The 2010 EPA Office of Water Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) Annual Report included a summary of
Addressing Impacts from Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution: Nutrients Framework Document and Memorandum
EPA Office of Water Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) worked with the Office of Science and Technology to draft a State Nitrogen and Phosphorus Reduction Framework that states can use to develop strategies that address the degradation of drinking water and environmental quality due to nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. On March 16, 2011, Office of Water Acting Assistant Administrator
Nancy Stoner issued a Memorandum to all EPA Regional Administrators that included the “Recommended Elements of a State Framework for Managing Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution.” (I've added them to the bottom of this post.) The memo describes the extent of the problem and reaffirms the agency’s commitment to partnering with states and collaborating with stakeholders to accelerate reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus loadings.
According to a recent joint Task Group of senior state and EPA water quality and drinking water officials, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution has the potential to become one of the costliest and challenging environmental problems the nation faces. The Framework initiates a conversation with states and other stakeholders on how best to achieve both near- and long-term reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. It envisions that as states proceed in efforts to develop numeric nutrient criteria and related schedules, they also reduce nitrogen and phosphorus pollution by targeting the most effective practices to the areas with highest contributions. The Framework recognizes that collaborative efforts with United States Department of Agriculture and other stakeholders will be critical for success.
_________________________________
Trends listed from the Memo include:
1) 50 percent of U.S. streams have medium to high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus.
2) 78 percent of assessed coastal waters exhibit eutrophication.
3) Nitrate drinking water violations have doubled in eight years.
4) A 2010 USGS report on nutrients in ground and surface water reported that nitrates exceeded background concentrations in 64% of shallow monitoring wells in agriculture and urban areas, and exceeded EPA's Maximum Contaminant Levels for nitrates in 7% or 2,388 of sampled domestic wells?
5) Algal blooms are steadily on the rise; related toxins have potentially serious health and ecological effects.
_________________________________
Recommended Elements of a State Framework for Managing Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution
1. Prioritize watersheds on a statewide basis for nitrogen and phosphorus loading reductions
A. Use best available information to estimate Nitrogen (N) & Phosphorus (P) loadings delivered to rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, etc. in all major watersheds across the state on a Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 8 watershed scale or smaller watershed (or a comparable basis.)
B. Identify major watersheds that individually or collectively account for a substantial portion of loads (e.g. 80 percent) delivered from urban and/or agriculture sources to waters in a state or directly delivered to multi-jurisdictional waters.
C. Within each major watershed that has been identified as accounting for the substantial portion of the load, identify targeted/priority sub-watersheds on a HUC 12 or similar scale to implement targeted N & P load reduction activities. Prioritization of sub-watersheds should reflect an evaluation of receiving water problems, public and private drinking water supply impacts, N & P loadings, opportunity to address high-risk N & P problems, or other related factors.
2. Set watershed load reduction goals based upon best available information.
Establish numeric goals for loading reductions for each targeted/priority sub-watershed (HUC 12 or similar scale) that will collectively reduce the majority of N & P loads from the HUC 8 major watersheds. Goals should be based upon best available physical, chemical, biological, and treatment/control information from local, state, and federal monitoring, guidance, and assistance activities including implementation of agriculture conservation practices, source water assessment evaluations, watershed planning activities, water quality assessment activities, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) implementation, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting reviews.
3. Ensure effectiveness of point source permits in targeted/priority sub-watersheds for:
A. Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities that contribute to significant measurable N & P loadings;
B. All Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that discharge or propose to discharge; and/or
C. Urban Stormwater sources that discharge into N & P-impaired waters or are otherwise identified as a significant source.
4. Agricultural Areas
In partnership with Federal and State Agricultural partners, NGOs, private sector partners, landowners, and other stakeholders, develop watershed-scale plans that target the most effective practices where they are needed most. Look for opportunities to include innovative approaches, such as targeted stewardship incentives, certainty agreements, and N & P markets, to accelerate adoption of agricultural conservation practices. Also, incorporate lessons learned from other successful agricultural initiatives in other parts ofthe country.
5. Storm water and Septic systems
Identify how the State will use state, county and local government tools to assure Nand P reductions from developed communities not covered by the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) program, including an evaluation of minimum criteria for septic systems, use of low impact development/ green infrastructure approaches, and/or limits on phosphorus in detergents and lawn fertilizers.
6. Accountability and verification measures
A. Identify where and how each of the tools identified in sections 3, 4 and 5will be used within targeted/priority sub-watersheds to assure reductions will occur.
B. Verify that load reduction practices are in place.
C. To assess/demonstrate progress in implementing and maintaining management activities and achieving load reductions goals: establish a baseline of existing N & P loads and current Best Management Practices (BMP) implementation in each targeted/priority sub-watershed, conduct ongoing sampling and analysis to provide regular seasonal measurements of N & P loads leaving the watershed, and provide a description and confirmation of the degree of additional BMP implementation and maintenance activities.
7. Annual public reporting of implementation activities and biannual reporting of load reductions and environmental impacts associated with each management activity in targeted watersheds
A. Establish a process to annually report for each targeted/priority sub-watershed: status, challenges, and progress toward meeting N & P loading reduction goals, as well as specific activities the state has implemented to reduce N & P loads such as: reducing identified practices that result in excess N & P runoff and documenting and verifying implementation and maintenance of source-specific best management practices.
B. Share annual report publically on the state's website with request for comments and feedback for an adaptive management approach to improve implementation, strengthen collaborative local, county, state, and federal partnerships, and identifY additional opportunities for accelerating costeffective
N & P load reductions.
8. Develop work plan and schedule for numeric criteria development
Establish a work plan and phased schedule for N and P criteria development for classes of waters (e.g., lakes and reservoirs, or rivers and streams). The work plan and schedule should contain interim milestones including but not limited to data collection, data analysis, criteria proposal, and criteria adoption consistent with the Clean Water Act. A reasonable timetable would include developing numeric N and P criteria for at least one class of waters within the state (e.g., lakes and reservoirs, or rivers and streams) within 3-5 years (reflecting water quality and permit review cycles), and completion of criteria development in accordance with a robust, state-specific workplan and phased schedule.
