Inland Numeric Nutrient Criteria: Ramifications for Tampa Bay’s RA/TMDL

Goals for the NMC to Consider PROPOSED GOAL: Ensure that EPA’s final inland water criteria rule recognizes the RA/TMDL loading targets for Tampa Bay as “interim estuarine targets”. Ensure that EPA recognizes the RA/TMDL loading targets for Tampa Bay as Estuarine Nutrient Criteria in the 2011 draft and final rules.

Why should NMC consider this seriously? Proposed Inland Waters criteria have identified downstream protective loads for the Tampa Bay estuary The downstream protective loads do not appear to be commensurate with the federally-recognized TMDL

Proposed Rules for Florida Inland Waters Proposed rule signed Jan. 14, 2010 Comments due 60 days after publication in Federal Register (still pending) Criteria developed for lakes, streams, canals and springs

Downstream Protective Loads are Proposed in Rules for Florida Inland Waters (cont’d) Proposed Inland Waters criteria also identify a downstream protective load (DPL) for the Tampa Bay estuary TB DPL Target = 1421 tons/year* (p.118) *Estimated TN load delivered to the estuary protective of aquatic life use. These estimates may be revised pursuant to the EPA final rule for numeric nutrient criteria for Florida’s estuaries and coastal waters (October 2011).

Summary of EPA’s current approach to determining DPL Estimated nutrient loads for “background” conditions by removing the fraction associated with anthropogenic sources (except atmospheric deposition) Estimated “current” nutrient loads, using current land use and point source inputs. “EPA computed the protective TN load by reducing the current TN load by ½ of the anthropogenic contribution to that load.”

Comparison of EPA Proposed Approach to Tampa Bay RA loading targets and federally-recognized TMDL DPL for Tampa Bay (tons TN/yr): 1421 RA targets (tons TN/year): –Hillsborough Bay1451 –Old Tampa Bay 486 –Middle Tampa Bay 799 –Lower Tampa Bay 349 TOTAL: 3085 –(Remainder LTB) 629 (TOTAL: 3714)

EPA Invites Input to the DPL ”…EPA recognizes that additional data and analysis may be available, including data for particular estuaries, to help inform what numeric nutrient criteria are necessary to protect Florida’s waters, including downstream lakes and estuaries. EPA also recognizes that substantial site- specific work has been completed for a number of these estuaries…”

EPA Invites Feedback, con’t “…This notice and the proposed downstream protection values are not intended to address or be interpreted as calling into question the utility and protectiveness of these site-specific analyses…” “…EPA is also interested in feedback regarding site-specific analyses for particular estuaries that should be used instead of this general approach for establishing final values…”

Goals for the TBNMC to Consider PROPOSED GOAL: Ensure that EPA’s final inland waters criteria rule recognizes the RA/TMDL loading targets for Tampa Bay as “interim estuarine targets (DPLs).” Ensure that EPA recognizes the RA/TMDL loading targets for Tampa Bay as Estuarine Nutrient Criteria in the 2011 draft and final rules.

NMC Input on Potential Next Steps Potentially re-calculate inland DPV based on RA/TMDL loads as better justification of protective loads to Tampa Bay Incorporate NMC RA 5-year assessments instead of EPA proposed 3-yr assessment (w/ 1-yr exceedence being a violation) NMC response during EPA comment period should reiterate Dec. 19 th arguments with further back-up

NMC Letter to EPA Argue that NMC approach considers a response-based approach  include documentation of TB progress Ben Grumbles comments on existing Tampa Bay RA/TMDL process NMC costs associated with existing process (including actions by the participating entities) Participants associated with NMC, and signed declarations from entities Provide more technical arguments / comparisons of RA/TMDL loads? -> Provide information on regional SPARROW application vs. local application of model Encourage EPA participation in State Estuarine Criteria workshops Incorporate NMC RA 5-year assessments instead of EPA proposed 3-yr assessment (w/ 1-yr exceedence being a violation – achieve better than 60% compliance) Provide bulleted summary in letter

NMC Letter to EPA, cont’d. Ensure that RA document becomes part of the proposed EPA rule docket Argue that existing actions have largely achieved the proposed DPLs flow-weighted concentrations in place of proposed DPV Focus letter on EPA accepting RA/TMDL loads as the DPLs Include discussion on maintaining TN:TP Provide other comments in subsequent letters? Provide letter to NMC in 2-weeks

How to reach the right reviewer? Who are the right people to cc this information? Upcoming EPA Workshops  need to register to attend & speak –Representatives from TBEP (Holly) & TBNMC (Rob & Jeff) –Other NMC participants in support of TB process –Encourage NMC attendance at multiple workshops Request informal meeting prior to EPA workshops w/ NMC participants  if denied then document Evaluate whether a technical meeting can be setup between EPA GB staff Provide PR related to NMC RA process (Op-ed piece from NMC co-chairs, fertilizer ordinances, etc.) Visit reps in Washington, D.C. Invite reps to a special NMC meeting on subject Solicit support from other groups?

Future Considerations TP limits forthcoming  argue to maintain existing loads and/or TN:TP ratios

Questions/Issues The draft rule appears to assume that downstream waters require nutrient reduction. How and where in the draft rule does EPA consider existing conditions of downstream waters and whether a waterbody is currently meeting designated uses in downstream waters, including estuaries?

Questions/Issues, con’t How and where does EPA recognize existing TMDLs in the proposed rule? OTHER QUESTIONS & ISSUES:

Goals for the NMC to Consider PROPOSED GOAL: EPA’s final freshwater criteria rule recognizes the RA/TMDL loading targets for Tampa Bay as “interim estuarine targets”. EPA recognizes the RA/TMDL loading targets for Tampa Bay as Estuarine Nutrient Criteria in the 2011 draft and final rules. Determine how best to provide “site-specific analyses for particular estuaries that should be used instead of this general approach for establishing final values.”

Downstream Protection for Estuaries (EPA Proposed pp. 99) Methodologies to calculate in-stream protective criteria would allow either of the following to be utilized by the State: EPA's downstream protection values (DPVs), or the EPA DPV methodology utilizing EPA's estimates of protective loading to estuaries but with the load re- distributed among the tributaries to each estuary, or an alternative quantitative methodology*, based on scientifically defensible approaches, to derive and quantify the protective load to each estuary and the associated protective stream concentrations. *Requires the State to go through Federal SSAC process (Section V.C)

Using an Alternative Methodology to Determine Downstream Protective Loads An acceptable alternate numeric approach also includes a method to distribute and apply the load to streams and other waters within the estuarine drainage area in a manner that recognizes conservation of mass and makes use of a peer reviewed model (empirical or mechanistic) of comparable or greater rigor and scientific defensibility than the USGS SPARROW model (p. 124).

Federal SSAC Process (p. 161) State, or applicants to the State, would submit to EPA Can be developed following State (Type I or II) or Federal SSAC procedures (p.162) Federal SSAC proposal would necessitate documentation that ensures that a larger load allowed from an upstream segment as a result of a SSAC does not compromise protection on a downstream segment that has not been evaluated. Florida always has the option of submitting a State- adopted SSAC as new or revised WQS to EPA for review and approval under the CWA section 303(c)* *However, State Type I SSAC process can currently only be used for nutrients under State rules (p. 164)