i 

I 

i 

United States 

Environmental Protection 

Awcy 

Office of Water 

4384 

EPA 822-R-98-002 

June 1998 

-- 

National Strategy for the 

Development of Regional 

Nutrient Criteria 

June 1998 

i 
CONTENTS 

i 

I LPREFACE BY ROBERT PERCIASEPE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF 

WATER ................................................................. 111 

... 

NOTE TO THE READER a . - . . ............................................ vi 

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 

A-Background ........................................................ 1 

B. Nutrient Pollution Problems ........................................... .2 

C. Past Nutrient Reduction Efforts ........................................ .2 

D. Other Current Nutrient-Related Efforts ................................... 3 

11. THE NATIONAL NUTRIENT STRATEGY ............................... .5 

A. The Five Key Elements of the Strategy ................................... 6 

B. How the Elements are Integrated ....................................... 14 

111. WATERBODY-TYPE TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ........................... 15 

A.1ndicatox-s ........................................................ 17 

B. Data Storage and Processing ......................................... .22 

C. Management and Evaluation ......................................... .25 

D. Research Needs .................................................... 30 

APPENDIX A: Summary of Water Quality Criteria and Standards for Nutrient 

Overenrichment ............................................. 35 

APPENDIX B: Nutrient Criteria Activities and Timeline ........................... 41 

APPENDIX C: Draft Outline for the Development of Nutrient Criteria for Rivers, 

Lakes, Reservoirs, Estuarine and Coastal Systems .................... 45 

APPENDIX D: Drafting Committee for the National Nutrient Strategy ................. 49 

APPENDIX E: Excerpt fi-om the Clean Water Action Plan ......................... 50 

REFERENCES ........................................~...................52 

i 
PREFACE 

In February of this year, President Clinton and Vice President Gore released a 

comprehensive Clean Water Action Plan. The Action Plan provides a blueprint for Federal 

agencies to work with States and others stakeholders in restoring and protecting the Nation’s 

water resources and addresses three major goals: 

0 enhanced protection fi-om public health threats posed by water pollution; 

0 more effective control of polluted runoff; and 

0 promotion of water quality restoration and protection on a watershed basis. 

A key part of the Action Plan provides for expanded efforts to reduce nutrient 

overenrichment of waters. 

Nutrients, in appropriate amounts, are essential to the health of aquatic systems. 

Excessive nutrients, however, can result in excessive growth of macrophytes or phytoplankton 

and potentially harmhl algal blooms leading to oxygen declines, imbalance of aquatic species, 

public health threats, and a general decline in the aquatic resource. 

Recent reports on water quality conditions provided by States indicate that nutrients are 

the leading cause of impairment in lakes and coastal waters and the second leading cause of 

impairment to rivers and streams. Nutrient overenrichment has also been strongly linked to the 

large hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico and to recent outbreaks of the toxic microorganism 

P’esteria along the Gulf and Mid-Atlantic coasts. 

The Action Plan calls on EPA to accelerate the development of scientific information 

concerning the levels of nutrients that cause water quality problems and to organize this 

information by different types of waterbodies (e.g. streams, lakes, coastal waters, wetlands) and ’ 

by geographic regions of the country. EPA is also to work with States and Tribes to adopt 

criteria (i.e. numeric concentration levels) for nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, as 

part of enforceable State water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. 

This National Strategy for Development of Nutrient Criteria describes the approach 

that EPA will follow in developing nutrient information and working with States and Tribes to 

adopt nutrient criteria as part of State water quality standards. Some key aspects of the Strategy 

are described below. 

i 

1 

i 

i 

i 

I 

... 

111 
! 

Region and Waterbody Approach 

i 

j 

i 

Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to develop scientific information on 

pollutants and to publish “criteria guidance,” often expressed as pollutant concentration levels, 

that will result in attainment of a designated use of the waterbody (e.g. fishing, swimming) that is 

determined by the State. These concentration levels generally are the same for all types of 

waterbodies and to all areas of the country. States consider these EPA “criteria guidance” when 

they adopt water quality standards for waterbodies. A water quality standard commonly includes 

a designed use for the waterbody and criteria (i.e. concentration levels) for a range of pollutants 

that will assure that the waterbody will support the designated use. 

In the case of nutrients, however, there is a great deal of variability in inherent nutrient 

levels and nutrient responses throughout the country. This natural variability is due to differences 

in geology, climate and waterbody type. Because of this variation, EPA’s custom of developing 

scientific information about a pollutant and recommending a single pollutant concentration 

number to support a designated use for nationwide application is not appropriate for nutrients. 

EPA believes that distinct geographic regions and types of waterbodies need to be evaluated 

differently and that recommended nutrient concentration levels need to reflect geographic 

variation and waterbody types. 

Water b ody-Type Guidance Documents 

An essential element of this Strategy is development of waterbody-type guidance 

documents describing the techniques for assessing the trophic state of a waterbody and 

methodologies for developing nutrient criteria appropriate to different geographic regions. 

Separate guidance documents will be developed for rivers, lakes, coastal waters, and wetlands. 

Each waterbody guidance document will provide scientific information required by section 

304(a) of the Clean Water Act, including recommended nutrient concentration levels that are 

appropriate for the waterbody type, the geographic region, and various designated uses. EPA will 

use State databases to develop these criteria guidance documents, supplemented with new 

regional case studies and demonstration projects to provide additional information. EPA expects 

that these levels will be expressed as numerical target ranges for variables such as phosphorus, 

nitrogen, and other nutrient indicators. Guidance documents for rivers, lakes, and coastal waters 

will be completed by the end of the year 2000 and the guidance document for wetlands will be 

developed by the end of 2001. 

Adding Nutrients to Water Quality Standards 

EPA expects States and Tribes to use the waterbody type guidance documents and 

nutrient target ranges as a guide in developing and adopting numeric levels for nutrients that 

support the designated uses of the waterbody as part of State water quality standards. EPA will 

work with States to support and assist in this process. States should have adopted nutrient 

criteria that support State designated uses by the end of 2003. 

EPA will review and approve the new or revised nutrient elements of water quality 

iv 
standards under Section 303(c)(3) of the Clean Water Act. If EPA disapproves the new standard 

submitted by a State or Tribe (because EPA determines that it is not scientifically defensible), or if 

EPA determines that a new or revised nutrient standard is necessary for a State or Tribe (because 

EPA determines that the State or Tribe has not demonstrated reasonable progress toward 

developing numerical nutrient standards), EPA will initiate rulemaking to promulgate nutrient 

criteria values that will support the designated use 4f the waterbody and are appropriate to the 

region and waterbody types. Any resulting water quality standard would apply until the State or 

Tribe adopts, and EPA approves, a revised standard. 

i 

Once adopted as part of State or Tribal water quality standards, the nutrient criteria in 

State standards will become the basis for identieing waters where nutrients result in impairment 

of water quality and making many management decisions to reduce excessive nutrient levels in 

these waters. 

NationaI and Regional Nutrient Teams 

The Office of Water will provide additional technical and financial assistance to the 

Regions and States to accelerate the development of nutrient criteria. 

This effort will include the establishment of a National Nutrient Team, including 

coordinators from each EPA Region. The Regional Coordinator will foster the development and 

implementation of State projects, databases, nutrient criteria and standards, and the award of 

financial assistance to States and Tribes to support these endeavors. Each Regional coordinator 

will be responsible for nutrient management activities for that Region and its member States and 

Tribes consistent with decisions of the national nutrient program. 

Each Regional Coordinator will form a Regional Nutrient Team that includes State and 

Tribal representatives and other federal and local representatives, as needed, to develop nutrient 

databases and nutrient target ranges. 

I am confident that this effort to include nutrient concentration levels in State water 

quality standards will be a major step forward for efforts to restore and protect the Nation’s 

waters. I look forward to working with water program managers and other interested parties in 

this important initiative. 

- 

Robert Perciasepe 

Assistant Administrator 

Office of Water 

Date 

V 
! 

NOTE TO THE READER 

This document sets forth EPA’s strategy to develop scientific information &e., criteria documents 

under section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act) which EPA will recommend that States use to 

adopt nutrient criteria to support State water quality standards. These nutrient criteria provide a 

critical foundation to address overenrichment problems in the Nation’s surface waters. It also 

provides guidance to States, Tribes and the public regarding how EPA intends to exercise its 

discretion in implementing the provisions of the Clean Water Act concerning the adoption of 

water quality standards. 

This document is designed to implement national policy on the issues it addresses. It does not, 

however, substitute for the Clean Water Act or EPA’s regulations; nor is it a regulation itself. 

Thus, it cannot impose legally binding requirements on EPA, States, Tribes or the regulated 

community and may not apply to some particular situations. EPA, State and Tribal 

decisionmakers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from 

this guidance where appropriate. EPA also retains discretion to change the guidance contained in 

this strategy in the future. 

! 

! 
I. INTRODUCTION 

A. Background 

Nutrients, in the appropriate amounts, are essential to the health and continued functioning of 

natural ecosystems. Depending upon specific characteristics of the receiving waterbodies, they 

can be present in excessive, limiting, or optimal amounts. Insufficient nutrients will result in less 

than optimal growth of primary producers &e., plants, including phytoplankton and submerged 

aquatic vegetation). Adequate primary productivity is essential to support all the other trophic 

levels and a healthy, diverse, and productive ecosystem. 

Excessive nutrient loadings will, however, result in excessive growth of macrophytes or 

pihytoplankton and potentially harmful algal blooms (HAB), leading to oxygen declines, imbalance 

of prey and predator species, public health concerns, and a general decline of the aquatic resource. 

It is the excesses of these nutrients resulting from human activities, rather than natural spatial and 

temporal variations, that are the concern of this document and it is this cultural eutrophication 

that is most appropriately the subject of management efforts. 

When nutrient inputs exceed the assimilative capacity of a waterbody system, the system 

progresses toward hypereutrophic conditions. Symptoms include an overabundance of primary 

producers, decreased biological diversity, algal blooms (some toxic), low dissolved oxygen, 

episodic anoxia, loss of vascular plant life, and fish kills. Investigations have shown that the key 

causative factors are excessive concentrations of the primary nutrients phosphorus and nitrogen. 

The term nutrient is loosely used to describe a compound that is necessary for metabolism. 

Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are required in relatively large amounts by cells and are called 

macronutrients, as opposed to micronutrients such as iron or molybdenum. 

Nutrient criteria is intended to be interpreted in its broadest sense, covering both legal and 

scientific interpretations. Legally, a nutrient criterion is the numeric value which supports a 

particular beneficial designated use in defining a water quality standard. Scientifically, a nutrient 

criterion is meant to encompass both causal and response variables (e.g., nitrogen or phosphorus 

levels), as well as aquatic community response parameters such as but not limited to algal 

biomass, chlorophyll a, and secchi depth. 

Similarly, in this text the problem of eutrophication is used to describe an increase of nutrients in 

a waterbody which results in an overabundance of plant biomass (Flemer, 1972). 

The terms water quality measurement and water resource measurement are both intended to 

mean a comprehensive may of measurements including chemical, physical, and biological 

parameters . 

In all aquatic ecosystems some general processes determine whether N or P is the limiting 

macronutrient and can be expressed as the nitrogen-to-phosphorus ratio (N:P). -The Redfield 

ratio of NIP for primary producers in marine systems is approximately 16: 1 on a molar scale 

1 
(Redfield, 1958). In freshwater systems the phosphorus limitation tends to be greater at an N:P 

ratio of up to about 26: 1. Ecosystems that deviate substantially fkom these ratios are likely to 

experience nutrient limitation of either N or P @e., if the ratio in marine or estuarine waters is less 

than 16, N could be limiting; if the ratio is greater than 16, P is probably the limiting nutrient). 

B. Nutrient Pollution Problems 

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) National Water Quality 

Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress (required under section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act), 50 

States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions surveyed water quality conditions in 19 percent of the 

Nation’s total 3.6 million miles of rivers and streams. 

Some 36% of these surveyed waters were impaired by various pollutants. The leading cause of 

impairment was siltation, contributing to impairments in 51% of these waters. Nutrients were the 

second most significant cause of impairment, contributing to impairment of 40% of waters. 

Excessive nutrients were the leading cause of impairment of affected lakes and impaired coastal 

waters at 51% and 57% respectively. 

Excessive nutrients have also been linked to hypoxia conditions in the Gulf of Mexico and have 

been associated with outbreaks of Pfiesteria in several Gulf and Mid-Atlantic States. 

Sources historically associated with nutrient overenrichment are fertilizers, sewage treatment 

plants, detergents, septic systems, combined sewer overflows, sediment mobilization, animal 

manure, atmospheric deposition and internal nutrient recycling from sediments. Other factors that 

can influence overenrichment are light attenuation, land-use practices, and imbalance of primary, 

secondary, and tertiary producers and consumers (plankton, macrophytes, epiphytes, grazers, 

predators, and decomposers). 

C. Past Nutrient Reduction Efforts 

Over the years, the EPA’s Office of Water has issued a number of technical guidance documents 

and has supported the development of water quality simulation models and loading estimating 

models that can be used to assess the impacts of urban, rural, and mixed land use activities on 

receiving waters. 

In addition, some States currently have water quality standards that incorporate criteria, primarily 

narrative, aimed at controlling problems associated with nutrient overenrichment (see Appendix A 

for a list of water quality criteria and standards currently in use by States). However, for State, 

Tribal and local agencies to better understand and manage nutrient impacts to surface waters, 

additional work is necessary. 

I 

L 

I 

i 

2 
I 

i 

i 

I 

1~ 

i 

I 

According to a State Nutrient Water Quality 

Standards 1994 EPA Survey: 

+ 17 States have no WQS for nitrates/nitrites 

+ 21 States have no WQS for phosphorus 

0 Many States have narrative standards only 

+ 10 States have adopted EPA criteria unrelated 

to eutrophication (e.g., 10 mg/L for nitrate, or 

0.10 ug/L elemental phosphorus) 

+ Only 9 criteria (N and P) are waterbody-based 

In 1993, the EPA Nutrient Task Force gathered existing data on nutrient problems and currently 

available tools. It recommended that EPA provide additional assistance to States in developing 

and implementing appropriate nutrient indicators, assessment methodologies, and models. The 

first step in carrying out the recommendations of the task force was the nutrient overenrichment 

assessment workshop held in Washington, DC, on December 4-6, 1995. The workshop was 

organized around plenary and breakout group discussions on four major waterbody types: a 

8 lakes, impoundments/reservoirs, and ponds; 

8 rivers and streams; and 

estuarine and coastal marine water; 

a wetlands. 

Issue papers describing the state of the science, gaps, and user needs in terms of nutrient 

assessment tools and methodologies for each waterbody type were developed and used as 

foundations for these group discussions. The results of this workshop, compiled in National 

Nutrient Assessment Workshop Proceedings (EPA 822-R-96-004, 1996), form the basis of this 

Strategy. 

D. Qther Current Nutrient-Related Efforts 

In addition to this Strategy, there are a number of other evolving efforts that focus on elements 

related to the nutrient overenrichment problem. These include the following: 

a Criteria and Standards Plan. The Plan describes six new criteria and standards 

program initiatives that EPA and the StatesITribes will pursue over the next 

decade including the nutrient criteria effort. The Plan presents a “vision” and 

strategy for meeting these important new initiatives and improvements. The Plan 

will guide EPA and the StatedTribes in the development and implementation of 

criteria and standards and will provide a basis for enhancements to the Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permitting, nonpoint source control, wetlands protection and 

other water resources management efforts. 

8 Nonpoint Sources: Picking Up the Pace; A National Strategy for 

Strengthening Nonpoint Source Pollution Management (draft, September 

a 
1997). This strategy envisions that all StatedTribes, with the active assistance and 

participation of all stakeholders, will implement dynamic and effective nonpoint 

source pollution programs to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water by the 

end of calendar year 20 13. 

Strategy for Addressing Environmental Public Health Impacts from Animal 

Feeding Operations (AFOs) (draft, March 1998). This strategy strives to 

minimize environmental and public health impacts &om AFOs through an effective 

mix of voluntary and regulatory measures. EPA is working with the US 

Department of Agriculture to develop ajoint USDNEPA national strategy on 

Animal Feeding Operations. This joint strategy -- which will supersede the draft 

EPA AFO Strategy -- will be published in draft form in July and in final form in 

November. 

The National Harmful Algal Bloom Research and Monitoring Strategy. This 

strategy was developed as an effort to coordinate Federal research and monitoring 

activities on P'estevia and other HABs. Federal HAB programs are spread across 

several Federal agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOM); EPA; the Department of Health and Human ServicesCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, 

and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (DHHS- CDCP, 

FDA, and NIEHS); the National Biologic Service (NBS); the National Science 

Foundation (NSF); and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and an 

interagency workgroup was formed to address a diverse list of current and planned 

HAB activities. 

After reporting relevant research and programmatic activities, questions were 

formulated that addressed the objectives of a comprehensive research strategy. 

The research questions and objectives were differentiated into near-term and longterm activities, and the workgroup classified each agency activity into groups that 

reflect the eight objectives cited in Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algae: A 

National Plan (Anderson et al. , 1993). Agency activities have been categorized 

into these objectives allowing the workgroup to identify obvious coordination 

points, and datdresearch gaps, 

Water Quality Standards Regulation: Advance Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making (ANPRM). EPA is about to publish an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the Water Quality Standards Regulation in the Federal 

Register. The ANPRM solicits public comment on potential revisions to the basic 

water quality standards program regulation governing State adoption and EPA 

approval of water quality standards under Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act. 

The ANPRM also requests comment on changes in policy and guidance that 

support the regulation. 

The ANPRM expresses current EPA thinking in a number of areas addressed by 

the current regulation, policy and guidance and requests comment on that thinking. 

i 

L 

L 

i 

! 

I 

4 i 
! One of the main themes of the ANPRM is updating and modernizing water quality 

standards so that standards may be better implemented on a watershed basis using 

refined use designations and tailored criteria. New science and assessment 

methodologies, as well as better data, and new types of data and analysis would 

need to be used by States and Tribes to refine water quality standards in this 

manner. The ANPRM highlights the potential resource challenge for States and 

Tribes and requests comment regarding concerns over resource constraints and 

ideas for how to address them. 

0 The USDA Nutrient Management Policy. The USDA’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) proposed a revised nutrient management policy to 

its National Agronomy Manual. This revised policy will impact the NRCS national 

conservation practice standards for Nutrient Management (Code 590) and Waste 

Utilization (Code 633). The nutrient policy discusses certification of plans, 

describes what is in nutrient management plans, and discusses soil and plant tissue 

testing, nutrient application rates, record keeping and other special considerations. 

The revised policy will be adopted after the June 22, 1998 comment period closes. 

The groups developing the strategies are all investigating related problems ... land use-nutrient 

loading relationships, ecological responses, and appropriate mitigation activities. As all of these 

strategies progress, it will be essential to coordinate the information and activities that result so 

that consistent policy is developed. 

11. EPA NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPING REGIONAL NUTRIENT 

CRITERIA 

i 

This Strategy proposes to build on the work accomplished to date and to establish an objective, 

scientifically sound basis for assessing nutrient overenrichment problems. Improving the basis for 

assessing nutrient overenrichment problems will provide critical support for expanded efforts to 

control nutrient levels in waters and meet the Nation’s clean water goals. 

Specifically, this Strategy proposes a two-phase process for the development of water quality 

standards for nutrients: 

1) EPA will develop “nutrient criteria guidance” for nitrogen, phosphorus, 

and other nutrient parameters such as chlorophyll a, secchi depth, and algal 

biomass. These criteria will be developed under section 304(a) of the 

Clean Water Act and will represent EPA’s guidance regarding the amounts 

of those contaminants that may be present in waters without impairing their 

designated uses. Unlike other criteria guidance that EPA has developed, 

EPA intends to express nutrient criteria guidance as numerical ranges, 

reflecting a menu of different values based on the type of waterbody (isog 

streams and rivers, coastal waters and estuaries, lakes and reservoirs, and 

wetlands) and the region of the country in which the water is located. 

i 

5 

2) EPA expects States and Tribes to adopt nutrient water quality criteria 
i 

(including N and P concentration levels) to support designated uses of 

waters, These “nutrient criteria” will be based on EPA’s nutrient criteria 

guidance or other scientifically defensible methods and will be incorporated 

into the States’ water quality standards. The goal is for the StatedTribes 

to establish these criteria as part of their water quality standards as soon as 

the appropriate criteria guidance is developed. The target date for 

adoption of nutrient criteria as part of water quality standards is within 

three years of completion of the guidance, (ie., by the end of the calendar 

year 2003). EPA will step in and promulgate nutrient water quality criteria 

for a State or Tribe if EPA determines that federal action is necessary. 

Adding nutrient criteria to State water quality standards is essential for Federal, 

State and local agencies, and the public, to better understand, identify, and manage 

nutrient overenrichment problems in surface waters. 

The following sections will present the key elements of the Strategy and describe the tasks and 

activities that EPA will undertake to promote nutrient assessment and criteria development over 

the next several years. 

A. The Five Key Elements of the Strategy 

1) Geographic Region Approach. 

EPA intends to develop nutrient criteria guidance on a regional, rather than a national, basis. The 

Agency expects States and Tribes to develop water quality criteria and standards for nutrients in 

their geographic regions based on the guidance provided by EPA. The criteria established would 

therefore be the product of a joint EPA-State/Tribal effort tailored to that part of the country. 

This approach permits the objective of overenrichment abatement to be met by recognizing the 

ambient “natural” background levels of nutrients in each region and then concentrating on the 

“cultural” eutrophication which exceeds this. As noted below, regional criteria information will 

be presented for four categories of waterbodies. 

Although this Strategy is organized around the four major waterbody types specified below, it is 

recognized that approaches for assessing regional and waterbody-specific nutrient concerns must 

consider that waterbody types are not independent from each other, but are part of an 

interconnected and larger system. With that in mind, the need for integration of concepts 

associated with the assessment and control of nutrient overenrichment between waterbody types 

is clear. This understanding of an integrated approach is an important concept to keep in mind 

during the implementation of this Strategy. 

One well-defined spatial framework which can be used to define a region for nutrient assessment 

is the “ecoregion7’ system developed by James Omernik of the EPA Corvalis, OR laboratory. 

While it is acknowledged that several other classification schemes have been developed, for the 

purposes of this strategy, EPA plans to use Ecoregions as defined by Omernik et al., to initiate 

development of regional nutrient indicator ranges and, ultimately, to include them in the State and 

Tribal nutrient water quality criteria. A draft map has been created as a starting point for this 

1 

! 

i 

1, 

6 
process (See figure 1). Still to be determined is what scale of ecoregion is appropriate for the 

development of regional nutrient criteria guidance within a short period of time (by the end of 

calendar year 2000). The degree of variability within each of these 14 nutrient ecoregions will 

determine whether the map needs further refinement. These issues will be resolved once data has 

been reviewed, analyzed, and discussed at meetings of the National Nutrient Team and its 

Regional components (see item 4 below). In addition, this does not preclude the use of other 

classification schemes by Regions and States and Tribes if they are judged to be more appropriate 

for that part of the country. For more details on the ecoregion concept and how it can be applied 

in a nutrient assessment see Omernik (1995) and Omernik et a1 (1988). 

Upon determination of the best ecoregion scale, the next task which is integral to the development 

of nutrient ecoregional ranges is the identification of reference conditions within each of the 

nutrient ecoregions. Reference conditions refer to information from relatively undisturbed areas 

within each ecoregion. The concept of reference conditions and how they are selected will be 

described in more detail in the technical guidance documents. 

2) Waterbody-Type Technical Guidance. 

A major element of this Strategy will be the technical nutrient criteria guidance manuals, which 

will provide methodologies for developing region-specific nutrient criteria by waterbody type: 0 streams and rivers, 

0 lakes and reservoirs, 

0 wetlands. 

a estuaries and coastal marine waters, and 

These manuals will also include discussions on overenrichment indicators, sampling and analytical 

techniques, and management methods. The manuals will be designed to be adapted in the various 

regions of the country. 

The manuals will also provide technical assistance to implement nutrient abatement practices and 

will include data processing and manipulation techniques, best management practices, and case 

study demonstrations. An outline of the proposed content of the guidance document is in 

Appendix Cy and elements of the technicaI material are presented in part III of this document. 

EPA plans to publish guidance documents for streams and rivers, and lakes and reservoirs in 

1999; a guidance document on estuaries and coastal marine waters in 2000; and a guidance 

document on wetlands in 2001. In each document, where data is available, EPA will also 

provide target regional nutrient ranges for phosphorus and nitrogen (and potentially other 

parameters), which States and Tribes may elect to use as the basis of their nutrient criteria and 

standards in lieu of applying the methodology. Where appropriate, they may also use these values 

as the basis for TMDLs and "DES permit limits. 

EPA and the Regional teams will collect and organize nutrient data on a geographic basis and 

develop target nutrient ranges based on historical nutrient data, reference conditions, and expert 
i 
i 

! 

panel opinion. Where adequate data is available, EPA intends to append these ranges to its 

waterbody-type guidance manuals. This information can be used by individual Statesmribes 

which lack sufficient data of their own. Each appendix will be a “stand alone,” peer reviewed 

document for a specific nutrient ecoregion. 

As a preliminary measure for development of these nutrient criteria ( Le., the particular indicators 

used to assess the overenrichment or potential for overenrichment of a waterbody), EPA is 

seeking the cooperation of States and Tribes to pool available information in the determination of 

such ranges of target values for each region of the country. EPA will initially develop ranges for 

phosphorus, nitrogen, chlorophyll and secchi depth. 

Collecting the data necessary to establish ranges for these parameters will be the first priority of 

the National Nutrient Team and Regional Coordinators. These ranges are intended to reflect the 

variability of conditions typically associated with particular waterbody types within an ecoregion. 

In addition, the ranges of target values serve as a starting point for making the proper 

measurements of waterbody enrichment and overenrichment ,so the appropriate management can 

be initiated. The guidance manuals are designed to provide the best methods for such measuring 

and evaluation. 

An essential element of this process is the determination of the natural, background trophic state 

representative (Reference condition) of that area and waterbody so that abatement management 

can be directed at the cultural eutrophication of concern. It is not the intention of this strategy or 

the subsequent program to require States or Tribes to correct a natural enrichment process typical 

of their region; rather it is the purpose of the strategy to help States and Tribes develop 

mechanisms to remedy the enrichment effects of human development and commerce which 

impede the biota and beneficial uses of that waterbody. 

3) Nutrient Criteria and Standards Development., 

I 

! 

Upon completion of all the waterbody-type guidance documents, EPA expects all States and 

Tribes to adopt and implement numerical nutrient criteria into their water quality standards within 

three years of publication of waterbody type guidance documents and to complete adoption of 

nutrient criteria for all waterbodies in the State by no later than December 31,2003. EPA expects 

States and Tribes to accomplish this by developing their own regional values in watersheds where 

applicable data are available, or by using the EPA target nutrient ranges. EPA expects States and 

Tribes to select a single value within the range as their water quality criterion where data is 

sufficient. 

With regard to criteria and standards development, State and Tribes can choose to use the 

following approaches: 

- The EPA target ranges, or values within those ranges, can be directly adopted 

by the States or Tribes as their criteria and standards and used to interpret narrative 

standards ~ 

- The States or Tribes can use the EPA target ranges together with their own 

9 

I 
databases to develop their own criteria or to evaluate the protectiveness of any 

numerical nutrient criteria they may already have. 

- States or Tribes may elect to use the EPA methodology described in waterbody-type 

guidance to develop criteria or employ their own approach, independent of the ranges, 

as long as it is scientifically defensible. 

Once submitted to EPA, the Agency will review the new or revised standards under Section 

303(c)(3) of the Clean Water Act. If EPA disapproves the new standard submitted by a State 

or Tribe (e.g., because EPA determines that it is not scientifically defensible), or if EPA 

determines that a new or revised nutrients standard is necessary for a State or Tribe (e.g., 

because EPA determines that the State or Tribe has not demonstrated reasonable progress 

toward developing numerical nutrient standards), EPA will initiate rulemaking to promulgate 

nutrient criteria values appropriate to the region and waterbody types. Any resulting water 

quality standard would apply until the State or Tribe adopts and EPA approves a revised 

standard. In the event EPA promulgates nutrient water quality standards for a State or Tribe, 

EPA would likely use the point in the range of greatest confidence (ie., central tendency). 

When reviewing the adequacy of State/Tnbe derived criteria and or ascertaining whether a 

State or Tribe is making reasonable progress toward developing an adequate nutrient criterion 

and standard, EPA is likely to use the target ranges. 

When the initial target ranges have been established and the States or Tribes have begun the 

criteria and standard development process, EPA through the Regional Nutrient Coordinators 

will also provide technical and financial assistance for nutrient management planning and 

application. This will be through guidance manuals and the services of regional and national 

specialists associated with the Team, as well as financial assistance also administrated by these 

Regional Nutrient Coordinators. 

4) Nutrient Teams. 

I 1.- 

EPA Headquarters and Regional staff will work closely with State officials and other 

interested parties in the development of the nutrient criteria. The overall national nutrient 

criteria project will be managed by a National Nutrient Team. The EPA National Nutrient 

Team will include Office of Water staff, a Coordinator from each EPA Region, State/Tribal 

representatives, and representatives of other Federal agencies (See Figures 2 and 3). EPA will 

provide guidance and support to States/Tribes in the form of technical and financial assistance 

to help establish their regional programs. 

In addition, each Regional Office will select a Regional Nutrient Coordinator and will establish 

a Regional Nutrient Team. The Regional Coordinator will promote the development and 

implementation of State and Tribal projects, databases, and nutrient criteria and standards, as 

well as manage the award of financial assistance to support this endeavor. Specifically, 

Regional Coordinators will have a large role facilitating the collection of nutrient data fiom 

States and Tribes within their Regions. Ultimately, the Regional Coordinators and National 

Team will work together to develop nutrient ranges for each ecoregion wherever appropriate 

data is available. 

! 

10 
FIG. 2 

National Nutrient Team 

EPA HQ Offices (OW, ORD) 

10 Regional Coordinators 

3-5 States 

Other Federal Agencies (USGS, NOM, USDA, et. al.) 

Function: 

Establish ecoregion maps for nutrients 

Establish best process for collecting data from all sources 

Establish best process for analyzing data and developing 

nutrient criteria (minimum data and statistics) 

FIG. 3 

Regional Nutrient Team 

1 Regional Nutrient Coordinator 

1 HQ Representative 

1 State Representative from each State in the Region 

Other Federal/State/Local Representatives as needed 

Function: 

Collect and analyze regional nutrient data 

Establish nutrient ranges (criteria) 

Award assistance grants to State/Academia where gaps exist 

in our knowledge 
Ten Regional Nutrient Coordinators, one fkom each Region, have been selected and they have 

begun the process of forming their Regional Nutrient Teams. Regional Teams will likely 

include representatives fkom each State in the Region and other federal, State, local 

representatives, as needed (including water quality managers, "DES permit writers, field 

biologists, monitoring and modeling experts). For example, a regional team could include 

other Regional EPA specialists such as those in Regional and ORD laboratories, as well as 

specialists from such agencies as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); NOM- National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-NMFS); the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural 

Resources Conservation Service and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 

Service (USDA- NRCS and CSREES); the U.S. Forest Service (USFS); and the USFWS. 

State/Tribal counterparts of these agencies and States and Tribes regulatory specialists should 

also be included. University specialists should be considered, as well as the local communities 

and environmental and special interest groups. While this list of participants might be the 

ideal, in reality local circumstances will probably dictate a smaller group whose composition is 

likely to change with time and needs. However, the agency and community resources 

described above should, at the very least, be consulted for information and historical 

perspectives on the waters in question. 

As technical guidance and assistance is established in the various States and Tribes, periodic 

meetings of the Regional Nutrient Team Coordinators should be held to compare experiences, 

including successes and failures of approaches taken and techniques tried. Key participants, in 

addition to the Coordinators, should be the specialists and natural resource managers (as 

described above) who conducted the work so detailed question-and-answer sessions can be 

held. A proceedings document for each of these meetings should be prepared and circulated 

among the States and Tribes and agencies promptly so nutrient measurement and management 

information can be rapidly disseminated. 

Following organizational meetings at which the objectives of the program are established, the 

business of obtaining State and Tribal cooperation in providing nutrient and other enrichment 

indicator data must be addressed. This is best accomplished by indicating the positive 

consequences of the information exchange. A trial watershed project, in which the 

information is actually applied to help solve an overenrichment problem significant to the 

State/Tribe, is an appropriate way to start. This demonstration project can be initiated in 

tandem with the overall data-gathering effort and will serve as an incentive to other 

StatedTribes to become involved. 

5) Management and Evaluation. 

i 

i 

While the primary focus of this Strategy is to develop regional nutrient criteria guidance, it is 

essential to understand the role criteria and standards play in overall nutrient management. 

The management of nutrient overenrichment is not just the development of nutrient criteria 

and the application of standards; it is a management process which must integrate a number of 

programs and methods including but not limited to: Nonpoint and Watershed programs; 

"DES Permitting program; Biosolids Management program. 

12 
i 

1 

These various programs offer many options for the resource manager to consider and there 

are many new programs still being developed. However, there are some fimdamental 

management concepts that should apply in most of these situations. Presented below are ten 

sequential elements to consider. 

This comprehensive approach incorporates all of the key elements essential to good 

management planning, but the user might find that some steps can be consolidated or that 

circumstances necessitate a different sequence in the chronology. 

1 ~ Problem identification 

Make sure a problem exists and is clearly defined in terms that make it possible to seek 

a solution. 

2, Background investigation 

Use literature searches, questionnaires, interviews, and other background 

investigations to better describe the problem and determine the information available 

about it. 

3. Data gathering 

Conduct an assessment of water quality including physical, chemical, and biological 

parameters and related loading sources in the watersheds. This step should usually be 

of one or more years’ duration to accommodate seasonal and annual variation. 

i 

4. Identification of key problem areas 

Conduct a thorough assessment of all of the above information. 

i 

, 

t 

! 

5. Alternative management options 

Evaluate each possibility and its impact on present uses with respect to scientific 

validity, cost-effectiveness, and sociopolitical feasibility. Involve local and States and 

Tribal governments, property owners, citizen groups, and public and business interests 

in discussions about the optimal approach. 

6. Detailed manarrement plan 

Prepare a plan that discusses how to address each key element of the nutrient problem 

in the most effective sequence. Include a stepwise sequence of coordinated activities 

in detail. Usually such a management plan is of a maximum 5-year duration. Such a 

duration accommodates sufficient measurement and seasonal variation but is short 

enough in planning scope to be included in most budget systems. Longer projects 

might require sequential management plans. 

7’. Implementation and communication 

Initiate the management program, including adoption of nutrient water quality criteria 

and standards and, where appropriate, establishment of nutrients limitations in NPDES 

permits and development of TMDLs as elements of the program. Maintain 

community, interest group, and other agency involvement through regular updates on 

the process. This communication may begin earlier, e.g., at step 4 or sooner, but it 

13 
should be emphasized here. 

8. Monitorine and periodic review 

Incorporate water quality monitoring before, during, and after the project to 

demonstrate relative response of the system to management efforts. Build in specific 

intervals for management review to allow response to changing circumstances; 

modifications of methods and schedules; and changes in emphasis as needed. 

' 

9. Completion and evaluation 

Has the water resource been protected or improved? Give credit to the community 

and other participants. Report on successes and failures for fiture applications and on 

lessons learned. 

10. Continue monitorine and maintenance 

Water resource monitoring stations and parameters should continue on a reduced 

scale. Ensure regular maintenance of management efforts to preserve the effects 

achieved. Monitoring provides warning of any fiture degradation, so, if necessary, 

resource managers can intervene in a timely, cost-effective manner. Close the cycle by 

returning to step 1 for next generation response. 

With a good database predicated on reliable indicators and the development of regional 

nutrient criteria guidance, States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions will be capable not only of 

assessing the trophic status of their waters, but also should be able to establish their criteria 

and plan, prioritize, and evaluate their management responses. In doing so, all five strategy 

objectives are interrelated at the regional level where problem recognition and remediation are 

most effective . 

B. How the Elements are Integrated 

This national Strategy consists of a regional, waterbody-type approach which permits the 

variability in natural nutrient loadings to waterbodies around the country to be recognized, 

and criteria to be established which account for this variability. The criteria so developed will 

also be waterbody-type specific because different waterbodies respond differently to nutrient 

loadings. Also, in recognition of this discrete, but interrelated enrichment process, the finally 

developed criteria must limit not only the unacceptable enrichment of a given waterbody or 

watercourse, but also must factor in the effects of that enrichment on downstream receiving 

waters. 

The waterbody-type technical guidance manuals being developed will provide specific 

guidance to the States and Tribes for making the necessary measurements and for developing 

the criteria from those measurements, including the establishment of regional target values as 

guidelines. These manuals (including wetlands) are scheduled to be completed by the end of 

200 1. Each technical guidance manual will include ecoregional target ranges. If there is 

sufficient data within each of the 14 ecoregions available to develop a nutrient range within 

each of the ecoregions for the four waterbody types, 56 nutrient range appendices will be 

developed by the end of 2000. If sufficient nutrient data is not available or is insufficient to 

i 

! 

f 

14 
develop an acceptable peer reviewed nutrient range, EPA will continue to promote data 

development in these ecoregions after publication of guidance. 

Once the nutrient guidance and ecoregional ranges are completed it is expected that 

StatesEribes will develop nutrient criteria (see Figure 4). 

The implementation of the criteria will be supported by the regional nutrient teams by 

providing technical and logistical expertise as well as hding assistance. The criteria can then 

be used in management planning and evaluation on a watershed basis with community 

involvement so the ultimate objective of enhancing and protecting our nations water resources 

is achieved. 

! 

I 

111. WATERBODY-TYPE TECHNICAL GUIDANCE. 

Waterbody-type guidance manuals will provide the standardized methods available to the 

StatedTribes and other jurisdictions to promote the development of consistent regional 

databases that reflect conditions in each part of the country. This is important because 

overenrichment and natural levels of enrichment differ from one geographic area to another, in 

part because of differing cultural, geologic, and climatologic influences. These factors change 

the ambient background from one region to another and necessitate a regional approach to 

these measurements and to the nutrient criteria to be developed. 

A key element of each waterbody-type guidance manual is the recommended list of reliable 

indicators of overenrichment, how they might best be measured, and how and when to collect 

the necessary samples for this measurement. (These manuals may also include sections 

addressing the remaining objectives of this strategy, Le., data storage and assessment, research 

needs, and best management practices for nutrient impact mitigation.) EPA intends that the 

publication of these technical guidance documents will help standardize assessments and 

promote regional interstate cooperation for nutrient control. 

The following is a partial listing of overenrichment indicators, data requirements, management 

options; and research needs recommended by the component nutrient workgroups at the 

December 1995 meeting in Washington DC, and by subsequent reviewers. Some of these 

recommendations are qualitative in nature; such indicators are also valuable and definitive in 

their own right. All of the indicators are meant to serve as a starting point for enrichment 

assessments, which are expected to be expanded and refined into more quantitative 

evaluations as the guidance is further developed and as individual Statesnribes make regional 

adjustments to the methods. 

Even as a partial listing, this material may seem remarkably detailed to the general reader for a 

strategy document. It must be recognized that this strategy is predicated upon the proper 

15 
I I 
measurement of valid environmental indicators for the establishment of scientifically defensible 

nutrient criteria. The identification of the premises upon which these criteria are based is 

essential to a fair and objective review of this strategy by the public. 

A. INDICATORS 

The indicators (parameters) listed below are the initial candidates for inclusion in the guidance 

documents. Each EPA technical guidance drafting committee will make final 

recommendations as they fkrther explore the scientific veracity and practicality of the material. 

Additionally, each document will include recommendations for the most appropriate sampling 

and analytical techniques. 

LAKES AND RESERVOIRS 

A focus of this guidance will be to establish the connection between lake nutrient 

environmental impacts to public health concerns, e.g., septic and sewage effluent discharges. 

This twofold approach relating environmental degradation to potential public health risks (as 

well as recreational uses and biodiversity concerns) should hrther stimulate public support of 

these initiatives. An outline of this proposed guidance document is attached as Appendix C. 

The guidance will include and emphasize watershed-scale assessments and management 

approaches, illustrated by case histories and demonstration projects. 

Surveys should address both spatial and temporal variability, including seasonality and in some . 

instances variation over the course of a day. Whenever possible, year-round sampling is 

advisable. For in-lake surveys, it is presumed that the investigator will design for optimal 

spatial and bathymetric placement of the stations for that waterbody and that these data will 

be compared to reference lakes in that classification. Some of the parameters or indicators to 

consider follow: 

a Early Warning Watershed Indicators 

- Land useAoading assessments and changes in watersheds (geographic information 

systems (GIs) are effective tools for evaluating nutrient loadings as a function of 

land use at a variety of scales). In areas of the country where agriculture and/or 

animal feeding operations exist, it is imperative to identify and assess these 

locations of potential sources of nutrients by collecting data on size and location of 

farms/animal feeding operations within a given watershed. 

- Changes in hydrologic regimes 

e Ch em ica UBiomass Pararn eters 

- Phosphorus (P) concentration (total P (TP) and total dissolved P in hypolimnion ) 

- Nitrogen (N) Concentration (total KN, NO, as N, NO, as N, and NH, as N, e.g., 

total N (TN), also N:P ratios) 

- Chlorophyll (total or chlorophyll a) 
- Secchi disk depth (m) 

- DO (hypolimetic) 

i 

0 Community Structure Parameters 

- Algal community (composition and biomass) 

- Macroinvertebrate structure (composition and biomass) 

- Fish (composition and biomass) 

- Macrophytes (composition and biomass) 

Secondary Parameters 

- Total suspended solids (TSS) 

- Total organic carbon (TOC) 

0 hdicators for Immediate Assessment 

- Preliminary survey data in addition to early warning land use information: TP, total 

chlorophyll, Secchi depth and DO. These should have established validity, low 

cost, and they should be readily used in prediction and modeling. 

A historical perspective might be helpfid to the data assessment process by integrating 

paleolimnological surveys with an evaluation of land use practices and changes. 

STREAMS AND RIVERS 

It is useful, for assessment purposes, to separate streams and rivers into two categories with 

optimal reference systems: for plankton-dominated systems and periphyton-dominated 

systems. The major differentiating characteristic between these two systems is that nutrients 

saturate the biomass at a much lower level in the periphyton-dominated systems than they do 

in the plankton-dominated systems. Summarized below are potential nutrient indicators for 

the plankton- dominated and periphyton-dominated systems. Early warning indicators of 

potential excess nutrient loadings may be significant shifts in land use patterns or in 

climatological events or other activities contributing to extreme runoff. 

The indicators that follow are not presented in any order of sensitivity or utility. 

Plankton -dom inated Svstems 

- Algal biomass 

coverage) 

- Transparency 

- TN 

Periphyton-dominated Svstems 

- Algal biomass (mg/m’ percent 

- Transparency 

- TN, dissolved inorganic nitrogen 

Approm-iate to Either Plankton or Periphvton-dominated Svstems 

18 

L1 

1 

6 

t 

c 

i j 
i 

- pH (maximum andrdiel) 

- DO (minimum and diel) 

- Ash Free Dry Weight (AFDW)/ 

- Aesthetics (foam, scum) 

- Benthic community metabolism 

Chlorophyll a 

- Secondary production (meiofauna, 

index macroinvertebrates, fish) 

- Hydrologic characteristics 

- TP, soluble reactive 

. phosphorus (SRP) 

ESTUARIES AND COASTAL MARINE WATERS 

- Sediment composition 

(physicalkhemical) 

- Ratios of summer/winter nutrient 

concentration 

- Ratios of dissolvedtotal nutrient 

concentrations 

- Temperature 

- TSS, volatile to suspended solids 

ratio 

- Biointegrity (macroinvertebrate 

- Productiodrespiration 

- Dissolved organic material 

- Relative plankton composition of 

Cyanophyta and dinoflagellates 

community composition) 

Estuaries and coastal marine systems can be subclassified for assessment according to the 

dominant vegetation type, as was done by the Estuaries Workgroup during the 1995 

workshop. However, other systems of classification, such as classification by physical 

characteristics, can also be used. The participants in the December 1995 workshop selected 

the following categories: seagrass-dominated, plankton-dominated, and macroalgaedominated (as indicated below). The indicators associated with these categories can be 

applied to either short-term or long-term assessments. It should also be noted that there are 

physical, chemical, and biological indicators other than those listed below (such as fish kills, 

suspended material, nutrient concentrations, toxins, and benthic invertebrate communities). 

Early warning indicators of potential excess nutrient loadings might be significant shifts in land 

use patterns or in climatological events or other activities contributing to extreme runoff. All 

indicator measurements in these waters must be qualified by attention to tide cycles, density 

and salinity gradients, and currents when they were made. 

e Seagrass-dominated Systems 

- Areal surveys of distribution, abundance, and depth of grasses 

- Waterbody-type light requirements (seagrass depth vs. light attenuation) 

- C:N:P ratios in plant leaves 

- Leaf chlorophyll a 

- Quantum irradience levels 

- Chlorophyll a-to-b ratios 

- Transparency 

0 Hankton-dominated Svsterns 

- Chlorophyll a 

- Algae such as cyanophyta, dinoflagellate, and diatom assemblages including HABs; 

- DO determinations that consider cyclic fluctuations and distinguish between natural 

documentation of the incidence and location of blooms 

19 
i 

and anthropogenic causes 

- The role of silica relative to nitrogen and phosphorus in phytoplankton blooms 

- Macroinvertebrate and other consumer community changes 

9 Macroalpae-dominated Svstems 

- Macroalgae influence on DO concentrations, dissolved organic carbon concentrations, 

and lower trophic levels. 

WETLANDS 

Methods for assessing nutrient impacts to wetlands are perhaps less established and 

standardized than those for the other waterbody types. This is due to the variability within 

wetland types (e.g., bogs, swamps, etc.) and the lack of historic databases in these areas. 

Some methods developed for lakes and rivers are applicable to wetlands with standing water, 

but there are few methods appropriate for wetlands that have saturated soils or are 

infrequently flooded. Surveys of wetlands should address both the spatial and temporal 

variability in nutrient levels, including seasonal and diel variation. Surveys should also address 

the variation in nutrient levels both within a wetland and between different wetland types. 

Some wetlands are often naturally eutrophic and will respond to nutrient additions much 

differently than bogs and other oligotrophic wetlands. The variability in plant communities 

(i.e., succession) will also affect how a wetland assimilates nutrients. 

The following are suggested methods for assessing the effects of nutrients in wetland habitats. 

However, for most of these parameters, few baseline data are available with which to compare 

collected data. 

e Early Warning Watershed Indicators 

- Land use/loading assessments and changes in watersheds 

- Precipitation, in-flow, runoff, and any extreme climatological or anthropogenic events 

0 Chemical/Biomass Parameters 

- Phosphorus concentration (total) 

- Nitrogen concentration (total, also N:P ratios) 

- Chlorophyll (total or chlorophyll a) 

- Secchi disk depth (m) (for wetlands with standing water) 

- DO and soil oxygen demand 

Biological Assemblage Parameters (e.g., composition, richness, diversity, and indicator 

species) 

- Attached microbial community 

- Algae such as dinoflagellates and diatoms 

- Macrophytes including emergent vegetation 

- Macroinvertebrates 

- Fish (for wetlands with standing water) 

i 

i 

i 

r 

9 Secondary Parameters 

20 
- TSS - TOC 

Since wetlands differ in their capacity to assimilate nutrients, it might be difficult to evaluate 

whether a given nutrient load will have a significant ecological impact on a wetland. 

Biological monitoring is useful to assess the response of wetland plants and animal 

assemblages to overenrichment and to detect degraded habitats. Microbial, macrophyte 

communities and algae, such as dinoflagellate and diatom assemblages, are particularly usefbl 

for detecting nutrient impacts by measuring their diversity, richness, composition, and 

structure. These assemblages can be compared to the assemblages found in reference 

wetlands that range fiom “minimally disturbed” to severely impacted by nutrient enrichment. 

Thus, the biological integrity of a wetland can be determined relative to the biologic 

assemblages present in the reference wetlands. The macroinvertebrate, fish, and plant 

assemblages can also reflect direct impacts of overenrichment and indirect impacts such as 

reduced levels of dissolved oxygen. 

Another method of monitoring wetlands is to identify the accumulation of organic material 

over time as an indication of a change in productivity. This can be done by placing pieces of 

feldspar within wetlands and monitoring them for accumulation. Feldspar does not react with 

other chemicals in the soil and, therefore, could be used as a benchmark for measuring the 

buildup of organic material. 

There are two systems of wetland classification that might be useful for selecting and 

comparing wetlands. Cowardin et al. (1979) developed a hierarchical system of wetland 

classification based largely on the structure of the plant community (e.g., forested, 

scrub/shrub, emergent, etc.). In addition, Brinson (1 993) developed a hydrogeomorphic 

(HGM) framework for classifying wetlands based on a wetland’s landscape position, source of 

water, and hydrodynamics. 

B. DATA STORAGE AND PROCESSING 

Once a standardized methodology for data gathering is available, the States and Tribes will 

also need a consistent and mutually compatible data storage, retrieval, and assessment system 

to help them interpret data and convert them to meaningful management information. An 

element of each waterbody-type guidance document should be convenient desktop, PC-based 

data storage and modeling programs. Such programs will not only enhance data assessment, 

but will, if consistent throughout a region, promote coordinated interstate surveys and data 

sharing. Many States already have sufficient nutrient databases and such data storage systems 

should be established in consultation with all potential partners. In fact, as Regions develop 

this aspect of the strategy, it is imperative that they consult with the StatesITribes to establish 

what systems are most efficient, cost-effective, and appropriate for data sharing without 

violating resource management confidentiality. EPA is currently engaged in determining the 

future design of a nationwide database, and this strategy should be compatible with that effort. 

Ensuring compatibility would include standardization of both data storage systems and 

models. The success of multi-State cooperation and coordination of monitoring activities will 

depend on this. 

21 
In all cases it will be essential that the quality of the data entered into these databases be 

carefully documented. Documentation should include information on methods used, minimum 

detection limits, and comparison to standards. Modelers should use due caution if quality 

assurance aspects of the data are not available. 

Once such a database system is in place, calibrated and verified models can be developed or 

applied to help predict the likely consequences of management actions or, just as important, 

the lack thereof. Listed below are suggested needs or available resources appropriate to each 

waterbody type. 

LAKES AND RESERVOIRS 

Modeling: 

Modeling is ideal in many ways for lake assessments. The BATHTUB and Reckhow-Simpson 

technique are two of many examples of existing lake models used by managers to predict 

trophic responses to estimating nutrient loading adjustments. The BATHTUB applies a series 

of empirical eutrophication models to morphologically complex lakes and reservoirs. The 

program performs steady-state water and nutrient balance calculations in a spatially segmented 

hydraulic network that accounts for advective and diffusive transport, and nutrient 

sedimentation. (For details, see National Nutrient Assessment Workshop Proceedings, EPA 

822-R-96-004, July 1996.) 

The goal of this strategy is to provide simple, user-friendly, desktop-based software models 

for States and Tribes and local governments to aid them in waterbody management decision 

making. Impoundmentsh-eservoirs often have unique hydrographic profiles and therefore will 

probably require models calibrated specifically for use with these waterbodies. 

STREAMS AND RIVERS 

Modeling: 

It is necessary to identify ways to improve on the existing models to examine the 

interrelationships and links between nutrient sources and nutrient impacts and help to tailor 

these models to both plankton- and periphyton-dominated systems. Participants at the 

December 1995 workshop noted in particular that modeling tools are lacking for periphytondominated systems, including both simple mass balance or regression relationships and 

complex process-based models. Below are ways to improve on the existing models’ 

capabilities. For more details on any of the models listed below, see the National Nutrient 

Assessment Workshop Proceedings (EPA 822-R-96-004, July 1996). 

0 Provide land use connections in watershed-scale models. 

i 

i 

i 

Conduct sensitivity analyses. 

* Conduct carbon-based simulations. 

22 
i 

Add temperature simulation to the WASP5 model. WASPS is widely used in both water 

quality assessment and toxic modeling. The model considers comprehensive dissolved 

oxygen and algal processes, but does not include the carbon and silica cycles or full 

sediment diagenesis model. In addition, its use is limited because it does not account for 

temperature. Therefore, adding temperature simulation to WASP5 would allow for 

diurnal temperature variations. 

Add periphyton to the QUAL2E, WASPS, and HSPF models. QUAL2E and HSPF are 

models that capture the longitudinal transport that dominates in most rivers and streams. 

QUAL2E and HSPF both consider advection and dispersion. Adding periphyton to these 

models would allow for simulation of periphyton biomass in the riverine system. 

Introduce loadresponse relationship (plankton) and concentratiodresponse relationship 

(periphyton) to pinpoint where nutrient loading reduction can be targeted. 

Develop desktop models that are easily transferred across waterbodies and use the 

following parameters: TP, TN, total chlorophyll, DO, temperature and transparency 

(Secchi disk and black disk). 

ESTUARIES AND COASTAL MARINE WATERS 

Modeling: 

Estuarine and coastal marine models are in the process of development and testing around the 

country, including efforts on the Chesapeake Bay. Much of this work is promising, and the 

following are areas requiring further effort. 

i 

e Seagrass-dominated Svstems 

- Develop water quality models, from simple to complex, that look at simulation of 

chlorophyll a concentrations over seagrass beds from nutrient loadings of the 

surrounding watershed. 

- Develop multiple regression analysis models that simultaneously consider such factors 

as TSS, color, and chlorophyll a. 

Plankton-dominatedsvstems 

- There is a need for an estuarine version of “Vollenweider” relationships to better 

understand the relation of nutrient loadings to chlorophyll a. 

Macroalrzae-dominated Svstems 

- Many databases exist that would alllow identification of nutrient loading thresholds for 

macroalgae-dominated systems. 

23 
WETLANDS 

ModeIing: 

Very few models exist that are capable of predicting wetland responses to nutrient loadings. 

Of the literature reviewed, Mitsch and Gosselink (1 993) and Howard-Williams (1 985) offer 

conceptual diagrams of potential relationships for nutrients in wetlands. Wetlands can 

function as a source, sink, or transformer for a particular nutrient. A wetland is considered a 

sink if it has a net accumulation of a nutrient. In contrast, a wetland is considered a source if 

it exports more of a nutrient than it accumulates. A wetland is a transformer if it transforms a 

chemical from one form to another, such as from dissolved to particulate form, but does not 

change the amount going into or out of the wetland (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). In some 

cases, a wetland can be a sink for one nutrient while it is simultaneously a source for another 

nutrient. 

Nutrient models for wetlands, as for all waterbodies, should account for atmospheric, surface, 

and subsurface inflows and outflows. The models should account for gaseous, aqueous, solid, 

and sediment-attached forms of the nutrients. The models should also account for the uptake 

and release of nutrients by living biomass and by decomposition of biomass. In addition, the 

models should address the seasonal and daily patterns of nutrient uptake and release by plants 

and animals. Chemical transformations based on changes in pH and concentrations of other 

chemicals should also be considered. All models should be validated on reference wetlands. 

Sediment loading models used to predict TMDL loading rates from storm events can be useful 

for estimating phosphorus inputs. Some traditional water quality models, such as CEQUALW2 and WASPS, have been used for evaluating wetlands. Hydrodynamic models, such as 

EFDC, are being applied to wetlands in Florida to assess hydrologic response. Analysis of 

wetlands may also include the assessment of inputsAoadings using a variety of loading models 

(e.g., SWMM, HSPF) that can be used to predict nutrient and sediment loads to local 

wetlands (USEPA 1992). Further model development is needed, particularly for wetlands 

that have saturated soils and are infrequently flooded. 

C. MANAGEMENT AND EVALUATION 

The material in this section is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of remediation, protection, 

and management approaches. However, it is an introductory presentation of some of the 

readily evident options States and Tribes and other responsible parties can use to make a 

positive response to the nutrient information they obtain and the water quality criteria States 

and Tribes develop. 

Options also exist that might not be specific to waterbody-type, such as the watershed 

approach. This approach allows communities to focus resources on a watershed’s most 

serious nutrient sources, which might include animal waste and excess fertilizer runoff 

Additional basic management measures can be found in other EPA documents such as 

Guidance Specifiing Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal 

Waters (EPA 840-B-92-002). The following, as well as additional approaches (such as the 

I 

ti 

24 
! 

! 

development of TMDLs for nutrient-impacted waters, the control of animal waste discharges, 

and the control of outbreaks of Pfiesteria and similar harmhl algal blooms), will be explored 

further in the guidance materials to be developed as part of this strategy. 

MANAGEMENT 

In considering the various management options, the resource manager should also keep in 

mind that the different waterbody types described here may often be interrelated, e.g., streams 

draining to and from lakes, and rivers entering estuaries and coastal waters. Under these 

circumstances, the manager should be carefil to select for a management plan practices that 

do not have negative downstream effects. For example, it might not be appropriate to raise a 

lake level to the detriment of riparian wetlands and influent streams. 

LAKES AND RESERVOIRS 

Examples of management options to consider when dealing with lakes and reservoirs are 

provided below. 

Vegetative buffer zones- Preserve or reestablish natural, indigenous vegetation (ground 

cover, shrubs, trees) in the riparian zone to intercept sediment and nutrient runoff before 

the runoff reaches the waterbody. 

Watershed land use changes- IdentifL critical loading sources and promote changes of 

these land use practices. Examples of practices to promote are implementation of 

conservation farming; use of manure holding facilities; use of road, commercial, and 

municipal runoff diversions and detentions; restoration of woodlots in critical drainage 

areas; land use planning to avoid excessive tiers of lake residences; and on-site septic 

system use and improvement. 

Habitat restoration- Improve lake nursery and spawning areas to restore a diverse 

aquatic community and food chain. 

Fish stocking and removal- Perform adjustment of fish communities disrupted by 

overenrichment by the selective removal of undesired species, the addition of more 

preferred species. 

Water column precipitation and sediment sealing techniques- Apply alum to the water 

column to remove P and to seal nutrients into bottom sediments under precipitate. 

Macrophyte harvesting and flow regulation- Perform weed control by use of mechanical 

harvesters to enhance lake use of nutrients and to remove some nutrients present in 

biomass. Initiate winter or other episodic drawdowns of lakelreservoir waters to augment 

sediment removal or consolidation. 

Biomanipulations- Ensure balanced predator stocking or grazer support to control bluegreen algae and other nuisance primary producers. 

25 
Relocation of sewage outfalls- Move sewage outfalls to locations that will minimize 

deleterious impacts to the waterbody. 

Restoration and protection of strategic wetlands- Restore and protect wetlands located 

in areas critical to water quality concerns. i 

i. 

Hypolimnetic aeration- Implement techniques designed to aerate the hypolimnion. 

Point source nutrient removal- Remove nutrients at point sources using techniques such 

as tertiary treatment and phosphorus precipitation. 

Storm water management- Implement storm water BMPs such as constructing ponds, 

wetlands, infiltration and detention basins, and diversions. 

STREAMS AND RIVERS 

Issues and actions to consider associated with the abatement of nutrients in streams and rivers 

include: 

Land use- Include land use as a separate early warning indicator (Le., if development is 

proposed in a watershed, an environmental impact study should be done to assess the 

potential impact of such development on the surrounding waterbody). 

Designated use and biomass relationships- Employ public survey techniques to monitor 

relationships between designated uses and algal biomass. 

Seasonal relationships- Investigate seasonal relationships between nutrients and biomass 

across streams. 

Nitrogen-phosphorus cycling- Enhance nitrogen-phosphorus cycling on different land 

uses: to reduce mobilization (septic, forest systems). 

Riparian zone management- Introduce riparian buffers, shade the streams, or perform 

canopy restoration to minimize direct sunlight on surface water. Shading can also reduce 

the amount of direct air deposition of nitrogen and other nutrient sources. 

Channel restoration- Minimize the nutrient loadings by constructing channels to help 

reduce the rapid nutrient flush from one segment of the waterbody to another. 

Biological controls- Introduce biomass eating organisms such as caddis fly larvae 

(Dicomoecus gilvipes), which efficiently remove both periphytic diatoms and filamentous 

algae from rock substrata. 

Hydrology, hydraulics (flow regime, storm water management, stream regulation)- 

Identify natural hydrologic regimes and use such information in addressing dam operations 

to better replicate natural conditions in the area while generating power or preserving . 

26 

! 
j 

/I 

intended reservoir levels. 

I 

Impoundment removal- Remove man-made impoundments that have lost their utility and 

are now causes of flow interruption and sources of excessive algae and water quality 

degradation. 

Restoration of riparian and floodplain wetlands- Implement programs designed to restore 

riparian and floodplain wetlands. 

Point source nutrient removal- Remove nutrients at point sources using techniques such 

as tertiary treatment and phosphorus precipitation. 

Storm water management- Implement storm water BMPs such as constructing ponds, 

wetlands, infiltration and detention basins, and diversions. 

ESTUARLES AND COASTAL MARLNE WATERS 

The following are basic management options to consider for all vegetation system types: 

Land use and development controls- Promote natural vegetative cover in shore areas and 

zoning restrictions on dense residential or commerciallindustrial development along 

shoreline areas. 

Discharge and dumping regulation and marine sanitation devices- Encourage enhanced 

Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) design and operation, and the diversion of 

POTW effluent from sensitive or poorly circulated waters. Promote and enforce marine 

sanitation device (MSD) regulations including providing adequate pumpout services. 

Restricted estuarinekoastal areas- Protect sensitive waters such as endangered 

shellfish beds, spawning and nursery areas, and recovering weed beds. 

Shoreline erosion controls- Implement erosion controls on banks subject to wave or ice 

damage. Restrict access to sensitive shorelines, dune restoration areas, and shorelines 

susceptible to erosion. 

Seagrass replenishment- Restore weedbeds in estuaries, including wetland areas. Plant 

and protect emergents and terrestrial riparian vegetation as ful-ther protection of tidal zone 

wetlands from runoft 

WETLANDS 

Best management options to consider for wetlands include: 

Wetland protection and restoration- Preserve and restore wetlands through the 

implementation of voluntary and regulatory programs. 

i . 

27 
Vegetative buffer zones- Preserve or reestablish natural, indigenous vegetation (ground 

cover, shrubs, trees) as buffer zones adjacent to wetlands to intercept sediment and 

nutrient runoff before the runoff reaches the wetland. 

Watershed land use changes- Identifj critical land loading sources and promote changes 

of these land practices. Examples of changes that could be made include the 

implementation of conservation farming techniques; the reduction of the use of fertilizers 

on farms and lawns; the construction of manure holding facilities, runoff diversions and 

detentions, filter strips, and vegetated drainage ways; the implementation of forestry 

BMPs; the implementation of controls on urbanization and industrial development; and the 

upgrading of on-site and municipal wastewater treatment systems. 

I 

L 

i 

. 

Land use planning- Protect wetlands by limiting amounts of impervious surfaces, limiting 

development near waterbodies or steep slopes, and minimizing discharges fiom storm I 

I 

water, sewer, and septic systems. i 

Protect and restore streams entering wetland- Stabilize stream channels and establish 

riparian buffers to reduce the amount of sediment-attached nutrients entering a wetland. 

EVALUATION 

Once the appropriate parameters or indicators have been established, EPA and the States or 

Tribes will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the management and regulatory approaches 

taken. The databases and monitoring systems developed, together with the derived criteria, 

should be used to assess actual management progress toward ameliorating overenrichment 

conditions. (This process will be described in detail in each waterbody type specific technical 

guidance manual.) Where methods and techniques have been successfully employed, the 

experience may be applied to similar circumstances elsewhere. Where success has not been 

achieved, the knowledge gained is valuable in developing alternative approaches and in 

avoiding making the same mistake again. This information should be shared among the 

Regional Nutrient Teams, through correspondence and national meetings, to enhance 

management effectiveness. 

Periodic program progress reports and budget statements will be prepared for the Office of 

Water, based on the proceedings described immediately above, so continuity of the program 

can be maintained, funding and other administrative support provided, and new needs 

identified and addressed. 

The sum total of these reports and proceedings of the periodic national team meetings will 

provide the necessary feedback to EPA Headquarters to help further development and 

shaping of national policy with respect to nutrient management of the Nation's waters. 

D. RESEARCH NEEDS 

28 
i 

f 

I 

l 

i 

i 

For all four major waterbody types, there are a number of research needs that should be 

addressed. A number of these research needs are noted below. They are highlighted to 

indicate areas which each technical guidance drafting group should address to attempt to 

reduce uncertainty in the assessment process. 

LAKES AND RESERVOIRS 

0 

0 

0 

Biomanipulation techniques. 0 

Phosphorus and nitrogen speciation investigations. 

Sedimentation and nutrient load impacts on trophic states. 

Internal loading and recycling of nutrients regarding biological responses. 

Better understanding of cascading trophic interactions, i.e., the effects of nutrient changes 

on one level of the food chain and how the rest of the community is affected. 

STREAMS AND RIVERS 

Chlorophyll measurements (periphyton). 

Cladophora, diatom, and blue-green alga growth requirements. 

Literature search on stream models (periphyton system). 

Stream bank, riparian zone, and denitrification. 

Investigation of dissolved oxygen and pH amplitude. 

Investigation of comunity metrics to characterize rivers for nutrient effects. 

- Sampling methods 

- Field research 

- Ecoregions 

- Which metrics are most sensitive? 

- Literature search on indicator taxa 

- Is biointegrity sensitive as an early warning tool? 

Role of fluvial geomorphology as a factor in controlling algae development. 

Whole stream overenrichment studies. 

Investigation of seasonal relationships between nutrients and biomass across streams. 

In addition to identifying the above research needs, the December 1995 workshop participants 

discussed a number of other actions that should be taken to help managers and scientists 

assess nutrient impacts on river and stream systems. These actions include the following: 

Conduct literatwe searches on stream modeling techniques, community metrics, and 

designated use and biomass relationships (e.g., using survey techniques). 

Explore how biological indicators can be used to determine causes of systematic change, 

Explore, on an ecoregional basis, the level at which biomass and chlorophyll a 

concentrations begin to impair beneficial uses of rivers and streams. 

Explore causal linkages observed in stream community metrics. 

Explore how the use of various management options, in addition to nutrient controls, will 

help maintain designated uses of river and stream systems (e.gg sediment and erosion 

controls, channel restoration, riparian zone management, etc). 

Involve other organizations in efforts to understand nutrient impacts on river and stream 

29 
systems, including volunteer monitoring programs. 

ESTUARIES AND COASTAL MARINE WATERS 

Resolution of N-P limiting question with salinity gradients. 

Role of dissolved oxygen in estuarine overenrichment. 

Role of sedimentation-turbidity in overenrichment. 

Biological community indicators. 

Tidal and discharge dynamics in estuarine nutrient flux resources including marine 

loadings vs . watershed resources. 

Impact of shore discharges on estuaries and coastal marine overenrichment including 

better loading estimation models. 

Models to predict HAB events in eutrophic systems and appropriate response strategy as 

described in National Harmful Algal Bloom Research and Monitoring Strategy: an initial 

focus on PJiesteria, Jish lesions, fish kills andpublic health (draft, November 1997). 

i 

i 

I i .- 

I 

WETLANDS 

Development of an accepted national wetland classification system similar to the 

hydrogeomorphic system developed by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Development of a nationwide database for natural wetlands like that currently available for 

constructed wetlands should be developed. The database should include wetland types 

and statistical characteristics that apply to each type. A national database could be used to 

compare the measurement parameters of assessed (impacted) wetlands to an established 

set of reference conditions. 

Comprehensive literature search to determine what work has already been done on 

nutrient-related wetland issues. 

Development and testing of biological assessment and monitoring methods for detecting 

nutrient impacts. 

- Which biological assemblages are most sensitive? 

- Which metrics are most sensitive? 

Establishment of a regionalized network of wetlands of different types (e.g., bogs, swamp) 

across a gradient of nutrient disturbance from “minimally impacted” to degraded. 

Further research on the impacts of nutrients on different wetland types (e.g., bog, marsh, 

Further research on influence of land use within watersheds on the impacts of nutrients to 

wetlands. 

Field experimentation to determine nutrient limitation to wetland type and to isolate the 

effects of nutrients fi-om other variables, such as hydrology, climate, and physical 

alteration of habitat. 

Models for nutrient inflow, export, and transformation within different wetland types. 

Further investigation of how the bioavailability of nutrients is affected by water chemistry 

(e.g., gH, dissolved metals) and substrate (eg, percent clay, percent organic matter). 

swamp). 

30 i 
i L i 

r 

i 

i31 
i 
32 

, 

APPENDICES 
i 

L 
I 

Appendix A: Summary of Water Quality Criteria and Standards for Nutrient 

Overenrichment 

In 1994, EPA commissioned a study that gathered information on State Water Quality Criteria 

and Standards for Nutrients. The following is an abstract of that study. Table 1 is a summary 

of water quality criteria and standards for nutrient enrichment listed by State. 

Nitrogen 

i 

i 

i 

Seventeen States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands have no specified water 

quality criteria for nitrates and/or nitrites. Seven States have only narrative criteria for 

nitrogen. Four States have narrative and quantitative criteria. Nine States use only EPArecommended nitrate-nitrogen criteria (10 mg/L) for the protection of domestic drinking 

water supplies. Twelve States and Puerto Rico use EPA-recommended criteria in conjunction 

with other criteria, either quantitative or narrative. Five States and four U.S. territories have 

quantitative water quality criteria for nitrogen but do not incorporate EPA-recommended 

criteria into them. 

Phosphorus 

In the case of phosphorus, 2 1 States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands have no 

specified water quality criteria. Twelve States have narrative criteria addressing phosphorus 

in general. Seven States have both narrative criteria and quantitative criteria addressing 

phosphorus. One state, Florida, uses the EPA-recommended phosphorus criterion of 0.10 

ug/L for its estuarine and marine waters. Fifteen States and five U.S. territories have 

quantitative water quality criteria addressing phosphorus but do not use the EPArecommended numerical criteria. 

33 
Region/State Nitrate 

Region 3 

Total Total 

Nitro en Phos horus 

Connecticut 

Maine 

Massachusetts J (2) 

New Hampshire 

Rhode Island J (3) 

Vermont J (2) 

J (3) 

J (7,3,8) 

J (2) J (2) 

J (2) 

J (3) J (3) 

J (2) J (2) 

34 

New Jersey J (2) 

New York 

Puerto Rico J (9) 

Virgin Islands 

J (2) J (9,3) 

J (2) 

J (9) J (82) 

J (8,9) 

Delaware 

District of Columbia 

Maryland 

Pennsylvania 

Virginia 

West Virginia 

~~ 

J (2) J (2) J (2) 

J (4) 

South Carolina 

I'ennessee 

J (2) J (2) J (3) 
RegionIState Nitrate 

35 

Total Total 

Ammonia Nitrogen Phosphorus 
TABLE 1 

FOR NUTRIENT OVERENRICHMENT 

, SUMMARY OF STATES’ EXISTING WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND STANDARDS 

Region 10 

Alaska 

Idaho J (2) 

Oregon 

Washington 

NOTES FOR TABLE 1 

Blank entry indicates that neither a narrative nor numeric criterion for the nutrient have been specified by the State. 

(1) Site-specific numeric values for ambient nutrient levels. 

(2) Narrative criteria related to natural conditions, eutrophication and nutrient overenrichment for nitrate, ammonia, 

inorganic nitrogen, total nitrogen, or total phosphorus. 

(3) Narrative criterion that is not related to natural conditions, eutrophication, or nutrient overenrichment issues. 

(4) Numeric values for effluent nutrient levels. 

(5) Numeric values related to public health (nitrate) or aquatic toxicity (ammonia). 

(6) Habitat-based numeric values for ambient nutrient levels. 

(7) Water use classification- or water use designation-based numeric values for ambient nutrient levels. 

(8) State wide numeric values for ambient nutrient levels. 

(9) Waterbody-based ( streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastaVoceanic waters) numeric values for ambient nutrient 

levels. 

36 

i 
Appendix B: Nutrient Criteria Activities and Timeline 

Year Activities 

1997 Publish Final National Nutrient 

Strategy 

1998 Publish Technical Guidance 

Document for: 

Lakes and Reservoirs 

Demonstrations and Case 

Studies: 

Initiate 3-5 case studies 

Outreach Activities & 

Communication Strategy: 

RegionaVState Meetings on 

Strategy and Nutrient Criteria 

Development 

WQS Academy 

Document availability via Internet 

Link info to Regional Nutrient 

Teams 

1999 Publish Technical Guidance 

Documents for: 

Rivers and Streams 

37 

Products Date 

Strategy & FR Notice of 6/98 FR notice 

Availability 

Final Guidance 

Methodology validation 

and regional criteria for 

Lakes and Reservoirs 

Proceedings 

Presentations 

Brochures & Fact 

Sheets 

Training 

Final Guidance 

12/98 

On-going 

10/98 

Summer, 1 998 

National 

Nutrient 

Strategy 

On-going 

03/99 
Year Activities Products Date 

1999 Demonstrations and Case 

Studies: 

Initiate 5-10 case studies Methodology validation On-going 

and regional criteria for 

Rivers and Streams 

Methodology validation On-going 

and regional criteria for 

Marine Coastal Waters 

and Estuaries 

Outreach Activities: 

RegionaVState Meetings on Rivers Proceedings 

& StreamsLakes Guidance 

WQS Academy, Presentations 

Document availability via Internet Brochures & Fact 

Sheets 

2000-2 Publish Technical Documents 

for: 

7/99 

On-going 

Lakes and 

Reservoirs 

Coastal Marine Waters and Final guidance 03/00 

Estuaries 

Wetlands Draft guidance 03/00 

Data processing and assessment Final Guidance & 4/00 

National Modeling 

Database 

Demonstrations and Case 

Studies : 

Maintain ongoing case studies and Regional Criteria 0 1-02 

publish regional criteria Guidance 

i 

i 

38 
1 

Year Activities Products 

2000-02 Outreach Activities: 

RegionaVState Meetings on Coastal Proceedings 

Waters and Estuaries Guidance 

WQS Academy 

Document availability via Internet Sheets 

Presentations 

Brochures & Fact 

Date 

On-going 

On-going 

Rivers and 

Streams 

Coastal Waters 

and Estuaries 

Data processing 

and Assessment 

! 

i 

t 
Appendix C: Draft Outline for the Development of Nutrient Criteria for Streams and 

Rivers, Lakes and Reservoirs, and Estuaries and Coastal Marine Waters. 

I. Introduction 

Concept of Nutrient Criteria 

- Regional in nature 

- Methods and guidance to support development of nutrient criteria 

- Discussion of criteria vs. standards 

- Narrative criteria vs. numeric, but always quantitatively based 

Uses of Nutrient Criteria 

- Basis for StatejTribal Water Quality Standards 

- Resource assessment 

- Setting of management priorities 

- Evaluation of management projects 

- Long-range planning 

- Coordination of nutrient management planning and implementation with other 

related programs 

Rationale for Trophic Classification and Tiered Sampling Design 

- Discussion of deriving nutrient reference conditions 

- Discussion of cost-effectiveness of tiers, potential to evolve toward more 

- Detailed discussion of importance of adequate data for decision making 

detailed sampling as needed 

compared to budget and level of certainty needed 

11. Conducting Nutrient Surveys 

Classification of the surface waters 

Indicators 

- How analyzed 

- When to sample 

- Where to sample 

Survey Design 

Data Storage and Processing 

i 

1 

t 

1 

I 

i 

I rInterpretation 

111. Trophic Classification 

40 
L. 

How to estabiish regions 

Size classifications 

Watershed classifications 

Cultural development classes 

IV. Indicators 

For each indicator: 

Method of collection 

Storage and time constraints 

Method(s) of analysis 

Expected range of results and trophic state indicated by geographic region and 

season 

V. Sampling Design 

! 

Number of stations based on waterbody size 

i 

I i 

1 

Placement of survey stations relative to characteristics of the waterbody and suspected 

loading sites 

Time of year and frequency of sampling 

VI. Data Processing and Storage 

Discuss models and software packages 

Regional databases and multi-State coordination of efforts 

VII. Interpretation 

Synopsis of indicator meanings 

Discussion of interrelationships of trophic state and overenrichment indicators 

Comprehensive interpretations 

'67111. Detailed Nutrient Investigations for Cause and Effect Determination 

Follow-up on initial surveys to generate definitive information 

41 

i 
Seasonal adjustments 

i 

Relocation of some stations and addition of others 

- Importance of basic survey continuity 

IX. Management Response 

Should be broad-based and general to indicate potential as opposed to a directive to 

the community 

Types of loadings the indicators reflect 

- BMPs and other protection or mitigation measures available 

Approaches to achieve protection or change 

- Local government 

- Communities 

- Property owners 

- Businesses 

Management Planning 

- Incorporate the 10-step approach described in Chapter IV of this nutrient 

strategy document 

X. Evaluation Monitoring 

A variation on the original survey plan is used to keep track of the response of the 

waterbody to the protection or remediation effort 

This information is used to assess the relative success of the project and to plan hture 

courses of action 

- Evaluation of “before, during, and after” project data 

Close the loop in the management process by returning to step 1 of the 10-step 

process to plan the next phase of management or to apply these results to other 

similar, nearby waterbodies. 

Appendices 

Discussion of how States get from data gathering to using the information in 

management decision making to incorporation into State policies. 

Illustration of these experiences with case studies and names of contacts for hrther 

information. 

i 

42 
i 

I 

I 

! 

Appendix D: Drafting Committee for the National Nutrient Strategy 

Office of Science and Technology Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds 

Nick Baer John Heisler 

USEPA Office of Water 

Health and Ecological Criteria Division 

(202) 260-1306 (202) 260-8632 ' 

USEPA Office of Water 

Oceans and Coastal Protection Division 

Robert Cantilli, National Nutrient Program 

Coordinator USEPA Office of Water 

USEPA Office of Water 

Kristen Martin 

Assessment and Watershed Protection Division 

Health and Ecological Criteria Division 

(202) 260-5546 

(202) 260-7108 

George Gibson 

USEPA Office of Water 

Health and Ecological Criteria Division 

(202) 260-7580/(410) 573-2618 

Patrick Ogbebor 

USEPA Office of Water 

Permits Division 

(202) 260-6322 

, 

43 

i 
APPENDIX E: Excerpt from the Clean Water Action Plan 

Reduce Nutrient Over-en richmen t 

Nutrients, in the appropriate amounts, are essential to the health and continued functioning of 

aquatic ecosystems. Excessive nutrient loadings will, however, result in excessive growth of 

macrophytes or phytoplankton and potentially harmful algal blooms (€€AB), leading to oxygen 

declines, imbalance of aquatic species, public health risks, and a general decline of the aquatic 

resource. Nutrient over-enrichment has also been strongly linked to the large hypoxic zone in 

the Gulf of Mexico and to recent outbreaks of Pfiestevia along the mid-Atlantic Coast. 

State water quality reports indicate that over-enrichment of waters by nutrients (nitrogen and 

phosphorus) is the biggest overall source of impairment of the nation’s rivers and streams, 

lakes and reservoirs, and estuaries. In the 1996 National Water Quality Inventory, states 

reported that 40 percent of surveyed rivers, 5 1 percent of surveyed lakes, and 57 percent of 

surveyed estuaries were impaired by nutrient enrichment. Agriculture is the most widespread 

, source of these impairments, followed by municipal sewage treatment plants, urban runoff and 

storm sewers, and various other nonpoint pollution sources, including air deposition. 

Define Nutrient Reduction Goals 

Although nutrient over-enrichment is clearly a major challenge for the nation’s waters, the 

assessment of the seriousness and extent of the problem is often based on subjective criteria 

that can result in widely varying assessments.. Research to improve the basis for understanding 

and assessing nutrient over-enrichment problems is critical to better control of nutrient levels 

in waters and to meeting the nation’s clean water goals. 

EPA is developing a strategy to establish an objective, scientifically sound basis for assessing 

nutrient over- enrichment problems. Specifically, EPA will develop nutrient criteria - 

numerical ranges for acceptable levels of nutrients (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) in water. 

Unlike other criteria that EPA has developed, nutrient criteria will be established as a menu of 

different numeric values based on the type of water body (i.e., river, estuary, lake) and the 

region of the country in which the water is located. It is vital that this work be done to provide 

the technical basis for pollution reduction plans. 

EPA will develop nutrient criteria for the various water body types and ecoregions of the 

country by the year 2000. Under the Clean Water Act, states use pollutant criteria established 

by EPA as the basis for adopting water quality standards. Within three years of EPA issuance 

of applicable criteria, all states and tribes with water quality standards should have adopted 

water quality standards for nutrients. Where a state or tribe fails to adopt a water quality 

standard for nutrients within the three-year period, EPA will begin to promulgate the nutrient 

criteria appropriate to the region and water body type. When promulgated, the EPA standard 

would apply until a state or tribe adopts, and EPA approves, a revised standard. 

i i 

44 
f 

KEY ACTION: EPA will establish, by the year 2000, numeric criteria for nutrients (i.e., 

nitrogen and phosphorus) that are tailored to reflect the different types of water bodies (e.g., 

lakes, rivers, and estuaries) and the different ecoregions of the country, and will assist states in 

adopting numeric water quality standards based on these criteria over the following three 

years. If a state does not adopt appropriate nutrient standards, EPA will begin the process of 

promulgating nutrient standards. 

i 

45 
REFERENCES 

Anderson, D.M., S.B. Galloway, and J.D. Joseph. 1993. Marine Biotoxins and Harmfur 

Algae: A National Plan. Technical Report No. WHOI-93-02. Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution. 

Brinson, M.M. 1993. A Hydrogeographic ClassiJication of Wetlands. Technical Report No. 

WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands 

and Deep Water Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Dennison, W. et al. 1993. Assessing Water Quality with Submersed Aquatic Vegetation. 

BioScience 43:86-94. 

Flemer, D.A. 1972. Current Status of Knowledge Concerning the Cause and Biological 

Effects of Eutrophication in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Ches. Sci. 13:S144-S149. 

Howard-Williams, C. 1985. Cycling and Retention of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Wetlands: 

A Theoretical and Applied Perspective. Freshwater Biology 15:391-43 1 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1982. A Review of State Water Quality 

Staridards wlich Pertain to Nutrient Overenrichrnent. Metropolitan Washington Council of 

Governments, Washington, D.C. 

NationaI Harmful Algal BIoom Research and Monitoring Strategy: an initial focus on 

P fiesteria, fish lesions, fislz kills and public health (draft, November 1997). 

Nixon, S.W., and V. Lee. 1986. Wetlands and Water Quality: A Regional Review ofRecent 

Research in the United States on the Role of Freshwater and Saltwater Wetlands as Sources, 

Sinks, and Transformers of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Various Heavy Meta Is. Technical 

Report Y 86 2, Final Report. University of Rhode Island, Kingston Graduate School of 

Oceanography. October 1986. 

Omemik, J.. M. 1995. Ecoregions: A Spatial Framework for Environmental Management in 

Biological Assessment and Criteria: tools for Water Resource PIanning and Decision 

Making. Edited by W.S. Davis and T. P. Simon. Lewis Publishers. 

Omemik, J.M, C. M. Rohm, S.E. Clarke and D.P. Larsen. 1988. Summer Total Phosphorus 

in Lakes: a Map of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. Environmental Management 12:815- 

825. 

i 

L 

Redfield, A.C. 1958. The Biological Control of Chemical Factors in the Environment. Amer. 

Sci. 46:205-22 1. 

46 i 
I 

, 

1 

1 

i 

i 

I 

I &.. 

! 

i i 

i i 

I i 

i 

1 i 

j 

! 

< 

E i 

1 

i 

i 

( 

i 

1 

1. 

I 

i 

I 

i ti 

I 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988a. Nitrogen-Ammonia/r\ritrate/hritrite: Water 

Quality Standards Criteria Summaries: A Compilation of State and Federal Criteria. EPA 

440-5-88-029. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and 

Standards, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988b. Phosphorus - rater Quality Standards 

Criteria Summaries: A Compilation of State and Federal Criteria. EPA 440-5-88-012. US. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, 

D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Compendium of Watershed-Scale Models for 

TMDL Development. EPA 841 -R-94-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Water, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guidance SpeczfLing Management Measures 

for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA 840-B-92-002. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. National Water Quality Inventory: 1992 

Report to Congress. EPA 841 -R-94-001 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Water, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994a. Report of the Nutrient Task Force: Findings 

and Recommendations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of 

Science and Technology, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 

Report to Congress. EPA 841 -R-95-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. National Nutrient Assessment JTorhhop 

Proceedings. EPA 822-R-96-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

D.C. 

Wetzel, R. 1997. Personal communication in peer review comments. University of Alabama, 

Tuscaloosa, AL,. 

47