Transcript ACWA Nutrient Reduction Survey

Nutrient Reduction
An Overview of the Diverse Methods
States are Using to Address Nutrients
Source Water Collaborative Meeting
Washington, DC—June 26, 2012
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn
ACWA Executive Director & General Counsel
Fundamental Element
 As an aquatic ecosystem can be healthy under varying
levels of nutrients, managing nutrient levels requires
unique and diverse strategies.
 States use of a variety of tools beyond water quality
standards and TMDLs to manage nutrients.
 State level effluent standards, technology requirements,
BMPs, nutrient trading
 A rich mosaic of solutions providing a variety of nutrient
accountability frameworks
ACWA Survey – late 2011
 Survey designed in consultation with state leaders.
 Over the past several months, state representatives
completed surveys on their nutrient reduction
programs.
 All states responded, providing a comprehensive “bird’s
eye view” of state efforts.
 State responses put into narrative, edited, returned to
states for final review.
 Report to be released this summer.
Key State
Program Elements
 How nutrients are assessed
 Status and scope of the state program (statewide,





waterbody specific, etc.)
Priority pollution sources
Methods utilized
Funding sources
Interaction with other programs (ag, stormwater, air, etc.)
Additional state authority to address nutrients
Overall State Trends
 60% have an existing nutrient program, 20% are in the process of
developing one, 20% said “no program” (in water division)
 “No program” does not mean that nutrients are unaddressed.
 Alaska – Monitoring program for nutrient criteria development plan
 Indiana – “No program” but addresses nutrients through TMDLs,
NPDES, long term control plans, wastewater treatment, etc.
 Maine – phosphorus standard for stormwater, nutrient
management through Dept. of Ag.
 New Mexico – 303(d) listing, TMDLs, NPDES
 Oregon – agricultural programs, stormwater, TMDL, NPDES, HAB
activities all address nutrients, though not in a single program.
Scope
 77% of programs are state-wide in scope
 80% of programs are “combined,” using a variety of
methods to assess and address nutrient impairments.
Program
Organization
Combined Focus
Pollution Source Only
Indictator Type Only
Waterbody Type Only
Combined Focus Programs
 Georgia – Nutrient reduction organized around indicators and
watersheds, with pollutant sources as the primary focus for
implementing plans.
 Tennessee – Impaired waterbodies are identified by biological
condition and nutrient concentrations. Reduction programs are
then applied at the watershed level.
 Oklahoma – Watersheds are prioritized using a ranking system
including parameters for waterbody type, number of impacts,
pollution source, beneficial use, and others.
 Kansas – Uses chlorophyll-a criteria for lakes, biocriteria for
flowing waters and addresses pollutant sources through techbased reduction programs for point sources and watershed
planning for nonpoint sources.
Indicator Focused
Programs
 Programs are focused on indicators, which may then be
controlled through permitting requirements.
 Phosphorus is primary indicator in many states
 Montana - Nutrients controlled through NPDES and CAFO
permits based on indicators. State is developing numeric
nutrient standards.
 South Carolina – Water quality assessed by indicators.
Each applicant is reviewed with respect to water quality and
potential impacts.
 Michigan – Indicators used to identify waterbodies needing
nutrient reduction. Concurrent efforts include BMPs, MS4
monitoring, NNC development, and others.
Indicators
 Phosphorus was the most common indicator
mentioned in responses.
 Biological monitoring to identify or confirm impairments
was used by half the states.
Ammonia
Nitrogren
Phosphorus
Biological Monitoring
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Source Focused Programs
 Colorado and Illinois focus reduction efforts on
wastewater treatment plans. Illinois also addresses
nonpoint source agricultural contribution.
 New York’s reduction efforts are source based, but
include waterbody specific aspects, such as different
criteria for lakes and streams.
 Ohio focuses on POTWs, CAFOs, stormwater
discharge and CSOs.
Overall Trends
 Of states a source as a focus, 93% focus on
wastewater treatment plants, 80% on stormwater, 80%
on farmland.
 Only a quarter of programs exempt certain activities or
industries.
Biological Monitoring
 Mississippi: Biological monitoring used to assess
impairment. If impaired, stressors are identified through
analysis of sediment, nutrients, organic enrichment, etc.,
and incorporated into TMDLs.
 Oklahoma: Has collected fish, benthic macroinvertebrate
and physical habitat data statewide. This data is used in
assessing beneficial use attainment for nutrient impacts
inferred through a failure to attain due to dissolved oxygen,
sediment, pH, and biocriteria.
 Massachusetts: Applies nutrient assessment guidelines for
biological response variables such as secchi disk testing,
chlorophyll-a, algal cover and dissolved oxygen.
Nutrient Reduction Methods Used (%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Least used methods
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
% of Respondants
Using
Common Sources of Funding (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CWA Sect.
106
CWA Sect.
319
State General Permit Fees
Funds/State
Agency
Budget
Accountability
 States used a wide variety of accountability measures.
By far, the most common general method of ensuring
accountability was through monitoring by state
agencies and regulated entities and reporting
requirements in permits.
Monitoring and
Reporting
Other
 Most programs apply different accountability measures
for point and nonpoint sources. Most point source
accountability is accomplished through permit
requirements. Progress for nonpoint sources is more
generally measured through ambient monitoring.
Different
Accountability
Similar
Accountability
Analysis
• Nineteen states report that they have conducted
analysis of their nutrient reduction programs to
determine the impacts it is having on the ground. This
is most often in the form of monitoring analysis, CWA
reporting, 319 grant analysis and TMDL assessment.
• Seven states are currently developing methods to
assess and analyze their programs.
None
In Development
Completed
Publically
Available
No
Response
Additional Efforts
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
State Examples
Delaware
 Key Elements:
 Centered on TMDLs, promulgated for almost every waterbody
in the state.
 Provide reduction requirements agencies include in regulations,
permits or technical standards for best practices.
 Nutrient management, animal feeding operation, stormwater,
discharge permits, MS4, and onsite wastewater programs all
include provisions to achieve TMDLs.
 Additional Methods: education, BMPs, voluntary
programs, state and NPDES permitting, regulatory
requirements, interagency partnerships, including a strong
partnership with USDA agencies, and interstate cooperation.
 Education:
 certification requirements for farmers, nutrient management
planners and developers. Licensing requirements for
wastewater professionals.
 State permitting:
 used to establish state-specific technology-based limits,
enforceable permitting provisions and reporting for
nonpoint sources, and the ability to order abatements of
discharges
 Accountability:
 audits and inspections performed by the state’s various
regulatory programs and Delaware’s extensive surface
water monitoring program is used to calculate loads and
assess the status of waterbodies
Colorado
 Key Elements: Focused on pollutant source, integrated
into NPDES process water permitting and MS4 permits.
 Water quality impacts considered in use of variances.
 Focus on wastewater treatment plant discharge driven by the
belief that addressing specific pollution sources was a fairer
and quicker way to see improvement.
 Methods:
 Stormwater BMPS, permitting requirements including
education, state-specific tech.-based limits, and effluent limits.
 Water quality trading for point sources.
Illinois
 Key Elements: Distinct strategies for point and
nonpoint sources.
 Point Sources: Focused on wastewater treatment plants.
Methods include phosphorus effluent standard, antidegradation analyses for P & N, waste load allocations,
planned tech-based approaches (implemented when
eutrophication is identified or when significant plant
upgrade occurs)
 NPS: Focused on agriculture.
Methods include 319 funds focused on nutrients, nutrient
management plans, education, voluntary programs.
 State Comments:
 Difficulty establishing defensible NNC.
 $1 million in funding in 2003-04 to establish NNC,
unsuccessful because of weak correlations.
 Continuing analysis is ongoing.
 Currently relying on a technology-based, conservation
practice-based, "let’s see what we can accomplish" approach.
“If we wait for standards, we will let many opportunities for
nutrient reduction, and too much time, pass by. Illinois has instate impairments and a significant contribution to Gulf of
Mexico hypoxia – we can’t wait to take action.”
Oregon
 Key Elements: Assesses water bodies against dissolved oxygen
and pH criteria, a chlorophyll-a action level and a narrative algal
growth criteria.
 Methods: Oregon uses agricultural, stormwater, TMDL, and point
source permitting as well as HAB activities that integrate with
nutrient control and reduction as needed.
 Cooperative agreements with U.S. Forest Service, BLM, and the
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development’s
Oregon Coastal Management Program, among others (available
here: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/nonpoint/implementation.htm)
 State Comments: Oregon DEQ seeks to ensure that nutrients area
addressed in a targeted and strategic manner, allowing the state to
focus its resources and those of regulated parties on priority water
quality issues in order to achieve measureable results.
South Carolina
 Key Elements: Focused on CAFOs/AFOs. South Carolina’s
nutrient reduction program, operating with a state-wide scope,
focuses on phosphorus as its primary nutrient indicator.
 http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/agpage.htm
 Methods:
 Agricultural permits are reviewed for possible effects on water
quality.
 TMDLs attempt to eliminate nutrient sources through
comprehensive nutrient management plans.
 Best management practices, interagency partnerships, and
education efforts.
 Though animal feeding facilities operating below 30,000 pounds of
live animal weight are exempted from parts of the program, they
are required to provide a nutrient management plans to be
permitted.
Alabama
 Key Elements: Implementing nutrient TMDLs statewide, placing
nutrient limits in NPDES permits and providing CWA 319 funding
to install best management practices in nutrient impaired
watersheds.
 Alabama has adopted numeric site-specific chlorophyll a criteria
for 37 of its 41 large, publically accessible reservoirs
 Methods: Coordination between State and local organizations,
TMDLs, NPDES permitting, BMPs, voluntary programs, nutrient
management plans, regulatory requirements, and education.
 BMPs include a wide range of practices designed to reduce
nutrient pollution and include such projects as stream restoration
and stream buffer planting, stormwater detention basins,
constructed wetlands, rotational grazing for cattle, and others
Massachusetts
 Key Elements: Addressing nutrients primarily through
TMDL program. 35% of POTWs have nutrient permit
limits; many more have specific monitoring
requirements.
 Methods: Nutrient TMDLs for most major rivers with
specific targets and limits, Massachusetts Estuary
Project develops nutrient targets for 55 embayments,
run-off and infiltration BMPs for wetlands, MS4 permits
with reduction requirements, priority NPS programs in
conjunction with state agriculture department.
Ohio
 Key Elements: Developing nutrient reduction plan focused
on pollution source, with NPS as its highest priority.
 Primary Pollution Sources:
 Point Sources: POTWs, CAFOs, stormwater, CSOs.
 NPS: Agricultural and urban sources.
 Methods: Reduction plans in TMDLs, WLAs, and permit
requirements are triggered by confirmation of existing or
potential pollution impacts linked to P & N measured through
multi-metric Trophic Index Criterion.
 Planned framework focuses on BMPs, nutrient management
plans for agriculture, NPDES, TMDLs and the adoption of
State WQS.
State Suggestions for
Further Progress
 States desire to see 319 and 106 funding protected
and expanded.
 Increased Federal support for innovation and flexibility.
 Acknowledge that a variety of methods to reducing
nutrients are available and that diverse programs
tailored to a states need are important.
 Wyoming - The complexities of nutrient criteria lends itself to a state by state
approach. Wyoming recognizes that what may work well in our state may not
be appropriate in other states. Likewise, regulatory agencies such as the
Environmental Protection Agency needs to realize that a one size fits all
approach is not appropriate for something as complex as nutrients.
 Florida – EPA should allow the necessary flexibility for the states to most
efficiently and effectively protect their water resources since the states are in
the best and most appropriate position to do that. In addition, we would like to
encourage EPA to also consider how best to deploy their technical and
financial assistance to the states to help them in their efforts. That way, both
the states and the federal government can make the best use of our
respective resources in our efforts.
 New York - NY reiterates its strong opinion that application of effective
numeric nutrient criteria must incorporate use of response variables to
hone the TP and and N criteria. Without this ability numeric criteria will be set
too low and will require costly measures on waters that have no water quality
problem, or - more likely - will result in high criteria numbers that may not
protect all waters that need protection.
 New Jersey - States should have an option to pursue nutrient reductions or
criteria development. Not enough state resources to do both. Loading
reductions, technology based approaches and BMPs together may improve
water quality so numeric criteria is not necessary.
 Indiana: Seizing on the public's heightened awareness of
the causal relationship between nutrients and the increase
in algal blooms and harmful algal blooms in lakes and
reservoirs to effect positive changes in behavior is another
significant opportunity.
 Texas: Since nitrogen and phosphorus are necessary for
healthy ecosystems, it is very challenging to identify
stressor/response relationships and develop appropriate
nutrient criteria to prevent undesirable impacts. Allowing a
weight of evidence approach in the criteria development
process is an opportunity to overcome uncertainty
associated with nutrient stressor/response relationships.
 Wyoming: The complexities of nutrient criteria lends itself
to a state by state approach. Wyoming recognizes that what
may work well in our state may not be appropriate in other
states.
Questions