U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

 Evaluation Report 

EPA Needs to Accelerate 

Adoption of Numeric Nutrient 

Water Quality Standards 

Report No. 09-P-0223 

 August 26, 2009 
 

 

Report Contributors: Susan Barvenik 

 Anthony Chirigotis 

 Dan Engelberg 

 Linda Fuller 

 Julie Hamann

 Melba Reed 

Abbreviations 

CWA Clean Water Act 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

PAMs Program Activity Measures 

WATA Water Quality Standards Action Tracking Application 

Cover map:	 Water from approximately 41 percent of the contiguous United States drains 

into the Mississippi River Watershed, as shown. The watershed comprises all 

or part of 31 States. The hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico is thought to be a 

result of excess nutrients from the Mississippi River and seasonal stratification 

(layering) of waters in the Gulf. (EPA map). 
 

 

 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 09-P-0223 

August 26, 2009 Office of Inspector General 

At a Glance
 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Why We Did This Review 

For the past 11 years, EPA has 

been promoting State adoption 

of numeric nutrient water 

quality standards. In 2007, 

EPA recognized that State

progress needs to be

accelerated. We evaluated the 

effectiveness of EPA’s 

strategy to determine what 

improvements EPA can make 

to accelerate progress. 

Background 

The 1972 Clean Water Act 

established a goal of 

maintaining the chemical, 

physical, and biological 

integrity of the Nation’s 

waters. Decades later, States 

have reported more than 

14,000 nutrient-related 

impairments. Excess nutrients 

create dead zones in waters. 

In 1998, EPA issued a strategy

recommending that States 

adopt numeric nutrient water 

quality standards. Such 

standards are cost effective 

and help develop improved 

wastewater treatment facility 

permits and limits of nutrient 

loadings. 

For further information, 

contact our Office of 

Congressional, Public Affairs 

and Management at 

(202) 566-2391. 

To view the full report, 

click on the following link: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2009/ 

20090826-09-P-0223.pdf 

EPA Needs to Accelerate Adoption of 

Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards 

What We Found 

EPA’s 1998 National Strategy and Plan to promote State adoption of nutrient 

water quality standards (which better protect aquatic life and human health) has 

been ineffective. In 1998, EPA stated that a critical need existed for improved 

water quality standards, given the number of waters that were impaired from 

nutrients. In the 11 years since EPA issued its strategy, half the States still had no 

numeric nutrient standards. States have not been motivated to create these 

standards because implementing them is costly and often unpopular with various 

constituencies. EPA has not held the States accountable to committed milestones. 

The current approach does not assure that States will develop standards that 

provide adequate protection for downstream waters. Until recently, EPA has not 

used its Clean Water Act authority to promulgate water quality standards for 

States. 

EPA cannot rely on the States alone to ensure that numeric nutrient standards are 

established. EPA should prioritize States/waters significantly impacted by excess 

nutrients and determine if it should set the standards. EPA also needs to establish 

effective monitoring and measures so that accurate program progress is reported. 

This will assist EPA management in program decision-making. 

What We Recommend 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water: 

•	 Select significant waters of national value which need numeric nutrient 

water quality standards to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. 

•	 Set numeric nutrient water quality standards for the waters identified in 

the first recommendation to meet the requirements of the Clean Water 

Act. 

•	 Establish EPA and State accountability for adopting numeric nutrient 

standards for the rest of the Nation’s waters. 

•	 Establish metrics to gauge the actual progress made by the States. 

We discussed our findings and recommendations with Agency officials. The 

Agency agreed with some but not all of the recommendations. 
 

 

 

 

Assistant Inspector General, Office of Program Evaluation 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

August 26, 2009 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT:	 EPA Needs to Accelerate Adoption of Numeric Nutrient 

Water Quality Standards 

Report No. 09-P-0223 

FROM:	 Wade T. Najjum 

TO: Peter S. Silva 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water 

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe 

the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report 

represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. 

Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with 

established resolution procedures. 

The estimated cost of this report – calculated by multiplying the project’s staff days by the 

applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time – is $505,399. 

Action Required 

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this 

report within 90 calendar days. You should include a corrective actions plan for agreed upon 

actions, including milestone dates. We have no objections to the further release of this report to 

the public. This report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 202-566-0827 

or najjum.wade@epa.gov; Dan Engelberg, Director, at 202-566-0830 or engelberg.dan@epa.gov; 

or Julie Hamann, Project Manager, at 913-551-7693 or hamann.julie@epa.gov. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA Needs to Accelerate Adoption of 09-P-0223 

Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards 

Table of Contents 

Chapters 

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 

 Purpose ....................................................................................................... 1 

 Background ................................................................................................. 1 

 Noteworthy Achievements........................................................................... 3 

 Scope and Methodology ............................................................................. 4 

2 EPA’s Strategy to Promote State Adoption 

of Numeric Criteria Has Been Ineffective......................................................... 5 

States Have Been Slow to Adopt Numeric Nutrient Standards................... 5 

EPA Needs to Ensure that States Consider the Impact of 

 Nutrient Pollution on Downstream Waters in Other States..................... 7 

EPA Did Not Adequately Monitor and Measure Program Progress 

 to Support Accountability........................................................................ 8 

 Conclusion................................................................................................... 9 

 Recommendations ...................................................................................... 10 

Agency Response and OIG Comments ...................................................... 10 

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits.............................. 12 

Appendices 

A Details on Scope and Methodology.................................................................. 13 

B Top 10 States Contributing Nutrients to the Gulf of Mexico .......................... 15 

C Agency Response .............................................................................................. 16 

D Distribution ......................................................................................................... 18
 
 

 

09-P-0223
 

Chapter 1

Introduction 

Purpose 

The purpose of our review was to evaluate the effectiveness of EPA’s actions to 

establish nutrient water quality standards in waters covered by the Clean Water 

Act (CWA). 

Background 

Since at least the 1990s, excess nutrients have been reported as one of the major 

sources of impaired waters nationally. Water bodies need nutrients (nitrogen and 

phosphorus) to be healthy. But an excess of nutrients can be harmful. Excess 

levels of nutrients in waters can produce harmful algal blooms. These blooms 

contribute to the creation of hypoxia or “dead zones” in water bodies (where 

dissolved oxygen levels are so low that most aquatic life cannot survive). Sources 

of excessive nutrients include overuse of fertilizer, sewage treatment plants, septic 

systems, animal manure, urban runoff, and atmospheric deposition. Figure 1-1 

illustrates how hypoxia forms in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Figure 1-1: Illustration of Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico 

Source: EPA 

1 
 09-P-0223
 

Since at least 1998, EPA has realized that better standards were needed to restore 

nutrient-impaired waters and to protect waters from becoming impaired. Water 

quality standards are important because they help to protect and restore the water 

quality of the Nation’s surface waters, consistent with the requirements of the 

CWA. The Act, passed in 1972, gives EPA the authority to review and approve 

State water quality standards as well as establish new standards necessary to meet 

the requirements of the Act. 

Water quality standards provide the foundation for accomplishing the goals and 

objectives of the CWA. Water quality standards are typically laws adopted by the 

State which define the goals for a water body by designating its uses, setting 

criteria to protect those uses, and establishing provisions to protect water quality 

from pollutants. 

According to EPA, narrative standards for nutrients can be useful in protecting 

water quality. But numeric standards applicable to all waters are more effective 

in achieving nutrient controls. According to EPA, if the Nation is to finish the 

job of restoring and protecting water quality in accordance with the CWA, water 

quality criteria and standards need to be improved and enhanced. 

In 1998, EPA issued National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient 

Criteria and Water Quality Criteria and Standards Plan – Priorities for the 

Future. In these documents, EPA described the approach it was taking in 

working with the States to adopt nutrient criteria as part of the State water quality 

standards. EPA stated that given the fact that not all the Nation’s waters had 

achieved the CWA goal of being “fishable and swimmable” and that significant 

water pollution problems still existed, improved water quality standards were 

critically needed as well as a set of tools to implement those standards. 

In a 2001 Federal Register Notice, EPA published recommended criteria for 

nutrient water quality standards under Section 304(a) of the CWA. This section 

of the Act requires EPA to develop and publish criteria guidance to assist States in 

developing water quality standards that protect designated uses. EPA 

recommended that States adopt numeric nutrient water quality standards for 

nitrogen, phosphorus, chlorophyll-a; and clarity for lakes/reservoirs, 

rivers/streams, wetlands, and estuaries as appropriate. EPA also recommended 

that the States should create their plans by the end of 2001 outlining the process 

they would take to develop and adopt numeric nutrient standards. 

To assist the States in developing nutrient criteria, EPA issued Ambient Water 

Quality Criteria Recommendations for most rivers, streams, lakes and reservoirs 

in the United States on an ecoregional basis. The criteria represented surface 

water conditions that were minimally impacted by human activities and protected 

aquatic life and recreational uses. EPA also issued technical guidance by water 

body type. 

2 
 09-P-0223
 

EPA expected the States to consider the following elements in developing a 

nutrient criterion: 

•	 Historical data and other information (published literature), 

•	 Current reference conditions, 

•	 Models to simulate physical and ecological processes to determine 

relationships among nutrients’ biological or physical conditions, 

•	 Evaluation of downstream effects, and 

•	 Expert judgment. 

EPA recommended the States use the following approaches, in order of 

preference: 

•	 Developing nutrient criteria that fully reflect localized conditions, 

•	 Adopting EPA’s recommended section 304(a) criteria for nutrients, or 

•	 Using other scientifically defensible methods. 

The States would follow a general process of identifying available data and data 

gaps; collecting and analyzing the data; developing a proposed standard; 

involving public and stakeholder participation; obtaining approval from State 

legislatures; and obtaining EPA approval of the new/revised standard. 

Due to the limited progress made by States, the Office of Water Assistant 

Administrator issued a memorandum in 2007 stating that progress needed to be 

accelerated. In 2008, 10 years after EPA issued its national strategy, the hypoxic 

zone in the Gulf of Mexico had become the second largest on record and the 

second largest dead zone in the world. 

Nutrient pollution is widespread and impacts virtually every State. As required 

by the Section 303(d) of the CWA, States continue to report over 14,000 

impairments for nutrient and nutrient-related pollution on their impaired waters 

lists. 

Noteworthy Achievements 

EPA Headquarters and regions have helped States develop numeric nutrient 

criteria in their water quality standards, including: 

•	 publishing technical guidance for developing criteria for lakes and 

reservoirs, rivers and streams, estuaries and coastal waters, and wetlands. 

EPA also published recommended nutrient criteria for most rivers, 

streams, lakes and reservoirs in the United States. 

•	 developing several tools including N-STEPS, a portal that provides Webbased technical assistance to State and regional scientists and managers 

who are developing numeric nutrient criteria, and provides information 

regarding nutrient pollution and EPA's activities to the public. 

3 
 

 

09-P-0223
 

•	 determining, in January 2009, that new or revised numeric water quality 

standards for nutrients are necessary for Florida to meet CWA 

requirements. EPA will work collaboratively with Florida experts to 

generate data and analyses. 

•	 approving nutrient criteria for estuarine and tidal waters in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. This is an example of where downstream 

criteria have been put in place to drive upstream nutrient control actions. 

Scope and Methodology 

We conducted this evaluation from October 2008 through June 2009 in 

accordance with generally accepted government audit standards, issued by the 

Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

We focused on States contributing nutrients to the Gulf of Mexico because excess 

nutrients have resulted in its having one of the largest dead zones in the world. 

Additionally, water from approximately 41 percent of the contiguous United 

States drains into the Mississippi River Watershed. We conducted interviews 

with EPA’s Office of Water and Regions 4, 5, and 7 officials, and with State 

officials from Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, and Missouri. We 

reviewed information from EPA’s Water Quality Standards Action Tracking 

Application and EPA’s Program Activity Measures. We reviewed State nutrient 

criteria development plans and EPA/State mutual agreements to evaluate how 

States are progressing in adopting numeric nutrient criteria into water quality 

standards. Appendix A contains detailed information on the scope and 

methodology of our evaluation. 

4 
 

 

09-P-0223
 

Chapter 2

EPA’s Strategy to Promote State Adoption 

of Numeric Criteria Has Been Ineffective 

We found EPA’s nutrient criteria strategy lacked management control and an 

adequate system of accountability for either itself or the States. EPA did not seek 

State commitment to specific actions or milestones that would provide 

accountability. As a result, few States have made progress adopting numeric 

nutrient water quality standards. Until recently, EPA had not used its CWA 

authority to promulgate standards for waters of national value that have been 

significantly impacted by nutrients. EPA has not been effective in coordinating 

standard development for waters involving multiple States. While setting 

standards does not of itself improve water quality, it generally marks the 

beginning of serious efforts to identify impaired waters and make improvements 

where needed. Ineffective management control and accountability over the 

approach to promoting State adoption of nutrient water quality standards has 

resulted in an unnecessary delay to the start of the clean-up process. 

States Have Been Slow to Adopt Numeric Nutrient Standards 

In the 11 years since EPA issued its strategy, half the States still had no numeric 

nutrient standards at the end of 2008.1

 Most States take a piecemeal approach by 

adopting selected parameters for selected waters. States set their own milestones 

and priorities. EPA did not work with the States to identify priority waters or 

coordinate efforts to focus on waters which needed the most protection. In some 

cases, the States developed standards based on availability of data rather than the 

severity of the impairment. In its 2008 report, State Adoption of Numeric Nutrient 

Standards (1998 – 2008), EPA reported that after 10 years, no State has met 

EPA’s goal (see Table 1 below). 

Table 2-1: State Progress in Adopting Numeric Nutrient Standards, 1998-2008 

4 Parametersa 1+ Parameters 1+ Parameters 

Numeric Nutrient 4 Water Bodyb 1+ Entire Selected No Numeric 

Standards by Year Types Water Body Type Waters Criteria 

1998 0 6 7 37 

2008 0 7 18 25 a The four parameters are nitrogen, phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, and clarity.
 b The four water body types are lakes/reservoirs, rivers/stream, wetlands, and estuaries. 

Source: Developed by OIG based on EPA's report, State Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Standards 

(1998 – 2008). 

1

 Hawaii is the only State to have adopted all the parameters for all its water bodies and did it prior to 1998. 

5 
 09-P-0223
 

EPA’s current approach holds little promise that States will achieve the goal of 

numeric nutrient standards (including the parameters of nitrogen, phosphorus, 

chlorophyll-a, and clarity) for all water bodies. EPA needs to improve its strategy 

if it hopes to finish the job of restoring and protecting water quality in accordance 

with the CWA as it stated in its 1998 strategy. EPA must identify priority States 

and waters so that limited resources can be targeted to these waters. EPA should 

identify States or specific waters which are seriously impaired so it can make a 

determination under section 303(c)(4)(B) to issue a water quality standard itself. 

In January 2009, EPA made such a determination for the State of Florida. Six 

months prior to EPA’s determination, five environmental groups filed suit against 

EPA to compel EPA to use its CWA authority under section 303(c)(4)(B) to 

promulgate nutrient water quality standards for Florida. Since 1998, this has been 

the only time EPA issued a determination for nutrients. EPA’s Ecological and 

Health Protection Branch Chief said the Florida determination was State-specific 

and no other determinations were planned for the near future. He said it would 

make development of maximum pollutant loads to a water body and regulatory 

action more efficient and effective. 

Cost is a significant obstacle to making headway toward developing water quality 

standards for nutrients. It is relatively expensive for States to develop 

individualized nutrient criteria that reflect localized conditions. While EPA has 

provided much technical assistance to the States, it cannot cover the full cost of 

State development of standards. EPA estimates it provided approximately 

$11 million to all the States from 1998 to 2008 for numeric nutrient standard 

development. State officials at Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri, estimated 

it would cost from $1.8 to $8.2 million to develop numeric standards. Florida has 

already expended approximately $20 million and has not completed the task. 

Alternatively, States could adopt EPA’s recommended criteria which would 

reduce State development costs. However, many States viewed EPA’s criteria as 

overly protective. States believe standards developed from EPA’s criteria would 

be financially costly to implement. Therefore, many States choose to continue 

developing their own criteria since time is not a constraint. 

Adoption of standards alone will not ensure improved water quality. States need 

to ensure that the standard is implemented. According to EPA’s Office of Science 

and Technology Director, some States believe they do not have strong tools to 

implement the standards. Therefore, the States may be reluctant to adopt 

standards they cannot implement. Such tools may include regulatory authority 

over nonpoint sources or the ability to raise funds to support implementation. 

Although developing these tools may often be politically unpopular, it can be 

possible. 

For many States, agricultural operations are the primary source of excess 

nutrients. EPA has only limited regulatory control over agriculture. Some States 

6 
 

 

09-P-0223
 

indicated that they do not have the regulations or resources to influence 

agricultural producers to change their practices to improve water quality. 

Generally, the selection and adoption of best management practices is at the 

discretion of agricultural producers. While States could establish their own 

regulations, it could be politically unpopular to do so. 

Costs to implement the standards will primarily be borne by individual citizens 

and businesses (particularly agribusiness in some States) of the States. For 

example, if new/revised standards result in stricter discharge limits for wastewater 

treatment plants, these plants may need to increase their user fees to support the 

construction of nutrient removal technology, which can run in the millions of 

dollars. Management of agricultural runoff and restrictions on businesses would 

likely increase costs. As a practical matter, increasing costs for taxpayers and 

businesses is generally unpopular. State environmental officials told us that 

because of the cost issue they believe they need a high level of scientific support 

for any water quality standard before submitting it for approval before their State 

legislators. 

EPA Needs to Ensure that States Consider the Impact of 

Nutrient Pollution on Downstream Waters in Other States 

Even if individual State numeric water quality standards were set, there is no 

assurance those standards would adequately protect the waters of downstream 

States. The States we interviewed said they had not yet considered the impact of 

their nutrients on downstream waters. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 

131.10, provides that States must ensure that their water quality standards provide 

for the “attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream 

waters.” EPA has the authority to review and approve a State’s water quality 

standards. We believe waiting for the States to submit their incremental standards 

over a number of years is an ineffective way to ensure that downstream waters are 

protected. 

Many States contribute pollutants to waters in other States. The States we 

interviewed said that their primary obligation is developing standards to protect 

the waters within their own borders. For example, 31 States are responsible for 

the excess nutrients found in the Gulf of Mexico. States such as Illinois, Iowa, 

and Missouri are major contributors of nutrients to the Gulf of Mexico. None of 

those States had considered their impact on the Gulf in developing their standards 

(see Appendix B). 

EPA’s Chief for Ecological and Health Protection Branch advised us that it would 

be best for downstream States to develop numeric nutrient standards first. 

Theoretically, this approach could drive the upstream States to ensure that they 

develop standards which protect downstream waters. However, EPA has not taken 

any action to coordinate and prioritize an effort to take this approach. EPA’s 

Region 4 Nutrient Coordinator said discussions had occurred within EPA and with 

7 
 09-P-0223
 

the States regarding the impact of upstream State nutrient standards on 

downstream waters. But no final resolution had been made as of the end of 2008. 

Florida State officials also indicated that they have conversed with Georgia, 

Alabama, and EPA but also indicated that no final decisions had been made. The 

States we reviewed did not appear to be motivated to improve nutrient water 

quality standards for protection within their own borders let alone for States 

downstream. 

The CWA gives EPA the authority to review and approve State water quality 

standards. EPA can disapprove State standards which do not meet EPA 

regulations, such as requiring the attainment and maintenance of water quality 

standards downstream. Rather than relying on upstream States to set standards 

that protect downstream waters, EPA could promulgate standards for waters of 

national value, such as the Gulf of Mexico or the Mississippi River. Section 

303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA requires that EPA promulgate standards in any case 

where the Administrator determines that a revised or new standard is necessary to 

meet the requirements of the Act. Once EPA establishes a standard for such a 

water body, it would drive standard development for upstream States. 

EPA Did Not Adequately Monitor and Measure Program Progress to 

Support Accountability 

In its 2001 Federal Register Notice, Nutrient Criteria Development: Notice of 

Ecoregional Nutrient Criteria, EPA stated that by the end of 2001, the States 

should develop plans outlining how the State would develop and adopt numeric 

nutrient criteria. EPA further stated it would consider promulgating numeric 

nutrient standards for a State if it had not substantially completed adopting 

numeric nutrient criteria in accordance with its plan by the end of 2004. Section 

303 (c)(4)(B) of the CWA requires that the Administrator shall promulgate 

standards in any case where the Administrator determines that a revised or new 

standard is necessary to meet the requirements of the Act. 

In 2005, about one-third of the States did not have a nutrient criteria development 

plan or were not in the administrative phase of adopting standards. EPA did not 

promulgate standards for any State at that time. Generally, we found no sanctions 

were taken when States did not make progress as planned. For example: 

•	 Region 4 noted missed milestones but simply revised them. 

•	 Region 5, over several years, has expressed concern with the direction of 

Illinois’ nutrient criteria effort and Illinois’ apparent belief that it did not 

need numeric nutrient criteria. 

•	 Region 7 acknowledged that States have missed their milestones. No 

action was taken. 

Regional Nutrient Criteria Coordinators advised us that they discussed with 

Headquarters the lack of progress made by certain States. But no formal process 

8 
 

 

09-P-0223
 

existed for making a determination that EPA should promulgate standards. 

Regional staff also advised us that States knew that EPA would not use its 

promulgation powers so the States were not pressured to accelerate progress. 

In 2007, EPA conducted an overall assessment of the program’s progress. EPA 

had not established measures to hold itself accountable for achieving the goals of 

its 1998 strategy. Neither did EPA have a national tracking system to monitor 

State progress in meeting nutrient criteria development plan milestones. EPA 

Headquarters worked with its regional offices and a contractor to develop the 

information included in the report, Status of State Adoption of Numeric Nutrient 

Standards, December 2008. EPA did not have a national tracking system of State 

progress on nutrient criteria development milestones until 2007. 

In 2007, EPA also developed a component to its Water Quality Standards Action 

Tracking Application (WATA) to monitor State progress in achieving nutrient 

criteria development plan milestones. However, this system is not utilized for 

tracking, reporting, or decision making because the data have not been validated 

(i.e., ensuring entry of correct significant milestone dates and descriptions). 

While it is a positive step, too much variation still exists in State reporting. Many 

activities from our sample had “open, no specific date available.” Also, because 

the nutrient criteria development plans vary by State, WATA data are 

inconsistent. 

As of 2008, 13 States still did not have projected adoption dates in their plans. 

Realistic measures are needed to effectively monitor progress towards program 

goals, and make programmatic adjustments. Additionally, EPA’s Program 

Activity Measures (PAMs) for numeric nutrient standards do not provide an 

accurate picture of program progress either. PAMs are annual program outputs 

that link back to the Agency’s Strategic Plan, which measures program outcomes. 

EPA’s numeric nutrient standard PAMs do not describe the progress being made. 

The PAM definition for achieving State adoption of numeric nutrient standards 

has been revised annually, making trend analysis difficult. Some of the changes 

included types of waters or parameters measured as well as the method for 

determining if the States were on track for meeting their milestones. Credit is 

given for partial adoption of criteria, which does not indicate what has or still 

needs to be accomplished. Regional staff does not consider the measures useful. 

Headquarters and regions have not been using measures for tracking performance, 

generating reports, or decision making. The absence of meaningful measures in 

this program limits the ability of the States, EPA senior leadership, and Congress 

to make informed decisions about the status of the program. 

Conclusion 

EPA’s current approach is not working. EPA has relied on the States to develop 

standards on their own without any meaningful monitoring or control. EPA did 

not establish priorities, enforceable milestones, or adequate measures to assess 

9 
 09-P-0223
 

progress. States have made minimal progress in developing standards and have 

not yet considered the impact of their waters on downstream waters. EPA has 

neither held the States accountable nor used its CWA authorities to promulgate 

standards. Consequently, EPA is not assured that the States will set numeric 

nutrient standards or that the standards would provide adequate protection under 

the CWA for downstream waters. 

Given the lack of progress and the challenges involved, EPA needs to develop a 

realistic approach to meet the intent of the CWA that includes priorities and 

milestones for action. We believe that EPA should prioritize its efforts by 

addressing waters of national value (e.g., the Gulf of Mexico) requiring a 

coordinated effort with several States. Using its CWA authority, EPA should 

determine if numeric nutrient water quality standards are necessary for those 

waters and apply its recommended criteria. That would allow EPA a baseline to 

work with the upstream states to develop reasonable standards and milestones. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Water: 

2-1 Select significant waters of national value which need numeric nutrient 

water quality standards to meet the requirements of the CWA. 

2-2 Set numeric nutrient water quality standards for the waters identified in 

Recommendation 2-1 to meet the requirements of the CWA. 

2-3 Establish EPA and State accountability for meeting milestones for 

adopting numeric nutrient water quality standards for those waters in the 

rest of the Nation that require them. EPA should do this by: 

a. 

b. 

Requiring States to develop milestones based on resources 

available. 

Reviewing those milestones and approving them as appropriate. 

2-4 Establish metrics to gauge the actual progress made by States in adopting 

numeric nutrient water quality standards. 

2-5 Ensure that the regions annually validate WATA data. 

Agency Response and OIG Comments 

EPA disagreed with Recommendations 2-1 and 2-2. In its response to our draft 

report EPA argued that “a strategic approach to leverage resources and existing 

authorities” for “waters of regional, local and multi-State value” is the best way to 

establish effective standards OIG concluded EPA's past and current strategy has 

not been effective, and developing another “strategic approach” would not be 

10 
 09-P-0223
 

responsive to the recommendations. Historically, EPA has said it would use its 

authority to set standards as a motivator and then failed to set standards. We 

believe selecting nationally significant waters and acting to set standards for 

nutrients in them is a minimal first step if EPA is to meet the requirements of the 

CWA. Critical national waters such as the Gulf of Mexico and the Mississippi 

River require standards that, once set, will affect multiple upstream States. These 

States have not yet set nutrient standards for themselves; consequently, it is EPA's 

responsibility to act. Those standards set for nationally significant waters will 

serve as an impetus for States to set their own standards and develop and 

implement load limits and management practices that will achieve them and the 

goals of the CWA. These recommendations are unresolved. 

The Agency concurred with our third, fourth, and fifth recommendations. 

A complete copy of the Agency's response is in Appendix C. All recommendations 

will remain open until the Agency has completed the agreed-upon actions. 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

09-P-0223 

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

2-1 

2-2 

2-3 

2-4 

2-5 

Page 

No.

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

 Subject 

Select significant waters of national value which 

need numeric nutrient water quality standards to 

meet the requirements of the CWA. 

Set numeric nutrient water quality standards for the 

waters identified in Recommendation 2-1 to meet 

the requirements of the CWA. 

Establish EPA and State accountability for meeting 

milestones for adopting numeric nutrient water 

quality standards for those waters in the rest of the 

Nation that require them. EPA should do this by: 

a. Requiring States to develop milestones 

based on resources available. 

b. Reviewing those milestones and approving 

them as appropriate. 

Establish metrics to gauge the actual progress 

made by States in adopting numeric nutrient water 

quality standards. 

Ensure that the regions annually validate WATA 

data. 

. 

Status1 

U 

U 

O 

O 

O 

Action Official 

Assistant Administrator 

for Water 

Assistant Administrator 

for Water 

Assistant Administrator 

for Water 

Assistant Administrator 

for Water 

Assistant Administrator 

for Water 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed To 

Amount 

1 O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending 

C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed 

U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

09-P-0223
 

Appendix A 

Details on Scope and Methodology 

We conducted our review from October 2008 through June 2009. We reviewed EPA activities 

from 1998 to 2008 to assist States in adopting numeric nutrient criteria. 

We obtained information on the progress of State adoption of numeric nutrient criteria 

nationally, focusing our review on selected States contributing nutrients to the Gulf of Mexico 

(Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri). The Gulf of Mexico has one of the largest dead 

zones in the world. Water from approximately 41 percent of the contiguous United States drains 

into the Mississippi River Watershed. We selected States with high nutrient discharge levels as 

reported by the U.S. Geological Survey. We also considered a State’s progress in developing 

numeric nutrient standards based on EPA data. 

We interviewed officials in EPA’s Office of Water, specifically the Offices of Science and 

Technology; Wastewater Management; and Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. We also 

interviewed officials in the EPA Office of Counsel. We interviewed officials in EPA Regions 4, 

5, and 7 where our selected States are located. 

To determine how the States planned to adopt numeric nutrient criteria and their progress in 

doing so, we interviewed State officials in our selected States. We reviewed nutrient criteria 

development plans, EPA mutual agreement documents, and associated nutrient criteria 

milestones dates for our selected States. 

To gain an understanding of the regulatory requirements, we reviewed the CWA and Federal 

Code of Regulations pertaining to water quality standards. To determine how EPA planned to 

promote State adoption of numeric nutrient criteria, we reviewed the following EPA strategies 

and guidance documents: 

•	 June 1998: National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria. 

•	 June 1998: Water Quality Criteria and Standards Plan – Priorities for the Future. 

•	 January 9, 2001: Nutrient Criteria Development; Notice of Ecoregional Nutrient 

Criteria.
 

•	 November 14, 2001: Memorandum from the Office of Science and Technology Director, 

Development and Adoption of Nutrient Criteria into Water Quality Standards. 

•	 May 25, 2007: Memorandum from the Office of Water Assistant Administrator, Nutrient 

Pollution and Numeric Water Quality Standards. 

To determine what management controls EPA had in place to monitor and measure State 

progress in adopting numeric nutrient criteria, we evaluated EPA’s WATA and PAMs. We 

interviewed staff responsible for these systems and applicable guidance documents. We 

reviewed 2008 WATA reports for our selected States. We analyzed PAM data from Fiscal Years 

2005 to 2009. Since our review was confined to evaluating EPA’s methods for monitoring and 

measuring progress, we did not assess the accuracy of the data reported in WATA and PAMs. 

But we did note and report in Chapter 2 that WATA data have not been validated. We reviewed 

13 
 

 

09-P-0223
 

EPA’s December 2008 report, State Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Standards, which documents 

States’ progress in adopting numeric nutrient criteria. 

To determine the extent of the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico and the States’ contribution to 

this problem, we reviewed the following reports: 

•	 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; 

Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force; 2008; Washington, 

DC. 

•	 Differences in Phosphorus and Nitrogen Delivery to the Gulf of Mexico from the 

Mississippi River Basin; U.S. Geological Survey; published in Environmental Science & 

Technology, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2008. 

•	 Mississippi River Quality and the Clean Water Act: Progress, Challenges, and 

Opportunities; National Academies; October 2007.
 

•	 EPA and USDA Should Create New Initiative to Better Monitor Nutrients Across the 

Mississippi River Basin and Northern Gulf of Mexico; National Academies; December 

2008. 

To determine EPA funding of State activities related to developing numeric nutrient criteria, we 

requested EPA’s Office of Science and Technology to provide us with figures from 1998 to 

2008. To determine an approximate cost of the States developing numeric nutrient criteria, we 

requested the States to provide cost estimates and describe the approach they were using to 

develop the criteria. In obtaining estimates from our selected States, we also requested 

information from Minnesota because that State had adopted standards for lakes/reservoirs. 

Because we are using this information as background, we did not audit the information provided 

to us. 

Prior Reports 

The OIG has not conducted a prior review of EPA’s efforts to promote State adoption of numeric 

nutrient water quality standards. 

The Government Accountability Office assessed EPA and State efforts to improve water quality 

standards in its report, Water Quality: Improved EPA Guidance and Support Can Help States 

Develop Standards that Better Target Cleanup Efforts (GAO-03-308, January 2003). 

14 
 

 

09-P-0223 

Appendix B 

Top 10 States Contributing Nutrients 

to the Gulf of Mexico 

Progress in Adopting Numeric Standards 

(by percentage of Nitrogen and Phosphorus contributions)
 

State 

Percentage of 

Total Nitrogen 

Contribution 

16.8 

Status of Adopting 

Nitrogen Water 

Quality Standards 

Illinois None 

Iowa 11.3 None 

Indiana 10.1 None 

Missouri 9.6 None 

Arkansas 6.9 None 

Kentucky 6.1 None 

Tennessee 5.5 No standard for nitrogen. 

Standard for chlorophyll-a 

for selected lakes/reservoirs 

Ohio 5.4 None 

Mississippi 3.4 None 

Nebraska 3.2 None 

State 

Illinois 

Percentage of 

Total 

Phosphorus 

Contribution 

12.9 

Status of Adopting 

Phosphorus Water 

Quality Standards 

Select waters for 

lakes/reservoirs 

Missouri 12.1 None 

Iowa 9.8 None 

Arkansas 9.6 None 

Kentucky 9.0 None 

Indiana 8.4 None 

Tennessee 5.3 No standard for phosphorus. 

Standard for chlorophyll-a 

for select waters for 

lakes/reservoirs 

Mississippi 4.4 None 

Ohio 4.1 None 

Oklahoma 3.3 Select waters for 

lakes/reservoirs and for some 

response parameters 

Sources: U.S. Geological Survey’s January 2008 report, Differences 

in Phosphorus and Nitrogen Delivery to the Gulf of Mexico from the 

Mississippi River; and EPA’s December 2008 report, State Adoption 

of Numeric Nutrient Standards. 

15 
 09-P-0223
 

Appendix C 

Agency Response 

July 15, 2009 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Draft Evaluation Report: EPA Needs to Accelerate Adoption of Numeric 

Nutrient Water Quality Standards, Project 2008-575. 

FROM: Michael H. Shapiro 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

TO: Dan Engelberg 

Director, Water and Enforcement Issues 

Thank you for your draft evaluation report of June 18, 2009, EPA Needs to Accelerate 

Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards. In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, 

this is our written response to your findings and recommendations. 

In general, EPA's Office of Water finds the draft report to be factually accurate. Also, 

the Office of Water generally concurs with the findings in the report . However, we would like to 

be clear that our view is that numeric nutrient State water quality standards are needed to protect 

not only those waters already impaired by nutrient pollution, but also to prevent high quality 

waters from future impairment. 

With regard to recommendations I and 2, overall we agree with the importance of 

addressing priority waters of regional, local and multi-State value. However, rather than 

selecting a specific list of significant waters of national value which will entail a substantial 

amount of process and, to a large degree, be redundant with the assessment and listing provisions 

of CWA sections 303 and 305, we believe a greater benefit will be derived by developing a 

strategic approach to leverage resources and existing authorities to get more numeric nutrient 

water quality standards in place. This strategic approach would consider waters of national value, 

including waters impaired for nutrients and high quality waters of national significance. When 

envisioning this approach, we recognize the strategic importance of addressing waters such as 

the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi River Basin and the Chesapeake Bay. We propose that we 

could develop this strategic approach in 2010. 

With regard to recommendations 3 and 4, we are limited in terms of the metrics and tools 

available to require States to keep on schedule according to their individual mutually agreed 

upon plans . However, we agree that there is room for improvement in the use of the tools we 

have available (i .e., notification to the States that EPA is aware that they are not on schedule, 

more frequent publications of State status reports, revision of internal program clearly and 

16 
 09-P-0223
 

metrics to more transparently track and document State progress over time, and utilization of 

existing authorities). 

Lastly, with regard to recommendation 5, we agree that WATA data should be validated on an 

annual basis. We are presently evaluating the approach of tying the WATA information to the 

PAM reporting to provide the necessary incentive for more accurate reporting. 

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review and comment on this draft evaluation 

report. If you have any questions, please contact Dana Thomas at (202) 566-1046. 

Attachment 

17 
 

 

09-P-0223 

Appendix D 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water 

General Counsel 

Agency Follow-up Official (the CFO) 

Agency Follow-up Coordinator 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs 

Audit Follow-up Coordinator, Office of Water 

Acting Inspector General 

18