# Estuary and Coastal Waters Numeric Nutrient Criteria Workshop Introduction

# Contacts and Other Information

**Website** : http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/estuarine.htm • Estuarine and Coastal Waters numeric nutrient plan • Agendas • Presentations • Meeting Summaries Contact Area Phone E - mail Denise Miller Big Bend 850 - 245 - 8 068 denise.miller@dep.state.fl.us Nia Wellendorf Kings Bay/Crystal River 850 - 245 - 8 190 nijole.wellendorf@dep.state.fl.us Springs Coast Ken Weaver 850 - 245 - 8414 kenneth.weaver@dep.state.fl.us

# Introduction
 

### Meeting call to order  

### Welcome and introductions  

### Ground rules for meeting  

### Scientific and technical discussion  

### Expert input is primary purpose  

### Public comment accepted after the technical discussion has concluded

# Background
 

### EPA has made a formal determination that numeric nutrient criteria are “necessary” for estuarine and coastal waters  

### Criteria will be proposed by EPA on January 14, 2011 and promulgated by October 15, 2011  Unless the state submits and EPA approves numeric nutrient criteria prior to these dates 

###  

### EPA also proposed interim Estuary targets on January 14, 2010, which could be promulgated on October 15, 2010.  

### DEP is launching a collaborative effort to develop scientifically defensible and protective criteria values for marine waters  Provide information to EPA  Support potential state rule
- making efforts

# DEP Objectives
 

### Engage local organizations, stakeholders, and experts around the State to generate discussion and exploration of appropriate numeric nutrient criteria.  

### Compile data and scientific support for recommended numeric nutrient criteria where such information is generated and available.  

### Ensure that such information is accessible to both FDEP and EPA for consideration when moving forward with proposed numeric nutrient criteria.

# Data Gathering Approach

 

### Regionalize waterbodies into relatively homogeneous units  

### Describe physical/chemical factors, including **causal parameters**  (nutrients) and **supporting variables** (hydrodynamics, water residence time, transparency, salinity, DO, etc.)  

### Describe biological **response variables**  . The type, quality, community structure, and areal extent of valued ecological attributes will be documented, emphasizing those shown to respond to anthropogenic nutrient enrichment

# Data Gathering Approach (cont.)

 

### Determine the sources and fates of nutrients, including assimilative capacity of the system  

### Summarize scientific evidence quantifying the relationship between anthropogenic nutrient inputs and adverse effects on biological communities  

### Identify existing regional nutrient loading models  

### Other ideas?

# Water Quality Standards (see 40 CFR 131.3)


###  

### Provisions of State/Tribal (or Federal) Law  Designated Uses (Waterbody Goals)  Criteria to protect those uses  Antidegradation policy


###  

### Water Quality Standards are to:  Protect public health or welfare  Enhance the quality of the water  Serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act (provide a regulatory basis for source control and waterbody assessment)

# Designated Uses

 

### CLASS I Potable Water Supplies  

### CLASS II Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting  

### CLASS III Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well
- Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife

# Water Quality Criteria 40 CFR 131.3 

###  

### A concentration, level or narrative statement  

### Loading or concentration may be acceptable for **nutrients**  

### Florida’s existing narrative: “In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna.” 

###  

### Represent a level of water quality that supports a particular use  

### When criteria are met, water quality will protect the designated use

# Water Quality Criteria Requirements 40 CFR 131.11 

###  

## States/Tribes Must adopt criteria that protect the designated use
 

### Based on a sound, scientific rationale
 

### Sufficient parameters to protect the designated use
 

### Must support the most sensitive use (for waters with multiple use designations)

# Downstream Waters Protection
 40 CFR 131.10(b): In designating uses of a water body and the appropriate criteria for those uses, the State shall take into consideration the water quality standards of downstream waters and shall ensure that its water quality standards provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters.  Critical importance when establishing numeric nutrient criteria  EPA has proposed Downstream Protection Values (DPV) to be applied in upstream waters to be protect of downstream estuarine and coastal waters

 Protective TN loading targets were computed by reducing the current load by one half of the anthropogenic contribution.  Loads were estimated using the UGSG SPARROW (Spatially Referenced Regression on Watershed Attributes ).  EPA did not develop TN targets for: Caloosahatchee, St. Lucie, Biscayne Bay, Florida Bay, Ten Thousand Islands, and Rookery Bay.

# Downstream Protection Values

Example Downstream Protection Values Our goal is to develop a sound scientific basis for protect nutrient levels in the estuary and potentially replace these numbers.

# Numeric Nutrient Criteria Considerations
 

### Protective of the most sensitive use; that is, prevent imbalances in natural populations of flora and fauna  

### Nutrients exist naturally in the environment  

### Nutrients are chemical elements and compounds found in the environment that plants and animals need to grow and survive  

### Nutrients are not typically toxic 

###  

### Biological responses are highly site specific

# Defining a Healthy, Well Balanced Aquatic Community as Basis For a Water Quality Standards Endpoint

 Attributes of community structure and function must be considered  Healthy, well balanced communities are not restricted to those described as “pristine” or “100% natural”  It is acceptable to have modest changes in biological community structure (compared to background) as long as :  there are reproducing populations of sensitive taxa;  an overall balanced distribution of all expected major groups is maintained; and  ecosystem functions are largely intact due to redundant system attributes.

# Dealing with Uncertainty/Variability

 

### All scientific measurements, and therefore, conclusions based on those measurements, contain a degree of uncertainty (known as statistical error).
 

### Lack of knowledge also introduces uncertainty.
 

### All biological systems, and often the associated water quality conditions, are naturally variable in space and time.
 

### Acknowledge uncertainty and variability when making decisions and provide a means for addressing them.

# Conceptual Model for Relating Nutrient Enrichment to Designated Uses

**Impacts** Human/Aquatic Life **Primary Responses** 

Decreased Light

Availability Extreme Chl - a Concentrations Problematic Epiphytic Growth Problematic Macroalgal Growth

Algal Dominance Changes Diatoms to Flagellates Benthic Dominance to Pelagic Dominance

Increased Organic Decompostition Extreme Chl - a Concentrations Problematic Macroalgal Growth **Secondary Responses** 

Loss of SAV SAV Spatial Coverage SAV Spatial Coverage Trends **Nitrogen and Phosphorus**  **External Nutrient Inputs**  **Mitigating Factors** 

Color Flushing Residence time Depth Turbidity Grazing Harmful Algae Nuisance Blooms Toxic Blooms

Low Dissolved

Oxygen Anoxia Hypoxia Biological

Stress Loss of Habitat Commercial and Recreational Fishing Aquaculture

Tourism Nursery Areas Diversity Organism condition Ecosystem Function Increase of Algal Toxins Commercial and Recreational Fishing Aquaculture

Tourism Human Health

Swimming Diversity Organism Condition Ecosystem Function

Fish Kills Commercial and Recreational Fishing Aquaculture Aesthetic Values Tourism Diversity Organism condition Ecosystem Function

# Valued Biological Resources

 

### Type, quality, community structure, areal extent, etc. of biological communities, emphasizing those shown to respond to anthropogenic nutrient enrichment:  

### Phytoplankton/ chlorophyll  

### Zooplankton  

### Submerged aquatic vegetation  

### Benthic invertebrates  

### Fish and other wildlife

# Quantification of Adverse Effects of Nutrients on Biological Communities (Response Variables)

 

### Scientific evidence describing the relationship between anthropogenic nutrient inputs and adverse effects on biological communities  

### Any variety of statistical treatment, such as correlation, regression, conditional probability analysis, deterministic model, etc.

# Potential Nutrient Criteria for Ecosystem Protection (Causal Variables)

 

### Numeric targets needed for system protection or restoration  

### Demonstrate the bases for these targets  

### If nutrient target is achieved (assuming nutrients are the major source of stress), what level of response in the biology would be expected (complete or partial recovery)?

# Objectives of Today’s Meeting
 Gather relevant data and information:  Valued ecological attributes  Response metrics  Relevant stressors (nitrogen and phosphorus)  Loading or concentration  Technical approaches  Ideally, come out with potential site
- specific criteria  Receive feedback on path forward  Discuss potential numeric targets (loading or concentration) needed for protecting or restoring the system, including a demonstration of the scientific bases for the nutrient targets.  Discuss connection of potential numeric targets to designated use protection (healthy, well balanced biology)  Identify core individuals willing to assist DEP with the scientific exploration and documentation