The Environmental Protection Agency set ambitious goals in Vermont for phosphorus reduction in Lake Champlain in a document released last week, leaving some advocates questioning whether the state will be able to meet the new standards.
The federal agency set targets for the state to reduce overall phosphorus pollution in Lake Champlain by 33.8 percent.
Phosphorus pollution has been an ongoing issue in Vermont for years, with algae blooms extending throughout much of the northern part of the lake. Lawmakers attempted to rein in runoff into the lake with Act 64, passed earlier this year.
In the report released last week, the EPA set out Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) — what the state describes as a “pollution budget” — for how much phosphorus can be in certain areas of Lake Champlain while still meeting requirements of the federal Clean Water Act.
The Missisquoi Bay area would need to cut phosphorus by as much as 64.3 percent to meet the TMDL for that region.
In concert with the EPA targets, the state released a 148-page draft document outlining Vermont’s efforts to implement the TMDLs.
Following the release of the two documents last Friday, environmentalists are skeptical of whether the pollution targets are achievable.
James Ehlers, of Lake Champlain International, questioned whether TMDLs will have any impact on the phosphorus levels in Lake Champlain at all. He pointed to a 2013 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office that TMDLs are not necessarily that helpful in meeting clean water goals.
Ehlers said Vermont’s plan to implement the EPA’s pollution targets leaves many questions about what will be done to abate phosphorus laden runoff from farms, sewage treatment plants, parking lots, dirt roads and other human impacts.
“It relies on an enormous amount of assurances from the state, some of which they can’t really promise they can deliver at this point,” Ehlers said.
The TMDLs call for the agriculture sector to reduce phosphorus pollution by more than half. The state’s plan for implementation of the tougher standards on farms relies on a set of rules that will not get final approval until next summer, Ehlers said.
Overall, Ehlers is skeptical that the TMDLs will result in changes significant enough to make a dent in the phosphorus pollution in the lake. The plan does not communicate a “sense of urgency,” he said.
“It’s time for Vermonters to get more involved, that’s what I take away from it,” Ehlers said. “These issues are too important to be left in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.”
Clark Hinsdale, who heads the Vermont Farm Bureau is optimistic that the agriculture sector will meet the EPA’s target to cut phosphorus from farms by 51.5 percent.
Hinsdale said that the state’s plan was in line with what the Farm Bureau expected. He noted that the association, which represents farms around Vermont, has been involved in the process of putting it together.
“It’s very much the document we expected to see,” Hinsdale said. “There will be progress.”
Hinsdale is optimistic that new guidelines for farmers from the Agency of Agriculture, along with new technologies like no-till seeding equipment, will help farmers meet the targets for phosphorus runoff reduction.
However, Hinsdale shares Ehlers’ skepticism that the goals are achievable.
Hinsdale pointed to the sediment at the bottom of the lake as a major contributor to the phosphorus content in the lake, and applauded a portion of the state’s implementation plan that considers in-lake treatment to address pollution already in St. Albans Bay.
He also pointed to parts of the lake where agriculture is not the largest source of runoff. According to the EPA report, developed land and stream erosion are the biggest contributors of phosphorus in a central segment of the lake that includes the Burlington area.
In Shelburne Bay, the EPA calls for a 55-percent reduction in phosphorus from streams, versus a 22.2-percent reduction from agriculture.
Hindale questioned whether the EPA plan goes far enough in identifying ways to cut down on runoff from streams and developed areas.
However, James Maroney, an agricultural activist, said that in his view, the TMDLs and the state’s implementation plan fail to address the crux of the problems: conventional dairy practices.
“What it looks to me is that the state is trying to solve a problem without naming – or touching, for that matter – the principal cause of the problem,” Maroney said.
Chris Kilian, of the Conservation Law Foundation, said that the release of the draft is a “positive step.”
He said that the group has not had a chance to review the document thoroughly yet, but that as they go through it, they will be looking to see how realistic the pollution reduction outcomes are.
“We’re certainly not prepared to say that this document or the program it lays out will do the job, but we also haven’t taken a position saying that it won’t yet,” Kilian said.
