Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development

Transcription

1 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support Daryll Joyner, Bureau Chief

2 Summary of Presentation Background info on Rulemaking Criteria Streams Clear Streams Lakes Site Specific Alternative Criteria What s Next? Key Issues

3 Nutrient t Criteria i Development DEP developing numeric nutrient criteria Has been long-term effort with Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and detailed plan January 14, 2009 determination letter from EPA expedited schedule EPA concluded that numeric criteria needed EPA to propose criteria for lakes and streams within 1 year and estuaries within 2 years

4 Nutrient t Criteria i Development (continued) DEP developed rulemaking schedule to complete criteria prior to EPA action Planned to bring criteria before the ERC in Oct But. given recent Consent Decree between EPA and Earthjustice, DEP has suspended rulemaking Consent Decree with Earthjustice requires EPA to finalize or approve criteria by Oct. 15, 2010 Not productive to have duplicate rulemaking

5 Nutrient t Criteria i Development (continued) We completed wide variety of studies to determine relationships between nutrient concentrations and environmental response Prefer methods with linkage to impairment, and found relationship for lakes and clear streams Did not see sufficient relationships for most streams and will use back-up benchmark approach We set criteria at 90 th percentile of reference Have ~450 page Technical Support Document htm

6 Nutrient Regions for Streams

7 Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Streams Benchmark-based criteria (Rule ) Not to be exceeded more than once in 3-year period Require biological validation before listing Geographic Area Total Phosphorus (annual geometric Total Nitrogen (annual geometric mean) mean) Panhandle mg/l 0.82 mg/l North Central mg/l 1.73 mg/l North East mg/l 1.73 mg/l Peninsular mg/l 1.73 mg/l Bone Valley mg/l 1.73 mg/l South Florida To be determined To be determined

8 Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Clear Streams Did see relationship between NO2/3 and algal growth in clear streams Clear defined as times when color less than 40 PCUs Proposed NO2/3 criteria i for streams of 0.35 mg/l as monthly median Expressed as not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time Will be assessed using binomial in IWR

9 Criteria for Lakes Subsection (1) establishes chlorophyll ll a, TN, and TP criteria for three types of lakes Criteria expressed as annual geometric means and must not be exceeded more than once in any 3 calendar year period Long Term Average Lake Color and Alkalinity > 40 Platinum Cobalt Units Chlorophyll a Total Phosphorush Total Nitrogen 20 µg/l mg/l 1.23 mg/l < 40 Platinum 20 µg/l mg/l 1.00 mg/l Cobalt Units and > 50 mg/l as CaCO 3 < 40 Platinum 9µg/ µg/l mg/l mg/L Cobalt Units and < 50 mg/l as CaCO 3

10 Criteria for Lakes Criteria are performance based if chlorophyll a criteria is attained Must have sufficient chlorophyll a data At least 4 samples, with at least one taken between May and Sept. and one taken between October and April For years when chlorophyll a met, TN and TP criteria are set at the annual geometric mean of measured values

11 Criteria for Lakes Criteria are subject to upper and lower limits Lower limits are the criteria in subsection (1) So that t criteria i are not set unnecessarily low Upper limits are values from the upper range of 50% prediction interval, with an added d upper limit for lakes that discharge to streams Criteria cannot exceed applicable stream criteria

12 Other Components of Draft Rule Also proposed new Type III Site-Specific Specific Alternative Criteria (SSAC) for nutrients Requires petitioner to demonstrate that aquatic life use support is attained based on bioassessment results, and then SSAC set at current nutrient t levels l Also proposed to (re-) adopt previously adopted d nutrient t TMDLs as SSACs Would require approval by ERC and EPA

13 What s Next? Rulemaking on hold, but we are still working with EPA and Nutrient TAC Working with EPA to support our previous proposal and will closely track their proposal Scheduled TAC meeting on Nov. 17 in Tampa Will primarily focus on lakes Also continuing field work on streams May integrate some of the draft rule into rulemaking to refine classification system

14 Downstream Protection Key issue with our draft criteria i Federal regulations require that criteria protect designated use of waterbody AND downstream waters Particularly challenging given that we won t have estuary criteria for another year We plan to rely on narrative and demonstrate that benchmark numbers are inherently protective

15 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Refinement of Surface Water Classification System Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support Daryll Joyner, Bureau Chief

16 Summary of Presentation Why Refine the Classification System Overview of Revisions Current Classification Revised Classification System What we are NOT doing with this rulemaking Requirements for Reclassification What s Next

17 Why Refine the Classification System Current system does not provide sufficient classes to address the wide variety of state waters Vast majority of State waters are Class III Revisions will allow us to better protect pristine systems and better focus restoration resources Many waters have been listed as impaired because they do not meet Class III criteria, however the use impairment may be due to habitat or hydrology, rather than water quality TMDLs require expensive restoration designed to achieve uses that may not be attainable

18 Refinement of Surface Water Classification System Propose to refine the classification system Change from system with 5 classes that combines both human uses and aquatic life uses to a new system with 7 human use classes and 4 aquatic life uses Also revising process for reclassifications Will also populate p the criteria for the existing classes into the new structure New system includes classes that are analogous to old system, but also includes new classes

19 Existing Surface Water Classifications Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V Drinking Water Shellfish Recreation, Fish & Wildlife Agricultural Water Supplies Industrial (none)

20 Proposed Human Use Classifications HU1 HU2 Drinking Water Shellfish HU3 Fish Consumption & Recreation (full body contact) HU4 HU5 HU6 HU7 Fish Consumption & Recreation (incidental body contact) Fish Consumption & Limited or No Recreation (unsafe physical conditions) Agricultural Industrial

21 Proposed Aquatic Life Use Classifications AL1 AL2 AL3 AL4 Fish & wildlife (approximates natural background) Fish & wildlife (minimal difference from natural background) Fish & wildlife (moderate difference from natural background) Fish & wildlife (substantial difference from natural background usually related to hydrology and habitat)

22 Cross-walked existing classes Existing Class Proposed Human Use Proposed Aquatic Life Use Class I HU-1 AL-2 Class II HU-2 AL-2 Class III HU-3 AL-2 Class IV HU-6 Addressed in HU-6 Class V HU-7 N/A HU-4 and HU-5 are proposed to represent different expectations associated with recreational contact AL-1 is proposed to help protect exceptional waters, while AL-3 and AL-4 are proposed for waters with different biological expectation due to natural, hydrologic, or physical/habitat limitations

23 What we are NOT doing with this rulemaking We are not reclassifying any waters or changing their level of protection Before any reclassifications can occur to any new class, we will need to: Adopt the revised classification system as part of this rulemaking Develop new criteria for new classes Approve reclassification petition Each must be adopted by ERC and approved by EPA

24 Revisions i to Reclassification i Process Reclassifications must be noticed and adopted by ERC only upon finding: Will establish the present and future most beneficial use Is in the pubic interest, and Proposed use is attainable

25 Reclassifications to less restrictive use Must demonstrate that: None of the uses being removed are existing uses, The uses to be removed would not be attained by implementing effluent limits required by CWA and best management practices for nonpoint sources, and One of the following six factors prevent attainment of the use Factors are from 40 CFR (g)

26 One of the following prevent attainment t of the use (continued) Naturally occurring pollutants, Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or water levels, Human caused conditions or sources of pollution that cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct, Dams, channelization, diversions, flood control pumps or other hydrologic modifications AND it is not feasible to restore the waterbody,

27 One of the following prevent attainment t of the use (continued) Physical conditions related to natural features of the waterbody, such as lack of proper habitat, hydrologic regime, or physical morphology, unrelated to water quality, Controls more stringent than required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the CWA would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact

28 What s Next? Working on requirements for demonstration that downstream uses will be protected Working on guidance document for Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) Process Public workshop in Tampa on Nov. 18 Focus on rule revisions and guidance document