1



# EPA’s Proposed Standards to 

# Address Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution in Florida’s 

# Lakes and Flowing Waters
Public Hearings of the Environmental Protection Agency February 16, 2010 (Tallahassee, Florida) February 17, 2010 (Orlando, Florida) February 18, 2010 (West Palm Beach, Florida)2 

# Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution

 

### Causes the growth of unwanted and nuisance algae  

### The algae Lyngbya smothers eel grass, which is food for endangered manatees, and produces toxins potentially harmful to humans and animals  

### The algae Microcystis produces a toxin that can cause severe liver damage and poison livestock and wildlife  

### Excess algae discolors water, destroys the natural 

### ecology, and decays and depletes oxygen needed for fish and shellfish survival  

### Excess algae in drinking water source water can lead to disinfection byproducts that could cause bladder cancer and other illnesses3 

# Nitrates in Florida’s Groundwater
 

## Nitrates in highly elevated amounts in drinking water supplies can cause “blue baby syndrome”, which can lead to coma and 

## death  

## Violations of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrates occurs in Florida4 

# Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution in 

# Florida’s Waters  

## Florida has 7,700 lakes, 50,000 miles of rivers and streams, 4,000 square miles of estuaries and over 700 freshwater springs  

## So far, over 500 waters are identified as impaired because of phosphorus or nitrogen pollution, representing approximately 1,000 

## miles of rivers and streams, 350,000 acres of lakes, and 900 square miles of estuaries5 

# Phosphorus and Nitrogen in Florida’s Lakes

Lake Manatee, FL (Photo courtesy of Ken Hudnell)Copyrighted page(s) have been removed from this document. Please contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view this document. Address: 1301 Constitution Ave, NW Room 3334 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: 202-566-1744 Fax: 202-566- 9744 Email: docket-customerservice@epa.govhttp://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/biology/hab/index.htm9 

# Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution in Florida’s 

# Rivers

Microcystis Bloom in Caloosahatchee River at Olga, Florida approximately a mile and a half west of the Franklin Lock, south side of the river, October 14, 2005 (Photo courtesy of Richard Solveson)10 Anabaena Algae Bloom in Caloosahatchee River at Franklin Lock, June 17, 2008 (Photo courtesy of John Cassani)Algae bloom photograph on July 31, 2009, on Christopher Point Creek, a St. Johns River tributary. Photo: Chris Williams/GreenWater Laboratories/CyanoLabCopyrighted page(s) have been removed from this document. Please contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view this document. Address: 1301 Constitution Ave, NW Room 3334 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: 202-566-1744 Fax: 202-566- 9744 Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov14 An aerial view of an algae bloom on the St. Lucie River, August 8, 2005 (Photo courtesy of Jason Nuttle, Copyright 2008, Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers)15 

# Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution in Florida’s Springs

Weeki Wachee Spring, 1950s (Nitrate < .1mg/L, Eel grass dominated) and, 2001 (Nitrate ~ .7mg/L, Lyngbya dominated) (Photos courtesy of Florida Archives and Agnieszka Pinowska)16 

# Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution in Florida’s Canals

Nutrients flushed from farm and residential land cause thick algal blooms in canals. This canal flows into Biscayne Bay, Florida.

(Photo courtesy of USGS) http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/reports/rali/eqpollution.html17 

# Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution in 

# Florida  

## With only a narrative statement currently in State regulations to provide protection, developing limits and targets for healthy 

## water quality is a slow process  

## Numeric criteria provide a target for restoring waters to a healthy condition and a target to 

## limit nutrient sources before problems start so that currently healthy waters do not become impaired18 

# Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution in 

# Florida  

## Nutrients in excess of natural levels come from urban landscapes, cattle and crop fields, air emissions from cars and power plants, 

## faulty septic tanks, sewage treatment works, and some industries  

## Better treatment and management practices 

## can remove nutrients and stop them from flowing into Florida’s waters19 

# Florida’s Water Quality Standards

 

### Water Quality Standards (WQS) include designated uses and water quality criteria to protect those uses  

### Florida classifies the vast majority of their lakes and flowing waters as:  

### CLASS I Potable Water Supplies  

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

### CLASS I and III surface waters share water quality criteria established to protect recreation and the

### propagation and maintenance of a healthy, wellbalanced population of fish and wildlife.20 

# Need for Numeric Nutrient Criteria

 

### EPA has recommended numeric criteria for nutrients in WQS since 1998  

### After consulting with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), EPA determined numeric nutrient criteria were necessary for Florida’s waters to meet the Clean Water Act in January 2009  

### FDEP presented draft numeric nutrient criteria in public workshops in summer 200921 

# Need for Numeric Nutrient Criteria

 

### EPA entered into a legal agreement in August 2009 with environmental non-governmental organizations to:  

### Propose numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and flowing 

### waters by Jan 2010, finalizing by Oct 2010  

### Propose numeric nutrient criteria for estuaries and coastal waters by Jan 2011, finalizing by Oct 2011  

### EPA relied on Florida’s data, utilized many technical approaches developed by Florida, and conducted some analysis of our own to support the Jan 2010 proposal  

### Methods have undergone independent scientific peer review22 

# Florida’s Extensive Data Base

 

### Lakes  

### 33,622 samples from 4,417 sites distributed among 1,599 lakes statewide  

### Rivers and Streams  

### 11,761 samples from 6,342 sites statewide, and an additional 2,023 biological response sample records from more than 1,100 streams  

### Springs  

### approximately 50 historical accounts and laboratory and field studies of ecosystem response over 50 years  

### South Florida Canals  

### 68,544 samples from 531 sites23 

# Proposal for Lakes

 Definition  “Lake” means a freshwater water body with some open contiguous water free from emergent vegetation, which is not a stream or other watercourse
 Proposal  Classifies lakes into 3 groups based on color and alkalinity  Derives criteria from field data showing correlations between chlorophyll a (Chl a ), total phosphorus (TP), and total nitrogen (TN)  Includes an option for the State to adjust TN and TP criteria for a particular lake within a certain range if sufficient data show the Chl a criterion concentration is met24

Three Lake Categories Chlorophyll

a (ug/L) Baseline Criteria Modified Criteria (within these bounds) TP (ug/L) TN (mg/L) TP (ug/L) TN (mg/L) Colored Lakes 20 50 1.23 50 - 157 1.23-2.25 Clear, Alkaline Lakes 20 30 1.00 30 - 87 1.00-1.81
Clear, Acidic Lakes 6 10 0.500 10 - 30 0.500-0.900 

# Proposed Criteria for Lakes

Concentrations are annual geometric means not to be surpassed more than once in a three-year period or as a long-term average25 

# Proposal for Rivers and Streams

 Definition  “Stream” means a free-flowing, predominantly fresh surface water in a defined channel, and includes rivers, creeks, branches, canals (outside south Florida), freshwater sloughs, and other similar water bodies.  Proposal  Classifies streams into regions based on underlying geology, natural features, and watershed boundaries  Derives criteria from nutrient levels in streams with healthy biology based on Florida’s Stream Condition Index (SCI)  Includes approaches for adjusting criteria to reflect protection of downstream lakes and downstream estuaries26 

# Proposed Criteria for Rivers/Streams

Nutrient Watershed Region Instream Protection

Value Criteria TN (mg/L) TP (ug/L) Panhandle 0.824 43 Bone Valley 1.798 739 Peninsula 1.205 107 North Central 1.479 359 Concentrations are annual geometric means not to be surpassed more than once in a three-year period or as a long-term average27 Streams far from an estuary, in the upper watershed, flow into waters closer to estuary, carrying a portion of their nutrients with them

Estuary Streams close to an estuary deliver almost all of their nutrients into the estuary Federal Regulations require WQS to provide for the attainment and maintenance of the WQS of downstream waters 

# Downstream Protection28 

# Proposed Downstream Protection

 For lakes, EPA’s proposal derives allowable loadings each lake can receive based on an equation relating stream concentrations to numeric lake criteria  For estuaries, proposal derives allowable loadings each estuary can receive based on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) SPARROW model estimates  Stream criteria are adjusted as necessary to protect downstream lakes and estuaries29 

# Protecting Downstream Estuaries

 SPARROW is calibrated using monitored concentration values and attributes the total load to various categories based on land use/land cover in the watershed  EPA determined protective loading rate for each estuary and calculated concentration values (downstream protection values, or DPVs) for each stream location, factoring in any losses from the system  DPVs for TN tend to be lower than corresponding instream protection value criteria and range from 0.34 to 0.95 mg/L in terminal reaches, rising as high as 1.41 mg/L in the upper watershed  EPA indicated in the proposal that it intends to go final with DPVs after proposal of estuary criteria (i.e., Oct 2011), although it could go final in Oct 201030 

# Proposal for Springs

 Definition  “Spring” means the point where underground water emerges onto the Earth’s surface, including its spring run.
 Proposal  Derives nitrate-nitrite criterion of 0.35 mg/L for springs (and clear streams) based on experimental laboratory data and field evaluations that document the response of nuisance algae to nitrate-nitrite concentrations.31 

# Proposal for South Florida Canals

 Definition  “Canal” means a trench, the bottom of which is normally covered by water with the upper edges of its two sides normally above water.  South Florida canals are highly managed systems built for irrigation and flood control and mostly classified for aquatic life and recreational use.  They drain agricultural areas, protected areas, and urban landscapes.  Proposal  Derives criteria from nutrient levels in sites meeting designated uses with respect to nutrients as determined by FDEP.32 

# Proposed Criteria 

# for South Florida Canals

Concentration values are annual geometric means not to be surpassed more than once in a three-year period or as a long-term average. * Applies to all canals within the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s South Florida bioregion, with the exception of canals within the Everglades Protection Area where a TP criterion of 10 ug/L already applies.

Chlorophyll a (μg/L) Total Phosphorus

(TP) (ug/L) Total Nitrogen

(TN) (mg/L) Canals 4.0 42* 1.633 

# Other Proposed Provisions

 Allowance for Site Specific Alternative Criteria (SSACs) that Florida demonstrates as protective.

• Would allow Florida to submit existing TMDL nutrient targets to EPA for consideration as a SSAC.  Allowance for state-issued (and EPA approved) restoration standards.

• Would allow Florida to develop a series of interim designated uses and numeric criteria that represent feasible steps towards attainment of the full designated use and protective criteria.34 

# Economic Analysis

 EPA has prepared an analysis of potential costs associated with meeting these standards.  EPA’s analysis estimated costs of $102 to $130 million per year to meet the criteria proposed by FDEP in July 2009.  EPA estimated an additional $4.7 to $10.1 million per year to meet EPA’s proposed WQS.  Costs are attributed to:  upgraded treatment and pollution prevention actions at wastewater treatment facilities and industrial dischargers,  implementation of best management practices for nonpoint sources (including agriculture), and  replacement of faulty septic systems.35 

# Procedure for Submitting Comments

 Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2010, 60 days after publication in the Federal Register

.  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA- HQ OW - 2009 -0596, by one of the following methods:  www.regulations.gov  Email  Mail  Follow detailed instructions included at the beginning of the preamble to the proposed rule to ensure your comments are included in the record.36 

# Quick Review

 Water Quality Standards include Designated Uses and protective Criteria  Florida established Designated Uses to support natural populations of fish and wildlife, recreation, and protect human health protection  Florida agrees that numeric criteria are necessary and has gathered a lot of data to support their development  EPA entered into a legal agreement to propose and promulgate these criteria  EPA used data and many approaches developed by Florida, and we continue to work with each other37 

# Quick Review

 EPA proposed criteria for lakes, rivers and streams, springs, and South Florida canals using sound scientific approaches  EPA also proposed approaches for protecting downstream waters, using a USGS model for estuary drainage areas and an equation for lakes  EPA further proposed procedures for modifying criteria on a site-specific basis and for reaching criteria levels in gradual steps with a supporting plan  The proposal describes the technical approach, offers some alternatives to consider, and asks specific questions  EPA will respond to all comments and encourages interested parties to submit written comments no later than March 29