Nutrient Regulation Progress
A National Perspective
Trent Stober, PE
Geosyntec Consultants
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 Strategy
Benjamin 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 Strategy
Nancy Stoner’s Memo (March 16, 2011)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Prioritize watersheds
Watershed load reduction
goals
Ensure effectiveness of point
source permits in targeted
watersheds
Agricultural areas
Stormwater and septic
systems
Accountability and
verification of measures
Public reporting
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
Image Source: WRI 2010, Chesapeake Bay Program
 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
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%
Source: USGS 2008
Missouri = 12.1%
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
EPA Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Streams
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
Source: 75 FR 75773; December 6, 2010
Note: Annual geometric mean; 1-in-3 year exceedance frequency
Science Advisory Board Review
Florida 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 Rule
Point 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
Waterbody
 2 permit cycles before WQBELs
enforced
 Interim limits assigned
 0.6/1.0 and 0.5/1.0
P Criteria
Wadeable Streams
75 ug/L
Non-wadeable Streams
100 ug/L
Lakes and Reservoirs
15 – 30 ug/L
Nearshore Great Lakes
< 7 ug/L
 Phosphorus trading option
 Implementation Guidance being Developed
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
CBOD5
TSS
NH3N
TN
TP
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Permittee
Stream
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 Phosphorus 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
2010 303(d) Lakes/Reservoirs Listed for
Nutrients and/or Algae
TMDLs May Affect
All NPDES Permits In
Watershed
36 Lakes Impaired
By Nutrients
Preliminary Draft Stream and River
Criteria (Note: Revisions are anticipated)
Stream Nutrient Criteria Zone
I
II
III
IV
V
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
0.90
0.70
0.50
0.43
0.50
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
0.075
0.035
0.031
0.010
0.075
 Based on a variety of
approaches including
 Percentile of reference data
 RTAG value
 Change in algal community
 Criteria not tied to beneficial use
Treatment Levels
Parameter
Raw Wastewater
Secondary Effluent
BNR
ENR
LOT
TP, mg/L
4–8
4–6
1.0
0.25 – 0.50
0.05 – 0.07
TN, mg/L
25 – 35
20 – 30
10
4–6
3-4
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)
Treatment Costs
 Secondary treatment
 Biological nutrient
removal (BNR)
 Enhanced nutrient
removal (ENR)
 Limits of technology
(LOT)
 Reverse osmosis
(RO)
Secondary
BNR
ENR
LOT
RO
Adapted from Jiang et al. 2005
Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., Nutrients Discharge Permitting
and Wastewater Treatment Workshop (Apr 29, 2010)
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, PE
Geosyntec Consultants
1123 Wilkes Blvd., Suite 400
Columbia, Missouri 65201
Phone: 573.443.4100
Email: tstober@geosyntec.com