Numeric Nutrient Criteria in Florida: Historical and Current Events

Kevin Carter

South Florida Water Management District

Office Of Everglades Policy and Coordination

561-682-6949

kecarter@sfwmd.gov

2011 American Planning Association – Florida Chapter Annual Conference

West Palm Beach, Florida

September 9, 2011

Purpose of Presentation

Overview of the Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) historic events

National Perspectives from United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

NNC: An Abbreviated History

1998 EPA develops policy document for a ‘National Nutrient Strategy’(http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/waterquality/standards/criteria/aqlife/pollutants/nutrient/strategy_index.cfm#strategy)

2000-2001 EPA develops series of Technical Guidance Documents for NNC

‘Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manuals’ for Lakes, Rivers and Streams, and Estuaries

‘Ambient Water Quality Recommendations’ for different ecoregions around the country

(http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/waterquality/standards/criteria/aqlife/pollutants/nutrient/guidance_index.cfm)

(http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/waterquality/standards/criteria/aqlife/pollutants/nutrient/ecoregions_index.cfm)

2001 State of Florida (FDEP) begins collaborative process with EPA to develop NNC

2003 FDEP forms Technical Advisory Committee (governed by Florida’s Sunshine Laws )

2003-2009: TAC focused on freshwaters: lakes, rivers and streams, springs and canals

NNC: An Abbreviated History (cont.)

Many challenges in developing this criteria (not limited to the following): Nutrients are necessary for fish and wildlife to

exist and thrive in aquatic systems What are the appropriate response variables? Aquatic system diversity is quite large and

expands across a large geographic area Variability of aquatic systems can be high

through time and over large spaces on many different scales (e.g., days to years)

The TAC’s challenges

1st TAC meeting – Tallahassee – Jan. 2003, Last met in April 2010

Main focus was on lakes, rivers and streams

Special meetings on canals were held but did not find same level of information as other systems

FDEP drafted proposed NNC for river and streams, lakes, and springs but NOT South Florida canals in July 2009

FDEP and TAC Overall Timeline

Lakes (final criteria December 2010; covers entire state)

5 Rivers + Streams* regions (final criteria December 2010)

15 months to begin implementation (March 2012)

Webinar series on Implementation

(http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/florida_index.cfm)

EPA’s Rivers and Streams Nutrient Watershed Regions

EPA’s Numeric Nutrient Criteria Schedule: Final Rule

* Downstream Protection Values component in rule that takes into account lakes

National Research Council’s Economic Study 1st meeting held Jul. 25th-26th in Orlando

Cost estimates vary due, in part, to assumptions: For example, level of treatment that would be required to

meet NNC (especially if “end of pipe criteria” or not)

Panel has set a Feb. 28, 2012 deadline for initial draft recommendations:

Panel is not coming up with their own numbers

EPA’s rule due out for implementation on Mar. 6, 2012

(http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49374)

EPA’s Current Rule: The Economics

EPA’s Rivers and Streams Nutrient Watershed Regions

EPA’s Numeric Nutrient Criteria Schedule: Future Rulemaking

* Marine Waters may have a Downstream Protection Values component in rule

South Florida Canals Freshwater Canals

South of Lake Okeechobee

Marine Waters* Estuaries and Coastal

Waters statewide

Both Water Types: EPA Scientific Advisory

Board Review complete

Proposed Rule due November 2011

Final Rule due August 2012

Presented final document to EPA (July 2011) on review of NNC for marine waters and SF Canals

“SAB was not convinced by the available data that nutrient criteria based on instream protection values were meaningful for man-made and managed canals.”

Majority of document focused on technical review of marine methodologies (pros and cons):

Time to complete rulemaking was a concern

EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) Peer Review

Kevin Carter

South Florida Water

Management District

Office of Everglades

Policy and Coordination

Phone: 561-682-6949

kecarter@sfwmd.gov

www.sfwmd.gov

Discussion and Contact Information

Backup slides

EPA Final Lakes Criteria November 2010A B C D E F Long Term Average Lake

Chlorophyll a f (μg/L) a

Baseline Criteria b Modified Criteria (within these bounds) c

Color and Alkalinity

TP (mg/L) a TN (mg/L) a TP (mg/L) a TN (mg/L) a

Colored Lakes > 40 PCU

20 0.050 1.27 0.050-0.16 1.27-2.23

Clear Lakes, Alkaline ≤ 40 PCU d and > 50 mg/L CaCO3 e

20 0.030 1.05 0.030-0.090 1.05-1.91

Clear Lakes, Acidic ≤ 40 PCU d and ≤ 50 mg/L CaCO3 e

6 0.010 0.51 0.010-0.030 0.51-0.93

EPA Rivers and Streams Proposed and Final Criteria

Rule has equations in place for downstream protection values for Lakes could potentially lower these criteria

Nutrient Watershed Region

EPA's Proposed and Final Instream Protection Value Criteria for Rivers and Streams

 

  TN (mg/L) Proposed

TN (mg/L) FINAL

TP (mg/L) Proposed

TP (mg/L) FINAL

Panhandle 0.824 N/A 0.043 N/APanhandle West N/A 0.67 N/A 0.06Panhandle East N/A 1.03 N/A 0.18North Central 1.479 1.87 0.359 0.3Bone Valley (now called West Central)

1.798 1.65 0.739 0.49

Peninsula (District waters)

1.205 1.54 0.107 0.12

From Presentation by Dr. Dana Thomas USEPA (February 15, 2011)

http://www.tetratech-ffx.com/NOLAnutrient_workshop/presentations.htm