### Nutrients: **A National Overview**  **Need for Strong Partnerships**  **& Joint Accountability The Problem......** 
**FRRCC F**

**ACA Meeting**  **September 30, 2010 Ephraim King**  **– Office**  **of Science & T**  **echnology US Environmental**  **Protection Ag**  **ency**

# Outline • **Overview of**  **the Problem** • **Nutrient Impacts** • **N & P Sources** • **Nutrient Innovation Task Group Analysis**  • **Growing Pressure & Stakeholder**  **Demands** • **Looking Forward**

# Science and Analysis **to Date** • **National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration**

– Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation’s Estuaries (Bricker et al 2007) • **National Research Council** 

– Mississippi River Water Quality – Challenges & Opportunities (NRC 2008)

– Urban Stormwater Management (NRC 2008) • **EPA Science Advisory B**  **oard**

– Reactive Nitrogen in the United States (USEPA 2009)

– Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (USEPA 2007) • **USEPA**

– National Coastal Condition Report III ((USEPA 2008)

– Wadeable Streams Assessment (USEPA 2006) • **Nutrients Innovations Task Group Report (2009)** • **Numerous Articles, State Reports, and University Studies**  3

# National & State Efforts **to Date** • **Investment in Research**  **and Science** • **Commitment to Development**  **of Guidance, Technical**  **Asst. and Information Transfer**  • **Number of State and Local BMP Pilots and**  **Technology Demonstration**  **Projects** • **Continued State Innovation,**  **Testing, and Exploration**  **of Incentive, Cost -** **share, Limit of**  **Technology, Trading, and Collaborative**  **Approaches** • **State Oversight and Regulatory** **M odels** 

## Progress **in 2009/2010** • **Chesapeake Bay**

– Executive Order, Strengthened State/Federal Partnerships, Stakeholder Action

– TMDL Developed • **Florida**

– Final inland flowing water standards – Fall 2010

– Final coastal waters and estuarine standards - August 2012 • **Water Quality Standards Program** 

– State - EPA Nutrients Innovation Task Group Report – August 2009

– IG State Numeric Standards Report – August 2009

– Support for State Numeric Nutrient Standards & Accountability Frameworks • **Rulemakings**

– CAFO regulatory revisions initiated

– Post - Construction proposal begun with ICRs and listening sessions • **Guidance**

– Final POTW Nutrient Treatment Effectiveness Manual – Winter 2009

– Chesapeake Bay 502 Non Point Source BMPs – Summer 2010

### • **14,000 Nutrient -**  **related Impairment Listings in 49 States** 

– **2.5 Million Acres of Lakes and Reservoirs** 

– **80,000 Miles of Rivers and Streams**

– **And This is an Underestimate** 

### . . . • **Over 47% o**  **f Streams Have Medium to High**  **Levels of Phosphorus and Over 53%** **H ave**  **Medium to High**  **Levels of Nitrogen** • **78% o**  **f Assessed Continental U.S. Coastal**  **Waters Exhibit Eutrophication** • **Drinking Water Public Health Risks Increasing** 6 

## National Scope of Nutrient Problem

## Concentrations **of Nitrogen Nationally** 

## Algal Bloom Occurrences in the United States

(WHOI 2007).

### – Disinfectant by - products; significant & costly

– Contaminated drinking water supplies

– Rate of nitrate violations in community water systems has doubled over past 7 years

– Harmful algal blooms

– Increased treatment costs • Large Systems • Small Systems • Private Wells  

## Public Health Risks:

9 

## National Drinking Water Impacts

(MCLof 10 mg/l exceeded as N in 4.4 percent of the wells)

## Community Water System (CWS) Drinking Water Nitrate Violations

## • **Nutrient Impacts Reflect Doubling of U.S.**  **Population Over Past 50 Years**  • **Additional 135 Million People by 2050**  • **Nutrient Pollution**  **Expected to Accelerate Ye**  **ar U.S. Population**  **1950 152 million**  **2008 304 million**  **2050 439 million**  11 

# National Population Growth

# Microcystis bloom - August 2003

To ledo Water Intake

# Impaired Reservoirs –

Examples

# Impaired Streams – Examples

# Wisconsin DNR17 

# Impacts on Downstream Waters

Microcystis Bloom – Goodby’ s Creek at the St. Johns River, Jacksonville, FL – September 14, 2005

# Sources of Nutrient Pollution • **Urban Stormwater**

– **80% of**  **U.S. Population on 10% o**  **f Land**

– **50% of**  **Urban Areas Will be Redeveloped by**  **2 030** 

– **30% of**  **Additional Needed Housing Stock Not Yet Built**

– **Expected to Gro** **w Dramatically**  **With Increased**  **Urbanization** 

## • **Municipal Wastewater Treatment**

– **Among Most Heav**  **ily R**  **egulated Sectors** 

– **Treat over**  **18 million tons of human solids annually** 

– **About 4% w**  **ith numeric**  **limits for N and 10%** **for P** 

## • **Air Deposition**

– **Approx 20% of Nitrogen**  **Loadings in Chesapeake and Gulf** 

# Sources of Nutrient Pollution • **Livestock Production Activities** 

– **$130 billion industry** **for farmers**

– **1 billion tons**  **of manure annually**

– **Substantial portion not covered by CAFO rule**  

## • **Agricultural Row**  **Crops**

– **$120 billion industry** **for farmers**

– **Inefficient fertilizer**  **utilization –**  **about 30% o**  **f applied N**

– **Stormw ater**  **runoff and irrigation return flows**  **exempt under CWA w**  **ith highly** **variable controls at State levels**20 

## Relative Nutrient Source Contributions

# Tools and Authorities • **Incentives: voluntary agreements,**  **corporate stewardship,**  **trading** • **Non -**  **regulatory: volunteer monitoring,**  **nutrient load reduction strategies,**  **tracking of implementation plans** • **Existing & Alternative Regulatory: point**  **source caps, NPDES & WQS regulations, NPS regulations**  • **Legislative: Federal & State States’** **303(d) Listed W ater Quality** **‘Nutrient -**  **related’ Impairments are inconsistent (e.g.,**  **see MRB mainstem)**

**Based on the most recent available information in Expert Query (ATTAINS).** AK HI GU CNMI AS PR VI >100 and <200 listings due to nutrients (6) Greater than 800 303(d) listings for nutrients (5) >200 and <800 listings due to nutrients (16) Less than 100 listings due to nutrients (29)**The number of Nutrient -**  **related’ TMDLs completed is very** 

**inconsistent from state to state**

**Based on information in Expert Query (ATTAINS) as of 01/14/2010. 7,261 TMDLs were**  **nutrient -**  **related. Nutrient -**  **related is define**  **d as ‘nutrients, organic**  **enrichment/oxygen depletion, noxious plants, algal growth, and ammonia’. ** CNMI, GU, and AS have no nutrient**  **- related**  **TMDLs** AK HI GU CNMI AS PR VI 51 to 150 nutrient- related TMDLs (9) 301 to 400 nutrient- related TMDLs (6) 151 to 300 nutrient- related TMDLs (9) Less than 50 nutrient- related TMDLs (25) 401 to 500 nutrient- related TMDLs (2) Greater than 500 nutrient- related TMDLs (2)  24

### Partially** Utilized** **Under Utilized**  NPDES Urban Stormwater

Controls Numeric Nutrient Criteria Te chnology - based

Requirements 303 Assessments & listings CZARA section 6217 Implementation Reqs TMDLs Limits on Discharges to

Impaired Waters Livestock Antidegradation 25 

# To **ols and Authorities** 

# Key NITG Findings • **Knowledge, Collaboration,**  **and Incentives**  **Will Fail**  **Absent Joint Accountability**  • **Current CWA Tools Underused**  **; Additional**  **Tools Rarely** **U sed**  • **Current Regs Disproportionately**  **Address Certain**  **Sources to the Exclusion of Others** • **Parts of State Nonpoint Source**  **Programs Highly Successful,**  **But Broader Application Undercut**  **by Absence**  **of a Common Multi**  **- State Framework**  **of Mandatory** **P oint and Nonpoint**  **Source Accountability** 

# Need for More Effective **Action** • **Joint Accountability**

– All Major Sources of Nutrients Must be Held Accountable for their Contribution to the Problem 

### • **Fuller Use of Existing Tools**

– Supporting and Requiring a More Consistent and Full Use of Existing Tools from State to State & Source to Source is Essential 

### • **Profound Change** 

– Succeeding Against the Challenge of Nutrient Pollution Will Require a Profound Change in **How W** **e Partner** and **How W**  **e Share Accountability**  Between Sources, Within Watersheds, and Across State Lines 

### • **National & State Leadership**

## Larger Context: **Litigation, Petitions,**  **and Environmental Reports**  • **NRDC Secondary Treatment Petition**  **– Nov. 2007**  • **Mississippi River Watershed Petition**  **– July 2008** 

– **EPA Numeric Standards for MN, WI, IL, IA, MO, AR, KY, TN, MS, LA** 

– **Sierra Club Petition in Support**  **– 40,000**  **Signatures** • **Florida Wildlife**  **Federation’s Lawsuit**  **- July 2008**  • **PA TMDL Nutrients Litigation –**  **Summer 2009** • **Wisconsin Notice of Intent to Sue –**  **November 2009** • **Kansas Notice of Intent to Sue –**  **Spring 2010** • **Missouri Notice of Intent to Sue**  **– Summer 2010**  • **Possible LA Litigation to Force Listing of Coastal Waters**  • **EPA I.G. Numeric Nutrient Standards Report (August 2009)** 

# Looking Ahead **– Key Priorities**  • **Nutrient Accountability**  **Frameworks** • **State Numeric Nutrient Standards**  • **Drinking Water Risks and Economic**  **Impacts** • **Stronger State & Federal Partnerships to**  **Engage a Broad Set of Stakeholders and**  **Secure Greater Results** • **Broader EPA –**  **USDA Coordination** • **Continued Commitment to Science** 

# For More Information: www .epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient