VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 19 POSTED ON: 9/4/2011
Nutrient Criteria Development Where Region III States Stand It’s Not Rocket Science…. …It’s Harder! Presented by Mark Barath Mid-Atlantic NPS/TMDL/WQM/WQS Training Workshop May 13, 2009 Region III Outlook: Actual Progress – Received and Expected Nutrient Criteria Package State Rivers Current Lakes and Current Estuaries Current Nutrient Criteria and Progress Reservoirs Progress Progress Development: Streams Original Goal 2014 Research 2014 Research DRBC Completed 2007 DE Initiative Chesapeake Bay and Inland Bays in 2004 2007 Criteria 2006 Criteria 2006 Completed Criteria DC Completed Completed in 2006 Completed 2007/8 Data 2009 Chl a Criteria 2007/8 Completed 2008 MD Analysis in 2009 TR Chesapeake Bay in 2005 2009 Research 2009 Research N.A. N.A 2009 PA 2011/12 Research/ 2007 Criteria 2005 Completed n 2009 VA Data Completed Chesapeake Analysis Bay in 2005 2010 Research/ 2008 Under EPA N.A. N.A. 2009 WV NSTEP Data Review Analysis Where Region III States Stand Delaware 1. Nutrient TMDLs Cover + 90% of State • D.O. Target used in Model • Rivers/streams not treated separately • TP Screening Range: 0.1 – 0.2 mg/L • TN Screening Range: 1.0 – 3.0 mg/L 2. Inland Bays • Criteria Final • Pollution Control Strategy in Place • Point discharges to be phased out • TP: 0.01 mg/L (average) • TN: 0.14 mg/L (average) • Water Clarity as TSS: 20 mg/L (maximum) Where Region III States Stand Delaware (cont.) 3. Nutrient Criteria Plan • 2007 Timeline Not Met • Summer 2008 Update • 2014 new completion date • 2009 EPA ‘in principle’ Acceptance Where Region III States Stand District of Columbia 1. All criteria work completed • CBPO recommendations incorporated by reference in 2006 • No river/streams or lakes criteria Where Region III States Stand Maryland 1. 2004 NCP Timelines Not Completely Met • Chesapeake Bay completed but not Coastal Bays 1. 2006 TR WQS incorporated most of CBPO recommendations 2. 2009 TR WQS will be equivalent to other Chesapeake Bay partner states. • Proposed 2009 TR WQS includes Drinking Water Reservoir Chl a criteria 1. 0.01 mg/L arithmetic mean as 30-day moving average during growing season (05/1-09/30) 2. 0.03 mg/L as 90th percentile of measurements in growing season • Data analysis continues on rivers/streams criteria development 2. New NCP to be submitted in FY 2009 Where Region III States Stand Pennsylvania 1. 2004 NCP Timelines not met • Rivers/Streams research/data analysis continues • Lakes research/data analysis continues 1. 2009 Lake Assessment Protocol "indicators of possible impairment“ • TP - 0.05 mg/L • TN - 1.5 mg/L • Translates to a TSI of 60 • No compatible Chl a indicator • Unclear on above ‘indicators’ in criteria development 2. Updated NCP planned for FY 2010 Where Region III States Stand Virginia 1. Chesapeake Bay Criteria approved by EPA in 2005 and follows CBPO guidance 2. Lake Criteria approved by EPA in 2007 • Cold Water i. TP – 0.02 mg/L (median) ii. Chl a – 0.025 mg/L (90th percentile) • Warm Water i. TP – 0.04 mg/l (median) ii. Chl a – 0.035 mg/L (90th percentile) 1. NCP updated Fall 2008 • 2011 target for wadeable streams • 2012 target for nonwadeable rivers/streams Where Region III States Stand West Virginia 1. 2004 NCP not entirely met • Lakes and Reservoirs i. Criteria Adopted by WV Legislator in 2008 ii. Cool water: TP- 30 µg/L; Chl a-15 µg/L iii. Warm water: TP-50 µg/L; Chl a-30 µg/L iv. Currently Undergoing EPA Review • Rivers and Streams i. Data analysis on going ii. EPA NSTEP analysis ‘inconclusive’ iii. Watershed specific problems addressed with WWTP nutrient reductions 2. Revised NCP accepted January 2009 • Propose Rivers/Streams criteria to 2009 Legislator session with 2010 adoption target Criteria Delaying Factors 1. Inadequate data sets 2. Funding 3. Cause/effect not clear cut 4. Science still evolving 5. Legal issues (TMDLs and lawsuits) Nutrients…ughh DO Plant/Algal pH Aquatic Growth Nutrients Life Microbial Habitat Use Light Growth Flow Temperature Food Substrate Water Chemistry Herbivory Competition Conclusions from Recent USGS/ANSP Study Kent Crawford, USGS 1. Nutrient concentration was a poor explanatory variable for: • Chlorophyll a • Minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations • Primary productivity 2. Too many variables were unaccounted for: • Antecedent conditions • Micronutrients may be limiting • Light • Grazing • Algal uptake • Standing crop not best measure Conclusions from Recent USGS/ANSP Study Don Charles, ANSP 1. All sets of diatom metrics were better indicators of nutrient conditions than Chl a, AFDM, primary productivity, and variations in dissolved oxygen. 2. The two sets of indicators based on USGS NAWQA data performed better than the trophic indicator categories based primarily on European data. 3. For purposes of distinguishing the few nutrient categories, the indicators based on the national datset were comparable to those based the local dataset. Differences in dataset sample size and adequate representation of the nutrient gradient are important factors. 4. Most of the NAWQA low-TP indicator taxa were rare in samples with TP > 50 µg/L 400 Pound Gorillas in the Room? 1. Chesapeake Bay TMDL Tsunami 2. Gulf of Mexico Anoxia Recovery Plan 3. Florida Rule Repercussions 400 Pound Gorillas in the Room? 2010 Chesapeake Bay TMDL Significant NPDES Permitees Limits State # Sig. Flow N limits P Limits Fac. Pa 213 648 mgd 6 mg/l 0.8 mg/l Md. 85 676 mgd 4 mg/l 0.3 mg/l Va. 124 1206 mgd 3-8 mg/l .18-0.7 mg/l DC 1 370 mgd 4.2 mg/l 0.18 mg/l 400 Pound Gorillas in the Room? Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Recovery Plan 400 Pound Gorillas in the Room? Florida Rule 1. January 2009 determination by EPA HQ 2. EPA will promulgate nutrient standards unless Florida does so first • Rivers/streams and lakes within 12 months • Estuary within 24 months 3. EPA and Florida working together on criteria development 4. Action was partially driven by lawsuits 5. Other lawsuits waiting in the wing around the nation Clean Water Goal? Clean Water Goal Questions
"Nutrient Criteria Development"