Nutrients: A National Overview

Need for Strong Partnerships & Joint Accountability

The Problem......

FRRCC FACA Meeting

September 30, 2010

Ephraim King – Office of Science & Technology 

US Environmental Protection Agency
Outline

• Overview of the Problem

• Nutrient Impacts 

• N & P Sources

• Nutrient Innovation Task Group Analysis

• Growing Pressure & Stakeholder Demands

• Looking Forward
Science and Analysis to Date

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

– Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation’s Estuaries (Bricker et al 2007)

• National Research Council

– Mississippi River Water Quality – Challenges & Opportunities (NRC 2008)

– Urban Stormwater Management (NRC 2008)

• EPA Science Advisory Board

– Reactive Nitrogen in the United States (USEPA 2009)

– Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (USEPA 2007)

• USEPA 

– National Coastal Condition Report III ((USEPA 2008)

– Wadeable Streams Assessment (USEPA 2006)

• Nutrients Innovations Task Group Report (2009)

• Numerous Articles, State Reports, and University

Studies

3
National & State Efforts to Date

• Investment in Research and Science

• Commitment to Development of Guidance, 

Technical Asst. and Information Transfer 

• Number of State and Local BMP Pilots and 

Technology Demonstration Projects

• Continued State Innovation, Testing, and 

Exploration of Incentive, Cost-share, Limit of 

Technology, Trading, and Collaborative 

Approaches

• State Oversight and Regulatory Models
Progress in 2009/2010

• Chesapeake Bay

– Executive Order, Strengthened State/Federal Partnerships, Stakeholder Action

– TMDL Developed

• Florida

– Final inland flowing water standards – Fall 2010

– Final coastal waters and estuarine standards - August 2012

• Water Quality Standards Program

– State-EPA Nutrients Innovation Task Group Report – August 2009

– IG State Numeric Standards Report – August 2009

– Support for State Numeric Nutrient Standards & Accountability Frameworks

• Rulemakings

– CAFO regulatory revisions initiated

– Post-Construction proposal begun with ICRs and listening sessions

• Guidance

– Final POTW Nutrient Treatment Effectiveness Manual – Winter 2009

– Chesapeake Bay 502 Non Point Source BMPs – Summer 2010 
• 14,000 Nutrient-related Impairment Listings in 

49 States

– 2.5 Million Acres of Lakes and Reservoirs

– 80,000 Miles of Rivers and Streams

– And This is an Underestimate . . .

• Over 47% of Streams Have Medium to High 

Levels of Phosphorus and Over 53% Have 

Medium to High Levels of Nitrogen

• 78% of Assessed Continental U.S. Coastal 

Waters Exhibit Eutrophication

• Drinking Water Public Health Risks Increasing

6

National Scope of Nutrient Problem
Concentrations of Nitrogen Nationally
Algal Bloom Occurrences in the United States 

(WHOI 2007).
–Disinfectant by-products; 

significant & costly

–Contaminated drinking 

water supplies

–Rate of nitrate violations 

in community water 

systems has doubled over 

past 7 years

–Harmful algal blooms

–Increased treatment costs

• Large Systems

• Small Systems

• Private Wells

 Public Health Risks:

9

National Drinking Water Impacts

(MCL of 10 mg/l exceeded as N in 4.4 percent of 

the wells) 
Community Water System (CWS) 

Drinking Water Nitrate Violations
• Nutrient Impacts Reflect Doubling of U.S. 

Population Over Past 50 Years

• Additional 135 Million People by 2050 

• Nutrient Pollution Expected to Accelerate

Year U.S. Population

1950 152 million

2008 304 million

2050 439 million

11

National Population Growth
Microcystis bloom - August 2003

Toledo Water Intake

Impaired Reservoirs –

Examples
Impaired Streams – Examples
Wisconsin DNR
17

Impacts on Downstream Waters

Microcystis Bloom – Goodby’s Creek at the St. Johns River, Jacksonville, FL – September 14, 2005
Sources of Nutrient Pollution

• Urban Stormwater

– 80% of U.S. Population on 10% of Land

– 50% of Urban Areas Will be Redeveloped by 2030

– 30% of Additional Needed Housing Stock Not Yet Built

– Expected to Grow Dramatically With Increased Urbanization

• Municipal Wastewater Treatment

– Among Most Heavily Regulated Sectors

– Treat over 18 million tons of human solids annually

– About 4% with numeric limits for N and 10% for P

• Air Deposition

– Approx 20% of Nitrogen Loadings in Chesapeake and Gulf
Sources of Nutrient Pollution

• Livestock Production Activities

– $130 billion industry for farmers

– 1 billion tons of manure annually

– Substantial portion not covered by CAFO rule

• Agricultural Row Crops

– $120 billion industry for farmers

– Inefficient fertilizer utilization – about 30% of applied N

– Stormwater runoff and irrigation return flows exempt 

under CWA with highly variable controls at State levels
20

Relative Nutrient Source Contributions
Tools and Authorities

• Incentives: voluntary agreements, 

corporate stewardship, trading

• Non-regulatory: volunteer monitoring, 

nutrient load reduction strategies, 

tracking of implementation plans

• Existing & Alternative Regulatory: point 

source caps, NPDES & WQS regulations, 

NPS regulations

• Legislative: Federal & State
States’ 303(d) Listed Water Quality ‘Nutrient-related’

Impairments are inconsistent (e.g., see MRB mainstem)

Based on the most recent available information in Expert Query (ATTAINS).

AK

HI

GU

CNMI

AS PR

VI

>100 and <200 listings due to nutrients (6)

Greater than 800 303(d) listings for nutrients (5)

>200 and <800 listings due to nutrients (16)

Less than 100 listings due to nutrients (29)
The number of Nutrient-related’ TMDLs completed is very

inconsistent from state to state

Based on information in Expert Query (ATTAINS) as of 01/14/2010. 7,261 TMDLs were nutrient-related. Nutrient-related is defined as ‘nutrients, 

organic enrichment/oxygen depletion, noxious plants, algal growth, and ammonia’. ** CNMI, GU, and AS have no nutrient-related TMDLs

AK

HI

GU

CNMI

AS PR

VI

51 to 150 nutrient-related TMDLs (9)

301 to 400 nutrient-related TMDLs (6)

151 to 300 nutrient-related TMDLs (9)

Less than 50 nutrient-related TMDLs (25)

401 to 500 nutrient-related TMDLs (2)

Greater than 500 nutrient-related TMDLs (2)

**

**
24
Partially Utilized Under Utilized

NPDES Urban Stormwater 

Controls

Numeric Nutrient 

Criteria

Technology-based 

Requirements

303 Assessments & 

listings

CZARA section 6217

Implementation Reqs

TMDLs Limits on Discharges to 

Impaired Waters

Livestock Antidegradation

25

Tools and Authorities
Key NITG Findings

• Knowledge, Collaboration, and Incentives Will 

Fail Absent Joint Accountability

• Current CWA Tools Underused; Additional Tools 

Rarely Used

• Current Regs Disproportionately Address Certain 

Sources to the Exclusion of Others

• Parts of State Nonpoint Source Programs Highly

Successful, But Broader Application Undercut by

Absence of a Common Multi-State Framework of 

Mandatory Point and Nonpoint Source 

Accountability
Need for More Effective Action

• Joint Accountability

– All Major Sources of Nutrients Must be Held Accountable for 

their Contribution to the Problem

• Fuller Use of Existing Tools

– Supporting and Requiring a More Consistent and Full Use of 

Existing Tools from State to State & Source to Source is 

Essential

• Profound Change

– Succeeding Against the Challenge of Nutrient Pollution Will 

Require a Profound Change in How We Partner and How We 

Share Accountability Between Sources, Within Watersheds, 

and Across State Lines

• National & State Leadership
Larger Context: 

Litigation, Petitions, and Environmental Reports

• NRDC Secondary Treatment Petition – Nov. 2007

• Mississippi River Watershed Petition – July 2008

– EPA Numeric Standards for MN, WI, IL, IA, MO, AR, KY, TN, MS, LA

– Sierra Club Petition in Support – 40,000 Signatures

• Florida Wildlife Federation’s Lawsuit - July 2008 

• PA TMDL Nutrients Litigation – Summer 2009

• Wisconsin Notice of Intent to Sue – November 2009 

• Kansas Notice of Intent to Sue – Spring 2010

• Missouri Notice of Intent to Sue – Summer 2010

• Possible LA Litigation to Force Listing of Coastal Waters

• EPA I.G. Numeric Nutrient Standards Report (August 2009)
Looking Ahead – Key Priorities

• Nutrient Accountability Frameworks

• State Numeric Nutrient Standards

• Drinking Water Risks and Economic 

Impacts

• Stronger State & Federal Partnerships to 

Engage a Broad Set of Stakeholders and 

Secure Greater Results

• Broader EPA–USDA Coordination

• Continued Commitment to Science
For More Information:

www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient