7 18.0 na 15.7 13.0 10.0 9.0 2003 9.0 9.3 8.9 8.1 11.9 14.5 na na na na na na Exhibit A 3. Maximum Average Effluent Temperatures, Government Camp (

C) 1 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec September 2003 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A   4 Average2 9.4 8.8 9.2 8.6 11.2 14.5 17.0 17.3 16.5 14.5 10.5 9.5 Source: Government Camp Discharge Monitoring Reports, 2000 2003. na = data not available. 1. Maximum 7 day moving averages for each month. 2. Average of maximum 7 day moving averages for each month where data are available.

Summary of Receiving Water Data The only applicable receiving water monitoring station with recent ( e. g., data from 1990 or later) and sufficient temperature data is located just upstream of the facility's discharge, at Station No. 26424. Exhibit A 4 summarizes the maximum of the 7 day moving averages for temperature recorded at that monitoring station for June 2001 through September 2001. The underlying daily data are provided in a separate data appendix.

Exhibit A 4. Maximum Average Temperatures Upstream of Government Camp at Station No. 26424, June September 2001 (

C)

Pollutant Maximum 7 Day Moving Averages Jun Jul Aug Sep Temperature 9.4 9.8 9.9 9.1 Source: ODEQ ( 2003).

Controls Needed Exhibit A 4 indicates that the stream temperature is currently below the proposed core rearing criteria. Therefore given the low flow of the discharge ( 0.1 mgd) in relation to the flow of the stream ( 3.7 mgd), it is unlikely that the facility would cause a temperature increase of greater than 0.14

C above the summer maximum criterion of 16

C. September 2003 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A   5 Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility Facility Description The City of Medford Wastewater Treatment Plant ( NPDES No. OR0026263) is located in Central Point, Oregon. The existing treatment plant was initially constructed in 1970, and has been expanded several times since 1980. The facility's average dry weather design flow is 20 mgd. The facility treats wastewater from Medford, Central Point, Jacksonville, Talent, Phoenix, Eagle Point, the White City Sanitary District, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary District, and some unincorporated areas of Jackson County, and also accepts leachate from the Dry Creek Landfill. EPA classifies the discharge as a major discharge. The facility discharges to the Rogue River at river mile 130.5 through a multiport diffuser.

Treatment Processes The facility's 1997 permit evaluation report indicates that current treatment processes consist of headworks, grit removal, primary treatment, trickling filtration/ activated sludge secondary treatment, secondary clarification, chorine disinfection, and dechlorination. Solids are dewatered with a gravity belt thickener and anaerobically digested. Sludge is then dried in storage lagoons and drying beds before being land applied.

Applicable Uses and Criteria The Rogue River at river mile 130.5 is currently designated for salmonid rearing all year round. EPA revised the salmonid rearing criteria to 16

C ( from 17.8

C) for core juvenile rearing. The rearing criterion applies as a summer maximum. ( Note that the Rogue River is also designated for salmonid spawning, however, the time period that EPA has designated is less stringent than the current spawning time period.) Exhibit A 5 summarizes the applicable criterion and designated uses.

Exhibit A 5. Designated Use and Applicable Criteria, Medford RWRF Designated Use Parameters Affected Current Oregon Criteria EPA Proposed Criteria Salmonid Rearing Temperature 17.8

C Core juvenile rearing: 16 ° C Summary of Effluent Data Effluent temperature data are not available from EPA's PCS database. However, the facility's temperature management plan ( TMP) provides a summary of the maximum of the 7 day moving averages of maximum daily temperature recordings for each year from 1996 to 1999 ( Exhibit A 6). September 2003 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A   6 Exhibit A 6. Maximum Average Effluent Temperatures, Medford RWRF (

C)

Year 7 Day Moving Average Temperatures Maximum Yearly Week of Maximum Yearly 1996 24.2 7/ 25  7/ 31 1997 24.2 8/ 1  8/ 6 and 8/ 12  8/ 18 1998 23.9 8/ 30  9/ 5 1999 23.6 8/ 23  8/ 29 Source: West Yost and Associates ( 2001).

Summary of Receiving Water Data Recent ( e. g., data from 1990 or later) and sufficient temperature data from upstream of the discharge are available from the facility's TMP. The monitoring station is located 200 feet upstream of the outfall on the south side of the river. Exhibit A 7 summarizes the maximum of the 7 day moving average of the daily maximum temperature for each year from 1996 to 2000.

Exhibit A 7. Maximum Average Temperatures 200 ft. Upstream of Medford RWRF Discharge (

C)

Year 7 Day Moving Average Temperatures Maximum Yearly Week of Maximum Yearly 1996 18.3 7/ 21  7/ 27 1997 19.3 8/ 3  8/ 9 and 8/ 12  8/ 18 1999 18.6 8/ 16  8/ 22 2000 20.2 7/ 22  7/ 28 Source: West Yost and Associates ( 2001).

Controls Needed Oregon's current WQS prohibit any receiving water temperature increase greater than 0.14

C above the applicable criterion. Exhibit A 8 summarizes how the effluent is most likely affecting stream temperature compared to the current criteria and the proposed criteria.

Exhibit A 8 indicates that the facility's current discharge would contribute to an instream temperature exceedance of greater than 0.14

C above current or revised criteria. To meet the current State criterion for rearing, the facility would have to decrease its average maximum 7 day moving average effluent temperature during the summer to 19.9

C ( about a 4

C reduction). An additional 2.8

C decrease in temperature ( an effluent temperature of 17.1

C) would be necessary to meet the revised rearing criterion. September 2003 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A   7 Exhibit A 8. Effect of Effluent on Receiving Water, Medford RWRF Parameter Current Criterion EPA Proposed Criterion 7Q10 Stream Flow ( cfs) 846 846 Stream Temperature/ Criterion (

C) 17.8 16.0 Effluent Flow ( cfs) 30.9 30.9 Effluent Temperature (

C) 1 24.0 24.0 Dilution Ratio 13.9: 12 6.8: 13 Temperature at Edge of Mixing Zone (

C) 18.22 17.03 Increase above Applicable Criterion (

C) 0.42 1.03 Effluent Temperature Needed for Compliance with Applicable Criterion (

C) 19.9 17.1 Reduction in Current Effluent Temperature Necessary (

C) 4.1 6.9 cfs = cubic feet per second 1. Average of maximum 7 day moving average temperatures in Exhibit A 6. 2. Dilution at edge of RMZ. From facility's TMP, calculated using Cormix modeling ( West Yost and Associates, 2001). 3. Dilution at edge of RMZ. Calculated using 25% of 7Q10 flow.

Under current State WQS the facility was required to develop a TMP that outlines the measures it will take to reduce the thermal load to the Rogue River. The facility has developed two alternatives for reducing effluent temperatures to the necessary levels:

° Alternative 1  effluent reuse for irrigation of most agricultural crops except food crops, processed food crops, and orchards and vineyards during the dry weather season ° Alternative 2  effluent cooling through installation of cooling towers and chillers.

The facility recommends the implementation of the reuse alternative as the lowest cost option for meeting the current State core rearing criterion. Implementing this option would also enable compliance with EPA's proposed core rearing criterion. Therefore, the facility would not likely incur costs associated with this rule because controls implemented to meet the current State criterion will also achieve EPA's revised criterion. September 2003 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A   8 Oakridge Sewage Treatment Plant Facility Description The Oakridge Sewage Treatment Plant ( NPDES No. OR0022314) is located in Lane County, Oregon. The facility was originally constructed in 1968, and upgraded from an activated sludge plant with chlorination to a sequencing batch reactor with ultraviolet disinfection in 1994. The facility has an average dry weather flow of 0.47 mgd and treats wastewater from the City of Oakridge, mainly west of Jones Road and south of the Southern Pacific Railroad. EPA classifies this discharge as a minor discharge. The facility discharges to the Middle Fork Willamette River at river mile 39.8. At this location, the river segment is not currently water quality limited for any parameter.

Treatment Processes The facility's 2001 permit evaluation report indicates that current treatment processes consist of screens, activated sludge sequencing batch reactors, aeration, settling, and ultraviolet disinfection. Sludge is treated in an aerobic digestion system and a lined sludge holding lagoon before being land applied on forested United States Forest Service land adjacent to the treatment plant.

Applicable Uses and Criteria The Middle Fork Willamette River is currently designated for salmonid spawning from October 1 to May 31 and salmonid rearing the remainder of the year. EPA revised the time period for which the salmonid spawning criterion apply to September 15 to May 15, and the salmonid rearing criteria to 16

C ( from 17.8

C) for core juvenile rearing. The rearing criterion applies as a summer maximum. Exhibit A 9 summarizes the applicable criterion and designated uses.

Exhibit A 9. Designated Use and Applicable Criteria, Oakridge STP Designated Use Parameters Affected Current Oregon Criteria EPA Proposed Criteria Salmonid Spawning Temperature 12.8

C, Oct 1  May 31 13

C, Sep 15  May 15 Salmonid Rearing Temperature 17.8

C Core juvenile rearing: 16 ° C Summary of Effluent Data Exhibit A 10 shows the maximum monthly effluent temperature for the facility from October 2000 through March 2003. The exhibit also shows the average of the maximum monthly temperatures. The complete daily temperature data are provided in a separate data appendix.

Exhibit A 10. Maximum Monthly Effluent Temperatures, Oakridge STP (

C)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2000 na na na na na na na na na 18.4 16.1 13.3 2001 12.1 12.6 12.9 13.3 16.7 19.5 19.7 20.7 20.1 18.4 18.4 14.1 Exhibit A 10. Maximum Monthly Effluent Temperatures, Oakridge STP (

C)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec September 2003 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A   9 2002 12.8 12.1 12.4 14.5 17.0 20.0 20.7 19.9 20.1 18.1 15.8 14.2 2003 12.9 13.0 13.4 na na na na na na na na na Average1 12.6 12.6 12.9 13.9 16.9 19.8 20.2 20.3 20.1 18.3 16.8 13.9 Source: ODEQ ( 2003). na = not available. 1. Average of maximum monthly values.

Summary of Receiving Water Data There is no receiving water monitoring station with recent ( e. g., data from 1990 or later) and sufficient temperature data available. The Middle Fork Willamette is not on the State's 303( d) at river mile 39.8, however, segments upstream and downstream are on the 303( d) list for temperature. Therefore, since it is likely that the receiving steam segment would be on the State's 303( d) list for temperature if recent data were available, EPA assumed that the stream is exceeding the State's rearing and spawning criteria.

Controls Needed Oregon's current WQS prohibit any receiving water temperature increase greater than 0.14

C above the applicable criterion in waters that exceed the criterion. Exhibit A 11 summarizes how the effluent is most likely affecting stream temperature compared to the current criteria and the proposed criteria.

Exhibit A 11. Effect of Effluent on Receiving Water, Oakridge STP Parameter Current Oregon Criteria EPA Proposed Criteria Rearing ( Jul/ Aug) Spawning ( Oct 1 May 31) Rearing ( Jul/ Aug) Spawning ( Sep 15 May 15)

Stream Temperature/ Criterion (

C) 17.8 12.8 16.0 13.0 Effluent Temperature (

C) 20.3 18.3 20.3 20.01 Dilution Ratio2 10: 1 10: 1 10: 1 10: 1 Temperature at Edge of Mixing Zone (

C) 18.03 13.3 16.39 13.64 Increase above Applicable Criterion (

C) 0.23 0.50 0.39 0.64 Effluent Temperature Needed for Compliance with Applicable Criterion (

C) 19.3 14.3 17.5 14.5 Reduction in Current Effluent Temperature Necessary (

C) 1.0 4.0 2.8 5.5 1. Represents average of maximum recorded temperatures for September 15, 2001  May 15, 2002 and September 15, 2002  May 15, 2003. 2. Dilution at edge of RMZ. Dilution calculated using Cormix modeling ( ODEQ, 1998a). September 2003 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A   10 Exhibit A 11 indicates that the facility's current discharge would contribute to an instream temperature exceedance of greater than 0.14

C above current or revised criteria. To meet the current State criterion for rearing, the facility would have to decrease their average maximum effluent temperature during the summer to 19.3

C ( about 1

C). An additional 1.8

C decrease in temperature ( an effluent temperature of 17.5

C) would be necessary to meet EPA's proposed rearing criterion. For compliance with the State spawning criterion, the facility would have to reduce their average maximum effluent temperature from October to May to 14.3

C ( about 4

C). For compliance with EPA's proposed spawning criterion, the facility would need to reduce its effluent another 1.5

C from September 15 to October 1 ( an additional two week period).

The facility does not currently have a temperature management plan ( TMP). Under current State WQS, the facility would be required to develop a TMP because it has been shown that the discharge is contributing to an exceedance of the current criteria. Based on TMPs from similar facilities, the facility would most likely pursue low cost options first. EPA assumed that the facility would most likely pursue process optimization or a waste minimization program to reduce temperatures to meet the current rearing criterion ( since only a 1

C decrease is necessary). To meet the current spawning criterion, EPA assumed that the facility would use a combination of land application/ water reuse and discharge in October, November, and May. Based on current effluent temperatures and available dilution, EPA calculated that the facility could discharge to the receiving water up to 0.12 mgd in October and 0.17 mgd in November and May, with the remaining discharge ( about 0.35 mgd in October and 0.30 mgd in November and May) being land applied or reused by another facility ( e. g., industrial facility, park, farm). These measures would also reduce effluent temperatures to the levels necessary for compliance with the revised criterion. However the facility would incur incremental costs of extending such treatment options to a greater flow ( for the greater temperature reduction in September for spawning) or a longer time period ( change in spawning time period and addition of June, July, and August rearing months).

Exhibit A 12 summarizes the control costs associated with reducing effluent temperatures to the required levels. EPA assumed that the facility would land apply or reuse the portion of the effluent it could not discharge. The costs represent the incremental costs necessary for land application or effluent reuse for June, July, August, and the second half of September.

Exhibit A 12. Summary of Compliance Costs ($ 2003), Oakridge STP Control Total Capital Annual O& M Total Annual Incremental Land Application/ Water Reuse  $ 13,6001 $ 13,600 Source: R. S. Means ( 2001). 1. Represents costs to monitor and maintain the system for an additional 3.5 months. September 2003 Appendix A. Facility Analyses A   11 Shady Cove Sewage Treatment Plant Facility Description The Shady Cove Sewage Treatment Plant ( NPDES No. OR0030660) is located in Jackson County, Oregon. The activated sludge facility began operation in 1980, and has not been expanded or upgraded recently. The facility treats domestic wastewater from residential and commercial facilities in the City of Shady Cove. Two homes from outside the city limits are also connected to the sewer system due to failed septic systems. EPA classifies the discharge as a minor discharge. The facility has an average dry weather design flow of 0.45 mgd, and discharges to the Rogue River at river mile 143.1 in the Rogue basin.

Treatment Processes The facility's 1997 permit evaluation report indicates that current treatment processes consist of preliminary screening, aeration, secondary clarification, sand filtration, and chlorination. Waste secondary sludge is aerobically digested and dewatered by a vertical screw thickener. The thickened sludge is then sent to a paved and covered drying bed. Dried biosolids that meet vector attraction and pathogen reduction requirements are land applied at selected sites in Jackson County.

Applicable Designated Uses and Criteria River mile 143.1 of the Rogue River is currently designated for salmonid spawning from October 1 to May 31 and for salmonid rearing the remainder of the year. EPA revised the time period for which the salmonid spawning criterion apply to September 15 to June 15, and the salmonid rearing criteria to 16

C ( from 17.8

C) for core juvenile rearing. The rearing criterion applies as a summer maximum. Exhibit A 13 summarizes the applicable criterion and designated uses.