Nutrient Regulation ProgressA National Perspective

Trent Stober, PEGeosyntec Consultants

Nutrient Reduction Specialty ConferenceAugust 9, 2011

Columbia, Missouri

Nutrient Issue Background

Nutrients are a leading cause of impairments

EPA’s 2004 National Water Quality Inventory 16% rivers impaired 19% lakes impaired

EPA National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria (1998) December 31, 2003

deadline

National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria (1998)

EPA recommended states adopt region-specific water quality criteria in 14 Level III Ecoregions

EPA’s National Nutrient StrategyBenjamin Grumbles’ Memo (May 25, 2007)

Key advantages to numeric nutrient standards: Easier and faster

development of TMDLs Quantitative targets to

support trading programs Easier to write protective

NPDES permits

State Progress in Last Decade

EPA’s National Nutrient StrategyNancy Stoner’s Memo (March 16, 2011)

1. Prioritize watersheds2. Watershed load reduction goals 3. Ensure effectiveness of point

source permits in targeted watersheds

4. Agricultural areas5. Stormwater and septic systems6. Accountability and verification

of measures7. Public reporting8. Develop work plan and

schedule for numeric criteria development*

*Flexible timetable provided the state is making meaningful near-term reductions (3-5 years)

Challenges to Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria

Scientific Issues Nutrients are necessary for a healthy aquatic ecosystem No immediate impact – longer averaging periods Cause and effect relationships

Public Policy Issues Standards affect many (e.g., wastewater utilities, farmers,

stormwater managers, local governments) Should standards protect healthy fish stocks or promote

pristine waters?

National Nutrient Activities

NRDC Secondary Treatment Petition

Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mississippi River Basin

NRDC Petition Florida WQS Adoption New England Objections Wisconsin Nutrient Rule Missouri Progress

2007 NRDC Petition for Rulemaking Secondary Treatment Definition

Redefine “secondary treatment” to include nitrogen and phosphorus removal

Suggested limitations TP = 0.3 – 1.0 mg/L TN = 3.0 – 8.0

mg/L No formal response

from EPA

Chesapeake Bay TMDL

64,000 mi2 watershed Six states and D.C. >17 million residents

Historical Water Quality Impairments Hypoxic zone Dissolved oxygen, clarity, chlorophyll Nutrients and sediment from upstream

sources TMDL finalized December 2010 Largest TMDL conducted ≈ 25% reduction N & P

Image Source: WRI 2010, Chesapeake Bay Program

Watershed Implementation Plans

Provide ongoing accountability framework Phase I – November 2010

States divide nutrient and sediment loads in large geographic regions between point and non-point sources

Description of actions and control measures Phase II – November 2011

Further subdivision of loads Specific practices that will be implemented to meet interim

goals by 2017 Phase III - 2017

Refine practices and controls to meet WQS by 2025

Effluent Limits in the Chesapeake States - Virginia

2005, Based on Delivery factors Available tech. Size/number of

dischargers in basin All significant

discharges must meet additional load limits under general permit

Extensive nutrient trading framework

No increase in loading Approach similar to other

Chesapeake States

Mississippi River Basin

Gulf of Mexico 2nd largest hypoxic zone in

world (EPA 2009), caused by excess nutrients

Nonpoint source issue 2009 EPA report

“…rather than relying on upstream States to set standards that protect downstream waters, EPA could promulgate standards for waters of national value, such as the Gulf of Mexico or the Mississippi River.”

Mississippi River Basin

Missouri = 9.6%

Missouri = 12.1%

Source: USGS 2008

USEPA Response to MCEA, et. al Mississippi River Basin Petition

Set nutrient criteria for Gulf of Mexico and all waters within Mississippi River Basin

Develop nutrient TMDLs for Gulf of Mexico, Mississippi River and all impaired tributaries

July 29, 2011 - USEPA rejects Mississippi River Basin Petition Development of nutrient criteria for 31

states highly time and resource intensive Rely on March 2011 State Nutrient

Reduction Framework

Florida Rule

USEPA promulgates nutrient criteria November 14, 2011 (Effective March 6, 2012)

Reference approach (90th /75th percentile) “Restoration standard” provision rescinded Site-Specific Alternative Criteria (SSAC) Multiple lawsuits

Region TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L)Panhandle West 0.67 0.06

Panhandle East 1.03 0.18

North Central 1.87 0.30

West Central 1.65 0.49

Peninsula 1.54 0.12

EPA Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Streams

Source: 75 FR 75773; December 6, 2010

Note: Annual geometric mean; 1-in-3 year exceedance frequency

Science Advisory Board ReviewFlorida Nutrient Criteria

SAB asked to review draft nutrient criteria development approach

Review submitted to USEPA July 19, 2011 SAB outlined several concerns

Biological endpoints appropriate but link to nutrients should be better defined

Biological endpoints should be quantitative (vs. “balanced”) Direct measurement of biological endpoints should be used

(not DO as a surrogate) Should use combination of approaches (reference

conditions, modeling, predictive relationships) Others

New England Objections

Maine and Vermont proposing nutrient criteria based on decision framework of causal and response variables

USEPA not supportive - independent applicability USEPA Region 1 - “indeterminate” status New England Interstate Water Pollution Control

Commission (January 3, 2011 letter to USEPA) “… biological responses that are reflective of a range of nutrient

conditions are the most appropriate way to apply criteria.” “…, the Northeast states believe that EPA has failed to produce

sufficient scientific evidence or a viable legal or policy basis for the imposition of independent applicability of numeric nutrient criteria, …”

Wisconsin Nutrient RulePoint Source Regs

December 2010 – Nutrient (TP) rules in effect Ephemeral and Limited Aquatic Life Streams Exempt

More stringent of WQ or TBEL (1.0 mg/L AML) Unless “not practically achievable”

Schedule of compliance (7-9 years) Adaptive management

2 permit cycles before WQBELs enforced Interim limits assigned 0.6/1.0 and 0.5/1.0

Phosphorus trading option Implementation Guidance being Developed

Waterbody P CriteriaWadeable Streams 75 ug/L

Non-wadeable Streams 100 ug/L

Lakes and Reservoirs 15 – 30 ug/L

Nearshore Great Lakes < 7 ug/L

Missouri Nutrient Drivers

TMDL wasteload allocations Lakes and reservoirs nutrient criteria

awaiting EPA decision Streams and rivers nutrient criteria

under development 2015 triennial review (earliest)

TMDL Wasteload Allocations

Permittee StreamCBOD5 TSS NH3N TN TP(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

Kennett Buffalo Ditch 5 31 <0.7 0.76 0.12

Nevada Marmaton R. 3 4 -17 0.085 0.80 0.09

Salem Spring Br. 3 5 <0.29 0.29 0.007

Butler Mound Br. 3 10 0.045 0.80 0.090

Fulton Stinson Cr. 4 5 0.010 0.88 0.092

Kirksville Bear Cr. 5 30 0.86 0.86 0.092

Bolivar Piper Cr. 4 27 1.4 0.29 0.007

Marshfield WF Niangua R. 6 5 .264 0.29 0.007

Simmons Foods Cave Springs Br. --- --- --- 0.29 0.007

Missouri Lake Nutrient Criteria

Total Nitrogen Criteria – 20 x TP Chlorophyll Criteria

Plains Chl:TP = 0.44 Ozark Border and Ozark Highland

Chl:TP = 0.42 LIKELY USEPA REJECTION

Total Phosphorus Criteria

2010 303(d) Lakes/Reservoirs Listed for Nutrients and/or Algae

36 Lakes Impaired By Nutrients

TMDLs May Affect All NPDES Permits In

Watershed

Preliminary Draft Stream and River Criteria (Note: Revisions are anticipated)

Based on a variety of approaches including Percentile of reference data RTAG value Change in algal community

Criteria not tied to beneficial use

Stream Nutrient Criteria Zone Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (mg/L)I 0.90 0.075II 0.70 0.035

III 0.50 0.031IV 0.43 0.010V 0.50 0.075

Treatment Levels

Note: Treatment levels ignore considerations of variability in treatment performance

Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., Nutrients and Water Quality: A Region 8 Collaborative Workshop (Feb 16, 2011)

Parameter TP, mg/L TN, mg/LRaw Wastewater 4 – 8 25 – 35Secondary Effluent 4 – 6 20 – 30BNR 1.0 10ENR 0.25 – 0.50 4 – 6LOT 0.05 – 0.07 3 - 4

Treatment Costs

Secondary treatment Biological nutrient

removal (BNR) Enhanced nutrient

removal (ENR) Limits of technology

(LOT) Reverse osmosis (RO)

Secondary BNR ENR LOT RO

Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., Nutrients Discharge Permitting and Wastewater Treatment Workshop (Apr 29,

2010)

Adapted from Jiang et al. 2005

Innovative Solutions Needed

Multiple Drivers Force Innovative Solutions Economic Considerations Sustainability Considerations

Energy Use Chemical Use Greenhouse Gases

Establish Priorities with Limited Resources

Potential Innovative Solutions

Tiered assessment (e.g., Vermont and Maine) Site-specific criteria Longer implementation (10-20 years?) Adaptive management Flexible permit limit expression Watershed-based permitting approach Water quality trading Alternative approaches for expressing criteria (e.g.,

mass)

Flexible Permit Limit Expression

Longer averaging period 40 CFR 122.45(d) – MDL or AWL EPA 2004 memo: “…permit limits expressed as an annual

limit are appropriate …” Nutrient assimilation zone Seasonal variability Dynamic limit tied to conditions Mass-based limits Bioavailable nutrient limitations

Watershed-Based Permitting

Permits developed for multiple point sources within watershed

Address multiple pollutants or stressors Multiple benefits

Cooperation between dischargers Potential shared mass loading limits Implementation of multiple programs and requirements Adaptive management approaches Leverage resources of permittees Water quality trading

Summary

Nutrient issues are not going away EPA expanding reach, requiring numeric criteria National efforts will affect MO and Mississippi River states Simple solutions ignore complexities Technology and economic issues

High incremental costs Diminishing water quality benefits Sustainability

Innovative solutions are needed Watershed permitting and trading will be important components Flexibility is key

Active stakeholder participation is needed!

Thanks for the Opportunity!

For further information:

Trent Stober, PEGeosyntec Consultants1123 Wilkes Blvd., Suite 400Columbia, Missouri 65201Phone: 573.443.4100Email: tstober@geosyntec.com