Work Session - Nutrient TradingCopyrighted
February 10, 2020
City of Dubuque Work Session - Bottom # 2.
IT E M T I T L E:Nutrient Trading Update
S UM M ARY:City staff will conduct a work session with the City Council
on the status of the Nutrient Trading Program.
S UG G E S T E D D I S P O S I T I O N:
AT TAC H ME N TS:
Description Type
Nutrient Trading Background Material-MV M Memo City Manager Memo
Nutrient Trading Update-MV M Memo Supporting Documentation
Staff Memo Supporting Documentation
US E PA Memo Supporting Documentation
Nutrient Trading Reduction Strategy Supporting Documentation
Nutrient Reduction Strategy Factsheet Supporting Documentation
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
Ci
t \LU\T.I li4
1111'
2007.2012.2013
2017*2019
Why consider a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources (IDNR) regarding the City's nutrient reduction strategy?
• Federal Clean Water Act Requires that the City obtain a permit to discharge
wastewater into "waters of the United States" such as the Mississippi.
• The permitting authority was delegated to the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR).
• The City's permit from the IDNR specifies the levels of pollutants, such as
nitrogen and phosphorus, that the City can discharge into the Mississippi.
• In addition, the City's permit requires the development of a strategy to try and
reduce the discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus by 66% and 75% respectively.
This "nutrient reduction strategy" is to be in place by 2032.
• The City completed a feasibility study in 2016 which determined that for an
investment of roughly $10 million, the City could approach those reduction goals.
But because the. City had just expended more than $64 million to modernize and
upgrade its wastewater treatment facility, the nutrient reduction improvements
were not deemed feasible in the short term. Instead, the IDNR required a second
feasibility study, due by the end of 2021, to revisit the issue.
• The MOU allows the City to consider nutrient reduction improvements in the
various watersheds throughout the county as part of its nutrient reduction
strategy. So that depending on the effectiveness and number of these
improvements that the City helps make a reality, the nutrient reduction required
at the City's treatment facility could be lessened. It may be possible to reduce
nutrients throughout the county such that the treatment facility upgrades required
at the City's treatment facility would cost less than the improvements currently
estimated at $10 million.
• Improvements in the watershed are typically more cost effective at reducing the
discharge of nutrients into receiving streams. They can also provide additional
benefits such as soil health, flood mitigation, and stream restoration.
• The MOU is voluntary. It can be terminated by the City.
• Without the MOU, without nutrient reductions in the watershed, the City will be
required to achieve the specified nutrient reduction goals through $10 million in
improvements at the treatment plant alone, all at the City's cost.
Memorandum of Understanding — a "discussion style" contract
Purpose: "to establish a framework for the City to engage in watershed
management within its HUC 8 and credit quantifiable nutrient reductions in that
watershed for the benefit of the City's nutrient reduction targets through NPDES
permitting. The City may use this framework to achieve compliance with current
requirements arising from the NRS and potential future nutrient requirements."
Definitions — for clarity.
Background — for context and legal authority. Pages 2 - 7
- key points:
EPA issued a formal Memo confirming its desire for offset / trading programs as
part of permit compliance;
The offset program is based on and considered within Iowa's Nutrient Reduction
Strategy,
The City will be using tools developed by the EPA, League of Cities, Army Corps
of Engineers, and the DNR, specifically the "NTT" or Nutrient Tracking Tool - an
Iowa -normalized environmental model; and the "NRE", or Nutrient Reduction
Exchange — a tool for quantification of watershed practices].
The contract (starting on p. 8)
5. The goal — regulatory certainty by using watershed approach.
6A. The city can use watershed work, as modeled through the NTT and
registered in the NRE. By using a pre -approved modeling approach, the City
gains certainty for offsets.
6C. The city gets credit for practices it implements, even if in conjunction with
other groups. It just needs to prove pre -practice status, register the practice,
and run the NTT.
6D. To reward early adoption and leadership, practices implemented that are
later mandated will still be credited towards the permit (unless prohibited by the
law mandating practices).
7A. The city must prepare a watershed plan, to identify the watershed(s) at
issue, how the city plans to use BMPs to reduce nutrients, estimates on load
reductions over time, how the city will maintain permanent practices, a basic
schedule for implementation, and how the City will monitor/track the
effectiveness.
8A. Models using "best management practices" (consideration practices)
through the NTT shall be at the field scale. This focuses the work on actual
practices that will make a difference.
8B. The City documents the practices, uploads them into the NRE using the NTT
tool. Iowa State verifies the validity of the City's application of the model and
sends it to Iowa DNR. Iowa DNR then has thirty days to comment and issue a
letter establishing the validity of the credits claimed or request modifications. If
the DNR does not respond the credits are deemed approved.
8C. The City is committing to meeting the long term N and P goals in the
Nutrient Reduction Strategy. These will be broken down into a series of short
term steps set out in the 5 year permit terms.
8D. The City commits to achieving its portion of the NRS goals by 2032 (12
years). This is something the City's wastewater team determined was feasible
through technology alone.
8E. By entering into this Agreement, the City gains further support from the DNR
that, unless required to do so by a new law, the DNR will not impose any
additional nutrient reduction requirements during this implementation period.
8F. The City gets credit for the voluntary work in the watershed it has done from
2013 to date as long as it can be modeled in the NTT (showing preexisting
practice and changes since implementation).
9. Termination by either party 180 days in advance of the expiration of a permit
term, with the termination of the offset program to conclude at the end of the
following permit. In other words, you get a 5 year + 180 day notice of the end of
the watershed offset credit program.
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Nutrient Trading Work Session Background Material
DATE: February 6, 2020
Attached are the materials from the September 3, 2019 City Council meeting on nutrient
trading, which provides background information for the February 10, 2020 work session.
_____________________________________
Michael C. Van Milligen
MCVM:as
Attachment
cc: Crenna Brumwell, City Attorney
Teri Goodmann, Assistant City Manager
Cori Burbach, Assistant City Manager
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Nutrient Trading Update
DATE: August 27, 2019
Assistant City Manager Teri Goodmann is transmitting information on the status of the
Nutrient Trading Program first initiated by the Iowa League of Cities CIG grant and the
timeline of events leading to this and future Nutrient Trading discussions.
_____________________________________
Michael C. Van Milligen
MCVM:jh
Attachment
cc: Crenna Brumwell, City Attorney
Teri Goodmann, Assistant City Manager
Cori Burbach, Assistant City Manager
TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
FROM: Teri Goodmann, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Nutrient Trading Update
DATE: August 27, 2019
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memo is to update you on the status of the Nutrient Trading Program
first initiated by the Iowa League of Cities CIG grant and the timeline of events leading to
this and future Nutrient Trading discussions.
CATFISH CREEK AUTHORITY BOARD
The Catfish Creek Watershed Authority (CCWMA) was created in 2012 from a 28e
agreement. It comprises of the Soil and Water Conservation District, Dubuque County, and
the Cities of Dubuque, Asbury, Peosta, and Centralia. The CCWMA is tasked with looking
for ways to reduce flooding and improve water quality across the watershed and making
recommendations to the political jurisdictions it serves. Currently, in addition to the IPC
grant outlined below, the CCWMA is currently installing conservation practices within the
watershed through an SRF sponsorship grant (Bee Branch Phase II). These practices
include but are not limited to the following:
• Grass waterways
• Cover crops
• Grade Stabilization Structures
• Soil quality restoration
• Native prairie
• Bio-swales, bio-cells, rain gardens
IOWA PARTNERS FOR CONSERVATION (IPC) GRANT
In 2007, the Dubuque Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) initiated the Catfish
Creek Watershed project, which began as a small 9,000 acre project focused on utilizing
urban and agricultural conservation practices to reduce sediment runoff to a treasured
local cold water trout stream. After experiencing success with both conservation project
implementation and a new county-wide stormwater policy; the District, County and City
continued working with NRCS and other local stakeholders to expand the project to cover
the entire 46,000 acre, HUC 10 watershed. In 2012, the need to further target and
coordinate work in the watershed and the opportunity to utilize Iowa’s novel and innovative
Watershed Management Authority structure, project leaders approached and partnered
with four neighboring cities to develop and implement a comprehensive watershed plan.
2
In 2018, the City of Dubuque was successfully awarded a $326,712.00 NRCS grant for the
purposes to build on the solid foundation of watershed work in the agricultural areas of the
Catfish creek watershed by (1) hiring a watershed coordinator to implement conservation
projects and develop a farmer leadership team for the watershed, (2) Utilize the
Agricultural Conservation Program Framework (ACPF) GIS tool and Prioritized Target and
Measure Application (PTMApp) modeling program to target conservation practice
implementation and (3) Establish a county-wide soil health policy focused on a cover
crop/buffer initiative that is locally funded. Partners for this proposal include the Dubuque
SWCD, NRCS, Dubuque County, and the Catfish Creek W atershed Authority Board
(CCWMA). Measurable outcomes will be the development of an online publicly accessible
database detailing pollutant load contributions/deductions, structural and non-structural
conservation project implementation and mapping, and a locally funded cover crop
program.
The ACPF approach is grounded in "precision conservation"; the idea of not only selecting
the right conservation practice, but also putting it where it will be most effective. The
framework is essentially a pyramid, with cover cropping and other soil management
practices that every farmer should be using at its base. ACPF identifies the prime spots for
conservation practices at the edge of fields (nutrient removal) and lastly, the prospects for
preventing both surface and subsurface losses of nutrients and sediments along stream
and river corridors. PTMApp will then be used in conjunction with ACPF to further
determine cost-analysis of BMPs and to build an on-line database for this project.
The need for CCWMA administration and developing a farmer led collaboration to more
successfully and effectively reach agricultural producers in the watershed for long term
success is essential. The support and need for a county-wide, local led cover crop / buffer
initiative exists and has been discussed with elected officials. Dubuque County, the City of
Dubuque and the Dubuque SWCD intend to work together to create a long-term
sustainable policy that not only expands the use of cover crops and no-till systems, but
also ensures long-term permanent adoption of these practices.
These models will be used in conjunction with the Iowa Nutrient Tracking Tool (NTT) which
will be the recognized model the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) will accept
to receive “credit” towards nutrient reduction.
In 2019, Houston Engineering was hired to complete the hydrologically conditioned Digital
Elevation Conservation Planning model, complete ACPF model, and to prepare
Implementation Profiles and Targeted Conservation Portfolios for the Catfish Creek
Watershed (3 HUC-12 watersheds). This work should conclude in summer of 2020.
Also in the spring of 2019, an agricultural watershed coordinator was hired by the Catfish
Creek Watershed Authority Board (CCWMA) to begin working with farmers on potential
BMP locations, coordinate with NRCS, and promote a soil health program throughout
Dubuque County. Eric Nie will be under contract for approximately 4 years.
3
LEAGUE OF CITIES
In October of 2015, the Iowa League of Cities received $715,000 in a three-year
Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG) for the purposes of developing a nutrient trading
model for the State of Iowa. Dubuque and Storm Lake were partners in the grant and both
cities used the implementation of conservation projects as cost share matches for the
grant. The CIG grant implementation was also informed by a stakeholder’s group which
included the Iowa League of Cities, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Iowa
Environmental Council, Iowa Soybean Association, Iowa Corn Growers, Iowa Farm
Bureau, Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, Iowa Chapter of The Nature Conservancy,
Iowa Environmental Law and Policy Center, and the Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance. At
the end of the three years, the grant deliverable was a registry in which cities and other
participants could place constructed conservation projects for potential use in a future
State of Iowa nutrient trading program. In October of 2018, the grant was extended for one
year and the League of Cities officially transferred the draft registry to the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources (IDNR) for further development.
The next step in this process would be to codify the registry in the State Code of Iowa and
to develop “regulatory certainty” for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) for future
permits in which nutrient reduction standards are included. This would allow for POTW’s
to use conservation projects installed in the watershed as a method of nutrient reduction in
addition to treatment plant upgrades for nitrogen and phosphorus removal. This would
most likely take place between the IDNR and the POTW through a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU).
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND FUTURE PERMITS
The Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force was established in
the fall of 1997 to understand the causes and effects of eutrophication in the Gulf of
Mexico. In 2001, the Task Force released the 2001 Action Plan, a national strategy to
reduce Gulf hypoxia based on the science of a significant effort called the Integrated
Assessment that was led by the White House Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources. The Task Force released a revised action plan in 2008. The revised action
plan called for, and led to, the development of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy. The
strategy was developed through collaboration amongst the Iowa Department of Agriculture
and Land Stewardship, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and the Iowa State
University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. On November 19, 2012, the strategy
was released for public comment. The final version of the strategy was released May 29,
2013.
Iowa Administrative Code 567-62.8(5) provides the legal authority to impose technology-
based effluent limits, on a regulated discharge (covered under the NPDES program), for a
pollutant not covered by federal effluent standards. These limits are based on the effect of
the pollutant in water and the feasibility and reasonableness of treating such pollutant.
Upon finalization of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, NPDES permit renewals for
municipal and industrial NPDES permits with existing biological treatment systems require
evaluating the feasibility for nutrient removal and the development of a schedule for
process implementation.
4
On October 1, 2013, the City of Dubuque Water & Resource Recovery Center’s current
NPDES Permit was issued. The permit required the preparation and submission of a
report, by October 1, 2015, that evaluates the feasibility and reasonableness of reducing
the amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus discharged into surface water. The City hired
Strand Associates, of Madison, Wisconsin, to conduct the study, which was completed and
submitted to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) on September 21, 2015.
Per the Permit Rationale, dated December 16, 2016, IDNR determined meeting the goals
of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy was feasible, but, due to high expenses of recent
improvements at the WRRC, was not considered reasonable at that time. IDNR proposed
to amend the City’s permit to require submittal of a new nutrient reduction feasibility study
in five years, stating by that time, other options for nutrient removal or nutrient credit
trading may become available. The City’s permit was subsequently amended on January
1, 2017. The amended permit requires the submission of a new feasibility study, as an
addendum to the original, no later than January 1, 2022.
The study shall evaluate the feasibility and reasonableness of reducing the amounts of
nitrogen and phosphorus discharged, by the POTW, into surface water by 66% and 75%
respectively. The report must include a description of progress made on short-term
recommendations, a description and evaluation of new or additional technologies not
previously considered, such as the phosphorus recovery pilot project, conducted in 2016,
and must update the preferred methods for reducing total nitrogen and total phosphorus. In
addition to selecting operational changes or additional treatment technologies, the City
may evaluate and propose to implement practices within the watershed that may achieve
greater reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus than the preferred method(s) alone. For
each treatment technology, the report shall assess its feasibility, reasonableness,
practicability, availability of equipment, capital costs, annual operating costs, impact on
user rates, and any non-water quality environmental impacts. A major goal of the study
would be to determine whether it would be more cost effective to meet nutrient reduction
goals solely with modifications to the POTW, or with a combination of modifications to the
POTW in addition to investing in conservation projects in the watershed or surrounding
areas.
Once nutrient reduction is considered reasonable, through facility improvements, or
watershed practices, or a combination of the two, an implementation schedule will be
incorporated into the City’s NPDES permit by amendment. Effluent discharge limits will be
based on a minimum of one full year of operating data after implementation of the
operational changes or completion of plant modifications and a six-month optimization
period.
NUTRIENT TRADING CURRENTLY
City staff member Dean Mattoon recently spoke with Adam Kiel, Operations Manager in
the Environmental Programs and Services Divisions of the Iowa Soybean Association.
5
Adam is working closely with the City of Cedar Rapids on their feasibility study and is one
of the many partners and technical advisory committee members in the original CIG grant.
Adam indicated that Cedar Rapids may build facility upgrades initially and reserve any
watershed projects for increases in population or the addition of a new industry to the
POTW capacity.
City staff member Dean Mattoon also spoke with Rick Robinson, the Environmental Policy
Advisor for the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation. Rick indicated that they are excited about
nutrient trading and would like to move forward with the MoU approach, provided there
would be some credit given to farmers in the effort to reach the EPA required State
Nutrient Reduction Strategy goals.
The Sand County Foundation of Wisconsin recently received grant funding from the
Walton Foundation to explore and expand the work of Wisconsin’s Adaptive Management
Approach, which uses an MoU to achieve nutrient reduction goals, into Iowa and Illinois.
Bartlett Durand, an attorney working with the Sand County Foundation has met with City
staff and is eager to work with Dubuque, using the Walton Foundation grant, to ensure that
the City’s best interests are met when developing an MoU with the State for nutrient
trading.
With your approval, City staff will continue to work closely with State partners and the Sand
County Foundation, through the Water and Resource Recovery Center feasibility study, to
explore the MoU and determine whether this approach would reduce the cost to users
while still achieving the nutrient reduction goals that the WRRC’s upcoming permit will
require.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
We respectfully request permission to continue to work with partners and with the Sand
County Foundation on Nutrient Trading.
Attach.
Prepared by Dean Mattoon
cc: Gus Psihoyos, City Engineer
Dean Mattoon, Engineering Technician
Eric Schmechel, Urban Conservationist
Willie O’Brien, WRRC Plant Manager
Internet Address (~L) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable. Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsurner, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 1 6 2.011 OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Working in Partnership with States to Address Phosphorus and Nitrogen
Pollution through Use of a Framework for State Nutrient Reductions
FROM: Nancy K. Stoner
Acting Assistant Administrato
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions 1-10
This memorandum reaffirms EPA's commitment to partnering with states and
collaborating with stakeholders to make greater progress in accelerating the reduction of nitrogen
and phosphorus loadings to our nation's waters. The memorandum synthesizes key principles
that are guiding and that have guided Agency technical assistance and collaboration with states
and urges the Regions to place new emphasis on working with states to achieve near-term
reductions in nutrient loadings.
Over the last 50 years, as you know, the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution
entering our waters has escalated dramatically. The degradation of drinking and environmental
water quality associated with excess levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in our nation's water has
been studied and documented extensively, including in a recent joint report by a Task Group of
senior state and EPA water quality and drinking water officials and managers. I As the Task
Group report outlines, with U.S. population growth, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from
urban storm water runoff, municipal wastewater discharges, air deposition, and agricultural
livestock activities and row crop runoff is expected to grow as well. Nitrogen and phosphorus
pollution has the potential to become one of the costliest and the most challenging environmental
problems we face. A few examples of this trend include the following:
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.
1 An Urgent Call to Action: Report of the State-EPA Nutrients Innovations Task Group, August 2009.
r
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.
States, EPA and stakeholders, working in partnership, must make greater progress in
accelerating the reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus loadings to our nation's waters. While
EPA has a number of regulatory tools at its disposal, our resources can best be employed by
catalyzing and supporting action by states that want to protect their waters from nitrogen and
phosphorus pollution. Where states are willing to step forward, we can most effectively
encourage progress through on-the-ground technical assistance and dialogue with state officials
and stakeholders, coupled with cooperative efforts with agencies like USDA with expertise and
financial resources to spur improvement in best practices by agriculture and other important
sectors.
States need room to innovate and respond to local water quality needs, so a one-size-fits-
all solution to nitrogen and phosphorus pollution is neither desirable nor necessary. Nonetheless,
our prior work with states points toward a framework of key elements that state programs should
incorporate to maximize progress. Thus, the Office of Water is providing the attached
"Recommended Elements of a State Nutrients Framework" as a tool to guide ongoing
collaboration between EPA Regions and states in their joint effort to make progress on reducing
nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. I am asking that each Region use this framework as the
basis for discussions with interested and willing states. The goal of these discussions should be
to tailor the framework to particular state circumstances, taking into account existing tools and
innovative approaches, available resources, and the need to engage all sectors and parties in
order to achieve effective and sustained progress.
While the Framework recognizes the need to provide flexibility in key areas, EPA
believes that certain minimum building blocks are necessary for effective programs to manage
nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. Of most importance is prioritizing watersheds on a state-wide
basis, setting load-reduction goals for these watersheds based on available water quality
information, and then reducing loadings through a combination of strengthened permits for
point-sources and reduction measures for nonpoint sources and other point sources of stormwater
not designated for regulation. Our experience in almost 40 years of Clean Water Act
implementation demonstrates that motivated states, using tools available under federal and state
law and relying on good science and local expertise, can mobilize local governments and
stakeholders to achieve significant results.
It has long been EPA's position that numeric nutrient criteria targeted at different
categories of water bodies and informed by scientific understanding of the relationship between
nutrient loadings and water quality impairment are ultimately necessary for effective state
2 Nutrients in the Nation's Streams and Groundwater: National Findings and Implications, US Geological Survey,
2010.
2
programs. Our support for numeric standards has been expressed on several occasions, including
a June 1998 National Strategy for Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria, a November 2001
national action plan for the development and establishment of numeric nutrient criteria, and a
May 2007 memo from the Assistant Administrator for Water calling for accelerated progress
towards the development of numeric nutrient water quality standards. As explained in that
memo, numeric standards will facilitate more effective program implementation and are more
efficient than site-specific application of narrative water quality standards. We believe that a
substantial body of scientific data, augmented by state-specific water quality information, can be
brought to bear to develop such criteria in a technically sound and cost-effective manner.
EP A's focus for nonpoint runoff of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution is on promoting
proven land stewardship practices that improve water quality. EPA recognizes that the best
approaches will entail States, federal agencies, conservation districts, private landowners and
other stakeholders working collaboratively to develop watershed-scale plans that target the most
effective practices to the acres that need it most. In addition, our efforts promote innovative
approaches to accelerate implementation of agricultural practices, including through targeted
stewardship incentives, certainty agreements for producers that adopt a suite of practices, and
nutrient credit trading markets. We encourage federal and state agencies to work with NGOs and
private sector partners to leverage resources and target those resources where they will yield the
greatest outcomes. We should actively apply approaches that are succeeding in watersheds
across the country .
. USDA and State Departments of Agriculture are vital partners in this effort. Ifwe are to
make real progress, it is imperative that EPA and USDA continue to work together but also
strengthen and broaden partnerships at both the national and state level. The key elements to
success in BMP implementation continue to be sound watershed and on-farm conservation
planning, sound technical assistance, appropriate and targeted financial assistance and effective
monitoring. Important opportunities for collaboration include EPA monitoring support for
USDA's Mississippi River Basin Initiative as well as broader efforts to use EPA section 319
funds (and other funds, as available) in coordination with USDA programs to engage creatively
in work with communities and watersheds to achieve improvements in water quality.
Accordingly the attached framework envisions that as states develop numeric nutrient
criteria and related schedules, they will also develop watershed scale plans for targeting adoption
of the most effective agricultural practices and other appropriate loading reduction measures in
areas where they are most needed. The timetable reflected in a State's criteria development
schedule can be a flexible one provided the state is making meaningful near-term reductions in
nutrient loadings to state waters while numeric criteria are being developed.
The attached framework is offered as a planning tool, intended to initiate conversation
with states, tribes, other partners and stakeholders on how best to proceed to achieve near-and
long-term reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in our nation's waters. We hope that
the framework will encourage development and implementation of effective state strategies for
managing nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. EPA will support states that follow the framework
but, at the same time, will retain all its authorities under the Clean Water Act.
3
With your hard work, in partnership with the states, USDA and other partners and
stakeholders, I am confident we can make meaningful and measurable near-term reductions in
nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. As part of an ongoing collaborative process, I look forward
to receiving feedback from each Region, interested states and tribes, and stakeholders.
Attachinent
Cc: Directors, State Water Programs
Directors, Great Water Body Programs
Directors, Authorized Tribal Water Quality Standards Programs
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
4
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 ofN & 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 ofN & 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 cost-
effective 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.
2
Nutrient Reduction Strategy
For Wastewater Treatment Plants
IoWa DePaRTmeNT oF NaTuRal ReSouRceS
T he Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy is a science- and technology-based approach to assess and reduce nutrients
delivered to Iowa waterways and the Gulf of Mexico. The strategy outlines efforts to reduce nutrients in surface
water from point sources, such as municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants, and nonpoint sources, including farm fields and urban areas, in a scientific, reasonable and cost-effective manner.
The Iowa strategy was developed in 2013 in response to the 2008 Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan, which calls for the 12 states
along the Mississippi River to craft strategies to reduce nutrients reaching the Gulf of Mexico. In addition to impacting the
Gulf, excessive amounts of nutrients can also negatively afffect local Iowa streams. Nutrient reduction by wastewater
dischargers will protect and improve water quality in those streams, especially during low stream flow periods when point
sources have the greatest impact. The Iowa strategy follows the recommended framework provided by the U.S. EPA in
2011. The DNR is working with wastewater facilities statewide with a goal of reducing the amounts discharged by point
sources by at least 11,000 tons of nitrogen and 2,170 tons of phosphorus per year. This represents a reduction in the
estimated statewide amounts of nutrients discharged to Iowa waters from point and nonpoint sources by 4% for nitrogen
and 16% reduction in phosphorus.
What facilities are affected?
•All major municipal wastewater facilities, major industrial
facilities and minor industrial facilities that utilize
biological treatment.
•Minor municipal wastewater facilities (less than 1 million
million gallons per day) are required to evaluate nutrient
reduction prior to constructing new or expanded facilities.
•Minor industrial facilities that do not utilize biological
treatment are required to evaluate nutrient reduction if
proposing to discharge higher amounts of nutrients.
WHAT REDUCTIONS WILL FACILITIES BE EXPECTED TO
ACHIEVE?
•Total nitrogen effluent concentrations of 10 mg/L or 66%
removal
hoW Will NUTRIENTS BE REDUCED?
•
Once a facility can be expected to achieve the nutrient
removal goals, technology-based nutrient limits will be
established in thier permit.
•
WHEN WILL THIS BE IMPLEMENTED?
•When a facility’s NPDES permit is renewed, the
permit will require a 2 year study to document current
nutrient discharge levels, establish baselines and
evaluate the feasibility and reasonableness of installing
nutrient removal.
•The study must also include a schedule for
construction and implementation of new technology.
Once the schedule is approved by the DNR, it will
become a requirement of the facility's permit.
•Schedules for implementation of practices or
completing construction will vary from months to
many years depending on the extent of needed
changes and financial considerations.
hoW AND WHEN ARE LIMITS SET?
•Annual progress reports can be accessed at:
http://www.nutrientstrategy.iastate.edu/documents
General questions
Adam Schnieders, DNR: 515-725-8403
or adam.schnieders@dnr.iowa.gov
municipal questions
Ben Hucka, DNR: 515-725-8406 or
ben.hucka@dnr.iowa.gov
industrial questions
Wendy Hieb, DNR: 515-725-8405 or
wendy.hieb@dnr.iowa.gov
www.iowadnr.gov
www.nutrientstrategy.iastate.edu
•Total phosphorus effluent concentrations of 1 mg/L or
75% removal
Biological nutrient removal is the most common means
for reducing nutrients but the Strategy does not dictate
what process or combination of processes are utilized.
Chemical phosphorus removal, operational changes and
changes to industrial processes are other alternatives
likely to be considered.WHAT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE?
•
Limits will be based on 12 months of demonstrated plant
performance and will be established after 6 months of
plant optimization.
Nitrogen and phosphorus limits will be expressed as
annual averages rather than monthly averages and
daily maximums.
•