View
200
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Advancing Towards Improved Water Quality in the
Great Lakes and the Gulf
Ellen Gilinsky, Senior Policy AdvisorU.S. EPA Office of Water
Co‐Chair, Hypoxia Task ForceDecember 2, 2015
1
National Scope of N & P Pollution• >15,000 nutrient‐related impaired
waters– ~101,000 miles of rivers and streams
impaired by nutrients– ~3.5 million acres of lakes and reservoirs
impaired by nutrients
• >8,000 nutrient‐related TMDLs completed to date
• ~1/2 of assessed streams have medium to high levels of N & P
• >40% of lakes have medium to high levels of N & P
• 78% of continental U.S. coastal waters exhibit eutrophication
• 168 Hypoxic Zones in U.S. Waters
• National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS) are statistical surveys designed to assess the status of and changes in quality of the nation’s coastal waters, lakes and reservoirs, rivers and streams (shown here), and wetlands.
Probable Sources of Impairments in Assessed Rivers and Streams (top ten)
*NPS estimate includes those sources shaded in blue(Source: Draft CWA 305(b) National Water Quality Inventory: http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/)
3
Probable Sources of Impairments in Assessed Lakes, Reservoirs & Ponds (top ten)
*NPS estimate includes those sources shaded in blue(Source: Draft CWA 305(b) National Water Quality Inventory: http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/)
4
Harmful Algal Blooms• Naturally occurring cyanobacteria in surface water can rapidly
multiply forming harmful algal blooms (HABs); some species of cyanobacteria produce algal toxins or cyanotoxins
• The prevalence and duration of HABs in freshwater is rapidly expanding in the U.S. and worldwide, causing:
– Adverse health effects to animals and humans– Health effects of algal toxins include liver and kidney toxicity, neurotoxic,
and dermatoxic– Algal blooms can cause hypoxia, leading to fish kills
• Economic losses– In fishing and recreation industries– Increasing costs for managing and treating potable water supplies
• Drinking water quality concerns– Can cause taste and odor problems in treated drinking water– Toledo, Ohio (population ~500,000) ‐ August 2014: > 1 µg/L total
microcystins in finished water– Ohio River – Summer/Fall of 2015 ‐ nearly 700 mile HAB presented
challenges for drinking water systems
5
Why State N & P Reduction Framework Now?
• Many efforts are underway to reduce nutrients at state and national levels but, collectively, we are not yet solving this problem– Serious problem that is getting worse; potential to become one of the
costliest and most challenging environmental problems– Growing population = increase of N and P use and loss
• To protect public health and the environment, need to act nowto reduce N and P loadings – while states continue to develop numeric nutrient criteria and standards– Since 1998, EPA has encouraged states to develop numeric nutrient
criteria to gauge N and P pollution and develop and implement appropriate solutions
6
Nutrient Framework: Guiding Principles
• Results, results, results: build from existing state work but accelerate progress and demonstrate clear results– Fundamental goal of the approach is for states to develop numeric WQS on a longer but reasonable schedule while making strong progress to reduce loads in the near term
– Encourage a collaborative approach between federal partners, states, and stakeholders
– States need flexibility to employ innovative policies and approaches to achieve near‐term reductions in N and P pollution while they make progress on their long‐term strategies
7
Reducing Nonpoint Sources Needs a Watershed Planning Focus
• To reduce impacts from agricultural lands, state strategies focus on implementation in critical areas of targeted watersheds
• At the watershed scale, 319 Nonpoint Source Program 9‐element watershed plans allow for locally led efforts to drive nutrient load reductions
• These are holistic plans to clean up entire (typically small) watersheds – Identifies critical areas, pollutant sources, loads, potential
management practices, etc.– Roadmap for project implementation most likely to deliver water
quality results• This approach works: USDA CEAP, EPA & other science confirm:
targeting systems of conservation practices in the right places is essential to water quality results and effective return for investment
• www2.epa.gov/polluted‐runoff‐nonpoint‐source‐pollution8
9
Focus: Progress in MARB &
Great Lakes
• US Army Corps of Engineers• US Environmental Protection
Agency• US Department of Agriculture
• US Geological Survey• National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration • National Tribal Water Council
5 Federal Agencies and Tribes:
12 State Agencies: • Arkansas• Missouri• Iowa• Tennessee• Minnesota• Indiana
• Ohio • Louisiana• Illinois• Mississippi • Kentucky• Wisconsin
Each state is represented by either:Agriculture agency, Environment (pollution control) agency, or Natural Resources agency
HTF Members
Mississippi River Basin HTF States
10
Keys to Success • To achieve a 45 percent reduction in N
and P, HTF must engage with and seek reductions from all source sectors: partnerships and collaboration are key to strong progress.
• Each HTF state developed a nutrient reduction strategy with stakeholder participation.
• Strategies are the key road map and cornerstone for reaching the HTF goal.
• Focus is now on implementation on the ground in state priority watersheds.
• Federal HTF Members have a unified strategy to guide technical and financial assistance to states and continued science support.
Developed Jan 15, 201511
HTF Collaboration with Land Grant Universities
• Southern Extension and Research Activities committee number 46 (SERA‐46) is a formal USDA NIFA and land‐grant university committee– Designed to promote multistate, research and extension activities; ~25
members – Researchers and extension specialists from each HTF state
• SERA‐46 and the HTF have a shared list of priorities for collaboration on needs identified by HTF states as the biggest hurdles to meeting the HTF goal:– Strengthening Networks– Conservation Systems Research and Outreach– Monitoring, Calibration and Validation
• This document outlines emergent opportunities for potential short‐ and long‐term collaborative work between the Hypoxia Task Force and SERA‐46
12
Impacts of Nutrient Delivery to the Great Lakes
1972 Signing
2012 Amendment
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
2012 GLWQA: Develop New P Targets & Action Plans
Charge to the Nutrients Annex:
Starting with Lake Erie by 2016
• Determine phosphorus concentration objectives and loading targets for open waters and nearshore areas including embayment's and tributaries
• Determine loading allocation by country and identify priority watersheds for load reduction
Starting with Lake Erie by 2018 • Assess effectiveness of programs to achieve the Substance and Lake Ecosystem Objectives
• Develop domestic action plans and strategies to control nutrients
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)• GLRI enhances federal agencies, states, local entities, and private landowners
working together and informs approaches to best address nearshore Great Lakes nutrient inputs
– Support the combination of targeted monitoring and implementation (as described above) to inform fine tuning approaches for the particular geographic setting
– Support local staff critical to implementing programs and communicating with landowners– Demonstration farm startups to publicize effective practices and support peer‐to‐peer sharing of
lessons learned based on EOF data – Develop reporting tools (i.e., models) based on EOF data that allow accounting of conservation
program outcome gains
• EPA collaborated with other Federal Agencies on GLRI priority watershed selection
• EPA funded projects to implement approved 9‐element watershed plans and/or TMDL implementation plans, to develop/undertake/complete TMDLs in priority watersheds and support Green Infrastructure projects
• GLRI funding levels varies, $250M – $475M annually, from 2010 – present (total of $2.21B)
16
GLRI‐Great Lakes Monitoring
• USGS conducts EOF monitoring under GLRI to maintain a standard approach across all watersheds
• GLRI continues to offer opportunities for coordinated monitoring (and implementation)
• Exploring new approaches to reduce costs (designs, sensors, and automated data analysis)
• Edge of field monitoring is an effective way to increase local interest in improving water quality
Scaling‐Up EOF and Small Watershed Results
• NRCS & USGS MOU to share Great Lakes field-level data
• Use of USGS monitoring data for watershed-scale modeling
• Collaborating with universities, non-profits, for-profits on initial modeling efforts and further scaling-up results
The Importance of Partnerships
• Expanding partnerships and alliances with CCAs, universities, agricultural communities, industries, cities, communities, and others with similar goals
• We encourage you to highlight where you are contributing to this body of work
• Check out the Water Quality Exchange and enter your datawww.exchangenetwork.net/data‐exchange/wqx/
Check out the Watershed Academy for training opportunitieswww2.epa.gov/watershedacademy
19
Thank You!
20