Inland Numeric Nutrient Criteria: Ramifications for Tampa Bay

1
Inland Numeric Nutrient CriteriaRamifications
for Tampa Bays RA/TMDL
2
Goals for the NMC to Consider

• PROPOSED GOAL
• Ensure that EPAs final inland water criteria
  rule recognizes the RA/TMDL loading targets for
  Tampa Bay as interim estuarine targets.
• Ensure that EPA recognizes the RA/TMDL loading
  targets for Tampa Bay as Estuarine Nutrient
  Criteria in the 2011 draft and final rules.

3
Why should NMC consider this seriously?

• Proposed Inland Waters criteria have identified
  downstream protective loads for the Tampa Bay
  estuary
• The downstream protective loads do not appear to
  be commensurate with the federally-recognized TMDL

4
Proposed Rules forFlorida Inland Waters

• Proposed rule signed Jan. 14, 2010
• Comments due 60 days after publication in Federal
  Register (still pending)
• Criteria developed for lakes, streams, canals and
  springs

5
Downstream Protective Loads are Proposed in Rules
for Florida Inland Waters (contd)

• Proposed Inland Waters criteria also identify a
  downstream protective load (DPL) for the Tampa
  Bay estuary
• TB DPL Target 1421 tons/year (p.118)
• Estimated TN load delivered to the estuary
  protective of aquatic life use. These estimates
  may be revised pursuant to the EPA final rule for
  numeric nutrient criteria for Floridas estuaries
  and coastal waters (October 2011).

6
Summary of EPAs current approach to determining
DPL

• Estimated nutrient loads for background
  conditions by removing the fraction associated
  with anthropogenic sources (except atmospheric
  deposition)
• Estimated current nutrient loads, using current
  land use and point source inputs.
• EPA computed the protective TN load by reducing
  the current TN load by ½ of the anthropogenic
  contribution to that load.

7
Comparison of EPA Proposed Approach to Tampa Bay
RA loading targets and federally-recognized TMDL

• DPL for Tampa Bay (tons TN/yr) 1421
• RA targets (tons TN/year)
• Hillsborough Bay 1451
• Old Tampa Bay 486
• Middle Tampa Bay 799
• Lower Tampa Bay 349
• TOTAL 3085
• (Remainder LTB) 629 (TOTAL
  3714)

8
EPA Invites Input to the DPL

• EPA recognizes that additional data and
  analysis may be available, including data for
  particular estuaries, to help inform what numeric
  nutrient criteria are necessary to protect
  Floridas waters, including downstream lakes and
  estuaries. EPA also recognizes that substantial
  site-specific work has been completed for a
  number of these estuaries

9
EPA Invites Feedback, cont

• This notice and the proposed downstream
  protection values are not intended to address or
  be interpreted as calling into question the
  utility and protectiveness of these site-specific
  analyses
• EPA is also interested in feedback regarding
  site-specific analyses for particular estuaries
  that should be used instead of this general
  approach for establishing final values

10
Goals for the TBNMC to Consider

• PROPOSED GOAL
• Ensure that EPAs final inland waters criteria
  rule recognizes the RA/TMDL loading targets for
  Tampa Bay as interim estuarine targets (DPLs).
• Ensure that EPA recognizes the RA/TMDL loading
  targets for Tampa Bay as Estuarine Nutrient
  Criteria in the 2011 draft and final rules.

11
NMC Input on Potential Next Steps

• Potentially re-calculate inland DPV based on
  RA/TMDL loads as better justification of
  protective loads to Tampa Bay
• Incorporate NMC RA 5-year assessments instead of
  EPA proposed 3-yr assessment (w/ 1-yr exceedence
  being a violation)
• NMC response during EPA comment period should
  reiterate Dec. 19th arguments with further
  back-up

12
NMC Letter to EPA

• Argue that NMC approach considers a
  response-based approach ? include documentation
  of TB progress
• Ben Grumbles comments on existing Tampa Bay
  RA/TMDL process
• NMC costs associated with existing process
  (including actions by the participating entities)
• Participants associated with NMC, and signed
  declarations from entities
• Provide more technical arguments / comparisons of
  RA/TMDL loads? -gt Provide information on regional
  SPARROW application vs. local application of
  model
• Encourage EPA participation in State Estuarine
  Criteria workshops
• Incorporate NMC RA 5-year assessments instead of
  EPA proposed 3-yr assessment (w/ 1-yr exceedence
  being a violation achieve better than 60
  compliance)
• Provide bulleted summary in letter

13
NMC Letter to EPA, contd.

• Ensure that RA document becomes part of the
  proposed EPA rule docket
• Argue that existing actions have largely achieved
  the proposed DPLs
• 2003-2007 flow-weighted concentrations in place
  of proposed DPV
• Focus letter on EPA accepting RA/TMDL loads as
  the DPLs
• Include discussion on maintaining TNTP
• Provide other comments in subsequent letters?
• Provide letter to NMC in 2-weeks

14
How to reach the right reviewer?

• Who are the right people to cc this information?
• Upcoming EPA Workshops ? need to register to
  attend speak
• Representatives from TBEP (Holly) TBNMC (Rob
  Jeff)
• Other NMC participants in support of TB process
• Encourage NMC attendance at multiple workshops
• Request informal meeting prior to EPA workshops
  w/ NMC participants ? if denied then document
• Evaluate whether a technical meeting can be setup
  between EPA GB staff
• Provide PR related to NMC RA process (Op-ed piece
  from NMC co-chairs, fertilizer ordinances, etc.)
• Visit reps in Washington, D.C.
• Invite reps to a special NMC meeting on subject
• Solicit support from other groups?

15
Future Considerations

• TP limits forthcoming ? argue to maintain
  existing loads and/or TNTP ratios

16
(No Transcript)
17
Questions/Issues

• The draft rule appears to assume that downstream
  waters require nutrient reduction. How and where
  in the draft rule does EPA consider existing
  conditions of downstream waters and whether a
  waterbody is currently meeting designated uses in
  downstream waters, including estuaries?

18
Questions/Issues, cont

• How and where does EPA recognize existing TMDLs
  in the proposed rule?
• OTHER QUESTIONS ISSUES

19
Goals for the NMC to Consider

• PROPOSED GOAL EPAs final freshwater criteria
  rule recognizes the RA/TMDL loading targets for
  Tampa Bay as interim estuarine targets.
• EPA recognizes the RA/TMDL loading targets for
  Tampa Bay as Estuarine Nutrient Criteria in the
  2011 draft and final rules.
• Determine how best to provide site-specific
  analyses for particular estuaries that should be
  used instead of this general approach for
  establishing final values.

20
Downstream Protection for Estuaries (EPA Proposed
pp. 99)

• Methodologies to calculate in-stream protective
  criteria would allow either of the following to
  be utilized by the State
• EPA's downstream protection values (DPVs), or
• the EPA DPV methodology utilizing EPA's estimates
  of protective loading to estuaries but with the
  load re-distributed among the tributaries to each
  estuary, or
• an alternative quantitative methodology, based
  on scientifically defensible approaches, to
  derive and quantify the protective load to each
  estuary and the associated protective stream
  concentrations.
• Requires the State to go through Federal SSAC
  process (Section V.C)

21
Using an Alternative Methodology to Determine
Downstream Protective Loads

• An acceptable alternate numeric approach also
  includes a method to distribute and apply the
  load to streams and other waters within the
  estuarine drainage area in a manner that
  recognizes conservation of mass and makes use of
  a peer reviewed model (empirical or mechanistic)
  of comparable or greater rigor and scientific
  defensibility than the USGS SPARROW model (p.
  124).

22
Federal SSAC Process (p. 161)

• State, or applicants to the State, would submit
  to EPA
• Can be developed following State (Type I or II)
  or Federal SSAC procedures (p.162)
• Federal SSAC proposal would necessitate
  documentation that ensures that a larger load
  allowed from an upstream segment as a result of a
  SSAC does not compromise protection on a
  downstream segment that has not been evaluated.
• Florida always has the option of submitting a
  State-adopted SSAC as new or revised WQS to EPA
  for review and approval under the CWA section
  303(c)
• However, State Type I SSAC process can currently
  only be used for nutrients under State rules (p.
  164)