The Honorable Lisa Jackson 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Subject: An Urgent Call to Action – Report of the State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group 

Dear Administrator Jackson, 

We are pleased to transmit the enclosed An Urgent Call to Action - Report of the 

State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group for your review and consideration. The initial 

concept for a joint State-EPA review of both existing and innovative approaches to nutrient 

management was introduced at the 2008 annual summer meeting of the Association of State and 

Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA). Further discussions occurred in 

October 2008 at EPA's Water Division Directors meeting which included EPA regional and 

headquarters water managers as well as senior program managers representing ASIWPCA and 

the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA). At the October meeting, 

State and EPA surface water and drinking water program managers agreed to form an ad hoc 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group to identify and frame key nutrient issues, questions, and 

options on how to improve and accelerate nutrient pollution prevention and reduction at the state 

and national level. 

As outlined in the enclosed report, the spreading environmental and drinking water 

supply degradation associated with excess levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in our nation's 

waters has been studied and documented extensively. Current efforts to control nutrients have 

been hard-fought but collectively inadequate at both a statewide and national scale. Concern with 

the limitations of current nutrient control efforts is compounded by the certain knowledge that as 

the U.S. population increases by more than 135 million over the next 40 years, the rate and 

impact of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution will accelerate - potentially diminishing even 

further our progress to date. 

In this report, the Task Group presents a summary of scientific evidence and analysis that 

characterizes the scope and major sources of nutrient impacts nationally. This information is not 

new; it has been synthesized from a number of reports and examined in a holistic framework. 

The enclosed report also considers the tools currently used under existing federal authority and 

presents options for new, innovative tools to improve control of nutrient pollution sources. 

Finally the Task Group presents findings and suggests next steps needed to better address 

nutrient pollution. 
Key findings address the points above, but also extend to a number of additional 

conclusions including the following: 

* Nutrient-related pollution significantly impacts drinking water supplies, aquatic life, 

and recreational water quality. While available cost data associated with these impacts is 

limited, what we do know paints a sobering picture and a compelling reason for more urgent and 

effective action. 

* Sound science, technical analysis, collaboration, and financial incentives will fail to 

adequately address nutrient impacts at a state-wide and national level without a common 

framework of responsibility and accountability for all point and nonpoint sources - this 

framework does not presently exist. 

* Current tools such as numeric nutrient criteria, water quality assessments and listings, 

urban stormwater controls, POTW nutrient permit limits, and animal feedlot controls are 

underused and poorly coordinated. 

* Other broadly applicable tools, such as CZARA, antidegradation, limits on discharges 

to impaired waters, and compliance with downstream water quality standards are rarely used. 

* Current regulations disproportionately address certain sources in a watershed (e.g., 

municipal sewage treatment) at the exclusion of others contributing substantial loadings of 

similar pollutants to the same watershed. 

* Specific aspects of state nonpoint source programs have been highly successful in 

addressing individual sources of nutrients, but their broader application has been undercut by the 

absence of a common multi-state framework of mandatory point and nonpoint source 

accountability within and across watersheds. 

The Nutrient Innovations Task Group believes that national leadership is vital to 

supporting and requiring more consistent and fuller utilization of existing tools from state to state 

and source to source. Establishing a cross-state, enforceable framework of responsibility and 

accountability for all point and nonpoint pollution sources is central to ensuring balanced and 

equitable upstream and downstream environmental protection. It is also essential to strengthen 

the ability of any single state to demand environmental accountability without jeopardizing the 

loss of economic activity that might shift to another state with less rigorous standards. We 

believe that absent a profound change in current approaches and support for the development of 

a multi-sector framework of accountability for both point and nonpoint sources, we collectively 

are unlikely to be successful in responding to an increasingly pervasive source of pollution that 

comes from multiple sources in every state and affects not only near-field waters and habitats, 

but also those of neighboring and downstream states. 


         

       

     

   

     

       

     

     

     

     

                 

                   

       

     

   

       

   

       

     

     

     

     

       

     

     

     

In addition to the Task Group, the following contributed to the deliberations of the Task Group:

State Representatives

Jon Craig , OK Alan Pollock, VA   

EPA Office of Water

Benita Best‐Wong   Tim Jones Roy Simon  

Tanya Code   Jim Keating Dana Thomas

Katie Flahive   Sylvia Malm   Rosaura Vega  

Peter Gold Roberta Parry Shanika Whitehurst  

John Goodin   Jeff Peterson   Rob Wood  

Sharon Hayes   Steve Potts Phil Zahreddine  

Patricia Lee Harrigan Suzanne Schwartz   Marcus Zobrist

EPA Regions

Kevin Bricke, R2 Linda Holst , R5 Evelyn MacKnight, R3

Ed Decker, R4 Roger Janson, R1 Joe Piotrowski , R3

Bert Garcia, R8 Jane Leu, R2 Mark Tedesco, R2

                         

State­EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group

State Representatives

Michael Baker, OH, co‐lead Lee Dunbar, CT Derek Smithee, OK

Walt Baker, UT Ellen Gilinsky, VA, co‐lead Mike Tate, KS

Kathy Bunting‐Howarth, DE Jill Jonas, WI Marcia Willhite, IL

Organizations of State Drinking Water and Water Quality Managers

Linda Eichmiller , ASIWPCA Jim Taft , ASDWA Peter Tennant, ORSANCO

EPA Office of Water

Ephraim King, co‐lead James Hanlon Craig Hooks

Cynthia Dougherty

EPA Regions

Jon Capacasa, R3, co‐lead Karen Flournoy, R7 Tim Henry, R5

Carol Campbell, R8 Jim Giattina, R4 Christine Psyk, R10

Barbara Finazzo, R2 Lynne Hamjian , R1 Jane Watson, R6

Tetra Tech, Inc., under contracts (EP‐C‐04‐030 and EP‐C‐05‐046) provided technical and logistical support.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

Contents 

I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................1
 

II. Scope and Impacts of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution .........................................................2
 

Drinking Water Supplies............................................................................................................2
 

General Water Quality and Ecological Impacts.........................................................................5
 

Stream Impairments..................................................................................................................6
 

Lake and Reservoir Impairments...............................................................................................8
 

Estuarine and Coastal Waters ...................................................................................................9
 

III. Primary Sources of Nutrients....................................................................................................12
 

Background Information .........................................................................................................12
 

Urban Stormwater Runoff.......................................................................................................13
 

Municipal Wastewater Treatment..........................................................................................14
 

Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition...........................................................................................15
 

Agricultural Livestock Activities...............................................................................................15
 

Agricultural Row Crops............................................................................................................17
 

IV. Tools and Authorities................................................................................................................18
 

Existing Tools...........................................................................................................................18
 

New and Innovative Tools.......................................................................................................20
 

Incentive-based Tools ..........................................................................................................21
 

Regulatory Mechanisms That Are Rarely Used....................................................................23
 

Examples of Innovative Tools Applied to Sources of Nutrients ..............................................26
 

Urban Stormwater ...............................................................................................................26
 

Municipal Wastewater Treatment.......................................................................................26
 

Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition .......................................................................................27
 

Agricultural Livestock Activities ...........................................................................................27
 

Agricultural Row Crops.........................................................................................................28
 

Summary ..............................................................................................................................29
 

V. Task Group Findings and Call to Action .....................................................................................31
 

Appendix A: Drinking Water Case Studies
 

Appendix B: Nutrient Innovations - Review and Analysis of Existing Tools
 

CALL TO ACTION......................................................................................................................33
 

References .....................................................................................................................................35
 

Appendix C: Review and Analysis of Alternative Tools 

Appendix D: Accountability Fact Sheets 

August 2009 i 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

An Urgent Call to Action—Report of

the State-EPA Nutrient Innovations 

Task Group

I. Introduction 

The amount of nutrients entering our waters has 

dramatically escalated over the past 50 years, and nutrients 

now pose significant water quality and public health 

concerns across the United States. In terms of growing 

drinking water impacts, expanding impairment of inland 

Continuing the status quo at the national, 

state and local levels and relying upon our 

current practices and control strategies will 

not support a positive public health and 

environmental outcome. 

waters, and compromised coastal estuaries, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution has the 

potential to become one of the costliest, most difficult environmental problems we face in the 

21st century (Boesch 1999). 

Current efforts to control nutrients have been hard-fought but collectively inadequate at both a 

statewide and national scale. Perhaps even more disturbing than our current inadequate 

nutrient control strategies is the certain knowledge that as our population increases from about 

300 million people in 2008 by more than 135 million over the next 40 years (U.S. Census Bureau 

2008; U.S. Census Bureau 2009), the rate and impact of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution will 

accelerate—potentially diminishing even further our progress to date. As the U.S. population 

expands, nutrient pollution from urban stormwater runoff, municipal wastewater discharges, air 

deposition, and agricultural livestock activities and row-crop runoff is expected to grow as well. 

The spreading environmental degradation associated with excess levels of nitrogen and 

phosphorus in our nation’s waters has been studied and documented extensively. Over the past 

decade, there have been numerous major reports, a substantially large number of national and 

international scientific studies, and a growing number of quantitative analyses and surveys at 

the state and national levels indicating that we are falling Examples of recent key reports on nutrient 

pollution 

	 EPA SAB: Reactive Nitrogen in the United 

States: An Analysis of Inputs, Flows, 

Consequences, and Management Options 

(USEPA 2009a) 

 EPA SAB: Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of 

Mexico (USEPA 2007c) 

 NRC: Mississippi River Water Quality and the 

Clean Water Act: Progress, Challenges, and 

Opportunities (NRC 2008a) 

	 NRC: Urban Stormwater Management in the 

United States (NRC 2008b) 

 EPA: National Coastal Condition Report III 

(USEPA 2008a) 

 EPA: Wadeable Streams Assessment (USEPA 

2006b) 

 NOAA: Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the 

Nation’s Estuaries: A Decade of Change 

(Bricker et al. 2007) 

behind. The National Academy of Sciences has addressed the 

impacts of nutrient pollution on our coastal and estuarine 

waters in two major reports. The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also has documented 

and analyzed this issue extensively. EPA’s Science Advisory 

Board has prepared two critical reports. The Agency itself 

has issued numerous reports over the years sounding the 

alarm. And this body of data, analysis and conclusions is 

substantiated by numerous published articles, state-level 

technical reports, and university studies across the country. 

Faced with the reality of losing ground to a growing 

environmental crisis, state and EPA water quality and 

drinking water directors and program managers formed a 

State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group (Task Group) to	 

August 2009 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

review past nutrient control efforts and evaluate the potential for creating a new synthesis of 

existing tools and innovative approaches to change how we currently respond to nutrient 

pollution. The Task Group agreed on the following charge: 

States and EPA recognize that eutrophication and nutrient overloading are 

significant environmental problems, not just for aquatic resources but also from 

a drinking water standpoint. In the past, we have been successful in some areas, 

but not in others. We agree to meet to develop a strategy to change the way we 

act to improve ways to reduce or eliminate nutrient releases. 

In this report, the Task Group presents a summary of scientific evidence and analysis that 

characterizes the scope of nutrient impacts and the major sources of nutrients. This information 

is not new; it has been synthesized from a number of reports and surveys and examined in a 

holistic framework. This summary considers the tools currently used under existing federal 

authority and presents options for new, innovative tools to control sources of nutrient pollution. 

Finally, the Task Group presents findings and suggests next steps needed to better address 

nutrient pollution. 

This summary report was developed through a series of discussions and iterations. The Task 

Group first met in December 2008 to determine the charge and identify work groups to evaluate 

the subjects considered in this summary. The Task Group met again in February 2009 to present 

the work groups’ findings, in March 2009 to share with and receive input from state program 

directors, and finally in May 2009 to share the outline of this summary with EPA Water Division 

Directors for their input and feedback. 

II. Scope and Impacts of Nitrogen and Phosphorus 

Pollution 

Nutrient-related pollution significantly affects drinking water supplies, aquatic life and 

recreational water quality. These impacts occur in all categories of waters—rivers, streams, 

lakes, reservoirs, estuaries and coastal areas. Although only limited cost data are available, what 

we do know about the scope, impacts and costs of nutrient pollution presents a sober and 

compelling reason for more urgent and effective action. This chapter outlines the scope and 

impacts of nutrient pollution based upon recent and historical data and analyses. The first 

section of the chapter focuses on public health impacts associated with nutrient pollution in 

connection with public drinking water systems and private wells. The nature and scope of water 

quality impacts are then addressed in the following section. 

Drinking Water Supplies 

There are approximately 52,000 community water systems across the United States serving 

more than 290 million people (USEPA 2009d). The community water systems serve many 

communities that are vulnerable to the public health impacts of a contaminated drinking water 

supply, as well as to the cost of continued contaminant monitoring and the substantial financial 

burden of adding or upgrading treatment. About 78 percent of these community water systems, 

serving 88 million people, use ground water as a drinking water supply. The vast majority of the 

community systems (78 percent) serve small to very small communities (defined as populations 

of 25 to 500 and 501 to 3,300) with minimal treatment and limited resources (USEPA 2009d). 

August 2009 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 High nitrate levels in drinking water have been linked to methemoglobinemia 

(a decrease in the oxygen-carrying capacity of red blood cells), which causes serious 

illness and sometimes death in infants, as well as other potential human health effects 

(DeSimone 2009). 

•	 The combination of organic carbon (from 

algae in source waters) and disinfection 

agents used in water treatment can 

sometimes lead to elevated levels of 

disinfection by-products in drinking water. 

Yet another related concern is the possible 

direct role of organic nitrogen compounds 

in the creation of disinfection by-products. 

More than 260 million Americans are 

exposed to disinfection by-products in their 

drinking water each year (USEPA 2005b). 

Disinfection by-products such as 

trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids, bromate 

and chlorite have been linked to increased 

cancer and reproductive health risks in 

humans, as well as liver, kidney and central 

nervous system problems (USEPA 2009b). 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

Treatment and resources are even more limited for the 15 million households that rely on 

private wells for their drinking water (DeSimone 2009). In a recent report on the quality of water 

in domestic wells, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found that contaminants such as nutrients 

co-occurred with other contaminants in 73 percent of the wells tested in the study (DeSimone 

2009). Contamination of a ground water drinking water supply by both nutrient pollution and 

co-occurring pathogenic, pesticide, and emerging contaminants is a significant concern for small 

communities and individual households in terms of the need for treatment technologies or 

alternative water supplies. 

About 22 percent of community water systems, serving more than 200 million people (about 

two-thirds of the U.S. population), use surface water as their key drinking water supply (USEPA 

2009d). These systems tend to be larger than those using ground water, but by virtue of their 

size, they are equally challenged (if not more so) by the cost and complexity of treatment for 

nutrients and associated co-contamination from nutrient pollution sources. They have the 

added challenge of needing to address widespread algal blooms and related toxins in their 

surface drinking water supplies caused by pollution sources that can occur not only locally but 

also across state lines and even hundreds of miles upstream. Appendix A presents several case 

studies that illustrate the problems and costs associated with nitrates in drinking water systems. 

Following is a summary of key information that describes examples of nutrient pollution 

problems in drinking water sources: 

•	 From 1998 to 2008, the number of 

reported violations for exceeding the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 mg/L for 

nitrate in public drinking water systems varied from year to year. It ranged from 517 to 

1,163 violations (Figure 1), affecting from about 200,000 to nearly 1.9 million people. 

Figure 1. Annual number of nitrate violations in 

community water systems (USEPA 1998; USEPA 

1999; USEPA 2000; USEPA 2001; USEPA 2002a; 

USEPA 2003; USEPA 2004; USEPA 2005a; 

USEPA 2006a; USEPA 2007a; USEPA 2008b). 

August 2009 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

During these 11 years, nitrate exceedances showed a significant increasing trend, nearly 

doubling the number of violations (USEPA 1998; USEPA 1999; USEPA 2000; USEPA 2001; 

USEPA 2002a; USEPA 2003; USEPA 2004; USEPA 2005a; USEPA 2006a; USEPA 2007a; 

USEPA 2008b). 

•	 USGS sampled 2,100 private wells in 48 states from 1991 to 2004 and found nitrate was 

detected in about 72% of the wells and was the most common contaminant derived 

from man-made sources. It was found at concentrations greater than the drinking water 

standard in about 4 percent of sampled wells. Elevated nitrate concentrations were 

largely associated with intensively farmed land such as the Midwest Corn Belt and the 

Central Valley of California (DeSimone 2009). Figure 2 illustrates the widespread nature 

of nitrate pollution in wells. 

•	 For a small community water system serving 500 people, the estimated capital cost of a 

drinking water ion exchange treatment system to remove nitrates would be more than 

$280,000 with annual operation and maintenance (O&M) of about $17,500. That capital 

cost goes up to over $550,000 with annual O&M of over $50,000 for a community water 

system serving 3,300 people. Such treatment costs pose a difficult affordability 

challenge for small systems with a limited number of customers (Khera 2009, personal 

communication). 

Figure 2. Concentrations of nitrate were greater than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Maximum Contaminant Level of 10 milligrams per liter as N in about 4 percent of the wells 

(DeSimone et al. 2009). 

•	 Co-occurring contamination from sources of nutrients often carries the added risk of 

drinking water supply pollution from associated pathogens, anthropogenic chemicals, 

livestock medicines and other emerging contaminants (DeSimone 2009; Focazio et al. 

2008). 

August 2009 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

•	 Taste and odor compounds and cyanotoxins, which are produced by cyanobacteria (also 

known as blue-green algae), represent a further challenge (Carmichael 2000). Taste and 

odor problems are treatable with ion exchange, oxidation or adsorption with activated 

carbon. For cyanotoxins, the source cyanobacteria often are no longer present when the 

public health problem occurs. Without continual monitoring, cyanobacterial toxins may 

pass through normal water treatment processes (Carmichael 2000). 

•	 Ingestion of water contaminated with chemicals produced by harmful algal blooms can 

cause gastrointestinal complications, acute or chronic liver damage, neurological 

symptoms and even death (Falconer et al. 1994; WHOI 2007). 

•	 In 1991 Des Moines (Iowa) Water Works constructed a $4 million (1991 dollars) ion 

exchange facility to remove nitrate from its drinking water supply. Starting in 1992, this 

facility has been used an average of 43 days per year to remove excess nitrate levels 

with O&M costs of nearly $3,000 per day (Jones et al. 2007). 

•	 Water supply costs associated with the increased expense for bottled water purchased 

during taste and odor episodes have been estimated at $942 million per year in 2008 

dollars (Dodds et al. 2009). 

•	 Fremont, Ohio (a city of approximately 20,000) has experienced high levels of nitrate 

from its source, the Sandusky River, resulting in numerous drinking water use advisories. 

An estimated $15 million will be needed to build a reservoir (and associated piping) that 

will allow for selective withdrawal from the river to avoid elevated levels of nitrate, as 

well as to provide storage (Taft 2009, personal communication). 

•	 In regulating allowable levels of chlorophyll a in Oklahoma drinking water reservoirs, the 

Oklahoma Water Resources Board estimated that the long-term cost savings in drinking 

water treatment for 86 systems would range between $106 million and $615 million if 

such regulations were implemented (Moershel and Derischweiler 2009, personal 

communication). 

General Water Quality and Ecological Impacts 

In addition to the public health and drinking water treatment issues outlined above, the range 

and severity of water quality impacts from nutrient pollution, principally through the 

mechanism and consequences of eutrophication, are even broader and ecologically more 

severe. The adverse effects of nutrient pollution on water quality are well documented in state 

water quality assessments (Clean Water Act (CWA) section 305(b) reports); state lists of 

impaired waterbodies (CWA section 303(d) lists); EPA’s Wadeable Stream Assessment; state and 

USGS surveys of ground water contamination, and other sources of national, regional or local 

data. 

Nationally, nutrient pollution is one of the top causes of water quality impairment; for those 

waters assessed, it is directly linked to 20% of impaired river and stream miles, 22% of impaired 

lake acres and 8% of impaired bay and estuarine square miles. Nutrients are also indirectly 

linked to additional listed impairments related to low dissolved oxygen, impaired habitat, algal 

August 2009 5 
An Urgent Call to Action

August 2009 6 

growth and noxious aquatic plants. These indirect links to impairments result in an additional 

31% of impaired river and stream miles, 30% of impaired lake acres, and 50% of impaired bay 

and estuarine square miles (USEPA 2009c). 

Increased plant or algal production can often adversely affect sensitive aquatic organisms by 

altering the type or quality of food resources available, resulting in impacts on the entire food 

chain. In addition, changes in algal/plant species in a waterbody can alter habitat structure, 

causing large-scale changes in aquatic community structure and function. Increased algal 

abundance in the water column can also negatively affect aquatic biota by increasing turbidity 

and impairing visual foraging by fish and other aquatic life. Increased turbidity is also linked to 

extensive loss of ecologically essential sea grasses (Chesapeake Bay Program 2009b).

Eutrophication is the process that occurs in waterbodies that receive excess nitrogen, 

phosphorus, or both. Elevated nutrient levels stimulate excessive plant growth (algae, 

periphyton-attached algae, and nuisance plants and weeds, often referred to as algal blooms). 

Some of these blooms are toxic and generate a range of paralytic, diarrheic and neurotoxic 

effects with negative impacts on animals, humans and aquatic species (NOAA 2009). When the 

algae die, the resulting dead-plant organic material decomposes, pulling dissolved oxygen from

the water and leading to hypoxic conditions, which in turn causes other organisms to die (NOAA 

2009).

Stream Impairments

Streams serve as conduits of water flowing from the land, particularly during rainfall events. 

Nutrients carried from the land by stormwater runoff can cause significant local impacts. 

Streams and rivers also carry nutrient-rich runoff to downstream waters, including lakes, 

estuaries and coastal waters, where the degradation is even more widespread and significant.

• In the current EPA National Summary of State Information on Water Quality Impairments

(USEPA 2009c), more than 80,000 miles of rivers and streams across the United States are 

listed as “impaired” and not meeting state water quality goals because of nutrients. Note, 

however, that this number is a substantial underestimate of total stream impacts because 

only 25 percent of the Nation’s rivers and streams have been assessed.

• According to the Wadeable Stream Assessment, analysis of the association between the 

results of nutrient pollution (such as algal growth and changes to stream benthic 

communities) and the resulting changes to aquatic organisms in streams shows that 

high levels of nutrients and excess streambed sedimentation more than double the risk 

of poor biological condition (USEPA 2006b). For phosphorus, approximately 31 percent 

of the Nation’s stream length (207,355 miles) had “high” concentrations; an additional 

16 percent (108,039 miles) had “medium” concentrations.1

 

1 Medium concentrations are greater than the 75th percentile of reference condition, and high 

concentrations are greater than the 95th percentile of reference condition (USEPA 2006b).

With regard to nitrogen, 32 

percent (213,394 miles) of the Nation’s stream length had “high” concentrations, and an 

additional 21 percent (138,908 miles) had “medium” concentrations.1 Figure 3 shows 

the distribution of nitrogen pollution in U.S. streams (USEPA 2006b).
 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

Figure 3. Nitrogen pollution is prevalent in many U.S. streams (USEPA 2006b). 

•	 The Wadeable Stream Assessment (USEPA 2006b) evaluated a variety of environmental 

factors (stressors) that were likely to be detrimental to instream biological quality. 

These stressors included nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, riparian disturbance and 

vegetative cover, streambed sediments, instream fish habitat, salinity and acidification. 

Of these factors, impacts to streams from nitrogen and phosphorus pollution and excess 

streambed sediments result in over double the risk of impairment to the biological 

condition (Figure 4) (USEPA 2006b). 

Figure 4. Relationship of stressors to biological condition in U.S. streams (USEPA 2006b). 

August 2009 7 
 

 

 

 

•	 In the current EPA National Summary of State 

Information on Water Quality Impairments (USEPA 

2009c), over 2.5 million acres of lakes, reservoirs	 

and ponds across the United States are listed as 

impaired and not meeting a state’s water quality 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

Lake and Reservoir Impairments 

Nutrient pollution in lakes and reservoirs is equally well documented. Excess loadings of nutrient 

pollution in lakes and reservoirs produce enhanced plant growth or extensive algal blooms, 

along with the associated reduced dissolved oxygen levels that result from the eventual 

decomposition of the excessive vegetative growth (Mueller and Helsel 1996). Accelerated plant 

growth coupled with the storage of nutrients deposited or 

accumulated in the sediment can lead to a substantial loss The state of Nebraska is concerned about 

harmful algal blooms resulting from excess 

nutrients in surface waters and has had a 

sampling program for microcystin (a 

cyanotoxin) in place for several years. Since 

2005, 29 percent of the sampled lakes have 

exceeded the health alert level for microcystin. 

In 2008 eight lakes were closed to recreation 

for 2 to 11 weeks due to microcystin levels 

exceeding the state’s health alert level 

(Nebraska DEQ 2009). 

of aquatic resources as water quality becomes 

progressively worse and leads to low dissolved oxygen and 

loss of species diversity.	 

goals due to nutrients. Again, this is considered an underestimate; only about 

43 percent of the Nation’s lakes, reservoirs and ponds have been assessed. 

•	 Nutrient problems and cyanobacteria plagued Lake Erie in the 1960s and 1970s, which 

prompted the United States and Canada to agree to develop and implement Lakewide 

Management Plans (Lake Erie LaMP Workgroup 2008a). Although phosphorus levels 

were reduced to record lows in 1995 and the goal levels of the Great Lakes Water 

Quality Agreement were met, within the past decade phosphorus levels have been 

increasing again. This has caused increased growth of algae, which in turn has created 

eutrophic conditions (Lake Erie LaMP Workgroup 2008b; USEPA 2007b). 

•	 Despite extensive recent efforts to reduce pollution, the amount of phosphorus in Lake 

Champlain has not changed in most places and appears to be increasing in some parts of 

the lake. Wetter-than-normal weather and an increase in the population of the Lake 

Champlain Basin are thought to be the two most significant causes of increased 

phosphorus loading (LCC 2009a). Excess phosphorus in Lake Champlain is linked to toxic 

algal blooms (LCC 2009b). For example, in 2008, volunteer monitoring programs 

observed significant algal blooms in several sections of Lake Champlain, resulting in 

three high alerts and 21 low alerts issued to users of the lake (LCC 2009b). Low alert 

areas are open for recreation, but bathers are cautioned to avoid areas of dense algal 

growth; and high alert areas are not safe for recreational use (VDH 2009). Several 

actions have been taken in an effort to reduce phosphorus pollution in the lake. Many 

farmers have voluntarily instituted best management practices, including nutrient and 

waste management applications targeted to existing soil fertility levels and crop needs. 

Other programs address the problem of reducing phosphorus runoff from lawns and 

roads in developed areas. On a per acre basis, developed land contributes about 3.5 

times as much phosphorus to Lake Champlain than does agricultural land (LCLT 2009). 

•	 Algal blooms from cyanobacteria, the major harmful algal group in freshwater 

environments, also affect people through contamination of drinking water supplies and 

recreational areas (Falconer 1999; WHOI 2007). 

August 2009 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

•	 Grand Lake St. Marys, Ohio’s largest inland lake, has become enriched with phosphates 

and nitrates from several sources. Water samples collected as a result of participating in 

EPA’s National Lakes Survey indicated the presence of algal toxins in the lake. Ohio EPA 

performed follow-up analyses, which confirmed that high levels of microcystins were 

present in the lake water. On May 21, 2009, Ohio EPA, Ohio Department of Health and 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources issued a health advisory warning people to use 

caution and limit contact with the lake water (Ohio EPA 2009). 

•	 For fresh waters, Dodds et al. (2009) predict losses in fishing and boating trip-related 

revenues of up to $1.2 billion in 2001 dollars ($1.4 billion in 2008 dollars) due to lake 

closures. 

•	 Both Dodds et al. (2009) and Anderson et al. (2000) have noted declines in property 

values based on excessive algal growth fueled by excess nutrients. Dodds et al. focused 

on lakefront properties under private ownership. Estimated lake property value loss can 

be as much as $2.8 billion annually because of nutrient enrichment. 

Estuarine and Coastal Waters 

Estuarine and coastal waters are perhaps the best indicators of the scope and magnitude of 

nutrient pollution impacts. Harmful algal blooms have been reported in almost every coastal 

state in the United States (Figure 5) (WHOI 2007). These blooms produce toxins that can kill fish, 

shellfish, and mammals (NOAA 2009; WHOI 2007). Higher tropic level animals are more 

susceptible to algal toxins because such toxins accumulate in the food web. 

Figure 5. Occurrences of algal blooms throughout the United States (WHOI 2007). 

August 2009 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), or seagrasses, provides critical coastal and estuarine 

habitat in U.S coastal waters. The primary functions of SAV are serving as a food source and 

habitat for aquatic species (especially for sensitive life stages such as larval and juvenile), 

trapping and anchoring sediment, lessening erosion by softening wave action, and absorbing 

some excess nutrients (FDEP 2001). Because SAV responds rapidly to water quality changes, its 

health can be an indicator of the overall health of the coastal ecosystem (Chesapeake Bay 

Program 2009b). Excess nitrogen and phosphorus cause an increased growth of phytoplankton 

and epiphytes (plants that grow on other plants). Phytoplankton growth leads to increased 

turbidity, blocking light attenuation, and epiphytic growth further blocks sunlight from reaching 

the SAV surface. When sunlight cannot reach SAV, photosynthesis decreases and eventually the 

submerged plants die. 

•	 Of over 400 hypoxic zones reported worldwide, more than 40 percent (168) have been 

located in U.S. estuarine and coastal waters from 2000 to 2007 (Diaz and Rosenberg 

2008). 

•	 In addition, a disturbing 78 percent of the assessed continental U.S. coastal area exhibits 

symptoms of eutrophication, including excess algal growth, low dissolved oxygen and 

loss of SAV (Figure 6) (Selman et al. 2008). 

•	 More than one-third of the 102 estuaries in the United States are identified as 

eutrophic, and this subset drains about 53 percent of the total land area of the 

continental United States (Campbell 2004; Engle et al. 2007; FDEP 2009; GulfBase 2009; 

MEOEEA 2009; Neuse River Education Team 2009; NSTC 2003; USACE 2004; USEPA 

2009f; USFWS 1997; USFWS 2009). 

Figure 6. Hypoxic zone locations (Selman et al. 2008). 

August 2009 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

•	 The Gulf of Mexico receives flow from the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin (MARB), 

which represents 41 percent of the contiguous United States and includes 31 states 

(NRC 2008a). In 2007 the measured size of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico was 

7,900 square miles, or about the size of Massachusetts in area. It was the third largest 

hypoxic zone since measurements began in 1985 (Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico 

Watershed Nutrient Task Force 2008). 

•	 Anderson et al. (2000) reported commercial fishery losses as high as $25.3 million ($31.3 

million in 2008 dollars) as a result of harmful algal blooms. 

•	 The Chesapeake Bay receives flow from a watershed which stretches across parts of six 

states and the District of Columbia (Chesapeake Bay Program 2009a). The area of the 

Chesapeake Bay is about 4,480 square miles, and the hypoxic zone is typically on the 

order of 40 percent of its area (about 1,792 square miles) (Chesapeake Bay Program 

2008; Malmquist 2008). 

•	 Researchers in Florida looked at the relationship between nutrient inputs and SAV 

growth in two estuaries in Southeast Florida. Study results showed that between 1938 

and 1976, nitrogen loadings in Tampa Bay increased by five times. This resulted in a 46 

percent decline in SAV between 1950 and 1982. After implementing significant 

improvements in the treatment of domestic wastewater, and thereby achieving largescale reductions in point source nitrogen loadings, there was a 57 percent reduction of 

nitrogen inputs to Tampa Bay. This reduction resulted in a 24 percent increase in SAV 

from 1982 to 1996 (Tomasko et al. 2005). 

•	 Similarly, Tomasko et al. (2005) estimated that Sarasota Bay experienced a five times 

increase in nitrogen loadings from 1890 to 1988, resulting in a 28 percent decline in SAV 

from 1950 to 1988. Point source nitrogen loadings were reduced 46 percent from 1988 

to 1990 with improvements to wastewater treatment facilities, resulting in a SAV 

increase of 19 percent by 1996 (Tomasko et al. 2005). 

August 2009 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

III. Primary Sources of Nutrients 

The primary sources of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution are urban and suburban stormwater 

runoff, municipal wastewater treatment systems, air deposition, agricultural livestock activities, 

and row crops. In the sections that follow, each of the primary sources of nutrient pollution will 

be discussed, along with their contribution to the scope of nutrient impacts. This chapter 

presents a general overview of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. 

Background Information 

Nitrogen and phosphorus are essential 

nutrients that control the growth of 

plants and animals. Nitrogen is readily 

abundant in the environment as an inert 

gas, N2, that composes over 70 percent of 

the earth’s atmosphere. To be used by 

living organisms, however, nitrogen gas 

must be fixed into its reactive forms—for 

plants, either nitrate (NO3

-

) or 

ammonium (NH4

+

). Nitrogen can be fixed 

naturally in soils through bacteria 

(biological nitrogen fixation (BNF); BNFterrestrial; and BNF-cultivation) or in the 

air by lightning. Chemically (artificially), 

nitrogen is fixed through industrial 

(Haber-Bosch) and combustion processes 

(fossil fuels). Most of the reactive nitrogen produced per year—about 24 billion pounds—is 

artificially produced (Haber-Bosch process) and used to make fertilizers for agriculture and 

lawns and in some industrial processes. As shown in Figure 7, the artificial production of 

nitrogen fertilizers has grown exponentially since the 1950s and will continue to grow into the 

foreseeable future without a significant change in demand and how it is utilized (Nielsen 2005). 

Phosphorus occurs naturally, mainly as phosphate (PO4

-3), and has been mined for its use as a 

fertilizer, detergent or animal feed. Like most chemicals, nitrogen and phosphorus become 

problematic when they occur in excessive amounts in a given area. 

The sources of nitrogen or phosphorus pollution to a waterbody depend on the prevailing land 

use activities surrounding and upstream of a particular waterbody. For example, Figure 8 shows 

how these proportions can vary regionally for two large watersheds (the land draining into the 

Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico) and illustrates the variability of the relative proportions 

of the sources. 

Figure 7. Sources of reactive nitrogen (Nielsen 2005). 

August 2009 12 
 

Year U.S. Population* 

1950 152 million 

2008 304 million 

2050 439 million 

*U.S. Census Bureau 1952; U.S. 

Census Bureau 2008; U.S. Census 

Bureau 2009 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

Figure 8. Comparison of nitrogen and phosphorus sources in the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico 

watersheds (USGS 2008; Chesapeake Bay Program 2009). Note: urban and population-related sources 

include urban stormwater and municipal treatment. 

The dramatic increase in the U.S. population over the 

past 50 years has boosted the demand for food, required 

additional wastewater treatment needs, increased 

burning of fossil fuels and expanded urban 

environments. The projected growth of the U.S. 

population from 2008 to 2050 will result in an additional 

135 million people—continuing and slightly accelerating 

the annual rate of population growth over the previous 

50-year period. This will further increase the public 

health risks and aquatic resource degradation from nutrient pollution as discussed in Chapter II. 

Urban Stormwater Runoff 

The U.S. population is primarily consolidated in urban areas; 80 percent of the people live on 

less than 10 percent of the land. With a total U.S. land area of over 2.3 billion acres, urban areas 

accounted for about 66 million acres in 1997 (based on Vesterby and Krupa 2001). Our urban 

landscape will continue to change and expand over time. For example, about half of the current 

urban areas are expected to be redeveloped between 2000 and 2030, and an estimated 30% 

(131 billion square feet) of the needed built environment for 2030 does not yet exist (Nelson 

2004). Urban landscapes contain a variety of features pervious and impervious to water. Some 

of the more common pervious features of the urban landscape are landscaped and turf areas, 

August 2009 13 
An Urgent Call to Action

August 2009 14

recreational areas, and undeveloped tracts of land. Impervious lands include roofs, parking lots 

and streets. Stormwater collects fertilizers and other applied nutrients, as well as other 

pollutants on impervious surfaces, before it is discharged to receiving waters. As noted in the 

EPA SAB report Urban Stormwater Management in the United States (NRC 2008b):

Urban stormwater may actually have slightly lower pollutant concentrations than 

other nonpoint sources of pollution, especially for sediments and nutrients. The key 

difference is that urban watersheds produce a much larger annual volume of runoff 

waters, such that the mass of pollutants discharged is often greater following 

urbanization.

Urban stormwater discharges via municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) and combined 

storm sewer systems (CSSs) are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permit program of the CWA. There are several thresholds for MS4 stormwater 

regulations. However, a significant number of communities and a substantial amount of urban 

growth occur outside of MS4s and are only subject to construction stormwater general permits. 

Municipal Wastewater Treatment

Municipal wastewater treatment plants, also known as publicly owned treatment works 

(POTWs), usually discharge both phosphorus and nitrogen. Depending on the local ecological 

conditions and their relative contribution, POTW discharges can be a significant source of 

nutrients in some watersheds. People produce about 18 million tons of solid waste (feces) 

annually (based on Freitas Jr. 1999; MERCK 2007). U.S. municipal wastewater treatment 

facilities currently treat about 34 billion gallons of wastewater per day (USEPA 2008c).

For most of the country, municipal wastewater treatment generates two waste streams—

biosolids and discharges of treated wastewater to surface water—which are regulated under 

the provisions of sections 301, 402, and 405 of the CWA, respectively. Municipal or sewage 

waste biosolids that are to be land applied must meet specific CWA and state regulatory 

standards to protect surface water and groundwater from contamination. Treatment for surface 

water discharges is regulated through NPDES permits, which must reflect both the technologybased requirements of secondary treatment (biological oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended 

solids (TSS), and pH) and applicable water quality standards. However, only a subset of POTW 

permits currently contain nitrogen and phosphorus limits. Of more than 16,500 municipal 

POTWs nationwide (USEPA 2008c), approximately 4 percent have numeric limits for nitrogen2

and 9.9 percent for phosphorus (USEPA 2009e). Estimated costs for municipal nutrient removal 

can vary widely depending on level of treatment and process used, wastewater characteristics, 

plant capacity, existing treatment facilities, and other site-specific factors.

The estimated cost to upgrade all the POTWs in the United States to achieve the more stringent 

technology-based limits—3 mg/L for nitrate and nitrite and 0.1 mg/L for phosphate—would be 

about $44 billion to remove nitrogen, about $44.5 billion to remove phosphorus, and 

approximately $54 billion to include capabilities to simultaneously remove both nitrogen and 

phosphorus (based on USEPA 2008c). In addition, our growing population will result in 

 

2 Although 43.5 percent of POTW permits have limits for ammonia, limiting ammonia generally does not 

reduce overall nitrogen loadings because nitrates and nitrites continue to be discharged.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

expanding urban and suburban communities. The capacity of wastewater treatment facilities to 

treat for nitrogen and phosphorus will require further upgrades to decrease future loadings 

associated with this population growth. In addition, municipal collection systems (sewers) can 

also be sources of excess nutrients when aging sewer collection systems in cities overflow and 

are discharged to urban waters or leak nutrient-rich water that infiltrates into the ground. 

Onsite and decentralized wastewater treatment systems (septic systems) are used in 

approximately 20 percent of U.S. homes, and they can be significant contributors of nutrients in 

the watershed (USEPA 2008d). Almost 25 million homes, including about one-third of new 

homes and more than half of all mobile homes nationwide, depend on decentralized systems 

(U.S. Census Bureau 1999). It has been estimated that more than half the systems in the United 

States were installed more than 30 years ago. Older conventional onsite systems may not be 

adequate for minimizing nitrate contamination of ground water, depending on design and 

maintenance by homeowners. Studies reviewed by USEPA cite failure rates ranging from 10 to 

20 percent (USEPA 2002b). The actual problem might be worse because system failure surveys 

typically do not include systems that may be designed and installed according to appropriate 

standards, but are currently contaminating surface or ground water with nutrients due to poor 

maintenance. However, nutrient contamination from septic systems is typically detectable only 

through site-level monitoring (USEPA 2002b). 

Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition 

Gaseous and particulate forms of nitrogen oxides (NOx) are emitted into the air from the 

burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes. Mobile sources (e.g., vehicles) account 

for approximately 55 percent of NOx emissions to the atmosphere; stationary sources account 

for the remainder. Nationwide, the deposition of NOx compounds released to the air during 

fossil fuel combustion contributes significant inputs of additional nitrogen to the land and 

surface water (USEPA 2007c). Although atmospheric deposition is a major contributor to 

nitrogen loadings affecting many waterbodies, EPA lacks the statutory authority to regulate air 

emissions of such sources under the CWA. The Clean Air Act (CAA), however, does offer a 

number of options for controls on nitrogen through other regulations, as well as creative and 

innovative options to control greenhouse gases. 

Agricultural Livestock Activities 

As our population grows, more food production will be required through a range of agricultural 

practices. Current livestock agricultural practices are one of the largest sources of nutrient 

pollution to our nation’s waters. Estimates of major livestock production for 2008 in the United 

States were as follows (USDA 2009a; USDA 2009b; USDA 2009c; USDA 2009d): 

• 96 million head of cattle (including about 9.3 million head of dairy cows) 

• 68 million head of swine 

• 9 billion broilers and 446 million laying hens 

The value of U.S. agricultural livestock production at the farm (estimated as the gross producer 

income; USDA 2009a; USDA 2009b; USDA 2009d) includes: 

• Cattle and calves: $48.6 billion 

August 2009 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

•	 Hogs: $16.1 billion 

•	 Dairy (milk production): $34.8 billion 

•	 Poultry (broiler production): $23.1 billion 

•	 Poultry (egg production): $8.2 billion 

In contrast to the 18 million tons of human fecal material treated annually (based on Freitas Jr. 

1999; MERCK 2007) at POTWs, animal agriculture production results in the generation of more 

than 1 billion tons of manure each year (based on Brodie 1974; Chastain et al. 2003; USDA 

2009a; USDA 2009b; USDA 2009c; USDA 2009f). This manure results in over 8 million pounds per 

day of nitrogen and 3 million pounds per day of phosphorus. Much of the manure is applied to 

farmland as organic fertilizer for crops. Some of the nutrients in this applied manure end up in 

harvested plant tissue, but significant portions end up in our nation’s waters. 

Although evidence shows that livestock production is a leading source of nutrient pollution, 

significant parts of this activity nonetheless remain generally unregulated. The exception is the 

portion of livestock production that meets the definition of a Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operation (CAFO). CAFOs are considered point sources under CWA section 502(14) and are 

regulated by the NPDES program if discharging or proposing to discharge (see text box). Under 

the current regulation at 40 CFR 122.23, CAFOs are generally described as large-scale 

agricultural feeding operations where animals are confined and raised in concentrated areas. 

There are many ways in which these operations can reduce the amount of nutrients released, 

such as covered storage and the use of nutrient management plans, buffers and stream fencing. 

Technology-based limits for most existing Large CAFOs 

include the following: 

•	 Production area: The regulations require no
 

discharge from the production area.
 

•	 Land application: Each facility must develop and 

implement a nutrient management plan, analyze 

the nutrient content of the manure and soils, and 

ensure setbacks or buffers adjacent to surface 

waters, well heads and the like. 

CAFOs are point sources under section 

502(14) of the CWA. Under the current 

regulation at 40 CFR 122.23, CAFOs are 

generally described as large-scale agricultural 

feeding operations where animals are 

confined and raised in concentrated areas. 

An operation is defined as a Large CAFO if 

it confines above the threshold number of 

animals in a particular sector, such as 700 

mature dairy cows or 1,000 beef cattle. A 

large broiler CAFO has 125,000 chickens, 

but 30,000 chickens if the facility has a 

system defined as a liquid manure handling 

system. Medium AFOs may be CAFOs 

either by definition (number of animals plus 

discharge through conveyance or stream 

running through facility) or designation. A 

small operation may be a CAFO only if it is 

so designated by the Regional Administrator 

or state permitting authority. 

August 2009 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

Agricultural Row Crops 

Row crop agriculture is also driven by the need to keep pace with our growing population. It 

now represents over a $120 billion industry nationally on an annual basis. The current trend of 

increasing row crop agriculture yields is due in part to the expanded use of livestock manure and 

chemical fertilizers. Table 1 shows the extent of the crop acreage for the top 10 commodities 

produced in 2008. Although the creation and use of chemical fertilizers and the overabundance 

of animal manure from expanded production has enabled contemporary farming to keep pace 

with the increasing population’s demands for food and fiber, the amount of nitrogen the crop 

plants need and use (and similarly for phosphorus) does not match the amount of nutrients 

applied to crops. Even when fertilizers (in the form of manure or chemical fertilizers) are applied 

at agronomic rates, agricultural production of crops typically has an efficiency of less than 30 

percent for nitrogen (based on Galloway et al. 2003). The nutrients not used by crops can 

volatilize into the air, infiltrate into ground water or run off the land with stormwater. Simply 

put, only a fraction of the applied nitrogen and phosphorus in fertilizers is converted into and 

used by plants, and only a fraction of the nitrogen and phosphorus content of plants is used by 

humans and livestock; the excess that is applied and not used in row crop production becomes a 

waste product in the environment (NRC 2008b). 

Table 1. Acreage, production and value of major agricultural row crops in 2008 (USDA 2009e) 

Crop Acreage 

(thousand acres) 

Production 

(thousand) 

2008 Value 

($1,000) 

Corn 85,982 12,101,238 (bushels) 47,377,576 

Sorghum 8,284 472,342 (bushels) 1,681,558 

Barley 4,234 239,498 (bushels) 1,208,173 

Oats 3,217 88,635 (bushels) 262,240 

Wheat 63,147 2,499,524 (bushels) 16,568,211 

Rice 2,995 203,733 (hundred wt) 3,390,666 

Soybeans 75,718 2,959,174 (bushels) 27,398,638 

Cotton 9,471 12,815 (bushels) 3,538,573 

Hay 60,062 145,672 ( tons) 18,777,138 

Total 313,110 NA 120,202,773 

Nutrient pollution from row crop agricultural operations, a by-product of excess manure and 

chemical fertilizer application, is the source of many local and downstream adverse nutrientrelated impacts. Currently, stormwater runoff and irrigation return flow from row crop 

agriculture are exempt from regulation under the CWA generally and the NPDES program 

specifically. There are many ways in which agricultural operations can reduce the amount of 

nutrients released from farm fields, namely, by applying nutrients at the proper rate and timing, 

with the appropriate application method, and in the proper form or by using cover crops. 

August 2009 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

IV. Tools and Authorities 

Existing Tools 

The Task Group was unanimous in its assessment that existing CWA tools have not been fully 

implemented to reduce nutrients. As a first step, the Task Group developed a list of tools 

(Appendix B) currently being used by EPA and the states to address nutrient pollution; then the 

Task Group analyzed the effectiveness and limitations of the tools in achieving the desired 

results. Appendix B contains a spreadsheet listing the full array of existing point and nonpoint 

source tools currently in use and explaining how well they are working. The list includes a range 

of traditional tools, predominantly CWA, that are either directly regulatory in nature or can form 

the foundation of an effective regulatory program, such as water quality standards, waterbody 

assessments, impairment listings, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), national technologybased performance standards, stormwater controls and NPDES permit tools (both individual and 

general) that are broadly applicable to any point source but are not always fully utilized. The 

most commonly used tools are highlighted below, along with an analysis of why they have not 

been effective to date in reducing nutrient pollution and suggested ways in which they could be 

better utilized. 

NPDES permit requirements for municipal wastewater treatment. There are over 16,500 

POTWs across the country that constitute a major source of nitrogen and phosphorus to the 

Nation’s waterways. Most of these facilities are regulated under state NPDES permits and are 

currently subject to national technology-based “secondary treatment” limits on BOD, TSS and 

pH. They also must comply with applicable water quality standards. In terms of a targeted 

nutrient pollution focus, however, only a limited number of POTWs have specific numeric 

nutrient permit limits—4 percent with numeric limits for nitrogen and 9.9 percent with numeric 

limits for phosphorus—which is a reflection of the few state numeric nutrient standards in 

place. Although not all POTW permits may need numeric phosphorus and nitrogen limits to 

address water quality issues, there is a potential for more widespread use of nutrient limits in 

NPDES POTW permits where impaired or vulnerable waters are present. Also, the Task Group 

considered the use of technology-based requirements to set minimum technology-based 

effluent limitations for nutrients. An alternative limits- of-technology approach could 

incorporate the flexibility to consider the cost in combination with loadings reductions. Detailed 

NPDES permit language stipulating proper operation and maintenance of municipal collection 

systems and aggressive enforcement of this can be effective in curbing nutrient pollution from 

sanitary sewer overflows, exfiltration and leakage from aging infrastructure. 

NPDES permit requirements for urban stormwater controls. Polluted urban stormwater runoff, 

a major cause of waterbody impairments, is currently regulated under the CWA section 402(p) 

National Stormwater Protection Program. The program’s current focus is on runoff from MS4s 

and 29 industrial sectors that discharge stormwater to an MS4 or to surface waters. The national 

stormwater program applies to medium and large MS4s that serve incorporated communities in 

urbanized areas with a population of over 100,000, as well as to other “small” MS4s in urbanized 

areas that have been specifically designated by the NPDES permitting authority. Industrial 

facilities and certain construction activities are covered by a range of “general permits,” and 

MS4s are required to adopt pollution prevention practices that prevent stormwater discharges 

to the “maximum extent practicable.” The national stormwater program more than doubled the 

universe of NPDES permittees when it was established in 1990, thereby significantly extending a 

pollution prevention regulatory focus to urban stormwater. 

August 2009 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

Section 305 Assessments and 303(d) Listings. States have listed more than 14,000 waters as 

impaired by nutrient-related causes under the state section 303(d) programs. Given the 

incomplete scope of current assessments and listings referenced in Chapter II, the full impact of 

nutrient impairment is larger than these figures suggest but will remain not quantified until 

more of the Nation’s waters can be evaluated. 

TMDLs. Under CWA section 303(d), once waters are listed as impaired, TMDLs must be 

developed. A TMDL identifies the pollutant reductions needed from point and nonpoint sources 

to meet water quality standards. Once approved, TMDL allocations are implemented through 

NPDES permit limits for point sources and discretionary loading reduction targets for nonpoint 

sources. To date, more than 7,000 nutrient-related TMDLs have been developed (or about onequarter of all TMDLs). More extensive numeric water quality standards and increased water 

quality assessments could lead to a larger number of section 303(d)-listed waters, resulting in 

additional TMDLs being developed and implemented through point source requirements. 

Where “reasonable assurance” exists that nonpoint sources will reduce their nutrient pollutant 

loadings, a state may allocate more of the needed loadings reductions to nonpoint sources, 

allowing for less stringent point source reductions. States have undertaken and explored 

different limited approaches to control nonpoint sources. Authority at the federal level for state 

development of effective, enforceable and transparent nonpoint source accountability is 

lacking. 

CAFO regulations. At present, federal requirements for the management of concentrated 

animal feedlots apply to only a small subset of the total confined animal production in the 

United States. This suggests a potential for significant additional reductions in nutrient loadings 

if federal requirements are applied to a larger portion of animal production operations by 

decreasing the size threshold, regulating the offsite transport of manure and/or expanding the 

reach of nutrient management plans. Some states have already taken this approach. 

Water quality standards. Standards define the goals for a waterbody but do not, by themselves, 

result in a reduction. Narrative nutrient criteria are widely used but are not easily applied. 

Adopting numeric nutrient water quality criteria would provide the basis for better assessment 

of impairments, and for NPDES permit writers to require numeric limits for point source 

dischargers. Numeric criteria could also be used as a tool to set nutrient capping levels for point 

and nonpoint sources. 

Water quality trading. Programs are increasingly using water quality trading as a means to 

provide cost-effective reductions in nutrient loading within a watershed. This approach requires 

a target load or water quality standard in order to generate “credits” or have some idea of how 

many pounds are available for trading in a particular watershed. The process is usually 

implemented through an NPDES permit. 

Section 319. Grant money from the CWA Section 319 Program supports a wide variety of 

activities, including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology 

transfer, demonstration projects and monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint 

source implementation projects. The program relies on watershed plans as a primary tool. The 

effectiveness of the program in achieving nutrient reductions depends on the 

comprehensiveness of the plan, the management of the grant funds, and how completely the 

August 2009 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

plan is implemented. As a voluntary program, the Section 319 Program relies on the 

commitment of watershed groups and other stakeholders to implement and maintain controls. 

Farm Bill. The Farm Bill includes funding for a variety of conservation programs, including the 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The program offers financial and technical 

help to assist eligible participants in installing or implementing structural and management 

practices on eligible agricultural land. The effectiveness of this tool will depend on the 

willingness of farmers to implement voluntary nutrient controls. Agriculture has been identified 

as a primary source of nutrients in many areas of the country; this program could help achieve 

the reductions needed in those areas. Current limitations of the program are that it is 

dependent on the willingness of farmers to install and maintain controls that will reduce 

nutrients and the willingness of state technical committees/county offices to distribute funds for 

nutrient controls. 

Coordinated land application permitting. Permitted activities regarding land applications could 

be required to consider the total nutrient loading within a watershed. 

New and Innovative Tools 

The Task Group identified a number of tools that are appropriate for use by national or state 

programs to reduce the discharge of and impacts from nutrients to our nation’s waters. In some 

cases, there are examples at the state level where these tools have been successfully used to 

control nutrients. In other cases the Task Group identified a number of tools, particularly 

regulatory mechanisms, that are only partially used, as well as some that are underutilized but 

could potentially offer state and national programs innovative ways to effectively control 

nutrients. 

Table 2 lists the tools that the Innovative Tools and Accountability Work Groups identified. The 

highlighted tools in the table are the top five tools, judged by the work groups as potentially the 

most effective for reducing sources of nutrient pollution. Appendix C provides a complete list of 

the tools with descriptions and a summary of the process used by the Workgroup to evaluate 

and derive the list of tools as well as the top 5 recommended tools. In addition, the group 

identified a number of existing, but rarely or unused, regulations that can be effective in 

controlling nutrient pollution. Collectively, these three mechanisms (Innovative Tools Work 

Group, Accountability Work Group, and Task Group brainstorming) resulted in the Task Group 

identifying over 35 tools and authorities that could be used to address nutrient pollution 

impacts. The tools can be grouped into two categories: (1) incentive-based and (2) regulatory. 

August 2009 20 
 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

Table 2. Tools recommended by Innovative Tools and Accountability Work Groups 

• Water quality trading 

• Detergent phosphate ban* 

• Protection of natural nutrient 

sinks 

• Expand NPDES permit postconstruction requirements 

• Comprehensive CAFO 

regulation 

• NPDES stormwater regulation 

of smaller communities 

• Market based nutrient 

reduction land use incentives 

• Control onsite wastewater 

treatment systems discharge 

• Implement large-scale 

watershed TMDL 

• Nutrient load reduction 

strategy 

• Pilot studies 

• Volunteer monitoring 

• Nonpoint source regulation* 

• Issue nutrient limit permits 

• Federally required state WQS 

numeric nutrient water 

quality criteria* 

• Update secondary nutrient 

treatment requirements* 

• Adoption of a monitoring 

paradigm/watershed action 

level for fertilizer application 

• Green labeling* 

• Develop nutrient numeric 

criteria-permit limits guidance 

• State-established nutrient 

ceiling for listings 

• Tracking of watershed and 

TMDL implementation plans 

• Tsca required reduction of 

phosphorus in detergent and 

water solubility of fertilizer 

• Control air deposition of 

nitrogen 

• Tri for nutrient releases 

• Sip process 

• Nutrient capping for point and 

nonpoint sources at current 

levels 

• Nutrient bioharvesting 

• MS4-type regulations 

• Corporate stewardship 

program 

• Use of USDA EQIP funds 

• Watershed impervious surface 

limit action levels 

• Agricultural waste composting 

• Voluntary agreements 

• Phased WQS for “restoration 

uses” 

• Nutrient-focused targeted 

watershed initiative EPA/USDA 

• Regulate point source 

treatment and post-nonpoint 

source BMP application 

loading 

*Voted top five most promising tools by the work groups. 

The following section of the report provides a brief, descriptive summary of the tools identified 

by the Task Group that could be used nationally or regionally, and it offers a number of 

examples or points contained in the fact sheets referenced in the box. The section also provides 

a synthesis of the Task Group’s deliberations, which led to innovative recommendations of 

combinations of incentive-based and regulatory tools that national or state programs can use to 

control nutrients from the five main sources of nutrients (urban stormwater runoff, municipal 

wastewater treatment, atmospheric nitrogen deposition, agricultural livestock activities, and 

agricultural row crops). 

Incentive-based Tools 

Incentive-based, nonregulatory tools comprise a variety of mechanisms to encourage the 

voluntary implementation of activities that promote source controls of nutrients. The use of 

economic incentives allows interested parties to implement measures that would otherwise be 

unaffordable, and these practices might eventually lead to savings in other areas (e.g., use of 

less water). 

August 2009 21 
 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

Accountability fact sheets (Appendix D) 

•	 Numeric Nutrient Criteria 

•	 Maryland BayStat Program 

•	 Florida’s Impaired Waters Rule 

•	 Economic Incentives and Disincentives 

•	 Green and Eco-Labeling of Farm Products (Based on 

Farming Methods) 

•	 Voluntary Agreements with Private Sector 

•	 The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act 

•	 Toxic Release Inventory 

•	 Pinto Creek Decision 

•	 Virginia Watershed-based Permit 

•	 Strengthening Reasonable Assurance for TMDLs 

•	 Connecticut Nitrogen Credit Exchange Program 

•	 Dutch Nutrient Trading System 

•	 Maryland Policy for Nutrient Cap Management and
 

Trading 

•	 Ohio Water Quality Trading 

•	 Pennsylvania Nutrient Trading Program 

• California Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program 

• Iowa Onsite Wastewater Loan Program 

• North Carolina Community Conservation Assistance 

Program (CCAP) 

• Wisconsin’s Priority Watershed and Priority Lake
 

Program
 

• CAFO/AFO Nutrient Management 

• California Agricultural Water Quality Grant Program 

• Delaware’s Nutrient Management Program 

• Iowa Livestock Water Quality Facilities Program 

• Kansas Clean Water Farms—River Friendly Farms
 

Project
 

•	 North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program (ACSP) 

•	 Ohio Agriculture Pollution Abatement Program 

•	 Virginia Agricultural Stewardship Act 

• Wisconsin Agriculture Performance Standards
 

• Clean Air Act: State Implementation Plans 

Accountability for incentive-based tools should include transparency, public input, monitoring, 

regular progress reports, and consequences for failing to spend money or maintain funded 

practices. States can consider these components or elements of a potentially more 

comprehensive accountability approach that might merit further evaluation. 

However, as noted in the attached fact sheets (Appendix D), some of the challenges with 

exclusive reliance on incentive-based tools: 

•	 The absence of sustainable long-term funding for all projects 

•	 Uncertain follow-up accountability and documented results 

•	 The ability of certain nonpoint sources to simply “opt out” of voluntary programs 

•	 Growing resistance of heavily regulated point sources to accept major increases in 

required loading reductions when unregulated nonpoint sources that might be 

contributing substantial nutrient pollution to the same watershed are not held 

accountable (through, for example, regulation under the CWA) for achieving 

comparable load reductions 

The Task Group recommends consideration of the following incentive-based tools as 

components of programs to control nutrient pollution: 

Agricultural waste composting. Unused portions of harvested crops, manure, and other organic 

forms of agricultural wastes are composted and recycled for their nutrient and soil additive 

value, rather than being wasted. 

Corporate stewardship program. Provides corporations, such as food services, with an 

opportunity to actively participate in conservation activities by establishing continuous 

August 2009 22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

improvement programs to reduce nutrient pollution at all 

levels of the food production process (farms, processors, 

distributors, and wholesale buyers). 

Green labeling. Labeling of products from farms that are 

certified in the implementation of nutrient reduction 

practices (e.g., organic and sustainable farming practices). 

Market-based nutrient reduction land-use incentives. 

Programs that encourage and reward effective manure 

management and nutrient reduction practices on farms and 

urban landscapes. 

Nutrient bioharvesting. Harvesting nutrients in the form of 

algae or other aquatic plants for use in animal feed or 

biofuels. 

Pilot studies. Innovative studies, funded through grants and 

performed on a small scale to determine the feasibility of 

application at a larger scale. 

Tracking of watershed or TMDL implementation plans. Using a rigorous tracking system for 

watershed and TMDL implementation plans and providing regular progress reports to the public 

on actions completed to meet the plans’ objectives. 

TRI for nutrient releases. Creating an inventory of agricultural and urban nitrogen and 

phosphorus “releases” or discharges (similar to the Toxics Release Inventory of industrial toxic 

chemicals) based on a national reporting requirement. The program would rely on the public, 

academic institutions and other organizations to review the data and convey what is acceptable 

and unacceptable. 

Use of USDA EQIP funds for nutrient control projects on farms. More fully use existing grant 

programs and available federal dollars to directly fund implementation of best management 

practices and other nonpoint source management programs in vulnerable or targeted 

watersheds; currently, the 2009 funded USDA budget calls for about $3.2 billion in funding for 

conservation program payments. 

Voluntary agreements. An agreement to reduce nutrient pollution, which could be made by a 

corporation, a farmer or a resident. 

Volunteer monitoring. Local groups develop a monitoring program for a local waterbody; data 

can be used to track progress or identify problems associated with nutrient pollution. 

Regulatory Mechanisms That Are Rarely Used 

The Task Group also identified a second set of potentially broader regulatory authorities that 

could be applied to address nutrients and, when implemented, might result in creating strong 

incentives for more effective cross-sector point and nonpoint nutrient control programs. In the 

Financial assistance programs 

States have developed a variety of financial 

assistance programs to encourage the 

voluntary implementation of measures to 

reduce nonpoint source (NPS) pollution. Some 

states, including North Carolina and Ohio, 

provide cost-sharing for installation of best 

management practices to address issues such as 

erosion, flooding, poor drainage, stream 

restoration, and other water quality concerns. 

Kansas is among the states that offer costshare and planning assistance for parties 

willing to adopt clean water farming practices 

in vulnerable watersheds. States such as Iowa 

offer loans for a variety of activities that reduce 

NPS pollution, including replacement of 

inadequate or failing septic systems by rural 

homeowners and preventing, minimizing, and 

eliminating NPS pollution from animal feeding 

operations by implementing best management 

practices. Other states, such as Wisconsin and 

California, offer grants focused on runoff and 

NPS discharges from agricultural lands, 

respectively. Many financial assistance 

programs also offer technical assistance 

(e.g., design assistance). 

August 2009 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

rarely used category, the Task Group identified a mix of 

CWA, CAA, and Coastal Zone Management Act authorities. 

States such as Wisconsin and Massachusetts 

have used regulatory mechanisms to manage 

nutrient pollution. Massachusetts’ Wetlands 

Protection Act requires careful review of 

activities that could impact wetland and 

coastal areas. In Wisconsin, performance 

standards for agriculture, nonagricultural 

construction and post-construction, and 

development of urban areas are codified. 

These standards have the potential to reduce 

nutrient inputs to waterways. 

Detergent phosphate ban. States and local governments 

are prohibiting the use of detergent phosphates to reduce	 

phosphorus loadings to waters. 

Protection, restoration and enhancement of natural 

nutrient sinks. Some areas, such as wetlands, tend to store 

organic matter and therefore often act as nutrient sinks.
 

State programs can be implemented to protect these natural nutrient sinks to maintain their 

nutrient removal functionality.
 

40 CFR section 122.4(i) (CFR 2000). This regulation restricts the issuance of new point source
 

permits in watersheds with impaired waters. This restriction applies in cases where the 

impairment is caused by NPDES-permitted facilities, as well as when the impairment is caused
 

by nonpoint sources. The provisions of section 122.4(i) focus on permits for new point sources.
 

However, its applicability in the case of nutrients will often be triggered by the combined
 

loadings from point and nonpoint sources in a particular watershed that have caused the initial 

impairment. In other words, while the result of the impairment is a potential restriction on new
 

point source discharges and potentially associated economic development, the cause and
 

solution lie with both point and nonpoint sources and their combined ability to reduce loadings.
 

An effective response to a section 122.4(i) challenge may lie with a State’s ability to
 

demonstrate that it has an effective, enforceable and transparent nonpoint source program in
 

place to assure loadings reduction from both nonpoint and point sources are being addressed.
 

CWA section 402(p)(6). This section authorizes EPA to establish priorities and develop
 

“comprehensive” state stormwater management program requirements that may include 

performance standards, guidance, management 

practices and treatment standards. This authority could 

be used to expand MS4-type regulations to include more 

nutrient controls in urban/suburban areas. It could also 

be used to require NPDES stormwater regulation for 

smaller communities, establish independent 

performance standards applicable within and outside 

existing MS4s, or to establishing best management 

practice standards for urban stormwater outside existing 

MS4s. Section 402(p) also provides authority to make 

“residual” designations of urban stormwater sources 

that are affecting water quality. 

The CWA provides a number of options for 

protecting water quality at both the federal 

and state levels. States have the options of 

developing more stringent laws, regulations 

and policies to protect water quality from 

nonpoint source nutrient pollution impacts. 

The states have varying levels of regulatory 

authority to control nonpoint sources of 

nutrients. California presents the best 

example of broad legal authority that can 

address all point sources and nonpoint 

sources. The state authority presents a tiered 

system to encourage nonpoint source 

control implementation, with the lower tiers 

providing a strong regulatory program as 

needed. This law, the Porter-Cologne Act, 

has been used to protect water quality from 

impacts from irrigated agriculture, small 

animal feeding operations, and forest tracts, 

among other sources. 

August 2009 24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

Antidegradation. Provisions in the current CWA regulations at 40 CFR 131.12 offer a mechanism 

to protect high-quality waters where existing conditions are better than necessary to support 

the designated use of the water. Under these provisions, states may authorize a lowering of 

water quality to existing uses and applicable standards “to accommodate important economic 

or social development” under certain conditions, including a demonstration that “all costeffective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source controls” are 

achieved. Where nonpoint sources are not included in a common effort to reduce nutrient 

loadings and those best management practice controls are not in place, a state may lose its 

flexibility to issue permits for increased point source discharges even though, for other reasons, 

it might be appropriate. Thus, states may choose to consider using existing antidegradation 

provisions to better address nonpoint sources in addition to increasing the use of 

antidegradation for point sources. 

CZARA section 6217. A joint program of NOAA and EPA, which distributed $200 million to 

grantees in 2009, requires coastal states to establish programs to control nonpoint sources of 

pollution that are affecting coastal and estuarine waters. These programs are required to 

contain enforceable policies and mechanisms, such as nutrient load reduction strategies and 

control plans, to ensure the implementation of management measures. As currently defined, 

section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) applies only to 

coastal states with Coastal Zone Management Programs. EPA could withhold CWA section 319 

funds where CZARA programs are not fully implemented. 

CWA section 504. Section 504 grants power to the EPA Administrator “upon receipt of evidence 

that a pollution source... may bring suit on behalf of the United States in the appropriate district 

court to immediately restrain any person causing or contributing to the alleged pollution to stop 

the discharge of pollutants causing or contributing to such pollution or to take such action as 

may be necessary.” The section provides the Agency an option to reduce nutrient pollution in 

the areas that are exempt from the CWA, such as agricultural stormwater. 

SIP process. The development and submittal of a state implementation plan that provides for 

implementation, maintenance and enforcement of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

NOx could reflect implementation of more stringent nutrient control strategies. 

Control of air deposition of nitrogen. Emissions into the air from vehicles, industries, power 

plants, dry cleaners, gas-powered lawn tools and other emission sources are major sources of 

nitrogen in waterbodies that can be controlled to reduce air deposition problems downwind. 

TSCA-required reduction of phosphorus in detergent and water solubility of fertilizer. The Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) was enacted to ensure that chemicals manufactured, imported, 

processed, or distributed in commerce, or used or disposed of in the United States, do not pose 

any unreasonable risks to human health or the environment. TSCA could be applied to detergent 

manufacturers to require reduced phosphorus levels in detergents and in the manufacturing of 

fertilizers to reduce water solubility of nutrients after application. 

CWA section 303(d) assessments. Current ecoregional numeric nutrient water quality criteria 

recommendations could be used as numeric benchmarks to facilitate section 303(d) 

assessments of waters as impaired. 

August 2009 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

Examples of Innovative Tools Applied to Sources of Nutrients 

The following are examples of innovative uses of the incentive-based and regulatory approaches 

outlined above to control nutrients. They are presented for the five sources of nutrients: urban 

stormwater, POTWs, air deposition, agricultural livestock, and agricultural row crops. 

Urban Stormwater 

EPA has recently begun to act to strengthen and add tools to the policies and regulations that 

allow for controls of nutrient pollution from urban stormwater. EPA is finalizing the Construction 

Storm Water Effluent Guideline. Development of a Post-Construction Storm Water Rule to 

complement these new controls would make a significant impact on urban stormwater pollution 

prevention practices. In addition, section 438 of the Energy Security Independence Act (EISA) 

requires all new development on federal lands to adhere to strict stormwater guidelines, which 

are currently being developed. Although there are many tools in place through the point source 

provisions in the CWA, EPA has clear opportunities to expand existing regulations to reduce the 

nutrient impacts from urban stormwater on the Nation’s water quality. 

•	 Expand some of NPDES MS4-type stormwater regulations to communities at a smaller 

size than those addressed by the current regulations, either by using residual 

designation authority or by creating a new “Phase III” under CWA section 402. This 

option could exempt any community that has a program and authorities in place to 

ensure that all new development activity maintains an effective impervious cover below 

a particular threshold, protect drinking water sources, and establish turf fertilizer limits. 

•	 Initiate an aggressive policy to use CWA section 402(p)(2)(E) to regulate stormwater 

discharges causing or contributing to nutrient-related impairments of water quality 

standards or “significantly contributing” nutrient pollution to waters of the United 

States. 

•	 Expand the use of stormwater residual designation authority to reach currently
 

unregulated sources of nutrients.
 

•	 Consider clarifying that the CWA agricultural stormwater exemption applies only where 

agriculture is consistent with sustainable agricultural practices (e.g., fertilizer application 

no greater than agronomic rates). 

•	 Implement nutrient capping to regulate growth and development (e.g., cap nonpoint 

source and point source at current (2010) load). 

•	 Protect natural nutrient sinks. 

Municipal Wastewater Treatment 

•	 Consider redefining the secondary treatment requirement for wastewater treatment 

plants to include nitrogen and phosphorus by adding them to the list of pollutants that 

require technology-based effluent limits. 

August 2009 26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

•	 Require all municipal wastewater treatment facilities to monitor nitrogen and
 

phosphorus effluent levels.
 

•	 Provide guidance on specific nitrogen and phosphorus reduction technologies that can 

meet the technology-based requirement to promote broad-scale implementation of 

available and economically achievable technologies to encourage facilities to upgrade. 

•	 Provide economic incentives (such as grants and low-interest loans) for implementing 

new nutrient control technologies. 

•	 Require better management of biosolids applications, ensuring that they are consistent 

with the agronomic rates for the land to which they are applied, and reduce runoff or 

volatilization of unincorporated nutrients. This could include expanding the agronomic 

rate restriction for nitrogen to phosphorus in the CWA section 503 biosolids program. 

•	 Investigate and control improperly surface-discharging wastewater treatment systems 

(onsite or septic systems). 

•	 Explore the use of section 6 of TSCA to require reformulation of detergents to reduce 

phosphorus. 

•	 Encourage broader adoption of nutrient trading programs, such as point source-to-point 

source trading, including guidance on the costs and how to ensure transparency. 

Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition 

•	 Maximize projected reductions through a new Clean Interstate Air Rule (CAIR). 

•	 Leverage air quality programs to decrease air deposition of nitrogen by using 

opportunities to replicate and implement existing air quality programs and regulations 

to the benefit of water quality. 

•	 Ensure that existing air regulatory authorities and programs, such as the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, fully take into account and ultimately reduce nitrogen 

deposition to water. 

•	 Encourage trading between air sources of nitrogen and POTW or nonpoint source 

reductions. 

Agricultural Livestock Activities 

•	 Establish a lower regulatory size threshold for AFOs under section 402(p)(6) of the CWA, 

or multiple AFOs in impaired watersheds that are determined to collectively contribute 

to water quality impairments. 

August 2009 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

•	 Initiate a comprehensive data collection program authorized by section 308 of the CWA 

in an effort to demonstrate that all CAFOs discharge and thereby all CAFOs must apply 

for NPDES permits. 

•	 Inspect more AFOs to determine which might be significant contributors of nutrient 

pollution to waters of the United States, warranting designation of the AFO as a CAFO 

under 40 CFR 122.23(c). (This could be done through case-by-case designations and/or 

enforcement actions.) 

•	 Require more liquid manure and process wastewater storage capacity, and covered 

storage of solid manure, in those areas where there is a need to better protect water 

quality standards. 

•	 Include controls to protect ground water through permits in source water protection 

areas. 

•	 Subsidize transportation to remove land-applied nutrients to where they can be of 

beneficial use. 

•	 Develop markets for easily transportable fertilizer pellets made from litter. 

•	 Work with USDA to expand the number of certified technical service providers to help 

farmers develop and implement nutrient management plans. 

•	 Work with states to develop projects that encourage the use the manure as a source of 

fuel to reduce the amount of nutrients that are land applied, redistributing nutrient 

concentrations. 

•	 Work with state transportation departments to obtain manure from CAFOs so that it 

can be applied, at agronomic rates, during high landscaping. 

Agricultural Row Crops 

•	 Explore the use of CWA section 402 to determine point source application when 

fertilizer, manure or another water-based row crop application is applied in excess of 

agronomic rates near or overlapping a water of the United States. 

•	 Place additional requirements on states to ensure that CWA section 319 funding is used 

to implement sound watershed plans with reasonable assurance that the nonpoint 

sources will be reduced. 

•	 Explore the use of section 6 of TSCA to require reformulation of fertilizers from highly 

water-soluble formulations to less water-soluble formulations. 

•	 Adopt a monitoring paradigm or watershed action level for fertilizer application (based 

on the Atrazine example for pesticides). 

August 2009 28 
 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

•	 Increase accountability among the fertilizer user community by establishing a 

registration process leading to monitoring and reporting on a watershed level.
 

•	 Work with large food and beverage companies, integrators and/or distributors (or other 

market intermediaries who have a direct purchasing relationship with producers) to 

develop practice standards and processes for the producers that supply them. 

•	 Develop a system for voluntary monitoring and provide an incentive for responsible 

fertilizer use tailored to agronomic rates, growing season limitations, runoff timing, and 

watershed sensitivity. 

•	 Work with third parties to establish independent certification programs and to develop 

economic incentives based on them. 

•	 Explore famers selling credits based on reduced fertilizer use. 

•	 Require or provide heavy incentives to place constructed wetlands or bioreactors at tile 

drain outlets. 

Summary 

The following chart presents more detailed examples of the specific tools that were analyzed by 

the Task Group. 

August 2009 29 
 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

Existing but currently 

underutilized tools 

Possible expansion of current tools either geographically or 

to include more sources 

Regulatory 

Drinking water regulations Safe Drinking Water Act section 1438 emergency response 

authority 

CAFO regulations 

Apply to smaller AFOs 

Water quality-based residual AFO designations 

Broader manure management controls 

Technology-based nitrogen and phosphorus limits 

Municipal wastewater NPDES 

permits 

Numeric nutrient standards to support nitrogen and phosphorus 

limits 

Urban stormwater MS4s 

Finalize active construction effluent limitation guidelines 

Use section 402(p)(6) to address post-construction outside MS4s 

Define MEP to address post-construction 

State numeric nutrient criteria (only 

7 states have statewide and 18 have 

partial) 

More states to develop to protect vulnerable waters and address 

downstream impacts 

Implementation of narrative 

standards in permits 

EPA determinations to establish numeric standards in response 

to litigation 

Technology-based requirements 

EPA finding that new and revised standards not necessary 

because transparent, effective and enforceable NPS state 

program in place 

TMDLs Enhanced guidance on reasonable assurance 

State NPS programs Accountability for nonpoint sources 

State programs that are comprehensive and locally enforceable 

Non-municipal NPDES permits 

Read 40 CFR 122.4(i) to ban new discharges to impaired waters 

unless transparent, enforceable NPS program in place 

131.12(a) ban on new discharges to high-quality waters unless 

”all cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for 

nonpoint source control” are in place 

New permits must ensure compliance with downstream 

standards 

State water quality standards Must ensure compliance with downstream standards 

Section 504 

Nonregulatory: Policy and Program 

Expand CZARA-like program nationally 

Incentive 

Funding 

Enhance and target section 319 watershed planning and 

implementation in states 

Better targeting of USDA funding 

Corporate Stewardship Engage major food corporations in sustainability efforts for 

suppliers 

August 2009 30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

V. Task Group Findings and Call to Action 

State and EPA drinking water and surface water quality program directors agree that the current 

national approach to controlling nutrients will not result in adequate water quality protections. 

We are losing ground in addressing existing sources of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. 

Although certain federal and state programs have made some progress in reducing nutrient 

impacts, without a comprehensive approach that holds all sectors accountable, population 

growth will lead to an expansion of our nutrient pollution concerns. More specifically, we know 

that absent a change in our current approach, nutrient loadings and resulting impacts will grow 

sharply over the next 40 years as a result of increased urbanization, expanded agriculture, 

demand for energy, and need for increased transportation. In light of these facts, the Task 

Group’s key findings are outlined below. 

•	 The nutrient pollution problem is nationally significant, expanding, and likely to
 

substantially accelerate.
 

•	 Existing efforts are not succeeding at improving water quality. 

•	 Knowledge, collaboration and financial incentives will fail without a common framework 

of responsibility and accountability for all point and nonpoint sources. 

•	 TMDL implementation, while an effective tool for point sources, has not been able to 

fully address the larger problem of nonpoint sources. 

•	 Current tools such as numeric nutrient criteria, water quality assessments and listings, 

urban stormwater controls, POTW nutrient limits, and animal feedlot controls are 

underused and poorly coordinated. 

•	 Other broadly applicable tools, such as CZARA, antidegradation, 40 CFR part 122.4 

limitations on discharges to impaired waters, and compliance with downstream water 

quality standards, are rarely used. 

•	 Current regulations disproportionately address certain sources (e.g., municipal sewage 

treatment) at the exclusion of others (e.g., row crop agriculture). 

•	 Uneven responsibility between point and nonpoint sources continues to be a major 

barrier to coordinated and collaborative multi-sector partnerships. 

•	 Specific aspects of state nonpoint source programs have been highly successful in 

addressing individual sources of nutrients, but their broader application has been 

undercut by the absence of a common multistate framework of mandatory point and 

nonpoint source accountability within and across watersheds. 

The evidence presented and referenced in this Task Group report clearly indicates that nitrogen 

and phosphorus pollution is widespread and significant. Increased public health risks and 

treatment costs from contamination of drinking water supplies is a major concern. Almost 50 

percent of our nation’s smaller streams have elevated levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. Over 

August 2009 31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

2 million acres of lakes and reservoirs across the 

country are impaired and not meeting water quality 

standards due to excess nutrients. A startling 78 

percent of the assessed continental U.S. coastal area 

exhibits symptoms of eutrophication. And, as the 

sidebar illustrates, the numerous impacts from this 

pollution are well documented and severe. 

The impacts of nutrient pollution 

• Disinfection by-product and 

methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome) 

•	 Co-occurring contaminants (pathogens, 

pesticides, industrial chemicals) 

•	 Toxic algal blooms (neuro-toxins, paralytic, 

and diarrhetic effects) 

• Increased treatment costs 

•	 Recreation and tourism economic impacts 

•	 Widespread water quality impairments 

• Low dissolved oxygen levels 

(hypoxia/anoxia) 

• Decreased species diversity and increased 

species vulnerability 

•	 Significant habitat loss (seagrasses and 

submerged aquatic vegetation) 

The costs of these impacts across the country have 

not been comprehensively estimated, but there are 

some powerful and cautionary examples. The	 

Chesapeake Bay is a national model of research, 

information collection, analysis, voluntary 

partnerships, stakeholder involvement, extensive 

outreach and collaboration, and a collective 

investment of over $10 billion that, to-date, has 

achieved only about 27 percent of the water quality 

standards targets for dissolved oxygen, water clarity 

and chlorophyll a. The estimated remaining cost of 

restoration for the Chesapeake Bay exceeds $28 

billion. 

The high cost of nutrient pollution 

• $28 billion to restore Chesapeake Bay 

health 

•	 $1.2 billion in 2001 for lost fishing and 

boating revenues 

• $15 million for Fremont, Ohio, for 

nutrient control 

•	 $4 million for Des Moines for drinking 

water taste and odor 

• $280,000 for a community of 500 to install 

ion exchange to treat nitrate contamination 

The Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone surpasses that of the 

Chesapeake Bay by several orders of magnitude, and 

it continues to grow. It represents a comparable 

undertaking of investments in research, analysis of 

new information, multistate alliances, action plan development, local/state/federal 

partnerships, local and regional pilots, targeted resources, and financial incentives. And yet, to 

date, extensive analysis of state and basin-wide data document a picture of water quality 

progress in reverse (NRC 2008a; USEPA 2007c). Unlike the Chesapeake Bay, the cost to restore 

and recover the lost and damaged aquatic resources adversely affected by nutrient pollution 

from the Mississippi Basin has not yet been fully calculated. 

The magnitude of these regional impacts is formidable but does not include comparable 

examples from Puget Sound, Casco Bay, portions of the Great Lakes, and literally thousands of 

lakes and reservoirs across the country in combination with hundreds of other coastal areas and 

numerous river and stream segments. Bringing the focus closer to home in a context less widely 

appreciated or understood is the challenge and dilemma facing individual communities. For a 

community whose water supply is contaminated with nitrates requiring new treatment or a 

town whose tourism, fishing or recreational economic base has been impacted, the 

consequences can be even more severe. 

It should not go unstated that application of both regulatory and incentive-based tools will have 

associated costs if they are to be implemented effectively. Costs to dischargers of excess 

nutrients will increase as the dischargers implement controls, and costs to state agencies to 

implement, monitor and enforce controls will also expand unless other water programs are 

dropped or decreased. Those implementation costs, however, are expected to be dwarfed by 

the benefits attained from reduced health care costs, reduced drinking water treatment costs, 

August 2009 32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

increased recreational opportunities, increased property values, increased abundance and 

diversity of fish and shellfish, and higher quality water for agricultural and industrial uses. 

Although there is no single tool for achieving reduced nutrient loadings to our ground water and 

surface waters, significantly more can be done by integrating and more fully utilizing existing 

tools; implementing new, innovative approaches to create common frameworks of 

accountability, both nonregulatory and regulatory; and expanding the application of existing 

general authorities while exploring the availability of additional authority. 

The major sources of nitrogen and phosphorus are well understood. But the application of a 

combination of new and existing tools that could apply to all sources is less well recognized, and 

the existing architecture to ensure common accountability between sources has rarely been 

emphasized. The Task Group believes that a coordinated and innovative synthesis of existing 

regulatory authorities and voluntary tools must be used across all sources and sectors of 

nutrient pollution. To address these needs, the Task Group makes these primary 

recommendations: 

•	 Fuller utilization of existing point source tools; some tools are being only partially used, 

and others could be expanded in scope. 

•	 A national framework of accountability for nonpoint sources is necessary to make a 

significant and essential difference, without which long-term success is doubtful. 

•	 Broader reliance on incentives, trading and corporate stewardship—but only within a 

multistate framework of public transparency, common responsibility, and both point 

and nonpoint source accountability for meeting water quality and drinking water goals. 

CALL TO ACTION 

All major sources of nutrients must be held accountable for their contributions to the problem. 

The valid and growing perception that nutrient reduction burdens are not equitably shared or 

cost-effectively managed across all sources or between upstream and downstream contributors 

is a major barrier to accelerating progress. There is growing reluctance and resistance on the 

part of highly regulated entities and downstream users to pay for increasingly expensive loading 

reductions, even where necessary and possible, when upstream sources are not held 

responsible for their own nutrient contributions to the same watershed. Combating the 

challenge of widespread nutrient pollution will require a renewed emphasis on prevention and a 

profound change in how we share accountability and responsibility between sources, within 

watersheds, and across state lines. 

The Nutrient Innovations Task Group believes that national leadership is vital to supporting and 

requiring a more consistent and full utilization of existing tools from state to state and source to 

source. Establishing a cross-state, enforceable framework of responsibility and accountability for 

all point and nonpoint pollution sources is central to ensuring balanced and equitable upstream 

and downstream environmental protection. It is also essential to strengthening the ability of any 

single state to demand environmental accountability without jeopardizing the loss of economic 

activity that might shift to another state with less rigorous standards. Establishing a national 

August 2009 33 
 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

framework of accountability that includes nonpoint sources would create a level playing field of 

responsibility for all sources to reduce nutrient loadings. Continuing the status quo, on the other 

hand, will ensure increasingly degraded ecosystems, lost aquatic habitat and species diversity, 

abandonment of water quality standards in vulnerable watersheds, increased drinking water 

risks, and the greater future costs associated with lost economic opportunity, vanishing 

recreational resources, and increased treatment, recovery and restoration. 

At the end of the day, innovation in the context of nutrient pollution means: 

•	 Acting on what we know 

•	 Fully using the tools we have 

•	 Exploring new authorities that we need 

•	 Demanding of each other, from the local to national levels, stronger, multi-sector crossstate engagement and support for a shared commitment to environmental protection, 

public health, and shared economic opportunities. 

In short, urgent action is needed. 

August 2009 34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

References 

Anderson, D.M., P. Hoagland, Y. Kaoru, and A.W. White. 2000. Estimated Annual Economic 

Impacts from Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in the United States. Technical Report WHOI-2000-

11. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole, MA. 

Boesch, D.F. 1999. Causes and Consequences of Nutrient Overenrichement of Coastal Waters. In 

Proceedings of 24th Annual Seminar on World Planetary Emergencies, Erice, Italy. 

Bricker, S., B. Longstaff, W. Dennison, A. Jones, K. Biocourt, C. Wicks, and J. Woerner. 2007. 

Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation’s Estuaries: A Decade of Change. NOAA Coastal 

Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 26. National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 

Silver Spring, MD. 

Brodie, H.L. 1974. Manure Production from Livestock. Biological Resources Engineering Facts No. 

66. University of Maryland, Department of Biological Resources Engineering, College Park, MD. 

Campbell, D.E. 2004. Evaluation and emergy analysis of the Cobscook Bay ecosystem. 

Northeastern Naturalist 11(2):355–424. 

Carmichael, W.W. 2000. Assessment of Blue-Green Algal Toxins in Raw and Finished Drinking 

Water. AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO. 

Chastain, J.P., J.J. Camberato, and P. Skewes. 2003. Chapter 3b: Poultry Manure Production and 

Nutrient Content. Clemson University Extension, South Carolina Confined Animal Manure 

Managers Certification Program: Poultry, Clemson, SC. 

Chesapeake Bay Program. 2009a. 2009 State of the Chesapeake Bay Program. 

http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pressrelease/EC_2009_stateofprogram.pdf. Accessed July, 

2009. 

Chesapeake Bay Program. 2009b. Underwater Bay Grasses. 

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/baygrasses.aspx?menuitem=14621. Accessed July, 2009. 

Chesapeake Bay Program. 2008. Facts and Figures. 

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/factsandfigures.aspx?menuitem=14582. Accessed July, 2009. 

CFR. 2000. 40 CFR 122.4: Prohibitions. Code of Federal Regulations, Washington, DC. 

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/122-4-prohibitions-applicable-npdes-see-123-19812650. Accessed July, 

2009. 

DeSimone, L.A. 2009. Quality of Water from Domestic Wells in Principal Aquifers of the United 

States, 1991-2004. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5227. U.S. 

Geological Survey, National Water-Quality Assessment Program, Reston, VA. 

Diaz, R.J., and R. Rosenberg. 2008. Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine 

ecosystems. Science 321:926–929. 

August 2009 35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

Dodds, W.K., W.W. Bouska, J.L. Eitzmann, T.J. Pilger, K.L. Pitts, A.J. Riley, J.T. Schloesser, and D.J. 

Thornbrugh. 2009. Eutrophication of U.S. freshwaters: analysis of potential economic damages. 

Environmental Science and Technology 43(1):12–19. 

Doering, O.C., F. Diaz-Hermelo, C. Howard, R. Heimlich, F. Hitzhusen, R. Kazmierczak, J. Lee, L. 

Libby, W. Milon, T. Prato, and M. Ribaudo. 1999. Evaluation of the Economic Costs and Benefits 

of Methods for Reducing Nutrient Loads to the Gulf of Mexico. Decision Analysis Series No. 20. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring, MD. 

Engle, V.D., J.C. Kurtz, L.M. Smith, C. Chancy, and P. Bourgeois. 2007. A classification of U.S. 

estuaries based on physical and hydrologic attributes. Environmental Monitoring and 

Assessment 129:397–412. 

Falconer, I.R. 1999. An Overview of problems caused by toxic blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) 

in drinking and recreational water. Environmental Toxicology and Water Quality 14(1):5–12. 

Facloner, I.R., M.D. Burch, D.A. Steffensen, M. Choice, and O.R. Coverdale. 1994. Toxicity of the 

blue-green alga (cyanobacterium) Microcystis aeruginosa in drinking water to growing pigs, as 

an animal model for human injury and risk assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Water 

Quality 9(2):131–139. 

FDEP. 2009. Florida Watersheds and River Basins Map. Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, Water Resource Management and Environmental Assessment and Restoration, 

Tallahassee, FL. http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/. Accessed April, 2009. 

FDEP. 2001. Seagrass Management Plan for Big Lagoon and Santa Rosa Sound. Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection, Ecosystem Restoration Section, Pensacola, Florida. 

Focazio, M.J., D.W. Kolpin, K.K. Barnes, E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber, and 

M.E.Thurman. 2008. A national reconnaissance for pharmaceuticals and other organic 

wastewater contaminants in the United States II: Untreated drinking water sources. Science of 

the Total Environment 402(2-3):201–216. 

Freitas Jr. R.A. 1999. Nanomedicine, Volume I: Basic Capabilities. Landes Bioscience, 

Georgetown, TX. 

Galloway, J.N., J.D. Aber, J.W. Erisman, S.P. Seitzinger, R.W. Howarth, E.B. Cowling, and B.J. 

Cosby. 2003. The nitrogen cascade. BioScience 53(4):341–356. 

GulfBase. 2009. Bays and Estuaries. http://www.gulfbase.org/bay/. Accessed April, 2009. 

Jones, C.S., D. Hill, and G. Brand. 2007. Use a multifaceted approach to manage high sourcewater nitrate. Opflow 2007 (June) 20–22. 

Khera, R. 2009. Email from Rajiv Khera, U.S. EPA, to John Hochheimer, Tetra Tech, Inc., regarding 

anion exchange treatment cost for nitrate removal. 

August 2009 36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

Lake Erie LaMP Workgroup. 2008a. Lake Erie LaMP Section 2: Overview. Lake Erie LaMP 

Management Committee, Lake Erie LaMP Workgroup. 

Lake Erie LaMP Workgroup. 2008b. Lake Erie LaMP Section 11: Significant Ongoing and 

Emerging Issues. Lake Erie LaMP Management Committee, Lake Erie LaMP Workgroup. 

LCC. 2009a. Phosphorus Pollution. Lake Champlain Committee, Burlington, VT. 

http://www.lakechamplaincommittee.org/lcc-at-work/phosphorus-pollution-in-lake/. Accessed 

June, 2009. 

LCC. 2009b. Blue-Green Algae. Lake Champlain Committee, Burlington, VT. 

http://www.lakechamplaincommittee.org/lcc-at-work/algae-in-lake/. Accessed June, 2009. 

LCLT. 2009. Phosphorus and Lake Champlain. Lake Champlain Land Trust, Burlington, VT. 

http://www.lclt.org/Phosphorus.htm. Accessed June, 2009. 

Malmquist, D. 2008. VIMS: “Dead zones” continue to spread. The College of William and Mary, 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Williamsburg, VA. 

http://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2008/vims-study-shows-continued-spread-of-dead-zones0814.php. Accessed July, 2009. 

MEOEEA. 2009. Boston Harbor Watershed. Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and 

Environmental Affairs, Boston, MA. 

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeaterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Air%2c+Water+%26+Climat 

e+Change&L2=Preserving+Water+Resources&L3=Massachusetts+Watersheds&sid=Eoeea&b=te 

rminalcontent&f=eea_water_bostonharbor&csid=Eoeea. Accessed April, 2009. 

MERCK. 2007. Diarrhea. The Merck Manuals: Online Medical Library. 

http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec02/ch008/ch008c.html?qt=diarrhea%20constipation&alt=sh. 

Accessed July, 2009. 

Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force. 2008. Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan 

2008 for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and 

Improving Water Quality in the Mississippi River Basin. Washington, DC. 

Moershel, Philip, Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) and Mark Derischweiler, Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2009. Personal Communication. 

Mueller, D.K., and D.R. Halsel. 1996. Nutrients in the Nation’s Waters–Too Much of a Good 

Thing? U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1136. U.S. Geological Survey, National Water-Quality 

Assessment Program, Reston, VA. 

Nebraska DEQ. 2009. 2008 Nebraska Water Monitoring Programs Report. Nebraska Department 

of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Lincoln, NE. 

Nelson, A.C. 2004. Toward a New Metropolis: The Opportunity to Rebuild America. The 

Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program, Washington, DC. 

August 2009 37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

Neuse River Education Team. 2009. General Information on the Neuse River Basin. 

http://www.neuse.ncsu.edu/geninfo.htm. Accessed April, 2009. 

Nielsen, R. 2005. Can We Feed the World? Is there a Nitrogen Limit of Food Production? 

http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/nitrogen.html. Accessed July, 2009. 

NOAA. 2009. Harmful Algal Blooms. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver 

Spring, MD. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/topics/coasts/hab/. Accessed April, 2009. 

NRC. 2008a. Mississippi River Water Quality and the Clean Water Act: Progress, Challenges, and 

Opportunities. National Research Council, Committee on the Mississippi River and Clean Water 

Act, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 

NRC. 2008b. Urban Stormwater Management in the United States. National Research Council, 

Committee on Reducing Stormwater Discharge Contributions to Water Pollution, The National 

Academies Press, Washington, DC. 

NSTC. 2003. An Assessment of Coastal Hypoxia and Eutrophication in U.S. Waters. National 

Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, 

Washington, DC. http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/documents/hypoxia.pdf. Accessed July, 2009. 

Ohio EPA. 2009. Grand Lake St. Marys Toxic Algae- June 2009. Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency, Columbus, OH. http://www.epa.state.oh.us/pic/glsm_algae.aspx. Accessed June, 2009. 

Selman, M., S. Greenhalgh, R. Diaz, and Z. Sugg. 2008. Eutrophication and Hypoxia in Coastal 

Areas: A Global Assessment of the State of Knowledge. WRI Policy Note No. 1. World Resources 

Institute, Washington, DC. 

Taft, Jim, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA). 2009. Personal 

Communication. 

Tippett, J.P., and R.C. Dodd. 1995. Cost-Effectiveness of Agricultural BMPs for Nutrient Reduction 

in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. NWQEP Notes, No. 72. North Carolina State University, North 

Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC. 

http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/issues/72.html. Accessed July, 2009. 

Tomasko, D.A., C.A. Corbett, H.S. Greening, and G.E. Raulerson. 2005. Spatial and temporal 

variation in seagrass coverage in Southwest Florida: assessing the relative effects of 

anthropogenic nutrient load reductions and rainfall in four contiguous estuaries. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 50:797–805. 

USACE. 2004. The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New 

Orleans District, New Orleans, LA. http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/bro/misstrib.htm. 

Accessed April, 2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. People Quick Facts. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html. Accessed June, 2009. 

August 2009 38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. Table 1. Projections of the Population and Components of Change for 

the United States: 2010 to 2050. NP2008-T1. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. Historical National Population Estimates: July 1, 1900 to July 1, 1999. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 

http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/popclockest.txt. Accessed June, 2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1952. Census of Population: 1950, Volume I: Number of Inhabitants. 

993440-52-4. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. 

USDA. 2009a. Meat Animals Production, Disposition, and Income: 2008 Summary. Mt An 1-1 

(09). U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. 

USDA. 2009b. Poultry – Production and Value: 2008 Summary. Pou 3-1 (09). U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. 

USDA. 2009c. Chickens and Eggs: 2008 Summary. Pou 2-4 (09). U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. 

USDA. 2009d. Milk Production, Disposition, and Income: 2008 Summary. Da 1-2 (09). U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. 

USDA. 2009e. Data and Statistics. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics 

Service, Washington, DC. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/. 

Accessed July, 2009. 

USDA. 2009f. Manure Use for Fertilizer and for Energy: Report to Congress. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. 

USDA. 2008. Development and Evaluation of Biological Treatment Systems for Animal Manure. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC. 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=408114. Accessed July, 

2009. 

USEPA 2009a. Reactive Nitrogen in the United States: An Analysis of Inputs, Flows, 

Consequences, and Management Options, June 22, 2009 Draft. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2009b. Drinking Water Contaminants. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/hfacts.html. Accessed June, 2009. 

USEPA. 2009c. National Summary of State Information. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control. Accessed June, 

2009. 

USEPA. 2009d. Public Drinking Water Systems: Facts and Figures. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pws/factoids.html. Accessed July, 2009. 

August 2009 39 
 

An Urgent Call to Action 

USEPA. 2009e. Permit Compliance System (PCS). Retrieved April, 2009. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2009f. NEP Profiles. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Estuary Program, 

Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/profiles.html. Accessed April, 2009. 

USEPA. 2008a. National Coastal Condition Report III. EPA 842-R-08-002. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2008b. FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2008. EPA 816-K-08-

004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2008c. Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2008d. Septic Systems Fact Sheet. EPA 832-F-08-057. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2008e. Municipal Nutrient Removal Technologies Reference Document. EPA 832-R-08-

006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, 

DC. 

USEPA. 2007a. FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2007. EPA 816-K-07-

004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2007b. Dissolved Oxygen Depletion in Lake Erie. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. http://epa.gov/greatlakes/glindicators/water/oxygenb.html. Accessed June, 

2009. 

USEPA. 2007c. Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: An Update by the EPA Science Advisory 

Board. EPA-SAB-08-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2006a. FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2006. EPA 816-K-06-

012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2006b. Wadeable Streams Assessment. EPA 841-B-06-002. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2005a. FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2005. EPA 816-K-03-

001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2005b. Fact Sheet: Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. EPA 815-F-05-

003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2004. FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2004. EPA 816-K-05-

001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

August 2009 40 
 

 

An Urgent Call to Action 

USEPA. 2003. FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2003. EPA 816-K-03-

001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2002a. FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2002. EPA 816-K-03-

004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2002b. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. EPA 625-R-00-008. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2001. FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2001. EPA 816-K-02-

004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2000. FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2000. EPA 816-K-01-

004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1999. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System Factoids: FY1999 Inventory Data. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1998. IMB SDWIS/FED Factoids: FY1998 Inventory Data. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC. 

USFWS. 1997. Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New York Bight Watershed. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern New England – New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems 

Program, Charlestown, RI. 

USFWS. 2009. A Chesapeake Bay Primer. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 

http://www.baylink.org/fieldtrips/primer.html#top. Accessed April, 2009. 

USGS. 2008. Differences in Phosphorus and Nitrogen Delivery to the Gulf of Mexico from the 

Mississippi River Basin: Sources of Nutrients Delivered to the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Washington, DC. 

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/gulf_findings/primary_sources.html. Accessed July, 

2009. 

VDH. 2009. Status of Blue Green Algae on Lake Champlain. Vermont Department of Health, 

Burlington, VT. http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/bg_algae/weekly_status.aspx. Accessed July, 

2009. 

Vesterby, M., and K.S. Krupa. 2001. Major Uses of Land in the United States, 1997. Bulletin No. 

973. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. 

WHOI. 2007. Harmful Algae: Ecosystems. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, 

MA. http://www.whoi.edu/redtide/page.do?pid=9257. Accessed April, 2009. 

August 2009 41 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix A 

Appendix A: Drinking Water Case Studies
 

High Nitrogen Levels in Wastewater Effluent Contaminating Water Source: Mashpee, MA .........2
 

Regional Strategy to Address Nutrient Problems from Runoff, Fertilizers, and Septic Systems:
 

Newport, RI ......................................................................................................................................3
 

Feasibility Study to Address Nitrate Contamination of County Water Supplies: North Whatcom 

County, WA ......................................................................................................................................4
 

Nitrate from Fertilizer Cooperative with Waste Lagoon Contaminates City’s Water Supply: 

Chippewa Falls, WI...........................................................................................................................5
 

Nitrate in City Wells Addressed by Wellhead Ordinance and Cropping Agreement: City of 

Waupaca, WI....................................................................................................................................6
 

August 2009 A-1 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix A 

High Nitrogen Levels in Wastewater Effluent Contaminating 

Water Source: Mashpee, MA 

Topic
 

Case study illustrating the cost to reduce nitrogen from a community on-site septic system. 

Problem 

High nitrogen levels from a community septic system effluent are occurring in a wellhead 

protection area and need to be reduced to meet strict water quality regulations. The nitrogen 

levels in the septic tank have averaged 57 mg/L. 

Impacts 

The Town of Mashpee in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, consists of 24 units of mixed housing styles 

with 9,800 square feet of shops. The town was faced with a dilemma of how to meet the strict 

water quality regulation of ten mg/L maximum total nitrogen concentration in its wastewater 

effluent in a cost effective manner. The town is located in a wellhead protection area and its 

wastewater discharges contribute to water supply aquifers. 

Solutions 

The town added a new passive nitrogen removal process that includes a biofilter and a nitrogen 

filter to its community septic system at an average cost of less than $30,000 per household, plus 

an electrical cost of about $0.75 per day. The operation and maintenance costs are minimal and 

can be monitored from a remote location. The effluent discharged from the system now 

averages 3.53 mg/L. 

For more information 

www.ci.mashpee.ma.us 

August 2009 A-2 
 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix A 

Regional Strategy to Address Nutrient Problems from Runoff, 

Fertilizers, and Septic Systems: Newport, RI 

Topic
 

Case study illustrating the social non-monetary costs of a nutrient problem.
 

Problem 

Much of Newport’s water supply protection area (the Aquidneck Island Watershed) is intensely 

developed, with serious pollution risks posed from urban development, active agriculture, and 

continued suburbanization. Treated water meets all drinking water standards but the Rhode 

Island Department of Environmental Management has ranked all water supply reservoirs and 

tributaries as “impaired” due to poor habitat, high bacteria, or excessive algae. 

Impacts 

The Newport Water Division maintains a system of seven interconnected surface water 

reservoirs in the Aquidneck Island Watershed. These reservoirs serve the entire City of Newport; 

and about 70 percent of residents in Middletown and Portsmouth. Newport Water’s distribution 

network consists of two interconnected systems with three drinking water treatment plants. 

Solutions
 

The Aquidneck regional water supply protection strategy includes:
 

 Inspecting water supply and the protection area regularly for potential pollution 

sources. 

 Expanding reservoir sampling to monitor nutrient enrichment levels and track the 

frequency and duration of algal blooms.
 

 Town planning and land use ordinances.
 

 Coordinating drinking water protection with Phase 2 Stormwater Plans. 

 Expanding community pollution prevention education.
 

 Controlling runoff and nutrients. 

 Using zoning setbacks for maximum protection of small headwater streams and 

wetlands. 

 Developing standards for redevelopment and infill to limit impervious cover; retrofit 

storm water systems and restore wetland buffers. 

 Using creative development techniques to preserve farmland and open space. 

 Restricting use of hazardous materials. 

 Inspecting and maintaining sewers to prevent leakage and infiltration. 

 Adopting septic system management programs requiring regular inspection and 

maintenance.
 

 Phasing out cesspools in critical areas. 

No comprehensive cost data is available. 

For more information 

www.cityofnewport.com 

http://www.uri.edu/ce/wq/RESOURCES/dwater/Assessments/PDFs/aquidneck_factsheet.pdf 

August 2009 A-3 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix A 

Feasibility Study to Address Nitrate Contamination of County 

Water Supplies: North Whatcom County, WA 

Topic 

Case study illustrating the cost of treatment or using an alternative supply to reduce nitrates in a 

ground water supply. 

Problem 

Nine community water systems in North Whatcom County have high nitrate concentrations in 

their groundwater supplies. Samples taken at various sites throughout the Abbotsford Aquifer 

(the largest unconfined and the most extensively used aquifer in the region) have frequently 

exceeded 10 mg/L of nitrate as nitrogen, with individual values ranging from 0.03 mg/L to 91.9 

mg/L. 

Impacts 

These systems are under compliance orders to reduce the nitrate levels to meet drinking water 

standards. 

Summary of Study 

The Washington Department of Health contracted with the nearby City of Lynden to evaluate 

the most feasible method of reducing nitrate concentrations for these systems. The study 

included a minimum of two alternatives: 1) Water system treatment; 2) Water supplied by the 

City of Lynden. Two other alternatives were considered for two of the systems which were using 

blended water from each base alternative. 

It was found (from all cost standpoints) that connection to the City of Lynden was the most 

economical solution. However, water availability associated with legal rights may ultimately 

render the most economical alternative solution to be infeasible. The report supplies additional 

details regarding the cost estimates and findings. 

August 2009 A-4 
 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix A 

Nitrate from Fertilizer Cooperative with Waste Lagoon 

Contaminates City’s Water Supply: Chippewa Falls, WI 

Topic
 

Case study illustrating the cost of protection from and treatment of nitrates. 

Problem
 

High nitrate levels in a well that provided approximately 60 percent of the city’s water. 

Impacts 

The City of Chippewa Falls, which is located in rural northwestern Chippewa County, receives 

100 percent of its drinking water from groundwater. Local geology consists of deep outwash 

deposits, which are fairly permeable and allow contaminants to easily reach groundwater. 

Solutions 

The solution started with the development of a watershed management plan that was 

coordinated with some neighboring towns. In response to a recommendation that came out of 

the watershed plan, the city developed a proactive wellhead protection plan, and later added a 

new well and nitrate removal system. Furthermore, the city filed a lawsuit against a fertilizer 

cooperative that was determined to be a major nitrate source. The known costs associated with 

these efforts totaled $2,596,700 from the following expenditures: 

Cost Component 

$40,000 Expenditure to prepare a wellhead protection plan. This funding came from 

grants from the Wisconsin DNR as well as $8,000 from the City of Chippewa Falls. 

$160,700 Expenditure for ongoing groundwater monitoring studies conducted over the 

course of ten years. This was funded by the City. 

Unknown A consultant had previously delineated and mapped recharge areas, and time of 

travel zones for city wells. 

$115,000 A consultant had previously delineated and mapped recharge areas, and time of 

travel zones for city wells. 

$2.2 million Expenditure to install a nitrate removal system in the east well-field after nitrate 

levels failed to decrease. This cost customers $170 each. 

$81,000 Annual expenditure for chemicals, labor, and maintenance. 

Unknown 

A lawsuit was filed against a local fertilizer cooperative. After three years of 

litigation, the city opted for a monetary settlement as continuing with the case 

would have cost the city too much and was unlikely to recover the entire costs of 

cleanup, monitoring and new well construction, much less result in additional 

compensation. 

For more information 

http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/landcenter/groundwater/casestudies/ChippewaFallsWHP.pdf 

August 2009 A-5 
 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix A 

Nitrate in City Wells Addressed by Wellhead Ordinance and 

Cropping Agreement: City of Waupaca, WI 

Topic
 

Case study illustrating the social non-monetary costs of a nutrient problem. 

Problem 

Approximately 55% of Waupaca County is agricultural land which often use nitrogen based 

fertilizers; and this has resulted in a decrease in water quality. In some wells, the city was still 

struggling with nitrate levels close to ten parts per million (ppm) (the Maximum Contaminant 

Level for drinking water) during the early to mid 1990s. 

Impacts 

Some of the City of Waupaca’s wells are located in rural areas outside of the city near 

agricultural land. 

Solution 

The city adopted a wellhead protection ordinance in 1992 and at the advice of the wellhead 

protection commission, 24 monitoring wells were installed around the two most productive 

wells. 

Cropping agreements were made to reward farmers for growing crops that require less nitrogen 

fertilizer. These voluntary agreements have had a positive effect on groundwater while allowing 

farmers to continue their livelihood. Even though nitrates are still a concern, the city is now well 

within compliance of standards. The cropping agreements are ongoing and take less time to 

monitor now that they have been implemented. More farmers have become interested in 

cropping agreements as they see their neighbors participating; and some of these farmers will 

likely enroll in cropping agreements in the future. 

For more information 

http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/landcenter/groundwater/casestudies/Waupacacroppingagreement.pdf 

August 2009 A-6 
 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix B 

Appendix B: Nutrient Innovations - Review and Analysis of 

Existing Tools 

August 2009 B-1 
 August 2009 B-2

Tools Effectiveness in Reducing Nutrients Limitations Stand alone or rely on other tools Implications/Costs/ 

I. Tools for Point Sources and Non-Point Sources Water Quality Standards (WQS) Water quality standards define the goals for a waterbody but do not, by themselves, result in a reduction. Narrative nutrient criteria are widely used but are not easily applied. A numeric nutrient criterion would provide a tangible water quality goal against which other programs can tailor pollution controls. (1) One numeric criterion may not be applied uniformly across the Nation. (2) Additional analysis and site specific monitoring data are needed to develop numeric nutrient limits. (3) WQSs adoption process may be quite lengthy, especially due to lack of scientific basis for establishing effects-based numeric criterion for pollutants like nutrients that do not exhibit threshold response. WQSs are not a stand alone tool. For reductions to occur, the WQSs need to be implemented through NPDES permit limits, TMDLs, Watershed Plans, etc. WQS do however provide the ideal framework within which to integrate programs and approaches to insure that WQS goals are met. The costs will vary depen

site specific analysis cond

develop criteria. The use values could minimize sigadditional costs for WQS Ecoregional criteria based statistical methodology in guidance may not be sciedefensible. Maintaining thorder to maintain/support uses is not currently posswaters already above critspecific criteria require crsecondary impacts, e.g. DChlorophyll a, etc. 

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) TMDLs provide loading limits for point and nonpoint sources that, if implemented will achieve WQSs. Nutrient TMDLs have been developed using existing narrative criteria, but the availability of numeric nutrient criteria would likely facilitate the TMDL process. Expression of criteria in terms not conducive to assessing consistency under a range of flows will make TMDL development difficult since both wet and dry conditions must be considered. (1) Approaches to translate narrative criteria into TMDL endpoints are not applied consistently. (2) Wasteload allocations have to be implemented through permit limits. (3) Nonpoint source reductions are not enforceable. (4) Adoption of TMDL likely to lead to difficulties in NPDES based on reasonable assurance problems with NPS bringing PS allocations to levels that are not reasonable or fair. TMDLs provide loading limits for point and nonpoint sources that, if implemented will achieve WQSs. The TMDL, by itself, does not result in implementation of controls. It relies on NPDES permits to implement point source controls and mostly on voluntary programs to implement nonpoint source controls. Developing WLAs for NPDES regulated stormwater leads to issues with permitting these intermittent wet weather sources as well. Nutrient TMDLs, particula

tidal waters, may require models (which also need monitoring data). Staff woto have training and accemodels. Large scale modLong Island Sound, MissiChesapeake) provide amopportunity for debate ovand who is responsible fo

SRFs Provides funding to achieve nutrient removal. In many states, funds nutrient removal for municipal point sources only. Limited by amount of funding available. Does not effectuate nutrient removal by itself; relies on permit requirements to force nutrient removal and a local government entity to seek a loan for a nutrient removal project. Nutrient reduction project

compete with other WQ pas CSO, SSO and I&I for funding. 
 August 2009 B-3 

Tools Effectiveness in Reducing Nutrients Limitations Stand alone or rely on other tools Implications/Costs/ 

Water quality trading Provides cost-effective reductions in nutrient loading, on balance, within a watershed. May work best for reducing downstream effects of nutrients. Relative location of, for example, non-point source reductions to the location of a point source discharge may influence how effective the "trade" is in improving local water quality. If the trade is between non- point sources and point sources, need to have non-point sources willing to implement controls. Need to have a target load or water quality standard in order to generate "credits" or have some idea of how many pounds are available for trading in a particular watershed. Usually implemented through a NPDES permit. If the trade is between non-point sources and point sources, need to have non-point sources willing to implement controls. May be political issues to 

about point sources being sources that can be forceThere needs to be a state program established and control technology/BMP eand costs, all of which takresources to run. Probabhave a cost-share prograagain requires resources staff resources to adminisvoluntary action by non-p

Load reduction targets/optimal loading Provides a land use or watershed specific target for nutrient reduction that doesn't rely on WQS or TMDL. Implementation is most reliable for point sources, because reductions can be mandated through NPDES. Although development of reduction targets or optimal loading may occur through a stakeholder process, there is still not a tool for reliable reductions from non-point sources. Implementation for point sources is through the NPDES permit. Implementation of reductions for non-point sources relies on voluntary action. Could get cost-effective r

point sources but states s

with getting reliable reducnon-point sources. 

II. Tools for Point Sources National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) Permits NPDES permits have been developed for nutrient dischargers. NPDES permit limits are enforceable and effective in achieving controls for point sources. Watershed permitting approaches have been applied to addressing the nutrient problem at a broader scale. (1) Does not directly address nonpoint source contributions. (2) Water quality trading markets are not widely available, particularly with nonpoint sources. (3) Rapid nutrient reduction requires that permits actually get issued when they expire and dischargers comply with permit limits. Limit of technology mandates, such as can occur via the TMDL route, can cause multiple years' delay before permits are effective due to appeals and extended compliance schedules. Stand alone for point source controls. May rely on water quality trading to address nonpoint source reductions. Costs of nutrient reductio

very high depending on th

that are put in place to aclimits on the permit. In the POTWs the costs of contimpact the rates paid for wthe community. Costs for improvements to provide 

impact on available funds other WQ issues (CSO, Srepairs to infrastructure, ustormwater). 
 August 2009 B-4 

Tools Effectiveness in Reducing Nutrients Limitations Stand alone or rely on other tools Implications/Costs/ 

Wastewater utility tools Treatment technologies are available to remove P and N compounds. EPA’s recent evaluation of nutrient treatment technologies suggest that even with state-of-the-art treatment, many facilities may not be able to comply with likely nutrient WQBELs. Many discharges’ concentrations currently may be one order of magnitude higher than expected criteria. Nutrient removal to approach WQBELs will require substantial modifications to POTWs. Facility upgrades will be expensive and SRF funding may be overburdened by the number of facilities undergoing simultaneous upgrades. WQBELs may be unrealistically restrictive due to TMDL/NPDES rules that force limit of technology on PS because NPS implementation not reasonably assured. Inability to consider cost/benefit makes implementing permits unacceptable to regulated community. Stand alone tool but in watersheds dominated by nonpoint sources of nutrients, installation of treatment technologies by POTWs will not get the watersheds back in attainment without significant reductions in NPS loadings. Many POTWs are claimin

are unfairly being targetenutrient controls while NPare given a pass. Nutrienapproach WQBELs will resubstantial modifications Facility upgrades needed water quality standards wand will be needed by masource dischargers over a of time (5-10 years). SRF be overburdened by the nfacilities undergoing simuupgrades. Compliance wbecause many facilities mable to comply with nutrieeven if they install state-otreatment. POTWs are alother compounding factoconsidered (e.g., increaseuse, footprint, sludge prodgreenhouse gas emissionevaluating the costs/benetreatment technology upg

State effluent limits Very effective in getting reductions from point sources. Does not address non-point sources. Implemented through NPDES permit. Good tool for addressing 

pollution in a watershed dpoint sources. Across the handed and predictable fosources. May be costly a

burdensome for municipadepending on technology meet the limit. 

Federal technology requirements Very effective in getting across the board reductions from point sources. Does not address non-point sources. Implemented through NPDES permit. Good tool for addressing 

pollution from point sourcboard, even-handed and point sources. May be coburdensome for municipadepending on technology 
 August 2009 B-5 

Tools Effectiveness in Reducing Nutrients Limitations Stand alone or rely on other tools Implications/Costs/ 

III. Tools for Non-Point Sources CWA Section 319 (Nonpoint Source Management Program) Under section 319, State, Territories, and Indian Tribes receive grant money which support a wide variety of activities including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint source implementation projects. The program relies on watershed plans as a primary tool. Effectiveness will depend on the comprehensiveness of the plan, the management of the grant funds and how completely the plan is implemented. (1) As a voluntary program, it relies on the commitment of watershed groups and other stakeholders to implement and maintain controls. (2) Depends on the availability of grant funds. (3) May need to increase availability of resources and training on various BMPs. Stand alone for nonpoint source controls The implementation of co

depends on availability of and voluntary action. 

Phosphate bans Phosphate bans (e.g., detergents) have been effective at the State level. Local ordinances have been used effectively to require use of low P or no-P fertilizer in residential areas. (1) Bans don't address agricultural applications of fertilizer. (2) Bans need to be comprehensive to be effective, e.g., restrict commercial applicators, have P-free alternatives available, and educate self- applicators. (3) Phosphate bans don't impact other nutrients (e.g., nitrogen). (4) Phosphate bans typically work best at State level-- difficult to implement at the local level as shoppers purchase products outside of their immediate area. States may need to review their authorities for implementing a phosphate ban. This may require legislative action in many States. Likely to involve other State agencies (e.g., commerce) due to regulating a product. Education and enforcement is required. States implementing a ph

would have costs for legiseducation, outreach, and Costs for fertilizer ordinanand enforcement borne fopart by local units of goveand Federal agencies madevelop model ordinanceeducation and outreach, adevelop incentives (or reqget local units of governmappropriate ordinances. 

Optimization of agricultural fertilizer application Optimizing the amount and timing of fertilizer application to the needs of the crop and soil can be very effective in reducing nutrient loading in watersheds where over application of fertilizer is a main 

contributor 

Relies on education of crop producers on how to optimize, and on their voluntary action to do so (unless required by a Nutrient Management Plan pursuant to a CAFO permit). 

Variable--nutrient management plans can be voluntary or can be required under a CAFO permit or state law/regulation 

Recent high fertilizer priceproducers to implement omanure or biosolids are tsource, optimization may demand and therefore a ndispose of these materialincreased cost to the gen
 August 2009 B-6 

Tools Effectiveness in Reducing Nutrients Limitations Stand alone or rely on other tools Implications/Costs/ 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill) The Farm Bill includes funding for a variety of conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQUIP). The program offers financial and technical help to assist eligible participants install or implement structural and management practices on eligible agricultural land. Effectiveness will depend on the willingness of farmers to implement voluntary nutrient controls. Agriculture has been identified as a primary source of nutrients in many areas of the country; this program could help achieve the reductions needed in those areas. (1) Dependent on the willingness of farmers to install and maintain controls that will reduce nutrients and the willingness of State Technical Committees/county offices to distribute funds for nutrient controls. (2) Relies on availability of funds. (3) Though the controls implemented through this program may reduce nutrients, the main focus of the program is not the improvement of water quality. (4) Funding cannot be targeted to watersheds with highest nutrient pollution loading. Stand alone for nonpoint source controls. The program is managed 

Department of Agriculture

Local planning & zoning Local ordinances can be used effectively to regulate release rates and stormwater volumes, and to protect/preserve areas where stormwater can infiltrate. Huge opportunity to encourage or mandate the use of BMPs including low impact development (LID) practices on new development. Most jurisdictions have erosion and sedimentation requirements that should help with P by reducing particulates. Also local ordinances can be very effective in maintaining buffers around wetlands and watercourses that help with nutrient reductions. (1) Local ordinances will typically not address the concentrations of nutrients in discharges. (2) Local politics may sometimes result in local requirements that are not overly stringent. (3) Some areas where there are nutrient contributions may be outside the jurisdiction of municipalities (i.e., unincorporated areas). (4) Municipalities need education/motivation to implement better land use controls including reasons not related to WQ such as transportation benefits, sustainable communities, etc. Stand alone but education and enforcement is required. Costs for ordinance adop

enforcement borne for the local units of governmentFederal agencies may nemodel ordinances, conduand outreach, and to try tincentives (or requiremenunits of government to enappropriate ordinances. Mmay need to amend their ordinances to remove baLID or BMPs. 
 August 2009 B-7 

Tools Effectiveness in Reducing Nutrients Limitations Stand alone or rely on other tools Implications/Costs/ 

Development requirements for runoff Local requirements can be enacted to prevent flooding (e.g., detention basins) in order to reduce the volume of water hitting a sewer system during a rain event. Low impact development ordinances (e.g., bioswales, artificial wetlands, rain gardens, etc.) can be very effective at reducing the volume of runoff and absorbing/retaining nutrients. States can reinforce requirements through incorporating them into general NPDES permits for construction stormwater. Requirements to control/reduce flooding can be effective in moderating flow/volume but are not as effective in nutrient removal. Stand alone but education and enforcement is required. Costs for ordinance adop

enforcement borne for the local units of governmentFederal agencies may nemodel ordinances, conduand outreach, and to try tincentives (or requiremenunits of government to enappropriate ordinances. Mmay need to amend their ordinances to remove baLID (in many cases deveget variances to incorporapractices). 

Watershed plans Watershed groups can receive incremental Section 319 funds to develop watershed plans. Although there is no formal requirement for EPA to approve watershed plans, the plans must address nine required elements if they are developed in support of a section 319-funded project. These watershed plans are good vehicles to build stakeholder/ local involvement and to direct 319 funds to the most beneficial implementation projects. Watershed plans are not self- implementing; they need funds (e.g., 319 grants) and committed voluntary action to implement. Need other programs/funds to implement the plans. Local groups can be very 

about protecting/restoring watershed but can get frubureaucratic process and available to get plans imp
 August 2009 B-8 

Tools Effectiveness in Reducing Nutrients Limitations Stand alone or rely on other tools Implications/Costs/ 

IV. Tools for Other CWA Section 401 Certification Under 401, States/Tribes can review and approve, condition, or deny all Federal permits or licenses that might result in a discharge to State/Tribal waters. Major Federal actions subject to 401 are Section 402 and 404 permits (in nondelegated States), FERC hydropower licenses, and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 9 and 10 permits. Through 401 certification, States/Tribes can address associated chemical, physical and biological impacts (e.g., DO levels, turbidity, inundation of habitat, stream volumes/fluctuations, filling of habitat, loss of aquatic species as a result of habitat alterations, etc.). States/Tribes could also look at the impacts of the action on narrative and numeric nutrient criteria. States/Tribes can negotiate with developers who need a 401 cert for a stream crossing or small wetland fill to incorporate mitigating measures into the site design to reduce environmental impact (bigger setbacks from sensitive habitats, fewer lots, better storm water BMPs, etc). (1) Limited to any permit or license issued by a federal agency for any activity that may result in a discharge into waters of the state/tribe. (2) A large project often requires an extended period of time for certification because they are complex and require significant state/tribal involvement. (3) Denials based on potential exceedances of narrative criteria may be more difficult to document and more difficult to defend if challenged vs. numeric criteria. (4) Nutrient-control related conditions included with certifications most likely to be focused on no net increase instead of overall net reduction. (5) Recent decisions on the scope of 401 review may make mitigating measures for wetlands more difficult. Stand alone but rely on a State's or Tribe's water quality standards. Political pressure to get s

projects through. State/Feresources limited in terms all of these potential 401 projects. 

Drinking water utility tools Treatment technologies are available to remove nitrate/nitrite in drinking water (ion exchange, reverse osmosis). These can remove other nutrients. Removing the nutrients from drinking water is more costly and less efficient than preventing or reducing nutrients from entering the source water in the first place. Nitrate treatment can be stand alone. Reduction of levels in the source water is attempted as another barrier. Installation of nitrate treat

expensive. Unless levels 

water can be reduced or of water found, there is no install treatment. 
 August 2009 B-9 Tools Effectiveness in Reducing Nutrients Limitations Stand alone or rely on other tools Implications/Costs/ 

Dam relicensing/ removal FERC relicensing is subject to NEPA although most projects involve environmental assessments (EAs) rather than EISs. Planned projects are supposed to minimize damage to the environment and incorporate requirements to reduce environmental impacts. Nutrient removal might play out on a site- specific basis but isn't the biggest issue associated with relicensing. In some cases, operational rules might enhance a reservoir's capacity as a summer nutrient sink/winter nutrient source. Manipulation of flushing rates might be helpful but certainly won’t be a big part of any nutrient solution. Dam removal will move the nutrient load downstream and will likely bring a nutrient impaired reservoir back to attainment. Re-licensing: Different criteria in different states; safety, rather than water quality is primary goal. Issues involving sedimentation, flow, stagnant pools, low dissolved oxygen, heavy metals, and habitat alterations/scouring tend to be issues looked at under relicensing. Nutrients might be considered secondarily. Stand alone but the direct linkage to nutrient reduction is a stretch. Relicensing of dams is of

controversial, very time cpolitical, and a lengthy pr

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix C 

Appendix C: Review and Analysis of Alternative Tools 

Table C-1. Review and Analysis of Alternative Tools................................................................C-2 

Recommendations for New Tools to Reduce Nutrient Loadings .............................................C-6 

August 2009 C-1 
 August 2009 C-2 

Table C-1. Review and Analysis of Alternative Tools Type 

Governmental Level of Implementation: Federal/State/Local TOOLS Threshold Criteria Balancing Criteria Scale of Imple

Effectiveness 

[3= High, 2= Medium, 1= Low]

[3= High, 2= Medium, 1= Low]

Environmental Improvement 

Degree of Accountability for 

Technical Feasibility 

[3=Excellent, 2=Fair, 1=Poor]

Stakeholder Acceptance 

[3= High, 2= Medium, 1= Low]

Cost

 1 > $2M,2 >$1M - <$2M, 3< $1M 

(relative to the avg NPS Grant) [N

ational, Regional, State, 

Watershed]

PS F Detergent Phosphate Ban 2 3 3 2 2 S 

NPS/PS All Protection of Natural Nutrient Sinks 2 2 2 2 2 N S 

PS F Expand NPDES Permit Post Construction Requirements 2 2 3 2 2 S 

PS/ NPS F Comprehensive CAFO Regulation 2 2 3 2 2 S 

PS/NPS F NPDES Stormwater Regulation to of Smaller Communities 2 2 2 2 2 S 

PS/ NPS F Market Based Nutrient Reduction Land Use Incentives 2 2 2 2 2 S 

PS F Control Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Discharge 2 2 2 2 2 S 

PS/NPS F Implement Large-Scale Watershed TMDL (e.g., Mississippi River Basin) 2 2 2 2 1 N R S 

NPS All Nutrient Load Reduction Strategy 1 1 2 2 3 N R S 

NPS/PS S/L Pilot Studies 1 1 2 2 2 N S 
 August 2009 C-3 

Type 

Governmental Level of Implementation: 

Federal/State/Local TOOLS 

Threshold Criteria Balancing Criteria Scale of Imple

Effectiveness 

[3= High, 2= Medium, 1= Low]

[3= High, 2= Medium, 1= Low]

Environmental Improvement 

Degree of Accountability for 

Technical Feasibility 

[3=Excellent, 2=Fair, 1=Poor]

Stakeholder Acceptance 

[3= High, 2= Medium, 1= Low]

Cost

 1 > $2M,2 >$1M - <$2M, 3< $1M 

(relative to the avg NPS Grant)

[National, Regional, State, 

Watershed]

NPS/PS S/L Volunteer Monitoring 1 1 2 2 3 S 

NPS F NPS Regulation 3 3 2 1 1 N S 

PS S/L Issue Nutrient Limit Permits 2 3 3 2 2 N S 

PS/ NPS F 

Federally Required State WQS 

Numeric Nutrient Water Quality 

Criteria 

2 2 3 2 2 N S 

PS F Update Secondary Nutrient Treatment Requirements 2 3 3 2 2 N S 

NPS F 

Adoption of a Monitoring 

Paradigm/Watershed Action Level for 

fertilizer application based on the 

Atrazine example for pesticides 

registration 

2 2 2 2 2 N S 

PS/NPS F Green Labeling 2 2 3 3 3 N S 

PS F Develop Nutrient Numeric Criteria- Permit Limits Guidance 2 2 2 2 3 N S 

NPS S/L State Established Nutrient Ceiling for Listings 2 2 2 2 3 N S 
 August 2009 C-4 

Type 

Governmental Level of Implementation: Federal/State/Local TOOLS Threshold Criteria Balancing Criteria Scale of Imple

Effectiveness 

[3= High, 2= Medium, 1= Low]

[3= High, 2= Medium, 1= Low]

Environmental Improvement 

Degree of Accountability for 

Technical Feasibility 

[3=Excellent, 2=Fair, 1=Poor]

Stakeholder Acceptance 

[3= High, 2= Medium, 1= Low]

Cost

 1 > $2M,2 >$1M - <$2M, 3< $1M 

(relative to the avg NPS Grant) [N

ational, Regional, State, 

Watershed]

NPS S/L Project Implementation Plan Tracking 1 1 2 2 3 N S 

NPS F 

TSCA required reduction of 

phosphorus in detergent and water 

solubility of fertilizer 

2 3 3 2 2 N 

PS/NPS F Control Air Deposition of Nitrogen 2 2 2 2 1 N 

PS/NPS F TRI for Nutrient Releases 2 2 3 2 2 N 

NPS F SIP Process 2 3 2 2 2 N 

NPS/PS S/L Regulate PS Treatment and Post NPS BMP Application Loading 2 2 2 2 2 N 

NPS S/L Capping 2 2 2 2 2 N 

PS F Cap PS at current (2010) load 2 2 3 2 2 N 

NPS F MS4-type regs 2 2 2 1 2 N 

NPS F Cap Non-Point Source at Current Load 2 2 2 1 2 N 

NPS F Corporate Stewardship Program 2 2 3 3 2 N 
 August 2009 C-5 Type 

Governmental Level of Implementation: Federal/State/Local TOOLS Threshold Criteria Balancing Criteria Scale of Imple

Effectiveness 

[3= High, 2= Medium, 1= Low]

[3= High, 2= Medium, 1= Low]

Environmental Improvement 

Degree of Accountability for 

Technical Feasibility 

[3=Excellent, 2=Fair, 1=Poor]

Stakeholder Acceptance 

[3= High, 2= Medium, 1= Low]

Cost

 1 > $2M,2 >$1M - <$2M, 3< $1M 

(relative to the avg NPS Grant) [N

ational, Regional, State, 

Watershed]

NPS F Use of EQIP Funds 2 2 2 3 2 N NPS S/L Watershed Impervious Surface Limit Action Levels 2 3 2 2 2 NPS S/L Agricultural Waste Composting 2 1 2 2 2 

NPS/PS All Voluntary Agreements 1 1 2 2 3 NPS/PS S/L Tracking of Watershed Implementation Plans 1 1 2 2 3 

PS/ NPS F Phased WQS for "Restoration Uses" 2 2 3 2 2 

PS/NPS F Nutrient Focused Targeted Watershed Initiative EPA/USDA 2 2 2 2 2 

S/L Nutrient Bioharvesting 2 2 2 2 1 
 

 

 

 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix C 

Recommendations for New Tools to Reduce Nutrient Loadings 

The members of the Nutrient Innovations Task group who identified and evaluated potential 

new tools to address the increasing nutrient problem in our nation’s waters included senior 

managers from water programs in EPA headquarters, EPA regions, and 7 states. Nearly 40 new 

tools were identified, discussed and evaluated. Tools such as tracking watershed 

implementation plans, encouraging voluntary monitoring, capping phosphorus discharges, 

regulating nonpoint source discharges, and many others were considered by a subset of EPA and 

state senior managers. Some tools depended on statutory or regulatory changes and some 

depended on the creation of new programs. The appendix to this report contains the full list of 

tools that were considered. 

To identify the tools that held the most promise to reduce nutrient loadings into our nation’s 

waters, the managers ranked the tools based on overall effectiveness, degree of accountability 

for environmental improvement, and technical feasibility. The managers also took into account 

public acceptance and cost. The managers relied on their experience in implementing water 

programs and qualitatively ranked these tools based on their best professional judgment. We 

recommend the 5 highest ranked tools in terms of overall effectiveness for further evaluation to 

determine how they might best be structured for purposes of implementation. A broader 

discussion among stakeholders towards that end is warranted and encouraged. We see these 

recommendations as the first step in engaging in such a discussion about what we can and need 

to do differently to be more successful in abating the increase in nutrient loadings to our waters 

and start on the path of significant reductions. Current regulatory and incentive-based to-0ols 

and approaches are not yielding the results needed to protect water quality. 

The tools that were most highly ranked as having the most promise to reduce nutrient loadings 

and therefore judged to have the highest overall effectiveness were the following: 

Type Tools 

Scale of 

Implementation Point Source Non-point 

Source 

National State 

Regulatory 

Nonpoint Source Regulation: Seek 

legislative change(s) to authorize regulation 

of nonpoint source pollution to require 

nonpoint sources to achieve water quality 

targets and/or technology-based 

performance standards. 

√ √ √

Regulatory 

Establish technology treatment 

requirements for nutrients and thereby 

establish technology based limits for 

NPDES point sources that discharge 

nutrients to waters—update secondary 

treatment requirements. 

√ √ √

Source 

Reduction Detergent Phosphate Ban √ √

Regulatory Federally Promulgate Numeric Nutrient 

Water Quality Criteria/Standards √ √ √

Incentivebased Green Labeling √ √ √ √

August 2009 C-6 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix C 

It is fair to point out that the recommendation to seek to regulate nonpoint sources with a 

similar rigor to that of point sources was judged to be the most effective tool in reducing 

nutrient loadings to our nation’s waters since it is broadly recognized that nonpoint sources 

contribute the bulk of the nutrient loadings to waters and those loadings have been the most 

difficult to control and reduce. 

It is also important to point out that while Green Labeling did not rank in the top five for overall 

effectiveness, in the category of incentive-based tools it did rank highest in terms of overall 

effectiveness. Corporate stewardship was also a new tool that was ranked highly in terms of 

overall effectiveness in the incentive-based category. When presenting our recommendations, 

the workgroup considered it important to provide a mix of tool types: regulatory, source 

reduction, and incentive-based. 

Finally, one prominent tool that is included in both the existing tools table and the new tools 

table in the appendix is water quality trading. Many on the workgroup commented that water 

quality trading is an important tool that has not yet been fully realized to yield the results in 

nutrient reductions that are needed. It is a tool that could be bolstered and made to work 

better. Its success depends on the creation of markets for nutrient trading. Certainty in 

regulatory requirements and establishment of clear numeric targets for nutrients provide the 

necessary framework for water quality trading to work. The recommended tools to regulate 

nonpoint sources and establish numeric criteria for nutrients would potentially expedite the use 

of water quality trading. 

August 2009 C-7 

D. 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Appendix D: Accountability Fact Sheets 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria........................................................................................................ D-2
 

Maryland BayStat Program...................................................................................................... D-5
 

Florida’s Impaired Waters Rule ............................................................................................... D-7
 

Economic Incentives and Disincentives................................................................................. D-11
 

Green and Eco-Labeling of Farm Products (Based on Farming Methods) ............................ D-15
 

Voluntary Agreements with Private Sector........................................................................... D-18
 

The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act........................................................................ D-20
 

Toxic Release Inventory......................................................................................................... D-23 
 

Pinto Creek Decision.............................................................................................................. D-26
 

Virginia Watershed-based Permit ......................................................................................... D-29
 

Strengthening Reasonable Assurance for TMDLs.................................................................. D-32
 

Connecticut Nitrogen Credit Exchange Program................................................................... D-34
 

Dutch Nutrient Trading System ............................................................................................. D-37
 

Maryland Policy for Nutrient Cap Management and Trading ............................................... D-40
 

Ohio Water Quality Trading................................................................................................... D-43
 

Pennsylvania Nutrient Trading Program ............................................................................... D-45
 

California Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program........................................................................... D-49
 

Iowa Onsite Wastewater Loan Program................................................................................ D-52
 

North Carolina Community Conservation Assistance Program (CCAP)................................. D-55
 

Wisconsin’s Priority Watershed and Priority Lake Program.................................................. D-58
 

CAFO/AFO Nutrient Management......................................................................................... D-61
 

California Agricultural Water Quality Grant Program ........................................................... D-65
 

Delaware’s Nutrient Management Program ......................................................................... D-68
 

Iowa Livestock Water Quality Facilities Program .................................................................. D-71
 

Kansas Clean Water Farms—River Friendly Farms Project ................................................... D-74
 

North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program (ACSP)........................................................ D-77
 

Ohio Agriculture Pollution Abatement Program ................................................................... D-80
 

Virginia Agricultural Stewardship Act.................................................................................... D-82
 

Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Performance Standards and Prohibitions................................ D-85
 

Clean Air Act: State Implementation Plans ........................................................................... D-89
 

August 2009 D-1 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Numeric Nutrient Criteria 

Overview 

This accountability method is based on the Clean Water Act, which requires states to adopt 

water quality standards. Numeric nutrient criteria employ ecoregional or site-specific water 

quality standards that utilize criteria for one or several key nutrient parameters to protect 

aquatic and recreational designated uses from nutrient inputs. 

Description 

Many states are in the process of developing numeric nutrient criteria. Other states (e.g., 

Minnesota, Virginia, Washington) have already approved numeric nutrient criteria for types of 

waterbodies, such as lakes and reservoirs on a regional basis. Some states have developed sitespecific criteria for a specific waterbody or criteria based on supporting a particular designated 

use. Criteria development is generally employing recommendations from EPA’s ecoregional 

nutrient criteria guidance documents, developing criteria that focus on one or a combination of 

the following parameters: TN, TP, chlorophyll-a, and turbidity (Secchi disc depth). The principal 

focus of numeric criteria development has been on lakes and reservoirs, with efforts to reduce 

nutrient inputs into streams resulting in facility specific effluent limitations. 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

Minnesota currently has two groups of numeric nutrient criteria, one for designated lake trout 

lakes in all ecoregions, and one for trout lakes (with no resident lake trout) in all ecoregions. 

Criteria exist for total phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and Secchi disc depth. Class 2a lakes and 

reservoirs (both lake trout and non-lake trout waterbodies) are also subject to narrative nutrient 

standards (MPCA 2008). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has drafted 

eutrophication criteria to replace these existing standards. The new standards have been 

developed for a particular lake or reservoir designated use (classes 2A, 2B, 2a, and 2b) and are 

specific to one of four ecoregions in Minnesota (Heiskary and Wilson 2004). 

Virginia has developed site-specific numeric nutrient criteria for concentrations of chlorophyll a 

and TP to protect aquatic life and recreational designated uses in lakes and reservoirs. 

Additional listings are made when a new reservoir is constructed or recent data availability 

warrants development of nutrient criteria for a particular waterbody. The TP criteria are only 

applicable if the lake or reservoir has received algaecide treatments during the monitoring and 

assessment period (April 1 through October 31). Sampling is conducted in the lacustrine portion 

of the lake at a depth of one meter or less over the 7 month monitoring period and distributed 

in a manner to be representative of the whole waterbody. If monitoring reveals that the 

applicable criteria are exceeded, the waterbody is listed as impaired and Virginia’s State Water 

Control Board will consult with the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to determine the 

health of the waterbody’s fishery and the status of designated uses. If the numeric nutrient 

criteria of a lake or reservoir does not provide for the attainment and maintenance of water 

quality standards of downstream waters, then the nutrient criteria may be modified on a sitespecific basis to ensure protection of water quality standards of downstream waters (VSWCB 

2007). 

August 2009 D-2 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Washington has developed ecoregion specific numeric nutrient criteria that vary according to a 

lake or reservoir’s trophic state (i.e. oligotrophic, mesotrophic, or eutrophic). Each ecoregion has 

a particular action value for epilimnetic TP, a trigger value that when exceeded by a waterbody 

within that ecoregion will initiate further regulatory action. If monitoring of a lake or reservoir 

reveals a TP value below the relevant action value, the trophic status of the waterbody is 

determined via epilimnetic sampling, and the TP criterion is set at or below the upper limit of 

the TP range for that trophic state. On the other hand, if monitoring reveals TP values in excess 

of the action value, then a lake-specific study is conducted. Lake-specific studies are site-specific 

and tailored to the particular source of the impairment, whether it be from phytoplankton 

blooms, toxic phytoplankton, or excessive aquatic plants. A lake-specific study may quantify the 

following measures: total phosphorus, total nitrogen, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen in the 

hypolimnion in thermally stratified waterbodies, pH, hardness, or other measures of the 

physiochemical state of the waterbody being studied. If upon further investigation it is 

determined that the designated uses of that water body are not impaired by the elevated TP 

concentration, then a new site-specific phosphorus concentration is set at the existing TP 

concentration. If the study reveals impairment to designated uses, then new criteria must be 

established that is protective of existing uses. Lake-specific nutrient criteria are considered 

during water quality standards rule makings and adoption by rule formally establishes the 

criteria for the lake (WDE 2006). 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 Ecoregional and site-specific numeric nutrient criteria tailored to the ambient 

physiochemical state of a waterbody given its geographical position 

 Numeric nutrient criteria provide a definitive standard by which degradation caused by 

nutrients can be assessed, and the degree of degradation ascertained 

 Numeric nutrient criteria are more prescriptive than narrative criteria that are open to 

interpretation due to their vaguely descriptive nature 

	 Exceedances of criteria result in impairment listings and subsequent action by the 

regulatory and/or permitting authority to address the impairment, which can impact 

downstream waters as well as initiate a watershed scale effort to reduce loadings, such 

as a TMDL 

 Numeric nutrient criteria that employ several key parameters conducive to establishing 

the trophic status of a waterbody ensure a more rigorous assessment 

 Criteria exceedances are tied to a regulatory mechanism to address impairments 

Weaknesses 

	 Only a limited number of states currently have numeric nutrient criteria, and the degree 

of programmatic and regulatory development amongst those states varies greatly 

	 Most states have focused on lakes and reservoirs when developing numeric nutrient 

criteria since these systems serve as nutrient pools; streams and rivers rarely have 

numeric nutrient standards despite the impact nutrient inputs can have on these 

waterbodies and how these waterbodies serve as conduits of nutrient delivery; factors 

such as frequency and duration need to be considered when determining which 

waterbodies need numeric nutrient standards 

August 2009	 D-3 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

	 States have been slow in developing numeric nutrient criteria for coastal waters and 

estuaries, which have inherent difficulties as efforts may require regional considerations 

and interstate cooperation 

	 States are developing numeric standards with only one to two indicators of nutrient 

degradation 

 Difficult to ensure nonpoint source reductions 

 Regulations can be contentious 

References 

Heiskary, S., and B. Wilson. 2004. Minnesota’s Lake Nutria Criteria Development: Emphasis on 

Fisheries and Ecology. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN. 

MPCA. 2008. Chapter 7050: Water Quality Standards for Protection of Waters of the State. 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN. 

VSWCB. 2007. 9 VAC 25-260: Virginia Water Quality Standards. Virginia State Water Control 

Board, Richmond, VA. 

WDE. 2006. Chapter 173-201A WAC: Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of 

Washington. Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 

August 2009	 D-4 
 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Maryland BayStat Program 

Overview 

This accountability method is based on an executive order issued by Maryland Governor Martin 

O’Malley and coordinates state agencies and stakeholders within the State of Maryland. BayStat 

is tracking progress of the State of Maryland in its efforts to clean-up the Chesapeake Bay 

(O’Malley 2007). 

Description 

BayStat is a state initiative started by Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley with an executive 

order on February 14, 2007. The goal of BayStat is to coordinate Maryland’s efforts to clean-up 

the Chesapeake Bay and more effectively measure progress of state initiatives to clean-up the 

Chesapeake Bay. The efforts of the State’s Departments of Agriculture, Environment, Natural 

Resources, and Planning as well as the University of Maryland are tracked and coordinated to 

more accurately and specifically measure progress. Information and statistics gathered because 

of BayStat inform policymakers and provide accountability of the state agencies to ensure that 

efforts to clean-up the Chesapeake Bay are targeted and efficient (Nunley 2007). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

The BayStat program utilizes a number of pre-existing indicators developed by U.S. EPA’s 

Chesapeake Bay Program to evaluate the bay’s health, protection, and restoration efforts 

(Cadogan 2006). Indicators that are tracked include water quality data, nutrient and sediment 

loads, biotic integrity, fisheries data, and protected land status. The BayStat program also 

incorporates the basin-specific tributary strategies for the 36 major basins in the bay watershed 

developed as part of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. 

This data is used to more effectively target its efforts and develop more effective strategies. 

BayStat helps to coordinate state efforts with efforts of other stakeholders like other State 

governments and Federal government agencies (Nunley 2007). Members of the BayStat team 

meet with Governor O’Malley monthly to assess progress and determine what is working and 

what is not working. 

In addition to its role in improving efficacy and providing accountability of state agencies, 

BayStat functions as a tool for informing the public on the current causes of the poor health of 

the Chesapeake Bay and the progress towards improving the health of the bay. The BayStat 

team releases monthly newsletters and provides interactive progress tracking data on its 

website available to the public. Since BayStat was started recently, February 2007, the 

effectiveness of the program relies on the BayStat team being able to revise their approach 

towards improving the health of the Bay using all of the gathered data. At this time the BayStat 

program has been fully implemented to allow for agency accountability (O’Malley 2007). 

August 2009 D-5 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 Makes coordinated efforts by state agencies both within Maryland and with other states 

possible and much more likely to be effective 

 Provides an integrated approach to measuring overall progress in improving the health 

of the Chesapeake Bay 

 Provides the ability to evaluate whether one seemingly unrelated program has an effect 

on other conservation practices or restoration programs 

 Could function as an effective state repository of information that could be compiled at 

the federal level (e.g., each state’s BayStat program (or equivalent) could share 

information and techniques to increase effectiveness) 

 If fully implemented, BayStat should act as a mechanism for increasing agency 

accountability by both public pressure and changes by the Governor’s office 

 No legislation is needed for this approach to be implemented and tracking progress as a 

tool to encourage more action is less contentious than other approaches 

Weaknesses 

 The BayStat program attempts to address a problem that is bigger than the jurisdiction 

of the stakeholders involved; a similar program at the federal level could coordinate all 

stakeholders 

 Limited regulatory authority to target specific sources of nutrients 

 The program is supposed to provide public accountability about specific projects or 

agencies that are performing well at cleaning up the bay or not performing well, but this 

information is currently not readily available and may indicate that the program is not 

yet fully implemented 

 While simple statistical summaries of impairments and pollutant reduction activities are 

easily understood, there is no measure of effectiveness to indicate the contribution of a 

pollutant reduction effort to cleaning up the bay 

 BayStat tracks what is being done to address the Bay’s water quality issues, but does not 

thoroughly address the sources of nutrient pollution (e.g., responsible parties) 

References 

Cadogan, M. 2006. New Ideas to Improve the Chesapeake Bay: BayStat. 

http://omalley.3cdn.net/1857d3b7f96ee13e1f_02m6bhe5j.pdf. Accessed February, 2009. 

Nunley, K. 2007. Bringing the Bay’s Health into Focus. Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, Office of Communications, Annapolis, MD. 

http://www.baystat.maryland.gov/documents/baystat.pdf. Accessed February, 2009. 

O’Malley, M. 2007. Executive Order 01.01.2007.02: BayStat. Office of Governor, Annapolis, MD. 

http://www.baystat.maryland.gov/documents/01.07.02Baystat.pdf. Accessed February, 2009. 

August 2009 D-6 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Florida’s Impaired Waters Rule 

Overview 

This accountability method is based on a Rule (F.A.C. 62-303) issued by the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to revise its methodology for identifying impaired waters 

and issuing TMDLs. Florida’s Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) brings many nonpoint source polluters 

under a regulatory framework for the first time. The IWR holds nonpoint sources partly 

responsible for causing impaired waters and requires the implementation of Best Management 

Practices (BMPs). 

Description 

In the late 1990’s Florida was under pressure from environmental groups, EPA, and regulated 

industries to better identify impaired waters and establish TMDLs. At the time, Florida, like most 

states, had only recently begun pursuing the TMDL program as a tool to improve water quality. 

Just prior to a consent decree being reached with EPA to establish TMDLs for waters on its 

303(d) list, the Florida Legislature passed the Watershed Restoration Act, which allowed FDEP to 

revise its methodology for identifying impaired waters and developing TMDLs (Norgart 2004). 

Shortly thereafter the FDEP adopted chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, the 

Identification of Impaired Waters (IWR) Rule to establish a methodology for identifying impaired 

waters and to subsequently develop TMDLs for those waters (Florida Administrative Code 2001). 

According to the IWR, waters in Florida are assessed to see if they meet Florida water quality 

standards (Id., §403.021). Those waters determined by FDEP to not meet water quality 

standards for a specific pollutant are listed as impaired on the verified 303(d) list. The 

impairment could be due to point source pollutants, nonpoint source pollutants, or both. The 

State of Florida also creates a “planning list” of those waters that might be impaired but need 

more data to confirm or deny the status. 

Once a waterbody is listed as impaired, a TMDL is developed for that waterbody. The TMDL 

includes an analysis of the load allocation of all sources of the pollutant to the waterbody and 

“reasonable and equitable allocations of the total maximum daily load between or among point 

and nonpoint sources” (Id., §403.067(6)(b)) (Florida Statutes, 2008). After the TMDL is issued, 

the FDEP coordinates with a group of stakeholders to develop a Basin Management Action Plan 

(BMAP) to implement the TMDL. Under the BMAP, a number of point and nonpoint sources of 

pollution are regulated: 

 NPDES permits may be reopened to add conditions to meet the load allocation 

specified in the TMDL. 

 NPDES permits regulating stormwater are required to implement “best management 

practices or other management measures...to the maximum extent practicable” (Id., 

§403.067(7)2.b). 

 Other state, regional, or locally permitted (non-NPDES) nonagricultural dischargers are 

required to undertake “pollutant reduction actions” to the “maximum extent 

practicable” (Id., §403.067(7)2.f). 

 All other unpermitted nonpoint dischargers included in a BMAP must demonstrate 

compliance by either implementing best management practices (BMPs) or conducting 

August 2009 D-7 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

water quality monitoring (Id., §403.067(7)2.g). These dischargers include agricultural 

dischargers and any other dischargers that are identified during the TMDL and BMAP 

processes as significant sources of nonpoint pollution to the impaired waterbody. 

Nonpoint sources are also provided additional incentives to implement management measures 

and flexibility in meeting its requirements under a BMAP (Hamann 2008). When a nonpoint 

source implements BMPs, compliance with water quality standards is presumed and additional 

measures cannot be “require by permit, enforcement action, or otherwise” (Id., §403.067(7)2.i). 

However FDEP can still amend the BMAP if improvements in water quality are not seen that 

could add additional requirements. Flexibility is provided to nonpoint sources by the water 

quality credit trading program. A discharger (point source) required to provide a reduction in 

load can purchase water quality credits from another discharger identified in the BMAP and 

allow for the reduction in load to be consolidated to one source (Id., §403.067(8)). Water quality 

credit trading can provide cost savings and efficiency gains. 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

For many years Florida has been aggressively pursuing the regulation of nonpoint source 

pollutants. Florida was the first state in the country to require treatment of stormwater from all 

new development with its comprehensive stormwater permitting program in 1982. The 

stormwater rule is a technology-based program which requires a stormwater management 

system and BMPs to reduce stormwater pollutants for new development (FDEP 2008). In 

addition to this rule, Florida regulates stormwater with a variety of other programs regulated by 

the FDEP, water management districts, and local governments (Hamann 2008). In 1987, 

Congress reauthorized the Clean Water Act and designated certain stormwater sources as 

“point sources” thereby requiring NPDES permits (Wu et al. 2003). In response to increased 

complexity, FDEP is developing a unified state stormwater rule to provide more uniform 

regulations. 

The nonpoint source pollution requirements of the BMAP are another tool that Florida uses to 

further reduce nonpoint source pollution in a more targeted manner. The BMP requirement 

allows for a reduction of nutrient runoff to waters for which water quality testing has shown are 

in the highest need for clean-up. Since the IWR rule was issued the courts have upheld that a 

waterbody with no point source pollutants can be listed as impaired. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit 

court in Pronsolino v. Nastri determined that EPA was correct in identifying a waterbody as 

impaired even though it was polluted by only nonpoint sources (Norgart 2004). 

Despite the progressive efforts in Florida to target nonpoint source pollution and its 

contributions to nutrient impairment, water quality degradation from nutrient impairment 

remains a significant challenge. According to the 2008 Florida Integrated Report, approximately 

1,000 miles of rivers and streams, 350,000 acres of lakes, and 900 square miles of estuaries are 

impaired for nutrients in Florida (FDEP 2008). In January 2009, EPA issued a determination 

under Clean Water Act section 303(c)(4)(B) that numeric nutrient criteria are necessary to meet 

CWA requirements. Numeric nutrient criteria should speed up the TMDL process and allow for 

more widespread application of the BMAP program (Grumbles 2009). 

August 2009 D-8 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 Provides a regulatory mechanism to require BMPs for nonpoint source pollutants on 

waters that have already been prioritized as the most impaired waters for that pollutant 

in Florida. 

 Allows for flexible options to meet nonpoint source regulatory requirements and 

incentives for implementing the BMPs. 

 The BMAP BMP mechanism is not the only tool to regulate nonpoint source pollutants 

in Florida; it is effective as a targeted measure. 

Weaknesses 

 While FDEP claims to assess all of its waterbodies, a large portion of the waterbodies 

remain in limbo because sufficient water quality data is not available to determine 

impairment status. 

 Targeting nonpoint sources of pollution to impaired waters could be seen as an 

inequitable restriction on only certain polluters, while other nonpoint polluters are not 

being regulated. 

 Could be a contentious mechanism for regulating nonpoint source pollutants and 

provisions of Florida’s IWR have been challenged in court. 

 

References 

FDEP. 2008. Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2008 305(b) Report and 303(d) List 

Update. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Environmental Assessment 

and Restoration, Tallahassee, FL. 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/docs/2008_Integrated_Report.pdf. Accessed February, 2009. 

Florida Statutes. 2008. §403.067: Establishment and implementation of total maximum daily 

loads. 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&UR

L=Ch0403/SEC067.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0403->Section%20067#0403.067. Accessed February, 

2009. 

Grumbles, B. 2009. Determination that New or Revised Nutrient Water Quality Standards are 

Necessary for Florida. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/rules/fldetermination20090114.pdf. Accessed February, 2009. 

Hamann, R. 2008. Managing Nutrient Inputs to Florida Springs: The Legal Framework. 

http://www.waterinstitute.ufl.edu/research/projects/downloads/p001-

Ch7_SpringsNutrients.pdf. Accessed February, 2009. 

Florida Administrative Code. 2001. Chapter 62-303: Identification of Impaired Surface Waters.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/62-303/62-303.pdf. Accessed February, 2009. 

Norgart, C. 2004. Florida’s impaired waters rule: is there a “method” to the madness? Journal of 

Land Use. 19(2):347–376.

August 2009 D-9 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Wu, T., A. Baniukiewicz, and D. Gilbert. 2003. Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load For Lake 

Wauberg Outlet, Alachua County, Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Watershed Assessment Section, Tallahassee, FL. 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/tmdls/final/gp1/lake_wauberg_nut_tmdl.pdf. 

Accessed February, 2009. 

August 2009 D-10 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Economic Incentives and Disincentives 

Overview 

This accountability method is based on a variety of options available to policymakers using 

economics to limit nonpoint source pollution. Methods summarized include public and private 

grants and funding, credit and trading programs, purchasing and transferring of development 

rights, and voluntary or enforced certifications. 

Description 

A number of economic incentives and disincentives are available to policyholders to limit 

nonpoint source pollution. Public or private grants and funding will never be enough to fully 

fund all watershed restoration projects and nonpoint source pollution control strategies. As a 

result innovative incentive programs need to be used to drive down costs and to most efficiently 

use the funding that is available. Methods available include public and private grants and 

funding, credit and trading programs, purchasing and transferring of development rights, and 

voluntary or enforced certifications. 

Grant money and public funding is available from a large number of private and public entities 

to limit nonpoint source pollution either directly or indirectly. Federal funds are available 

through programs like EPA’s Clean Water Act (CWA) section 319 program or USDA’s 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to directly fund the implementation of best 

management practices (BMPs). States also have funds available such as the Clean Ohio Fund or 

Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener Program. Prominent case studies using direct money payments 

to reduce nonpoint source pollution include New York’s Agricultural Environmental 

Management (AEM) Program, West Virginia’s North Fork Project, and Utah’s Water Quality 

Project Assistance Program (WQPAP). New York’s AEM Program provides farmers with technical 

and financial assistance in developing BMPs using 319 program funds and additional state funds 

(USEPA 2002a). The North Fork project in West Virginia worked to solve water quality problems 

in the headwaters of the Potomac River. BMPs to limit nonpoint source pollution included 

riparian buffers, streambank fencing, and developing alternative livestock watering and feeding 

strategies. This project included 319 funding and Flood Control Act (PL-534) funding (USEPA 

2007). Utah’s WQPAP program provides low interest loans through the state revolving loan 

program to nonpoint source reduction practices such as agricultural runoff control and 

streambank restoration (Utah Administrative Code 2009). 

Some municipalities and state governments use innovative credit trading programs to fund 

nonpoint source pollution reductions. These programs can save money while allowing the 

groups that can most efficiently reduce nutrient or sediment pollution to take action. Examples 

of these programs include stormwater rate credits in Jefferson County, Kentucky, nonpoint 

source education incentives in Griffin, Georgia, water quality trading programs, and cap and 

trade air emissions regulations. In Jefferson County, Kentucky the stormwater utility charges a 

stormwater utility fee based on the square footage of impervious surface on a property. Credits 

are offered to property owners that decrease stormwater runoff from the property using 

retention or detention facilities. For example if the customer reduces stormwater runoff from 

their property by 30%, the utility would effectively treat the impervious surface area as 30% less 

square footage (IUPUI undated b). Griffin, Georgia also has a stormwater utility that charges a 

August 2009 D-11 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

stormwater utility fee and has a similar credit for peak flow reduction. In addition, public and 

private schools are given up to a 50% reduction in stormwater fees if the school participates in 

teaching a “Water Wise” curriculum to their students (IUPUI undated a). Water quality trading 

programs like the program in Florida (See Florida’s Impaired Waters Rules F.A.C. 62-303), allow 

identified dischargers to a waterbody with a TMDL to trade loading credits. For instance, a 

treatment plant can be paid to reduce even more than its allocated load by a nonpoint source 

polluter that would cost more to implement BMPs themselves (Florida Statutes 2008). The cap 

and trade market created as part of air pollution regulations under the Clean Air Act has long 

been lauded as an efficient approach to pollution regulation. Cap and trade programs work well 

when the source and quantity of an emission is transparent and able to be linked to a 

responsible party. Linking nonpoint source pollutants and quantifying the contribution on a 

large-scale has been challenging. 

Another way to preserve land and its natural nonpoint source pollution control function is fee 

simple acquisition. Land or development rights can be purchased or donated by state and local 

governments and private groups that have become land stewards to prevent future 

development, but this can be very costly. A promising solution to this funding problem has been 

transfer of development rights (TDR) systems. Instead of buying the development right, by 

setting up a TDR system, a market is created for development rights and one area is designated 

as a receiving area and the other a sending area. When a developer wants to develop in a 

receiving area at a higher density than the current zoning they can purchase development rights 

from the sending area which effectively places that property under a form of conservation 

easement. Therefore the developer pays to preserve land elsewhere in order to develop an area 

more densely (USEPA 1993). A TDR system promotes smart growth and reduces the impact of 

development on nonpoint source pollution. Prominent successful examples of effective TDR 

systems include Montgomery County, Maryland, The New Jersey Pinelands, and the Tahoe 

Regional Planning Agency (Preutz 1999). 

Voluntary programs that use a certification and/or public pressure to encourage proper 

nonpoint source pollutant control strategies are also an important economic tool. Products with 

an environmental certification can increasingly be sold for at higher value than equivalent 

products without a certification. Examples of these programs include South Carolina’s Forestry 

BMP Program and Clean Marina Programs. South Carolina runs a voluntary BMP compliance 

program that uses pressure from timber purchasers and the public as a mechanism for 

increasing BMP compliance (USEPA 2002b). Several states have instituted Clean Marinas 

Programs that call for voluntary adoption of BMPs at marinas to minimize impact on water 

quality. These states offer recognition or certification to those marinas that adopt the 

appropriate BMPs, for instance, in Maryland marinas, boatyards, and yacht clubs that adopt 

enough BMPs receive a “Maryland Clean Marinas” certificate and other associated recognition 

(USEPA 2007). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

Grants and public funding work well to reduce nonpoint source pollution but are limited in their 

quantity. In addition, grants are often short-term funds that can be useful as seed money for a 

program but can be difficult to maintain over the long-term. Credit trading such as water quality 

trading or stormwater incentives has great potential for increased use, but often requires 

enabling legislation or regulatory requirements to setup a credit system. TDR systems have 

August 2009 D-12 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

shown success in certain markets but require a sophisticated and coordinated local government 

to get it started and maintain the TDR. In addition, TDR systems tend to be focused in wealthy 

areas and areas where demand for development is great. For every example of a successful TDR 

system, many examples of unsuccessful TDR systems or systems with very limited success exist. 

Voluntary programs such as recognition or certifications can be very effective in certain arenas 

and very cost effective, but they certainly will not work for every type of nonpoint source 

pollutant in every market. 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 Incentives or disincentives (other than just paying for pollution reduction) have the 

potential for high efficiency gains and cost savings 

 Increased public pressure and perception will be a driver for polluters to participate in 

certifications and implement BMPs 

 Existing regulations have many options for efficiency gains using market driven 

techniques such as water quality trading or credit exchanges 

 Little if any legislation is required to implement these approaches and they are often 

less contentious than regulatory approaches 

Weaknesses 

 Public participation and involvement in incentive programs, like TDRs or certifications, is 

vital for success and sometimes very difficult to achieve 

 Some programs, such as TDR systems, would not be effective if scaled up to a regional 

or national level 

 Incentives or disincentives are often not backed up with a consequence through a 

regulation or other enforcement mechanism 

 Overall nonpoint source reduction goals are often not included in these incentive 

approaches 

References 

Florida Statutes. 2008. §403.067, Establishment and implementation of total maximum daily 

loads. 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&UR 

L=Ch0403/SEC067.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0403->Section%20067#0403.067 Accessed February, 

2009. 

IUPUI. Undated a. Stormwater Management Financing Case Study, Griffin, GA. Indiana 

University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Center for Urban Policy and the Environment. 

http://stormwaterfinance.urbancenter.iupui.edu/PDFs/GriffinGeorgia.pdf Accessed February, 

2009. 

IUPUI. Undated b. Stormwater Management Financing Case Study: Louisville-Jefferson County, 

Kentucky. Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Center for Urban Policy and the 

Environment. http://stormwaterfinance.urbancenter.iupui.edu/PDFs/MSDlouky.pdf Accessed 

February, 2009. 

August 2009 D-13 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Preutz, R. 1999. Transfer of Development Rights Update. APA National Planning Conference. 

http://www.design.asu.edu/apa/proceedings99/PRUETZ/PRUETZ.HTM Accessed February, 

2009. 

USEPA. 2009. The North Fork Project: Farmers’ Cooperation Leads to Proposed Delisting of 

Degraded River. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319III/WV.htm Accessed February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2007. Statewide Clean Marina Programs: BMPs, Recognition, and Outreach Help Protect 

Coastal Resources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319III/innov_marina.htm Accessed February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2002a. New York’s Agricultural Environmental Management Program: Incentive-based 

Program Helps Farmers Meet Tough Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Water, Washington DC. http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319III/innov_ny.htm Accessed 

February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2002b. South Carolina Forestry BMP Compliance Program: Proactive Strategy Raises 

BMP Compliance Rate. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319III/innov_sc.htm Accessed February, 2009. 

USEPA. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in 

Coastal Waters, Chapter 4: Watershed Protection Management Measure. EPA 840-B-92-002. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/MMGI/Chapter4/ch4-2b.html Accessed February, 2009. 

Utah Administrative Code. 2009. Rule R317-101: Utah Wastewater Project Assistance Program. 

Department of Administrative Services, Division of Administrative Rules, Salt Lake City, UT. 

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r317/r317-101.htm Accessed February, 2009. 

August 2009 D-14 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Green and Eco-Labeling of Farm Products (Based on Farming Methods) 

Overview 

The accountability method of green and eco-labeling of farm products is voluntary and based on 

the potential for increased consumer acceptance of environmentally friendly products and 

reimbursement for costs of certification. 

Description 

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990, adopted as part of the 1990 Farm Bill, 

requires the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop national standards for 

organically produced agricultural products to assure consumers that agricultural products 

marketed as organic meet consistent, uniform standards (USEPA 2007). USDA promulgated final 

rules that implemented this legislation in October 2002, which required all growers and handlers 

who labeled their products as organic to be certified by a state or private agency accredited 

under the uniform standards developed by USDA. The national organic standards address 

methods, practices, and substances used in producing and handling crops, livestock and 

processed agricultural products (Kremen et al. 2004). 

USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service implemented a National Organic Program in 2002 as a 

way to support organic farmers and processors and provide consumer assurance. USDA 

harmonized the differing standards among dozens of state and private certification 

organizations that had emerged by the late 1990s, and continues to update rules on organic 

production and processing. The steps to become a certified organic operation include picking an 

organic certifier, following national organic standards, keeping records of practices and 

materials used, and having an annual inspection (USDA 2007; USDA 2009). 

The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) helps organic farmers through 

programs such as the Agricultural Management Assistance Program, Conservation Technical 

Assistance Program, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. The Agricultural 

Management Assistance Program, established under the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 

and amended under the 2002 Farm Act, provides financial assistance for conserving practices, 

such as those used in organic farming, under 3- to 10-year contracts. The program focuses on 

producers in 15 states where participation in the Federal Crop Insurance Program has 

historically been low (USDA 2008b). Organically grown crops help reduce soil erosion, enhance 

water supplies, improve water quality, increase wildlife habitat, and reduce damages from 

floods and other natural disasters (USDA 2007). Although the Federal Government does not 

currently offer support for transitioning to organic agriculture, technical assistance is becoming 

more available (USDA 2007). 

Increasingly, timber harvesters are seeking green certifications like those provided by the Forest 

Stewardship Council (FSC) or South Carolina’s Forestry BMP Program. These certification 

programs have requirements for sustainable timber harvesting practices like BMPs to reduce 

erosion. Forest certifications improve the price and markets that are available to timber 

harvesters, while reducing nonpoint source pollution associated with logging operations. The 

South Carolina Forestry Commission (SCFC) provides voluntary courtesy BMP inspections to 

forest managers. Active forestry operations are identified by regular flights over priority 

August 2009 D-15 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

watersheds, voluntary notification, and response to complaints. Forestry BMP specialists 

provide site-specific BMP recommendations during the initial inspection and then a final 

inspection is performed after logging is complete to see if the BMPs are implemented. The list of 

loggers that pass compliance and those that do not is given to the state and to timber product 

purchasers. Compliance with the voluntary BMP measures has shown a significant increase since 

the inspection program began (South 2002). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

Organic farming has been one of the fastest growing segments of U.S. agriculture for over a 

decade. By the time USDA implemented national organic standards in 2002, certified organic 

farmland had doubled between 1990 and 2002 from 1 million acres to 2 million acres. By 2005, 

the acres doubled again to 4 million acres. California remains the leading state in certified 

organic cropland, with over 220,000 acres, mostly for fruit and vegetable production. Other top 

states for certified organic cropland include North Dakota, Montana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

Texas, and Idaho. Only a small percentage of the top U.S. field crops—corn (0.2 percent), 

soybeans (0.2 percent), and wheat (0.5 percent)—were grown under certified organic farming 

systems. On the other hand, organic carrots (6 percent of U.S. carrot acreage), organic lettuce (4 

percent), organic apples (3 percent) and other fruit and vegetable crops were more commonly 

organic grown in 2005 (USDA 2008a). Some other examples of voluntary approaches that were 

relatively successful are Dolphin-Safe tuna labeling and Energy Star. Dolphin-Safe tuna labeling 

was brought on by consumer pressure, while Energy Star is led by the government to help 

consumers choose energy-efficient products to save money and energy. 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 Reduction in non-point source pollution such as nutrients, sediments, and pesticides 

 Reduction in erosion and overall runoff 

 Promotion of conservation of water resources (nonrenewable resources) 

 Lowering of costs and increased farm income 

 In relation to nutrients programs, this voluntary approach would save farmers fertilizer 

costs and a non-regulatory program would be less contentious 

Weaknesses 

 Eco-labeling is voluntary and has little regulatory oversight 

 Little incentive to switch to organic if crops need to be distributed widely due to market 

pressure 

 Limited mechanisms to reward farmers for switching to organic 

 Farmers must risk high managerial costs and shifting to a new way of farming 

 Little awareness and education for the consumers to support organic farmers 

 Lack of marketing and infrastructure, and no direct payment method to the farmers 

 Require a market mechanism or educational outreach program to encourage consumers 

to select goods produced by methods that reduce the amount of nutrients entering our 

waters 

August 2009 D-16 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

References 

Kremen, A., C. Greene, and J. Hanson. 2004. Organic Produce, Price Premiums, and Eco-Labeling 

in the US Farmers’ Markets. VGS-301-01. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3002983. Accessed February 

16, 2009. 

USDA. 2009. National Organic Program. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, Washington, DC. 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateA&navID= 

NationalOrganicProgram&leftNav=NationalOrganicProgram&page=NOPNationalOrganicProgra 

mHome&acct=nop. Accessed February, 2009. 

USDA. 2008a. Organic Production. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

Washington, DC. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/Organic. Accessed February, 2009. 

USDA. 2008b. Farm and Commodity Policy: Glossary. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, Washington, DC. http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/Farmpolicy/glossary.htm. 

Accessed February, 2009. 

USDA. 2007. Organic Agriculture: Organic Certification—Steps and Links. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Organic/Certification.htm. Accessed February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2007. Organic Farming. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/torg.html. Accessed February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2002. South Carolina Forestry BMP Compliance Program: Proactive Strategy Raises BMP 

Compliance Rate. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319III/innov_sc.htm Accessed February, 2009. 

August 2009 D-17 
 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Voluntary Agreements with Private Sector 

Overview 

This accountability method is based on the Water Stewardship Program, a non-profit 

organization with the goal to reduce nutrient loadings to waters of the U.S. from the food 

services industry. The program employs Continuous Improvement Programs (CIPs), Corporate 

Social Responsibility Initiatives (CSRs), and integrated regional efforts to set targeted reduction 

goals for nutrient releases to waters of the U.S. 

Description 

Water Stewardship Program, Incorporated, is a non-profit organization dedicated to 

strengthening voluntary industrial efforts to reduce nutrient inputs to waters of the U.S. by 

improving ties with government and third party entities to provide scientific and expert advice, 

and open venues of funding. The program’s ultimate goal is to reduce nutrient pollution to allow 

the restoration of economically critical functions of water resources. The program has focused 

on reducing nutrient losses from agricultural production areas to 40% of a predefined baseline 

and optimizing nutrient inputs to reduce production costs and offset the cost of mitigation 

measures. The program is overseen by the Water Stewardship Council, which is comprised of 

representatives from the food services industry, government agencies, and non-government 

organizations. The Council will also be a forum by which to share findings from CIPs, and discuss 

programmatic needs and direct future efforts (Water Stewardship Program 2008). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

The Water Stewardship Program has focused largely on improved accountability using CSRs, 

which ensure a high level of corporate staff responsibility due to the need to deliver measurable 

results and the fact that annual CSR reports will be distributed to shareholders. The program 

also uses CIPs, which are developed by the industry participants in concert with third party 

professionals recruited and trained by the Water Stewardship Program. CIPs outline 

conservation choices and measurable practices and innovations to be employed by the industry. 

The industry’s success in meeting the goals of the CIP is verified biennially by project scientists, 

and for those failing to meet the predefined goals, a remedial plan is developed to clearly define 

how the industry can meet the goals of its CIP in the future. The following elements are assessed 

during the periodic reviews: (1) remedial efforts to achieve targets; (2) the implementation and 

documentation of improvements; and (3) the successful communication of efforts and 

improvements. The program also aids the food services industry in procuring governmental 

agency and independent (i.e. private foundations) expenditure incentives, by leveraging 

substantial financial contributions from these sources (Water Stewardship Program 2008). 

The initial focus of the Water Stewardship program will be on the production level, but the 

program plans to target the entire food chain, including processors, distributors, and wholesale 

buyers. Efforts are being piloted in the Chesapeake Bay, Illinois River, and Minnesota River 

watersheds. One initial effort of the program is the development of nutrient budgets for midAtlantic states, specifically Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. The program is 

coordinating efforts from land grant universities within each state to develop nitrogen and 

phosphorus budgets for cropland down to a watershed level. This effort is part of the interstate 

August 2009 D-18 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

and interagency program to mitigate nutrient impacts on the Chesapeake Bay by achieving 

reductions of 40% as compared to inputs in 1985 (Mid-Atlantic Regional Water Program 2005). 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 Aids the food services industry with procuring funds to reduce nutrient inputs to waters 

of the U.S. 

 Coordinates private sector efforts with those of government agencies and other 

stakeholders 

 Holds industry accountable via the use CSRs and biennial reviews of the progress made 

toward meeting the goals of the CIP 

 Provides access by the industry to government and third party professionals whose 

expertise can be called on to help industry achieve nutrient pollution reductions 

 Provides logistical and economic incentive for industry to voluntarily take measures to 

mitigate nutrient impacts on waters of the U.S. 

 Use of third party review ensures an independent unbiased review of the success of a 

CIP in meeting its goals 

 Non regulatory, which is less contentious and there is no need for new legislation 

Weaknesses 

 Program is a new effort, industry participation and program success cannot yet be 

gauged 

 The voluntary nature of the program means it lacks regulatory backing to ensure 

industrial compliance with the goals of the CIP 

 Program incentives may be too little to entice significant commitments from the food 

services industry 

 Unclear as to how certain elements of the program will be funded, specifically the 

acquisition and training of project scientists and assessment teams to conduct CIP 

reviews 

 The use of CSRs and other measures of accountability may make the industry reluctant 

to participate 

 No public accountability 

 Unclear as to which stakeholders are notified when an industry fails to meet its goals 

References 

Water Stewardship Incorporated. 2008. Water Stewardship: Improving Water Quality, 

Sustaining Agriculture. http://corporatewaterstewardship.org. Accessed February, 2009. 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Water Program. 2005. Nutrient Budgets for Mid-Atlantic States. 

http://www.mawaterquality.org/. Accessed February, 2009. 

August 2009 D-19 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act 

Overview 

The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act1

 (the Act) protects wetlands and related public 

interests (e.g., flood control, prevention of pollution and storm damage, protection of public and 

private water supplies, groundwater supply, fisheries, land containing shellfish, and wildlife 

habitat). Under the Act, the state protects these public interests by requiring a careful review of 

any activity that would “remove, fill, dredge or alter any bank, riverfront area, fresh water 

wetland, coastal wetland, beach, dune, flat, marsh, meadow, or swamp bordering on the ocean 

or on any estuary (a broad mouth of a river into which the tide flows), creek, river, stream, 

pond, or lake, or any land under said waters or any land subject to tidal action, coastal storm 

flowage, or flooding” (MADEP undated a; MADEP undated b). 

Description 

The Act is implemented and administered at several jurisdictional levels. Local conservation 

commissions (the commission),2

 consisting of a volunteer board of three to seven members 

selected by the city council, are responsible for implementation of the Act. At the state level, the 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) oversees the administration 

of the law, provides technical training to local commissions, and hears appeals of decisions 

made by the commissions (MADEP undated a). 

The Act is carried out in the following steps (Berkshire Environmental Action Team undated; 

MADEP undated a): 

1)	 Any party concerned about the impact of a proposed project may file a Request for 

Determination of Applicability (RDA) to MADEP. 

2)	 Upon receiving an RDA, the commission must schedule a public meeting within 21 days 

to review the facts and determine whether a project permit will be necessary. The 

commission should make a site visit before the meeting to prepare for their evaluation 

of the proposed work. Once a determination is made, the commission will report the 

decision to MADEP. 

3)	 If a proposed project requires a permit, the party undertaking the activity must file a 

Notice of Intent (NOI) with both the commission and MADEP, and pay an application 

fee. The NOI requires a plan that describes the details of the proposed project, buffer 

zones, and methods that will be taken to prevent degradation. 

4)	 After receiving the NOI, the commission must schedule a public hearing within 21 days 

after advertising it. The commission should review the NOI and supporting material to 

prepare for the evaluation of the proposed project. 

5)	 The commission reviews the information and will determine one of the following: 

a.	 The applicant needs more information before the commission can reach a 

decision. 

b.	 There is sufficient information, and the commission will issue a permit. 

c.	 There is sufficient information and the commission will deny a permit. 

1 Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) Chapter 131, Section 40. 

2 Formed under MGL Chapter 40: Section 8C. Conservation commission; establishment; powers and duties.
 

August 2009	 D-20 
 

 

 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

6) The decision can be appealed by the applicant, MADEP, or third parties (specified under 

the law) during a 10-day appeal period. 

7) Upon issuing a permit, the commission will issue an Order of Conditions if there are 

certain conditions necessary to prevent endangering nearby wetlands. 

This regulation works in parallel with the Inland and Coastal Wetlands Restrictions Acts,3

 under 

which permanent restriction orders have been placed on selected wetlands in over 50 

communities. The Inland and Coastal Wetlands Restrictions Acts provide additional protection 

for selected wetlands by prohibiting certain activities in advance of any work being proposed 

(MADEP undated a). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

There is little publicly available information on how the program is working. The Act does 

provide a mechanism for oversight by both local entities and the state. This mechanism also 

includes a way for concerned parties to participate in a public process to protect state waters. 

However, because the Act only provides a minimum level of protection, over 100 communities 

have local wetlands protection bylaws (e.g., zoning) that provide additional regulatory oversight 

and protection to wetland resources (MADEP undated a). 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

	 This regulatory method of state oversight, implementation by local agencies, and 

involving the public, may be a good example of transparent implementation of a 

regulation. 

Weaknesses 

	 The issuance of the permit is dependent on the local commissions, which means the 

commission may need people with specific skill sets to understand the full breadth of 

impacts of a proposed project. 

	 There is little publicly available information on how much oversight of approved projects 

exists (e.g., whether an agency assesses a project after it is finished to see its actual 

impacts). 

	 It may be difficult to standardize the reasoning behind the issuing/denying of a permit if 

there are multiple commissions that do the decision-making within the state. 

References 

Berkshire Environmental Action Team. Undated. The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act: 

Understanding the Regulatory Process. 

http://www.thebeatnews.org/LearningCenter/Regulations/WetlandsProtectionAct/Intro.html. 

Accessed April, 2009. 

3 MGL Chapter 131, Section 40A and MGL Chapter 130, Section 105 

August 2009	 D-21 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

MADEP. Undated a. Protecting Wetlands in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection, Boston, MA. 

http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/protwet.htm. Accessed April, 2009. 

MADEP. Undated b. The General Laws of Massachusetts: Chapter 131, Section 40: Removal, fill, 

dredging or altering of land bordering waters (Wetlands Protection Act). Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA. 

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/131-40.htm. Accessed April, 2009. 

August 2009 D-22 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Toxic Release Inventory 

Overview 

This accountability method creates an inventory of the releases of toxic chemical from industrial 

and federal sites from data collected based on a reporting requirement. The program relies on 

the public, academic institutions, and other organizations to review the data and convey what is 

acceptable and unacceptable. 

Description 

Following several U.S. chemical accidents, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) as a part of the Superfund reauthorization in 1986 

(USEPA 2009a). EPCRA’s mandate is twofold: (a) to promote contingency planning for chemical 

emergencies and (b) to provide the public with previously unavailable information about toxic 

and hazardous chemicals in their communities. Section 313 of EPCRA created the Toxics Release 

Inventory (TRI), requiring federal facilities and companies in manufacturing to report specified 

quantities of certain chemicals released from their facilities. In 1990, Congress passed the 

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), requiring facilities to report to the TRI quantities of toxic 

chemicals managed in waste and the pollution prevention activities they undertake. In 1998, the 

public gained access to data from additional industrial sectors. Other industries now required to 

report under EPCRA and the PPA include metal mining, coal mining, coal and oil burning 

electrical utilities, hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities, chemicals distributors, 

petroleum bulk plants terminals, and solvent recycling operations (USEPA 2003). 

EPA compiles the TRI data each year and makes it available through several data access tools, 

including TRI Explorer (http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer) and Envirofacts 

(http://www.epa.gov/enviro) (USEPA 2009b; USEPA 2008b). Other organizations make the data 

available through their own data access tools, including Unison Institute, which supports 

"RTKNet" (http://www.rtknet.org) and Environmental Defense, which developed "Scorecard" 

(http://www.scorecard.org). Armed with TRI data, communities have more power to hold 

companies accountable and make informed decisions about how toxic chemicals are to be 

managed. The data often spurs companies to focus on their chemical management practices 

since they are being measured and made public. In addition, the data serves as a rough indicator 

of environmental progress over time (USEPA 2008a). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

The availability of TRI data to the public is a useful resource for many organizations (USEPA 

2003): 

 Communities use TRI data to begin dialogues with local facilities and to encourage them 

to reduce their emissions, develop pollution prevention plans, and improve safety 

measures. 

 Public interest groups, government, academicians, and others use TRI data to educate 

the public about toxic chemical emissions and potential risk. 

August 2009 D-23 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

	 Industry uses TRI data to identify pollution prevention opportunities, set goals for toxic 

chemical release reductions, and demonstrate its commitment to and progress in 

reducing emissions. 

 Federal, state, and local governments use TRI data to set priorities and allocate 

environmental protection resources to the most pressing problems. 

 Regulators use TRI data to set permit limits, measure compliance, and target 

enforcement activities. 

 Public interest groups use TRI data to demonstrate the need for new environmental 

regulations or improved implementation and enforcement of existing regulations. 

 Investment analysts use TRI data to provide recommendations to clients seeking to 

make environmentally sound investments. 

 Governments use TRI data to assess or modify taxes and fees based on toxic emissions 

or overall environmental performance. 

 Insurance companies use TRI data as one indication of potential environmental 

liabilities. 

 Consultants and others use TRI data to identify business opportunities, such as 

marketing pollution prevention and control technologies to TRI reporting facilities. 

The key driving factor of this program is for EPA to collect data and populate a user-friendly, 

easily accessible database the public can view. Once data is updated, the public is informed and 

they then have the means to promote direct dialogue with a facility/industry (USEPA 2008d; 

USEPA, 2009c). Facilities/ industries must change their operations to reduce releases voluntarily, 

with no direct incentive (e.g., government funding). This method of providing data may be a first 

step to promoting further understanding among the public about nutrient problems in the 

United States. For example, reports on agriculture could include the type and amount of 

fertilizers used on individual farms per year or tons of animal manure produced annually. 

POTWs could be required to report annual nitrogen and phosphorous loads. Urban areas could 

report estimates of nitrogen and phosphorous in stormwater discharges annually. In addition, 

EPA may need guided educational programs. 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

	 Easy access to a user-friendly TRI database (USEPA 2008c) 

	 Readily available information results in more opportunities to inform the public of 

current conditions and for citizens and organizations to begin direct dialogue with a 

facility/industry of concern 

	 With reporting requirements in place, national organizations can conduct risk screening 

and risk assessments, and initiate discussions with a facility/industry 

	 TRI data convinced some facility managers of the need for an Environmental 

Management System, which ultimately can help reduce costs and become a public 

relations and marketing tool 

Weaknesses 

	 The program relies heavily on public participation after providing data; unless the public 

speaks out, there is little incentive for facilities/industries to change “business-as-usual” 

on their own 

August 2009	 D-24 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

 Even if a case is made that a facility is a problem, any changes are voluntary, thus there 

is little incentive for change due to the lack of funding support and regulatory oversight 

 For nutrients using a TRI approach may need legislation and can be contentious if 

involved with agricultural fertilizer application 

References 

USEPA. 2009a. Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/lcra.html#Emergency%20Planning%20and%20Notification. 

Accessed February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2009b. TRI Explorer. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Release Inventory 

Program, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer. Accessed February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2009c. Toxics Release Inventory Program. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics 

Release Inventory Program, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/tri. Accessed February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2008a. What is the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Toxics Release Inventory Program, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/tri/triprogram/whatis.htm. Accessed February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2008b. Envirofacts Data Warehouse. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/enviro. Accessed February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2008c. Get TRI Data. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Release Inventory 

Program, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/index.htm#pdr. Accessed February, 

2009. 

USEPA. 2008d. How EPA Obtains TRI Data. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Toxics Release 

Inventory Program, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/tri/triprogram/bussinesscycle/busprocess.html. Accessed February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2003. How Are the Toxics Release Inventory Data Used? EPA-260-R-002-004. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/tri/guide_docs/pdf/2003/2003_datausepaper.pdf. Accessed February, 

2009. 

August 2009 D-25 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Pinto Creek Decision 

Overview 

This accountability method is based on a Ninth Circuit court decision interpreting part of the 

NPDES program. Limits for new dischargers on impaired waters must be factored into permitting 

decisions. 

Description 

Carlota Copper Company proposed to construct and operate an open-pit copper mine and 

processing facility near Miami, Arizona. At the time, Pinto Creek (a nearby waterbody) was listed 

on the 303(d) list as impaired because of non-attainment of copper water quality standards. In 

1996 Carlota applied for an NPDES permit because they would be discharging pollutants into 

Pinto Creek. EPA published an initial draft permit in 1998 and later a revised permit in July 2000 

(with two new provisions). Petitioners filed for review of the permit and associated NEPA 

documents one month later. In response, EPA withdrew portions of the NPDES permit and 

prepared a supplemental environmental assessment analyzing the two new permit conditions. 

EPA also completed a TMDL for Pinto Creek in 2001. EPA reissued the permit in February 2002 

(Friends of Pinto Creek v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 504 F.3d 1007 (9th 

Cir. 2007)). 

In response to the new permit, petitioners filed an appeal on April 1, 2002 to challenge EPA’s 

issuance of the permit. The Appeals Board upheld the permit on September 30, 2004, and EPA 

issued a final NPDES permit (Friends of Pinto Creek 2007). The Petitioners later filed for review 

in the Ninth Circuit, which vacated the permit because “there [we]re no plans or compliance 

schedules to bring the Pinto Creek segment ‘into compliance with applicable water quality 

standards’.” The Court held that issuance of the permit was inconsistent with 40 CFR 122.4(i), 

an NPDES regulation. (Brief for the Federal Respondent in Opposition to Certiorari, 2008). 

According to the Court, section 122.4 states that no permit may be issued (Friends of Pinto 

Creek 2007): 

(i) To a new source or a new discharger if the discharge from its construction or 

operation will cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards. The owner 

or operator of a new source or new discharger proposing to discharge into a water 

segment which does not meet applicable water quality standards or is not expected to 

meet those standards . . . and for which the State or interstate agency has performed a 

pollutants load allocation for the pollutant to be discharged, must demonstrate, before 

the close of the public comment period, that: 

1)	 There are sufficient remaining pollutant load allocations to allow for the 

discharge; and 

2)	 The existing dischargers into that segment are subject to compliance schedules 

designed to bring the segment into compliance with applicable water quality 

standards. 

August 2009	 D-26 
 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

On March 7, 2008, Carlota’s petition for a rehearing was denied. On June 4, 2008 Carlota sought 

Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision (Brief for Federal 

Respondent in Opposition to Certiorari 2008), but the Supreme Court denied the petition in 

January 2009 (Sierra Club 2009). 

Compliance schedules in general are schedules of “remedial measures included in a permit or an 

enforcement order, including a sequence of interim requirements (for example, actions, 

operations, or milestone events) that lead to compliance with the CWA and regulations” (USEPA 

1996). Typically a compliance schedule should only be long enough for dischargers to attain 

compliance, so they move towards compliance and demonstrate progress throughout the 

schedule. When a compliance schedule is longer than 1 year, interim dates/milestones are 

typically included in the permit (to show progress towards attaining compliance with the 

effluent limitations/requirements). 

According to Karl Blankenship, the editor of the Bay Journal, the Pinto Creek case has the 

potential to prohibit various permits under CWA jurisdiction, including permits for stormwater 

systems, large animal feedlots, and construction sites greater than one acre in size. In addition, 

the ruling is in effect for 11 states in the Ninth Circuit and could set a precedent for other 

decisions throughout the country. As interpreted by the Ninth Circuit, EPA could use the Pinto 

Creek case to gain leverage to force cleanup of waters throughout the United States. An 

attorney with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation stated that the ruling could even strengthen the 

Foundation’s claim in a different lawsuit that EPA has not exercised its full authority to clean up 

the Chesapeake Bay. Some dischargers in the Bay watershed have already objected to nutrient 

discharge limits in their permits and want to increase discharges (Blankenship 2009). The Task 

Group understands that EPA is currently reviewing and evaluating the implications of the Ninth 

Circuit decision. 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

The Supreme Court denied the petition in January of 2009; no NPDES permit has been issued to 

Carlota Copper Company. 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 A new discharger will not be allowed under 122.4(i) if the discharge will cause or 

contribute to violation of WQS 

 Compliance schedules for existing point sources not already meeting their applicable 

WQBELs are required when a new discharger proposes discharging to a water segment 

that does not meet applicable WQS 

 Compliance schedules provide milestones/accountability for bringing a discharger into 

compliance with the relevant WQBEL 

Weaknesses 

 No flexibility in compliance schedules 

 There could be unintended consequences associated with this type of approach; for 

example, the ruling could create incentives for lower density development to avoid 

applying for permits such as stormwater or construction and development 

August 2009 D-27 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

References 

Blankenship, K. 2009. Top Court Won’t Review Ban on New Discharges to Polluted Waters. 

Friends of Pinto Creek. http://savepintocreek.blogspot.com. Accessed February, 2009. 

Brief for Federal Respondent in Opposition to Certiorari: Carlota Copper Company, Petitioner v. 

Friends of Pinto Creek, et al., No. 07- 1524 in the Supreme Court of the United States (writ for 

certiorari filed June 4, 2008). http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2008/0responses/2007-

1524.resp.html. Accessed February, 2009. 

Friends of Pinto Creek v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 504 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 

2007). http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/10/03/0570785.pdf. Accessed 

February, 2009. 

Sierra Club. 2009. Big Win for Clean Water: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Case That Struck 

Down Open Pit Copper Mine Permit. 

http://arizona.sierraclub.org/pr_and_alerts/pr_and_alerts_2009/alert_01-12-09.asp. Accessed 

February, 2009. 

USEPA. 1996. U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual. EPA-833-B-96-003. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0243.pdf. Accessed February, 2009. 

August 2009 D-28 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Virginia Watershed-based Permit 

Overview 

This accountability measure is based on state regulation to establish watershed level effluent 

loading limits for nitrogen and phosphorus in a general NPDES permit. The permit limits for 

nitrogen and phosphorus are established in addition to other individual permit limits for a 

facility. Facilities may opt to have an individual permit for nitrogen and phosphorus in lieu of the 

general permit. 

Description 

In September 2006, the state adopted a general Virginia pollutant discharge elimination system 

(VPDES) watershed permit for total nitrogen and total phosphorous discharges for the Virginia 

tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay (9 VAC 25-820-10 et seq.). The general permit establishes 

annual effluent loading limits for nitrogen and phosphorus and caps the loads for the 

watershed. The general permit also establishes the conditions for exchanging credits and 

purchasing offsets. Existing facilities that have exceeded their allocation, or new/expanded 

facilities not assigned a waste load allocation can purchase offsets to meet limits (VA 

DEQ,undated). Only new facilities and those with expanding loads can trade with nonpoint 

sources to allow for expanded capacity in a watershed. 

The permit covers facilities with individual VPDES permits that discharge or propose to discharge 

total nitrogen or total phosphorous to the Bay or its tributaries (9 VAC 25-820-20). Specifically, 

the criteria for coverage under the general permit are (USEPA 2007): 

	 A significantly discharging facility: Existing facility that discharge 100,000 gallons or 

more per day (or an equivalent load) directly into tidal waters, or 500,000 gallons or 

more per day (or an equivalent load) directly into nontidal waters 

	 New or expanding facility: A permitted facility that proposes to discharge 40,000 gallons 

or more per day (or an equivalent load) directly into tidal or nontidal waters as a result 

of that new construction 

Important information about the general permit (VA DEQ undated): 

 Virginia’s general permit was effective January 1, 2007 and expires December 31, 2011. 

 Authorization for all dischargers under this permit expires on the same day and will be 

renewed on the same day. 

	 All facilities covered by the general permit are required to register by submitting a 

registration statement (new or expanding facilities applying after the effective date 

must submit the registration statement with the application for an individual VPDES 

permit). 

 For total nitrogen and total phosphorous requirements, general permit requirements for 

each facility supersede any individual permit requirements. 

 Waste load allocations are assigned to each permitted facility, and allocations may be 

aggregated for owners of multiple facilities. 

August 2009	 D-29 
 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

	 A compliance schedule is required for the combined waste load allocation for each 

tributary. Covered facilities must submit compliance plans, either individually or through 

the Nutrient Credit Exchange Association within nine months of the general permit’s 

effective date. 

	 Permittees must submit monthly loading data on the date required in the facility’s 

individual permit. 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

This approach has allowed for a much more streamlined and efficient permitting process for the 

Virginia DEQ, allowing a few staff members to negotiate a single consolidated permit with 125 

load limits and ten schedules of compliance over 15 months instead of having more than a 

dozen permit writers to negotiate 125 permits with 125 load limits and 125 compliance 

schedules over five years (USEPA 2007). In addition, the flexibility, cost-effectiveness, and 

collaboration-oriented approach of the program are anticipated to result in much quicker 

nutrient reductions than solely relying on technology upgrades (USEPA 2007). Due to the 

newness of the program, however, there is little information on how well the approach works in 

practice—no public information on the relative success of the project was readily available for 

this analysis. 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

	 Using a watershed based approach for the development of their general permit allowed 

Virginia to help address problems with nitrogen and phosphorous in the Chesapeake 

Bay and its tributaries. The previous individual permits were not based on the same type 

of watershed analysis. 

	 Exchanging and purchasing credits provides flexibility to facilities that cannot meet 

limits and rewards facilities that are meeting limits, while still ensuring the total amount 

of nitrogen and phosphorous in the watershed remains the same. 

 A general permit provides accountability through the waste load allocations set for each 

facility. 

 The trading component of the permit creates a mechanism for point sources to assist in 

the reduction of nonpoint source loads 

 Can get greater nonpoint source reductions if new or expanded point source dischargers 

are forced to reduce more than an equal amount of a nonpoint source load 

Weaknesses 

 Nonpoint source loads only lower to compensate for an increased load from point 

sources 

 The program is only for “significant dischargers,” as well as new and expanding 

facilities— so not all sources are accountable (USEPA 2007). 

	 As of 2007, the nonpoint source trading alternative is still under development due to 

issues related to estimating nonpoint source loading and BMP load reductions, 

inspection and monitoring of BMP installation, and enforceability (USEPA 2007). 

August 2009	 D-30 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

References 

VA DEQ. Undated. Fact Sheet: Issuance of a General VPDES Permit to Discharge to State Waters 

and State Certification under the State Water Control Law. Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, Richmond, VA. 

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/vpdes/pdf/VAG72FactSheet2006.pdf. 

Accessed February, 2009. 

Virginia State Water Control Board. 2006. 9 VAC 25-820-10 et seq. Virginia Water Quality 

Standards. Statutory Authority: § 62.1-44.15 3a of the Code of Virginia. Virginia State Water 

Control Board, Richmond, VA. 

http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/vpdes/pdf/9VAC25-820-

NutrientDischargesGP2007-Amd2008.pdf. Accessed July, 2009. 

USEPA. 2007. Watershed-Based Permitting Case Study: Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Virginia. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/wq_casestudy_factsht13.pdf. Accessed July, 2009. 

August 2009 D-31 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Strengthening Reasonable Assurance for TMDLs 

Overview 

This accountability method is based on reasonable assurances, which are part of TMDLs under 

the Clean Water Act (CWA). Reasonable assurances are the documentation of the acountability 

from states for meeting Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) load allocations for nonpoint 

sources. 

Description 

When a TMDL is developed for waters impaired by only point sources, NPDES permits provide 

reasonable assurance that the TMDLs’ wasteload allocations (WLA) will be implemented. In 

cases where a TMDL is developed for waters impaired by a combination of point and nonpoint 

sources (and the WLA is based on assumed reductions from nonpoint sources), EPA’s Guidance 

for Water Quality Decisions: The TMDL Process (1991) and policy memorandum “New Policies 

for Establishing and Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)” (Perciasepe 1997) 

maintain that the state provide reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load allocations 

will be met. Although, EPA regions are encouraged to work with states to attain load allocations 

for waters impaired by nonpoint sources alone. However, EPA cannot disapprove a TMDL for 

nonpoint source-only impaired waters, which do not have a demonstration of reasonable 

assurance that nonpoint source load allocations will be achieved, because such a showing is not 

required by current regulations. (USEPA 2002). 

Reasonable assurances can be non-regulatory, regulatory, or incentive-based and should be 

consistent with applicable laws and programs (Perciasepe 1997). Inclusion of reasonable 

assurance in TMDLs typically ranges from general description of the programs available to 

support load allocation implementation (e.g., CWA section 319 grant program) to detailed 

implementation plans documenting planned implementation activities, responsible parties, 

schedules, and funding estimates. The types of information included to provide reasonable 

assurance can reflect the agencies involved in implementation. For example, when local 

municipalities will be responsible for implementing load allocations, reasonable assurances 

might include descriptions of local ordinances or zoning regulations in addition to planned 

management practices. Alternatively, in areas with federally managed land, a memorandum of 

understanding between the responsible agency (e.g., U.S. Forest Service) and the state might be 

included to provide reasonable assurance. 

In cases where a state has not developed a plan for achieving TMDL load allocations for 

nonpoint sources, the regions may take additional steps for encouraging states to do so. For 

example, Perciasepe (1997) recommends that the regions focus grant funding toward states 

that provide reasonable assurances that nonpoint source load allocations will actually be 

achieved. The grants may take the form of Performance Partnership grants or grants under CWA 

sections 104(b)(3), 106, 319, or 604(b) (Perciasepe 1997). 

August 2009 D-32 
 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

When the state provides reasonable assurance based on specific and planned implementation 

activities, this can be beneficial in reducing nutrients. However, when reasonable assurance is 

generic and not site-specific, it is probably less likely that that TMDL will be implemented. 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

	 To maintain NPDES permit limits based on the waste load (i.e., point source) allocation 

in a combination point and nonpoint source TMDL, heightened accountability exists for 

achieving and maintaining the nonpoint source load allocation in the TMDL. 

 Places focus on implementation of TMDLs and related allocations, rather than just 

development 

 No new regulations required 

Weaknesses 

	 Reasonable assurance is not the mechanism that provides regulatory nonpoint source 

controls. Rather, reasonable assurance is the document of existing mechanisms to 

achieve nonpoint source controls. 

	 Lack of reasonable assurance is not a basis for disapproving a nonpoint source only 

TMDL. 

	 Development and review of a TMDL may be labor intensive depending on the level of 

reasonable assurance needed to demonstrate nonpoint source loads in the TMDL can be 

achieved and maintained. 

	 Loads and reductions for differing watersheds are not the same (equity issue) 

References 

Perciasepe, R. 1997. New Policies for Establishing and Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDLs). Memo from Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2002. Guidelines for Reviewing TMDLs under Existing Regulations Issued in 1992. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

August 2009	 D-33 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Connecticut Nitrogen Credit Exchange Program 

Overview 

In 2001, Connecticut and New York, together with EPA, developed a TMDL for Long Island 

Sound. One of Connecticut’s management strategies to reduce nitrogen was to develop a 

nitrogen trading program among 79 sewage treatment plants located throughout the state. 

Established in 2002, the Nitrogen Credit Exchange Program aims to reduce the nitrogen load 

from sewage treatment plants by 65 percent by 2014 (CTDEP undated). This program is driven 

by the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for the Long Island Sound 

National Estuary Program, or the Long Island Sound Study (LISS), which calls for the reduction of 

total enriched nitrogen from point and nonpoint sources by 58.5 percent from the 1990 

established base loads (CTDEP 2007). 

Description 

A key component of Connecticut’s Nitrogen Credit Exchange Program is a general permit for 

nitrogen that includes all participating publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The general 

permit establishes annual nitrogen removal limits and sets monitoring and reporting protocols. 

Facilities that discharge less total nitrogen than the limit established in the general permit will 

be considered in compliance with the general permit and will be credited for the amount of 

nitrogen removed beyond the set limit. The Connecticut Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP) will purchase all equivalent nitrogen credits generated by facilities that achieve 

compliance in this way (CTDEP 2003). Alternatively, facilities may achieve compliance by 

purchasing nitrogen credits from the state (CTDEP 2003). 

The general permit accounts for the effects of geographical differences between POTWs with 

the establishment of attenuation or equalization ratios. These ratios give plants closer to the 

Sound an “economic incentive to upgrade their facilities and create nitrogen credits, and 

encourage distant plants to purchase credits” (USEPA 2007). 

The Nitrogen Credit Exchange Program does not currently include nonpoint sources in its 

nitrogen trading program, though the enabling legislation includes provisions that allow the 

Nitrogen Credit Advisory Board (the regulatory body that oversees the general permit) to 

consider the “potential and viability of including other nitrogen sources” (CTDEP 2007). DEP 

conducted an evaluation of the potential for stormwater and nonpoint source trading and found 

that “the costs to generate a nitrogen credit far exceed those applicable to POTWs” (CTDEP 

2007). Also, the difficulty of tracking and monitoring diffuse sources within Connecticut’s 169 

municipalities create a number of accountability constraints (CTDEP 2007). 

Despite these challenges, DEP will continue to explore the possibility of including nonpoint 

sources in the trading program, most likely as an incentive-based program rather than a freemarket approach (CTDEP 2007). The benefits of including stormwater/nonpoint source trading 

may outweigh potential disadvantages, especially as the price of credits within the program 

continues to rise over time. “Connecticut and New York are also obligated to meet a stormwater 

and nonpoint source load allocation under the TMDL and are using Phase II (MS4) permitting 

programs, CWA section 319 nonpoint source programs, and CZARA Section 6217 coastal 

nonpoint source programs as the mechanisms to meet the load allocation” (CTDEP 2007). This 

August 2009 D-34 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

may provide further incentive for implementing a stormwater/nonpoint source trading 

component. 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

After five years of implementation, the program is well underway, and won EPA’s first Blue 

Ribbon Water Quality Trading Leadership Award in 2007 (CTDEP 2008). According to US EPA: 

Nearly $11.6 million in credits have been generated and sold, representing 5,533,686 credits for 

a net equalized nitrogen removal of 508,626 pounds. The total aggregate equalized load to the 

Sound has kept pace with Connecticut’s reduction goals. The price per pound of nitrogen 

discharged has ranged from $1.65 (in 2002) to $3.40 (in 2006), with an anticipated increase over 

the next ten years. The economic benefit is realized when considering that 46 municipalities 

have purchased credits totaling $11,523,094 (with the state of Connecticut contributing only 

$33,017 to the program) to pay 33 municipalities for the sewage treatment plant (STP) 

improvements that enable those plants to discharge nitrogen at levels below their permitted 

wasteload allocation (WLA) of nitrogen. This greatly helped toward the aggregate goals of 

nutrient reduction (USEPA 2007). 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 The program provides an innovative approach to achieving water quality goals 

efficiently and economically (CTDEP 2008). 

 The program allows facilities facing higher pollutant control costs to “meet regulatory 

obligations by purchasing equivalent pollutant reductions (i.e., credits) from other 

sources that are discharging pollutants below their allotted limits and thus have credits 

to sell” (CTDEP 2008). 

 The program is expected to save the state between $200 million and $400 million in 

wastewater treatment construction costs over the alternative of implementing nitrogen 

removal projects at all 79 facilities listed in the general permit (CTDEP 2007). 

Weaknesses 

 The Nitrogen Credit Exchange Program does not currently include a nonpoint source 

component. 

References 

CTDEP. Undated. Nitrogen Control Program for Long Island Sound. Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT. 

http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?A=2719&Q=325572 Accessed April, 2009. 

CTDEP. 2008. Sound Outlook: A Newsletter of the Connecticut Department of Environmental 

Protection. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT. 

http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/long_island_sound/soundout/sound_outlook_

february_2008.pdf. Accessed February, 2009. 

August 2009 D-35 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

CTDEP. 2007. Connecticut’s Nitrogen Credit Exchange—An Incentive-based Water Quality 

Trading Program. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT. 

http://www.ecos.org/files/2852_file_CT_Water_Quality_Trading_Summary_2007.doc. 

Accessed March, 2009; site no longer available. 

CTDEP. 2003. Connecticut’s Nitrogen Control Program. Connecticut Department of 

Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT. http://www.envtn.org/docs/ct_fact_sheet.PDF 

Accessed March, 2009. 

USEPA. 2007. Newsletter of the Long Island Sound Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Long Island Sound Office, Stamford, CT. 

http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/pubs/news/fall07.nitrogen.htm. Accessed February, 

2009. 

August 2009 D-36 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Dutch Nutrient Trading System 

Overview 

Agricultural operations in the Netherlands function under manure management regulations 

established in response to a manure surplus from intensive livestock operations that 

experienced rapid growth in the 1960s and 1970s. Regulations include a nutrient trading 

program and other tools and programs to manage manure. 

Description 

The Dutch Nutrient Trading System was established as part of a suite of manure management 

policies. In 1984, the Interim Law for Restriction of Pig and Poultry Farms was passed to prohibit 

new livestock farms in specific regions and limit development in other areas (Wossink 2003). In 

1987, the Manure Law and the Soil Protection Act were passed, replacing the Interim Law. 

The Manure Law established a cap of 125 kilograms of phosphate per hectare of land from all 

animal sources (Wossink 2003). The difference between the farm’s actual manure production 

(reference amount) and the assessed acreage-based phosphate rights was used to determine 

which farms had a manure surplus and which had a manure deficit (Wossink 2003). A deficit 

farm could increase animal production on the basis of unused land-based manure production 

rights. For a manure surplus farm, such an increase in production capacity was possible only by 

buying additional land (Wossink 2003). 

Between 1990 and 1998, phosphate limits for manure production were lowered in a series of 

stages and a subsidized infrastructure was set up for transporting manure from areas with 

manure surplus to areas with a deficit (Oenema 2004). This period also saw a shift in focus to 

nitrate in groundwater with the approval of the 1991 EU Nitrates Directive, which aims to 

reduce pollution caused by nitrogen from agricultural sources, including the potential pollution 

of groundwater (Oenema 2004). 

In 1994, manure production rights became tradable and nutrient accounting became obligatory 

for both phosphate and nitrogen (Wossink 2003). For each farm, the difference between the 

land-based quota of 125 kilograms of phosphate per hectare and the farm’s reference amount 

was designated as tradable (Wossink 2003). Regulations for trading these non-land-based 

quotas were established to limit any increase in swine production (including animal type-based 

trading rules and geographical trading restrictions), which was perceived to be the source of the 

most serious environmental problems (Wossink 2003). Also, taxes were placed on nutrient 

surpluses above the allotted quotas and additional requirements for new buildings were 

announced with a goal of reducing ammonia emissions (Wossink 2003). 

In 1998, policies moved away from quotas, and the Mineral Accounting System (MINAS) (a farm 

level record of all inputs and outputs of nitrogen and phosphate) and manure application limits 

based on nitrogen were implemented. MINAS set limits of nitrogen and phosphate that can be 

applied and taxes any surpluses over those limits (Oenema 2004). This change meant that a 

farm’s legal production capacity was no longer determined by the amount of quota but by its 

capacity for manure disposal—either by land application (on-site) or by hauling manure to a 

August 2009 D-37 
 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

crop farm in a deficient region (Wossink 2003). These limits have helped drive up the cost of 

manure disposal (Oenema 2004). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

The effectiveness of the manure policies is uncertain. Monitoring programs show nitrogen and 

phosphate application limits have decreased surpluses and improved nitrogen and phosphate 

use efficiency by over 50 percent at the farm level within a 15-year period (Oenema 2004). In 

cattle and dairy farming, reduction in animal numbers can be completely ascribed to factors 

unrelated to the quota system. During the 15 year period, the quota system for swine and 

poultry seemed to prevent an increase in animal numbers. Overall, waste production likely 

would have been 5-10 percent higher without the quota system (Wossink 2003). 

The economic costs and administrative burden of the program are quite high—especially for 

specialized livestock farmers and the government. In 1998 to 2000, dairy farms paid on average 

1,000 to 2,000 euro and pig and poultry farms paid 4,000 to 5,000 euro on average (per farm) to 

account for nitrogen and phosphate surpluses at farm level (Oenema 2004). The administrative 

costs of the quota system (along with the related manure management policies) are about 44 

million euro per year (as of 2003) (Wossink 2003). 

Generally, the manure management policies have not been favorably received. The shift to 

nitrogen and phosphate application limits in the 1990s was met by massive protests from 

farmers, forcing union leaders to distance themselves publicly from the plan. Environmental 

organizations, stakeholders, and drinking water suppliers also had concerns about meeting 

environmental goals (Wossink 2003). In 1993, the Ministries of Agriculture and the Environment 

and the farmer’s union agreed that by 1998 the quota system would become obsolete and 

replaced by a nutrient accounting scheme at the farm level. Some questioned whether the 

quota system had to be introduced, and there was friction between farmers and the 

government (Wossink 2003). 

The European Commission has not accepted MINAS as a suitable instrument for achieving the 

objectives of the EU Nitrate Directive. By the end of 1999, the European Commission brought 

the Netherlands government to court, which condemned the manure policy. The Netherlands 

must soon implement new regulations for nitrogen and phosphate compatible with the Nitrate 

Directive (Oenema 2004). 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 Increased economic costs for nutrient application (in the form of the levy’s 

administrative and manure disposal costs) have encouraged farmers to become more 

efficient in their use of nitrogen and phosphate (especially in the case of animal 

nutrition), decreasing the average surpluses of nitrogen and phosphate by more than 50 

percent in 15 years (Oenema 2004). 

 Manure quotas were established to account for differences in livestock type and 

geographical region to target intensive agricultural practices (such as swine and broiler 

production) in manure surplus areas. 

 The system encourages compliance with a tax penalty. 

August 2009 D-38 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Weaknesses 

 The initial quota over-allocated by 10-25% due to inaccurate data (Wossink 2003). 

 Uncertainty in the stability and effectiveness of the policy affected quota market and 

prices considerably (Wossink 2003). 

 Many policy experts placed too much faith in technical solutions and ignored insights 

provided by ex ante studies; misunderstanding the local agricultural economy weakened 

the policy (Wossink 2003). 

 The policy did not reflect the position of the swine industry as an exposed sector (an 

industry affected by foreign competition). This became a major bottleneck in the system 

(Wossink 2003). 

 Administration costs for the manure programs are high (about 44 million euro per year) 

and there might be little environmental benefit (Wossink 2003). 

 Many farmers (especially those raising pigs) were unconvinced of the environmental 

benefits of the policy and were reluctant to adopt the manure management measures. 

This sector was most affected by the fees and restrictions imposed by the policy 

(Wossink 2003). 

References 

Oenema, O. 2004. Governmental policies and measures regulating nitrogen and phosphorus 

from animal manure in European agriculture. Journal of Animal Science 82:E196–206. 

http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/full/82/13_suppl/E196. Accessed April, 2009. 

Wossink, A. 2003. The Dutch Nutrient Quota System: Past Experience and Lessons for the Future. 

Paper prepared for the OECD workshop on “The Ex-Post Evaluation of Tradeable Permit 

Regimes.” 

http://www.envtn.org/docs/Dutch_trading_text.pdf. Accessed March, 2009. 

August 2009 D-39 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Maryland Policy for Nutrient Cap Management and Trading 

Overview 

Maryland’s Policy for Nutrient Cap Management and Trading is a voluntary program that allows 

for identifying and trading nutrient “credits” between point and nonpoint sources. It is designed 

to accommodate growth while maintaining nutrient caps (MDE 2008). 

This trading program, which was developed to help Maryland meet nutrient reduction goals for 

Chesapeake Bay restoration and TMDL requirements, will be issued in three phases. Phase I 

(issued in March 2008) addresses trading among point sources, and Phase II (agricultural draft 

issued February 2009) addresses trading among point sources and nonpoint sources. There are 

also plans for Phase III, which will address trading among nonpoint sources (MDA and MDE 

2008). This fact sheet focuses primarily on Phase II, trading between point and nonpoint 

sources. 

Description 

Phase II of the Policy for Nutrient Cap Management and Trading allows point sources to 

purchase nutrient credits from nonpoint sources. Anticipated buyers include new and expanding 

point sources that need to acquire credits to achieve their baselines once they have met their 

minimum requirements (MDE 2008). 

Nutrient loads are calculated on a watershed scale. Geographical boundaries of trading are 

based on three large watersheds or “trading regions” that include the Potomac, Patuxent, and 

Eastern Shore and Western Shore tributary watersheds (including the Susquehanna watershed). 

Pollutant reductions will be calculated within these defined regions to ensure that baseline 

requirements are met (MDE 2008). 

Key principles of Phase II include the following (MDA 2008): 

1)	 Any generator of agricultural nonpoint source credits must first demonstrate that they 

have met the baseline water quality requirements of their watershed. These include the 

minimum level of nutrient reductions outlined in the Tributary Strategies of the 

applicable TMDL requirements. 

2)	 Agricultural generators must be in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws, 

regulations, and programs. The credit generator and trade can not cause or contribute 

to water quality effects locally, downstream, or bay-wide. 

3)	 Those portions of best management practices (BMPs) funded by federal or state cost 

share can not be used to generate credits during the life span of the project. However, 

credits derived from practices implemented with the sellers out of pocket share are 

eligible after the effective date. 

4)	 The Agricultural Trading Program is not intended to accelerate the loss of productive 

farmland. Therefore, credits will not be generated under this policy for the purchase and 

idling of whole or substantial portions of farms to provide nutrient credits for use off 

site. 

August 2009	 D-40 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

5)	 Trades must result in a net decrease in loads. A portion of the agricultural credits 

generated in a trade will be retired and used to achieve Tributary Strategies or TMDLs. 

The other portion becomes tradable credit. 

6)	 An agricultural practice can only generate credits once it is installed or placed in 

operation. 

“Tradable credits can be generated from any planned agronomic, land conversion, or structural 

practice that is shown to reduce nutrient loadings below the applicable baseline” (MDA 2008). 

These credits are determined using BMP efficiency rates, using the latest science and technical 

information (MDA 2008). The three categories of credit-generating practices include the 

following (MDA and MDE 2008): 

1) BMPs with “approved” load reductions 

2) BMPs requiring technical review 

3) Other BMPs, practices, or innovative approaches 

The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) intends to create a central trading registry 

to post, track, and market agricultural credits once certified (MDA 2008). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

Very little information is currently available on the effectiveness of the program. This policy is 

still in its infancy and additional time is required to fully appreciate its effectiveness in managing 

nutrient loading in Maryland waters. 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

	 The Policy is designed so that trading is not available as a substitute for required 

upgrades to waste water treatment plants (WWTP). Nutrient reductions achieved 

through these upgrades must be maintained regardless of nutrient trading activity (MDE 

2008). 

 The Policy provides financial incentive for nonpoint sources to install and maintain BMPs 

to reduce nonpoint source pollution. 

 Phase II provides an alternate way for point sources to reduce nonpoint source pollution 

and meet reduction targets. 

 This program allows for continued growth despite fixed nutrient caps (MDE 2008). 

Weaknesses 

	 Because the program is in its early stages, there is not enough information to determine 

its effectiveness to control nutrients and maintain growth. 

 The program is voluntary, especially for the agriculture community. 

 Changes in agronomic practices (such as crops grown) may have an impact on the 

effectiveness of the program. 

August 2009	 D-41 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

References 

MDA. 2008. Maryland Policy for Nutrient Cap Management and Trading in Maryland’s 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Phase II A: Guidelines for the Generation of Agricultural Nonpoint 

Nutrient Credits (DRAFT). Maryland Department of Agriculture, Annapolis, MD. 

http://www.mda.state.md.us/nutrad/docs/Phase%20II-A_Crdt%20Generation.pdf Accessed 

March, 2009. 

MDA and MDE. 2008. Maryland Trading Program Overview. Maryland Department of 

Agriculture and Maryland Department of the Environment, Annapolis, MD. 

http://mdnutrienttrading.org/docs/nutradingintro.pdf. Accessed February, 2009. 

MDE. 2008. Contemplated Nutrient Cap Management and Trading Policy. Maryland Department 

of the Environment, Annapolis, MD. 

http://www.mde.state.md.us/ResearchCenter/Publications/General/eMDE/vol3no6/

nutrientcap.asp. Accessed February, 2009. 

August 2009 D-42 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Ohio Water Quality Trading 

Overview 

Ohio’s water quality trading rules include provisions for establishing a water quality trading 

program in Ohio. Water quality trading is a “voluntary program that allows National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit holders (point sources) to meet regulatory 

obligations by using pollutant reductions generated by another wastewater point source or 

nonpoint source” (OEPA 2007). 

Description 

Ohio’s water quality trading rules establish requirement that water quality trading activities can 

only happen with an approved water quality trading management plan (the rules set forth 

timelines and procedures for the submittal of water quality trading management plans for 

trading activities already in effect) (OAC 2007). 

The goals of Ohio’s Water Quality Trading Rules include the following (Stuhlfauth 2008): 

 Facilitate watershed-based approaches to improving water quality. 

 Improve water quality and minimize the costs of achieving and maintaining water 

quality standards. 

 Provide economic incentives for voluntary pollutant reductions from point and nonpoint 

sources. 

 Achieve additional environmental benefits beyond pollutant reductions, such as 

restoring natural flow patterns, improving aquatic habitat, increasing the ability of 

streams to process certain pollutants, and creating stream buffers and shading. 

The water quality trading rules are voluntary, so an NPDES permit holder will be affected by the 

rules only if the permittee decides to participate in a water quality trading program. 

Participating in a water quality trading program gives permit holders an alternate means of 

complying with permit limits that could result in cost savings when compared to installing 

additional treatment capabilities at the wastewater treatment plant. These water quality trading 

rules provide “an opportunity for point sources and nonpoint sources to work together in 

mitigating water quality impacts within their watershed” (OEPA 2007). 

Current Water Quality Trading Activities in Ohio 

Great Miami River Basin—This is a wastewater-scale program with the Miami Conservancy 

District acting as a third party broker. Wastewater treatment plants will participate by funding 

nonpoint source nutrient reduction projects in the Stillwater River sub-basin. There is an 

approved TMDL for the Stillwater basin. A TMDL for the Great Miami River mainstem is 

projected for 2013 (Stuhlfauth 2008). 

Sugar Creek, Tuscarawas River Basin—The Alpine Cheese Company installed treatment for part 

of its required phosphorus reduction. They will fund nonpoint source projects to generate 

credits for the remainder of the reduction. The Holmes County Soil and Water Conservation 

District will act as third party broker. There is an approved TMDL for this area (Stuhlfauth 2008). 

August 2009 D-43 
 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Upper Little Miami River Basin—Provisions that allow trading to meet Phase 2 phosphorus 

reductions are included in the NPDES permits of wastewater treatment plants. There is an 

approved TMDL for this area. Greene County may use a point source/point source trade and a 

point source/nonpoint source trade to achieve TMDL limits (Stuhlfauth 2008). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

The water quality trading rules have only been in effect for a little over a year, so there has not 

been much time to develop a good understanding of how the program is functioning. The new 

rules, however, should make it easier for future development of water quality trading programs 

in Ohio, as the rules establish common procedures and regulations that can lead to a systematic 

and coordinated approach to water quality trading. 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

	 The water quality trading rules support the development of water quality trading 

programs in Ohio and accommodate programs already in effect, stipulating timelines for 

existing programs to adjust to the new regulations (OAC 2007). 

	 The rules accommodate the generation of credits from both point and nonpoint sources 

of pollution (OAC 2007). 

	 The rules allow for a great deal of flexibility—each new program can establish its own 

baselines and trading ratios, for example, allowing for customization to different 

circumstances (OAC 2007). 

	 The rules include provisions for establishing a public participation process, allowing for 

open participation in the planning process (OAC 2007). 

Weaknesses 

 Flexible rules may cause discrepancies in how trading is managed by different groups. 

References 

Stuhlfauth, G. 2008. Water Quality Trading In Ohio. Letter from Gary Stuhlfauth, Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Columbus, OH. 

http://www.conservationinformation.org/pdf/workshophandout2.pdf. 

Accessed March, 2009. 

OAC. 2007. OAC Chapter 3745-5: Water Quality Trading. Ohio Administrative Code. 

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/rules/05_all.pdf. Accessed March, 2009. 

OEPA. 2007. Rules for Water Quality Trading, Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-5. Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, OH. 

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=hljUnWqlNGw%3d&tabid=3518. Accessed 

March, 2009. 

August 2009	 D-44 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Pennsylvania Nutrient Trading Program 

Overview 

The voluntary Pennsylvania Nutrient Trading Program (the Program), modeled after the national 

emissions cap and trade programs, helps maintain and improve water quality using market 

mechanisms to reduce nutrients at lower costs. Trading can take place between any 

combination of eligible point sources, nonpoint sources, and third parties. Currently trading can 

only occur in the Susquehanna and Potomac River Watersheds, and only total nitrogen, total 

phosphorus, and total sediment reduction credits can be traded (PADEP 2008). 

Description 

In December 2006, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) issued 

the Final Trading of Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Credits—Policy and Guidelines, which 

provided guidance for the Program (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2008) The Program is a 

voluntary mechanism that is subordinate to applicable laws and regulations.4

 It allows point and 

nonpoint sources that meet their environmental obligations to generate credits, which can then 

be traded to others who are in need of nutrient reduction credits. The trading program is 

operated through a joint effort between the Central Office and Department Regional Offices 

(PADEP 2006). 

For a point source to generate and sell credits, a facility must operate below the discharge 

loading limits set in its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. These 

“credits” can be purchased by another facility who cannot meet its discharge requirements (due 

to various reasons, including holding off upgrades to technology for a future date). Credits can 

also be generated by nonpoint source dischargers, such as farmers. To be eligible, a farmer 

implements one of 24 established best management practices (BMPs) that are calculated into 

credits (PADEP 2006; PADEP 2007). 

The Program allows the trading of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment under the following 

principles: “(1) trades must involve comparable credits (e.g., nitrogen must be traded for 

nitrogen); (2) trades must be expressed as mass per unit time (e.g., pounds per year); (3) trades 

can occur only between eligible parties; and (4) credits generated by trading cannot be used to 

comply with existing technology-based effluent limits except as expressly authorized by federal 

regulations” (PADEP 2006). 

The process for approving and tracking nutrient credits is as follows (PADEP 2006; PADEP 2008): 

Certification 

 Dischargers seeking credit approval will use pre-approved calculation methods to 

calculate their credits. For nonpoint sources, PADEP expects that proposals will contain 

scientifically-recognized methods to demonstrate nutrient and sediment reductions. 

 Submittal of a proposal by the discharger. 

4 Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. §§ 691.1 –691.1001); Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 

U.S.C.A. §§ 1251 - 1387); 40 CFR Part 122; and 25 Pa Code Chapters 92, 93 and 96 

August 2009 D-45 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

 Proposals will be reviewed by a panel of PADEP and selected experts for technical 

acceptability and consistency with the Program, policy, and legal requirements.
 

 PADEP will make a determination, and if credits are approved, PADEP may include 

conditions that must be met before registration of a trade 

Verification 

	 A Verification Plan is submitted by the discharger (annually) with documentation that 

nutrient reduction activities have taken place. 

	 PADEP (or approved third parties) use a combination of record keeping, monitoring, 

reporting, inspections (including site-visits), self-certifications, and compliance audits to 

ensure that the credit-generating obligations are being met. 

Registration and Tracking 

	 Credits must be approved by PADEP and are registered before a trade can occur. PADEP 

uses an online marketplace tool such as NutrietNet (http://pa.nutrientnet.org) to assist 

with the registration, tracking and application of credits. NutrientNet is an online 

application that includes estimation tools to calculate the amount of credits needed or 

generated by a particular practice, and where users can buy or sell credits. 

	 PADEP register credits annually and provide credits with registry number for reporting 

and tracking purposes. 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

The trading program is a relatively new program, and its guidelines (Trading of Nutrient and 

Sediment Reduction Credits —Policy and Guidelines) were finalized in December 2006 (PADEP 

2008). As of August 2008, 57 proposals have been submitted for review. Thirty two proposals 

have been approved for 702,892 nitrogen credits, 80,072 phosphorus credits, and 35,593 

sediment credits (Reuters 2008). Although there are real-time updates of registered credits on 

NutrientNet, as well as on state Bulletins (e.g., Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2008), which 

seem to be posted irregularly, there seems to be little publicly available information on program 

effectiveness, or whether any specific problems have been encountered. On its Web site, PADEP 

has posted some questions and comments that have been received about the program, such as 

a few from the Citizens Advisory Council (PADEP 2005). 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 Reduction of transaction costs through the use of NutrientNet (WRI 2007). 

 NutrientNet allows PADEP to track projects, credits, and trades (WRI 2007). 

 Standardized calculations of nonpoint source credits (WRI 2007). 

 Market mechanisms create efficient and effective means of solving environmental 

challenges. 

 The Program creates flexibility to meet legal requirements, especially conducted on a 

watershed basis. 

 Public participation/oversight: NutrientNet allows market activity be seen by the public 

(WRI 2007). 

 The Program creates a monetary incentive for NPS nutrient reductions for dischargers. 

August 2009	 D-46 
 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Weaknesses 

	 Difficulty trading between point and nonpoint sources. It is easy to quantify and monitor 

point sources; this is more difficult for nonpoint sources. 

	 No mandatory monitoring program: one reason the national emissions cap and trade 

programs are successful is because all dischargers are obligated to reduce emissions 

while they are held accountable through monitoring. It is difficult to “measure” efforts 

when the program is voluntary. 

	 Accuracy of nutrient reductions: there is no checking mechanism to see if the credits 

calculated through the model is accurate. 

	 Equity issues for POTWs: POTWs have to meet required reductions and then apply for 

credits, while nonpoint sources do not have that initial requirement. This may not be 

equitable (PADEP 2005). 

	 “Fairness” is difficult to determine in some cases. For instance, if the landowner has 

received public money (e.g., from the federal Farm Bill money) to implement BMPs then 

sells credits created by those BMPs, that farmer might have a financial advantage 

(PADEP 2005). There should be a guideline to prevent farmers from selling credits in 

addition to receiving public money. 

 Retiring of credits: There seems to be no formal, publicly available guideline to retire 

credits. 

 There is little publicly available information about the Program or Program results. 

References 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2008. Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Credit Trading 

Program; Nutrient Trading Program and NPDES Permits [38 Pa.B. 5502]. Pennsylvania Bulletin. 

http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol38/38-40/1808.html. Accessed March, 2009. 

PADEP. 2008. Pennsylvania Nutrient Trading. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection, Harrisburg, PA. http://www.dep.state.pa.us/river/Nutrient%20trading.htm. 

Accessed March, 2009. 

PADEP. 2007. Fact Sheet: Nutrient Trading – Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA. 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/river/Nutrient%20Trading_files/Trading%20Fact%20Sheet-

%203900-FS-DEP4073.pdf. Accessed March, 2009. 

PADEP. 2006. Final Trading of Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Credits – Policy and Guidelines. 

392-0900-001. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA. 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/river/Nutrient%20Trading%20Documents/Additions%2012-29-

2006/Final%20Policy%2012-28.pdf. Accessed March, 2009. 

PADEP. 2005. Letter from Citizens Advisory Council dated November 18, 2005. Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA. 

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/cac/cwp/view.asp?a=1329&q=484865. Accessed March, 2009. 

August 2009	 D-47 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Reuters. 2008. Pennsylvania’s Nutrient Trading Program Proving Viable, Cost-Effective Approach 

to Meeting Water Quality Goals. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS172397+17-

Sep-2008+PRN20080917. Accessed April, 2009. 

WRI. 2007. Nutrient Net. World Resources Institute. http://www.nutrientnet.org. Accessed 

March, 2009. 

August 2009 D-48 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

California Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program 

Overview 

The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the nine state Regional Water 

Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) are the lead 

state agencies for implementing the Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution Control Program through 

the Plan for California’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The purpose of the NPS 

Pollution Control Program is to improve the state’s ability to effectively manage NPS pollution 

(SWRCB 2009). 

Description 

Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the NPS Pollution Control 

Program addresses both surface and ground water quality. The program achieves its goals 

through several means (SWRCB undated a): 

 Watershed-based approaches with management measures consisting of site-specific 

management practices. 

 Implementation and enforcement through California’s NPS Implementation and 

Enforcement Policy. 

 Public education and technical information through workshops on the most current 

management techniques. 

 Financial and technical assistance for projects and programs that address NPS pollution, 

land use, and watershed management. 

 Tracking, monitoring, and assessing the effectiveness of management measure 

implementation. 

Funding sources for the NPS Pollution Control Program include California bond funds and Clean 

Water Act section 319 grant funds that support development and implementation of watershed 

management and total maximum daily load (TMDL) plans; implementation of management 

measures and practices; and education and technical assistance on NPS pollution problems and 

solutions (SWRCB undated a). 

The NPS Pollution Control Program identified six categories of land use that contribute to NPS 

pollution—agriculture, forestry (silviculture), urban, marinas, hydromodification, and 

wetlands/riparian areas. The Program partners with more than 20 other state agencies that 

have programs in the six land use categories (SWRCB undated a). 

NPS pollution control activities that fall under the NPS Pollution Control Program must meet the 

requirements of the following five key elements described in the Policy for Implementation and 

Enforcement of the NPS Pollution Control Program. Each activity must be endorsed or approved 

by the appropriate RWQCB and include the following (SWRCB undated b). 

	 The purpose and a method to address NPS pollution control in a manner that achieves 

and maintains water quality objectives. 

August 2009	 D-49 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

 A description of the management practices (MPs) and other program elements, along 

with an evaluation program that ensures proper implementation and verification. 

	 A time schedule and quantifiable milestones (as required by the RWQCB) 

	 Feedback mechanisms so that the RWQCB, dischargers, and the public can determine 

whether the implementation program is achieving its stated purpose(s), or whether 

additional or different MPs or other actions are required. 

Each RWQCB shall make clear, in advance, the potential consequences for failure to achieve an 

NPS implementation activity’s objectives, emphasizing that it is the responsibility of individual 

dischargers to take all necessary implementation actions to meet water quality requirements. 

Overall NPS Pollution Control Program accountability is critical to reassure the public of the 

state’s commitment to deal with NPS pollution. The Nonpoint Source Program Strategy and 

Implementation Plan contains actions that will result in consistent and timely evaluation and 

reporting of the Program’s progress in effectively dealing with NPS pollution. This includes 

annual, biennial, and 5-year reporting cycles and the use of internet-based interactive 

information tools. There is also public participation through: (1) development of 5-year 

implementation plans; (2) tracking the implementation of and assessing effectiveness of 

management measures; (3) use of public reports; (4) expanded volunteer monitoring and 

education programs; (5) use of the internet; and (6) expansion of public outreach workshops 

(SWRCB 2000). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

Annual, biennial, and 5-year progress reports on the Program, as well as a list and description of 

funded projects and its progress are posted on the internet on a regular basis, which helps the 

public assess whether the projects are working. More detail could be provided for each project 

on the SWRCB site. 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

	 Information is shared with the public. Regular online updates and lists of success stories 

of the Program through reports and individual projects help keep the public informed 

about ongoing activities. 

Weaknesses 

	 From available information, it is unclear whether projects have been successful or not, 

and what would make them better. 

References 

SWRCB. 2000. Nonpoint Source Program Strategy and Implementation Plan, 1998-2013 

(PROSIP). Volume 1. California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/prosipv1.pdf. Accessed April, 2009. 

August 2009	 D-50 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

SWRCB. 2009. Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution Control Program: The Plan for California’s 

Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program (NPS Program Plan). California State Water 

Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/protecting.shtml. Accessed April, 

2009. 

SWRCB. Undated a. California’s Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program – Stopping Water Quality 

Degradation at its Source. California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/docs/marketing/nps_program_poster.pdf. 

Accessed April, 2009. 

SWRCB. Undated b. Fact Sheet: Policy for the Implementation and Enforcement of the Nonpoint 

Source Pollution Control Program. California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, 

CA. http://swrcb2.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/docs/npsfactsheet.pdf. Accessed 

April, 2009. 

August 2009 D-51 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Iowa Onsite Wastewater Loan Program 

Overview 

The Onsite Wastewater Systems Assistance Program (OSWAP) offers low-interest loans through 

participating lenders to rural homeowners for replacement of inadequate or failing septic 

systems (IFA undated). OSWAP was created to help replace outdated septic systems that still 

dump untreated wastewater from household septic tanks to open ditches or underground tile 

lines that flow directly to streams, rivers, lakes, or fractured bedrock (Iowa DNR undated a). 

Description 

OSWAP is one of four financing programs through the Iowa Water Quality Loan Fund, the NPS 

fund of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), which helps Iowans address NPS water 

quality problems (Iowa DNR undated b). The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 

administers OSWAP in cooperation with County Sanitarians, and the Iowa Finance Authority 

(IFA) acting as the financial agent (IFA undated). 

The program funds the replacement of outdated septic systems with approved onsite systems, 

which include both a septic tank and a secondary treatment system, such as a leachfield (Iowa 

DNR undated c). According to Iowa law, all septic systems must have a secondary wastewater 

treatment system following a septic tank (Iowa DNR undated a). All costs directly related to the 

repair, rehabilitation, or replacement of an onsite treatment system are eligible, including costs 

directly related to the design, permitting, and construction of the onsite wastewater system. 

Costs for removing existing structures, earth moving, and any land purchases directly related to 

proper wastewater treatment are also eligible. Ineligible costs include additional earthwork, 

reseeding, replanting, and maintenance or monitoring costs (IFA undated). 

The following conditions must be met in order to obtain a grant (IFA undated; Iowa DNR 

undated d): 

 Homeowners must reside in a participating county listed on the Iowa DNR site. 

 Homeowners begin the OSWAP loan process by obtaining a septic construction permit 

from the County Sanitarian after a preliminary site evaluation and approval. 

 An OSWAP approval form must be completed by the homeowner (loan recipient). 

 Homeowners apply online for a loan through a participating lender. Loan amounts can 

finance up to 100% of project costs starting at $2,000 and up, and the loan terms can be 

up to 10 years. The interest rate charged does not exceed 3%. Loan applicants must be 

credit-worthy and apply for a loan through participating lenders. 

 After the project has been completed, inspected, and certified by the County Sanitarian, 

DNR must approve the project and loan amount online and then IFA approves the loan. 

As of August 2009, Iowa had made 892 loans in 78 counties for a total of $6.1 million (Iowa DNR 

undated a). 

August 2009 D-52 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

There is not a great deal of publicly available information on how the program is working. Based 

on the information available online, an estimated 100,000 septic systems in Iowa do not meet 

the standard. Funding is available for virtually all of the remaining substandard systems to be 

upgraded. 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 The Program is a source of low-cost financing available to landowners. This opportunity 

is available specifically to assist and encourage landowners to address nonpoint source 

pollution of Iowa streams and lakes. 

 Applications are accepted any time of the year and turnaround time is quick 

(characteristic of CWSRF) (IDALS undated). 

 Quick loan processing and friendly loan repayment terms let borrowers implement 

projects done right away (characteristic of CWSRF) (IDALS undated). 

 Significant cost savings: interest rates are lower than those from other financing sources 

(characteristic of CWSRF) (IDALS undated). 

 Complements other funding sources: can be used to provide project share costs for 

other funding sources (characteristic of CWSRF) (IDALS undated). 

Weaknesses 

 There is little publicly available information about the program’s direct impacts on water 

quality. Monitoring data before and after the implementation of the program may be 

one way to show that the program has been successful. Monitoring for septic system 

constituents alone is not financially feasible and monitoring for indicators is hampered 

by the agricultural nature of Iowa. 

 Enforcement issues: although it is Iowa’s state regulation that all septic systems must 

have a secondary wastewater treatment system following the septic tank, it is unclear 

how the state can enforce this regulation unless a homeowner knows that his septic 

system is failing and needs to be replaced. 

 Iowa has instituted a time of transfer septic system inspection program beginning July1, 

2009. This new law requires every building with a septic system have that system 

inspected prior to the transfer of the deed. This has dramatically increased the number 

of sub-standard systems being repaired and also provided an effective new public 

information tool about what constitutes a legal septic system. Many homeowners have 

chosen to fix their sub-standard systems prior to selling their homes. 

References 

IDALS. Undated. Field Services Bureau: State Revolving Loan Fund. What is the Iowa Water 

Quality Loan Fund? Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Field Services 

Bureau, Des Moines, IA. 

http://www.iowaagriculture.gov/FieldServices/waterQualityLoanFund.asp. Accessed March, 

2009. 

August 2009 D-53 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Iowa DNR. Undated a. Iowa’s Onsite Wastewater Loan Program. Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources, Des Moines, IA. http://www.iowadnr.gov/water/septic/program.html. Accessed 

March, 2009. 

Iowa DNR. Undated b. Iowa DNR State Revolving Fund. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 

Des Moines, IA. http://www.iowadnr.gov/water/srf/index2.html. Accessed March, 2009. 

Iowa DNR. Undated c. Iowa DNR State Revolving Fund. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 

Des Moines, IA. http://www.iowadnr.gov/water/srf/onsite.html. Accessed March, 2009. 

Iowa DNR. Undated d. The Onsite Wastewater Systems Assistance Program (OSWAP). Iowa

Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines, IA. 

http://www.iowadnr.gov/water/septic/files/oswap.pdf. Accessed March, 2009. 

IFA. Undated. Onsite Wastewater Assistance Program (OSWAP). Iowa Finance Authority, 

Des Moines, IA. 

http://www.iowafinanceauthority.gov/en/water_quality_programs/onsite_wastewater

assistance_program_oswap. Accessed March, 2009. 

August 2009 D-54 
 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

North Carolina Community Conservation Assistance Program (CCAP) 

Overview 

The Community Conservation Assistance Program (CCAP), patterned after the NC Agriculture 

Cost Share Program, is a voluntary, incentive-based program designed to improve water quality 

through the installation of various best management practices (BMPs) on urban, suburban, and 

rural lands that are not directly involved with agricultural production. The Agriculture Cost Share 

Program has a similar structure but only targets agricultural operations (NCDENR undated). The 

CCAP provides educational, technical, and financial assistance to landowners through local soil 

and water conservation districts (SWCDs) (NCDENR undated). 

Description 

Established in 2006, the CCAP is a grant funded program that enables local SWCDs to help 

landowners install practices to address erosion control, stormwater, flooding, drainage, stream 

restoration, and other land and water quality concerns (NCASWCD 2009). CCAP efforts focus on 

retrofitting stormwater BMPs on existing land uses; the program is not used to assist new 

development sites to meet state and federal stormwater mandates (Hunt et al. undated). 

Support can go to eligible landowners (e.g., homeowners, businesses, schools, parks, churches, 

and community groups) on sites that have been developed for a minimum of three years 

(NCDENR undated). 

Applications for CCAP funding must be submitted to local soil and water conservation districts. 

They are then ranked based on local water quality priorities. If an applicant is deemed eligible, a 

conservation plan is prepared by local SWCDs for BMP installation (a landscaper may also 

prepare plans) (NCDENR undated). 

The CCAP may provide funding of up to 75 percent cost share to eligible applicants to 

implement BMPs (up to $50,000) and funding to provide up to 50 percent cost share to local soil 

and water conservation districts for technical employees to assist with design and installation 

oversight and to administer the program locally (NCASWCD 2009). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

The CCAP is intended to operate under the same guidance and accountability as the highly 

successful North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program and achieve the same success (Hunt et 

al. undated). 

Since its inception in 2006, the CCAP has grown dramatically. In fiscal year 2007 the program 

was available in 17 districts. In fiscal year 2008, the program grew to include 40 districts. In fiscal 

year 2009 the CCAP is available in 65 districts (NCASWCD 2009). Additional funding was 

requested in 2009 to increase the budget by $3.4 million for program assistance and to add an 

additional position in the Division of Soil and Water Conservation offices to provide program 

support (NCASWCD 2009). 

August 2009 D-55 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

	 The CCAP encourages local governments, individual landowners, and businesses to 

voluntarily incorporate stormwater BMPs by providing a source of funding and technical 

support (Hunt et al. undated). 

	 In addition to providing significant water quality benefits, several of the approved 

practices (e.g., cistern rain gardens/bioretention areas) have the added benefit of 

enabling reuse of runoff from impervious surfaces or other desirable uses. Other 

practices increase infiltration of rainfall, thereby increasing the resiliency of water 

supplies (e.g., impervious surface conversion, permeable pavement) (NCASWCD 2009). 

	 The presence of a statewide CCAP coordinator had helped the program’s development 

and growth throughout the state (NCASWCD 2009). 

 Projects are ranked and assessed based on water quality priorities.
 

 The CCAP addresses a lower profile source of nutrients. 

Weaknesses 

 At this time, not all districts are eligible for funding, though allocations have increased 

each year since the programs inception (NCASWCD 2009). 

 The program only applies to retrofits, and does not provide support for new 

development (Hunt et al. undated). 

	 At this time, many of the eligible CCAP practices, such as stormwater wetlands and 

impervious surface conversion to permeable pavement, require engineering designs 

that can not be met with the limited existing engineering resources in the Division of 

Soil and Water Conservation (NCASWCD 2009). 

 The program lacks a specific goal. 

 The program does not address all sources within a sector. 

 If an applicant sells property that contains a cost shared BMP during the maintenance
 

period (the specified minimum life of the practice), they are required to repay the state 

a pro-rated amount of the original cost or arrange for the buyer to assume the 

maintenance of the BMP (NCDENR 2007). 

o	 Any conversion from the intended use of the BMP during the maintenance 

period will require the operator to repay the state a pro-rated amount of the 

original cost share payment. 

o	 Damaged BMPs may or may not negate the cost share agreement (depends on 

circumstances). 

References 

Hunt, W.F., J.M. Hathaway, and R.A. Smith. Undated. Community Conservation Assistance 

Program: Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Manual. North Carolina State 

University, Raleigh, NC. http://www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/pages/2007_July_DSWC_Manual.pdf 

Accessed March, 2009 

August 2009	 D-56 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

NCASWCD. 2009. Action to Increase Community Conservation Assistance Program’s Funding to 

$3.4 Million for Best Management Practices and 1 Position. North Carolina Association of Soil 

and Water Conservation Districts. 

http://www.ncaswcd.org/Legislative_Priorities/2009/CC%20Assistance%20Association.doc. 

Accessed March, 2009 

NCDENR. Undated. Community Conservation Assistance Program. North Carolina Department of 

Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Raleigh, NC. 

http://www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/pages/ccap_program.html. Accessed March, 2009. 

NCDENR. 2007. North Carolina CCAP Program Manual: Section III Policies Governing the North 

Carolina Community Conservation Assistance Program. North Carolina Department of 

Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Raleigh, NC. 

http://www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/pages/CCAPManualsection_III.pdf. Accessed April, 2009. 

August 2009 D-57 
 

 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Wisconsin’s Priority Watershed and Priority Lake Program 

Overview 

The Priority Watershed and Priority Lake Program, outlined in Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR) regulation chapter NR 120, Wisconsin Administrative Code, provides 

financial assistance to local governments in priority watersheds to address land management 

activities contributing to rural runoff. WDNR issues grants for implementing watershed and lake 

projects through a cost-share approach. Grantees use funds to reimburse costs to landowners 

for installing voluntary best management practices (BMPs) (WDNR undated a). The program is a 

joint effort of WDNR; the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP); 

the University of Wisconsin Extension (UWEX); counties (usually through Land Conservation 

Departments); municipalities; and lake districts with assistance from a variety of federal, state, 

and local agencies. 

Description 

The nonpoint source (NPS) priority watershed grant program provides funds to prevent or 

eliminate NPS water pollution in existing, designated priority watershed projects in Wisconsin. 

The program was originally designed to address both urban and rural runoff however, in the mid 

1990s the Urban Nonpoint Source and Storm Water Management Grant Program was 

established to address urban runoff. 

To select projects, the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Board developed watershedranking criteria by ranking streams, lakes, and groundwater separately (by watershed) by high, 

medium, or low priority (WDNR undated b). 

Potential local sponsors in watersheds with high priority ranking were notified of watershed 

project eligibility and, if interested, they submitted an application to WDNR. Final designation of 

projects was granted by the Land and Water Conservation Board (WDNR undated c). Once a 

priority watershed was designated, funding was provided to support local staff and conduct 

extensive land use inventories and detailed water resources appraisals. Following the initial 

planning process, watershed plans were implemented locally, with WDNR providing up to 70 

percent cost sharing for the installation of BMPs. Implementation of priority watershed plans 

generally occurs over a 10 to 12 year period (WDNR undated b). 

Priority watershed/lake project goals focus on water quality improvements or protection from 

reductions in pollutant levels delivered to streams, rivers, and lakes. Each year, grantees submit 

reports to WDNR showing progress made towards meeting pollutant reduction goals in the 

watersheds/lakes. For a given project, information may be submitted as reductions in sediment 

or soil loss from uplands, streams, gullies, and phosphorus reductions from barnyards and 

croplands. Other projects focus on protecting shoreline and habitat in a watershed or lake 

(WDNR undated a). Some BMPs used in priority watershed projects include: 

	 In cropped fields: contour strip cropping, changes in crop rotations, reduced tillage 

methods, nutrient management, and pesticide management. 

August 2009	 D-58 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

 In eroding or trampled stream banks: shaping and reseeding, fencing to restrict cattle 

access, alternate livestock watering locations, controlled grazing, and rip-rap. 

 In animal feedlots: upslope diversion berms, filter walls, and vegetated filter strips. 

While the vast majority of practices installed within a watershed are done so on a voluntary 

basis, in 1993 a regulatory component was introduced. These regulations required the 

identification of critical sites within the watershed where BMP implementation was most 

necessary to achieve desired runoff reduction. During implementation, local project managers 

work closely with landowners that have sites that meet the critical site criteria in the watershed 

plan to obtain pollutant loading reductions. Operators had three years to accept cost-sharing to 

fix the problem or they were required to fund BMP implementation themselves. After three 

years, operators could be subject to enforcement (Holden 2009, personal communication). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

As of 2007, 93 percent of the critical sites in the priority lake and watershed areas had been 

resolved with little need for enforcement (Holden 2009, personal communication). As of early 

2009, the program has resulted in projects reaching 67 percent of its phosphorus reduction 

goals, 61 percent of its sediment reduction goals, and 74 percent of the streambank/shoreline 

sediment reduction goals (Holden 2009, personal communication). The program is currently 

closed to new applicants, however, and the program will end December 31, 2009 (WDNR 

undated c). 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

	 Program addressed both agricultural and urban NPS pollution (Holden 2009, personal 

communication). 

	 Program took a targeted approach; projects were selected based on watershed priority 

(with additional targeting of critical areas), maximizing effectiveness of state and federal 

dollars (Holden 2009, personal communication). 

 Program emphasized the development of partnerships, giving each project a broad 

stakeholder base and increasing potential sources for financial and technical assets. 

 Funding was provided to support local Land Conservation Department staff, 

strengthening local resources. 

	 Program took a watershed approach, which was more comprehensive and efficient than 

a project-by-project deployment of money and staff (Holden 2009, personal 

communication). 

	 Each project went through a lengthy planning process (2 years on average) that 

provided a detailed plan for future project implementation and building a knowledge 

base for subsequent efforts (Holden 2009, personal communication). 

 Project implementation occurred over 10 to 12 years, giving ample time for course 

correction and providing project continuity. 

 This program was largely voluntary and little enforcement was necessary to achieve 

watershed goals. 

August 2009	 D-59 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Weaknesses 

	 The program was very expensive, costing over $200 million for 86 projects (Holden 

2009, personal communication). 

	 Early on, the program put too much emphasis on concrete structures (e.g., barnyards), 

with limited public benefit. Little attention was given to cropland and 

streambank/lakeshore erosion control practices that are less costly and serve a greater 

public good but are harder to “sell” to a producer. This misplaced focus was partly due 

to the type of funding that could be used for hard practices (e.g., manure storage 

systems). Later in the project additional funding was allocated for “soft practices,” such 

as nutrient management and soil erosion control practices (Holden 2009, personal 

communication). 

	 Before the critical site element was added, the voluntary approach allowed some of the 

worst sites to go untreated if landowners refused to cooperate (Holden 2009, personal 

communication). 

	 Watersheds were often too large to be relevant to all landowners. People living far from 

targeted waterbodies felt less incentive to change. It also took a long time for changes 

to manifest and required high participation rates to see a difference in water quality 

(Holden 2009, personal communication). 

	 The last watershed project was designated in 1995. The program will end December 31, 

2009. 

References 

Holden, C. 2009, March 18. Email from Carol Holden, Runoff Management Section, Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, to Tetra Tech, Inc. 

WDNR. Undated a. Wisconsin’s Priority Watershed and Priority Lake Program. Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. http://dnr.wi.gov/runoff/watershed.htm. 

Accessed March, 2009. 

WDNR. Undated b. Nonpoint Source Priority Watershed and Priority Lake Program Grant. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. 

http://ua.dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/cfa/EF/NPS/pwatershed.html. Accessed March, 2009. 

WDNR. Undated c. Priority Watershed Grant Program. Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, Madison, WI. 

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cfa/Bureau/NonpointSourcePriorityWatershed.pdf. 

Accessed March, 2009. 

August 2009	 D-60 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

CAFO/AFO Nutrient Management 

Overview 

This accountability measure is based on regulatory mechanisms under the Clean Water Act for 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and state programs for smaller animal feeding 

operations (AFOs). Nutrient management plans (NMPs) provide the implementation mechanism 

in NPDES permits to ensure nutrients from CAFOs are not being discharged. 

Description 

CAFO facilities that discharge or propose to discharge are required to seek NPDES permit 

coverage. The most recent iteration of the national regulations for the permitting of CAFOs was 

signed on December 22, 2008. In determining if a facility is required to seek permit coverage, 

the facility’s owner/operator will assess the CAFO’s design, construction, operation, and 

maintenance to determine if the facility is discharging from or will discharge from its production 

area or land application area to waters of the U.S. Owner/operators are also given the voluntary 

option of certifying that the facility is a no discharge facility. Permitted or certified facilities are 

not liable under § 122.23(d)(1) duty to apply, and only permitted discharges (those authorized 

by a NPDES permit) or discharges defined as agricultural stormwater (precipitation-related 

discharges from facilities land application area) are allowed (USEPA 2008). 

Those facilities seeking permit coverage must develop a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP), the 

terms of which must be incorporated into the NPDES permit, and thus subject to permitting 

authority review and public comment. Terms of the NMP to be incorporated into the NPDES 

permit ‘‘are the information, protocols, best management practices, and other conditions’’ 

necessary to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 122.42(e)(1), and in addition for large CAFOs the 

best management practices necessary to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 412.4(c) (USEPA 

2008). Specifically, terms of the NMP would need to demonstrate the facility has the structural 

design capacity to meet the storage requirements imposed by the volume of manure, litter, and 

process wastewater generated from the facility. Those facilities applying manure, litter, and 

process wastewater must incorporate specifics regarding the fields available for land 

application, the rates of application, and the timing limitation for application (USEPA 2008). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

Permitted CAFOs are required to submit annual reports detailing how the facility has achieved 

substantive compliance with the terms of the NMP. Annual reporting requirements include total 

amount of generated waste, amount of waste transferred, the facility’s total land application 

acreage, total acreage utilized, specific crops planted, yields for each field, the nitrogen and 

phosphorus content of all waste land applied, the total amount of waste applied to each field, 

and a summary of production area discharges (USEPA 2008). 

The 2008 Final CAFO Rule estimated annual pollution reductions of 56 million pounds of 

phosphorus and 110 million pounds of nitrogen. EPA utilized Groundwater Loading Effects of 

Agricultural Management Systems (GLEAMS) model, which relies on information on soil 

characteristics and climate, along with characteristics of the applied manure and commercial 

August 2009 D-61 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

fertilizers, to estimate losses of nutrients in surface runoff, sediment, and ground water leachate 

(USEPA 2008). 

Specific state programs vary, though all have one year from EPA’s 2008 Final CAFO Rule effective 

date of December 22, 2008, to revise their NPDES requirements to adopt the requirements of 

the 2008 Rule. States, such as New York, utilize inspectors for random and complaint-based 

CAFO investigations to determine compliance with state and federal water quality regulations, 

and to determine the adequacy of a facility’s waste management system (NYDAM 2003). Illinois 

develops statewide annual reports summarizing yearly activities of the state regarding CAFO 

enforcement and compliance. This information includes facility specifics, such as the 

number/type of animals, as well as waste management structures and regulatory violations. The 

reports may detail water pollution concerns, facility specific sources of water pollution, and 

measures taken by facilities to correct pollution sources (IEPA 2006). 

California has achieved substantive compliance with its CAFO/AFO permitting program for dairy 

by utilizing the California Dairy Quality Assurance Program (CDQAP), which provides dairy 

operators training and technical assistance. To help offset programmatic costs, the state 

requires permitted facilities to pay a surcharge in support of the states’ Surface Water Ambient 

Monitoring Program (SWAMP), and pay an annual fee based on a facilities’ animal population 

that ranges from $200 to $4,000. California’s permitting program also includes groundwater 

monitoring provisions in some facilities’ permit conditions (CEPA 2007). Oregon’s CAFO/AFO 

permitting program has been in effect since the 1980’s, and currently is under the authority of 

the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), which recently implemented a NPDES permitting 

program. Permitted facilities are inspected, on average, once a year to determine permit 

compliance, and any violations require the formulation of a compliance schedule. Facilities 

implementing a compliance schedule will often receive routine visits by state inspectors. Oregon 

also utilizes a complaint based inspection system, in which facilities with validated complaints 

will be inspected and any problems relating to the complaint rectified (ODA 2009). 

Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) began regulating the handling, storage, 

and application of wastes form CAFOs/AFOs in 1984. All facilities with greater then 1,000 animal 

units are permited via Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Concentrated 

Animal Feeding Operation permits. Smaller facilities are not permitted, but like larger facilities, 

they are required to follow agricultural performance standards and the state’s four Manure 

Management Prohibitions. The state also utilizes complaint-based inspections to address water 

quality issues, with regulatory action being taken on any facilities found to be discharging. The 

state provides both technical and financial assistance (cost-share programs) to help facilities 

address water quality issues (WDNR 2008). 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 NMP approach is flexible to accommodate dynamic conditions associated with 

agriculture. 

 Annual reporting requirements ensure permitting authority oversight and public 

involvement. 

 Terms of the NMP are flexible to accommodate changing facility conditions but specific 

enough to ensure adequate nutrient management. 

August 2009 D-62 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

	 Based on estimated annual nutrient reduction loads, program will achieve a significant 

reduction in the amount of nitrogen and phosphorous reaching U.S. waters. 

	 Voluntary certification option allows CAFO facilities to certify they do not discharge via 

submission of a signed certification option after an objective assessment of the facility 

by the owner/operator. 

 States are able to modify CAFO permitting programs to satisfy state-specific needs and 

concerns. 

 Successful permitting of a traditionally nonpoint source industry via modified NPDES 

permitting. 

Weaknesses 

 Site-specific inspections are resource intensive. 

 Legislative history has promoted confusion and atmosphere of inaction among states 

and producers, as stakeholders await further litigation. 

	 No nationwide assessment of programmatic success or goals to judge water quality and 

pollution reduction programmatic success; success seems measured more by 

administrative outcomes (number of facilities permitted) rather then environmental 

outcome-based performance. 

	 Large degree of variability among states regarding enforcement and compliance actions, 

including frequency and reasons prompting facility inspections. 

	 Receiving water monitoring is not explicitly required by the 2008 CAFO Final Rule; 

principal focus is to monitor land application (e.g., routine soil testing, determining 

nutrients in land-applied wastes). 

References 

CEPA. 2007. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Concentrated Animal 

Feeding Operations. California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control 

Board, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/npdes/cafo.shtml. Accessed February, 

2009. 

IEPA. 2006. Illinois EPA Livestock Program 2006 Livestock Facility Investigation: Annual Report. 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Water, Division of Water Pollution Control, 

Peoria, IL. 

NYDAM. 2003. State Helps Farmers Meet Water Quality Objectives: Partnerships, Certified 

Planners and AEM Contribute to New York's Success. New York Department of Agriculture and 

Markets, Albany, NY. http://www.agmkt.state.ny.us/ad/release.asp?ReleaseID=1270. Accessed 

February, 2009. 

ODA. 2009. Confined Animal Feeding Operations. Oregon Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Division, Salem, OR. http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/NRD/cafo_front.shtml. Accessed 

February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2008. Revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and 

Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Response to the 

August 2009	 D-63 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Waterkeeper Decision. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register, Nov. 20, 2008, 

73(225):70418. 

WDNR. 2008. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, Madison, WI. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/runoff/ag/cafo.htm. Accessed February, 

2009. 

August 2009 D-64 
 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

California Agricultural Water Quality Grant Program 

Overview 

The Agricultural Water Quality Grant Program (AWQGP) provides grants to eligible recipients for 

projects that reduce or eliminate the discharge of nonpoint source pollution (NPS) to surface 

waters from agricultural lands (SWRCB 2007). 

Description 

The AWQGP is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and given to 

public agencies and non-profit organizations (SWRCB 2007). Funding sources for the AWQGP 

include state bond monies and Clean Water Act (CWA) section 319 funds listed below. 

	 State Proposition 40 and 50: Coastal Protection Act of 2002 (Proposition 40) and Coastal 

and Beach Protection Act of 2002 (Proposition 50) were passed in 2002 by California 

voters. The propositions authorized the sale of bonds to finance a variety of resource 

programs, including the AWQGP. Under Proposition 40 and 50, grants are available for 

$11.4 million and $29.5 million, respectively, for agricultural water quality improvement 

through monitoring and implementation of NPS management measures and practices 

(SWRCB and RWQCB 2004). 

	 State Proposition 84: Starting in fiscal year 2007–2008, $15 million has been allocated 

for AWQGP (DOF 2008). 

	 Federal CWA Section 319: Under section 319, EPA provides funding to SWRCB to 

support implementing the Plan for California’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control 

Program (NPS Program Plan). The SWRCB uses some of the section 319 funds to provide 

grants for NPS implementation projects. Approximately $5.5 million is available under 

this funding source (SWRCB and RWQCB 2004). 

To further define and identify the source of water quality problems related to agriculture, the 

state uses funds outlined under Proposition 40 for surface water quality monitoring projects, 

referred to as Project Planning Monitoring. These projects must be used to develop a plan to 

implement appropriate management measures to address the identified water quality problem. 

Proposition 50 and section 319 monies are used to fund implementation projects that 

demonstrate immediate and long-term improvements to surface water quality (SWRCB and 

RWQCB 2004). 

Proposals are evaluated in two stages. First, SWRCB and Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(RWQCB) staff review all proposals for completeness and eligibility, and then rank them for 

funding priority. Second, SWRCB request technical assistance for proposal review from agencies 

including RWQCB, USEPA, USGS, and external agencies5

. All eligible proposals undergo a 

thorough review and ranking process by which the appropriate funding source is determined. All 

5 The SWRCB requests technical assistance for proposal review from the state and federal agencies including: 

California Department of Pesticide Regulation; California Department of Water Resources; California 

Department of Food and Agriculture; UC Cooperative Extension; USEPA, United States Geological Survey; 

and United States Department of Agriculture. 

August 2009	 D-65 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

projects must be consistent with the NPS Program Plan and either implement appropriate 

management measures or monitor water quality (SWRCB and RWQCB 2004). 

Each implementation project must include a plan to evaluate project effectiveness, specific 

information as delineated in the proposal guidelines, and a plan to document results including 

water quality improvement. A monitoring plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) with 

associated schedules and budgets are required for all projects that include water quality 

monitoring. Qualified impartial experts must assist in developing and implementing the plan and 

certifying the results (SWRCB and RWQCB 2004). Plans are selected by the Project Selection 

Panel (consisting of one member from the agencies listed above) and must be approved by 

SWRCB before funds can be allocated. 

Projects selected for funding under AWQGP are required to spend grant funds according to the 

approved project scope and budget. SWRCB requires progress reports (no less than quarterly) 

for all projects and conducts site visits during construction of each development project. 

Payment requests must include a certification by the grantee that each expense complies with 

requirements outlined in the grant agreement. Grantees must also submit supporting 

documentation for each expense, with reimbursements approved only for eligible expenses 

pursuant to program guidelines and contained within the approved project budget (SWRCB 

2007). 

SWRCB prepares and presents an annual project accounting report on projects under AWQGP to 

the Department of Finance (DOF) and DOF performs audits on select projects. SWRCB maintains 

a publicly accessible Web site listing all current projects by program, the funding source, and the 

timeframe for completion (SWRCB 2007). 

All projects funded through AWQGP receive a close-out site visit conducted by SWRCB or 

RWQCB staff when a project has been completed. The purpose of the close-out site visit is to 

ensure all project components were completed according to program guidelines and the terms 

of the grant agreement, including project scope and budget. Grantees must submit a final 

report, which documents the outcomes of the project and summarizes all project data and 

expenditures. In accordance with all current laws and regulations that apply to the project, 

grantees must also submit documents summarizing total project costs and all additional funding 

sources. The SWRCB is enhancing its Web site to post final project reports (SWRCB 2007). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

There is limited information available on the effectiveness of AWQGP. There seems to be little 

public information available on what projects were accepted, progress of those projects, the 

results, and final assessments. Therefore it is difficult to assess the implications for future NPS 

pollution reduction policies. 

DOF conducted an audit on bond funds in An Audit of Bond Funds: State Water Resources 

Control Board Propositions 13, 40, and 50 (2008) to determine whether SWRCB awarded and 

expended bond funds that were consistent with applicable legal requirements and established 

criteria, and whether SWRCB had adequate project monitoring processes. DOF concluded that 

there is a lack of supporting documentation and that SWRCB does not always monitor the 

financial aspects of bond funded projects to ensure eligibility of project costs (DOF 2008). 

August 2009 D-66 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

However, it is not possible to draw specific conclusions about AWQGP from the DOF report. The 

report does not list specific projects audited, but rather highlights general trends. 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 Specific grants geared towards finding a solution to the reduction of NPS pollution from 

agriculture may hold the key to future reduction. 

 Projects with this specific goal will not have to compete against other NPS pollution 

funds. 

 Project assessment at various stages will help determine the success of future projects. 

Weaknesses

 There is little public information available on whether or not the project had been 

successful and how it can be improved. 

 It is unclear whether funds were actually used in compliance with project guidelines. 

There may be insufficient oversight by SWRCB. 

References 

DOF. 2008. An Audit of Bond Funds: State Water Resources Control Board Propositions 13, 40, 

and 50. California Department of Finance, Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.dof.ca.gov/osae/audit_reports/documents/State%20Water%20Resources%

20Control%20Board%20-%20An%20Audit%20of%20Bond%20Funds,%20Propositions%2013,

%2040%20&%2050,%20September%202008.pdf. Accessed March, 2009. 

SWRCB. 2007. Agricultural Water Quality Grants Program. California State Water Resources 

Control Board, Sacramento, CA. http://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/plevel1.aspx?id=6. 

Accessed March, 2009. 

SWRCB and RWQCB. 2004. Agricultural Water Quality Grant Program (AWQGP) Guidelines. 

California State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards. 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/awqgp/docs/awqgpguid

elines.pdf. Accessed March, 2009. 

August 2009 D-67 
              

   

                         

                     

                     

                           

                   

                     

             

                         

       

                     

                   

                     

       

                   

                       

           

                         

                         

                             

                             

                  

                 

                           

                               

                       

                       

       

                             

       

                       

                         

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report	 Appendix D

Delaware’s Nutrient Management Program 

Overview

The Delaware Nutrient Management Program was established in June 1999 under the Delaware

Nutrient Management Law to regulate activities involving the generation and application of

nutrients and to protect water quality. The Delaware Nutrient Management Commission

(DNMC) (also established by the Law) is responsible for directing the program and developing

regulations pertaining to nutrient management, waste management for animal feeding

operations (AFOs), and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for

concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) (DDA, n.d.).

Description

The Nutrient Management Program, as defined by the Nutrient Management Law, consists of

the following (DE, 2009):

 Certification of persons directly involved with generating or applying nutrients within

Delaware.

	 Development and implementation of best management practices (BMPs) designed to

improve water quality, optimize nutrient use, and maintain a profitable agricultural

industry in the state.

	 Establishment of educational programs instructing on the use of BMPs.

	 Development of a method for certifying applicants by testing comprehension of BMPs.

	 Any other programs established by the Commission.

More specifically, the Nutrient Management Law states that all affected operations must have

nutrient management plans in place by dates specified in the Law. Operations that generate

manure, but do not land apply any nutrients, must develop an Animal Waste Management Plan

(Hanson, 2002). In addition, at least one person from each operation must become certified by

participating in approved classroom instruction (Hansen and Binford, 2004).

The Law affects two categories of people (Hanson, 2002):

1.	 Those who operate any animal feeding operation in excess of 8 animal units (8,000

pounds).

2.	 Those applying nutrients to land in excess of 10 acres as a component of a commercial

venture.

In addition to farmers, commercial nutrient applicators (e.g., fertilizer companies), golf courses,

school districts, lawn care companies, and landscaping firms must develop and implement

nutrient management plans (Hanson, 2002).

The Delaware Department of Agriculture provides a suite of services as part of the Nutrient

Management Program (DDA, n.d.):

 Nutrient Management Relocation Program: This is a cost assistance program to assist in

the transport of manure from areas of excess manure to areas in need.

August 2009	 D‐68
              

   

                     

             

                   

                 

                   

                           

                 

                 

             

                     

                       

             

                         

   

             

                             

                         

                       

                             

                     

            

       

  

                 

                     

                     

       

                     

                           

                     

                    

                     

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report	 Appendix D

 Delaware Manure Matching: This service provides names and contact information for

manure providers, receivers, and manure brokers/transport agents.

 Complaints and investigations: DDA staff members handle and resolve complaints

related to manure management and general nutrient management practices.

	 Nutrient Management Planning Program: This is a cost assistance program for

implementing nutrient management plans. Cost share is available at $5 per acre for a

3‐year plan. Funds are provided on a first‐come‐first‐serve basis.

	 Certification and Education: Individuals must be certified if they:

o	 Apply nutrients to 10 acres or greater.

o	 Operate an animal feeding operation of 8 animal units or greater.

o	 Apply nutrients to lands as a component of a commercial agriculture business in

exchange for a fee or service charge.

o	 Advise or consult with persons as part of the development of a Nutrient

Management Plan.

Assessment of How the Approach is Working

By 2008, 92,157 tons of excess poultry litter was relocated to alternative use projects, 355,984

acres of nutrient applied farmland was managed under a current nutrient management plan

with assistance from the program, 44 nutrient management compliance complaints had been

resolved, and 12 farms were managed under an EPA CAFO permit administered by the program

(UDaily, 2008). In addition, more than 2,600 individuals have attended nutrient management

certification classes since 2001 (UDaily, 2008).

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths

 The Law applies to both agricultural and non‐agricultural lands.

 The Law and regulations require certification.  Certification requires continuing

education to keep all certified generators, handlers, and consultants up‐to‐date with

recent information and requirements.

 The Law requires phosphorus limited nutrient management plans and application rates.

 Local conservation district offices have certified planners that will write free plans

(Hanson, 2002) and the Nutrient Management Program provides funding to farmers

who hire private consultants.

 Regulations require that all nutrient handlers maintain records of nutrient handling,

storage, application, and disposition.

 Regulations require that farmers submit an annual report to the Nutrient Management

Program.

Weaknesses

	 The program emphasizes education, there is little in the way of a regulatory component.

	 The program relies heavily on “professionalism, judgment and experience” of certified

consultants to develop reasonable recommendations (Bill Rohrer, from Hanson, 2002).

The plans are only as good as the certifiers and their certifications.

August 2009	 D‐69
              

   

                     

         

                         

         

                   

                 

         

         

          

                     

           

         

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D

References

DDA. No date. Nutrient Management. State of Delaware, Delaware Department of Agriculture.

http://dda.delaware.gov/nutrients/index.shtml. Accessed March 27, 2009.

DE. 2009. Chapter 22: Subchapter III. State Nutrient Management Program. State of Delaware

http://delcode.delaware.gov/title3/c022/sc03/index.shtml. Accessed March 27, 2009.

Hansen, D.J. and G.D. Binford. 2004. Nutrient Management Certification for Delaware:

Developing a Water Quality Curriculum. J. Nat. Resour. 33:143‐146.

http://www.jnrlse.org/pdf/2004/E04‐0016.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2009.

Hanson, S. 2002. Nutrient Management in Delaware.

http://www.americanfarm.com/Signe%203‐01‐02.html. Accessed March 27, 2009.

Udaily. 2008. UD, state partners announce progress managing agricultural nutrients. UDaily.

University of Delaware. April 30, 2008.

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/apr/nutrient043008.html. Accessed April 6, 2009.

August 2009 D‐70
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Iowa Livestock Water Quality Facilities Program 

Overview 

The Livestock Water Quality Facilities Program (the Program), started in 2006, offers lowinterest loans through participating lenders to Iowa livestock producers for projects to prevent, 

minimize, or eliminate nonpoint source (NPS) pollution of Iowa’s rivers and streams from animal 

feeding operations (IFA undated). 

Description 

The Program is one of four financing programs through the Iowa Water Quality Loan Fund, the 

NPS fund of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), which helps Iowans address NPS 

water quality problems (Iowa State University 2005; Iowa DNR undated). The Program is 

operated by the Division of Soil Conservation (DSC) and the Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR), with the Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) acting as the financial agent. Local Soil 

and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) help with Program implementation (IFA undated; 

Iowa DNR undated). 

Loans funded under this program are available to livestock and poultry producers who are not 

required to have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (Iowa DNR 

2008). Types of eligible projects include lagoons, manure management structures, equipment6

, 

vegetative filters, and development of manure management plans. Assistance is limited to 

existing facilities for animal feeding operations with less than 1,000 total animal units7

 (IFA 

undated; Iowa State University 2008). 

For riparian water protection practices, such as grass waterways, terraces, pasture or hayland 

planting, streamside forest buffers, and filter strips, the loan amounts can range from $5,000 to 

$50,000, with a loan term of up to 10 years. For manure management projects, developing 

manure management plans, and construction of manure management structures, the minimum 

loan amount is $10,000 with no maximum loan amount for a loan term up to 20 years (Iowa 

State University 2008). 

The following process is used to allocate funds and monitor projects (IFA undated): 

 A landowner must receive project approval prior to receiving a loan from the local 

SWCD and complete the online loan application. 

 After the project has been completed, inspected, and certified by local Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) staff, DSC approves the project and loan amount 

online. 

 IFA approves the application and provides funding to the borrower. The interest rate 

charged will not exceed 3% and borrowers can finance up to 100% of the project cost. 

6 Due to high demand for the loans, DNR and IDALS reprioritized funding requests. Manure management 

equipment was funded when the Program started, but was not eligible after October 2008 (Iowa DNR, 2008). 7 1,000 animal units are equal to 1,000 beef cattle, 700 mature dairy cattle, or 2,500 finishing swine. 

August 2009 D-71 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

By 2008 109 projects had been funded, totaling more than $7 million. The average loan amount 

for the funded projects was $65,000 (Iowa State University 2008). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

The Program has been so successful that livestock producers have requested nearly all of the 

$12 million allotted for this year in the first three months of the 2009 fiscal year. Due to the high 

demand for the loans, DNR and IDALS have prioritized funding requests, and since October 2008 

no longer fund loans for manure management equipment. This change will leave more loan 

money for practices that offer more benefits to water quality (Iowa DNR 2008). One reason for 

the success of the program is producers’ willingness to address existing problems. However 

there seems to be little information publicly available, such as monitoring data, on direct 

impacts that the program has had. 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

	 The Program is a source of low-cost financing available to landowners. This opportunity 

is available specifically to assist and encourage landowners to address NPS pollution of 

Iowa streams and lakes. 

 Applications are accepted any time of the year and turnaround time is quick 

(characteristic of the CWSRF) (IDALS undated). 

 Quick loan processing and friendly loan repayment terms let borrowers implement 

projects right away (characteristic of CWSRF) (IDALS undated). 

 Significant cost savings; interest rates are well below other financing sources 

(characteristic of CWSRF) (IDALS undated). 

 Complements other funding sources; can be used to provide project share costs for 

other funding sources (characteristic of CWSRF) (IDALS undated). 

Weaknesses 

	 The program is so popular that the state has had to reprioritize funding. Manure 

management equipment will no longer be funded under the program (Iowa DNR 2008). 

	 It is unclear what direct impacts the program has had on water quality. Monitoring data 

before and after the implementation of the program may be one way to prove that the 

program has been successful. 

References 

IDALS. Undated. State Revolving Loan Fund. What is the Iowa Water Quality Loan Fund? Iowa 

Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Field Services Bureau, Des Moines, IA. 

http://www.iowaagriculture.gov/FieldServices/waterQualityLoanFund.asp. Accessed March, 

2009. 

Iowa DNR. 2008. Success Leads to Change for Livestock Water Quality Loan Program, November 

6, 2008. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines, IA. 

http://www.iowadnr.gov/news/eco/08nov06eco.pdf. Accessed July, 2009. 

August 2009	 D-72 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Iowa DNR. Undated. Iowa DNR State Revolving Fund. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 

Des Moines, IA. http://www.iowadnr.gov/water/srf/index2.html. Accessed March, 2009. 

IFA. Undated. Livestock Water Quality Program. Iowa Finance Authority, Des Moines, IA. 

http://www.iowafinanceauthority.gov/en/water_quality_programs/livestock_water_quality_pr 

ogram. Accessed March, 2009. 

Iowa State University. 2008. Livestock Water Quality Loan Program. Iowa State University, Iowa 

State University Extension, Ames, IA. 

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/communications/EPC/Su08/livestockwqloan.html. 

Accessed March, 2009. 

Iowa State University. 2005. New Water Quality Loan Program for Livestock Producers. Iowa 

State University, Iowa State University Extension, Ames, IA. 

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Pages/communications/EPC/Spring05/wqloan.html. 

Accessed March, 2009. 

August 2009 D-73 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Kansas Clean Water Farms—River Friendly Farms Project 

Overview 

The Clean Water Farms Project (CWFP) was initiated in 1995 by the Kansas Rural Center (KRC). 

With the 2001 use of the River Friendly Farm Environmental Assessment, CWFP became the 

Clean Water Farm—River Friendly Farm Project (CWF-RFFP) (KRC 2007a). CWF-RFFP helps 

farmers and ranchers in Kansas adopt land management practices to address water quality 

issues involving nonpoint source (NPS) pollution (Kansas University 2007). 

Eligible practices include planning and implementing extended legume-based crop rotations; use 

of cover crops, buffer strips, riparian filter strips, field grass filter strips, and stream bank 

stabilization efforts; livestock management systems that reduce confinement feeding and 

potential pollution; livestock waste management systems that limit potential pollution from 

feedlots, wintering, feeding, and storage; high residue cropping systems; conversion to no-till or 

minimum till with a planned crop rotation; household wastewater systems (e.g., septics); and 

construction of fuel containment structures (KRC 2007a). 

Description 

The KRC is a non-profit research, education, and advocacy organization, working to promote an 

environmentally sound, economically viable, and sustainable system of agriculture (French et al. 

2001). Since 1995, with funding from EPA Clean Water Act section 319 NPS funds through the 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), KRC has been able to offer cost-share 

and planning assistance to Kansas farmers and ranchers willing to adopt clean water farming 

practices in vulnerable watersheds (KRC 2007b). 

Since 2001, the CWF-RFFP has included the use of the River Friendly Farm Environmental 

Assessment. The River Friendly Farm Environmental assessment consists of a notebook with 

questions to help farmers assess and score the status of soil conservation, nutrient 

management, pest management, and livestock waste utilization on their farms. Most farmers 

can complete the assessment within a day and a half, using information they already have from 

conservation plans, aerial maps, and field and yield data (KRC 2007a).The project assessments 

and costs share demonstrations have been incorporated in the state’s Watershed Restoration 

and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) since 2005. 

For farmers or ranchers to receive a grant through CWF-RFFP the following steps are taken (KRC 

2007a): 

 Participating farmers complete the environmental self-assessment for their farms with 

assistance from KRC staff. The farmer develops an action plan to protect or improve 

water quality on the farm. Farmers who complete the assessment and develop an 

approved action plan are eligible for a $250 incentive payment. 

 With an approved action plan, farmers and ranchers are eligible to apply for up to 

$5,000 in cost-share funds to implement their plan, which can be used in conjunction 

with state and federal cost- share programs. 

August 2009 D-74 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

	 To be eligible for the incentive payment or cost share program, participants must 

operate or own a farm or ranch within a WRAPS watershed or high priority total 

maximum daily load (TMDL) watershed area. 

	 A CWF-RFFP advisory team will review the action plans and cost share applications for 

approval. CWF-RFFP staff will work with individual farmers through all phases of the 

project: completing the assessment; developing the action plan; identifying possible 

solutions; and monitoring progress. 

	 Cost-share recipients must match the requested cost share funds with an equal value of 

labor, machinery or land use, and/or purchased materials. 

	 At the completion of the project, a final accounting of expenditures and contributed 

resources is required. If funded at the full $5,000 limit, the project is considered a 

“demonstration project” and the participant will be asked to host a farm tour or share 

information through workshops or other outreach methods. 

	 KRC monitors the completion of the BMPs and final payments of cost-share dollars are 

not made until the projects are verified. 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

By September 2001, KRC had provided nearly $150,000 in cost-share funds to 35 farmers and 

ranchers through the CWRF. These farms and ranches were located in 20 counties and covered 

over 24,000 acres within eight of the 12 major river basins in the state. The size of the 

participating farms ranged from 60 acres to over 5,000 acres, and covered a wide range of 

operations and management styles (French et al. 2001). 

By 2005, there had been over 80 on-farm demonstrations, farm tours, workshops, and feature 

stories in the media. Through these KRC has brought good examples or models of clean water 

farming practices to hundreds of other farmers and ranchers (KRC 2007b). 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 Better defined farm goals and a clear plan for achieving those goals (KRC 2007a). 

 Farmer control over the process; assessment of information remains confidential (KRC 

2007a). 

 Improved conservation management, which translates into money saved (KRC 2007a). 

 Improved position for qualifying for cost-share funds from a variety of sources (KRC 

2007a). 

 Better position to comply with (or avoid) future environmental regulation (KRC 2007a). 

 Incentive for farmers to implement these management practices. 

Weaknesses 

	 Marketing of the program: not all farmers or ranchers know about this program. 

	 KRC does not measure the load reductions, or impacts of the installed BMPs. KRC 

provides the information (acres, feet, livestock units involved, etc.) to the KDHE to 

calculate the benefits. 

August 2009	 D-75 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

References 

French, L., E. Reznicek, D. Teske, and M. Fund. 2001. Working for Clean Water and Thriving 

Farms: Farm Profiles from the Clean Water Farms Project. 

http://www.kansasruralcenter.org/cwfp/intro.pdf. Accessed March, 2009. 

KRC. 2007a. Clean Water Farms Project. Kansas Rural Center. 

http://www.kansasruralcenter.org/CWFP.htm. Accessed March, 2009. 

KRC. 2007b. Projects of the Kansas Rural Center: Water Quality Projects. Kansas Rural Center. 

http://www.kansasruralcenter.org/projects.html. Accessed March, 2009. 

Kansas University. 2007. CPCB Research and Current Projects: Validation of the Clean Water 

Farms Project. Kansas University, Central Plains Center for BioAssessment, Lawrence, KS. 

http://www.cpcb.ku.edu/research/html/cleanwater.htm. Accessed March, 2009. 

August 2009 D-76 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program (ACSP) 

Overview 

North Carolina’s Agriculture Cost Share Program (ACSP) is a voluntary program designed to 

protect water quality by installing best management practices (BMPs) on agricultural lands. The 

program is supported by “financial incentives, technical and educational assistance, research, 

and regulatory programs provided to farmers by local soil and water conservation districts” 

(NCDENR undated). 

Description 

The ACSP was established in 1984 in response to nutrient enrichment concerns in two Piedmont 

lakes. The program originally included 16 counties in the watersheds of Jordan Lake, Falls Lake, 

and the Chowan River Basin, but was expanded to all 100 counties in North Carolina in 1990 

(Williams 2007). 

The ACSP provides landowners and renters of existing agricultural operations (in operation for 

more than three years) with cost-sharing funds and technical design assistance. Farmers submit 

applications for the program with their local soil and water conservation districts. Applications 

are accepted and reviewed on a rolling basis, and ranked based on county resource concerns 

(NCDENR undated). 

Farmers receive up to 75 percent of the pre-determined average cost of installed BMPs (up to 

$75,000/year) used to protect water quality in streams adjoining their agricultural lands 

(NCDENR undated). Farmers may supply the remaining balance through a financial contribution, 

existing materials, or labor (CCSWCD undated). The ACSP also provides up to 50 percent cost 

share for technical positions in the districts (districts must match with local funds) (Williams 

2007). 

Approved BMPs include vegetative, structural, or management systems that can improve the 

efficiency of agricultural operations and reduce the potential for polluting surface and 

groundwater (NSWCD undated). Installation of the BMP must be accomplished within 3 

program years, beginning with the program year in which the cost share contract was approved 

(NCDENR 2007). Also, BMPs must be maintained for ten years and are subject to random checks 

by Division staff and the District personnel. Farmers who fail to keep their BMPs in proper 

working order are subject to repaying some or all of the original cost share funds (NCDENR 

2007). 

Overview of Program Responsibilities (Williams 2007) 

 The North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation Commission sets program requirements 

and allocates funds to districts. 

 Local soil and water conservation districts establish local priorities, solicit and rank 

applications, prepare/approve conservation plans and contracts and submit them for 

state approval, oversee and assist practice implementation, certify installation according 

to standards, conduct maintenance spot checks, and enforce contracts. 

 The North Carolina Division of Soil and Water Conservation is responsible for the overall 

program development and administration, and approval of contracts and payments. 

August 2009 D-77 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

 Natural Resources Conservation Service supplies technical standards, design and job 

approval authority, and advice technical aspects. 

 The North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service researches and develops new 

practices and develops tools to quantify benefits. 

Annual funding for the program is $5.24 million for financial assistance (monies paid directly to 

farmers for BMP installation) and $2.45 million for technical assistance (monies allotted to Soil 

and Water Conservation Districts to fund new positions or support program implementation) (as 

of 2007) (Williams 2007). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

In 2007, $8.2 million was allocated for 1,412 contracts. Prominent BMPs include poultry litter 

storage structures, livestock exclusion and alternate watering systems, cropland conversions to 

grass and trees, cover crop incentives, and mortality management systems (Williams 2007). 

By the end of 2007, nearly $143 million had been expended through 48,000 contracts, nearly 

1,000 miles of livestock exclusion fencing has been installed, over 2,000 waste management 

systems have been installed, over 600,000 acres have been converted to conversion tillage or 

long term no till, 17,000 acres of riparian buffer have been installed, and 128,000 acres of 

sensitive cropland have been converted to permanent vegetation or wildlife cover (Williams 

2007). 

From 1998 to 2007, more than 6.8 million tons of soils have been saved annually, nitrogen 

losses were reduced by more than 19 million pounds, and phosphorus losses were reduced by 

more than 5 million pounds (Williams 2007). 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 By providing funding for technical employees in the districts, ACSP provides technical 

support for planning and installation, which builds district capabilities (Williams 2007). 

 The program helps build resources for districts to respond to water quality needs. 

 Infrastructure developed for this program can be used for other programs (nearly 20 

different special programs use ACSP infrastructure) (Williams 2007). 

 ACSP provides a ready source of non-federal match funds for federal grants, which 

encourages districts to apply for grants (Williams 2007). 

 Projects are prioritized based on watershed needs. 

Weaknesses 

 The program lacks a strong evaluation aspect, limiting the potential for future analysis 

and correction. 

 The program is not universally applied because it is voluntary. 

 The only stated goal of the program is to “reduce the input of agricultural nonpoint 

source pollution,” there are no specific reduction goals (NCDENR, 2007). 

 No publicly available information was found regarding numeric targets. 

August 2009 D-78 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

References 

CCSWCD. Undated. NC Agriculture Cost Share Program. Cumberland County Soil & Water 

Conservation District, Fayetteville, NC. 

http://www.co.cumberland.nc.us/soil_water/programs/agriculture_cost_share.asp. Accessed 

March, 2009. 

NCDENR. Undated. Agriculture Cost Share Program. North Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources, Division of Soil & Water Conservation, Raleigh, NC. 

http://www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/pages/agcostshareprogram.html. Accessed March, 2009. 

NCDENR. 2007. Objectives of the North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program for Nonpoint 

Source Pollution Control. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 

Raleigh, NC. http://www.enr.state.nc.us/dswc/pages/SECTION1.doc. Accessed April, 2009. 

NSWCD. Undated. North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program. Nash Soil & Water 

Conservation District, Nashville, NC. http://www.nswc.co.nash.nc.us/AgCostShare.htm. 

Accessed March, 2009; site no longer available. 

Williams, D.B. 2007. North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program. North Carolina Department 

of Environment and Natural Resources, North Carolina Division of Soil and Water Conservation, 

Raleigh, NC. 

http://www.nascanet.org/Upload/Resource_Center/Field_Staff_Session_2007/Cost_Share_and 

_Grants/North_Carolina_Cost_Share_Program/North_Carolina_Cost_Share_Program_2007.pdf. 

Accessed March, 2009. 

August 2009 D-79 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Ohio Agriculture Pollution Abatement Program 

Overview 

Ohio’s Agriculture Pollution Abatement Program (APAP) provides farmers with cost share 

assistance to develop and implement best management practices (BMPs). This voluntary 

program provides agricultural producers with state funds to alleviate associated financial 

burdens (ODNR undated). 

Description 

APAP was created in 1979 and is used by Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Soils and Water Conservation (ODNR-DSWC) and Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) 

to reach out to farmers to promote the wise use of BMPs and help resolve pollution problems to 

prevent pollution on many small and medium sized agricultural farms (OLEPTF 2008). 

ODNR-DSWC administers APAP, and it is implemented locally by all 88 soil and water 

conservation districts. Depending on the BMP installed, the program offers three levels of 

funding caps: high ($15,000), medium ($10,000), and low ($5,000) (ODNR undated). 

If other public funds are involved in cost sharing to establish eligible BMPs, state funds can only 

be used to the extent that the combined allocation of public funds amount to no more than 75% 

of the cost of establishing the BMPs, or not more than $15,000 per person per year, whichever 

is smaller (OAC 2005a). However, the $15,000 maximum in public funds per person per year 

limit may be waived by majority vote of the Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Commission (OAC 

2005a). 

Restrictions on use of cost share funds include the following (OAC 2005a): 

	 Eligible practices which, through natural causes have lost their effectiveness, will qualify 

for further financial assistance. However, cost share monies will not be awarded to 

reestablish previously installed practices that have deteriorated due to operator 

negligence or mismanagement. 

	 Surface mined lands and oil and gas well drilling areas must have been reclaimed and be 

in active agricultural production or silvicultural uses as determined by the district to be 

eligible for cost sharing on needed conservation practices. 

	 Cost share funds may only be used for those practices necessary to control agricultural 

pollution as determined by the district with the approval of the chief of the division of 

soil and water conservation. 

	 Cost share funds will be available only to owners with a current operation and 

management plan. 

All practices must meet the standards and specifications listed in the Ohio NRCS Field Office 

Technical Guide. If the Field Office Technical Guide does not apply, practices must meet 

standards and specifications approved by the chief of the division of soil and water conservation 

(OAC 2005a). Farmers wanting to know more about the program should contact their local 

SWCD for more information. 

August 2009	 D-80 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

APAP is now entering its 30th year. Little publicly available information is available, however, on 

whether water quality improvements have been realized and how many agricultural operations 

have benefitted from the program. 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

	 The program provides valuable monetary assistance for BMP implementation for 

agricultural operations (ODNR undated). 

Weaknesses 

	 This is a voluntary program and does not include enforcement provisions that allow the 

state to take action against an agricultural operation unless a complaint is submitted by 

a third party (DSWC, other agencies, or private citizens). One potential method for 

enforcement or penalty: if any person fails to comply with an order of the chief (of 

SWCD, OHDNR) they are guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. Action can also be 

taken if a person is found to have created some sort of danger to public health (OAC 

2005b). 

 There are no goals for water quality or load reduction. 

 The program does not address all sources of NPS nutrients.
 

References 

OAC. 2005a. 1501:15-5-13 Agricultural pollution abatement cost sharing. Ohio Administrative 

Code. http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/1501:15-5-13. Accessed March, 2009. 

OAC. 2005b. 1501:15-5-16 Chief's orders. Ohio Administrative Code. 

http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/1501%3A15-5. Accessed April, 2009. 

ODNR. Undated. What is the Agriculture Pollution Abatement Program? Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Columbus, OH. 

http://www.ohiodnr.com/H_Nav2/ProgramsProjects/AGPollutionAbatementProgram/tabid/885 

6/Default.aspx. Accessed March, 2009. 

OLEPTF. 2008. Task Force Meeting Minutes. Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force. 

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/lakeerie/ptaskforce/Nov4_2008Minutes.pdf Accessed 

March, 2009. 

August 2009	 D-81 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Virginia Agricultural Stewardship Act 

Overview 

This accountability method is based on a regulation in Virginia, which allows the state to address 

water pollution concerns, including nutrients, posed by agricultural operations by utilizing a 

complaint-based system that affords voluntary compliance, with regulatory action available to 

the state in the event of continued noncompliance. 

Description 

In response to increased public concerns for a clean environment, Virginia’s agricultural 

leadership sought a way of addressing agricultural water pollution that was different from 

previous approaches used with other industries, such as manufacturers. Most manufacturing 

plants must obtain permits and follow strict rules of operation. The agricultural community 

desired a different approach that did not rely on permits and strict operating rules, but took into 

account the wide variety of farming practices used in Virginia. 

The state’s Agricultural Stewardship Act (ASA) offers a positive approach to addressing pollution 

involving agricultural operations. The ASA provides procedures by which individual agricultural 

producers can be alerted to areas of their operations that may be causing water pollution. 

Rather than developing regulations with strict rules governing every type of farming practice, 

the ASA looks at each farm individually (VDACS 2004). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

The procedures under the ASA are initiated when a complaint is made to the Commissioner of 

the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS). The Commissioner must 

accept those complaints alleging that a specific agricultural activity is causing or will cause water 

pollution. After the Commissioner receives a complaint warranting further investigation, the 

local soil and water conservation district (District) is contacted to determine whether the District 

wishes to investigate the complaint. If the District does not wish to investigate the complaint, 

the Commissioner will conduct an investigation. The purpose of the investigation is to determine 

whether the agricultural activity that initiated the complaint is causing or will cause water 

pollution. If no causative effect is found from the activity in question, the Commissioner will 

dismiss the complaint (VDACS 2004). 

If the agricultural activity is causing or will cause water pollution, the owner/operator of the 

agricultural facility is given an opportunity to correct the problem. The owner/operator is tasked 

with the development of an agricultural stewardship plan that contains “stewardship measures” 

(i.e. best management practices), corrective measures to address the source of the water 

pollution or mitigate its impact on surface waters, as well as an implementation schedule 

(VDACS 2004). The District reviews the owner/operator’s plan and makes recommendations to 

the Commissioner. If the Commissioner approves the plan, VDACS requests the owner/operator 

to implement the plan within 18 months (VDACS 2008). 

If the owner/operator fails to implement stewardship measures after a plan is approved, 

enforcement action under the ASA is taken against the owner/operator in the form of levied 

August 2009 D-82 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

fines. In some cases, the ASA investigation will not produce sufficient evidence to support the 

conclusion that the agricultural activity in question is causing or will cause pollution. In those 

cases, the investigator will determine if the owner/operator is receptive to voluntarily 

implementing best management practices that will prevent future complaints (VDACS 2004). 

The ASA also requires that the Commissioner develop and distribute an annual summarization 

of all ASA cases received and processed. The Virginia Agricultural Stewardship Act Annual Report 

includes an analysis of official complaints (those warranting further investigation) that 

categorizes complaints based on agricultural activity, the pollutant type responsible for the 

complaint (nutrients, sediments, and toxins), and the results each investigation grouped into 

founded, unfounded, dismissed, and carryover. The annual report also highlights the 

educational efforts undertaken by VDACS over the pervious year (VDACS 2007) 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 Effective complaint based regulatory scheme of nonpoint agriculture 

 Effective means of enforcement via fines 

 Achieves program accountability via the Virginia Agricultural Stewardship Act Annual 

Report 

 Transparent and simplistic process allows for quick action on agricultural pollutant 

sources and adequate remediation to address the problems 

 Efficient use of state resources achieved via initial screening of complaints to determine 

those that warrant further action 

 Holds nonpoint sources accountable 

Weaknesses 

	 Investigative responsibilities of the Commissioner and Districts is not well defined, 

which may create confusion and lend to programmatic hurdles 

	 The annual report does not include any information concerning programmatic successes 

in terms of pollution reduction, instead success seems to be focused on administrative 

outputs, such as the number of complaints addressed 

	 The voluntary aspect of the ASA should offer the producer some incentive other then 

avoiding further complaints, which could be expert advice and logistical and economic 

support 

 There are no goals or benchmarks for total nutrient reductions 

 Not all sources are held responsible for reducing loads, just those with a complaint 

 Equitability issue arises from the fact that those farms around higher population areas 

have an increased chance of being cited
 

 No quantification of loading or reductions 

August 2009	 D-83 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

References 

VDACS. 2008. Agricultural Stewardship. Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services, Richmond, VA.. http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/stewardship/index.shtml. Accessed 

February, 2009. 

VDACS. 2007. Virginia Agricultural Stewardship Act Annual Report: April 1, 2006 – March 31, 

2007. Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Richmond, VA. 

VDACS. 2004. Virginia Agricultural Stewardship Act Guidelines: A Positive Approach. Virginia 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Richmond, VA. 

August 2009 D-84 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Performance Standards and Prohibitions 

Overview 

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), in conjunction with the Department 

of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP), manages legislation regulating 

nonpoint source (NPS) pollution from agricultural and urban areas. WDNR administers 

regulation NR 151 (in effect since October 2002), which contains agricultural cropland and 

livestock performance standards, manure management prohibitions, and non-agricultural 

performance standards for construction site erosion control, post-construction stormwater 

runoff and runoff from established urban areas (Holden 2009, personal communication). DATCP 

administers regulation ATCP 50, which outlines the technical standards required to implement 

the agricultural performance standards (including manure management prohibitions) in NR 151. 

Performance standards for non-agricultural construction/post-construction, developed urban 

areas (including turf management) are administered through NR 216, Storm Water Discharge 

Permits. Both the WDNR and DATCP administer state cost share programs to help farmers 

achieve compliance with the agricultural standards and prohibitions. WDNR administers cost 

share programs to assist urban municipalities in meeting non-agricultural performance 

standards. 

Description 

Agricultural Standards 

All cropland and livestock operations in Wisconsin, regardless of size, must abide by the 

agricultural performance standards and manure management prohibitions established in NR 

151. These include: 

	 Cropland Performance Standards 

o	 Reduce cropland soil erosion to meet tolerable soil loss (T) 

o	 Manage nutrient applications of fertilizer and manure to meet crop needs and 

reduce delivery of nutrients to waters of the state 

 Livestock Performance Standards 

o	 Construct manure storage facilities to accepted standards 

o	 Properly close abandoned manure storage facilities 

o	 Abandon, upgrade or replace failing or leaking manure storage facilities 

o	 Divert clean water around feedlots in water quality management areas (300 feet 

from streams, 1,000 feet from lakes and in areas susceptible to groundwater 

contamination) 

o	 Manure Management Prohibitions 

 No overflow of manure storage structure 

 No unconfined manure stacks in Water Quality Management Areas 

 No direct runoff from feedlots or stored manure to waters of the state 

 No unlimited livestock access to waters of the state such that adequate 

sod cover is not maintained 

ATCP 50, the companion regulation to NR 151, identifies the technical standards that can be 

used to comply with the agricultural performance standards set in NR 151. Many of the 

technical standards offered in ATCP 50 cross-reference NRCS technical standards. 

August 2009	 D-85 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Most agricultural performance standards and prohibitions became effective on October 1, 2002. 

Some exceptions were: 

 Standards for new cropland went into effect October 1, 2003. 

 Nutrient management standards for areas draining to outstanding, exceptional or 

impaired resource waters, or in source water protection areas, went into effect on 

January 1, 2005. 

 Nutrient management standards for areas draining to all other waters went into effect 

on January 1, 2008. 

Compliance with agricultural performance standards and prohibitions for cropland practices and 

livestock facilities in place prior to the effective date of the standard can only be required if a 

bona fide cost share offer is made to the landowner or operator. This is true whether the 

compliance requirement is imposed by a state agency under NR 151 or by a local governmental 

unit under local ordinance. This offer must be 70% (90% in cases of economic hardship) of the 

actual installation cost of required best management practices. Eligible best management 

practices are set forth in cost-share programs administered by DATCP (ATCP 50) and DNR (NR 

153). Funding for the offer can be from any source (federal, state, local private nonprofit). If an 

offer is refused by the farmer, compliance can be required regardless of any future cost-share 

offer. In some cases, cross-compliance requirements impose compliance with NR 151 standards 

and prohibitions regardless of any additional cost sharing. This is the case for farmers that 

collect farmland preservation tax credits, obtain a livestock siting permit or are required to hold 

a WPDES permit for their livestock operation. Once compliance is documented, it must be 

maintained by the landowner and all future landowners, heirs and assign, regardless of future 

cost sharing. 

Urban Standards 

 NR 151 contains performance standards for construction site erosion, post construction runoff 

from new construction and runoff from established urban areas. Construction sites must reduce 

delivery of eroded sediment by 80%. Post-construction runoff from new development must be 

managed to maintain pre-development peak flow discharges, maintain 60 – 90% of the predevelopment infiltration volume, protect riparian areas and control runoff from fueling and 

maintenance areas. In addition, established urban areas are required to reduce total suspended 

solids on a municipality-wide basis by 20% (as compared to no controls) by March 10, 2008 and 

by 40% by March 10, 2013. These standards are implemented primarily through the WPDES 

storm water permits for construction sites and municipal separate storm sewer systems. In 

addition, there are additional developed area standards that apply to permitted and nonpermitted municipalities alike provided they are incorporated and have a population density of 

at least 1,000/square mile. This requires primarily housekeeping practices and nutrient 

management for larger (over 5 acres) turf areas. 

No cost share requirements apply to non-agricultural construction/post-construction, developed 

urban area, or turf management performance standards (Holden 2009, personal 

communication). 

August 2009 D-86 
 

 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

The state provides some funding to DNR and DATCP as pass-through funding to pay for best 

management practices (BMPs), staff, and technical support. For 2007, DNR provided $2.3 million 

for BMPs and $1 million for urban NPS planning (money for urban BMP construction was not 

available that year, but $2.4 million was provided in 2006). DATCP provided $9.3 million in 

staffing and support to county land conservation departments (who implemented the 

agricultural performance standards and other programs) and $4.9 million in cost sharing. The 30 

percent local share is often provided by federal sources and a few county cost share programs 

and nongovernmental organizations. DNR also passed through $0.9 million in Clean Water Act 

section 319 funds. NRCS provided $17 million through the Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program (EQIP) and $0.5 million for the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) 

(Holden 2009, personal communication). 

WDNR is in the process of revising NR 151. Propositions include new agricultural performance 

standards and modification of several agricultural and non-agricultural performance standards 

(Holden 2009, personal communication). 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

	 Program addresses both agricultural and non-agricultural NPS (Holden 2009, personal 

communication). 

	 Program sets a minimum level of expected nutrient management measures and 

provides a consistent framework for implementing agricultural BMPs (Holden 2009, 

personal communication). 

	 Provides cost-share options to support initial implementation of standards. 

	 The concept of “once in compliance, always in compliance,” means that the state only 

pays once for a BMP and does not have to further cost share practices that come out of 

compliance (Holden 2009, personal communication). 

	 Regulatory component provides a structure by which the worst sites can be targeted for 

remediation (Holden 2009, personal communication). 

	 Program gives local governments authority to enact ordinances to enforce performance 

standards at the local level. This increases local regulatory authority and reduces the 

burden on the state (Holden 2009, personal communication). 

	 Following the adoption of NR 151, several state NPS program partners worked together 

to develop a detailed implementation strategy that provides additional guidelines for 

complying with the standards. This approach supports implementation of the 

performance standards. 

Weaknesses 

	 There is often a delay in the availability of cost share funds and staff time is often spent 

organizing and directing project resources. This can hamper regulatory enforcement of 

standards, as cost sharing must be offered to a producer before an agricultural 

performance standard can be enforced (Holden 2009, personal communication). 

	 Some city leaders have protested the structure of the cost share system. Cost sharing is 

not required for enforcement of non-agricultural practices, which some believe to be 

August 2009	 D-87 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

unfair. The decision to create different enforcement rules was done to protect farmers 

who cannot pass on their costs like those in the non-agricultural sector (municipalities, 

construction companies, etc.) (Holden 2009, personal communication). 

	 The program lacks planning and evaluation components, which makes it difficult to 

connect performance standards to water quality improvements (Holden 2009, personal 

communication). 

	 The existing suite of performance standards is not as strong as DNR originally proposed 

(a result of modifications required to get the legislation passed) (Holden 2009, personal 

communication). 

References 

Holden, C. 2009, March 18. Email from Carol Holden, Runoff Management Section, Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, to Tetra Tech, Inc. 

August 2009	 D-88 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Clean Air Act: State Implementation Plans 

Overview 

The accountability method for the Clean Air Act state implementation plans (SIPs) is based on 

mandatory reporting and EPA’s regulatory authority to impose sanctions on states who do not 

comply. 

Description 

The Clean Air Act (CAA), last amended in 1990, is the comprehensive federal law that regulates 

air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. The CAA authorizes EPA to establish National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and public welfare and to 

regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants (USEPA 2009). The CAA also requires states to 

submit state implementation plans (SIPs) to EPA which provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS established (carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen 

dioxides, ozone, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide) (USEPA 2008b; USEPA 2008e). 

Only one SIP exists for each state, and revisions are necessary when new federal or state 

requirements are enacted, when new data improves modeling techniques, when a specific 

area’s attainment status changes, or when an area fails to reach attainment. Revisions are 

usually prepared for a specific area and include an assessment of the problem and measures to 

fix it (TCEQ 2008). 

The contents of a typical SIP fall into several categories (USEPA 2008a): 

1) State-adopted control measures which consists of either rules/regulations or sourcespecific requirements (e.g., orders and consent decrees) 

2) State-submitted comprehensive air quality plans (e.g., attainment plans, maintenance 

plans, rate of progress plans, transportation control plans) demonstrating how state 

regulatory and source-specific controls, in conjunction with federal programs, will bring 

and/or keep air quality in compliance with federal air quality standards 

3) State- submitted "non-regulatory" requirements (e.g., emission inventories, small 

business compliance assistance programs, statutes demonstrating legal authority, 

monitoring networks, etc.) 

4) Additional requirements promulgated by EPA (in the absence of a commensurate State 

provision) to satisfy a mandatory requirements 

Each SIP revision submitted by the state must undergo reasonable notice and public hearing at 

the state level, and SIPs submitted to EPA to attain or maintain the NAAQS must include 

enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, schedules and timetables for 

compliance. EPA evaluates submitted SIPs to determine if they meet the CAA's requirements. If 

a SIP meets the Act's requirements, EPA will approve the SIP. EPA's notice of approval is 

published in the Federal Register and the approval is then codified in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (USEPA 2008b). 

The enforcement of the SIP is a state responsibility. However, after the regulation is federally 

approved, EPA is authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also 

August 2009 D-89 
 

Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

offered legal recourse to address violations as described in Section 304 of the CAA (USEPA 

2008a). 

Under the CAA, EPA is required to impose highway fund and other sanctions if they find that a 

state has failed to submit a required SIP or revision, if they disapprove a required SIP or revision, 

or if they find that a requirement of an approved SIP is not being implemented (USDOT 2008). 

Assessment of How the Approach is Working 

Prior to 1990, it was difficult for EPA to penalize violators of the CAA because courts were the 

only mechanisms for even minor violations. The 1990 Amendments strengthened EPA's power 

to enforce the CAA by increasing the range of civil and criminal sanctions available. When EPA 

finds that a violation has occurred, the agency can issue an order requiring the violator to 

comply, issue an administrative penalty, or bring a civil judicial action (USEPA 2008c). 

The threat of sanctions is a powerful tool that Congress gave EPA to encourage state compliance 

with the CAA's objectives. EPA has formally notified the states of its intent to use sanctions 855 

times since 1990. The actual imposing of sanctions, which cannot occur until 18 months after 

formal notification, is a relatively rare event. EPA imposed sanctions 14 times since 1990, and 

the only sanction currently in effect is for one small area in Montana (McCarthy 1997). 

Examples of EPA action 

	 Clark County, Las Vegas: In August 1999, EPA found that Clark County missed a deadline 

to submit their SIP, which was in May 1999. The finding started an 18-month Clean Air 

Act “sanction clock,” where it would have imposed more stringent permit requirements 

for industrial sources and limitations on the county’s federal highway funds after 24 

months. EPA determined that the SIP was complete in September 2000, which stopped 

the sanctions from applying. In July 2004, EPA finalized its approval of the SIP revisions 

for the attainment of carbon monoxide NAAQS, and in May 2005, EPA made the final 

decision that the area meets air quality standards for carbon monoxide (USEPA 2008d). 

	 Maricopa County, Arizona: In June 2007, EPA found that the Phoenix metropolitan area 

failed to attain particulate matter NAAQS by the December 2006 deadline. This required 

a SIP revision by December 2007, which provides for annual reductions of particulate 

matter of more than 5% per year of emissions until the NAAQS is attained. The County 

developed a plan to reduce emissions by 5% each year until NAAQS is attained, and 

submitted revised SIP to EPA in December 2007 (MCAQD undated). 

The strength of this program is that when a state fails to submit a SIP, or depending on the 

contents of the SIP, the EPA can enforce sanctions. The direct linkage between failing to meet 

air quality standards and not providing highway funds helps EPA implement air quality 

standards. For water quality and nutrients, finding a direct leverage item may be important. If 

agriculture and urban development are penalized for not promoting best management 

practices, it may help reduce nonpoint source pollution. 

August 2009	 D-90 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses 

Strengths 

 Provides EPA with the legal tools to implement the submittal of SIPs, and impose 

sanctions if states do not comply (has regulatory teeth) 

 Creates a strong negative incentive for states to comply 

 Provides access for communities to get access to the document and file suits if 

necessary (because SIPs are mandatory) 

Weaknesses 

 EPA is responsible for many administrative tasks, such as tracking SIP due dates for each 

state. 

 EPA needs to evaluate the SIPs and respond to the states with their decision within a set 

timeframe. 

 Communication between the states and EPA is imperative. 

References 

MCAQD. Undated. State Implementation Plan. Maricopa County Air Quality Department, 

Phoenix, AZ. 

http://www.maricopa.gov/aq/divisions/planning_analysis/state_implementation_plan.aspx. 

Accessed February, 2009. 

McCarthy, J.E. 1997. Highway Fund Sanctions for Clean Air Act Violations. 97-959 ENR. 

Congressional Research Service, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division, 

Washington, DC. https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/490/97-

959_19971022.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed February, 2009. 

TCEQ. 2008. SIP: Introduction to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP). Texas Commission 

on Environmental Quality, Austin, TX. 

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/air/sip/sipintro.html. Accessed February, 2009. 

USDOT. 2008. Highway Sanctions. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington DC. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sanction.htm. 

Accessed February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2009. Summary of the Clean Air Act. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

DC. http://www.epa.gov/regulations/laws/caa.html. Accessed February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2008a. What is a State Implementation Plan? U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/reg3artd/airregulations/sips/sipdetail.htm. Accessed February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2008b. General SIP Requirements. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 

Denver, CO. http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sipreq.html. 

Accessed February, 2009. 

August 2009 D-91 
Nutrient Innovations Task Group Report Appendix D 

USEPA. 2008c. Permits and Enforcement. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 

and Radiation, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/peg/permits.html. 

Accessed February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2008d. Las Vegas (Clark County) Particulate Matter Pollution. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9, San Francisco, CA. 

http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/vegasco/index.html. Accessed February, 2009. 

USEPA. 2008e. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Radiation, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Accessed 

February, 2009. 

August 2009 D-92