Gulf Restoration Network Atchafalaya ... - Sierra Club...Jul 26, 2018 · Sierra Club Delta Chapter Louisiana Environmental Action Network July 26, 2018 ... mapping out the Dead Zone

Gulf Restoration Network ◾ Atchafalaya Basinkeeper Sierra Club Delta Chapter

Louisiana Environmental Action Network July 26, 2018 Mr. Albert E. Hindrichs Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Office of Environmental Assessment PO Box 4313 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4313 [email protected] [email protected] RE: Public Comments on Draft 2018 Integrated Report on Water Quality in Louisiana, AI Number 169294 Dear Mr. Hindrichs, We are writing on behalf of the Gulf Restoration Network, Atchafalaya Basinkeeper, Sierra Club Delta Chapter, Louisiana Environmental Network, and their thousands of members and supporters that care about the waters and wetlands of Louisiana. We offer the following comments and questions regarding the Draft 2018 Integrated Report on Water Quality in Louisiana into the public record.

1. LDEQ’s responses to GRN’s 2016 Integrated Report comments were inadequate

GRN submitted comments on the 2016 Integrated Report, which LDEQ very briefly addressed, as well as an affidavit by Dr. JoAnn Burkholder, which LDEQ did not address at all. Further, LDEQ dismissed the information GRN provided on algae and nutrient criteria by simply stating “LDEQ does not currently have numerical criteria for nutrients or algae; therefore it does not assess for these parameters.” Dr. Burkholder’s affidavit provided a great deal of information and evidence as to why criteria for nutrients and algae are so vital to the Gulf, which would have been helpful to LDEQ should they chose to create numerical criteria for these materials. Additionally, GRN brought up the nutrient and algae criteria issue multiple times in our 2016 comments, which LDEQ seemingly disregarded. LDEQ gave no explanation as to why they have chosen not to create these criteria, nor did they respond appropriately to the provided studies. We request that LDEQ adequately address these comments on the 2018 Integrated Report, including Dr. Burkholder’s affidavit (see Attachment A) and nutrient and algae criteria.

1

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

GRN, ABK, Sierra Club-Delta Chapter, LEAN Comments on Draft 2018 Integrated Report on Water Quality in Louisiana AI Number 169294 July 26, 2018 ----

2. Subsegment LA120806_00 (Coastal Terrebonne) inappropriately downgraded from IRC 5 to IRC 1

Since 2008, Louisiana has been attempting to remove the Dissolved Oxygen (DO) impairment from Gulf nearshore water LA120806_00, despite the impact the nutrients from the Mississippi River, Atchafalaya River, and other sources within Louisiana. The Dead Zone (a hypoxic zone in the Gulf that impacts Federal and State waters) has been a major environmental issue for the country for decades, and it is disheartening to see the most recent attempt to remove LA120806_00 from the Impaired Waters List.

A. Louisiana disregarded data from sister agencies, as well as well-known data from NOAA/LUMCON

In 2015, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) submitted data to the NOAA Hypoxia Watch project . This data shows that

1

DO levels get well below 5.0 mg/l well within subsegment LA120806_00. In a map that overlays LDEQ subsegments and LDWF’s data, you can easily see that the DO criteria was exceeded. See Exhibit B. Also, these surveys did not go all the way up to the shore, but it can be assumed that one could extend the contours, implying that there is even more of an area of low DO within the subsegment. As we have put forward many times in comments on the Integrated Report, data from the Louisiana Universities marine Consortium (LUMCON) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) monitor the Gulf every year for dissolved oxygen, mapping out the Dead Zone (an area of > 2.0 mg/l oxygen). The 2017 Dead Zone was the largest ever recorded. 2

These data and maps are published every year and demonstrate that the Dead Zone itself reaches into Louisiana waters, like subsegments LA070601_00, LA021102_00, and LA120806_00. Further, according to LAC 33:IX.1113.C.1,” the statewide dissolved oxygen (DO) values represent minimum criteria for the types of water specified.” For these subsegments, the criterion is 5.0 mg/l (LAC 33:IX.Table 3). Therefore even if the Dead Zone (<2.0 mg/l DO) barely makes its way into one of these segments, it is logical to assume that the area between 2.0 mg/l and 5.0 mg/l would extend well into these areas.

3. Subsegments LA070601_00 (Coastal Mississippi) and LA021102_00 (Coastal Barataria) inappropriately categorized as IRC 5RC

The 2018 Integrated Report, once again listed coastal waters LA070601_00 (Coastal Mississippi) and LA021102_00 (Coastal Barataria)

1 http://www.ncddc.noaa.gov/hypoxia/, accessed July 23, 2018. 2 https://gulfhypoxia.net/research/shelfwide-cruise/?y=2017&p=press_release

2

http://www.ncddc.noaa.gov/hypoxia/

GRN, ABK, Sierra Club-Delta Chapter, LEAN Comments on Draft 2018 Integrated Report on Water Quality in Louisiana AI Number 169294 July 26, 2018 ---- as IRC 5RC (“TMDL required…however, LDEQ will investigate revising criteria due to the possibility that natural conditions may be the source of the water quality criteria impairments”). As stated in above it is scientifically accepted that anthropogenic nitrogen and phosphorus pollution the primary driver for low DO in Louisiana’s Gulf waters (the Dead Zone). This is facilitated by physical factors, such as salinity stratification; however the cause of the low DO is not caused by that stratification. It is troubling to see LDEQ attempt to deny the impacts of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution on DO, despite their membership in the Hypoxia Task Force. While LDEQ rightly points at the correlation between salinity gradients and dissolved oxygen, this is not a reason to revisit the criteria before all efforts have been made nationally to reduce the pollution that fuels the impairment.

4. Nutrients should be sampled in Gulf dissolved oxygen study On page 54 of the 2018 Integrated Report, LDEQ states “nutrient concentrations are likely to be another factor in the [dissolved oxygen] concentrations found during the study; however, nutrients were not sampled as part of this study.” This statement is troubling, as it appears that LDEQ is disregarding well known human-caused pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorus that directly impact dissolved oxygen in the Gulf and throughout Louisiana. Not including nutrient loadings as part of the Gulf dissolved oxygen study could potentially invalidate any conclusions, especially in regards to proposals to revise any criteria (see comments above). EPA considers nutrient pollution to be “one of America's most widespread, costly and challenging environmental problems.” Not 3

assessing for nutrients in Gulf waters and all waters overlooks one of the most urgent pollution problems in the country today. We request LDEQ assess all waters for nutrients, including the Gulf in their Gulf dissolved oxygen study.

5. IRC 5-Alt is not necessary and could be detrimental to the TMDL program

The priority watersheds outlined in Table 11 in the Methods and Rationale all are given IRC 5-Alt designation, and reference to the “long-term vision” as a justification for this. It further outlines this alternative process on page 56-59. It is not clear how the General Alternative Plan Structure is different from a TMDL with an

3 https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/problem

3

GRN, ABK, Sierra Club-Delta Chapter, LEAN Comments on Draft 2018 Integrated Report on Water Quality in Louisiana AI Number 169294 July 26, 2018 ---- implementation plan. A TMDL, in practice should include assessment, loadings, and a plan to implement load reductions. It seems that the “alternative plan structure” is basically that, but removing the reduction requirements, goals, and regulatory structure; and replacing them with more generic “targets.” Nowhere on p. 57-59 are reduction targets mentioned. Without a TMDL as a starting point, there is even less reasonable assurance that water bodies will achieve the loading reductions necessary to actually clean them up. Page 56 of the rationale states that “LDEQ expects that alternative plans are the most appropriate means to achieve the water quality standards since the impairment issues are likely caused by conditions outside the regulatory impacts of traditional TMDLs.” However, TMDLs must address nonpoint as well as point sources, and in fact, the type of nonpoint pollution listed for each priority watershed can be and have been addressed by TMDLs (see Table 1). In the Clean Water Act, the TMDL definition specifically refers to nonpoint sources, stating that a TMDL is, “The sum of individual... LAs [load allocations] for nonpoint sources...” Further, there is federal precedent that TMDLs can be 4

determined for water bodies polluted solely by nonpoint sources. This 5

court specifically stated, “Point sources are treated differently from nonpoint sources for many purposes under the statute, but not all. In particular, there is no such distinction with regard to the basic purpose for which the § 303(d) list and TMDLs are compiled… Water Quality standards reflect a state’s designated uses for a water body and do not depend in any way upon the source of pollution.” 6

In practice it does not seem there is an advantage to use alternatives to TMDLS. For example, LDEQ has completed a Draft Tunica Bayou Restoration Plan for Fecal Coliform Bacteria Pollution (Subsegment 070505), which was scheduled for 2016 in Louisiana’s priority watersheds (see Table 11 in Draft Integrated Report and Table 1, below). There is no indication as to why this is superior to a TMDL, 7

in that it calculates load allocations and wasteload allocations and proposes reductions to meet water quality standards. One aspect that is in this plan that is not in other Louisiana TMDLs is the Proposed Corrective Actions/Management Measures. This is a good addition, but there is no reason this section couldn’t be included in a TMDL. States throughout the country have developed TMDLs and implementation plans that address septic issues and nonpoint pollution which apparently dominate the target watersheds (see Table 1). While not an

4 40 C.F.R. § 130.2(i) 5 See Pronsolino v. Nastri, 291 F.3d 1123, 1136-39 (9th Cir. 2011) 6 Id. at 1137 7 http://deq.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/Water/New-Vision-070505_Tunica-Fecal-Report.pdf

4

GRN, ABK, Sierra Club-Delta Chapter, LEAN Comments on Draft 2018 Integrated Report on Water Quality in Louisiana AI Number 169294 July 26, 2018 ---- exhaustive survey, EPA has complied many nonpoint TMDLs in documents such as their “Total Maximum Daily Loads with Stormwater Sources: A Summary of 17 TMDLs”. 8

6. Prioritization schedule is inadequate and inaccurate. The final 2016 303(d) Impaired Waters list contains approximately 250 waters in Louisiana that are not meeting water quality standards in at least one parameter. The proposed prioritization of Louisiana’s waters indicates that seven waters will be addressed in the next 6 years. At this rate, ignoring multiple pollutants that would take different strategies, Louisiana’s waters will have some sort of cleanup plan by the year 2145. This is obviously not an acceptable rate of cleaning up Louisiana’s waters. Louisiana’s priority watersheds do not reflect the 2018 and the 2016 Integrated reports. Table 1 lists the priority watersheds provided in the 2018 Integrated Report, along with the suspected sources of impairment and the prioritizations for clean up plans in the 2016 List. It is incongruous that all of these waters were listed as a Low priority in 2016, and now are all listed as priorities. We request an explanation as to why they were not priorities in 2016 and now are top priorities in 2018. Further, there are confusions and contradictions in several of these subsegments:

● LDEQ has removed LA070501_00 and from IRC 5 in the 2018 list. It is confusing as to how this could be a priority, while it was removed from IRC 5 in the 2018 list without an explanation in the rationale.

● LA040504_00 was listed as 4a (TMDL completed) in 2016 and 2018, however Table 11 in the Draft Integrated Report states a TMDL alternative is proposed. If there already is a TMDL it would make sense to integrate an implementation plan into the the TMDL instead of developing an alternative.

● LA040401_00 was removed from 5-Alt in the draft 2018 list with no explanation. Again, it is confusing as to how this could be a priority, while it was removed from IRC 5-Alt in the 2018 list without an explanation in the rationale.

8 “Total Maximum Daily Loads with Stormwater Sources:A Summary of 17 TMDLs” EPA 841-R-07-002. 2007. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/17_tmdls_stormwater_sources.pdf.

5

GRN, ABK, Sierra Club-Delta Chapter, LEAN Comments on Draft 2018 Integrated Report on Water Quality in Louisiana AI Number 169294 July 26, 2018 ---- Table 1. Louisiana priority watersheds for FY2016-FY2022 with suspected sources of impairment and TMDL priority from 2016 Integrated Report

Subsegment Waterbody

Name

2018 Suspected Causes of Impairment

2016 Suspected Sources of Impairment

2016 TMDL Priority

LA070505_00 Tunica Bayou-From headwaters to Mississippi River

Fecal Coliform

On-site Treatment Systems (Septic Systems and Similar Decentralized Systems)

Low

LA070501_00 Bayou Sara-From Mississippi state line to Mississippi River

Sanitary Sewer Overflows (Collection System Failures)

Low

LA040504_00 Yellow Water River-From headwaters to Pontchatoula Creek

Natural Sources; On-site Treatment Systems (Septic Systems and Similar Decentralized Systems)

n/a

LA040503_00 Natalbany River-From headwaters to La. Highway 22

Dissolved Oxygen


Low

Mercury Atmospheric Deposition - Toxics; Source Unknown

Low

pH, Low Naturally Occurring Organic Acids

Low

LA040403_00 Blind River-From headwaters to Amite River Diversion Canal (Scenic);

Dissolved Oxygen

Natural Sources Low

6


LA040401_00 Blind River-From Amite River Diversion Canal to mouth at Lake Maurepas (Scenic)

Natural Sources Low

LA040404_00 New River-From headwaters to New River Canal

Dissolved Oxygen


Low

Fecal On-site Treatment Systems (Septic Systems and Similar Decentralized Systems)

Low

We request these confusions and contradictions be fixed and explain. Further we request confirmation that these watersheds will continue to be prioritized and how current TMDLs will be incorporated into any projects proposed.

7. Waterbodies have been removed from the 305(b)/303(d) report without adequate explanation

By our count, there were over 100 waterbody/impairment combinations that were removed/moved to IRC 1 in the current report, compared to the 2016 report. These waterbody/impairment combinations are listed in Table 2. While the Methods and Rationale state that approximately ½ of Louisiana’s waters were assessed for this report, it does not state which waterbodies were. Therefore, it is impossible to discern why these waterbodies were removed/moved to IRC 1. If there is a monitoring rationale with associated data supporting the removal of these waters, we request that be provided. If no adequate rationale is provided, we request that these waters be added back onto the 2018 list.

7

GRN, ABK, Sierra Club-Delta Chapter, LEAN Comments on Draft 2018 Integrated Report on Water Quality in Louisiana AI Number 169294 July 26, 2018 ---- Table 2. Subsegments downgraded to IRC 1 in 2018 Integrated Report

Subsegment Number Impairment 2016 IRC

LA010401_00 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5


LA020103_00 NITRATE/NITRITE 4a

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 4a

DISSOLVED OXYGEN 4a

LA020304_00 TURBIDITY 5RC

LA030201_00 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 5

LA030301_00 POLYAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS 4a


LA030507_00 TURBIDITY 5RC

LA030601_00 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 4a

LA030701_00 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 5 LA030702_00 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 5 LA030801_00 CHLORIDE 5 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 5 LA030803_00 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 4a TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 5 LA030806_00 CHLORIDE 5 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 5 SULFATES 5 LA030807_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA030901_00 1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 4a HEXACHLOROBENZENE 4a HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 4a LA031101_00 CHLORIDE 5 SULFATES 5 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 5 TEMPERATURE 5 LA040201_00 NITRATE/NITRITE 3 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 3 LA040302_00 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5 LA040401_00 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5-Alt LA040402_00 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5

8


SULFATES 5 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 5 TEMPERATURE 5 LA041101_00 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5 LA041201_00 NITRATE/NITRITE 4a DISSOLVED OXYGEN 4a TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 4a LA050101_00 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 5 LA060204_00 FECAL COLIFORM 4a LA060207_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA060208_00 FECAL COLIFORM 4a LA060803_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA060804_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA061001_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA070501_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5-Alt LA070504_00 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5 LA080101_00 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 4a TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 5 LA080910_00 NITRATE/NITRITE 4a DISSOLVED OXYGEN 4a TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 4a LA081301_00 SULFATES 5 LA081505_00 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 5 LA081601_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA081603_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA081604_00 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 3 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA081605_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA081610_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA081611_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA090102_00 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 5 LA090201_00 SULFATES 5 LA090206_00 SULFATES 5 TURBIDITY 5RC LA090207_00 CHLORIDE 5 SULFATES 5 LA090207_5112 SULFATES 5 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 5 TURBIDITY 3 LA090506_00 LEAD 5 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5RC pH, LOW 5RC LA100301_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA100302_00 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5RC LA100303_00 SULFATES 5

9


LA100306_00 FECAL COLIFORM 4a LA100307_00 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5RC LA100310_00 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 5 LA100601_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA100602_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA100603_00 TURBIDITY 4a FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA100604_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA101001_00 CHLORIDE 4a LA101301_00 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 5 LA101401_00 TEMPERATURE 5 LA120102_00 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 4a TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 4a FECAL COLIFORM 4a LA120104_00 FECAL COLIFORM 4a LA120105_00 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 4a FECAL COLIFORM 4a LA120107_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA120108_00 pH, HIGH 5 LA120109_00 SULFATES 5 LA120110_00 SULFATES 4a LA120111_00 NITRATE/NITRITE 4a DISSOLVED OXYGEN 4a TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 4a LA120201_00 SULFATES 4a LA120204_00 pH, HIGH 5 LA120206_00 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 4a LA120304_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA120601_00 FECAL COLIFORM 5 LA120603_00 CHLORIDE 5 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 5 LA120806_00 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 5

8. LDEQ inappropriately removed the monitoring of metals without supplying details, rationale, or impacts.

The 2018 Integrated Report states that ultra-clean metals sampling was discontinued in March 2015. It does not specify what ultra-clean metals sampling is, nor does it state which metals will not longer be sampled in Louisiana’s waterbodies. According to EPA guidance, metals sampling is an important tool used when determining which waterbodies are impaired and their corresponding TMDLs. In the 2018 Integrated 9

9 U.S. E.P.A., “Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels,” at 2. (July 1996)

10

GRN, ABK, Sierra Club-Delta Chapter, LEAN Comments on Draft 2018 Integrated Report on Water Quality in Louisiana AI Number 169294 July 26, 2018 ---- Report’s rationale, LDEQ states, “Ultra-clean metals sampling was discontinued in March 2015 due to lack of funding… Assessment methods for metals results remain in Table 2 in the event metals sampling is resumed in the future.” This language implies that ultra-clean was the 10

only type of metals sampling done prior to March 2015, and therefore by discontinuing it, LDEQ has discontinued all metals sampling. EPA’s guidance on metals sampling states that metals sampling supports the Clean Water Act’s goals. The sampling of trace metals is necessary to 11

determine water quality standards, the level of impairment, and TMDLs. Therefore, LDEQ cannot simply discontinue metals sampling. Further, if LDEQ does choose to discontinue certain types of metal sampling, they must elaborate on this by defining ultra-clean metals sampling and specify which metals this discontinuation will affect. This elaboration is necessary to keep the public informed on LDEQ’s processes. Before any final Integrated Report is issued, we request LDEQ specify what metals are no longer being tested for, in what waters, and what legal rationale under the Clean Water Act they are using to discontinue the monitoring of potential toxic and harmful pollutants in Louisiana’s waters.

9. Wetland Assimilation Thibodaux subsegment LA120207_00 is not meeting LDEQ criteria.

According to Table 5 in the 2018 Draft Integrated Report, LDEQ states that the Thibodaux wastewater assimilation project, however, when compared to the Reference site, it has experienced more than a 20% reduction in productivity. According to LAC 33:IX.1113.12.b), no more than a 20% reduction in the rate of a total above-ground wetland productivity over a five year period as compared to a reference area. Thibodeaux experienced a 19.2% decrease in productivity, while the Reference experienced a 6.7% increase, which results in a 25.9% decrease in productivity, when compared to the reference.

LDEQ instead compared the -19.2% to the 20% criteria in isolation from the reference. The whole idea of the reference is to assess what ‘natural’ conditions and use them as a comparison. If LDEQ does not do this, what is the purpose of a Reference site. If the Reference site

10 LDEQ, “Louisiana’s 2018 Integrated Report and Section 303(d) List Methods and Rationale” at 12 (2018) 11 See U.S. E.P.A., “Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels,” at 2. (July 1996) (“This sampling method… [was] developed by EPA to specifically address state needs for measuring toxic metals at water quality criteria levels, when such measurements are necessary to protect designated uses in state water quality standards.”)

11

GRN, ABK, Sierra Club-Delta Chapter, LEAN Comments on Draft 2018 Integrated Report on Water Quality in Louisiana AI Number 169294 July 26, 2018 ---- had decreased in a similar manner to the Near site, that could indicate there were natural environmental reasons for decline (drought, etc.), however, both the math and fact that the assimilation wetland decreased while the reference increased demonstrate that this water should be assessed as not meeting its criterion.

10. Subsegment LA040803_00 should be listed in IRC 3. According to Table 5 in the 2018 Draft Integrated Report, the Guste Island wastewater assimilation project (LA040802_00) submittal of data was “insufficient.” However, this subsegment is not listed as potentially impaired. Since there is insufficient data, the appropriate IRC category would be IRC 3 (“Insufficient data to make a reliable determination.”)

11. All criteria, including general criteria were not assessed. LAC 33:IX.1113.B outlines 13 criteria that, “except where specifically exempted elsewhere...shall apply at all times to the surface waters of the state, including wetlands, whether they are identified in the standards are not.” These criteria include:

1. Aesthetics a. objectionable deposits b. floating debris, scum, oil, other matter c. objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity d. injure, be toxic, or produce adverse responses to humans or

wildlife e. produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life

2. Color 3. Floating, suspended and settleable solids 4. Taste and odor 5. Toxic substances 6. Oil and grease 7. Foaming or frothing materials 8. Nutrients 9. Turbidity 10. Flow 11. Radioactive materials 12. Biological aquatic community integrity 13. Other Substances and Characteristics

While some of these criteria are tangentially addressed in areas such as the Assessment of Wetland Approved for Wastewater Assimilation Projects and Coastal Subsegments Affected by Oil Spill and/or Cleanup Activities, the majority of these Criteria were not assessed.

12

GRN, ABK, Sierra Club-Delta Chapter, LEAN Comments on Draft 2018 Integrated Report on Water Quality in Louisiana AI Number 169294 July 26, 2018 ---- While there may not be numerical criteria for these standards, they are still integral to the health of Louisiana’s waters. We request that Louisiana’s waters be assessed for all General and Numeric criteria.

A. Nutrient criteria

As stated above, nutrients are one of the biggest pollution issues in the country today. However, LDEQ has chosen to not assess for nutrient impairments, except for waters that were “historically based on evaluative assessments.” Instead of waiting until numeric criteria are developed (they have been in development since 2006, and were scheduled to be completed for all Louisiana waters by 2014 ), Louisiana should 12

assess using their General Criteria: “The naturally occurring range of nitrogen-phosphorus ratios shall be maintained...nutrient concentrations that produce aquatic growth to the extent that it creates a public nuisance or interferes with designated water uses shall not be added to any surface waters.” These criterion should be a 13

good guide to assess for nutrients, as numeric nutrient criteria are not currently developed in Louisiana.

12. Major problems facing the Atchafalaya River Basin The Atchafalaya Basin includes West Atchafalaya Basin Floodway (Subsegments from Simmesport to Butte LaRose Bay and Henderson Lake); Henderson Lake, Lake Bigeux, I-10 Canal, Work Canal, Bristow Bayou; Atchafalaya Bay and Delta and Gulf waters to state 3 mile limit. The Atchafalaya is a unique and internationally important swamp system that is vital to migratory waterfowl, fish propagation, shellfish production, and Louisiana culture. We have identified several issues and necessary changes to the 2018 Integrated Report.

A. Mercury contamination and fish consumption advisories It is worth noting that mercury contamination is also found in source waters of the Atchafalaya River, such as the Ouachita, Boeuf, and Black Rivers, in subsegments from the Arkansas state line to their joining with the Red River (p. 37-38). Louisiana’s first mercury advisory was declared in 1992 for a stretch of the Ouachita River from the Arkansas line to the Columbia lock and dam. We support the renewed testing of fish for mercury that was initiated by the DEQ in 2017, after having been curtailed during the Jindal administration.

12 LDEQ. “Developing Nutrient Criteria for Louisiana.” 2006 13 LAC 33:IX.1113.B.8

13


B. LDEQ improperly categorized waterbodies as fully supporting standards for dissolved oxygen

The West Atchafalaya Basin Floodway from Simmesport to Butte LaRose Bay and Henderson Lake was listed as impaired by low dissolved oxygen levels (p. 2). Low oxygen levels are a common problem in the many small bayous, channels, and streams in the basin, in particular during dry periods in the summer, and where flows are blocked by sedimentation. The Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway and the Atchafalaya Bay, Delta, and Gulf Waters to the 3 mile limit are listed as Fully Supporting for Dissolved Oxygen (p. 29), in contrast to 3rd party assessments for the former and in agreement with 3rd party assessments for the latter. Nutrient loading from the Atchafalaya River, in combination with the loads from the Mississippi River, are significant contributors to the formation of the annual “Dead Zone” of low oxygen off Louisiana’s coast, which generally reaches into Texas’ coastal waters. Here, too, the source waters of the Atchafalaya from the Ouachita, Boeuf, and Black Rivers contain numerous subsegments listed as impaired for low Dissolved Oxygen levels. In the 2016 Louisiana Water Quality Integrated Report Appendix G, LDEQ listed the following subsegments in the Atchafalaya Basin as not supporting the designated use of Fish and Wildlife Propagation:

● LA010401_00 – East Atchafalaya Basin and Morganza Floodway South to 1-10 Canal

● LA010502_00 – Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW)-Morgan City-Port Allen Route from Bayou Sorrel Lock to Morgan City

● LA010601_00 – Crow Bayou, Bayou Blue and Tributaries For each of these subsegments the IR category for suspected causes denoted the IRC 5 or Louisiana’s § 303(d) List, and the suspected cause for impairment was dissolved oxygen from various sources including agriculture, industrial discharge, natural sources, and runoff. The 2018 Integrated Report concludes that the subsegments covering the ICWW from the Bayou Sorrel Lock to Morgan City (LA010502_00) and the East Atchafalaya Basin and Morganza Floodway south to I-10 Canal (LA010401_00) now fully support the designated use of fish and wildlife propagation. We request that LDEQ provide justification for the removal of these two subsegments. In reviewing the Ambient Water Quality Data provided by the agency, low dissolved oxygen levels appear to have continued (particularly in LA010401_00) in these areas despite the proposed removal of these subsegments from the list. Water quality criteria “must be based on sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use.” 40 C.F.R. § 131.11(a). Although the sampling data

14

GRN, ABK, Sierra Club-Delta Chapter, LEAN Comments on Draft 2018 Integrated Report on Water Quality in Louisiana AI Number 169294 July 26, 2018 ---- technically meets the minimum numerical criteria for dissolved oxygen provided in LAC 33:IX.1123, Table 3, sustained low dissolved oxygen levels even at minimal acceptable levels is not conducive to a healthy environmental for fish and wildlife propagation. Largemouth bass, white crappie and bluegill are common, highly populated species found in the Atchafalaya Basin. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service reports on Habitat Suitability show that growth in largemouth bass is reduced at dissolved oxygen levels below 8.0 mg/L, and distress is detected at 5.0 mg/L. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Optimum oxygen levels for bluegill are 14

greater than 5.0 mg/L, and this level is also the minimum oxygen concentration for growth of white crappie. Upwards of 90% of the 15

commercial wild crawfish harvest occurs within the Atchafalaya River Basin. Hypoxic waters “are detrimental to crayfish in Louisiana’s 16

riverine habitats.” Sustained exposure to low oxygen concentrations or 17

hypoxia (between 1 and 2 mg/L) can affect long-term growth and survival. At a minimum, we request further assessment and analysis be conducted to determine whether the prior suspected sources of impairment due to dissolved oxygen levels in these two subsegments has been addressed and the long-term impacts of prolonged exposure at the minimum level of acceptable dissolved oxygen concentrations on the Basin’s primary fish and wildlife populations. Conclusion Based on the arguments and evidence above we request that LDEQ:

1. Respond to GRN’s 2016 comments, including affidavit by Dr. JoAnn Burkholder

2. Include LA 120805_00 (Coastal Terrebonne) in IRC 5 3. Designate LA 070601_00 (Coastal Mississippi) and LA 021102_00

(Coastal Barataria) as IRC 5 instead of IRC 5RC 4. Consider and monitor nutrients in any studies of Gulf dissolved

oxygen 5. Remove IRC 5-Alt until it is shown that TMDLs are not appropriate 6. Clarify how target watersheds were prioritized and address

discrepancies between target watershed and Integrated Report assessments

14 “Habitat Suitability Index Models: Largemouth Bass.” July 1982. Available online at: https://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/hsi/hsi-016.pdf 15 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. “Habitat Suitability Index Models: White Crappie.” February 1982. Available online at: https://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/hsi/hsi-007.pdf; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. “Habitat Suitability Index Models: Bluegill.” February 1982. Available online at: https://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/hsi/hsi-008.pdf. 16 2017 Coastal Master Plan: Crayfish HSI, available at http://coastal.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Attachment-C3-19-Crayfish-HSI_July-201

6.pdf. 17 Id.

15

http://coastal.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Attachment-C3-19-Crayfish-HSI_July-2016.pdf




7. Replace waters on 305(b)/303(d) lists in Table 2, or justify the removal of each of these waters

8. Assess for metals in all waters. Inform the public what metals are not being tested for and the impact to Louisiana’s waters

9. List LA 120207_00 as not meeting wetland assimilation project criteria

10. List La 040803_00 in IRC 3 11. Assess all Louisiana waters for attainment of General Criteria 12. Revisit dissolved oxygen assessment of Atchafalaya Basin

waters, taking into account the fish and wildlife needs. 13. Justify the removal of LA 010502_00 & LA 010401_00 from IRC 5

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to your responses, including all of the issues raised in the attached affidavit from Dr. JoAnn Burkholder (Exhibit A). Respectfully submitted,

Matt Rota Senior Policy Director Gulf Restoration Network Portia Mastin Legal Intern Gulf Restoration Network Dean A. Wilson Executive Director & Basinkeeper Atchafalaya Basinkeeper Julie DesOrmeaux Rosenzweig Director Sierra Club Delta Chapter Marylee Orr Executive Director Louisiana Environmental Action Network

16

GRN, ABK, Sierra Club-Delta Chapter, LEAN Comments on Draft 2018 Integrated Report on Water Quality in Louisiana AI Number 169294 July 26, 2018 ---- CC: Philip Crocker, EPA Region 6 Mike Schaub, EPA Region 6 Lisa Jordan, Tulane Environmental Law Clinic May Nguyen, Tulane Environmental Law Clinic Kristi Trail, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation

17


Exhibit A

18


19


20


21


22


23


24


25


26


Exhibit B

27

Documents

Gulf Restoration Network Atchafalaya ... - Sierra Club...Jul 26, 2018 · Sierra Club Delta Chapter Louisiana Environmental Action Network July 26, 2018 ... mapping out the Dead Zone