Missouri Water Seminar, September 10-11, 2015, Columbia, MO Numeric nutrient criteria for lakes in Missouri and the U.S.

1. © 2015 HDR, all rights reserved.
2015 Water Seminar
The Evolving Nutrient
Landscape in the US
and Missouri
TRENT STOBER – HDR

2. John Trent Stober
Juris Doctor

3. Mississippi River Basin & Gulf of Mexico
 2nd largest hypoxic zone in world (EPA
2009), caused by excess nutrients
 Largely considered a nonpoint source
issue
 2009 EPA report
o “…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.”

4. 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
o Development of nutrient criteria for 31 states
highly time and resource intensive
o Rely on March 2011 State Nutrient Reduction
Framework

5. EPA’s National Nutrient Strategy
Nancy Stoner’s Memo (March 16, 2011)
1. Prioritize watersheds
2. Watershed load reduction goals
3. Ensure effectiveness of point source
permits in targeted watersheds
4. Agricultural areas
5. Stormwater and septic systems
6. Accountability and verification of
measures
7. Public reporting
8. Develop work plan and schedule for
numeric criteria development

6. Missouri Nutrient Reduction Strategy
 Cropland
 Pastureland
 Animal Agriculture
 Onsite Wastewater
 Municipal & Industrial
Wastewater
 Urban Stormwater
 Other Sources & Strategies

7.  Monitor Nutrient Discharges (Y1-3)
 Determine Feasible Reduction
Targets (Y1-3)
 Establish Approaches for
Reasonable Progress (Y3-5+)
 Evaluate Funding Options (Y1-5)
 Integrated Planning Efforts (Y1-5)
 Outreach & Education Efforts (Y3-5)
Nutrient Reduction Strategy
Wastewater Sources

8. Gulf Restoration Network et al. v. EPA Lawsuit
 Suit for EPA to make a determination
whether nutrient criteria are necessary
 Louisiana Eastern District Court rules
that EPA must make determination but
can account for many factors.
 5th Circuit Court of Appeals – April 7,
2015 Decision
oEPA has significant discretion on
responding to petition request
oRemanded EPA’s response back to
District Court

9. Evolution of Florida Numeric Nutrient Criteria

10. USEPA 2010 Numeric Nutrient Criteria
 Lakes
o Phosphorus, Nitrogen &
Chlorophyll
 Streams
o Phosphorus & Nitrogen
 Springs
o Nitrate + Nitrite
 Independent Applicability
 Downstream Protection Values
 Lake Modified and Site-
Specific Alternative Criteria
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
EPA Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Streams
Source: 75 FR 75773; December 6, 2010

11. Key Points from 2012 Decision
 USEPA can promulgate Florida’s numeric
nutrient criteria
 Demonstration of beneficial use impairment
not needed to set lake criteria
 Reference stream approach does not
demonstrate harmful impacts.
 Independent applicability of criteria is
allowed.
 Annual averaging periods allowed.
 Lake Modified are allowed and Site-Specific
Alternative Criteria are not ripe.
 Downstream Protection Values are allowed
but not as framed by USEPA in rule.

12. Florida DEP Stream Nutrient Criteria

13. Causal and Response Parameters
Low DO

14.  Variable ecosystem response
 Confounding factors
Challenges When Developing Nutrient Criteria

15. Achievement of Florida Stream Nutrient Criteria
AND
OR

16. Achievement of Florida Nutrient Criteria

17. Virginia: An example…

18. Source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection

19. REGFORM – Missouri Water Seminar
September 11, 2015
Numeric Nutrient Criteria
John Hoke, Missouri DNR

20. History – Numeric Nutrient Criteria in Missouri
• 2009 – Numeric nutrient criteria for lakes approved
by Missouri Clean Water Commission, submitted
to EPA
• 2011 – EPA disapproves most of the nutrient
criteria portion of the rule
• 2014 – Department develops alternate nutrient
criteria in response to EPA disapproval

21. Nutrient Criteria – Reflect Regional Differences

22. Nutrient Criteria – Protect Designated Uses
Chl-a
Total P
Total N

23. Nutrient Criteria – Connect WQS Goals