Goal Setting: Nutrient Pollution Standards and Technology. October 29, Ephraim King OST

Transcription

1 Goal Setting: Nutrient Pollution Standards and Technology October 29, 2008 Ephraim King OST

2 Purpose 1. Why are nutrient criteria important? 2. What have we done to date? 3. Where are the States? 4. What pressures are we facing? 5. The need for a national dialogue on future direction OST 2

3 Why are nutrient criteria important? 10, (d) listings = third largest cause of impairment Over half (80) of U.S. estuaries suffer harmful low oxygen events 49 states have section 303(d) listings for nutrients or excessive algal growth. Over 5,000 completed TMDLs for nutrients, oxygen depletion, or excessive algal growth OST

4 Why are nutrient criteria important? New problems: Nutrients linked to frog deformities Increased human pathogen growth in algal mats 405 dead zones found around the globe= 95,000 sq. mi. 167 dead zones in USA OS

5 Why are nutrient criteria important? Identify the healthy level of nutrient for the waterbody Numeric nutrient standards = more effective and efficient program implementation key advantages : easier and faster development of TMDLs; quantitative targets to support trading programs; easier to write protective NPDES permits; increased effectiveness in evaluating success of nutrient runoff minimization programs measurable, objective water quality baselines against which to measure environmental progress OS

6 What have we done to date? 1998 EPA National Nutrient Strategy 2001 EPA-OW Memo EPA Technical Guidance: Ecoregional Nutrient Criteria documents 4 Methods Manuals Ben Grumbles Standards Memo OST

7 Where are the States? 42 State Nutrient Plans submitted to EPA Numeric nutrient standards July States have at least one parameter for one water body type 20 States have site-specific numeric standards for particular water bodies or stream reaches 23 states with no numeric nutrient standards OST

8 2008 Numeric Criteria Progress WA OR NV CA ID AZ UT MT WY CO NM ND SD NE KS OK VT MN NY WI MI IA PA IL IN OH WV MO VA KY TN NC AR SC MS AL GA ME NH MA RI CT NJ DE MD AK TX LA FL HI Adopted numeric criteria for one or more parameters for at least one entire waterbody type (6 States) Adopted numeric criteria for one or more parameters for selected waters in one or more waterbody types (20 States) Has not adopted numeric criteria (24 States)

9 What pressures are we facing? 1. Slow pace of numeric standards adoption by States 2. Confusion about what standards to use 3. States facing unanswered implementation issues 4. Contributions from non-point sources 5. Challenges from stakeholders OST

10 Challenges from Stakeholders Petition for Technology-based controls for nutrients Florida Wildlife Federation s lawsuit Mississippi River watershed petition Everglades phosphorus criteria decision ASIWPCA draft Call for Change paper OST

11 Challenges from Stakeholders Requests for Technology-based Controls for Nutrients NRDC et. al. petitioners (Nov. 27, 2007) D. Smithee (ASIWPCA) Letter Nov. 26, 2007 OST

12 Challenges from Stakeholders Florida Wildlife Federation s Lawsuit: Status of case: NOI sent 4/9/08 Complaint filed 7/17/08 Alleges: EPA s 1998 nutrient strategy determined numeric criteria for N and P are necessary for Florida Numeric standards should have been in place by 2004 EPA s failed to promptly promulgate numeric nutrient criteria for Florida under 303(c)(4)(B) OST1

13 Challenges from Stakeholders Mississippi River Watershed Petition (July 30, 2008) Filed by Midwest Environmental Advocates for five environmental groups Requests EPA to set numeric nitrogen and phosphorus standards and to develop cleanup plans OST1

14 Challenges from Stakeholders Everglades phosphorus criteria 10 ug/l total phosphorus State extended compliance deadlines 10 years, EPA approved Miccosukee Tribe and Friends of Everglades sued. On July 29, 2008, the U.S. District Court ruled against extension and blocked State permits being issued with extension OST1

15 Challenges from Stakeholders ASIWPCA draft Call for Change paper: An Effective Strategy for dealing with Nutrients A sustainable technology-based approach for point sources and a regulatory/technology-based approach (or some equally effective strategy) for non-point sources needs to be explored. Cost-effectiveness should be a key consideration Need alignment of Clean Water Act, Farm Bill and water resources programs and sustained targeted funding OST1

16 Important Questions for a National Dialogue 1. Do we need a more comprehensive approach to nutrient management? 2. How can EPA/States further accelerate numeric nutrient standards adoption? 3. What is the role of technology-based controls? 4. What is the role of TMDLs -- with/without criteria? 5. How to deal with difficult sources such as non-point sources? 6. Watershed scale approaches? 7. Trading? 8. What other tools can be applied? 9. Are we getting results? 10.Do we have accountability? 11.What effect will the stakeholder challenges have? OST1