Some Context behind the Implementation of Numeric Nutrient - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Some Context behind the Implementation of Numeric Nutrient Criteria or Why do we have these Water Quality Regulations?

Mark W. Clark and Thomas Obreza

Soil and Water Science Department

University of Florida, Gainesville

April 20, 2012Slide2

OverviewFederal Clean Water ActState Designated Uses Protective Criteria

Implications of ImpairmentSlide3

Water Quality Issues of the PastCuyahoga River 1969Slide4

Clean Water Act 1972As part of the Federal Clean Water Act 1972, USEPA requested states develop:Designated uses for waters of the state (lakes, reservoirs, rivers, streams, estuaries and wetlands),

Criteria that would protect designated uses,

Corrective process that would be implemented if a designated use was not being met (i.e. if the waterbody was determine to be “impaired”)Slide5

Designated Uses for Florida Waterbodies

Class I – Potable Water Supplies

Class II – Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting

Class III – Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife

Class III-Limited – Fish Consumption; Recreation or Limited Recreation; and/or Propagation and Maintenance of a Limited Population of Fish and Wildlife

Class IV – Agricultural Water Supplies

Class V – Navigation, Utility and Industrial Use

F.A.C. Chapter 62-302 Surface Water Quality Standards

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/rules/shared/62-302.pdfSlide6

Approaches to Protect Designated UseCriteria

A standard, rule, or test on which a judgment or decision can be based

Concentration or measurement that is protective of the intended uses of the water

Types of Criteria:

Numeric

NarrativeSlide7

Example of Numeric Criteria Dissolved Oxygen Criteria (Current)

Class I

Shall

not be less than 5.0

.

Class IIShall not average less than 5.0 in a 24-hr period

and shall

never be less than 4.0

.

Class III

Fresh-Shall

not be less than 5.0

.

Marine-Shall

not average less than 5.0 in a 24-hr period

and shall

never be less than 4.0

.

Class IV

Shall

not average less than 4.0 in a 24-hr period

and shall

never be less than 3.0

. Slide8

Example of “Narrative” Nutrient StandardRule 2-302.530 FAC

“in no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of flora or fauna”

Slide9

Assessment and Reporting of State Water QualityContinuous monitoring of state watersBiannual reporting of state water quality referenced against standards for specific designated use.

305(b) list sent to USEPA indicating those water bodies that “potentially do not attain” designated use.Slide10

Motivation for “Numeric” Criteria - National Water Quality Assessment

The National Water Quality Inventory (1996 report to congress) cites nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) as one of the leading causes of water quality impairment in our Nation's rivers, lakes and estuaries.

40%

of the rivers

were impaired due to nutrient enrichment;

51% percent of the surveyed lakes

, and

57% of the surveyed estuaries

were similarly adversely affected.

Nutrients have also been implicated with both the large hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico, hypoxia observed in several East Coast States, and

Pfiesteria

-induced fish kills and human health problems in the coastal waters of several East Coast and Gulf States. Slide11

EPA’s National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient CriteriaIn 1998 EPA rolled out the National Strategy for Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria to encourage all states and tribes to adopt numeric nutrient water quality criteria.

2002 FDEP and EPA agreed on plan to establish numeric nutrient criteria.

Between 2002 and 2009 FDEP spent over 20 million dollars developing numeric criteria.Slide12

Florida Water Quality Assessment 2002 305(b) report

Quality of State WatersSlide13

Florida Water Quality Assessment 2002 305(b) report

Estuary ImpactsSlide14

Florida Water Quality Assessment 2002 305(b) report

Lake ImpactsSlide15

Florida Water Quality Assessment 2002 305(b) report

Stream ImpactsSlide16

Quality of Florida Waters 2010 1,9180 miles of rivers and streams (8%)

378,435 acres of lakes (26%)

2010 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida Report

Nutrients were the first and second reason for listing lakes and estuaries as impaired (based on narrative standard) and the fourth reason for listing streams (after Dissolved Oxygen, mercury and fecal coliform)

549 nutrient related TMDL’sSlide17

Lawsuit from EarthjusticeOn behalf of several environmental organizations of Florida, a suit in July 2008 claimed that:

There was an unacceptable delay by the federal government to set limits for nutrient pollution.

Claimed that EPA had previously determined the need for numeric criteria under the CWA.

Argued that EPA was

obligated to promptly propose criteria

for Florida.Slide18

Timeline of EPA NNC Implementation in FloridaJanuary 26, 2010 EPA published

Proposed

“Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters” (75 FR 4173).

EPA conducted 13 public hearing sessions in six cities in Florida and held a 90-day public comment period following publication of the proposed rule.

22,000 public comments on the proposed ruleSlide19

EPA Final RuleNovember 14, 2010

EPA Administrator signed

Final

“Water Quality Standards for the State of Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters.” (did not include S. Florida flowing waters)

February 4, 2011

Implementation of Site-Specific Alternative Criteria (SSAC) provision

March 6, 2012

Initial Implementation date of final rule extended for 15 months to allow cities, towns, businesses and other stakeholders as well as the State of Florida a full opportunity to review the standards and develop flexible strategies for implementation.

March 5, 2012

EPA promulgated an extension of the effective date of this rule by 4 months to

July 6, 2012Slide20

Florida’s Alternative RuleApril 22, 2011FDEP asked EPA to withdraw the determination. EPA did not approve or deny request, June 13, 2011 November 10, 2011

FDEP proposes alternative rule

December 8, 2011

Alternative rule approved by Florida Environmental Regulation Commission (Adoption of Nutrient Standards

)Slide21

Florida’s Alternative Criteria Passed into LawDecember 9, 2012FDEP submits amendments to chapters 62-302 and 62-303, F.A.C. (numeric nutrient standards) January 24, 2012

Florida House approves amendments

February 10, 2012

Florida Senate approves amendments

February 16, 2012

Governor signs Water Quality Criteria into lawPending EPA approvalSlide22

Is this the end?That was just for inland waters north of Lake OkechobeeRule for estuaries, coastal waters and flowing waters in the South Florida Region is currently due to be proposed by EPA May 21, 2012.Rule for wetlands has not even been discussed.Slide23

Some Pro’s and Con’s of Narrative vs Numeric CriteriaNarrative criteriaPro’sAllows for site specific interpretation

Con’s

Waterbody is already impaired by the time narrative criteria of impairment is met

Threshold of impairment is somewhat subjective

Numeric Criteria

Pro’sThreshold of impairment is a “bright line”Makes establishing TMDL easier if impairment occurs

Con’s

Initial criteria determination is rarely site specific and prone to under or over protection of waterbody.Slide24

New Numeric Nutrient CriteriaNew criteria will not automatically restrict the use of fertilizer.New criteria will not change the designated use of a water body.

New criteria will establish a “brighter line” to evaluate potential nutrient impacts to state waters.

New criteria will likely be used to establish discharge permit levels for point sources.

New criteria will increase the number of water bodies listed as impairedSlide25

Impaired WaterbodyWhat if a water body does not meet protective criteria – i.e. “potentially does not attain designated use”?Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to submit lists of surface waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards (impaired waters)

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act (1999) clarified FDEP’s authority for the TMDL program and directed the Department to develop a methodology, to implement.Slide26

How do you know if you are in a TMDL watershed?

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htmSlide27

FDEP’s Watershed Management Approach - Five Phase CyclePhase 1:

Watershed Evaluation

, evaluate status of the quality of surface water and groundwater to identify potentially impaired waters for which TMDL’s may be needed.

Phase 2:

Strategic Monitoring

, verification of listing as impaired and to collect data for TMDL development

Phase 3:

Developing and Adopting TMDL’s

, prioritization of impaired waters then development and adoption of TMDL for basin.

Phase 4:

Developing Watershed Management Plans

, plan specifying how pollutant loadings from point and nonpoint sources of pollution will be allocated and reduced in order to meet TMDL requirements. (BMAP)

Phase 5:

Implementing Watershed Management Plans

, implementation of Phase 4Slide28

Basin RotationSlide29

What if a Waterbody is Verified Impaired?Determine source of Impairment

low dissolved oxygen level

excessive algae growth

excess nutrient load

Determine threshold concentration or load of pollutant that will still maintain waterbody designated use (assimilative capacity or Total Maximum Daily Load)

Determine existing load to waterbodySlide30

Mean TP vs. Algal blooms over 40ug/L (Walker and Havens 1995)

Example relationship

between limiting nutrient (P)and chlorophyll-aSlide31

Determine Nutrient Budget

Water Column

target concentration

(100 ppb)

Surface Inputs

Surface Outflows

Sediment

System Uptake

(assimilation)

Internal Loading

(recycling)

Atmospheric

Inputs

40 ppb

How much can be added and still maintain target water column concentration?

How much is presently being added?Slide32

TMDL includes a Margin of Safety

A margin of safety

(MOS) is required as part of a TMDL

in recognition that there are

many uncertainties in scientific and technical understanding

of the chemical and biological processes that occur. The MOS is intended to account for such uncertainties in a conservative manner that protects the environment.

According to EPA’s guidance, a MOS can be achieved through

reserving a portion of the load

for the future, or

using conservative assumptions

in calculating the load.

TMDL = ∑Point Sources + ∑Nonpoint Sources + Margin of Safety Slide33

Nutrient Load ReductionTMDL is the assimilative capacity of a watershed and waterbody while still protecting the designated use.The Difference between actual loading and TMDL is the load that needs to be reduced.Load reduction required needs to be allocated among stakeholders.Slide34

Basin Management Action PlanA Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) is the primary tool to go about implementing the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

The process for BMAP development involves collaboration among local stakeholders and FDEP staff.

Once consensus among stakeholders over the BMAP has been achieved, it is adopted by Secretarial Order and enforced.Slide35

Recommended Guidelines for TMDL Allocations

FDEP Formed

Allocation Technical Advisory Committee

(ATAC)

First step to

achieve equity was to “level the playing field” in treatment effort between point and nonpoint sources. Point source are already required to provide, at a minimum, technology based treatment levels.

ATAC felt

nonpoint sources

should be

expected to provide comparable minimum levels of treatment

, before additional reductions were expected of point sources.

The ATAC subsequently decided that the

comparable minimum treatment for nonpoint sources should be the Best Management Practice (BMPs)

developed and adopted for that activity.Slide36

TMDL Allocation Example

Maximum load allowed

(TMDL)

Allocation process address this excess loadSlide37

Step 1Calculate the amount of pollutant reductions that would be achieved if:

a) 45% of all agricultural and silviculture operations in the basin and in upstream watersheds implemented the appropriate BMPs

b) 45% of

urban areas met stormwater treatment requirements for new development, and

c) 45% of the homes with septic tanks within the 100-year floodplain were hooked up to a regional sewer system.Slide38

Effect of Step 1 Reductions

40,000 pounds shortSlide39

Step 2If step 1 was not sufficient to meet the TMDL, then calculate if

a)

90

% of all agricultural and silviculture operations in the basin implemented the BMPs,

b) 90% of

urban areas met stormwater treatment requirements for new development, and

c) 90% of the homes with septic tanks within the 100-year floodplain were hooked up to a regional sewer system.Slide40

Effect of Step 2 Reduction

22,000 pounds shortSlide41

If the reductions for step 2 are not sufficient to meet the TMDL, the third recommended step is to allocate reductions to all sources except those where loading is at background levels or those that have provided treatment beyond BAT levels, in increments of 10% until the TMDL is met.

Step 3Slide42

Effect of Step 3 Reductions

Step 1 10,000 lbs

Step 2 28,000 lbs

Step 3 15,000 lbs

53,000 lbs

Only need an 8% reduction in step 3, not 10 % reduction to meet TMDL targetSlide43

Iterative ProcessContinuous monitoring required to determine progress toward TMDL target

Use attainability is evaluated biannually

Revisit TMDL target if use attainment is not met

Change TMDL or allocation if necessary

Efficacy of BMPs may be revised with more data which may require reassessment of load allocationSlide44
Slide45

How Does this Relate to GIBMP’s?These Policies are the underlying driver to regulate water quality in the State of Florida

Ultimate goal is not to create condition of impairment that results in triggering TMDL/BMAP process.

Implementation of GI BMPs will reducing the likelihood of triggering impairment condition.

GI BMP’s provide tools that reduce loads in TMDL watersheds and are part of urban BMAP load reduction strategy.Slide46

Don’t want this.