Nutrient Criteria Nutrient Criteria DevelopmentDevelopment

It’s Not Rocket Science….

…It’s Harder!

Presented by Mark BarathMid-Atlantic NPS/TMDL/WQM/WQS Training Workshop

May 13, 2009

Where Region III States Stand

Region III Outlook: Actual Progress – Received and Region III Outlook: Actual Progress – Received and Expected Nutrient Criteria PackageExpected Nutrient Criteria Package

StateState Rivers Rivers and and StreamsStreams

Current Current ProgressProgress

Lakes and Lakes and ReservoirsReservoirs

Current Current ProgressProgress

EstuariesEstuaries Current Current ProgressProgress

Nutrient Criteria Nutrient Criteria Development: Development: Original Goal Original Goal

DEDE 20142014 ResearchResearch 20142014 ResearchResearch DRBC DRBC InitiativeInitiative

Completed Completed Chesapeake Chesapeake Bay and Bay and Inland Bays Inland Bays in 2004in 2004

20072007

DCDC 20072007 Criteria Criteria CompletedCompleted

20062006 Criteria Criteria CompletedCompleted

20062006 Completed Completed in 2006in 2006

Criteria Criteria CompletedCompleted

MDMD 2007/82007/8 Data Data AnalysisAnalysis

20092009 Chl a Chl a Criteria in Criteria in 2009 TR2009 TR

2007/82007/8 Completed Completed Chesapeake Chesapeake Bay in 2005Bay in 2005

20082008

PAPA 20092009 ResearchResearch 20092009 ResearchResearch N.A.N.A. N.AN.A 20092009

VAVA 2011/122011/12 Research/Research/

Data Data AnalysisAnalysis

20072007 Criteria Completed

20052005 Completed n Completed n Chesapeake Chesapeake Bay in 2005Bay in 2005

20092009

WVWV 20102010 Research/ Research/ NSTEP Data NSTEP Data AnalysisAnalysis

20082008 Under EPA Under EPA ReviewReview

N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A. 20092009

Where Region III States StandWhere Region III States StandDelaware

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 StandWhere Region III States StandDelaware (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 StandWhere Region III States StandDistrict of Columbia

1. All criteria work completed

• CBPO recommendations incorporated by reference in 2006

• No river/streams or lakes criteria

Where Region III States StandWhere Region III States StandMaryland

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 StandWhere Region III States StandPennsylvania

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 StandWhere Region III States StandVirginia

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 StandWhere Region III States StandWest 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 FactorsCriteria 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…ughhNutrients…ughh

AquaticLifeUse

DO

pH

Habitat

Food

Plant/Algal Growth

MicrobialGrowth

Nutrients

LightFlow

Temperature Substrate

Water ChemistryHerbivory

Competition

FoodFoodFood

Conclusions from Recent USGS/ANSP StudyConclusions from Recent USGS/ANSP StudyKent Crawford, USGSKent 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 Conclusions from Recent USGS/ANSP Study Don Charles, ANSPDon 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?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?400 Pound Gorillas in the Room?

2010 Chesapeake Bay TMDL Significant NPDES Permitees Limits

StateState # Sig. # Sig. Fac.Fac.

FlowFlow N limitsN limits P LimitsP Limits

PaPa 213213 648 mgd648 mgd 6 mg/l6 mg/l 0.8 mg/l0.8 mg/l

Md.Md. 8585 676 mgd676 mgd 4 mg/l4 mg/l 0.3 mg/l0.3 mg/l

Va.Va. 124124 1206 mgd1206 mgd 3-8 mg/l3-8 mg/l .18-0.7 .18-0.7 mg/lmg/l

DCDC 11 370 mgd370 mgd 4.2 mg/l4.2 mg/l 0.18 mg/l0.18 mg/l

400 Pound Gorillas in the Room? 400 Pound Gorillas in the Room? Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia

Recovery Plan

400 Pound Gorillas in the Room?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

QuestionsQuestions