© 2015 HDR, all rights reserved.

2015 Water Seminar

The Evolving Nutrient Landscape in the US and Missouri

TRENT STOBER – HDR

John Trent Stober

Juris Doctor

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.”

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

oDevelopment of nutrient criteria for 31 states

highly time and resource intensive

oRely on March 2011 State Nutrient Reduction

Framework

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

Missouri Nutrient Reduction Strategy

Cropland

Pastureland

Animal Agriculture

Onsite Wastewater

Municipal & Industrial

Wastewater

Urban Stormwater

Other Sources & Strategies

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

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

Evolution of Florida Numeric Nutrient Criteria

USEPA 2010 Numeric Nutrient Criteria

Lakes

oPhosphorus, Nitrogen &

Chlorophyll

Streams

oPhosphorus & Nitrogen

Springs

oNitrate + 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

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.

Florida DEP Stream Nutrient Criteria

Causal and Response Parameters

Low DO

Variable ecosystem response

Confounding factors

Challenges When Developing Nutrient Criteria

Achievement of Florida Stream Nutrient Criteria

AND

OR

Achievement of Florida Nutrient Criteria

Virginia: An example…

Source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection

REGFORM – Missouri Water Seminar

September 11, 2015

Numeric Nutrient Criteria

John Hoke, Missouri DNR

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

Nutrient Criteria – Reflect Regional Differences

Nutrient Criteria – Protect Designated Uses

Chl-a Total P

Total N

Nutrient Criteria – Connect WQS Goals