Internet Fax To Email - Unlimited
Unlimited Faxes, No Fees, Dedicated Phone Number
Unlimited Faxes, No Fees, Dedicated Phone Number
|
|
Georgia Department
of Natural Resources
March 9, 2005
Mr. Ronald Seder Re: Lake Lanier Standards Dear Mr. Seder: Thank you for your letter of December 6, 2004 regarding water quality standards for Lake Lanier. The Environmental Protection Division supports the existing water quality standards for Lake Lanier as adopted by the Board of Natural Resources. These standards are consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act and the Georgia Water Quality Control Act. In terms of the NPDES permit for Gwinnett County, we have issued public notice on a draft permit. I welcome your comments on the draft permit and I especially urge your suggestions for specific effluent limits to be included in the permit. Sincerely,
Carol A. Couch, Ph.D. CAC:dwm
February 15, 2005 To the members of the Georgia Board of Natural Resources Loyce W. Turner
William A. Carruth
Robert J. Rutland I recommend that the Georgia Board of Natural Resources
reconsider the water quality standards it established in January 2000 for Lake
Lanier. The reason for my
recommendation again now is a November 23, 2005 Georgia Supreme Court ruling.
The Supreme Court ruling resulted from its reconsideration of the case of
Hughey et al. (Lake Lanier Association and others) v. Gwinnett et al., dealing
with the legality of the sewer permit issued to Gwinnett County by the Georgia
EPD, which allowed the discharge of 40 mgd of treated sewage into Lake Lanier. The Supreme Court ruling stated: “The undisputed facts show that the discharge will degrade
the water quality in Lake Lanier. Before
a permit will issue to allow the degradation of water quality in Lake Lanier,
the clear and unambiguous language of Georgia’s anti-degradation rules require
the permittee to utilize the “highest and best [level of treatment]
practicable under existing technology.” Because
the treatment plant at issue, the Hill Plant, is capable of removing more
pollutants from the discharged water than the permit requires, the permit
violates the anti-degradation rules. Accordingly,
we reverse.” The current Lake Lanier water quality standards, which were
recommended to the Board of Natural Resources and approved on January 25, 2000,
allow more pollution (water quality degradation) of Lake Lanier.
However, the EPD Lake Lanier Water Quality Standards presentation (copy
of three pages attached) to the Board of Natural Resources state an objective
(“Allow no increase of phosphorus loading and nitrogen and chlorophyll a
concentrations above historical levels”) that is contrary to the standards
established. I suggest that the Georgia Supreme Court ruling should
cause reestablishing Lake Lanier water quality standards to allow no further
degradation of Lake Lanier water quality. Tighter
Lake Lanier water quality standards would certainly be more in concert with the
spirit of the Supreme Court ruling. More information about Lake Lanier water quality standards
can be viewed on my website at www.ronseder.com
by clicking on Lake Lanier and then clicking on Standards. Attached are copies of my December 8, 2003 oral and written
comments in response to EPD Public Notice No. 2003-30 and a letter I sent to Dr.
Carol Couch on December 6, 2004, from which I have heard nothing. Sincerely, Ronald E. Seder 6355 Barberry Hill Place 770-889-1088 cc: Noel Holcomb
December
6, 2004 Dr. Carol Couch Dear Dr. Couch, Lake Lanier water quality
standards allow water quality degradation.
Those standards should be reviewed again considering recent Court
rulings. Lake Lanier water quality is
threatened by a growing Metropolitan Atlanta, which will cause much of the Lake
Lanier Watershed to be developed. Professional
studies show that expected future development on the Lake Lanier Watershed will
significantly degrade Lake Lanier water quality unless things are done
differently. The water quality standards
established a few years ago for Lake Lanier allow degradation of the Lake’s
water quality. I opposed those
standards because they did allow degradation.
For your reference, some of my past involvement in this subject for the
Lake Lanier Association and myself can be viewed on my web site at www.ronseder.com/standards.htm,
so I will not repeat that material here. As you know, the Supreme
Court of Georgia issued a ruling in the case of Hughey et al. [Lake Lanier
Association, Chattahoochee River Keeper and others] v. Gwinnett County et al. on
November 23, 2004. Part of that ruling says: It
appears to me that because the Lake Lanier water quality standards allow
degradation of Lake Lanier’s water quality, and that degradation is
preventable, the standards also violate the Clean Water Act and the Georgia
anti-degradation rules, at least in spirit.
Therefore, I ask that the Lake Lanier water quality standards be reset to
not allow Lake Lanier water quality degradation. I
would appreciate your response to my suggestion here. Sincerely, Ronald
E. Seder 6355
Barberry Hill Place 770-889-1088
RESPONSE TO EPD
PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 2003-30 COMMENTS ON
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OF THE
Telephone: 770-889-1088
In January 2000 the Georgia Board of Natural Resources
established water quality standards for In discussions far in advance of the Board of Natural Resources January 2000 action, I and many others were told by EPD that EPD was establishing the Lake Lanier water quality standards with the goal of not degrading the historic quality of Lake Lanier water. During the EPD Lake Lanier Water Quality Standards presentation to the Board of Natural resources, a page of the presentation showed one objective to be “Allow no increase of phosphorus loading and nitrogen and chlorophyll a concentrations above historical levels” (copy of presentation chart attached). However, the recommended, and accepted numeric water quality standards, do allow levels of these pollutants in Lake Lanier above historical levels. Almost all of the Lake Lanier water quality standards allow Lake pollution above historical levels. Court testimony, during the legal action against the
permitted Gwinnett County 40 MGD sewer discharge into Lake
Lanier, confirms that the Lake
Lanier
water quality standards allow increases in During Courtroom testimony Mr. Alan Hallum, EPD Chief of the Water Protection Branch of Natural Resources, agreed that “the water quality in Lake Lanier is better than the level set by the water quality standards for Lake Lanier”. Mr. Hallum also testified that he would not recommend swimming within 35 meters of the approved Gwinnett County sewer discharge. Attached is some information from my website dealing with this subject, and more information is available on the website. Protection of Sincerely,
There were four attachments submitted with the paper
above: 1) the first three charts of the January 25, 2000 EPD Lake Lanier Water
Quality Standards presentation; 2) a Lake Lanier Association January 20, 2000
letter to Alan Hallum; 3) a 3/11/03 article, "STATUS OF THE PERMITTED
GWINNETT COUNTY TREATED SEWAGE DISCHARGE INTO LAKE LANIER"; 4) a 3/14/02
article, "LAKE LANIER AT RISK". 1 and 2 can be viewed by
scrolling down in this section of the website. 3 and 4 can be viewed by
scrolling down the "Gwinnett sewer" section of the website.
Lake Lanier Water Quality Standards Following is a series of information addressing Lake Lanier water quality standards. The information is generally presented in reverse chronological order.
LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC. January 20,
2000 This letter
is our response to the Lake Lanier water quality standards proposed by the Georgia
Environmental Division (EPD) in its January 12, 2000 public hearing. Objectives
to be achieved by the standards The new
Georgia Environmental Protection Division's (EPD) objectives for the Lake Lanier water
quality standards presented in the public hearing on January 12, 2000 are as follows:
The Lake
Lanier Association, Inc. (LLA) applauds part of this EPD change in objectives, but is
convinced that there is more change yet required to maintain the quality of Lake Lanier
waters. The (LLA)
agrees with the first objective, but, to maintain Lake Lanier water quality, the LLA urges
that the first objective include pH and Dissolved Oxygen (DO). That leaves fecal coliform bacteria and
temperature, which could also be included in the first objective, but in some respects
these require a different consideration, as will be discussed later in this letter. For a long
time the LLA has been urging the EPD to produce the first objective for all seven
standards. There are two reasons for this
recommendation. 1) There is limited historical data on which to base the numerical
quantification of the standard, and that can cause incorrect conclusions about actual
historical lake conditions. Therefore, as
more data is accumulated, presenting a clearer picture of actual historical lake
conditions, it could demonstrate that changes to the standards are warranted. Making the objective the overriding purpose for
the standards will better protect the lake and allow EPD, as it continues to collect data,
to refresh the standards towards better accomplishing the objective. 2) Proposed increases of lake pollutants should be
tested against the objective and the standards, rather than just the standards. This reduces the possibility of an inadequate
standard, developed from limited and misleading historical data, allowing additional
pollution to be discharged into the lake. Phosphorus The LLA
disagrees with the .25 pounds per acre-foot per year phosphorus loading standard
proposed for the total lake. Historical
phosphorus loading has never come close to being as high as the proposed standard. History shows the average year to be .15
pounds, the lowest year to be .07 pounds and the highest year to be .20
pounds. The LLA
recommends a total annual lake phosphorus loading standard of .20 pounds per
acre-foot. The EPD
presentation also shows direct discharges to be only about 8% of the annual
phosphorus loading of the lake. The LLA has
concluded that 8% is wrong, and has determined the average historical direct discharge
phosphorus loading to be closer to 25% of the total lake phosphorus loading (see
attachment). Phosphorus
loading from direct discharges is generally more bioavailable than phosphorus from runoff. Therefore, phosphorus in direct discharges, pound
for pound, causes more chlorophyll a and lower levels of dissolved oxygen than phosphorus
from runoff. Nitrogen The proposed
nitrogen standard is 4 mg/l. History shows
nitrogen to be highly variable from sample to sample, and the proposed
measurement/noncompliance technique would cause the samples to often falsely indicate a
lake in noncompliance. As currently
described, noncompliance is determined by 10% (1of 7) of the samples in a year being above
the standard. That rule applied to the UGA
Clean Lakes Reports (CLR) Appendix A history would have caused all five proposed lake
monitoring points to falsely show a deteriorating lake. We suggest,
if the currently proposed measurement/noncompliance method is kept, that the standard be
raised to avoid numerous false indications of a deteriorating lake. However, to avoid too many false alarms and to
better expose a worsening lake, we suggest that the measurement/noncompliance method be
changed to use the mean of the samples, or use the initial indication to kick off a period
of more intensive monitoring to determine if the lake really is out of compliance. Chlorophyll
a The LLA
agrees with the Chlorophyll a standard proposed for the five monitoring points. But the five monitoring points really are not
sensitive to the most offending portions of the lake.
More diverse monitoring points should be established to allow a more representative
view of the lake. Riverkeeper has suggested
six additional sampling points; Little River, Limestone Creek, Flat Creek, Balus Creek,
Six Mile Creek and Mud Creek. We support
Riverkeeper's recommendation. The LLA
concludes from its and other's observations of Flat Creek during 1999 that Flat Creek
should have been in noncompliance if a standard had been in place. Therefore, the standard should be set accordingly. Dissolved
Oxygen (DO) The EPD
proposed standard is: a daily average of 5.0 mg/l and no less than 4.0 mg/l at all times
at one meter depth. The standard
is much worse than history. The CLR history
shows nothing worse than 7 mg/l except in Flat Creek (as with chlorophyll a, Flat Creek
should be identified as being in noncompliance). The LLA
recommends a standard of no less than 6.0 mg/l at the one-meter depth. In addition,
DO should be monitored at other depths of the water column.
Too little DO in the deep water could release nutrients from the lake bottom and
would eliminate the habitat required for Striped Bass survival. PH The EPD
proposed standard is 6.0 to 9.5. There are no
CLR Appendix A historical observations of less than 6.5 or greater than 9.0. The CLR
recommends a pH standard in the main lake embayment of 6.5 to 8.5. The LLA
recommends a lake wide pH standard of 6.5 to 9.0. Fecal
Coliform The EPD
proposed standard is: not to exceed the geometric mean of 200 per 100 ml based on four
samples collected from a given sampling site over a 30-day period at intervals not less
than 24 hours. Because
fecal coliform does not directly cause, and is not a particularly good indicator of
potential human health problems the LLA recommends consideration of an E. coli standard
and monitoring for Lake Lanier. Temperature The EPD
proposed standard is: water temperature shall not exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit and at no
time is the temperature of the receiving waters to be increased more than 5 degrees above
intake temperature. The LLA
recommends that the lake impact be determined for large quantities of relatively high
temperature water released deep in the lake near the bottom. That may initiate a different temperature
consideration to protect the lake from degradation. Recommendation As you know
Alan, we secured the services of the Applied Technology and Management (ATM) firm to look
into the proposed standards and give us advice about the standards' adequacy of preserving
Lake Lanier at historical quality levels. The
recommendations in this letter are consistent with the ATM conclusions. The LLA
implores the EPD to recommend to the Board of the Department of Natural Resources that it
not vote on the standards in its January meeting, to allow time for the EPD, Riverkeeper
and LLA to reason together and try to produce agreement on standards that will not allow
future Lake Lanier contamination to exceed historical levels. Sincerely, Jacqueline
A. Joseph cc: Harold
Reheis THE
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LAKE LANIER PHOSPHORUS LOADING CAUSED BY DIRECT DISCHARGES EPD
charts show that 8% of Lake Lanier phosphorus is the result of direct discharges. The Lake Lanier Association calculations show that
percentage to be closer to 25%. Information
used in this analysis was obtained or derived from information in an internal EPD
September 28, 1999 memorandum from Paul Lamarre to Alan Hallum, and from the UGA Clean
Lakes Report (CLR). Calculations
for the EPD 8% The proposed
phosphorus standard of .25 pounds per acre-foot per year = 516,150 pounds per year. Four direct
dischargers were identified 38,910
pounds divided by 516,150 pounds = 7.5% (rounded to 8% for the EPD chart) There
are 41 other direct discharges There is a total of about 45 direct dischargers into the lake or the streams feeding the lake
If the
average phosphorus concentration in the discharge of the unidentified 41 dischargers is
the same as the average of the identified 4 it can be assumed that the total lake
phosphorus loading from direct discharges is about 77,820 pounds (2 X 38,910) Use
history for the calculation Average
historic annual lake phosphorus loading has been about 300,000 pounds Direct
discharge phosphorus is then 25.9% (77,820/300,000) of the total phosphorus
loading. Note:
If average phosphorus concentrations or discharge mgd are different than assumed here
for the unidentified 41, the direct discharge 25.9% would be adjusted
accordingly.
During another public hearing on January 12, 2000, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) presented a new objectives chart for the Lake Lanier standards. The LLA has been pushing for the first objective for all of the Lake Lanier standards now being proposed. The LLA is pleased with the objective agreement reached with the EPD for some of the standards. However, the LLA remains convinced that the first objective should also apply to most of the other standards. Therefore, the LLA disagrees with the second objective. Lake Sidney Lanier Objectives: -To continue to meet all other applicable existing
water quality standards for Lake Lanier (i.e. fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved oxygen,
temperature, etc.)
Dear Alan: Lake Lanier
water quality standards are very important to the Lake Lanier Association, Inc. (LLA)
because we are dedicated to the preservation of Lake Lanier. This letter
is being written to document the outcome of our meeting with you and your staff on
Wednesday. As we discussed, it is important
to document our meeting and make sure we have a common understanding. I have tried to accurately include the changes you
suggested resulting from your review of the draft letter I sent to you on Thursday. The LLA
wants the standards now being determined for Lake Lanier to preserve the lake at
historical quality levels for phosphorus, chlorophyll a, nitrogen, DO, pH and fecal
coliform. The Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) wants to preserve Lake Lanier at its historical quality levels
for phosphorus, chlorophyll a and nitrogen. Therefore,
the EPD and the LLA have a common objective for Lake Lanier standards as follows: "The
objective is to not allow total phosphorus loading, or chlorophyll a or total
nitrogen concentrations in Lake Lanier to increase beyond historical levels."
("The Objective"). However, the
EPD has a different objective for DO, pH, and fecal coliform standards, which is: "The
objective for DO, pH, and fecal coliform is to be consistent with how the EPD deals with
them on a statewide basis." Therefore,
the EPD will not set objectives for DO, pH and fecal coliform unique to historical
observations of Lake Lanier. The EPD has an
additional objective of continuing to meet all other applicable water quality standards
for Lake Lanier that are already in place. "The
Objective" will be included as an objective in the documentation concerning setting
the standards for Lake Lanier, and the EPD will include "The Objective" in its
presentation to the Board of the Department of Natural Resources. It is important that what will become the
historical records of the standards setting process, clearly state "The
Objective" so that, as EPD accumulates more data through time, that data can be used
to refresh the standards towards better accomplishing "The Objective". Let me now
focus on measurements and methods of determining noncompliance with the standards. The LLA review will be on the basis of where and
how the monitoring of compliance is to be done in the lake.
Therefore, we are basing our assessment against the history collected at the EPD
identified compliance monitoring points, rather than all historical data collected at all
points. The LLA also
believes that 10% of the samples exceeding the standard (1 of 7) in a year may not be an
appropriate method of determining noncompliance for nitrogen, DO and pH. The data show a lot of variability for nitrogen
from sample to sample, and perhaps that is also true for DO and pH. Therefore, the standard would have to be set very
high to avoid a lot of false indications of a deteriorating lake. For example, if the
proposed standard were laid against of the UGA Clean Lakes Study Report Appendix A
historical data, each proposed monitoring station would have shown the lake to be out of
compliance for nitrogen. Frequent standard
noncompliance, not tied to a real decline in the lake, would cause violations of the
standard to have little meaning, like the little boy who called "wolf" falsely
so often that he was ignored when the wolf really did appear. Setting the
standard high enough against the 10% sample criteria to avoid a lot of false indications
could then have the consequence of allowing real lake degradation to go undetected for
many years. Therefore, the LLA recommends
that the method, which allows one reading to indicate noncompliance, not be used for
nitrogen. Perhaps using the mean, as will be
done for the chlorophyll a measurement, should also be used for nitrogen, and the
standard reset accordingly. As we
discussed Wednesday, the phosphorus loading of .25 pounds per acre-foot per year is much
higher than historical observations for the total lake, and therefore, the LLA believes
that the standard and/or measurement should be changed to better achieve "The
Objective." The LLA,
with the advice of its consultant, Applied Technology and Management, will again review
the EPD proposed standards, using the additional insight we gained in our meeting
Wednesday, and get back to you with our additional conclusions/recommendations as soon as
possible. Alan, as we
agreed Wednesday, please let us know immediately if you find anything in this letter that
is different than we discussed. Sincerely, Ron Seder cc: Harold Reheis
The following article was submitted to the Forsyth Harald and it was published in the January 19, 2000 edition. LAKE LANIER
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS I am a Vice
President of the Lake Lanier Association, Inc. (LLA), a 4,000-member organization of
volunteers working to preserve Lake Lanier. I,
along with others in the LLA, have been trying to influence the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) to create Lake Lanier water quality standards that will truly
contribute to the preserving the current Lake Lanier water quality. EPD is proposing standards that will not preserve
the current Lake Lanier water quality. Unless
changes are made we will lose Lake Lanier as we know it today, a desirable aesthetic
contributor to our quality of life, and a recreational mecca that annually contributes $2
billion to our economy. The two most
serious threats to the quality of Lake Lanier water are both a result of growth: 1)
increased lake pollutants washing into the lake from the continuing rapid development of
the lake's watershed; 2) desire by some to dispose of huge quantities of treated sewage in
the lake. The Georgia
legislature passed legislation several years ago directing that Lake Lanier water quality
standards be set for phosphorus, chlorophyll a, nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, pH,
fecal coliform and temperature. For the past
several months the EPD has been working on these standards, and they presented them to the
Board of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on December 1, 1999. The LLA is opposed to those standards because it
has concluded that the standards are not sufficiently stringent to prevent future
degradation of Lake Lanier's water quality. Working on
this project has been a terribly frustrating process for the LLA. The basic precepts for the standards have been
tough to pin down with the EPD. The LLA
believes that before standards are set one must know the objective to be achieved by the
standard, how the standard is to be measured and how noncompliance with the standard will
be determined. But, the LLA experienced great
difficulty in getting EPD to consistently agree or disagree with the basics. Knowing the
objective to be achieved is fundamental to the process.
For example, if one is going to take a trip one should know the destination of the
trip, or reaching that destination probably will not happen. The EPD has
been terribly evasive about the objective for the standards. Sometimes the objective has been to preserve Lake
Lanier, which is not specific and means different things to different people, and
sometimes it has been to satisfy the law, which is to provide a water supply source,
recreation and fishing. Both of these
objectives are being accomplished on other Georgia lakes with much poorer water quality
than current Lake Lanier water. The LLA has
been pushing for an objective that specifically states the intent to not
allow Lake Lanier water quality to degrade from its current level. Although when the EPD was pressed it would say
something similar to the LLA desires, the EPD would not make it official and support it in
the documentation. Also, in its
work on the lake standards the LLA found the EPD not to be as helpful as it should be. The LLA had great difficulty getting the factual
answers it wanted. If the LLA was not
knowledgeable enough to ask a question exactly correct, the EPD was not in the mode of
helping the LLA to get the information it needed. Another
example might help the reader understand the LLA frustration. The EPD objected to the LLA using the word
"current" in describing historical pollutant levels in the lake, even though the
EPD had used the word in the same context in its own documentation. And, the LLA was not given that documentation,
which describes the EPD standards setting rationale, until January 5, 2000, a month after
the DNR Board voted to delay its decision on the EPD proposed standards. If the EPD
had been more open and less defensive with the LLA the LLA may not have had to pay a
considerable portion of its member's dues to hire a technical consultant to deal with the
EPD. As I write
this on January 9, 2000, after a January 5 meeting with the EPD, and a subsequent exchange
of draft documentation between the LLA and the EPD, it looks like the LLA and the EPD have
a common objective for three of the standards and a disagreement on the rest. The EPD has
scheduled another public hearing January 12, 2000, on the same lake standards that it last
presented to the DNR Board December 1. The
DNR Board is scheduled to vote again on the standards on January 25, 2000. At this point it looks like the DNR Board will
vote on the same standards it dealt with in December, and those are still just not
sensitive enough to promptly detect deteriorating Lake Lanier water quality. If you would
like to help preserve Lake Lanier, please join the Lake Lanier Association and/or
contribute to the Lake Lanier Association Foundation by calling (770) 831-1819. You can find out more about the lake standards
situation by reviewing the correspondence and other information on my web site at
http://ronseder.home.mindspring.com. Look in
the Lake Standards topic in the Lake Lanier section of the web site.
LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC.
Dear Alan: This letter is a response to your December 30,
1999 letter to me. I get the impression that someone is playing
games rather than trying to work with us to help us understand. For example, we are told again, as we have in the
past, that we must define "currently" without any suggestion from you about what
it should be, or what you have determined the current annual average phosphorus loading of
Lake Lanier to be. Again, we did not get the
answer. We did not pose a trick question. Currently means what you have determined to be the
historical annual average lake phosphorus loading from the analysis of the historical
data. Surely you must have some
quantification of the current lake phosphorus loading to be able to recommend a future
standard. Will you please tell us what it
is? In your December 22, 1999 letter to me you
said, "The proposed lake phosphorus standard is significantly more stringent than the
target presented by the UGA study as representing current inputs." I understood that, in the context of our past
meetings and correspondence, to support that you thought you were really recommending a
phosphorus standard tighter than current lake conditions, as we were told in a past
meeting with you and your staff. Your
statement in the letter, and what we were told in a past meeting with you and your staff,
also caused me to think you endorsed the UGA conclusions.
But when I then questioned the measurement methodology against the UGA findings you
devoted a page of your return letter to destroying the validity of the UGA methodology. I am not defending any methodology. I simply want to know how the proposed standard
for annual phosphorus loading compares to what has been observed historically, how actual
future loading will be measured and how noncompliance with the standard will be
determined. I also request, if your experts
think I am not asking a question correctly, that they help me ask it correctly so I can
quickly get the simplest straight forward answer. Next, let me address the Chlorophyll a
observation and turn it into a question to you. From
your statistical analysis of historical data, and the mean of the monthly sampling method
of measurement you intend to use, what percentage of the years that actually exceed
current conditions could be expected to show up as exceeding the standard? This is a fairly simple exercise for someone
proficient in sampling probability. Again Alan, it is important for us to precisely
understand the objectives to be achieved by the standards, how the measurements will be
made, where the measurements will be made and what will constitute noncompliance with the
standards. Without understanding all of these
it is impossible to set and/or understand meaningful standards. I would appreciate a response as soon as possible. Cc: Harold Reheis
Georgia Department of
Natural Resources
December 30, 1999 Mr. Ron Seder Dear Mr. Seder: This letter contains the Georgia Environmental Protection Division's (GAEPD) response to the comments on the proposed supplemental water quality standards for Lake Sidney Lanier as expressed in your December 24, 1999, letter. The Clean Lakes Study report for Lake Sidney Lanier has been reviewed by GAEPD and only minor changes and corrections have been proposed. There are no changes to the conclusions or technical methodologies. GAEPD uses all the information available when developing lake standards, the Clean Lakes Study report is but one source of information. The Clean Lakes Study report is an independent reference for developing lake standards, and GAEPD does not necessarily agree with all the conclusions or methods presented in the report. Concerning your comments and supporting information that, "The proposed phosphorus standard for Lake Lanier would allow three times more phosphorus than currently experienced in the lake", we have the following response: First, the use of the word 'currently' is not defined and misleading in the context of conditions experienced by Lake Sidney Lanier and lake standards. Water quality and loadings to Lake Sidney Lanier have varied over time depending on climatological and hydrological conditions. The lake standards were developed from historical water quality data and are intended to maintain the Lake's water quality and loadings within these historical ranges. Second, your comment uses the terminology 'time-average of monthly readings'. This terminology is not used in our standards development and is unclear in this context. The calculation of tributary phosphorus loadings was generally based on measured monthly phosphorus concentrations. The analysis used a daily time interval in which the monthly phosphorus concentrations remained constant until a new concentration was measured. There was no averaging of these concentration results. Third, we cannot support the interpretation of the phosphorus loading rate of 208 kilograms/day (kg/day) cited in your letter for the following reasons.
The analysis used in the lake standards development to estimate the total phosphorus loadings from tributary watersheds used an annual daily-average hydrologic model intended to capture the time-varying inflows to the lake. The lake standards development analysis also used historic measured phosphorus concentrations rather than an estimate at mean flow. Therefore, since the analysis used in developing the tributary total phosphorus loading for the lake standard incorporates time-varying lake inflows and measured phosphorus concentrations, it is incorrect to directly compare the annual total phosphorus loading rate standard to the rate of 208 kg/day for the reasons stated above. Fourth, your comment states that, "The EPD method of measurement does not properly account for the high flow phosphorus concentrations." The sampling schedule is generally determined in advance of the sampling season. Therefore, the sampling schedule is independent of flow conditions and high flow conditions are sampled as well as lower flow conditions. This sampling approach provides for more equal representation of high and low flow phosphorus concentrations. Concerning your comment that, "The EPD proposed chlorophyll a standards and noncompliance determination method would allow, at some monitoring sites, chlorophyll a concentrations greater than current lake conditions to go undetected for more than 30 years." We do not understand and cannot respond to this comment as described in your letter and would need to review the technical analyses from which the comment was based. GAEPD appreciates your comments on the proposed supplemental water quality standards for Lake Sidney Lanier. Hopefully we can clarify and discuss in more detail your concerns and questions during our meeting on January 5, 2000. Sincerely,
Alan W.
Hallum, Chief
LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC.
Mr. Alan Hallum Chief, Water Protection Branch Georgia Environmental Protection Division 4220 International Parkway, Suit 101 Atlanta, Georgia 30354 Dear Alan: Alan, in this reply to your December 22, 1999 letter we differ with some of your conclusions and make some other observations. You reference your standards against conclusions in the UGA report. My understanding is that EPD has not accepted that report as being correct. If so, is it valid to reference the conclusions in a piece of work that could be changed before being accepted by EPD? Also, because the UGA report drew conclusions from readings at many lake sites, it does not seem appropriate to believe the same conclusions should apply to five of the cleanest sites. The EPD proposed phosphorus standard for Lake Lanier would allow three times more phosphorus than is currently experienced in the lake. Experts tell us that the EPD measurement, based on a time-average of monthly readings, will produce a phosphorus loading that should be compared to the 208 kg/day (167,000 pounds per year or .08 pounds per acre foot per year), shown on page 6-18 of the UGA report, instead of the 1040 kg/day (835,000 pounds per year or .4 pounds per acre foot per year) shown on page 6-19. This is because the 5 times uplift factor in the UGA report (167,000 pounds to 835,000 pounds) is there to capture the increased phosphorus concentration expected at high flows. The EPD method of measurement does not properly account for the high flow phosphorus concentrations. The annual phosphorus loading standard proposed by EPD of 516,150 pounds (.25 X 2,064,600 acre feet) is comparable to the 167,000 pounds (208 kg/day) in the UGA report and not to the 835,000 pounds (1040 kg/day). (.08 pounds per acre foot X 2,064,600 acre feet) equals 165,168 pounds. Therefore, to keep the annual phosphorus loading at current levels and to complement the EPD phosphorus measurement/noncompliance technique, the standard should be .08 pounds per acre foot per year instead of .25 pounds per acre foot per year. The EPD proposed Chlorophyll a standards and noncompliance determination method would allow, at some monitoring sites, Chlorophyll a concentrations greater than current lake conditions to go undetected for more than 30 years. Experts indicate that a statistical analysis of the EPD measurement by sampling, against the proposed standards, shows that even if the lake at some monitoring locations exceeded current chlorophyll a concentrations for many many years the samples would likely not indicate noncompliance. In other words, the sample at a site for a year when the lake actually exceeds current chlorophyll a concentrations has less than a 1 in 30 chance of exceeding the proposed standard. It is obvious to us that the chlorophyll a noncompliance detection situation described above means the standard and/or the noncompliance measurement needs to be changed to be more sensitive to the lake exceeding current chlorophyll a concentrations. The professionals involved in our review of the proposed Lake Lanier standards and noncompliance process are continuing their work and we will be having more dialogue with you as we learn more. In the meantime though, you might want to review your noncompliance methodology for total nitrogen. At first glance it looks like current lake conditions, using the method of 10 % of 7 samples (one sample each month from April through October) to determine noncompliance, would frequently cause noncompliance. Applying the methodology to Dr. Mac Callaham's 1994 lake test results in Appendix A of the UGA report indicates that several of the monitoring stations would have shown noncompliance. It looks like a different noncompliance methodology is needed here. As you can see, the proposed phosphorus and Chlorophyll a standards would allow considerably more pollution of the lake without standards noncompliance. We remain convinced that Lake Lanier's water quality deserves to be preserved at its current level with a target of improving it. May I have your response to this letter as soon as possible to help us both to be as productive as we can be before the arrival of the deadlines imposed on us. Sincerely, Ron Seder Vice President cc: Harold Reheis
205 Butler Street, S.E., Floyd Towers East, Atlanta, Georgia 30334 December 22, 1999 Mr. Ron Seder, Vice President Alan Hallum, Chief
LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC. December 13, 1999 Mr. Alan Hallum Dear Mr. Hallum: Thank you for your December 6 letter of reply. Your letter makes it clear that there is no goal or objective for the Lake Lanier water quality standards to prevent further degradation of the quality of the lake water. As we have discussed previously we oppose a goal or objective that excludes prevention of further degradation of Lake Lanier water quality. We would like to read back to you our understanding of your measurements and noncompliance explanations, and ask some additional questions. Phosphorus Monthly samples will be collected at tributary standard sites to determine phosphorus concentrations and that along with monthly flow data will be used to estimate the annual phosphorus loading of the lake, which will be compared to the standard to determine compliance or noncompliance. The estimated loading in one calendar year exceeding the standard will constitute noncompliance. What are the tributary standard sites? Chlorophyll a There will be monthly sampling at the five identified lake monitoring locations during April through October. The average value of the samples for a given year exceeding the standard will constitute noncompliance. Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Temperature and pH Monthly sampling at the five identified lake monitoring locations at one meter depth will used to determine compliance or noncompliance with the standard. More than 10% of the monthly samples exceeding the standard will constitute noncompliance. 10% for what period of time, cumulative, calendar year, rolling 12 monthly samples or something else? Does this mean 10% of the total samples from all 5 monitoring locations or 10% of the samples from one location? Will 2 samples out of 12 or 7 out of 60 really cause noncompliance or will it cause additional sampling to determine if any of the samples exceeding the standard are an aberration to be explained away? Total Nitrogen Monthly photic zone composite samples at the five lake monitoring locations will be analyzed. More than10 % of the monthly samples exceeding the standard will constitute noncompliance. What is the EPD definition of the photic zone and does it vary in depth from one time to another? 10% for what period of time, cumulative, calendar year, rolling 12 monthly samples or something else? Does this mean 10% of the total samples from all 5 monitoring locations or 10% of the samples from one location? Will 2 samples out of 12 or 7 out of 60 really cause noncompliance or will it cause additional sampling to determine if any of the samples exceeding the standard are an aberration to be explained away? Fecal Coliform Separate samples will be collected at the five lake monitoring locations for fecal coliform. More than 10% of the monthly samples exceeding the standard will constitute noncompliance. Will there be enough samples to determine monthly if fecal coliform is in compliance according to 391-3-6-.03(6)(b)(i), which would require at least 4 samples per month? 10% for what period of time, cumulative, calendar year, rolling 12 monthly samples or something else? Does this mean 10% of the total samples from all 5 monitoring locations or 10% of the samples from one location? Will 2 samples out of 12 or 7 out of 60 really cause noncompliance or will it cause additional sampling to determine if any of the samples exceeding the standard are an aberration to be explained away? Mr. Hallum, we would appreciate your answers to our questions, corrections of misunderstandings we may have demonstrated here and any other information that you think might help us to fully understand. We need a clear understanding of the objectives, measurements and methods of noncompliance determination, as soon as possible, for our technical work to have the proper fundamentals from which to proceed towards the time line requirements leading to a DNR Board presentation. Sincerely,
cc: Harold Reheis
A December 6, 1999 letter to the Lake Lanier Association
from Alan Hallum, Chief of the EPD Water Protection Branch, addressed both the goal of the
water quality standards and the methods of determining noncompliance. In this letter we also finally received some information about the methods of measuring and determining noncompliance with the standards. More explanation is required for our complete understanding and we are seeking that additional information from the EPD. ------------- Georgia Department of natural Resources December 6, 1999
Ms. Jacqueline A. Joseph, President
The purpose of this correspondence is to alert you to the time line for standards and to respond to your letter of December 2, 1999. First, let's discuss the time line for standards review and submittal to the Board of Natural Resources. As you know the Board of Natural Resources passed a resolution on December 1, 1999 regarding the proposed water quality standards for Lake Lanier . The resolution requires the EPD to complete the review of the proposed standards and bring final recommendations to the Board for consideration and adoption at its meeting on January 25, 2000. This is a very short time frame. We would like to review your written input as soon as possible. We are open to meeting with you and your technical representative to discuss the issues. The second purpose of this correspondence is to respond to your letter of December 2, 1999. The letter addresses two primary issues, one being the goal of the standards, and the second being the method of measurement and the determination of noncompliance. The goal of the water quality standards is as follows; ).C. G. A. 12-5-23.1 states that the EPD shall establish water quality standards for Lake Lanier "which require the lake to be safe and suitable for fishing and swimming and for use as a public water supply (emphasis added), unless a use attainability analysis conducted within requirements of this article demonstrates such standards are unattainable." The EPD studied available data for the past ten to twelve years and based on the historic data proposed water quality standards for Lake Lanier to achieve the goals of the law. The second Issue in your letter concerned the measurement and assessment of noncompliance. The data collected on Lake Lanier by North Georgia College and the University of Georgia as a part of the Clean Lakes Study and by others conducting monitoring on the lake included monthly sampling at selected tributaries and monthly monitoring on the lake included monthly sampling at selected tributaries and monthly sampling at selected lake locations during algal growing season of April through October. A similar approach will be used by EPD to collect data for compliance assessment. Monthly samples will be collected at tributary standard sites and flows will be measured.The phosphorus and flow data will be used in the compliance assessment process. Monthly sampling at the lake standards locations will be conducted during the algal growing season from April through October. A photic zone composite sample will be collected and analyzed in the laboratory for fecal coliform. The laboratory data for Chlorophyll a, nitrogen, and fecal coliform will be used in the compliance assessment process. A depth profile, at one meter intervals, from the surface to the bottom of the lake will be conducted for dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH. The dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH measurement at the one meter depth will be used in the compliance assessment process. The compliance assessment process is described as follows for the various criteria. For the parameters fecal coliform, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and total nitrogen, monitoring data results will be compared to the criteria for those parameters. Exceedence of criteria more than 10% of the time will constitute noncompliance at that location. For the parameter chlorophyll a, the average value of the growing season monthly chlorophyll a sample concentrations from the designated monitoring locations will be compared to the criteria for chlorophyll a. If the growing season average exceeds the criteria at a designated sampling location it will represent noncompliance at that location. For tributary standard sites annual total phosphorus loading, a daily total phosphorus loading (in pounds) will be estimated for each day of the calendar year using monthly total phosphorus concentration data and estimated daily average tributary flow data. If this annual total phosphorus load (in pounds) for the designated tributary exceeds the criteria, total phosphorus lake load reported in pounds per acre-foot of lake volume, an estimate using the available measured data will be made. If this estimate exceeds the criteria it will represent noncompliance. We look forward to your early response. Please feel free to call me if you have questions or comments.
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) presented its proposed standards to the Department of Natural Resources Board on 11/30/99 and 12/1/99. After the Board also heard public input, including the input of the Lake Lanier Association, the Director of the Georgia EPD proposed that the Board delay voting on the standards recommendations. The Director referenced the objection and additional input to come from the credible Lake Lanier Association as part of his reason. Therefore, the following letter was written and sent to the Georgia EPD. ------------ LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC.
LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC. November 17, 1999
Dear Harold: This letter with attachments is the Lake Lanier Association, Inc. (LLA) response to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) proposed water quality standards for Lake Lanier. For the following reasons the LLA disagrees with the proposed Lake Lanier water quality standards.
Objectives for the proposed standards The objectives to be achieved by the standards, as explained to us by EPD, are to have a lake that will be a drinking water source, provide recreation and provide fishing. These objectives do not define what kind of recreation or fishing. These objectives are very loose and allow standards to be established that permit continuing quality degradation of the lake's water. These same objectives are satisfied on other lakes with much poorer quality water than currently in Lake Lanier. Proposed Standards We have compared the proposed standards to the information furnished in the draft "DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY OF LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, GEORGIA", prepared for the EPD under the Clean Lakes Program, dated December 1998. We shall refer to this report as the Clean Lakes Report (CLR). Our review of the materials leads us to the conclusion that the proposed standards for Lake Lanier will allow significant lake water quality degradation. The standards for chlorophyll a are 1.5 to 3 times higher than the CLR actual average readings shown on page 1-7, and the history displayed in Appendix A demonstrates that 97% of the actual readings fall below the proposed standards. The proposed standard for total nitrogen is nearly 8 times higher than the actual 1991 averages displayed in Table 1-2 of the CLR, and the history displayed in Appendix A demonstrates that 73% of the actual readings fall below the proposed standard. The proposed standard for dissolved Oxygen is much worse than current lake conditions at 1-meter depth and the standard ignores the lack of dissolved oxygen that is currently threatening some aquatic life at other depths of the lake. We have not been able to compare the standards for phosphorus to observed current lake water phosphorus conditions because the standards are set in annual loading of pounds per acre-foot, and the actual readings are in milligrams per liter. The EPD has told us there is no way to convert the pounds per acre-foot standards into expected phosphorus concentrations per liter of lake water. The EPD has told us that the proposed phosphorus standards demand less phosphorus loading than currently exists. We do not believe that statement to be correct. The statement, at least in part, depends on the estimate of current phosphorus loading presented on page 6-19 of the CLR, which upgrades a constant lake input flow estimated loading of about 167,000 lbs per year to 835,000 lbs per year to account for the input flow variability. We suggest that that EPD generate a best estimate of phosphorus mg/l concentration that might be produced by their proposed phosphorus loading standards to allow a comparison to the observed history displayed in the CLR. We think the proposed standard for temperature is meaningless because changing the temperature of Lake Lanier 5 degrees would require some extreme disaster. We believe concentrating on the temperature of the water at the point of the discharge into the lake would be more meaningful. There might be some very negative results caused by discharging water into the bottom of the lake that is 30 degrees warmer than the water into which it is discharged. Determination of non-compliance From the discussions we have had with EPD we see no clear method of determining non-compliance with the proposed standards. Will any one reading exceeding the standard cause non-compliance, or will it be the average of the readings over a given period of time exceeding the standard, or will it be a percentage of readings exceeding the standard over a given period of time or will it be something else? Certainly, before a standard is set one must know how the measurement is to be done and as a result how non-compliance is to be determined. Obviously, if there is to be a non-compliance determination for a given standard, the method of determining the non-compliance must be known before quantifying the standard. We believe there should be seasonality applied to the measurements. We have been told by EPD that actual concentrations of contaminants in a given year are significantly influenced by the environmental conditions of that year. Therefore, several favorable environmental years might show satisfactory measurements while the lake is really deteriorating, and by the time a less favorable environmental year occurs irreversible increased lake contaminate loadings might have been allowed. Actions resulting from a non-compliance finding It is not clear what actions can and/or will be taken to correct non-compliance once it is determined. There could be causes of non-compliance that are practically irreversible when non-compliance is finally discovered. In closing, the LLA concludes that the objectives for the proposed standards, the actual proposed standards and the imprecise determination of the measurement of compliance would allow and encourage a significant deterioration of Lake Lanier water quality. We request that the EPD refine the process according to the observations we have made here and generate new proposed standards and measurements that will not allow Lake Lanier water quality to deteriorate from its present condition. Sincerely,
Attachments:
LAKE LANIER WATER QUALITY STANDARDS LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION POSITION We believe
that the objectives to be accomplished by these water quality standards are not demanding
enough, and will allow Lake Lanier water quality to significantly deteriorate. The objective of the standards IS NOT to maintain current Lake Lanier water quality. The
objectives for the standards, as explained to us by the EPD, is to satisfy the law, which
requires Lake Lanier to provide water for drinking water supplies, provide recreation and
provide fishing. As can be seen, these are
very loose and non-specific objectives. These
objectives do not say that the lake's water must be the same quality, or provide the same
recreation or the same fishing that are currently enjoyed. Also, even
with proper standards it is not clear how noncompliance with the standards, once set, is
determined, or how the standards are enforced when non-compliance is found. We have not seen the teeth in this process. We, the LLA,
previously provided our quantified water quality standards recommendations, so we will not
repeat them here. Because of
our findings, we ask that the EPD generate a new set of proposed standards to satisfy the
objective of allowing no further degradation of Lake Lanier water quality,
as well as having a target of returning the lake to a historical better
quality. The currently proposed
standards certainly do not satisfy that objective. Lake Lanier
is a precious environmental and economic resource to Georgia. Let's not ruin it.
LAKE LANIER
ASSOCIATION, INC. November 2,
1999 Mr. Alan
Hallum Dear Mr.
Hallum: I first want
to thank you and the members of your staff for meeting with Ron Seder and myself
yesterday. The meeting gave us the
opportunity to explore the points raised in our October 11, 1999, letter to you, as well
as discussing other things. We thought
it important to write this letter and document our understanding of what we learned in the
meeting. I ask that you let me know as soon
as possible if you do not agree with any of our conclusions expressed in this letter. As you all
explained in the meeting, your objectives for the water quality standards on Lake Lanier
and many other Georgia lakes, to satisfy the law, is to do what is necessary to allow Lake
Lanier to be a drinking water source, provide fishing and provide recreation. The objective is not specifically meant to return
Lake Lanier to a better water quality it once enjoyed, or to keep Lake Lanier water
quality at its current level. As we discussed
in the meeting a wide range of standards quantifications will satisfy your stated
objectives. Your objectives could be
satisfied on Lake Lanier, and are being satisfied on other Georgia lakes, with water
quality standards much worse than current Lake Lanier water quality. Lower
quality Lake Lanier water might have to receive more severe treatment before drinking,
cause the a less desirable kind of recreation, cause fishing and the type of fish caught
to be much different, but, legally required objectives would be satisfied. Apparently West Point Lake water quality standards
satisfy the same legal objectives, but allow West Point Lake to have a water quality much
worse than current Lake Lanier water quality. Many of the
EPD proposed quality standards are worse than the water quality actual history displayed
in the Clean Lakes Study document. The EPD
has used its judgment to establish standards that can be applied to all years, given that
environmental conditions in some years allow better quality water than environmental
conditions allow in other years, for the same amount of pollutant inputs. There are no algorithms to convert actual
historical measurements into proposed Lake Lanier water quality standards, which cause the
standard setting process to depend heavily on professional judgments. Also, EPD is
unable to convert the varying environmental conditions (favorable or unfavorable) of a
given year into actual water quality necessary in that year to ensure that following years
will meet the standards. Therefore, growing
pollutant inputs to Lake Lanier during several favorable environmental conditions years
could show standards compliance and lull the state into a condition of false satisfaction,
until a very poor environmental conditions year exposes damage to lake water quality. It appears
the Lake Lanier Association has been expecting something from the water quality standards
(improving or maintaining status quo water quality) that they will not produce. As a result, the imprecision of the objectives for
the standards to accomplish and the imprecision of professional judgments used in setting
the standards, allows someone desiring more Lake Lanier treated sewage discharge to engage
highly respected professionals to challenge the rational used in setting the standards,
and thereby, convince the state that additional pollutant inputs are acceptable, and not
be proven wrong by actual water quality measurements until irreversible damage has been
done. Alan, we had
higher expectations of the water quality standards in protecting Lake Lanier water
quality. Therefore, we are disappointed. We urge a more precise definition of the
objectives for the standards to achieve (e.g. improve or maintain the status quo of Lake
Lanier water quality) and the creation of standards and measurements to satisfy the more
precise objectives. Again, thank
you for meeting with us yesterday and if you recognize something incorrect in this letter
please let me know as soon as possible. |
