Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
Clean Water Act
Water Quality Based Provisions and Challenges
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
October, 2010
Drew Bartlett, Deputy Director
Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration
Basic Clean Water Act Water Quality Based Process
Set Water Quality Standards
Monitoring and Assess Waterbodies
List Impaired Waterbodies
303(d) List
Goal: “wherever
attainable, provide
for the protection
and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and
wildlife and provide
for recreation in
and on the water”
Develop Total Maximum
Daily Loads
Implement Loads
NPDES Permitting &
Nonpoint Source Controls
Requires EPA Involvement
Page 2
Numeric Nutrient Criteria
• FDEP Started Developing Numeric Criteria in 2001
Page 3
Deriving “Protective” Nutrient Standards
Annual Geometric Mean Chl-a (µg/L)
Plan A – Attempt to find the
amount of nutrients that
causes harm to waterways
Plan B – Identify the amount of
nutrients in the healthy and
undisturbed waterways
Regression Line
50% Prediction Interval
100
Ln (y) = 1.128 Ln(x) + 5.729
R² = 0.581
10
1
0.01
0.1
1
Annual Geometric Mean TP (mg/L)
Lakes & Tampa Bay
Streams
Page 4
Water Quality for Tampa Bay (Plan A)
Reasonable
Reasonable Assurance/WQBEL
Assurance/WQBEL
Implemented
Implemented by
by Tampa
Tampa Bay
Bay
Nitrogen
Nitrogen Management
Management Consortium
Consortium
Solid
Solid basis
basis for
for all
all Clean
Clean
Water
Water Act
Act Actions
Actions because
because
it
it is
is known
known what
what protects
protects
the
the goal.
goal.
“protection
“protection and
and
propagation
propagation of
of fish,
fish,
shellfish,
shellfish, and
and
wildlife”
wildlife”
Page 5
Stream Criteria (Plan B)
Set
Set to
to maintain
maintain concentrations
concentrations
found
found in
in similar
similar healthy
healthy and/or
and/or
undisturbed
undisturbed waterbodies.
waterbodies.
Concentrations from Biologically Healthy Sites (mg/L)
Panhandle West
Panhandle East
North Central
Peninsula
West Central
Total Phosphorus
0.03
0.10
0.36
0.10
0.73
Concentrations from Minimally Disturbed Sites (mg/L)
Total Total Nitrogen Phosphorus
0.84
0.04
0.77
1.48
1.20
1.80
0.11
0.35
0.11
0.35
Total Nitrogen
0.62
0.97
1.90
1.67
1.30
Criticism:
Criticism: True
True level
level of
of protection
protection unknown.
unknown.
Page 6
Accounting for Plan B Criteria
Understand the Waterbody
• Is it healthy?
• Can it be healthy?
• Are Nutrients a factor?
• If Healthy, then process site specific criteria to current conditions.
• If not Healthy, then set site specific criteria (through TMDL) or
change goal of the waterbody (drainage ditch).
Page 7
Why are TMDLs still being set?
Consent Decree Schedule
If EPA has not approved a State TMDL
for a targeted impairment (1998 List)
by Sept. 30th of each year, EPA shall
propose a TMDL for that impairment.
Finalize 6 Months later unless more
analysis is necessary.
Revisiting nutrient TMDLs will be necessary.
Page 8
Interaction with Criteria, TMDLs, and Other Water
Quality Goals (Tampa Bay TMDL/RA)
Set Water Quality Standards
Monitoring and Assess Waterbodies
Alignment
Alignment
Actions
Actions
Necessary
Necessary
List Impaired Waterbodies
303(d) List
Develop Total Maximum
Daily Loads
Implement Loads
NPDES Permitting &
Nonpoint Source Controls
Page 9
Questions?
Drew Bartlett
Deputy Director
Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration
(850) 245-8446
drew.bartlett@dep.state.fl.us
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/index.htm
Page 10