Bradley, Patrick, Bradley

Bradley, Patrick

Pat Bradley is a Clean Water Act Specialist with Michael Baker International a leading provider of engineering and consulting services, including design, planning, architectural, environmental, construction and program management. Pat has over 35 years of experience managing water quality related programs and previously worked for City of Richmond, VA Department of Public Utilities, LimnoTech, USEPA and the Department of the Navy. Pat has a BS in Biology from the State University College at Plattsburgh, NY and a MS in Biology from the University of Texas at Arlington.

Titles from this speaker

Alternate: The Clean Water Act, Water Quality, Water Quantity and Stormwater

Abstract

Climate change has been a subject of intense discussion for many years, and the effect on wet-weather events is of particular interest. EPA notes that in the U.S., nine of the top 10 years for extreme one-day precipitation events have occurred since 1996, and the occurrence of abnormally high annual precipitation totals has also increased. (https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heavy-precipitation). This is clearly an issue of water quantity and not quality. It is important to note that wet weather discharges result from many different activities: runoff from municipal surfaces, industrial sources and also from development activities. It is also important to note that wet weather discharges are often cited as a cause of (or contribution to) water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. Non-agricultural wet weather discharges are point sources and require permits to discharge. Flow is generally not regulated in permits and not considered when these water quality assessments are made. This may be due to the fact that flow is not considered to be a pollutant. Flow as a pollutant was at the center of the litigation related to the total maximum daily load (TMDL) for Accotink Creek in Virginia (see 2013 ruling Virginia Dep't of Transp. v. U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency). The court stated, 'The language of 1313(d)(1)(C) is clear. EPA is authorized to set TMDLs to regulate pollutants, and pollutants are carefully defined. Stormwater runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it via TMDL. Claiming that the stormwater maximum load is a surrogate for sediment, which is a pollutant and therefore regulable, does not bring stormwater within the ambit of EPA's TMDL authority. Whatever reason EPA has for thinking that a stormwater flow rate TMDL is a better way of limiting sediment load than a sediment load TMDL, EPA cannot be allowed to exceed its clearly limited statutory authority'. In a regulatory context, it seems clear that water quantity and water quality will be addressed differently given the fact the Clean Water Act in the context of TMDLs and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits focuses on regulating pollutants and flow (quantity) is not a pollutant. This seems clear based upon the Accotink decision however there are differing views. US EPA Region 1 in the 2021 Fact Sheet and Supplemental information for the draft NPDES General Permit for Small Wastewater Treatment Plants in Massachusetts and New Hampshire (MAG580000 and NHG580000) states, '2.3 Effluent Flow Requirements Sewage treatment plant discharge is encompassed within the definition of 'pollutant' and is subject to regulation under the CWA. The CWA defines 'pollutant' to mean, inter alia, 'municipal...waste' and 'sewage discharged into water.' 33 U.S.C. 1362(6). Generally, EPA uses effluent flow both to determine whether an NPDES permit needs certain effluent limitations and to calculate the limitations themselves. EPA practice is to use effluent flow as a reasonable and important worst-case condition in EPA's reasonable potential and WQBEL calculations to ensure compliance with WQSs under 301(b)(1)(C). . . . Regulating the quantity of pollutants in the discharge through a restriction on the quantity of wastewater effluent is consistent with the overall structure and purposes of the CWA'. The Fact Sheet also notes, 'EPA's regulations regarding 'reasonable potential' require EPA to consider 'where appropriate, the dilution of the effluent in the receiving water,' id 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(ii). Both the effluent flow and receiving water flow may be considered when assessing reasonable potential. In re Upper Blackstone Water Pollution Abatement Dist., 14 E.A.D. 577. 599 (EAB 2010). EPA guidance directs that this 'reasonable potential: analysis be based on 'worst case' conditions. See In re Washington Aquaduct Water Supply Sys. 11 E.A.D. 565, 584 (EAB 2004)'. This would seem to indicate that EPA believes flow (quantity) can be regulated but maybe not directly. This approach of addressing flow but not directly is seen in water quality trading in Iowa. Many groups in Iowa are looking for a solution to nutrient enrichment and have noted that controlling flow is a key and this flow control will also address another serious problem, flooding. Flow plays an important role in water quality, regardless of how it is addressed in the Clean Water Act. The presentation and manuscript will discuss similar but different approaches that can be applied to control the quantity of flow and mass of pollutants and to improve water quality. The presentation will also discuss the need to address both runoff and instream impacts that deliver pollutant loads into the downstream waters. It is important to note that controlling the quantity of water also provides opportunities to address flooding concerns, which are not a driver in most CWA regulatory programs. This brings us to the approach or integrated planning. The presentation will discuss how integrating the different CWA regulatory programs (e.g., NPDES permits, 404 mitigation, TMDLs, water quality standards assessments) might provide more efficiency and improve the water quality.

This paper was presented at the WEF/WEAT Collection Systems and Stormwater Conference, July 15-18, 2025.

Presentation time

10:45:00

11:45:00

Session time

10:45:00

11:45:00

SessionNavigating Stormwater Regulations

Session number14

Session locationGeorge R. Brown Convention Center, Houston, Texas, USA

TopicFlooding, Flow control, Water Quality

Author(s)

Bradley, Patrick, Brock, Meredith

Author(s)P. Bradley1, M. Brock1

Author affiliation(s)Michael Baker International, 1Michael Baker International, 1

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Jul 2025

DOI10.2175/193864718825159830

Volume / Issue

Content sourceCollection Systems and Stormwater Conference

Word count12

Description: How Lessons Learned from Compensatory Mitigation Can Help Advance Water Quality...

How Lessons Learned from Compensatory Mitigation Can Help Advance Water Quality Trading

Abstract

Despite strong support by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and success in states that have used trading, trading is only used in a few states and generally is only in the form of point source to point source trading. This minimal use of an effective tool raises the question of why its use is so limited and how using lessons learned in other regulatory programs such as compensatory mitigation might change that. The presentation and paper will review the requirements associated with CWA section 402 and section 404 permitting. It will discuss the areas of overlap and approaches used in different states to manage the requirements of the two programs. It will also discuss how lessons learned in the compensatory mitigation program may be applied to make implementation of trading more successful by including a specific set of options and practices similar to what is done to meet 404 permit requirements.

Water quality trading and compensatory mitigation are both driven by Clean Water Act permitting programs, however very different permitting programs. There are definitely some lessons learned that can be transferred from mitigation to trading, however there are some very significant differences between 404 permitting and 402 permitting. Given these differences, a better focus area may be lessons learned from trading programs with point to nonpoint source trading that are currently operational.

SpeakerBradley, Patrick

Presentation time

14:00:00

14:20:00

Session time

13:30:00

15:00:00

SessionNutrient Management: Growing Water Quality

Session locationRoom S504a - Level 5

TopicIntermediate Level, Nutrients, Watershed Management, Water Quality, and Groundwater

Author(s)

Bradley, Patrick

Author(s)P. Bradley 1; M. Stahman 2 ; P. Bradley 1;

Author affiliation(s)RES 1; RES 2 ; RES 1;

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2023

DOI10.2175/193864718825158997

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count13

Integrated Watershed Management: Better Data Means Better Decisions

Abstract

Background
The City of Richmond Department of Public Utilities (DPU) includes three utilities: water, wastewater and stormwater. This lead the City to determine an integrated watershed management approach would be best service the needs of the community, the environment and ensure water equity to all of its constituents. Recognizing the importance of water and the significant interest in how the resource is managed, DPU has historically worked with many different stakeholder groups. In 2014, DPU launched an initiative called RVAH2O to increase awareness about the importance of water and to also better coordinate efforts with stakeholder groups designed to improve water quality in the James River. The RVAH2O group produced the RVA Clean Water Plan in 2017. The group used EPA's Watershed Management and Integrated Planning Framework guidance to produce the Plan. The primary difference in the City's Plan versus what EPA recommended was the plan included stakeholder involvement during the entire development of the Plan and now during implementation. During development of the plan, stakeholders agreed that DPU's overarching goal should be to improve water quality, which includes reducing bacteria levels to meet local TMDL and water quality standards. Richmond, like many older cities, is equipped with a century old combined sewer system that includes 25 combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfalls that contribute bacteria during most wet weather events. Despite DPU's efforts to improve the sewer collections system, the challenges related to climate change are bringing an increasing number of wet weather events to Richmond and spurred the City to identify alternative methods to increase the utilization of the collection system to reduce overflows. Additionally, in 2020, the Virginia General Assembly required the City to control CSOs to a level that would comply with James River bacteria total maximum daily load (TMDL) by 2036, and dictated the City develop and implement an Interim Plan and Final Plan. The Interim Plan was to describe short-term projects that could be initiated within a year, completed in five, and shown to have quantifiable impact on CSO discharges. The Final Plan is to describe longer term projects that will be completed by 2035 and that will meet the requirements of Richmond's existing Consent Order.
Importance of Data
Historically, DPU's sewer collection system was a passive system that relied predominantly on manual operations. For many years, DPU used hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) models to identify CSO discharge volume, but the model performance and accuracy was limited by available rainfall and flow data. Beginning in 2017, DPU recognized the need to address the problem of the overflows and investigated newer technology to assist with this effort. This led to installation of a real-time sensor network to critical areas of its collection system. Depth sensors, flow meters, and rain gauges were added to strategically significant areas throughout the network to collect real-time performance data. This was the basis of building a real-time decision support system (RT-DSS) that allowed DPU to clearly visualize the operations of its sewer collection system. The RT-DSS is viewed through several dashboards that allows DPU to see both current and historic data from each sensor, CSO outfall, and other important areas in the sewer network. The dashboards also provide recommended actions for the operations staff at the Shockoe Retention Basin, Hampton-McCloy Tunnel, and the Wet Weather UV system at the wastewater treatment plant. The RT-DSS data combined with historic network data enabled DPU to develop the required Interim Plan within the time required by the legislation. Initially, the team was able to identify 18 potential projects which would reduce CSO overflows across the City's network. Advanced modeling (collection system and water quality) and simulations were performed to quantify the additional capture of each of these projects as well as a community, environmental, and operational cost-benefit analysis. Upon completion of this work, a final group of 10 projects were included as part of DPU's Interim Plan to meet the legislative requirements. Planning and design work have begun on the Interim Plan with the 10 projects expected to reduce ~182 MG of CSO annually into the James River. More importantly, these projects only require a mitigation cost of $0.18 / gallon, which is half of the previous CSO projects financial impact. The City of Richmond is an Environmental Justice Community with ~23% of the City's population below the poverty line. The ability to use existing infrastructure instead of building new infrastructure at a much higher cost is crucial for the City. The data provided through the RT-DSS has been a key to this approach. Additionally, DPU's confidence in the accuracy of the sensors and the RT-DSS allowed them to build a CSO dashboard on its public website that allows the community to view the positive impacts DPU is making on the environment and the James River as well as shows where CSOs have been activated in the last 48 hours during wet weather events. DPU is now measuring and monitoring the real-time response of its system based on site-specific rainfall data through the RT-DSS. These collected data also support DPU's continuous improvements to its H&H models. The data, plus continuous improvements to the H&H model as well as the water quality model allows DPU to better use limited resources. The additional data collected through the RT-DSS system also informed a pilot study to assess and quantify temporal and spatial differences in bacteria concentrations at different outfall locations. DPU also works with Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), local environmental groups and Virginia DEQ to collect water quality data on the James River. All of these data work together to help DPU make better decisions. VCU is also doing bacteria source tracking (PCR testing), which is a key piece to understanding the bacteria water quality issues in the James River. An additional key data piece is the upcoming bacteria sampling/monitoring of CSO discharges that will help DPU verify/update the bacteria event mean concentrations used to characterize the CSO discharges and their impact on the water quality of the James River. The presentation and manuscript will describe how DPU has changed its approach for managing its CSS. The presentation and manuscript will discuss the importance of data and how the tools for collecting, managing and applying these data across different use areas is beneficial for a utility. There will also be discussion of future plans for expanding the system to allow the utility to operationalize the data for more informed decision making, better planning, and more cost effective projects to reduce CSOs and to better manage wastewater treatment operations, water treatment operations and water quality in the James River â€“ moving toward a One Water Approach.

Programmatic integration and application of better data have provided Richmond with a successful approach for complying with the City's first requirement of the 2020 Virginia CSO Law. There is significant work still to be done to fully comply with the legislation and will include extensive additional engineering and planning work, broad public involvement, continued use of the Real Time â€“ Decision Support System, and financial planning; all informed by continual data gathering.

SpeakerBradley, Patrick

Presentation time

08:35:00

08:50:00

Session time

08:30:00

10:00:00

TopicIntermediate Level, Asset Management, Nutrients, Utility Management and Leadership, Watershed Management, Water Quality, and Groundwater

Author(s)

Bradley, Patrick

Author(s)Patrick J. Bradley1; Grace LeRose2; Alan Harrison3; Anouk Savineau4; Matt Pugh5; Kevin Flis6

Author affiliation(s)Department of Public Utilities, Richmond VA1; Department of Public Utilities, Richmond VA2; Department of Public Utilities, Richmond VA3,LimnoTech, Washington, DC4,Brown and Caldwell, Richmond, VA5; Xylem, Washington, DC6

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2022

DOI10.2175/193864718825158497

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count9

Wet Weather and Water Quality: The Regulatory Puzzle Keeps Getting More Complicated

Abstract

Climate change has been a subject of intense discussion for many years. One part of the discussion is the effect on precipitation. EPA notes, 'In recent years, a higher percentage of precipitation in the United States has come in the form of intense single-day events. The prevalence of extreme single-day precipitation events remained fairly steady between 1910 and the 1980s but has risen substantially since then. Nationwide, nine of the top 10 years for extreme one-day precipitation events have occurred since 1996. The occurrence of abnormally high annual precipitation totals (as defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has also increased.' (USEPA 2024). Moving this into the regulatory context it is important to note that wet weather discharges are often cited as being a cause of (or contributing to) water bodies not attaining water quality standards. Wet weather discharges include municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), increased flows at wastewater treatment plants and nonpoint sources. All of these sources except for nonpoint sources require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit in order to discharge pollutants. The presentation and accompanying manuscript will summarize the different NPDES program areas addressing wet weather discharges and the complexity inherent in controlling these discharges and how this has led to confusion and variability of implementation across the different states and EPA regional offices. The presentation and manuscript will also discuss options for reducing the burden of these different approaches and the potential for integrating approaches to increase the environmental benefit of controlling wet weather discharges. As noted, all of these regulated sources are impacted by precipitation and it is pretty clear precipitation has changed significantly over the past few decades, however there have been only minimal changes to the regulatory requirements for these sources during that same time. Also, when one looks at the list of sources impacted by precipitation there is very little regulatory coordination. Under the NPDES program, MS4s are required to develop, implement, and enforce storm water management programs designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the MS4 to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). Compliance with water quality standards (WQS) is not explicitly required as part of CWA section 402(p)(3) for MS4 discharges. Communities with combined sewer systems, must obtain coverage under an NPDES permit for discharges from the overflow points, and these permits must be written to conform with the CSO Control Policy (see CWA section 402(q)). CSO Permits must include technology-based limits, which under the Policy are the Nine Minimum Controls (NMCs). Unlike MS4s, CSO Permits must also include water quality-based limits if the technology-based limits are not stringent enough to achieve water quality standards (see CWA section 301(b)(1)(c)). Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) that result in the release of pollutants to waters of the United States are point source discharges. In many states, the discharges from SSOs are considered to be 'prohibited' without any regulatory basis. This is often supported by federal enforcement actions and Consent Decrees that require the 'elimination' of SSOs without any mechanism for achieving the requirement. In 1999, EPA published a draft proposed regulation to provide a strategy for addressing SSOs, but the regulation never went forward. In 2010, EPA published a request for stakeholder input in the Federal Register (see 75 FR 30395) and noted that even 'municipal collection systems that are operated in an exemplary fashion may experience unauthorized discharges under exceptional circumstances'. Despite this longstanding discussion and the recognition SSOs will occur, very few states have developed a strategy for addressing SSOs. During the first twenty years of the NPDES program, the major emphasis for POTWs was to provide treatment to comply with the statutory requirements and compliance deadlines in the CWA. There was very little attention placed on the management of peak flows at POTW treatment plants. EPA issued two draft policies, one in 2003 and one in 2005, addressing treatment of peak flows at POTWs. The 2003 Policy allowed peak flows to be blended and discharged with certain constraints while the 2005 draft Policy deemed the blended discharge as a bypass covered by 40 CFR 122.41(m). Ultimately this led to litigation and was eventually ruled on by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Even after the 8th Circuit ruling, there is little clarity about this issue. More recently, the Biden-Harris Administration released, 'FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Roadmap for Nature-Based Solutions to Fight Climate Change, Strengthen Communities, and Support Local Economies.' Included in this release there was also the report, 'Opportunities for Accelerating Nature-Based Solutions: A Roadmap for Climate Progress, Thriving Nature, Equity, and Prosperity.' There has been no additional information regarding how to implement these within the current regulatory framework. These unresolved issues and many other requirements under the NPDES program will be explored in detail in the paper and presentation.

This paper and presentation will look at the existing regulatory structure for wet weather discharges and discuss possible ways to address the increasingly complicated puzzle.

SpeakerBradley, Patrick

Presentation time

13:50:00

14:10:00

Session time

13:30:00

15:00:00

SessionMaintaining Water Quality During Wet Weather Events

Session number416

Session locationRoom 338

TopicCSO & SSO Planning and Mitigation, Intermediate Level, Stormwater and Green Infrastructure, Watershed Management, Water Quality, and Groundwater

Author(s)