Member Pipeline - Regulatory - Alert (RA 99-8a)
(DRAFT - OUT FOR REVIEW TO COMMITTEE)
Nutrient Strategy Will Not Address Sources of Impact
Under the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan, EPA has been directed to develop numeric nutrient criteria that are tailored to reflect the different types of waterbodies and the different eco-regions of the country. The Action Plan will also effectively require States to incorporate numerical nutrient criteria into their water quality standards by 2003. AMSA believes that this is a flawed approach to addressing nutrient problems.
In most areas, nonpoint source pollution is recognized to be the largest contributor to nutrient loading. The establishment of nutrient standards will not effectively manage the nonpoint source loads from agriculture, urban sprawl and runoff, air deposition,etc. since these activities are not subject to regulation or enforcement actions. From AMSA's viewpoint, water quality standards developed for nutrients will significantly impact point sources through the imposition of permit limits, while, due to limitations in Clean Water Act authority, allow non-point source pollution to go unabated. The widespread adoption of nutrient criteria into state water quality standards program will potentially require all publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) to install nutrient removal treatment processes. The cost of such installation would be staggering and in many situations not result in measurable increases in living resources in the Nation's waters.
Waterbodies can be nutrient enriched, but not impaired. It is important that living resource goals of the nutrient criteria are defined to ensure that nutrient enrichment is not confused with nutrient impairment. The current strategy could be counter-productive in areas where effective nutrient management controls or strategies are already under development or in place because: 1) they will pose a threat to the success of innovative non-regulatory programs which are currently underway in a number of watershed around the country; 2) the Clean Water Act is not capable of dealing with a parameter such as nutrients where the majority of sources are not covered by the Act; 3) the use of traditional weekly- or monthly-average permit limitations will result in greater costs for nutrient control since these problems are associated with long-term (e.g., annual, seasonal) loadings.
While the strategy does recognize that site-specific factors affect the impact nutrients have on ecosystem health, the ecoregion approach is too large to effectively address site-specific nutrient related issues. Due to complex site-specific factors, a given nutrient load or instream nutrient concentration can produce a wide variety of water quality and ecosystem responses. Nutrient criteria must be based on the protection and enhancement of living resources in order for the criteria to meaning and relevance to the general public and to relate to the goals of the Clean Water Act.
EPA's National Nutrient Strategy also indicates that “an essential element of this process is the determination of the natural, background trophic state representative (reference condition) of that area and water body so that abatement management can be directed at the cultural eutrophication of concern.” This particular approach is flawed in two areas since: 1) the attainment of pristine conditions could be unattainable; and, 2) the definition of the background condition would be difficult to establish. Nutrient criteria must be attainable. The Strategy should require states to perform use attainability analyses prior to the adoption of any water quality standards. This would insure that consideration is given to irreversible impacts of urbanization and ensure that the standards are attainable at a cost that the people are willing to pay.
EPA's Nutrient Strategy should be modified to closely follow AMSA's vision for how nutrient issues should be resolved. Specifically AMSA believes the Strategy should outline the following steps to addressing nutrients:
- Identify the need, and priority of nutrient criteria should be determined relative to the presence/success of local initiatives. Those regions without successful programs should be prioritized for nutrient criteria development.
- Determine desirable living resource goals. This determination should involve public participation to improve acceptability and support. States should be required to perform use attainability analyses as part of the standards setting process.
- Identify and carry out site-specific research needs to understand the influence of nutrients on biological end points. It must be recognized that, in most cases, significant additional resources will be needed to successfully understand these nutrient/living resource relationships. However failure to provide research and resources under this plan will result in major misdirection of resources for elimination of nutrients from POTW discharges without commensurate environmental improvement.
- Utilize the complex research information into ecosystem models to aid management. Using the models, determine nutrient values necessary to attain the “desirable living resource goals.” Nutrient criteria themselves do not represent an end point but a means to achieve those goals.
- Through further analysis, determine whether the desirable living resource goals are attainable and cost-effective and then revise the living resource goals and nutrient values as appropriate.
- Promote voluntary nutrient reduction initiatives between non point and point sources to achieve nutrient reductions. Develop nutrient reductions goals that are commensurate with the level of technical certainty available.
- Continue research on nutrients and ecosystem models. Further refine nutrient criteria commensurate with advances in science. Allow management actions to be flexible with constantly evolving scientific understanding.
- Convert nutrient criteria into water quality standards only in those areas with no established program or with ineffective voluntary programs.