Overview of Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development and Implementation in Montana Michael Suplee, PhD Water Quality Standards Section Montana Department.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Measuring Water Pollution
Advertisements

Applying Nutrient Standards in Wadeable Streams in Montana Vicki Watson, University of Montana Michael Suplee, Montana DEQ Presented at Nitrate in Montana.
Approach for Including Nutrient Limitations within NDPDES Permits Dallas Grossman Division of Water Quality
Overview of the Development and Implementation of Montana’s Numeric Nutrient Standards Michael Suplee, Ph.D. Water Quality Standards Section MT Dept. of.
EPA’s Guidance on Nutrient Criteria Development
Water Quality Trading Claire Schary Water Quality Trading Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA Region 10, Seattle,
Overview of Montana’s Draft Numeric Nutrient Criteria and their Implementation Michael Suplee, Ph.D. Water Quality Standards MT Dept. of Environmental.
Prioritization Workgroup Summary. Workgroup Topics Nutrient results What is a watershed? What is a TMDL? Prioritization methods Basin framework and management.
Bureau of Water Overview Wastewater issues Drinking water issues Wrap up topics.
June 19, 2014 CONTROL OF TRASH ENTERING WATERWAYS IN CALIFORNIA DRAFT WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD POLICY.
Nutrient Cycles Eutrophication Nitrogen –Chemical Forms in the Aquatic Environment –Chemical Transformations –Cycle f-ratio Carbon.
May 2005 Petition for Rulemaking for Regulation of CBM Development Bob Bukantis Water Quality Standards DEQ Planning Division.
Montana’s 2007 Nonpoint Source Management Plan Robert Ray MT Dept Environmental Quality.
Water Quality Standards for Protection of Irrigated Agriculture in the Powder River Basin Bob Bukantis MT Dept Environ Quality.
Nutrient Standards – Where will they lead? OWEA / WEF Webinar February 24, 2011 Dan Dudley, Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water.
Pomme de Terre Lake Water Quality Summary Pomme de Terre Lake Water Quality Summary US Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Resources Section.
LONG-TERM WATER QUALITY DATA AND BIOGEOCHEMICAL FILTERING ALONG THE UPPER CLARK FORK RIVER, MT, USA. H. Maurice Valett 1 Marc Peipoch 1 Mike DeGrandpre.
Department of the Environment Overview of Water Quality Data Used by MDE and Water Quality Parameters Timothy Fox MDE, Science Service Administration Wednesday.
Lake Erie HABs Workshop Bill Fischbein Supervising Attorney Water Programs March 16, 2012 – Toledo March 30, Columbus.
Overview of WQ Standards Rule & WQ Assessment 303(d) LIst 1 Susan Braley Water Quality Program
2015 Environmental Trade Fair and Conference Jill Csekitz Technical Specialist TCEQ Monitoring & Assessment Section Devils River State Natural Area Image.
Water Quality Reduction Trading Program Draft Rule Language Policy Forum January 29,
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water Brock Tabor Nancy Sonafrank Alaska Forum on the Environment 2013.
 MT DEQ PARTNERING WITH LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS TO HELP MEET NUTRIENT REDUCTION OBJECTIVES.
Antidegradation Standards and Implementation Procedures Overview of Third Notice Comments and Responses March 14,
Implementation Procedures (IPs) Brittany Lee Standards Implementation Team
MJ Paul Tetra Tech Inc. Center for Ecological Sciences RTP, NC USING BIOLOGICAL RESPONSES IN NUTRIENT CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT: APPLICATIONS, OPPORTUNITIES,
Phase II WIP Background & Development Process Tri-County Council – Eastern Shore June 2,
Environment Canada’s Intervention on the Mary River Project Water Licence Application Nunavut Water Board Final Hearing Pond Inlet, NU Mark Dahl / Anne.
Great Bay Municipal Coalition New Hampshire Water Pollution Control Association June 13, 2013 Dean Peschel Peschel Consulting
Orange County Board of County Commissioners Update on USEPA Rulemaking for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Utilities Department January 26, 2010 Utilities Department.
1 State of San Lorenzo River Symposium Nicole Beck, PhD 2NDNATURE April San Lorenzo Lagoon A Decade of Dry Season WQ Monitoring.
Designing De Minimis Indiana Antidegradation Workshop April 29, 2008 Brad Klein -- Environmental Law & Policy Center.
HearneNWQMCMay06 1 A Review of Water Management Institutions in The Red River of the North Basin Robert R. Hearne Department of Agribusiness and Applied.
John Kennedy VA DEQ - Ches. Bay Program Mgr Tributary Strategies: Point Source Nutrient Controls Potomac Watershed.
Wisconsin’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy for Water Quality Wisconsin Crop Management Conference January 16, 2014 Ken Genskow, PhD Associate Professor, Department.
Chesapeake Bay Program’s Baywide and Basinwide Monitoring Networks: Options for Adapting Monitoring Networks and Realigning Resources to Address Partner.
KWWOA Annual Conference April 2014 Development of a Kentucky Nutrient Strategy Paulette Akers Kentucky Division of Water Frankfort, KY.
Adem.alabama.gov ADEM’s Monitoring Summary Reports Alabama – Tombigbee CWP Stakeholders Meeting Montgomery, Alabama 3 February 2010 Lisa Huff – ADEM Field.
Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards
Nutrient Response of the Ventura River to Drought Conditions in Southern California Al Leydecker 1 and Jessica Altstatt 2 ( 1 Bren School of Environmental.
76. The central U.S. law regulating water quality is the Clean Water Act (CWA), adopted in The Act initially focused on point sources, which it.
High Altitude View of ACF Regional Water Plans.
Water Resources Workshop Standards, Use Attainability, Impairments and TMDLS Richard Eskin Maryland Department of the Environment February 20, 2004.
REVISIONS TO THE FEDERAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS RULE JILL CSEKITZ, TECHNICAL SPECIALIST TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
Minnesota Drinking Water Designated Use Assessment Workshop Tom Poleck EPA Region 5, Water Quality Branch May 20-21,
Development of Nutrient Water Quality Standards for Rivers and Streams in Ohio Ohio EPA ORSANCO, October 20, 2009 George Elmaraghy, P.E., Chief.
Is algae bad? No! Algae helps us by; taking in waste from the water (ex. Animal poop) providing oxygen and being a food resource for animals.
BMW Association 2006 Barr Lake and Milton Reservoir Watershed Management Plan ~ Brief History of the Reservoirs ~ Overview of the BMW Association ~ Outline.
Nutrient Criteria Development Update Emily McArdle Nutrient Criteria Coordinator | Water Quality Standards Group
Connie Brower NC DENR Division of Water Resources.
Nutrients and the Next Generation of Conservation Presented by: Tom Porta, P.E. Deputy Administrator Nevada Division of Environmental Protection President,
Material Contribution to the Condition SB325 Rulemaking Stakeholder Meeting February 23, 2016.
Texas Surface Water Quality Standards Update Joe Martin Water Quality Standards Work Leader Joe Martin Water Quality Standards Work Leader.
Arkansas Dept. of Environmental Quality Regulation No
GREAT BAY and NEW HAMPSHIRE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Dave Clark and Michael Kasch
Shirley Birosik Environmental Specialist
Middle Fork Project AQ 11 – Water Quality Technical Study Plan Report Overview March 10, 2008.
NH MS4 Stormwater Permit -- Guidance for NHDES related provisions
Request Approval of (d) Listing Methodology
Public Meeting February 19, 2009
Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality Water Resources Division
Lake Erie HABs Workshop
Triennial Review Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Betty Yee, Senior Engineer 9 August /9/2011 CV-SALTS.
The normal balance of ingredients
Water & Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association March 22, 2017
Update on the NC Nutrient Criteria Development Plan
Upper Clark Fork Watershed Restoration and TMDLs
Water Quality Planning Division Monitoring & Assessment Section
Presentation transcript:

Overview of Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development and Implementation in Montana Michael Suplee, PhD Water Quality Standards Section Montana Department of Environmental Quality Presented to the Water Pollution Control Advisory Council February 17, 2012

Presentation Outline Brief timeline of criteria development in Montana Brief timeline of criteria development in Montana Why numeric nutrient criteria? Why numeric nutrient criteria? Criteria derivation: methods overview Criteria derivation: methods overview – Wadeable streams, Large rivers, Lakes/reservoirs Trends on the Clark Fork River Trends on the Clark Fork River Implementation: Meeting the standards over time Implementation: Meeting the standards over time – Senate bills 95 and 367 Nutrient Work Group Nutrient Work Group Draft Circular DEQ-12 and new rules Draft Circular DEQ-12 and new rules USEPA acceptance of Montana’s approach USEPA acceptance of Montana’s approach Timeline: adoption of statewide nutrient criteria Timeline: adoption of statewide nutrient criteria

Brief and Incomplete Overview of Nutrient Criteria Development in Montana 1990s: Clark Fork River criteria derived; VNRP 1990s: Clark Fork River criteria derived; VNRP 2001: DEQ begins criteria development for all waters 2001: DEQ begins criteria development for all waters 2002: Clark Fork River criteria adopted as standards 2002: Clark Fork River criteria adopted as standards : Statewide criteria for wadeable streams generally identified, and a system for establishing different criteria zones developed by DEQ : Statewide criteria for wadeable streams generally identified, and a system for establishing different criteria zones developed by DEQ 2009: SB 95 adopted, allows variances from nutrient standards on a case-by-case. NWG created 2009: SB 95 adopted, allows variances from nutrient standards on a case-by-case. NWG created 2011: SB 367 adopted, refining variance process, allows for general variances 2011: SB 367 adopted, refining variance process, allows for general variances

Why Numeric Nutrient Criteria? Existing standards are narrative (“no nuisance aquatic life”, etc.) Existing standards are narrative (“no nuisance aquatic life”, etc.) – Intent fairly clear, application inconsistent Nutrient (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) over- enrichment directly and indirectly impacts other, existing numeric WQ standards: Nutrient (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) over- enrichment directly and indirectly impacts other, existing numeric WQ standards: – Dissolved oxygen, pH, nuisance algal growth, etc. Better to address root cause via nutrient standards Allows for more consistent permitting and TMDL application Allows for more consistent permitting and TMDL application

Clark Fork River Nuisance algal growth, rivers & streams

Benthic algae level (mg Chla/m 2 ) Actual/likely affects on stream uses at varying algae levels (wadeable streams) Recreation acceptable Recreation unacceptable Increasing salmonid growth & survival Salmonid growth & Survival high Salmonid growth & Survival possibly reduced Salmonid growth & survival very likely impaired No DO problemsDO problems very likelyPossible DO problems Stonefly, mayfly caddis- fly dominant Shift in biomass & community structure structure Midges, worms, mollusks, scuds dominant ?

Nutrient Criteria Derivation: Wadeable Streams 3 major parts: 1)Identification of appropriate geographic zones in which specific nutrient criteria (total P, total N) would apply 2)Understanding of cause-effect (i.e., stressor-response) relationships between nutrients and beneficial uses Requires determining “harm to use” Requires determining “harm to use” Different expectations for different regions of the state Different expectations for different regions of the state 3)Water quality data from reference sites  Data from 2 and 3 above can (and should) be considered together

Montana Ecoregions (level III, IV) MountainousPrairie

Dose-response studies carried out in a level III ecoregion occurring in MT (except Mebane [2010])

Reference Stream Sites Nutrient concentration data from reference streams — which support all their beneficial uses and have minimal impacts — are compiled for each ecoregion (III, and IV if possible) Western MT reference stream site Eastern MT prairie-stream reference site

Comparing reference data and dose- response study results Frequency Regional Reference-stream Nutrient Concentrations 50 th percentile (median) 75 th percentile 25 th Range of nutrient concentrations across which impacts to beneficial stream uses are likely to begin to occur 99 th percentile

Coming Soon: Ecoregion-by- ecoregion discussion of how criteria were established (addendum to Suplee et al. 2008)

– No comparable reference available, as for wadeables – Large rivers much deeper/faster than wadeable streams; changes light regime and other factors Solution: Use mechanistic water-quality models – Can vary nutrient inputs in model and observe effects on other water quality parameters/standards, like DO DO Nuisance benthic algae growth Nuisance benthic algae growth pH pH Total organic carbon (TOC) Total organic carbon (TOC) Total dissolved gas (TDG) Total dissolved gas (TDG) Nutrient Criteria Derivation: Large Rivers

Lower Yellowstone River – Used QUAL2K model to derive criteria Steady state Steady state Simulates benthic algae Simulates benthic algae – Study reach km or 145 miles – Low flows near 100 m 3 /sec (3,280 cfs) ; free flowing

For wadeable streams/large rivers, criteria apply seasonally (summer and fall) only, when algal growth is peak and ensuing water quality impacts are maximal Table 1. Montana Draft Nutrient Criteria for some ecoregions and the lower Yellowstone River Level III Ecoregion Period When Criteria Apply Parameter Total P (mg/L)Total N (mg/L) Related Assessment Information Northern RockiesJuly 1 -Sept mg Chl a/m 2 (36 g AFDW/m 2 ) Canadian RockiesJuly 1 -Sept mg Chl a/m 2 (36 g AFDW/m 2 ) Middle RockiesJuly 1 -Sept mg Chl a/m 2 (36 g AFDW/m 2 ) Idaho BatholithJuly 1 -Sept mg Chl a/m 2 (36 g AFDW/m 2 ) Northwestern Glaciated PlainsJune 16-Sept n/a Northwestern Great Plains, Wyoming BasinJuly 1 -Sept n/a Yellowstone River (Bighorn R. confluence to Powder R. confluence) Aug 1 -Oct Nutrient concentrations based on limiting pH impacts Yellowstone River (Powder R. confluence to stateline) Aug 1 -Oct Nutrient concentrations based on limiting nuisance algal growth

Nutrient impacts to lakes Loss of water clarity; reduction of recreation and aesthetic quality and property value Loss of water clarity; reduction of recreation and aesthetic quality and property value Increased frequency of noxious algae blooms Increased frequency of noxious algae blooms Changes in fish species composition Changes in fish species composition Loss of macrophytes, replaced by dense phytoplankton Loss of macrophytes, replaced by dense phytoplankton Taste and odor problems (drinking water source) Taste and odor problems (drinking water source)

Nutrient Criteria Derivation: Lakes and Reservoirs Under development. Data collection in Montana lakes was completed between Under development. Data collection in Montana lakes was completed between Reservoirs pending. Plan to use a modeling approach Reservoirs pending. Plan to use a modeling approach – Canyon Ferry Reservoir first project; No lake or reservoir criteria will be recommended for rule making this year except perhaps Flathead Lake No lake or reservoir criteria will be recommended for rule making this year except perhaps Flathead Lake

How Goes the Clark Fork River? 1998: Stakeholders develop voluntary nutrient reduction plan (VNRP) and implementation process. 1998: Stakeholders develop voluntary nutrient reduction plan (VNRP) and implementation process. – Basin-wide phosphorus ban in place since 1989 – Criteria adopted as rules by state in : Major nutrient reduction efforts in place (e.g., BNR plant in Missoula) 2004: Major nutrient reduction efforts in place (e.g., BNR plant in Missoula) Site 18, Clark Fork River below Missoula,

Implementation: Statewide approach to meet the standards over time

Implementation: Economic Considerations Option are available for communities to receive temporary relief from the requirements based on: Option are available for communities to receive temporary relief from the requirements based on: – Ability to pay for treatment (affordability) – Availability of treatment technology (limits of technology) These options apply only to wastewater treatment beyond the federally mandated technology-based regulations (i.e., National Secondary Standards) These options apply only to wastewater treatment beyond the federally mandated technology-based regulations (i.e., National Secondary Standards)

Senate bills 95 (2009 Legislature) and 367 (2011 Legislature) (now § , MCA) Give DEQ authority to grant variances from nutrient criteria, based on substantial & widespread economic harm that would result from immediate implementation of the standards Give DEQ authority to grant variances from nutrient criteria, based on substantial & widespread economic harm that would result from immediate implementation of the standards – Variances up to 20 years, subject to 3-year reviews – General Variance: If permittee can’t meet criteria, but can treat effluent to statute-defined levels, they will receive a gen. variance, by groups: – > 1 MGD: 1 mg TP/L, 10 mg TN/L – < 1 MGD: 2 mg TP/L, 15 mg TP/L – Lagoons: Maintain current performance (implies monitoring requirements) – Individual Variance: Permittee may apply for these if meeting the general variance is difficult. Requires case-by-case economic hardship analysis

OVERALL: Law allows Montana to implement numeric nutrient criteria in a staged manner over ~ 20 years, allowing critical time to better address all sources of nutrient pollution (point and nonpoint) and for treatment technology to improve/come down in cost

§ , MCA Describes the “Nutrient Work Group” Describes the “Nutrient Work Group” – Broad cross-section of MT stakeholders – Advise DEQ on numeric nutrient standards, especially implementation policy – Have met with DEQ 15 times since May 2009 Nutrient trading policy developed Nutrient trading policy developed – Will allow for creation of nutrient credits and trading between point sources and point source-nonpoint sources

Draft Circular DEQ-12 and New Rules Contain: Criteria Criteria General variance procedures General variance procedures Individual variances Individual variances Permitting requirements Permitting requirements Non-degradation Non-degradation

New! EPA acceptance of Montana’s approach In an official memo (1/3/2012) USEPA states: “We recognize the strong science-based work MDEQ has conducted over the past several years to develop draft NNC for N and P for wadeable streams” “We recognize the strong science-based work MDEQ has conducted over the past several years to develop draft NNC for N and P for wadeable streams” “EPA concludes that the issuance of variances would be consistent with the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations.” “EPA concludes that the issuance of variances would be consistent with the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations.”

Timeline: Adoption of Statewide Nutrient Criteria Next NWG Meeting: 2/27/2012 (Helena, MT) Next NWG Meeting: 2/27/2012 (Helena, MT) More NWG meetings to follow (~ monthly) More NWG meetings to follow (~ monthly) Assuming details get worked out: Board package in July or September, 2012 Board package in July or September, 2012 – Public hearings, response to comments, modifications, etc. So…Need to get rule package to WPCAC this Spring So…Need to get rule package to WPCAC this Spring

Thank You Contact Information: (406) (406)