an inventory of nutrient management efforts in the … inventory of nutrient management efforts in...

PREPARED FOR THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION’S LAKE ERIE ECOSYSTEM

PRIORITY MANAGEMENT TEAM

An Inventory of Nutrient

Management Efforts in the

Great Lakes March 9, 2013

This document is a working draft prepared for the IJC’s Lake Erie Ecosystem Priority (LEEP) by Samantha Dupre and is not for citation. Views expressed are solely those of the authors. See the draft LEEP report for findings and recommendations from the IJC.

Prepared by: Samantha Dupre

DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY

i

Acknowledgements

This report was made possible through the active participation of many experts from across a variety of

agencies.

Key contributors to the report included:

John Marsden, Diane de Beaumont and Sandra George (Environment Canada),

Sharon Bailey, Carolyn O’Neil, Neil Levesque, Barbara Anderson (Ontario Ministry of the Environment),

Deborah Brooker, Nigel Wood, (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs),

Daniel O’Riordan (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency),

Patricia Birkholz,Jon Allan (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality),

Lori Boughton (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection),

Steve Davis (U.S. Department of Agriculture),

George Elmaraghy (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency),

Don Zelazny (New York Department of Environmental Conservation),

Mary Lou Renshaw (Indiana Department of Environmental Management),

Bonnie Fox (Conservation Ontario),

Joe De Pinto (Limnotech),

Suzanne Hanson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,

Marcia Wilhite (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency),

Russell Rasmussen (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources),

Louise Lapierre (Quebec Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks)

John Wilson, (International Joint Commission)

The author would like to thank all the experts named above as well as other staff from these agencies for

their contributions.


ii

Table of Contents

List of Commonly Used Acronyms ........................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 2

Background Information on Nutrient Management in the Great Lakes ..................................................... 2

Regional Efforts ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 5

Sources of Information .............................................................................................................................. 5

Limitations and Scope ................................................................................................................................ 5

Section A: Agricultural Sources of Nutrient Pollution .............................................................................. 7

A.1 Nutrient Management Planning and other CAFO requirements in the U.S. and Canada ................... 7

A.1.1 Description of CAFO Regulations ................................................................................................... 7

A.1.2 Regions that have implemented CAFO Regulations ........................................................................ 9

A.2 Non-CAFO Agricultural Nutrient Management Planning Regulations in the Great Lakes .............. 14

A. 2.1 Description of Non-CAFO Agricultural Nutrient Management Planning Regulations in the

Great Lakes ................................................................................................................................... 14

A.2.2 Regions that have Adopted Regulations Requiring Nutrient Management Planning for Non-

CAFOs .......................................................................................................................................... 14

A.3 Nuisance Complaint Protection and Best Management Practice Adoption ...................................... 16

A.3.1 Description of Nuisance Complaint Protection and Best Management Practice Adoption ........... 16

A.3.2 Regions where Nuisance Complaint Protection and Best Management Practice Adoption is

Used .............................................................................................................................................. 16

A.4. Agricultural Stewardship and Information Programs ...................................................................... 18

Best Management Practices ............................................................................................................. 18

A.4.1 Description of Voluntary Certification Programs .......................................................................... 18

A.4.2 Regions Where Voluntary Certification Programs are Used ......................................................... 19

A.5 Financial and Technical Assistance Programs for Agricultural Stewardship ................................... 21

A.5.1 Description of Financial and Technical Assistance Programs for Agricultural Stewardship ........ 21

A.5.2 Regions with Financial and Technical Assistance Programs for Agricultural Stewardship in

Place ............................................................................................................................................. 21

Section B: Non-Point Source Pollution from Stormwater and Other Sources ......................................... 21

B.1 Stormwater Regulations .................................................................................................................... 22

B.1.1 Description of Urban Stormwater Regulations .............................................................................. 22

B.1.2 Regions Where Stormwater Planning & Permitting has been Implemented .................................. 22

U.S. Regulations .............................................................................................................................. 22


iii

Canadian Regulations ...................................................................................................................... 22

B.2 Green Infrastructure Initiatives ......................................................................................................... 23

B.2.1 Description of Green Infrastructure Initiatives ............................................................................... 23

Green Infrastructure Techniques ...................................................................................................... 24

Commonly Used Policies, Regulations and Financial Incentives to promote Green

Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................... 24

B. 2.2 Current Status of Green Infrastructure in the Great Lakes Regions .............................................. 25

Regions that have Implemented New Local Stormwater Regulations and are Reviewing and

Revising Local Codes ...................................................................................................................... 25

Regions Incorporating Green Infrastructure into existing State, Provincial and Federal

Legislation ........................................................................................................................................ 26

Regions with Stormwater User Fees and Discounts ........................................................................ 27

Regions with Public infrastructure funds and other Incentive Programs ......................................... 27

Regions with Interagency Cooperation ............................................................................................ 27

B.3 Urban Fertilizer Regulations ............................................................................................................. 28

B.3.1 Description of Urban Fertilizer Regulations .......................................................................... 28

B.3.2 Regions that have State or Province-Wide Urban Fertilizer Regulations .............................. 29

B.4 Stormwater Education and Outreach Initiatives ................................................................................ 32

B.4.1 Description of Non-Point Source and Stormwater Education and Outreach Initiatives ................ 32

B.4.2 Regions Where Non-Point Source Stormwater Education and Outreach Occurs .......................... 32

B.5 Funding for Non-Point Source and Stormwater Programs ................................................................ 32

B. 5.3 Regions Where Funding for NPS Pollution and Stormwater Programs are Provided .................. 33

B.6 Source Water Protection Planning .................................................................................................... 33

B.6.1 Description of Source Water Protection Planning .......................................................................... 33

B.6.3 Regions Where Source Water Protection Planning is Used ........................................................... 34

B.7 Septic System Regulation .................................................................................................................. 35

B.7.1 Description of Septic System Regulation ....................................................................................... 35

B.7.2 Regions with Septic System Regulation ........................................................................................ 35

B.8 Biosolid Regulation ........................................................................................................................... 39

B.8.2 Description of Biosolid Regulation ................................................................................................ 39

B.8.3 Regions with Regulations Stipulating Restrictions on Biosolid Application ................................. 39

Section C: Point Source Regulations ....................................................................................................... 42

C.1 Municipal and Industrial Permitting Point Source Regulations ........................................................ 42


iv

C.1.1 Description and Background Information on Municipal and Industrial Permitting Point

Source Regulations ....................................................................................................................... 42

C.1.2 Regions Implementing Municipal and Industrial Permitting Schemes .......................................... 42

U.S. Jurisdictions and Water Quality Standards .............................................................................. 43

Canada Jurisdiction and Water Quality Standards ........................................................................... 44

Municipal & Industrial Effluent Monitoring.................................................................................... 45

C.2 Regulations Related to Combined Sewer Systems ............................................................................ 48

C.2.1 Description of Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Regulations ..................................................... 48

C. 2.2 Regions where CSO Regulations are in Use ................................................................................. 48

U.S. .................................................................................................................................................. 48

Canada.............................................................................................................................................. 48

C.3 Detergent Rules ................................................................................................................................. 49

C.3.1 Description of Detergent Rules ...................................................................................................... 49

C.3.2 Regions with Rules Limiting Phosphorus Content in Detergents .................................................. 49

C.4 Open Water Disposal of Sediment .................................................................................................... 50

C.4.1 Description of Open Water Disposal of Sediment Regulations ..................................................... 50

C.4.2 Regions Where Regulations are used to Limit Open Water Disposal of Sediment ....................... 50

C.5 Information Programs for Point Source Pollution ............................................................................. 52

C.5.1 Information Programs for Point Source Pollution .......................................................................... 52

C.5.2 Regions where Information Programs are Available ..................................................................... 52

C.6 Technical and Financial Assistance programs for Point Source Pollution ........................................ 52

C. 6.1 Description of Technical and Financial Assistance programs for Point Source Pollution ............ 52

C.6.2 Regions Where Technical and Financial Assistance is Available for Point Source Projects ......... 52

Section D: Other Policies and Programs for Nutrient Management ........................................................ 52

D.1 Water Quality Trading Programs ...................................................................................................... 52

D.1.1 Description of Water Quality Trading Programs ........................................................................... 52

D.1.2 Great Lakes Regions Where Water Quality Trading regulations are in place to facilitate

nutrient trading ............................................................................................................................. 54

United States .................................................................................................................................... 54

Ontario ............................................................................................................................................. 54

D.2 Priority Watersheds ........................................................................................................................... 57

D.2.1 Description of Policies Focusing on Priority Watersheds .............................................................. 57

D.2.2 Regions where Priority Watershed Policies are Implemented ....................................................... 58

U.S. .................................................................................................................................................. 58


v

Canada (Ontario) .............................................................................................................................. 59

Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 60

Works Cited ............................................................................................................................................. 63


vi

List of Tables

Table 1: Great Lakes Jurisdictions with Nutrient Management Related CAFO (U.S.) or Large

Farm (Canada) Regulations ......................................................................................................... 7

Table 2: Commonly Used Green Infrastructure Techniques and their Hydrologic Functions ................ 24

Table 3: Comparison of State Fertilizer Regulations ............................................................................... 29

Table 4: Source Water Protection Rules and Requirements in Great Lakes Jurisdictions ....................... 34

Table 5: Septic System regulations .......................................................................................................... 35

Table 6: Permitting Legislation for Municipal and Industrial Dischargers ............................................. 43

Table 7: Monitoring for TP and TN in major NPDES-Permitted Facilities (Industrial and

Municipal) ................................................................................................................................. 46

Table 8: Regulations setting limits on Phosphorus content in detergents in the U.S. and Canada .......... 49

Table 9: Dredging Regulations in the US and Canada ............................................................................ 50

Table 10: Nutrient Trading Approaches Used in the U.S. ....................................................................... 54

List of Figures

Figure 1: Restrictions on Manure Application Rates for CAFOs (U.S.) or large farms (Canada) in

Great Lakes Jurisdictions:........................................................................................................ 11

Figure 2: Regulations Limiting CAFO (U.S.) or Large Farm (Canada) Application of Manure on

Frozen Ground in Great Lakes Jurisdictions: .......................................................................... 12

Figure 3: Jurisdictions with Additional Regulations for CAFOs(U.S.) or Large farms (Canada) in

Impaired Watersheds: .............................................................................................................. 13

Figure 4: Great Lakes Jurisdictions with non-CAFO Agricultural Regulations (Regulations that

apply to all farm types): .......................................................................................................... 15

Figure 5: Nuisance Complain Protection as a Mechanism for Encouraging Adoption of Best

Management Practices:. ........................................................................................................... 17

Figure 6: Great Lakes Jurisdictions with Voluntary Agricultural Stewardship

Verification/Certification Programs ........................................................................................ 20

Figure 7: Great Lakes Jurisdictions with Legislation Banning or Limiting use of Urban

Phosphorus (P) Fertilizers: ..................................................................................................... 31

Figure 8: Great Lakes Jurisdictions with legislation in place requiring mandatory discretionary

on-site sewage system maintenance inspections: .................................................................... 38

Figure 9: Regulations Limiting Application of Biosolids on Frozen Ground in each Great Lakes

Jurisdiction: ............................................................................................................................. 40

Figure 10: Required Setback Distances from Surface Water bodies for Land Application of

Biosolids (without soil incorporation) in each of the Great Lakes Jurisdictions:. ................. 41

Figure 11: Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards/Guidelines in Different Great Lakes

Jurisdictions: .......................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 12: Great Lakes Regions with a Ban on Open Water Disposal of Sediments .............................. 51

Figure 13: Status of Water Quality Trading Legal Provisions and Policies in Great Lakes

Jurisdictions. .......................................................................................................................... 56


1

List of Commonly Used Acronyms

CA: Conservation Authority

DEA/SDEA: Department of Agriculture/State Department of

Agriculture (preceded by state’s acronym)

DFO: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

DNR: Department of Natural Resources (for individual states)

EC: Environment Canada

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency (state agency proceeded by

state’s acronym)

GIS: Geographic Information System

IDEM: Indiana Department of Environmental Management

MDDEFP: Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement,

de la Faune et des Parcs (Québec)

MDEQ: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

MOE: Ministry of the Environment (Ontario)

MPCA: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

N: Nitrogen

NGO: Non-Governmental Organization

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NYDEC: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

OMAFRA: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

OMNR/MNR: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources /Ministry of

Natural Resources

MAPAQ: Ministry of Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation

du Québec

PADEP: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

P: Phosphorus

SWCD: Soil and Water Conservation Districts

TN: Total Nitrogen

TP: Total Phosphorus

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture

U.S. EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS: United States Geological Survey

WQ/WQS: Water Quality/Water Quality Standard

Definitions

Ammonium: Ammonium is an

important source of N for algae

bacteria and larger plants in aquatic

environments.

Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus (DRP):

The soluble form of the nutrient

phosphorus. It is readily available for

use by plants.

Nitrate: Nitrate is the major alternative

form of available inorganic N for most

plants.

Nitrite: Nitrite is another form of

available inorganic N usually only

present at low concentrations.

Nutrient: Element required for the

growth and health of animals and

plants. In the context of this paper

nitrogen and phosphorus in various

forms are the nutrients referred to by

the word nutrient. Excess

concentrations of these nutrients can be

harmful in aquatic systems.

Soluble Phosphorus (SP): Dissolved or

soluble phosphorus is defined as a form

of the nutrient phosphorus that can pass

through a 0.45um membrane filter and

thus it is considered dissolved.

However, much of the P defined as

soluble although it is describes as

dissolved is not in the form available for

plant uptake (orthophosphate).

Total Nitrogen (TN): This is a measure

of all forms of the nutrient Nitrogen.

Total Phosphorus (TP): This is a

measure of all forms of the nutrient

phosphorus dissolved or particulate

reactive or nonreactive.


2

Introduction

Background Information on Nutrient Management in the Great Lakes

Nitrogen and phosphorus are two nutrients that are essential for the growth of most plants and animals.

Phosphorus is of particular interest because it is the element that is most commonly limiting to freshwater

aquatic plant production; it is found in limited supply in nature and is usually the first to be depleted. This

causes a problem if it is introduced into the environment in abundance because it promotes the excessive

growth of algae which can have a number of negative effects on water quality. Negative effects include:

unpleasant odour, production of toxins and depletion of oxygen through decomposition of the organic

material (in this case dead algae) resulting in eutrophication of a water body (Smith, 2010). This

degradation in water quality is a concern not only because humans need to use this water but also because

it contributes to fish and wildlife habitat degradation (U.S. EPA, 2012).

Excessive introduction of nitrogen into the environment may also a problem because nitrogen can be a

limiting nutrient in some lakes. In addition, unlike phosphorus, in large concentrations nitrogen can also

be toxic and the process of oxidizing some of the forms of nitrogen can deplete oxygen in the water

(Smith, 2010). Except for shallow bays and shoreline marshes, the Great Lakes were originally

oligotrophic before industrialization (U.S. EPA, 2012). At that time, the Lakes received small amounts of

fertilizers such as phosphorus and nitrogen from decomposing organic material in runoff from forested

lands or from the atmosphere (U.S. EPA, 2012).

Today, excess nutrients enter the Great Lakes from a wide variety of sources including urban and

suburban stormwater runoff, municipal and industrial wastewater treatment systems, agricultural livestock

activities, and row crops (State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group, 2009; U.S. EPA, 2012).

Point Source and Non Point Sources of Nutrients

Nutrient pollution that originates from an easily identifiable, confined location such as a wastewater pipe

or a smokestack is known as “point source” pollution. Nutrient pollution that originates from diffuse

sources such as urban and agricultural runoff is known as non-point source (NPS) pollution (Kilbert,

Tisler, & Hohl, 2012). This distinction is important because point source and NPS nutrient pollution are

managed using different regulatory and non-regulatory programs. For example, point sources of pollution

are typically not as difficult to regulate as nonpoint sources in both the U.S. and Canada. In the U.S. the

federal Clean Water Act prohibits discharges of pollutants, including phosphorus, from “point sources”

into waters of the United States without a permit. Unpermitted discharges of phosphorus from a point

source, or discharges in excess of the limits set forth in its permit, violate the Clean Water Act, and

violators are subject to penalties (Kilbert, Tisler, & Hohl, 2012). Similarly the Ontario Environmental

Protection Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants into Ontario waters and point source polluters must

apply for Environmental Compliance Approvals (permits) with penalties if these approvals are violated

(Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2012).

The regulatory regime for nonpoint sources is generally more complex. All levels of government are

involved; regulations are passed by local, regional and national governments. The challenge in regulating

these sources rests in the fact that there are so many potential sources and sectors that involved

(agriculture, municipalities, industries and citizens). Consequently, there is a much larger emphasis on

providing funding and technical assistance for voluntary stewardship actions. This approach can be

effective but due to the complexity of the issue, it is difficult for these programs to be appropriately

comprehensive in scope. Regulation of point sources has been relatively effective to date while more

attention is likely needed for non-point source regulation which is reflected in the fact that the amount of

phosphorus entering Lake Erie and its tributaries from nonpoint sources is much greater than the amount

discharged from point sources (Kilbert, Tisler, & Hohl, 2012).


3

Regional Efforts

There have been a variety of regional agreements and coordination efforts established between agencies

in the U.S. and Canada to deal with water quality impairments and the protection of the Great Lakes.

These agreements include nutrient management as a major issue of concern. The Great Lakes Water

Quality agreement is the main agreement that coordinates binational efforts. In the U.S., the Clean Water

Act and the U.S. EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) are the two main

federal mechanisms for achieving water quality improvement goals. In Canada, the Canada-Ontario

Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem is the main agreement that coordinates the

implementation of various relevant pieces of federal and provincial legislation.

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between the governments of the U.S. and Canada

was first signed in 1972, renewed in 1978 and amended in 1983, 1987 and 2012. Its aim is to work

towards restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes

Basin Ecosystem. The establishment of Lake-wide Managements Plans (LaMPs) to document and

coordinate management actions for each of the Great Lakes is required in Annex 2 of the

GLWQA(1987&2012). With the exception of Lake Michigan, which is a US domestic initiative, each

LaMP is coordinated by a committee with membership from both Canada and the United States. While

only the Lake Erie LaMP group has developed a nutrient strategy, all LaMPs have identified nutrients

inputs and eutrophication as a concern (Lake Erie LaMP , 2011; Environment Canada, 2011).

The recently amended GLWQA (2012) has additional requirements in Annex 4 which aims to coordinate

efforts to control nutrients by adopting Lake Ecosystem Objectives related to nutrients. To achieve these

objectives the Parties will develop achievable phosphorus loading targets and allocations for each Great

Lake, with particular emphasis on updating the science-based phosphorus reduction targets for Lake Erie

within three years. Within five years, Canada and the United States will develop binational phosphorus-

reduction strategies for Lake Erie and detailed domestic action plans to meet objectives for phosphorus

concentrations, loading targets and divide the phosphorous loads between the countries. The Parties will

also report on their progress toward implementation of this Annex every three years (GLWQA 2012).

Clean Water Act and the U.S. EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

The main law governing pollution of the U.S.’s surface waters is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

(amended 1972) which is also known as the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act has two main

purposes. Firstly, it authorizes federal financial assistance for municipal sewage treatment plant

construction. It also provides financial assistance for non-point source reduction projects under sections

205 and 319. Secondly, it imposes regulatory requirements that apply to industrial and municipal

dischargers. The focus of the Act has shifted from its early emphasis on point source pollution of

conventional pollutants to include a focus on regulating and limiting non-point source pollution

(Copeland C. , 2010). As part of the Act’s requirement for the federal government to regulate discharges

from both point and non-point sources the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

was established. This program is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and requires

all facilities that discharge pollutants (including nutrients) from a point source into U.S. waters to obtain a

permit. However, the U.S. EPA can and often does authorize States, Territories, or Tribes to implement

all or parts of the program. All of the Great Lakes States have been authorized to implement the program

and tailor it to regional needs while the U.S. EPA works to ensure consistency between States.

Canadian Legislation and the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin

Ecosystem

There are several pieces of federal legislation that regulates pollutant discharges to the environment. Most

notably, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999 (CEPA) and the Fisheries Act 1985 are

important in terms of enforcement (Benidickson, 2009). The Federal government has also established the


4

Great Lakes Program as a partnership of federal departments that work toward Canada's commitments

under the GLWQA. Another way that the federal government attempts to meet its’ commitments is

through agreements with provinces such as the Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA) respecting the Great

Lakes basin ecosystem (Environment Canada, 2011).

The COA is the primary mechanism through which Canada coordinates its commitments under the

Canada-U.S. GLWQA. The most recent iteration of COA focuses on dealing with issues such as

excessive nutrients, persistent toxic substances, biodiversity, invasive species, climate change and source

protection. It set out goals and responsibilities of both the federal and provincial authorities in relation to

nutrient management regulation. The 2007 COA states that Canada and Ontario will work to “reduce

microbial and other contaminants and excessive nutrients” from rural, industrial and municipal sources

consistent with actions specified in binational Lake wide Management Plans (LaMPs) and binational lake

action plans (International Joint Commission, 2011). Negotiations for a new COA began in summer 2012;

it is expected to include further provisions about nonpoint source pollution and nutrients ( Phosphorus

Reduction Task Force to GLC, 2012). Governance of the St. Lawrence River is achieved through a

similar tool, the Canada–Québec Agreement on the St. Lawrence 2011-2026 (Environment Canada,

2011).

The passage of U.S. and Canadian legislation concerning water quality, the signing of the GLWQA and

the implementation of LaMPs have all been important contributions to addressing the problem of nutrient

loading and eutrophication. These important regulatory and policy changes inspired other regulatory and

non-regulatory efforts to control nutrients. For instance, the province of Ontario released its Great Lakes

Protection Strategy on December 17th, 2012. The vision of Ontario’s Great Lakes Strategy is healthy

Great Lakes for a stronger Ontario – Great Lakes that are drinkable, swimmable and fishable. The

Strategy would focus on work to address immediate and anticipated stresses and threats to the Great

Lakes, and to build on existing Great Lakes benefits and opportunities (Ministry of the Environment,

www.ene.gov.on.ca).

Purpose of this Report

Since the signing of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972, the International Joint

Commission has been responsible for producing biennial reports to the Parties and to State and Provincial

governments concerning progress toward achieving GLWQA objectives and including recommendations

to assist governments in implementing the GLWQA.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s a series of policies and regulations were put in place by government

agencies in the U.S. and Canada to mitigate eutrophication. These efforts were coordinated, in part

through the GLWQA and were successful in controlling eutrophication in the Great Lakes for several

decades (International Joint Commission, 2011). However, both non-point source and point sources

continue to contribute nutrients to the Great Lakes today. Certain point sources, such as publicly owned

treatment works, still contribute significant volumes of total phosphorus and dissolved reactive

phosphorus (DRP) to Lake Erie and its tributaries (Kilbert, Tisler, & Hohl, 2012). Non-point sources of

nutrients such as agricultural runoff have been cited as the primary cause of water quality degradation in

most rivers and lakes (Puckett, 1995). It has been recently stated that since nutrient pollution from point

sources has remained fairly constant for the past few decades, point sources may not be primarily

responsible for the increase in DRP levels in Lake Erie and the other Great Lakes (Lake Erie Phosphorus

Task Force, 2012). However, while this may be true on a regional basis there may be specific regions

where municipal sources are a significant source of nutrients.

Recently, there has been increasing concern due to the return of visible signs of eutrophication in the

nearshore areas of all of the Great Lakes except Superior. The IJC’s Harmful and Nuisance Algae

Workgroup (2011) noted that there has been a resurgence of nuisance cyanobacteria (blue-green algae)


5

blooms, rotting shoreline piles of the green macro-alga Cladophora, the return of harmful algal blooms,

dissolved oxygen depletion in the bottom waters of the central basin of Lake Erie, increases in the

frequencies of beach postings or closings, a resurgence in botulism toxicity events and “desertification”

(loss of productivity) in offshore waters. The nearshore shunt theory, which suggests that nutrients are

redirected in nearshore waters consequent to dreissenid (zebra and quagga mussels) establishment that

results in nutrient-rich nearshore waters (eutrophication) and nutrient-poor (oligotrophication) offshore

waters, may explain, in part, the increases in benthic attached algae (Eutrophication Advisory Work

Group to IJC, 2009). However, the extensive algal blooms that have occurred in recent years in Lake Erie

have both the public and scientific experts highly concerned about nutrient levels and water quality of the

shallowest great lake (International Joint Commission, 2011).

Consequently, the IJC has identified the Lake Erie Ecosystem as a Priority in need of immediate attention

as part of its 2012-2015 reporting cycle. The ultimate goal of this Priority is to advise governments on the

essential elements of a plan to reduce the loading of phosphorus to Lake Erie. The aim of this report is to

assist the IJC priority management team in developing a better understanding of how the governments of

Canada and the U.S are currently addressing the issue throughout the Great Lakes Basin. This report

achieves this by providing a high level catalogue of legislation, policies and programs that are being used

to manage nutrients (in particular phosphorus) at the federal and provincial/state level in all jurisdictions

that fall within the Great Lakes basin. This catalogue is a tool that can be used to facilitate a comparison

of the approaches used in different jurisdictions.

Methodology

In 2012, the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) released a report entitled “Nutrient Management: A

Summary of State and Provincial Programs in the Great Lakes –St Lawrence River Region “(Great Lakes

Commission, 2012). The GLC report served as a starting point for this report which aims to build on this

information by producing a broader summary of nutrient management programs, policies and legislation

aimed at point source and non-point sources of nutrients in the U.S. and Canada. Information for this

report was gathered from a variety of government websites, reports, and peer-reviewed academic

literature. Detailed information is summarized in Tables, Figures and the Appendix. Information was also

provided by experts (which included representatives from governmental agencies in each Great Lakes

jurisdiction) throughout the process. These experts reviewed previous drafts of this report in order to

ensure accuracy.

Sources of Information

Information for this report was gathered from a number of sources including: government reports, reports

by environmental organizations, governmental agency websites, academic journals and a number of

special reports released by task forces on phosphorus reduction in Lake Erie and the Great Lakes. A full

list of sources can be found in the Works Cited section of the report.

Limitations and Scope

The information for this report was compiled in a limited time frame. Consequently, it was not feasible to

contact every potential information source. Due to the need to maintain the intended scope of the report,

programs that operate on very a localized level were not reviewed in detail. These may include programs

operated by municipalities, local NGOs, Conservation Authorities or Soil and Water Conservation

Districts that are not directly related to larger national, state or province wide programs. In particular, it is

important to acknowledge that local or municipal actions are playing an increasingly important role in

nutrient management. It is recognized that this is a significant gap as the scope of this report did not

permit a detailed review of these types of actions. However, this gap is identified where possible and the

actions of locally based agencies are also highlighted where possible. The scope of this report did not

allow for a comprehensive cataloguing of some programs such those related to education and outreach


6

efforts or sources of funding and instead provides a general picture of major efforts. It should also be

noted that this report did not aim to assess the effectiveness of programs catalogued. Finally, there are a

great many new nutrient management programs that are currently being implemented in the Great Lakes

region. While every effort was made to ensure that the report was as comprehensive and up-to date as

possible there will, inevitably, be some omissions.


7

Section A: Agricultural Sources of Nutrient Pollution Nutrient Pollution from agriculture has increasingly been identified as one of the leading causes of water

quality impairment in the Great Lakes in recent years (Ohio EPA, 2010). Evidence from pollutant loading

data for Lake Erie’s major U.S. tributaries suggests that increased nutrient loading from agriculturally

dominated watersheds may be due to changes in the forms of phosphorus entering the Lake (Ohio EPA,

2010). Agricultural pollution can be very difficult to regulate because there are such a wide range of

agricultural activities that can contribute to nutrient runoff and point source effluent discharge limits and

treatment standards are not easily applicable (Perez, 2011). Much of the nutrient pollution from

agriculture is not considered a point source and so must be dealt with by other means such as encouraging

the use of best management practices (BMPs). BMPs can sometimes present a regulatory challenge

because they may be difficult to enforce however, many regulatory programs do enforce them (Perez,

2011). Other programs offer information, incentives and technical assistance to encourage the voluntary

adoption of BMPs (OMAFRA, 2012). Most agricultural regulations that aim to control nutrient pollution

address the application of nutrients as fertilizer to agricultural land and the storage of fertilizer/manure as

part of Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) or other livestock operations.

A.1 Nutrient Management Planning and other CAFO requirements in the U.S. and Canada

A.1.1 Description of CAFO Regulations

Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are animal agricultural facilities that raise a very large

number of animals in production barns or confinement pens (U.S. EPA, 2012). Since these operations are

so large and concentrated they generate a large amount of animal manure which contains nutrients. If not

managed properly, the manure from these operations may runoff into nearby waterbodies. The elevated

levels of nutrients in this manure can pose a threat to water and thus nutrient management strategies are

required. CAFOs are regulated both in Canada and in the U.S. in slightly different ways. The applicable

regulations are summarized in Table 1. Additional details about state and provincial nutrient management

and CAFO rules are available in the Appendix: Table A.

Table 1: Great Lakes Jurisdictions with Nutrient Management Related CAFO (U.S.) or Large

Farm (Canada) Regulations Jurisdiction

Applicable

Regulation

Definition of

CAFO

Permit

required

Nutrient

Management

Plan

Limits on Application of Manure

U.S. EPA

program

(enforced by

state

regulations

and state

agencies)* see

Appendix

:Table A for

additional

details on

State Rules

Clean Water

Act’s NPDES

program

Animal feeding

operation is defined

by the U.S. EPA as

a facility or lot

where animals are

stabled or confined

and fed/maintained

for a total of 45

days or more in any

12-month period,

and where crops,

vegetation, forage

growth, or post-

harvest residues are

not sustained in the

yes yes Application rates for manure, litter, and

other process wastewater applied to land

under the control of the CAFO must

minimize phosphorus and nitrogen

transport from the field to surface waters.

This is done by requiring operators to

calculate maximum nutrient runoff rates

and limiting nutrient application

according to local climatic conditions,

plant requirements and previous

applications. Manure and wastewater may

not be applied closer than 100 feet to any

down-gradient surface waters, open tile

line intake structures, sinkholes,

agricultural well heads, or other conduits


8

normal growing

season over any

portion of the lot or

facility (U.S EPA,

2012).

to surface waters unless a vegetative

buffer is instituted (U.S Environmental

Protection Agency, 2012).

Ontario

Ministry of

Agriculture,

Food and

Rural Affairs

(OMAFRA)

Ontario

Ministry of

the

Environment

(OMOE)

Nutrient

Management

Regulation

under the

Nutrient

Management

Act (2002)

This act is not just

specific to CAFOs

it includes farms

such as those with

>300 Nutrient

Units or farms

operating within

100m of a

municipal well or

receiving materials

for anaerobic

digestion.

yes yes This act was enacted in 2002 under its

nutrient management regulation it

outlines requirements for the land

application of any type of nutrients

including manure, agricultural

washwaters, biosolids and other non-

agricultural source materials and contains

standards for construction and siting of

nutrient storage facilities. It requires that

farmers develop a nutrient management

strategy and plan according to the

protocols provided. This regulation

covers the rate, timing and location of

application of nutrients to land based on

proximity to sensitive features such as

surface water, wells, groundwater and

bedrock. It sets limits on amount of

nutrients applied according to

agronomically determined plant nutrient

requirements and requires ongoing

monitoring and analysis, record keeping

and renewal of certificates and licenses.

The goal of the regulation is to ensure

that there is an adequate land base to

receive the manure or other nutrients and

to limit runoff of excess nutrients.

(Government of Ontario, 2002). Both

OMAFRA and MOE are responsible for

policy and standards development.

OMAFRA has responsibility for

outreach, training, certification and

approval while the MOE is responsible

for compliance and enforcement.

Québec

(MDDEFP)

Regulation

Respecting

Agricultural

Operations

(RRAO)

administered

under the

Environment

Quality Act

Again this applies

to many different

types of farms not

only CAFOs

yes yes Implementation of a number of best

management practices is required,

including: the development of an

agroenvironmental fertilization plan, the

monitoring of nutrients to ensure that

agronomic application rates are being

used, and the forbidding of fertilizer

application on frozen ground (MDDEFP).

RRAO already forbids a cultivated land

increase in degraded watersheds where

phosphorus concentration exceeds the

water quality guideline, prohibits


9

livestock access to streams and, requires

that a 3-m riparian zone be left

undisturbed.

(International Missisquoi Bay Study

Board, 2012).

A.1.2 Regions that have implemented CAFO Regulations

In the U.S., the NPDES permitting system only applies to CAFOs as defined by the U.S. EPA. Different

states may regulate CAFOS slightly differently because each is responsible for administering their own

NPDES permits and passing related rules. States may pass more stringent requirements than the NPDES

permit requirements but the NPDES system serves as a minimum. For example, all states have rules

requiring soil monitoring for nutrients and restrictions on manure application rates based on the tests.

However, approaches differ slightly, for instance in Indiana CAFO and Concentrated Feeding Operation

operators must reduce phosphorus content on their fields to meet the target of soil phosphorus not

exceeding 200 parts per million by 2018 (Maurer, 2012). Whereas in Wisconsin, the rules state that with

soil test phosphorus levels between 100 and 200 ppm, manure and process wastewater applications are

limited to 50% of the cumulative annual crop phosphorus need over the rotation or next four years,

whichever is less (Wisconsin DNR,2007). In Canada, CAFOs are not regulated under a separate

permitting system, they are subject to provincial nutrient management regulation along with all other

farms that produce over a certain number of nutrient units (OMAFRA, 2012).

There are several requirements included in the nutrient management plans and permits for CAFOs (U.S.)

and large farms(Canada) that have particular imporantance to the issue of nutrient pollution. These

requirements may vary slightly depending on state or provincial rules and permits.

All regions have requirements for limiting the amount of manure from CAFOs applied to the land as

fertilizer. One of the most common approaches to these requirements is usually structured to require

applicators to measure the phosphorus or nitrogen content in the manure and calculate the crops

phosphorus or nitrogen needs based on their predicted yields. The applicators are then restricted to

applying at a rate that does not exceed their crops needs (the rules often define this rate as theagronomic

requirement which is calculated by multilying crop yields by the crops' nutrient uptake) (Washington

State University) .A second, way to restict nutrient application is to set a limit on the amount of

phosphorus allowed in the soil so that is does not become saturated and runoff into the environment.

Regulators may then specify that applicators not exceed this limit when applying or, alternatively they

must not exceed their crops agronomic phosphorus requirements if this number is lower than the set limit.

Some regions have additional requirements that are determined by local ordinances.

Figure 1illustrates the different ways manure application is limited by regulations for CAFOs or other

large farming operations throughout the Great Lakes Basin. As this figure illustrates, the states of Illinois,

Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and New York employ the second approach described above and specify

that applicators must not apply nutrient in a manner that exceeds a set phosphorus soil content limit or,

alternatively they must not exceed their crops agronomic phosphorus requirements if this number is lower

than the limit that was set. All other Great Lakes jurisdictions apply the first approach mentioned above

in some way. For instance, Minnesota specifys that farmers must not apply manure in amounts that

exceeds crop nitrogen requirements, however, there is an additional stipulation – they must not allow

excessive phosphorus buildup in the soil in areas with the potential to runoff into surface water. Ohio and

Pennsylvannia limit manure application rates to their crops phosphorus or nitrogen needs.


10

Wisconsin,Ontario and Québec limit manure application rates to their crops phosphorus needs (see

Appendix – Table A for source information).

Another method used to regulate land application of manure from CAFOs so that it does not result in

excessive nutrient pollution to nearby waters is to limit its application on frozen ground or snow. Liquid

or semi-liquid manure cannot easily permeate frozen ground and is much more likely to runoff into

nearby waterbodies especially if the region also has snow cover that melts (Laporte, 2010). Regulators in

the Great Lakes basin have implemented rules of varying stringency in order to limit nutrient pollution

from this source. The most stringent approach is to completely prohibit manure application on frozen

ground. The second most stringent approach is to prohibit application on frozen ground except in

emergencies. The least stringent approach is to allow application under certain conditions such as

ensuring that manure is incorporated or injected into the soil, setting back application by a certain

distance from surface water or only on gentle slopes. As can be seen in Figure 2, New York and all the

Canadian Great Lakes Provinces (Ontario and Québec) employ the more stringent first approach. Indiana

and Wisconsin take the second approach allowing manure application on frozen ground only in an

emergency. Finally, the other Great Lakes states (Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania)

employ the third approach (see Appendix A – Table A for source information).

A third regulatory approach that is used by some jurisdictions to limit nutrient runoff from manure

produced by CAFOs is to enact additional more stringent regulations that only apply in certain nutrient

impaired or priority watersheds. Jurisdicitions that have taken this approach are illustrated in Figure 3,

these include the states of Ohio, Wisconsin and Minnesota and the province of Québec (see Appendix A –

Table A for source information).


11

Figure 1: Restrictions on Manure Application Rates for CAFOs (U.S.) or large farms (Canada) in Great Lakes Jurisdictions: In Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and New York (shown in pink) manure applicators must not apply at a rate that exceeds a set limit on phosphorus soil content or alternatively they must not exceed their crops agronomic phosphorus requirements if this number is lower than the phosphorus maximum. In Ontario, Québec, Minnesota, Ohio and Pennsylvania (shown in green) applicators must not apply at

a rate that exceeds their crops agronomic nutrient demands (shown as N or P for Nitrogen or Phosphorus). Finally some regions have additional local ordinances that limit manure application rates

(shown with the let L).


12

Figure 2: Regulations Limiting CAFO (U.S.) or Large Farm (Canada) Application of Manure on Frozen Ground in Great Lakes

Jurisdictions: New York, Ontario and Québec (shown in dark purple) completely prohibit manure application on frozen ground. Indiana and Wisconsin prohibit application on frozen ground

except in emergencies (medium purple) , Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania (light purple) allow application under certain conditions such as ensuring that manure is incorporated or injected into the soil, setting back application by a certain distance from surface water or only on gentle slopes.


13

Figure 3: Jurisdictions with Additional Regulations for CAFOs(U.S.) or Large farms (Canada) in Impaired Watersheds: Ohio,

Wisconsin,Minnesota and Québec(shown in purple) have additional regulations that only apply in certain nutrient impaired or priority watersheds, these regulations may include additional setback

distances for manure application or additional limits for manure application on frozen gr


14

A.2 Non-CAFO Agricultural Nutrient Management Planning Regulations in the Great Lakes

A. 2.1 Description of Non-CAFO Agricultural Nutrient Management Planning Regulations in the

Great Lakes

Nutrient pollution may also originate from non-CAFO/large livestock farming operations. Crop farmers

apply commercial fertilizers and manure which can result in nutrient runoff into nearby surface water and

smaller livestock operations also produce manure which if not managed adequately can also have off-site

impacts (Lura Consulting, 2010). In order to avoid this outcome, non-CAFO farmers can develop a

nutrient management plan with restrictions on the amount of manure applied to the land to avoid over

application of nutrients. While many jurisdictions encourage the voluntary adoption of nutrient

management planning for non-CAFOs only some regions have legislation or regulations with nutrient

management requirements for non-CAFOs. As can be seen in Table 2, another approach is to require

nutrient management plans for all types of farms but only under specific circumstances. This is what Ohio

has done using new administrative code rules which came into force in 2010. These rules include two

important provisions. Firstly they severely restrict land application of manure in a distressed watershed

when the ground is frozen or snow-covered. Secondly farms generating or utilizing all but a small amount

of manure are required to conform to a state approved nutrient management plan (Kilbert et. al, 2012).

Farmers that wish to participate in financial or technical assistance programs will usually be required to

adhere to a number of best management practices (including nutrient management planning) to be eligible

( LEAP:Livestock Environmental Assurance Program , 2012; New York Soil and Water Conservation

Committee, 2012;Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection, 2012).

However participation in these types of programs is voluntary. For more information on voluntary

programs see Appendix –Table B.

A.2.2 Regions that have Adopted Regulations Requiring Nutrient Management Planning for Non-

CAFOs

In Ontario, the Nutrient Management Act requires the development of a nutrient management plan with

requirements for storage siting and application of manure. This plan is required as part of the permiting

system for farms over a certain nutrient producing capacity, not just for CAFOs (OMAFRA, 2012). In the

U.S., the CAFO NPDES permit guidance states that prior to transferring manure, litter or process

wastewater to other persons, large CAFOs must provide the recipient of the manure, litter or process

wastewater with the most current nutrient analysis (U.S. EPA, 2012). However, beyond that there are no

related nutrient management requirements for the recipient of manure from CAFO operations. Several

states have developed their own additional regulations to address nutrient management on non-CAFO

farms. Regulatory requirements for non-CAFO storage and application of manure and the creation of a

nutrient management plan are summarized in the Appendix-Table L. As Figure 4 illustrates, Ontario,

Québec, Pennsyvania, Illinois and Ohio require nutrient management plans even for farming operations

that may not be classified as CAFOs (although Ohio only requires this if the farm is located in a

watershed that has been designated as being “in distress”). The other Great Lakes jurisdictions including

New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Indiana do not have these requirements. Most of the

Great Lakes jurisdictions do have additional restrictions concerning the application of manure as a

fertilizer and these restrictions apply to all types of farming operations not only those that are classified as

CAFOs. These states and provinces are also illustrated in Figure 4 and include the provinces of Québec

and Ontario and the states of Minnesota,Illinois,Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania. However, no restrictions

were found for several Great Lakes states including Michigan, NewYork and Wisconsin.


15

Notes: *Ohio only requires nutrient management plans and additional regulations for distrssed watersheds **Wisconsin may have additional local ordiances for nutrient management but no statewide requirements for nutrient management planning or application of manure

Figure 4: Great Lakes Jurisdictions with non-CAFO Agricultural Regulations (Regulations that apply to all farm types): These regulations

either require nutrient management planning or set requirements for application of manure: Ontario, Québec, Pennsyvania, Illinois and Ohio (shown with the hashed pattern) require

nutrient management plans even for farming operations that are not classified as CAFOs. Québec,Ontario,Minnesota,Illinois,Indiana,Ohio, and Pennsylvania (shown in brown)have

additional restrictions concerning the application of manure as a fertilizer that apply to all types of farming operations. No simialr regulations were found for New York, Michigan or

Wisconsin (see Notes).


16

A.3 Nuisance Complaint Protection and Best Management Practice Adoption

A.3.1 Description of Nuisance Complaint Protection and Best Management Practice Adoption

Another approach to encourage the adoption of best management practices that reduce nutrient pollution

is to provide protection for farmers from “nuisance complaints” if they adhere to best management

practices. The law in Canada and the U.S. allows members of the public to file lawsuits with a request for

damages to be awarded if a nearby farming operation is found by the courts to constitute a private or

public nuisance (Benidickson, 2009). Local ordinances or by-laws may also restrict the activities of

farms if they are considered to be a nuisance and members of the public would theoretically be able to

report farmers that didn’t conform to these rules which might result in a fine or other penalty.

Determining whether certain activities constitute a private or public nuisance can often be a challenge

best left to the courts (Benidickson, 2009). It is usually done by determining what a reasonable person

might consider to be a nuisance. For instance, a farm causing a nuisance could be one that contributes to

the pollution of shared water resources through manure runoff. Another example of how a farm operation

might violate local ordinances could be producing excessive unpleasant odours. However, the enactment

of a nuisance protection act provides several ways for farmers to be protected from such law suits and

fines. For example, the Michigan Right to Farm Act states that farm operations shall not be found to be a

public or private nuisance if the farm alleged to be a nuisance conforms to generally accepted agricultural

and management practices according to policy determined by the Michigan commission of agriculture

(Michigan Right to Farm Law (1981).

A.3.2 Regions where Nuisance Complaint Protection and Best Management Practice Adoption is

Used

Under the Ontario Farming and Food Protection Act (FFPPA) and Nuisance Complaints Act farmers are

protected from municipal by-laws and nuisance complaints as long as they are following “normal farm

practices.” With regards to nutrient management, as long as farmers follow the regulations under the

Nutrient Management Act, they can be considered to be following normal farm practices and are

protected. The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board (NFPPB) hears from parties involved in formal

complaints when they cannot be resolved through mediation efforts (OMAFRA, 2005). Similarly the

Michigan Right to Farm Law (1981) administered by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural

Development (MDARD) is comprised of two parts, environmental complaint response, and site selection

and odour control for new and expanding livestock production facilities. Environmental complaint

response produces a mechanism whereby MDARD responds to nuisance complaints about producers by

informing/ educating farmers and the public about Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management

Practices (GAAMPs). On-site inspections are conducted in response to complaints from the public about

non-point-source pollution and nuisance conditions on farms. If farmers adhere to these standards they

earn protection under the RTF law and can continue with their operations. One GAAMP specifically deals

with proper nutrient utilization. The other part of the act deals with regulating construction of new

livestock facilities to protect the environment as much as possible (MDARD Environmental Stewardship

Division, 2011). Figure 5 shows that in the Great Lakes jurisdictions only Ontario and Michigan have

used Nuisance Complaint Protection Legislation as a mechanism for encouraging the adoption of best

management practices.


17

Figure 5: Nuisance Complain Protection as a Mechanism for Encouraging Adoption of Best Management Practices: Only 2 out of the 10 Great

Lakes jurisdictions have used Nuisance Complaint Protection Legislation as a mechanism for encouraging the adoption of best management practices- Ontario and Michigan

(shown in green).


18

A.4. Agricultural Stewardship and Information Programs

Most information and education programs focus on providing farmers with tools for nutrient management

planning including information about calculating crop nutrient needs, likelihood of nutrient runoff and

impact of the implementation of BMPs. This may be in the form of online tools, worksheets or workshops

(Conservation Cropping Systems Initiative, 2012;Cornell University's Nutrient Management Spear

Program, 2012;OMAFRA, 2012). All jurisdictions have some sort of information and education program

with tools for nutrient management in place however they may vary in scope. A list of major programs

providing stewardship information to farmers can be found in the Appendix – Table B, and while this list

may not represent the entire scope of such programs that exist in the basin, it confirms that all

jurisdictions do have a few of these types of programs in place. A 2008 review of non-point source

control and water quality projects in Minnesota revealed that most outreach and education projects do not

conduct baseline assessments, nor do they monitor or evaluate social outcomes such as adoption and

maintenance of best management practices (BMPs) as a result of education efforts (Eckman et al., 2008).

While the scope of this report did not allow for the investigation of this issue in detail it seems likely that

this situation may also occur in many of the other Great Lakes jurisdictions with respect to agricultural

information non-point source programs. It has been suggested that there are few tools available for staff

of local agencies to conduct social assessments to assess effectiveness of educational and outreach

programs which contributed to the development of a Social Indicator Planning and Evaluation System

handbook for Nonpoint Source Management in the Great Lakes by the U.S. EPA (Eckmanet al.,

2008).This may be an issue that requires further investigation in the future.

Best Management Practices

Most agricultural stewardship and information programs have a set of best management practices (BMPs)

that they promote (Conservation Cropping Systems Initiative, 2012; OMAFRA, 2012). Stewardship

programs are operated by a variety of different levels of governmental and non-governmental

organizations across the Great Lakes Basin. There is no central database that tracks agricultural BMP

adoption as a result of these different programs that operate across the Great Lakes Basin. In 2010,

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada conducted a spatial analysis to determine the effectiveness of one of

these programs, the Canada-Ontario Environmental Farm Plan, as tool for targeting or accelerating BMP

project adoption in the different geographic areas at risk of elevated nutrient levels in Ontario (Woyzbun,

2010). A similar analysis conducted for the Great Lakes basin as a whole would assist watershed

managers in fully understanding the scope of best management practice adoption and might assist in

identifying areas where further efforts could be targeted.

A.4.1 Description of Voluntary Certification Programs

There are several jurisdictions that have developed special types of stewardship outreach programs. These

programs are voluntary initiatives that allow a farmer to choose to participate in a process that evaluates

their farm’s environmental performance. These programs usually include voluntary certification

requirements and use a one-on-one interaction approach with farmers. This one-on-one approach can take

the form of workshops and/or visits by technical experts. Farm managers work with staff from the

program to conduct nutrient management planning and choose best management practices and other

actions that must be implemented in order to meet the certification or verification requirements of each

particular program (OMAFRA, 2012; Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 2012; New York Soil and

Water Conservation Committee, 2012).These specialized programs are of particular interest because

research has shown that educational programs that use one-on-one interaction and on-farm visits are the

most successful at encouraging adoption of specific nutrient management practices that reduce nitrogen


19

and phosphorus (Shepard, 1999). In addition, voluntary certification and/or verification requirements

provide a way of ensuring that farmers use the information learned from agricultural stewardship and

information programs to implement best management practices.

A.4.2 Regions Where Voluntary Certification Programs are Used

Figure 6 shows that the majority of the Great Lakes States and Provinces have a state or province wide

voluntary certification and/or verification program in place to promote the adoption of agricultural best

management practices. The states and provinces that have adopted these programs include: Ontario, New

York, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Minnesota. A more detailed description of agricultural stewardship

and information programs operating in the Great Lakes Basin can be found in the Appendix-Table B.


20

Figure 6: Great Lakes Jurisdictions with Voluntary Agricultural Stewardship Verification/Certification Programs: Six out of the 10 Great

Lakes Jurisdictions Ontario, New York, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Minnesota (shown in pink) have a state or province wide voluntary certification and/or verification program

in place to promote the adoption of agricultural best management practices by farmers


21

A.5 Financial and Technical Assistance Programs for Agricultural Stewardship

A.5.1 Description of Financial and Technical Assistance Programs for Agricultural Stewardship

There are a variety of Federal and State and Provincial programs in each jurisdiction that provide cost-

sharing, grants or other financial incentives in addition to, or in partnership with, the information and

stewardship programs discussed in Section A.4. These financial assistance programs are an important way

of encouraging the adoption of stewardship practices because most farmers can’t afford to implement best

management practices (BMPs) without assistance (Perez, 2011). Funding and technical assistance is

provided by federal, provincial and state agencies for a variety of projects that impact nutrient

management and pollution. Federal programs are often administered by states or provinces that then

distribute the funds through local agencies. All states have local conservation districts which often

provide technical assistance to land users to assist them in nutrient management (New York Soil and

water Conservation District, 2012). In Ontario, every watershed has a local conservation authority that

plays many similar roles (Conservation Ontario, 2013).

A.5.2 Regions with Financial and Technical Assistance Programs for Agricultural Stewardship in

Place

All Great Lakes jurisdictions have at least one program in place that provides financial and technical

assistance for BMP adoption. Several programs provide grants or other funding for research into new

BMPs. Whether the extent of funding available for research into BMPs and their effectiveness is adequate

for the needs of the Great Lakes region is not clear and may need to be investigated further. However, it is

clear that there are many sources of funding for research and many agencies involved in this type of

research, for a preliminary list of these programs see Appendix – Table C.

Section B: Non-Point Source Pollution from Stormwater and Other Sources Non-point source nutrient pollution is not limited to agriculture. Urban stormwater can also be an

important source of nutrients. Construction projects that are often ongoing in urban areas can cause

significant soil disturbance. Eliminating sod cover and forested areas to make way for development

removes water filtration and soil stabilization systems that contribute to the removal of nutrients from

stormwater. Stormwater accumulates nutrients from a variety of sources including lawn fertilizers,

cleaning agents and other urban residues (World Resources Institute, 2005). Impervious surfaces such as

pavement and roofs that occur in urban areas are responsible for increases in volume of stormwater and

the distance that it travels to the nearest water-body.

In rural areas, biosolids (nutrient rich by-products from urban wastewater treatment) are often used as a

fertilizer or disposed of in landfills. If not properly managed these biosolids can runoff into surface water

(OMAFRA, 2012). Similarly, nutrient rich waste can leak from rural or sub-urban septic systems if they

are not properly designed and maintained (Workgroup on Parties Implementation Great Lakes Science

Advisory Board, 2000). Source water protection planning aims to examine all risks to drinking water

quality from all potential sources of contamination including those mentioned above (de Loe &

Kreutzwiser, 2007). While source water protection plans are not directly aimed at nutrient reduction they

provide a framework that might prove a useful foundation on which non-point source nutrient reduction

projects could build.


22

B.1 Stormwater Regulations

B.1.1 Description of Urban Stormwater Regulations

One of the main ways that pollution from urban stormwater can be addressed by regulators is through the

issuance of permits allowing discharge of stormwater based on adherence to certain best management

practices and development of a stormwater management plan. Often stormwater management planning is

the responsibility of municipal governments with state or provincial governments providing policy

guidance. Pollution from stormwater is also being increasingly managed by the use of green infrastructure

and may be a requirement in some permits and stormwater management plans.

B.1.2 Regions Where Stormwater Planning & Permitting has been Implemented

All regions in the Great Lakes have in place a system for planning stormwater management and issuing

permits to discharge. Different approaches to accomplishing this are taken in different jurisdictions, but

these approaches are not directly comparable. These approaches are described for each of the Great Lakes

Jurisdictions in the section below.

U.S. Regulations

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permitting Program

established under the Clean Water Act and administered by the U.S. EPA is common to all of the Great

Lakes States (U.S. EPA, 2012). There are three main types of general permits issued under this program

that relate to stormwater discharges. These permits are administered by the relevant authority for each

State and include; the General Multi-Sector Industrial Activities Permit, the Municipal Separate Storm

Sewer Systems (MS4s) Permit and the Construction General Permit (CGP). All types of permits require

the development of some form of stormwater plan. These plans take the form of stormwater prevention

plans or a stormwater management plans with guidelines for the implementation of BMPs, strategies for

outreach and education and effluent limits for certain substances which may include nutrients (Copeland

C. , 2010). While the U.S. NPDES permits are a useful regulatory tool, they may not always adequately

meet needs to control nutrient pollution that comes from stormwater because they contain no specific

numeric limits on nutrient content in storm-water effluent (Copeland C. , 2010). The U.S. EPA has

attempted to address this issue by requiring the development of storm-water pollution prevention plans

that require certain BMPs. However, there is no specific mention of nutrients in the NPDES regulation.

The U.S. EPA has recently implement numeric effluent limits in stormwater permits for sediments (U.S

EPA, 2012). It been suggested that this trend towards implementing numeric stormwater effluent limits

may also be used for nutrients (Jones et al., 2012;Currier, et al., 2006). These targets could be met by the

requirement that the installation of green infrastructure or other nutrient reducing BMPs must be part of

the stormwater management plans required by permits (Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative,

2011). The U.S. EPA has initiated the process to create new stormwater regulations rulemaking that are

intended to improve management of stormwater runoff throughout the U.S. The rules are expected to

include post-development stormwater management performance standards and there may be requirements

with respect to green infrastructure (U.S. EPA, 2012)

Canadian Regulations

In Ontario, stormwater discharge management is governed primarily through the Ontario Water

Resources Act and the Ontario Environmental Protection Act. Environmental Compliance Approvals are

required for municipal stormwater conveyances and treatment systems. The Ministry of the Environment

has developed a Provincial Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (2003) outlining

design standards and guidance for water quality, water quantity, water balance and erosion control. In

general, in Ontario municipalities are responsible for stormwater management planning. The Provincial

Policy Statement promotes stormwater management across the province. Section 2.2.1 of the PPS

requires that planning authorities ensure that “stormwater management practices minimize volumes and

contaminant loads, and maintain or increase the extent of vegetative and pervious surfaces” (Provincial

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/43150.html



23

Policy Statement, 2005).The Policy Statement is currently under review (Ontario Ministry of Municipal

Affairs and Housing, 2012). In addition, low impact development, stormwater management policies and

guidelines have been developed by several Conservation Authorities (CAs) (Toronto Region

Conservation Authority, Credit Valley Conservation 2010-12). To date, the stormwater management

policies developed by the CA’s have been based on the individual watershed erosion and flood control

requirements. However, this has been changing over the past few years as water quality has become a

more important issue and stormwater management policies have begun to address this area as well.

Within the Lake Simcoe Watershed, the Lake Simcoe Protection Act and Protection Planning policies

assist municipalities in undertaking stormwater master planning within the context of sub-watershed

plans. While Conservation Authorities in Ontario currently develop stormwater management policies on

an individual (watershed) basis, a more coordinated approach to developing and implementing SWM

policies is being developed through Conservation Ontario’s committee on Integrated Watershed

Management (Conservation Ontario, 2012).

There are no specific mandatory provincial requirements for stormwater in Québec although a number of

best practices are encouraged through several pieces of legislation. The Environment Quality Act and the

Planning and Urbanism Act require that developers must acquire a permit to build sewer systems. The

Québec Ministries of Sustainable Development, the Environment, Wildlife and Parks (MDDEFP) and

Municipal Affairs, (MAMROT) provide guidance in the form of a Guide on Stormwater Management and

a directive regarding sewer systems which can help developers acquire the MDDEFP permit but there are

no measurable mandatory requirements. Just like in Ontario, individual municipalities can also create

regulations concerning stormwater management under the Planning and Urbanism Act. Finally, regional

county municipality land use plans are usually developed to follow the National Water Policy principles

which include integrated water resource management at the watershed level and as such may touch on

stormwater management. Similarly, urban planning regulations which are based on these plans may

incorporate these principles. (Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, 2011).

B.2 Green Infrastructure Initiatives

B.2.1 Description of Green Infrastructure Initiatives

The Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition defines green infrastructure as natural vegetation and

vegetative technologies that collectively provide society with a broad array of products and services for

healthy living. This may include urban forests, rover valleys, riparian zones, greenways, meadows and

even agricultural lands. Green infrastructure technologies include: green roofs, green walls, filter strips,

rain gardens, bioswales, engineered wetlands and stormwater ponds (Green Infrastructure Ontario

Coalition, 2013). Podolsky et al, 2008 echo this definition by emphasizing that green infrastructure relies

on natural systems being integrated with engineered systems that mimic natural functions. The U.S. EPA

(2010) points out that green infrastructure can be defined differently depending on the scale being

examined. At the scale of a city or county, green infrastructure refers to the patchwork of natural areas

that provides habitat, flood protection, cleaner air, and cleaner water. At the neighbourhood or site scale,

green infrastructure refers to stormwater management systems that mimic nature by soaking up and

storing water (U.S. EPA, 2012).The U.S. EPA also points out in their guide to green infrastructure that

permeable surfaces are an important element of green infrastructure because they are necessary in

allowing infiltration and management of stormwater and this would not be a critical consideration if the

purpose of green infrastructure was simply to increase urban biodiversity or enhance food security or

energy conservation (Hall, 2010). These definitions may be simplified and combined in order to gain a

full understanding of green infrastructure and it role in stormwater and nutrient management. For the

purposes of this report we will use the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario’s 2010-2011 report

definition of green infrastructure which defines it as natural or engineered ecological processes or


24

structures, that process, capture, and direct water, stormwater, and wastewater in a similar manner to grey

or traditional infrastructure, yet have multiple societal benefits.

Green infrastructure may also be called by a variety of other terms in the literature such as: better site

design, sustainable urban drainage systems, water sensitive urban design, stormwater source controls,

innovative stormwater management or low impact development (LID) (ICF Marbek, 2012).The

implementation of green infrastructure can serve as a tool for nutrient management as green infrastructure

can filter nutrients out of stormwater runoff in both urban and rural areas.

Green Infrastructure Techniques

Green infrastructure techniques can be divided into a variety of categories. Some of these techniques are

used more commonly than others. A sample list of implemented projects in the Great Lakes Cities was

compiled from various databases and case studies and can be found in Appendix-Table D. While this list

is certainly not comprehensive it does serve to give a picture of the most commonly used green

infrastructure techniques and their hydrologic functions in a sample of cities in the Great Lakes Basin.

Table 2 illustrates that almost all of the commonly used green infrastructure techniques (Podolsky et al,

2008) improve water quality (which may include reducing nutrient loads) and reduce the frequency of

CSOs which are large sources of nutrient pollution.

Table 2*: Commonly Used Green Infrastructure Techniques and their Hydrologic Functions

Technique % Great Lakes

Projects Using

Technique

Slow Rate

of Runoff

Infiltration Retention Detention Reduced CSO

Frequency

Water

Quality

Rain water harvesting(Rain

Barrels-Cistern)

54% x x

Permeable Pavement 45% x x x x

Bioretention (rain gardens,

vegetated filter strips ect)

40% x x x x x x

Green Roofs 36% x x x x x

Preserve Urban Forests/ other

natural vegetation

34% x x x x

Enhanced Swales 34% x x x x x

Infiltration trenches/Soakaways 32% x x x

Downspout Disconnection 18% x x x

Constructed Wetlands 7% x x x x x x

*Information from: Podolsky et al, 2008, U.S. EPA, 2010, U.S. EPA, 2012, and Innovative Stormwater Management Practices: An Online

Database and Showcase of Low Impact Development Practices in Ontario, 2013

Commonly Used Policies, Regulations and Financial Incentives to promote Green Infrastructure

New Local Stormwater Regulations and Reviewing and Revising Local Codes

The implementation of new stormwater regulations whether for new projects or for redevelopments was

the most commonly used policy approach in a review of 12 case studies on green infrastructure

implementation conducted recently by the U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA,2010). Each municipality required new


25

build and redevelopment projects to use green infrastructure, if possible, to manage stormwater runoff

before leaving the site. All of these municipalities also found that for these stormwater regulations to be

effective they needed to review their local development codes and ordinances to assess how they fit in

with the new or revised stormwater regulations (U.S. EPA, 2010).

Incorporating Green Infrastructure into existing State, Provincial and Federal Legislation

In several policy papers and government reports it has been recognized that in order for local

municipalities to move forward with new or revised local stormwater regulations that permit or encourage

the use of green infrastructure in place of grey infrastructure there is a need for a supporting framework of

existing state, provincial and federal legislation (Podolsky et al, 2008; U.S. EPA, 2010; Binstock , 2011;

Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, 2012; ICF Marbek , 2012; Green Infrastructure Ontario

Coalition, 2012 ).

Interagency Cooperation

Several policy papers have also noted the importance of cooperation from all levels of government on

research and development, pilot projects and education and outreach to promote green infrastructure

(Podolsky et al, 2008; U.S. EPA, 2010; Binstock , 2011; Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative,

2012; ICF Marbek , 2012; Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition, 2012 ). Green infrastructure is not a

new idea but it is only recently that it has begun to be widely implemented (ICF Marbek, 2012). Ensuring

cooperation between agencies will ensure that consistent guidance is distributed and that organizations

can operate more efficiently to implement these programs throughout the basin.

Stormwater User Fees and Discounts

One method that has been employed to encourage the adoption of green infrastructure to control

stormwater in municipalities is the adoption of a stormwater fee. User fees for commercial multi-family

residential and industrial properties are calculated based on the total size of the property and the

percentage of imperviousness (U.S. EPA, 2010). The calculated fees can then be added onto property

taxes or utility bills. Green infrastructure use is encouraged by giving property owners the option of a

discount from these fees if they retrofit existing properties or build new development using green

infrastructure techniques (US EPA, 2010).

Public Infrastructure Funds and other Incentive Programs

Local government, state, provincial or federal government can also provide other financial incentives to

encourage adoption of green infrastructure both in new developments and in retrofits (U.S. EPA, 2010;

Binstock, 2011). Funding may come either through local incentive programs or larger scale infrastructure

funds (U.S. EPA, 2010).Chicago’s Green Roof Grants program is an excellent example of a successful

local incentive program. This program grants $5000 to residential and small commercial buildings that

meet criteria to allow them to install green roofs (U.S. EPA, 2010). Infrastructure funds such as Canada’s

gas tax fund can also be used by individuals in municipalities but this fund is broader in scope and can be

used for a variety of purposes (Binstock, 2011).

B. 2.2 Current Status of Green Infrastructure in the Great Lakes Regions

Regions that have Implemented New Local Stormwater Regulations and are Reviewing and

Revising Local Codes

In the Great Lakes region, the cities of Toronto, ON and Chicago, IL have passed new stormwater rules

that facilitate the implementation of Green Infrastructure (Podolsky et al, 2008; US EPA, 2010). This has

also occurred in a variety of other cities outside of the Great Lakes (U.S. EPA, 2010; Great Lakes and St.

Lawrence Cities Initiative, 2012). Several other Great Lakes cities are working on developing new

stormwater rules and reviewing local codes (Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, 2012). In


26

Ontario several Conservation Authorities have been working closely with their member municipalities on

this issue (ICF Marbek, 2012).

Regions Incorporating Green Infrastructure into existing State, Provincial and Federal Legislation

United States

There are a variety of ways in which federal and state authorities are using regulations to promote the

adoption of Green Infrastructure. The U.S. EPA’s NPDES stormwater permits set requirements for non-

point source runoff water quality and quantity (U.S. EPA, 2012). Since 2007, U.S. EPA’s Office of Water

has released four policy memos supporting the integration of green infrastructure into NPDES permits

and CSO remedies (U.S. EPA, 2012). Requirements set out in NPDES permits are often the primary

driver for municipalities in implementing local stormwater regulation and incentives (U.S. EPA, 2010).

Green Infrastructure is explicitly required in the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District permit, and it

is expected that there will be green infrastructure requirements in the Detroit Water and Sewer

Department permit when it is issued in the spring of 2013( Behrn, 2013; Michigan DEQ, 2013). In

addition, the Consent Decree with the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) for control of

combined sewer overflows includes green infrastructure requirements (U.S. EPA, 2010). The Buffalo

CSO program may also require green infrastructure (Great Lakes Alliance, 2012). However, the majority

of stormwater and CSO permits in the Great Lakes Basin do not specifically require green infrastructure

(U.S. EPA Region 5 Water Division, 2013). The Illinois Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)

permit includes narrative requirements calling for communities to implement post-development

stormwater management programs that include sustainable measures for managing stormwater, including

green infrastructure (Illinois EPA, 2009).

The U.S. EPA has started the process for creating new stormwater rules rulemaking that are intended to

improve management of stormwater runoff throughout the U.S. The rules are expected to include post-

development stormwater management performance standards (U.S. EPA, 2012). For example, the

regulations may require the inclusion of green infrastructure or other stormwater management practices to

absorb runoff, when a new development is built and new impervious surfaces are created. It is anticipated

that U.S. EPA will publish the new stormwater rules in draft form, and open a comment period on the

rules, in the summer of 2013 (U.S. EPA, 2012). Minnesota and Illinois are also considering State post-

development guidelines or requirements similar in concept to what U.S. EPA may include in the national

stormwater rulemaking (MPCA, 2013, IL EPA, 2011).

Other federal regulations have been created to clarify the role of green infrastructure within regulatory

and enforcement contexts. Section 438 of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)

requires all new federal developments and re-development projects with more than 5,000 square feet of

affected land to maintain or restore pre-development hydrology to the greatest extent technically feasible,

through infiltration, evapotranspiration or reuse on-site, among other methods (GSA, 2011). The

Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects defines

the pre- development condition as the green-field undeveloped condition, and offers two options for

complying with EISA Section 438. 44 (GSA, 2011).

Canada (Ontario)

To date there have been no specific provincial modifications of legislation in Ontario with the goal of

facilitating the implementation and promotion of green infrastructure by conservation authorities and

municipalities (Binstock, 2011). However, green infrastructure has a role to play in climate resiliency

strategies and it is in this context that legislation allowing or encouraging green infrastructure has been

reviewed. In response to a 2007 Environmental Bill of Rights request for a of review stormwater

management policy and legislation in Ontario the Ministry of the Environment has started working on a

new policy framework to address climate change and its effect on municipal stormwater management


27

systems (Binstock, 2011). The MOE’s review also acknowledged that the provinces current Stormwater

Management Planning and Design Manual is based on work that was completed in the 1990s, and an

update is required to respond to climate change threats (Podolsky et al, 2008;Binstock, 2011). However it

is not clear whether the updated manual will include guidance on green infrastructure and its

implementation.

In his most recent annual report, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO) noted that while the

use of incentives for innovative stormwater control can play an important role in encouraging the

transition between traditional infrastructure and innovative practices such as green infrastructure.

Legislative or regulatory tools create a more level playing field for developers and municipalities

(Binstock, 2011). These sentiments are echoed in a 2011 report on Green Infrastructure in Ontario

produced by the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy which identified at least ten areas

where legislation and associated policies could be modified in Ontario to facilitate the adoption of Green

Infrastructure.

Regions with Stormwater User Fees and Discounts

Only a few municipalities have implemented stormwater user fees and discount programs. A user fee is

charged to property owners based on the total area of property and the percentage of impermeability

which correlates to the amount of stormwater runoff they generate. Property owners can get a discount

from these fees if they implement green infrastructure on their property. In the Great Lakes this approach

has been implemented in Chicago IL, Mississauga ON, and Waterloo ON (Podolsky et al, 2008; U.S.

EPA 2010; Binstock, 2011). Other notable examples where this approach has been successful include

Philadelphia PA, Portland OR, and Seattle WA (U.S. EPA 2010).

Regions with Public infrastructure funds and other Incentive Programs

Very few municipalities have designated funding programs for green infrastructure such as a stormwater

fee or tax or other incentive programs (Podolsky et al, 2008; U.S. EPA 2010; Binstock, 2011). However,

without some sort of designated funding program it is difficult for municipalities to implement green

infrastructure on a large scale (Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, 2012). Cities that have

designated funding programs in the Great Lakes region include Chicago IL, Philadelphia PA and Toronto

ON (Podolsky et al, 2008; U.S. EPA, 2010; Binstock, 2011; Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities

Initiative, 2012).

Other funding sources for the implementation of green infrastructure in municipalities include public

infrastructure funds or other special grant programs provided by senior governments. While a

comprehensive survey of funding sources was not possible in the scope of this report, there are several

notable funds operating in Canada and the U.S. The U.S. EPA provides community green infrastructure

partnership funding and some states may have designated programs such as Illinois’s Green Infrastructure

Grant Program for Stormwater Management (IL EPA, 2012). In Canada the federal government

administers the Federal Gas tax Fund which provides financial assistance for Sustainable Capital

Municipal Infrastructure and the Federation of Canadian administers the Municipalities Green Municipal

Fund (Binstock, 2011). In addition, funding may be available from regional or local organizations such as

Conservation Authorities in Ontario and conservation districts in the U.S.

Regions with Interagency Cooperation

In both Canada and the U.S., the Great Lakes Cities initiative is a partnership of communities in the Great

Lakes Basin that are committed to working together on Great Lakes Issues. In June 2012, the Great

Lakes Cities Initiative adopted a declaration of Sustainable Municipal Water Management (Great Lakes

Cities Initiative, 2012). To put this declaration into practice, the Cities Initiative has gathered best

practices to share amongst its membership, and has developed an evaluation tool that allows each of its

member municipalities to track and report publicly on its progress. Some of the best management


28

practices include adopting Green Infrastructure techniques. The Initiative has also passed resolutions that

request support from senior governments in the U.S. and Canada on the issue of Urban and Rural

Stormwater Management and the development and implementation of naturalized infrastructure (Great

Lakes Cities Initiative, 2012).

U.S.

The U.S. EPA has implemented community partnership programs that provide technical assistance for

green infrastructure projects including local code review, green infrastructure design, and cost-benefit

assessments. In 2012, the U.S. EPA added 17 communities to its community network and partnered with

them to provide technical assistance and a total of $950 000 in funding (U.S. EPA, 2012).

Canada (Ontario)

The Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition is a recently formed alliance of organizations in Ontario that is

working to promote three main goals: public and private investment in green infrastructure, policy

improvements and research to quantify green infrastructure’s benefits. Its members include conservation

authorities, landscape trade organizations and environmental organizations (Green Infrastructure Ontario

Coalition,2012) .The Conservation Authorities and Conservation Ontario are also working together to

review low impact development projects and provide guidance to provide support to municipalities and

individuals in implementing green infrastructure projects, to provide guidelines, case studies and training

materials (ICF Marbek, 2012).

B.3 Urban Fertilizer Regulations

B.3.1 Description of Urban Fertilizer Regulations

Another source of nutrient pollution from urban or suburban areas is the application of fertilizer to turf or

gardens. This may be a problem because the fertilizer often runs off into storm sewers that may discharge

into the environment without treatment. Alternatively, fertilizer may run off directly into surface water

bodies and cause nutrient enrichment in that way. Objections have been raised to limiting this source of

nutrients through the use of regulations that limit or ban phosphorus use in lawn fertilizers because of the

expense. However, several states have implemented these regulations and reported on their success. For

instance, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture reports that since the implementation of lawn fertilizer

restrictions in the state there has been no difficulty for homeowners in finding phosphorus free fertilizers.

The law has substantially reduced phosphorus lawn fertilizer use without increasing consumer costs

(Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 2007). Implementing this type of regulation has reduced the

amount of phosphorus found in nearby rivers in some cases. This may be significant because similar

reductions were not observed in nearby areas that did not have similar regulation in place (Lehman et. al.,

2009)


29

B.3.2 Regions that have State or Province-Wide Urban Fertilizer Regulations

To date, six out of the eight Great Lakes states have passed legislation to limit the use of phosphorus

containing lawn fertilizers (Table 3).

Table 3: Comparison of State Fertilizer Regulations Illinois

(415 ILCS 65)

Michigan

(MLCA §

324.8501 et

seq.)

Minnesota

(MSA statute §

18C.60 et seq.)

New York

(ECL § 17-

2101 et seq.)

Wisconsin

(WSA 94.643)

Indiana

355 IAC 7-

1-1)

Year

passed/effective

dates

2010/2010 2010/2012 2002/2004 2010/2012 2009/2010 2012

Applicators

affected

Applicator “for

hire”

All persons All persons All persons All persons Applicators

Exempt

applicators and

allowed P

fertilizer use

Golf courses,

commercial sod

farms,

agricultural

lands, right of

ways, P

deficient areas,

new turf& lawn

repair

Golf courses;

Commercial

farm land;

Phosphorus

deficiency;

Establish new

turf

Golf courses;

Sod farms;

Agricultural

lands and

production;

Phosphorus

deficiency;

Establish new

turf

Gardens;

Agricultural

lands and

production; Sod

farms;

Phosphorus

deficiency;

Establish new

turf

Sod farms;

Agricultural

land and

production;

Phosphorus

deficiency;

Establish new

turf

N/A

Application to

impervious

surfaces

Prohibited must

clean up if

inadvertent

Prohibited,

must clean up

if inadvertent

Prohibited, must

clean up if

inadvertent

Prohibited,

must clean up if

inadvertent

Prohibited,

must clean up

if inadvertent

Applicators

are certified

in BMP

Setbacks from

water

3-15ft 3-15ft none 3-20ft none Applicators

are certified

in BMP

Application on

frozen and

saturated soils

prohibited prohibited No restrictions Prohibited

between Dec. 1

and Apr. 1

prohibited Applicators

are certified

in BMP

Restrictions on

phosphorus lawn

fertilizer sales

No restrictions

No restrictions No restrictions Display

Phosphorus

fertilizer

separately; Post

educational

signs

No display but

may post sign;

Must sell only

for specific

purposes

No

restrictions

Miller (2012) recently completed a review of this legislation and it was found that most States take a

similar approach. In general, States prohibit phosphorus fertilizer application unless it is for (1) curing a

lack of necessary phosphorus, (2) establishing new turf, or (3) repairing turf. Usually agricultural lands,

commercial or sod farms, or golf courses are exempt. Most States also prohibit applying fertilizer on

impervious, frozen, or saturated surfaces, or within a certain distance of a water body. A few States have

restrictions on sales of phosphorus fertilizer. NY and WI require that educational signs be posted where

fertilizers are sold. Indiana takes a different approach by requiring that all fertilizer applicators be

certified in proper fertilizer application practices to protect soil and water resources rather than setting out

specified requirement.

Figure 7 shows that unlike the Great Lake states, none of the Canadian Great Lakes provinces have

province-wide laws that restrict the use of phosphorus. In Ontario and Québec, municipalities may pass

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1597&ChapterID=36

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Part_85_of_Act_451,_Fertilizers_76959_7.pdf



https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=18C

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=18C

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@SLENV0A17T21+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=07099978+&TARGET=VIEW

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@SLENV0A17T21+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=07099978+&TARGET=VIEW

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/94/643


30

by-laws that restrict the use of fertilizers in urban settings. Under the Clean Water Act in Ontario,

municipalities may pass by-laws prohibiting or limiting the use of commercial fertilizers that contain

nutrients such as phosphorus or nitrogen, however there is no province-wide regulation (Clean Water

Act,2006). Similarly in Québec no province-wide regulations were found with respect to fertilizers in

non-agricultural settings.


31

Figure 7: Great Lakes Jurisdictions with Legislation Banning or Limiting use of Urban Phosphorus (P) Fertilizers: Six out of the ten Great

Lakes Jurisdictions Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York (shown in dark green) have enacted legislation banning or limiting the use of Urban Phosphorus

(P) Fertilizers. Ontario, Québec, Ohio and Pennsylvania (shown in pink) have not yet adopted such legislation.


32

B.4 Stormwater Education and Outreach Initiatives

B.4.1 Description of Non-Point Source and Stormwater Education and Outreach Initiatives

There are a variety of educational efforts operating in the Great Lakes region that focus on educating the

public and water resource managers about non-agricultural sources of non-point source nutrient pollution.

A partial list of these efforts can be found in the Appendix -Table E however, many of those listed are

reports, data or other information that the public and water resource managers can access online and use

in their planning efforts. Few of these efforts contain education and outreach components such as

workshops or presentations that present actions that members of the public can take such as best

management practices, implementing green infrastructure and restoration projects.

B.4.2 Regions Where Non-Point Source Stormwater Education and Outreach Occurs

National, state and provincial tools for information sharing and educational materials are available in all

of the Great Lakes jurisdictions. Additional details are listed in the Appendix-Table E. Under the NPDES

permitting system in the U.S. permit holders are required to incorporate outreach and education into their

stormwater management plans. There are no similar requirements for public education in Canada

although this is encouraged in the province’s stormwater guidelines (TRCA, 2012).

However most education and outreach efforts for non-point source pollution and/or stormwater pollution

happen at a local scale. This may include initiatives for encouraging green infrastructure adoption and

stormwater management planning and best practice implementation. The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence

Cities Initiative’s 2011 survey of municipalities and their stormwater programs revealed that

approximately two-thirds of Great Lakes cities deliver some sort of stormwater education program,

however only two of six respondents in Québec reported that they delivered public education (Great

Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, 2011). In Ontario, Conservation Authorities play a major role in

stormwater management including delivering educational programs, technical assistance and staff

knowledge about practices that improve water quality (pers comm. Mather, 2012).

B.5 Funding for Non-Point Source and Stormwater Programs

Funding and technical assistance is provided by federal, provincial and state agencies for a variety of

projects that impact nutrient management and pollution. Many of the funding programs build on

educational and informational initiatives, providing the means by which suggested beneficial actions can

be implemented. Federal programs are usually administered by states or provinces that then pass the funds

through more local agencies. All states have local conservation districts that provide technical assistance

to land users to assist them in nutrient management (National Association of Conservation Districts,

2001) . In Ontario, every watershed has a local conservation authority that plays many similar roles

(Conservation Ontario, 2010).

Many of the funding programs for nonpoint source pollution are broad in scope. Non-point source

funding programs tend to provide funding for projects that reduce all types of pollution not only for those

that reduce nutrient-related pollution. For example, one of the major funds for non-point source pollution

reduction projects in the U.S. is the S. 319(h) Nonpoint Source (NPS) Water Pollution Program that was

established under the Clean Water Act funds projects that “implement cost-effective solutions to reduce

non-point source pollution (including nutrient management, and reduced erosion) and promote knowledge

of non-point source problems in areas that have identified issues” (Clean Water Act Section 319, 1987).

Infrastructure funds such as Pennsylvania’s PENNVEST program may be used in some cases for

stormwater projects but infrastructure funds are also needed for a variety of other non-nutrient related

projects (PA Infrastructure Investment Authority, 2012).


33

This report did non review municipal funding sources for non-point source or stormwater projects. This is

significant because most funding for stormwater management (especially in Canada) is self-generated by

appropriations such as municipal taxes (Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, 2011). While this

approach can provide a stable source of funding, it also means that stormwater management is competing

with other valuable public (Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, 2011). In the Great Lakes and

St. Lawrence Cities Initiative’s recent review of Stormwater management in the Great Lakes Basin, lack

of adequate funding for program implementation was cited most frequently as an obstacle to moving

forward with stormwater management and pollution reduction programs (Great Lakes and St. Lawrence

Cities Initiative, 2011).

B. 5.3 Regions Where Funding for NPS Pollution and Stormwater Programs are Provided

Financial aid is available for all types of NPS pollution reduction projects in all jurisdictions in both

countries. Appendix– Table F lists and describes the major funding programs surveyed in this report. This

list may not be fully comprehensive but it includes approximately twenty four funding programs that can

be used by nonpoint source reduction projects that are not agricultural in nature in the U.S. The list only

includes approximately six similar programs in Canada. This likely reflects the reality that there are

simply more urban areas and a larger population in the U.S. This section did not include a review of

municipal funding sources for non-point source or stormwater projects. This is significant because this is

often where the funding and assistance for urban stormwater programs comes from, especially in Canada

(Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, 2011). Urban stormwater projects may also be able to

draw on funds allocated for urban infrastructure. However, without dedicated funding and technical

assistance on a provincial or state level, availability of technical and financial assistance can be

inconsistent. Finally, both the U.S. and Canada have funds in place to encourage the adoption of an

innovative approach to stormwater management, the use of green infrastructure; these programs are

discussed in more detail in Section B.2. Overall, the difference in the source and structure of funding in

the U.S. and Canada makes it difficult to make a fair comparison of their nonpoint source funding

programs.

B.6 Source Water Protection Planning

B.6.1 Description of Source Water Protection Planning

Source water protection planning enables communities to effectively protect their drinking water sources

by developing a clear watershed-based picture of potential threats to drinking water and identifying

actions that can be taken to protect against these threats( de Loë & Kreutzwiser,2007). The source water

protection planning model could also be adapted and used to beneficial effect in watershed plans that

focus on nutrient management (Conservation Ontario, 2012). Source water protection planning is a

collaborative watershed based process that brings together community members and scientists who may

have expertise or information regarding nutrient pollution reduction. Coordination between different

levels of government that operate in a source water protection area is another necessary element of source

water protection planning. This coordination can increase efficiency and reduce redundancy.

One example of successful watershed based collaboration where all levels of government are all working

together on source water protection is the Lake Ontario Collaborative in Ontario. The Lake Ontario

Collaborative is made up of nine municipalities and conservation authorities from five source water

protection committees in Ontario. These source water protection committees are responsible for directing

a coordinated study process to assess the nearshore drinking water quality as it relates to inputs (including

phosphates) from contributing Lake Ontario watersheds (Schiller, Bouchard, & Moore, 2010). Based on


34

information from these studies the committees are assessing the risk and need for actions. Environment

Canada is assisting with the study process by conducting modelling, for currents, pathogens, water quality

and microorganisms (Schiller, Bouchard, & Moore, 2010). The provincial Ministry of the Environment is

providing advice and funding as well as laboratory analysis and Great Lakes monitoring support. The

Collaborative released a technical report on their activities in November 2012 (Schiller, Bouchard, &

Moore, 2010)Stantec, 2012). Once the study phase of the process is complete municipal and local

government will work with provincial and federal governments to implement the identified actions.

B.6.3 Regions Where Source Water Protection Planning is Used

All regions in the Great Lakes have regulations requiring source water protection planning. For a

summary of the legislation mandating source water protection in each jurisdiction please refer to Table 1

Table 4.

Table 4: Source Water Protection Rules and Requirements in Great Lakes Jurisdictions

Jurisdiction Regulation Description

U.S. (federal-

applies to all the

Great Lakes

States)

U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act (DWA The DWA was originally passed in 1974 to protect public

health by regulating the nation's public drinking water supply.

The law was amended in 1996 and now requires many actions

to protect drinking water and its sources. Each state is

required to develop source water protection assessments and

planning. (Ohio DNR, 2012; U.S. EPA, 2012).

Canada

(Ontario)

Ontario Clean Water Act, 2006, and Ontario

Regulation 287/07

The Act establishes a multi-barrier approach that requires

local communities establish Source Protection Committees to

use a science based approach to assess threats to drinking

water and to reduce and eliminate these threats. Nutrient

related threats identified include wastewater discharges,

combined sewer overflows, sewage bypasses, stormwater

outfalls and industrial discharges (Ministry of the

Environment, 2011). Ontario Regulation 287/07 under the

Clean Water Act outlines requirements for the development of

drinking water source protection plans, including provisions

to address significant drinking water threats in wellhead

protection areas and intake protection zones.

Canada

(Québec)

Municipal action-An Act to affirm the

collective nature of water resources and

provide for increased water resource

protection (chapter C-6.2) and Draft

Strategy on Source Water Protection and

Conservation of Drinking Water. Draft

Regulation: Projet de Règlement sur le

prélèvement des eaux et leur protection

Québec leaves it up to municipalities to implement source

water protection planning (Christensen, 2011). MDDEFP held

from April 12th 2012 to June 10th 2012 a public consultation

on a proposed Strategy on Source Water Protection and

Conservation for Drinking Water (Shirley, 2012).The

proposed strategy has provisions as to the roles and

responsibilities of government and municipalities in the

implementation.Its objectives are: Knowledge on all

collective sources for drinking water supply; Vulnerability

assessment of sources; Conservation and protection

strengthening; Monitoring of implementation of protection

and conservation measures; Durability of public investments

in Drinking Water treatment (Shirley, 2012).The five steps of

the Strategy include: source inventory, knowledge of source

vulnerability, establishment of protection and conservation

measures, mechanisms for implementation of protection and

conservation measures, monitoring mechanisms.


35

B.7 Septic System Regulation

B.7.1 Description of Septic System Regulation

Another potential source of non-point source pollution is septic systems. It is not clear to what extent

nutrients originating from septic systems may impact surface water bodies. Phosphorus is likely bound by

the soils but nitrogen may be an issue because it has been shown to be converted to nitrates and

transported to waterbodies (Workgroup on Parties Implementation Great Lakes Science Advisory Board,

2000). Individual homeowners with septic systems do not generally require permits under federal law

(Kilbert, Tisler, & Hohl, 2012). Instead state, provincial and municipal governments set design

requirements for septic systems and local agencies may issue permits to operate these systems. Another

possible approach to limit nutrient pollution is to conduct mandatory inspections of septic systems to

ensure that they do not leak and that they meet design and permit requirements (Kilbert, Tisler, & Hohl,

2012).

B.7.2 Regions with Septic System Regulation

All Great Lakes jurisdictions have regulations in place regarding design and siting of septic system and

disposal of septic waste. A summary of some of those requirements can be found in Table 5. Inspections

of septic systems for leaks and regulatory compliance is usually done by local health authorities or

municipalities (Table 5). These local authorities have different requirements for inspections. Some may

require regular maintenance inspections while others may only conduct an inspection if a system is being

upgraded or a new system is being built. In Canada, provincial legislation requires mandatory

discretionary on-site sewage system maintenance inspection programs to be established and administered

by local authorities (Building Code Act, Environment Quality Act)( Figure 8). In contrast, Figure 8 shows

that in the U.S. none of the Great Lake states have statewide regulations requiring mandatory on-sewage

maintenance inspection programs; it is the responsibility of each local authority to decide whether to

implement such a program.

Table 5: Septic System regulations Jurisdiction Regulation and

Regulatory Authority

Description Regulations Regarding Inspections

Michigan Septage Program-DEQ

& County Health

Departments

Michigan is the only state without a

statewide sanitary code. (Michigan

DEQ, 2012).

No statewide regulation for inspection.

Counties are individually responsible for

this.

Ohio ORC chapter 3718,

sewage treatment

systems (including

home sewage treatment

systems)-Ohio

Department of Health

Discharge to well or surface water from a

home treatment system is prohibited and

an NPDES permit is required. State

regulations include limitations as to the

location of home treatment systems and

limits on their capacity (Kilbert, Tisler, &

Hohl, 2012).

Existing Ohio Department of Health

regulations do not have any required

provisions for inspections of septic

systems. Local health districts are

responsible for insuring that there are no

nuisances caused by malfunctioning

systems. Each local health district is left

to make their own decisions on how to

enforce and some do have specific local

ordinances. Ohio Department of Health

currently has draft rules proposed that

would require all septic systems in Ohio

to fall under an Operations and

Maintenance program that does include

scheduled evaluations of one to three

years either by local health district and/or

service providers. However, the

Operations and Maintenance programs as

developed must apply to all “new”

systems installed after effective date of

the rules (anticipated to be sometime this

summer) and all “existing” systems are to

be phased into the program with no


36

deadline on when that must occur

(Kilbert, Tisler, & Hohl, 2012).

New York State of New York

Title 10, Department of

Health, Chapter II,

PART 75, Standards

for individual sewage

treatment systems- NY

Department of Health-

NYSDEC SPDES

GENERAL PERMIT

0-05-001- NYCRR

PART 750-2.8(d)

Regulations regarding design, placement

and capacity of home treatment systems.

Authorizes discharges to groundwater

between 1,000 and 10,000 gallons per

day (GPD) of treated sanitary wastes

only, without the admixture of industrial

waste, from on-site treatment systems

serving private commercial and

institutional facilities.

NYCRR PART 750-2.8(d) has a special

condition for inspecting scum & sludge

accumulations in a septic tank of a

facility whose sanitary wastewater

treatment system's discharge requires a

SPDES permit. Inspections shall be

performed at intervals not to exceed one

year's duration (NY DEC, 2003).

Local jurisdictions/health departments

may set and enforce additional

requirements, which often

include inspections of septic systems

prior to property transfer. Residential

systems with discharges less than 1000

gpd are regulated by the NYS

Department of Health. Although the

Department of Health does not require

inspections, the department’s

handbook offers guidance about

performing them (Department of

Health,2012)

Wisconsin Chapter NR 204

DOMESTIC

SEWAGE SLUDGE

MANAGEMENT

Regulations about design, placement and

capacity of home treatment systems. No

mention of nutrients.

Minnesota Subsurface Sewage

Treatment Systems

(SSTS) (septic

systems) are regulated

by Minnesota Statutes

115.55 and 115.56.

Regulations for siting and design of

septage systems, no regulation about

disposal. Licensed operators follow

relevant federal or local regulations.

(Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,

2012)

Minnesota Statutes 115.55 Subd.5 (a) and

(b) require inspections for all new and

replacement systems, and before a

building permit is issued for an additional

bedroom, respectively. In addition, the

Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources

(DNR) shoreland statutes require

inspection prior to any type of land use

permit within a shoreline.

Illinois Illinois Administrative

Code: 77: PUBLIC

HEALTH CHAPTER

I: DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC HEALTH

SUBCHAPTER :

WATER AND

SEWAGE-PART 905

PRIVATE SEWAGE

DISPOSAL CODE

Illinois Department of Public Health is

the lead state agency for regulation of

septic systems. There are state

requirements for design and construction,

as well as county septic system codes.

Regulations limiting amount of effluent

and septage system design and location

(Illinois EPA Joint Commitee on

Adminstrative Rules, 2012)

Systems are typically inspected at the

time of installation, but at this time there

is no state level requirement for

inspections of existing systems. A few

counties have this

requirement. Malfunctioning septic

systems are typically detected by the state

or county health department due to

complaints.

Indiana Indiana State

Department of Health

Onsite Sewage

Disposal Program

Rules 410 IAC 6-7.1,

410 IAC 6-7.2 and 410

IAC 6-9

Department of Health reviews and

approves plans and specifications for

onsite sewage disposal, no regulations

specific to nutrients (Indiana State

Department of Health, 2012).

State specifications for system types and

locations based on soil type and

topography. The conditions of the rule

are implemented by local health

departments, many of whom (if not all)

inspect the systems when they are

installed and repaired to ensure they meet

the permit design specifications. No

known requirements for maintenance

inspections, but before a property with an

on-site wastewater treatment system can

be sold (if a bank is involved); it must be

inspected to ensure it is functioning

properly.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/115/55.html

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/115/56.html

http://www.in.gov/isdh/21961.htm





37

Pennsylvania Onlot Sewage Program

-administered by

municipalities on

behalf of PADEP

under Act 537 and

Chapter 71, 72, and 73

The onlot permit program is administered

by a local agency on behalf of the

Department of Environmental Quality

and aims to ensure design standards are

met. (Pennsylvannia Department of

Enviornmental Protection(DEP), 2012)

Ontario Ontario’s Building

Code Act(OBCA),

Ontario Environmental

Protection Act (MOE),

Ontario Water

Resources Act

(OWRA)

Small septic systems less than 10 000

L/day serving a single property are

regulated under Ontario’s Building Code

Act and must obtain a Building Code Act

permit from the local municipality or

conservation authority. Larger systems

are regulated under the Ontario Water

Resources Act in the same way as any

other sewage works and need an

Environmental Compliance Approval

from the MOE issued under the

Environmental Protection Act.

The Building Code Act was recently

amended to establish mandatory and

discretionary on-site sewage system

maintenance inspection programs, to be

administered by local authorities.

Québec Regulation respecting

waste water disposal

systems for isolated

dwellings Environment

Quality Act, item 4.1

of Q-2, r.22

A permit is required for design and

construction of a septic system. These

permits are administered by local

municipalities (MDDEP, 2002)Drawings

showing site location are mandatory for

licence emission.

Inspection of systems under construction

or of existing systems is mandatory.


38

Figure 8: Great Lakes Jurisdictions with legislation in place requiring mandatory discretionary on-site sewage system maintenance

inspections: Ontario and Québec (shown in brown) have provincial legislation requiring mandatory discretionary on-site sewage system maintenance inspection programs to be established and

administered by local authorities. None of the Great Lake states have similar statewide regulations requiring mandatory on-sewage maintenance inspection programs because it is the responsibility of

each local authority to decide whether to implement such a program.


39

B.8 Biosolid Regulation

B.8.2 Description of Biosolid Regulation

Biosolids are defined as digested sewage solids; they are a nutrient-rich, organic material that is often

beneficially used by spreading it on agricultural fields where it acts as a fertilizer (Kilbert, Tisler, & Hohl,

2012). They can also be a significant source of non-point source nutrient pollution if applied at

inopportune times or in locations prone to runoff (OMAFRA, 2012). There are several ways that

regulators attempt to limit non-point source pollution from biosolid application. Regulators may specify

that application of biosolids must take place at specified setbacks from surface water, on certain types of

terrain and at an agronomically appropriate rate so as to minimize nutrients that are applied. Some may

entirely prohibit application of biosolids when the ground is frozen as this increases the likelihood that it

will be washed into nearby waters, while others may allow application as long as potential applicators

meet a set of conditions designed to minimize the likelihood of runoff.

B.8.3 Regions with Regulations Stipulating Restrictions on Biosolid Application

All of the Great Lakes regions have regulations in place that restrict the land application of biosolids in

order to limit their potential to act as non-point sources of nutrient pollution. All jurisdictions have some

sort of prohibition on the application of biosolids to frozen ground as this can significantly increase the

risk of nutrient runoff. However different regions have taken different approaches in regulating frozen

ground application of biosolids. Some regions completely prohibit application of biosolids during the

winter months and whenever the ground is frozen, this is the most stringent approach. As Figure 9

illustrates this approach is used in Ontario and Québec. Others prohibit it in most cases but there are

exceptions for emergencies, this is the second most stringent approach and it is used in Wisconsin and

Pennsylvania (Figure 9). Finally, some regions prohibit biosolid application directly on snow but may

allow application on frozen ground if applicators meet certain conditions designed to restrict runoff

reaching surface water this includes conditions such as additional setback distances, vegetative buffers,

surface incorporation or a minimally sloped terrain. This approach is used by all the other Great Lakes

jurisdictions including Michigan, New York, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and Minnesota. For more information

about these regulations see Appendix - Tables H&I.

All jurisdictions have state or provincial regulations in place that restrict application to agronomically

appropriate rates. These rules are very similar to those in place for the land application of manure from

CAFOs. However, there are slight differences in the structure of these regulations in each jurisdiction and

some regulations could be interpreted as being more stringent than others. While all jurisdictions specify

that sites approved for application of biosolids must be set back from surface waters by some distance,

some jurisdictions require larger setback distances than others. Some jurisdictions also allow for less of a

setback distance if there is a vegetative buffer in place or if biosolid material is injected or otherwise

incorporated into the soil. Figure 10 shows the different setback distances for ground application of

biosolids without incorporation into the soils in each of the Great Lake jurisdictions. This figure

illustrates that Québec and Ohio have the shortest setback distances (3 and 10 meters respectively),

Ontario, Pennsylvania and Michigan have slightly longer setback distances (20,30 and 45 meters

respectively), and finally New York , Wisconsin , Minnesota and Illinois have the longest setback

distances (60 meters). For more information about these regulations see Appendix-Tables G


40

Figure 9: Regulations Limiting Application of Biosolids on Frozen Ground in each Great Lakes Jurisdiction: Ontario and Québec(shown in dark green)

completely prohibit the application of biosolids on frozen ground, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (orange) take a similar approach by prohibiting the application of biosolids on frozen ground except for

emergencies the other Great Lakes jurisdictions Michigan, New York, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and Minnesota (shown in red) prohibit biosolid application directly on snow but may allow application on

frozen ground if applicators meet certain conditions designed to restrict runoff reaching surface water.


41

Figure 10: Required Setback Distances from Surface Water bodies for Land Application of Biosolids (without soil incorporation) in each

of the Great Lakes Jurisdictions: Québec and Ohio have the shortest setback distances (3 and 10 meters respectively)(shown in pink), Ontario, Pennsylvania have slightly longer setback

distances (20 and 30 m respectively)(shown in red), y Michigan (40m) New York , Wisconsin, Minnesota and Illinois (60m) have the longest setback distances (shown in brown).


42

Section C: Point Source Regulations This section describes regulatory programs that legally require people or organizations to take some form

of action to deal with nutrient pollution from a point source. Point source nutrient pollution is defined as

pollution that originates from an easily identifiable, confined location such as a wastewater pipe (Kilbert,

Tisler, & Hohl, 2012). This type of nutrient pollution can be regulated by a number of approaches.

Generally permits are issued to allow municipal or industrial dischargers to discharge effluent to the

environment if they adhere to a pre-defined set of conditions.

C.1 Municipal and Industrial Permitting Point Source Regulations

C.1.1 Description and Background Information on Municipal and Industrial Permitting Point

Source Regulations

From the period of 1981-2007 the loading target for phosphorus for Lake Erie has been met 16 out of 27

years (Lake Erie LaMP , 2011). This achievement was largely attributed to the reductions in phosphorus

from sewage treatment plants. However, despite this marked improvement in phosphorus loading Great

Lakes Water Quality Agreement goals and targets are not consistently being met (Lake Erie Nutrient

Science Task Group, 2009).

A more recent analysis by U.S. EPA scientists (2011) used data available from U.S. sources to create a

model for watershed loadings of nutrients to the Great Lakes (Robertson & Saad, 2011). Using this

technique, it was found that loadings of nutrients were similar to those estimated in the 1980s for Lakes

Michigan and Ontario, whereas loadings to Lakes Superior, Huron, and Erie were lower than those

estimated in the 1980s. While it is generally accepted that the increase in phosphorus in the Great Lakes

and resultant algal blooms is linked to agricultural run-off and dissolved reactive phosphorus, point

sources may still be a contributor to the issue. Robertson & Saad estimated that approximately 14-44% of

the phosphorus entering the Great Lakes is from point sources (mainly municipal effluent) (Robertson &

Saad, 2011).

A widely used approach to limit nutrients is to implement a permitting system requiring treatment to limit

the amount of nutrients that can be discharged in effluent from municipal or industrial sources. All

jurisdictions have implemented a permitting system for industrial and municipal discharges (IJC, 2011).

The 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement will require the determination of new and appropriate

phosphorus loading allocations, apportioned by country, necessary to achieve Substance Objectives for

phosphorus concentrations for each Great Lake. Interim substance objectives have been set for total

phosphorus concentration in open waters in each of the Great Lakes (GLWQA, 2012).

C.1.2 Regions Implementing Municipal and Industrial Permitting Schemes

While both the U.S. and Canada have permitting programs in place they are structured slightly differently.

The NPDES permit system required under the U.S. Clean Water Act is used to enforce limits on nutrient

content in point source effluent. Each U.S. State has passed regulations to enforce limits in a slightly

different way but with the same result. In Canada, Ontario limits nutrients and phosphorus in municipal

and industrial effluents through Environmental Compliance Approvals which are required by all facilities

discharging to the environment under the Ontario Water Resources Act (Ministry of the Environment,

2012). These approaches are summarized in Table 6.


43

Table 6: Permitting Legislation for Municipal and Industrial Dischargers Jurisdiction Applicable regulation Type of

Facility

Requiring

permit

Process for Determination of Nutrient

Limit for Issuance of Permit

Permit Requires

Monitoring for

TP/TN?

U.S. Clean Water Act-NPDES

permit system*administered

by individual states

Municipal

and

Industrial

Two approaches are used: 1-

Technology-based effluent limitations

established by U.S. EPA for specific

categories of pollutants or2-More

commonly water quality standards are

used. CWA requires each state to

establish water quality standards for all

bodies of water in the state, however not

all of these standards are numerical. In

waters where water quality standards

have not been met despite having met

technology-based effluent limitations,

each state sets a maximum daily load

(TMDL) of pollutants at a level that is

supposed to ensure attainability of these

standards (Copeland, 2010).

In some cases –(refer

to Table 7)

Ontario Ontario Water Resources

Act, Ontario Environmental

Protection Act

Municipal

and

Industrial

All municipalities and industries are

required to undertake site specific

receiving water assessments to set limits.

In addition some industries are required

to meet regulated technology based limits

set out in the industrial effluent

monitoring and limits regulation under

the Environmental Protection Act

(known as the MISA regulation). OWRA

regulates sewage disposal by prohibiting

the discharge of polluting materials that

may impair water quality without first

obtaining an Environmental Compliance

Approval as specified under the

Environmental Protection Act. With one

exception, this Approval is required for

all municipal, industrial, commercial and

private direct discharges (Ministry of the

Environment, 2012).

Yes for all municpal

facilities and some

industriall

Québec Loi sur la qualité de

l'environnement (article 22

and 32) , Règlement sur

l'application de l'article 32

Loi sur la qualité de

l'environnement (MDDEP,

2011)

Municipal

and

industrial

In Québec WQ guidelines are used to

determine acceptable environmental

discharge objectives (EDOs) or loads for

each source of contamination given local

conditions. Limits are set by considering

both EDOs and available technologies

(MDDEP, 2007). Nutrient effluent limits

are published by MDDEFP,

authorizations require that all dischargers

meet these.

For municipal only

total ammonia for

industries usually TP

monitored and

Nitrogen sometimes

monitored - Total

Kjeldahl nitrogen

(TKN) and total

ammonia

In both Canada and the U.S. the creation of numeric nutrient water quality standards or objectives forms

the basis for establishement of effluent limits in permits, however the approaches differ slightly.

U.S. Jurisdictions and Water Quality Standards

The U.S.’s Clean Water Act requires each state to establish water quality standards for all bodies of water

within the state. This consists of identifying beneficial uses of a water body and creating a numerical or

narrative statement identifying the maximum concentration of pollutant that will not interfere with the

designated use. If these standards are exceeded it triggers the determination of Total Daily Maximum

Loads TDMLs (Copeland C. , 2010). TDMLs require polluters discharging into the same water body to


44

collectively work to meet limits by including individual limits in their individual NPDES discharge

permits. However, many places that may need TDMLs have not yet been identified (U.S. EPA, 2012).

TDMLs development can be complex process and requires a multitude of resources that the states may

not have in sufficient quantity (Copeland C. , 2003). However, the first step in the TDML determination

process is ensuring the development of consistent numeric regional water quality standards which can be

used to list waters as impaired thereby triggering the TDML process (U.S. EPA, 2012). The U.S. EPA has

been tracking each State’s progress towards establishing the more easily enforceable numeric water

quality standards, as opposed to narrative standards (U.S EPA, 2012). Some of the Great Lakes States

are progressing towards this goal more rapidly than others. The current status of the development of

numeric nutrient water quality standards in the Great Lakes states is illustrated in Figure 11. This figure

illustrates that numeric nutrient standards (either for phosphorus and/or nitrogen) are only currently

available for one or more water body types in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Several other states have one or

more type of standard in place but they are site specific (Illinois, Indiana and New York). Michigan, Ohio

and Pennsylvania have not yet set state wide standards of any kind. Without strict numeric water quality

standards for nutrients it has been suggested that the regulatory system is not very effective as numeric

standards are usually needed to develop effective Total Daily Maximum Loads TDMLs. Therefore it is

important to encourage the various Great Lakes states to continue with their development of these

standards in a timely fashion (Wagner & Corbin, 2003).

Table J in the Appendix gives more details on the expected timelines for the development of each Great

Lake State’s numeric water quality standards. This table shows that Wisconsin already has state-wide

numeric nutrient water quality standards for total phosphorus in lakes and rivers and that Indiana,

Minnesota, New York, and Ohio are expected to have their total phosphorus standards developed in 2013-

2014. Illinois and Pennsylvania have not yet provided a date for the determination of state wide numeric

nutrient water quality standards and Michigan plans to develop phosphorus standards 75 days after rule

making authority is restored (U.S. EPA,2012).

Canada Jurisdiction and Water Quality Standards

In general, provincial governments are responsible for regulation of wastewater treatment operations by

issuing permits or approvals that specify effluent discharge limits and treatment standards. While there is

no directly pertinent federal legislation with respect to nutrients, there are several ways that federal

regulations touch on municipal and industrial effluent and wastewater treatment (CCME, 2006). Under

the federal Fisheries Act, new Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations were brought into force in July,

2012 and are a key outcome of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canada-

wide Municipal Wastewater Effluent Strategy (CCME, 2009). Under the Strategy, it was agreed that

nutrients and other pollutants of concern would be managed under the legislative and regulatory

frameworks of each province, rather than through a federal regulation (Environment Canada, 2012).

Whenever a contaminant is discharged from point source in Ontario, the Ontario Environmental

Protection Act requires that the discharger obtain an approval. The Ontario Water Resources Act

(OWRA) is a companion piece of legislation that specifically addresses wastewater effluent discharges to

groundwater, surface water, the surface of the land and subsurface (septic systems). The OWRA regulates

sewage disposal by prohibiting the discharge of polluting materials that may impair water quality and the

construction of new or alteration of existing sewage works without first obtaining an Environmental

Compliance Approval (permit) as specified under the Environmental Protection Act. With one exception,

this Approval is required for all municipal, industrial, commercial and private direct discharges (Ministry

of the Environment, 2012). This exception applies to sewage works that have a capacity of less than

10,000 litres per day, serve a single property and do not discharge to surface water, groundwater or onto

the surface of the land (i.e. small on-site septic systems), that are regulated under the Ontario Building

Code Act. The Code is administered by the local municipality or conservation authority (Ministry of the

Environment, 2012).


45

In Ontario, concentration limits for effluent discharges that are established in Environmental Compliance

Approvals permits are not loadings based as they are in the U.S. The Province of Ontario currently uses

established water quality objectives for phosphorus concentrations in lake and rivers. Basin-specific

guidelines are also used for determining maximum phosphorous concentrations in municipal and

institutional sewage discharges which, through assessment of local conditions, become regulatory

requirements in Environmental Compliance Approval (permits) for new and expanding municipal,

institutional and some industrial sewage plants (Ministry of the Environment, 2012). In Ontario, the

majority of sewage treatment plants are achieving the effluent concentration limits for phosphorus set in

their Environmental Compliance Approvals (permits). Yet most streams and rivers in the Lake Erie basin

contain total phosphorous concentrations higher than the provincial water quality (Lake Erie Nutrient

Science Task Group, 2009).

In Québec, municipal wastewater treatment and industrial discharges are addressed by the Loi sur la

qualité de l'environnement (article 22 and 3). Numeric surface water quality guidelines for nutrients are

used to determine acceptable environmental discharge objectives (EDOs) or loads for each source of

contamination given local conditions and permit limits are set by considering both EDOs and available

technologies (MDDEP, 2007). Like Ontario, discharge limits are set through site-specific assessments

(Government of Canada, 2005).

Therefore in both Canadian provinces water quality guidelines exist for nitrogen and phosphorus that are

used along with an assessment of local conditions to determine effluent limits in discharge permits.

However, Canadian provinces don’t set loading based permits like the TDMLs in the U.S. Figure

11illustrates the status of water quality standards and guidelines in the Great Lakes and illustrates the

currently established numeric nutrient guidelines for Ontario and Québec as well as showing which Great

Lakes states currently have statewide numeric water quality standards.

Municipal & Industrial Effluent Monitoring

In order to accurately enforce limits on total phosphorus or total nitrogen content in municipal or

industrial effluent accurate information is needed. This information is usually gathered through

monitoring as part of discharge permits (U.S. EPA 2012, Ministry of the Environment, 2012).

US Jurisdictions and Monitoring Requirements for Discharge Permits

The U.S. EPA also evaluates the success of the NPDES permitting program in protecting water quality on

an ongoing basis. A recent review of the available data found that on average approximately 32% of

major discharging facilities (municipal and industrial) in each of the Great Lake States do not monitor for

phosphorus (U.S. EPA, 2012). This review also found that approximately 92% of facilities do not

measure for total nitrogen. However, this review did not include information on whether facilities monitor

for other nitrogen species which might explain the low rate of nitrogen monitoring. Table 7 illustrates the

data collected as part of the U.S. EPA’s 2012 NPDES review (U.S. EPA, 2012). It shows the total

percent of major discharging facilities that monitor for total phosphorus and total nitrogen either as part of

their NPDES permit limits or facilities that conduct monitoring but do not have TP and TN limits in their

permits.


46

Table 7*: Monitoring for TP and TN in major NPDES-Permitted Facilities (Industrial and

Municipal)

State # of

facilities

likely to

discharge

N & P

% with TP

limits

(includes

monitoring)

% with TP

monitoring

only

Total %

facilities

with TP

monitoring

% with TN

limits(includes

monitoring)

% with TN

monitoring

only

Total %

facilities

with TN

Monitoring

Illinois 240 12% 15% 28% 0% 17% 17%

Indiana 194 22% 30% 52% 0% 0% 0%

Michigan 147 82% 6% 88% 0% 1% 1%

Minnesota 89 46% 51% 97% 0% 1% 1%

New York 313 24% 23% 47% 2% 9% 11%

Ohio 279 36% 43% 79% 0% 1% 1%

Pennsylvania 381 28% 27% 56% 1% 29% 30%

Wisconsin 122 93% 2% 95% 0% 0% 0%

Average 68% 8%

* Table adapted from Table 1 in U.S. EPA’s Report on Action Towards Limiting Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loads from NPDES-Permitted Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2012). Data is from the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) and Permit Compliance System (PCS) databases

from 2010-2011. Note that this information is gathered on a state-wide basis and therefore is not limited in scope to the Great Lakes Basin. This

indicator does not include information for facilities with permit limits and monitoring requirements for other nitrogen species or phosphorus species (i.e., phosphate).

Canadian Jurisdictions and Monitoring for Discharge Permits

In the Canadian Great Lakes provinces (Ontario and Québec) all dischargers must apply for a provincial

permit and which specifies site specific discharge limits (Ministry of the Environment 2012, MDDEP,

2007). In Ontario all municipalities must conduct monitoring for a variety of parameters (including

nutrients) in order to set the site specific receiving water limits in their permits (OWRA, 1990). In

addition, some industries are required to monitor effluent to meet regulated technology based limits which

may include nutrient limits (Environmental Protection Act 1990, MISA –EMEL Regs). In Québec,

permits issued under la Loi sur la qualité de l'environnement (article 22 and 23) usually only require

municipal treatment systems to monitor for total ammonia not total phosphorus (MDDEP, 2007).

However for industrial permits, total phosphorus is generally monitored (Pers. Comm, LaPierre, 2013).

No information was available about how many of major industrial dischargers monitor for phosphorus in

Ontario or Québec.


47

Figure 11: Numeric Nutrient Water Quality Standards/Guidelines in Different Great Lakes Jurisdictions: State or Province-wide nutrient water

quality standards or guidelines have been developed for surface water bodies in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ontario and Québec (shown in pink), similar site specific standards

exist in some areas in Illinois, Indiana and New York (shown with diagonal lines), however not all of these regions have standards for both phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) or for

all water body types (rivers and lakes), the P and N symbols indicate which jurisdictions have developed standards for N and P and Lakes and Rivers. Information from U.S. EPA,

2012; Ministry of the Environment, 2012; Government of Canada, 2005.


48

C.2 Regulations Related to Combined Sewer Systems

C.2.1 Description of Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Regulations

Combined sewer systems are sewers that are designed to collect rainwater runoff, domestic sewage, and

industrial wastewater in the same pipe. Usually, these systems transport their contents to a wastewater

treatment facility (Alliance for the Great Lakes, 2012). During periods of heavy precipitation the volume

may exceed the capacity of the treatment system which can cause an overflow of untreated effluent into

nearby water bodies hence the term combined sewer overflows (CSO). CSOs represent a major source of

point source water pollution because they contain untreated effluent that may be high in nutrients and

other pollutants (Alliance for the Great Lakes, 2012). Permits are usually issued to municipalities with

conditions to be followed to limit discharges from combined sewers (U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 2012; Government of Ontario, 1990). Through pollution control plans that are developed for

combined sewer systems, communities can evaluate the appropriateness of sewer separation. In some

instances, it is more cost effective and affordable to eliminate the combined sewer system (U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). However, many larger communities cannot perform that task

and may simply replace a combined system with another that is more environmentally beneficial (U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2012; Government of Ontario, 1990).

C. 2.2 Regions where CSO Regulations are in Use

Both the U.S. and Canada have regulations that specify that the construction of new CSOs is no longer

permitted. Both jurisdictions also require a permit and monitoring for existing structures and a long term

control plan for pollution mitigation (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 1972; Canadian Wastewater

System Effluent Regulations,2012 ;Ontario Water Resources Act,1990; Ontario Environmental Protection

Act,1990; Ontario procedure F-5-5).

U.S.

NPDES permittees are required to characterize their CSO discharges, demonstrate implementation of

minimum technology-based controls and develop long-term CSO control plans which evaluate

alternatives for attaining compliance with the Clean Water Act (United States 1994 Combined Sewer

Overflow (CSO) Policy). Construction of new combined sewer systems is not allowed however

communities can repair existing combined systems if necessary. Neither the federal policy nor the federal

Clean Water Act mandates elimination of existing combined sewers (Federal Water Pollution Control

Act, 1972).

Canada

In Ontario combined sewer systems are regulated under the Ontario Water Resources Act (1990).

Communities with combined sewers need an environmental compliance approval from the Ministry of the

Environment. Provincial guidance, including Ontario procedure F-5-5, supports the Ministry’s decisions.

This procedure states that mitigating effluent from existing systems is required through the creation of

CSO plans (Government of Ontario, 1990). However as in the U.S., the repair of existing combined

sewers is permitted and there is no requirements to eliminate combined sewer systems completely

(Government of Ontario, 1990). Similarly, in Québec the reconstruction and repair of existing combined

sewer main is also allowed by the regulation Q-2, r.2


49

C.3 Detergent Rules

C.3.1 Description of Detergent Rules

Limiting the amount of nutrients (nitrogen or phosphorus) entering municipal wastewater systems can be

an effective way of eliminating nutrient point source pollution. In the Great Lakes, this approach has

been used in creating regulation limiting the amount of phosphorus in both laundry and dish detergents.

C.3.2 Regions with Rules Limiting Phosphorus Content in Detergents

As Table 8 shows, all Great Lakes jurisdictions currently have legislation in place limiting the

concentration of phosphorus in household dishwasher and laundry detergents. Regulations are consistent

across the basin in that all jurisdictions limit the phosphorus content of household dishwashing and

laundry detergents to a similar maximum concentration (Laws, 2000; CEPA,1999)( Table 8). However,

most of these regulations only apply to household (non-commercial) detergents (Table 8).

Table 8: Regulations setting limits on Phosphorus content in detergents in the U.S. and Canada Jurisdiction Type of detergent affected Effective Date/Dates Scope of Regulations

Illinois

(415 ILCS 92/) Regulation of

Phosphorus in Detergents Act

Dishwasher or laundry or

other

2010 Bans sale of detergent with >

0.5% concentration (except

certain commercial use)

Indiana

IC 13-18-9

Chapter 9. Prohibitions on

Certain Detergents

Dishwasher and Laundry 1976/2012 Prohibits use of laundry

detergent or residential

dishwasher detergent

containing >0.5% P

concentration except for

certain commercial use

Michigan

Ban on Phosphorus in

Detergent

Dishwasher & laundry 1977& 2010 Bans sale of detergent with

>0.5% P concentration

Minnesota

HF N.1382

Dishwasher & Laundry 1972-1979 *, 2010 Bans sale of detergent with

>0.5% P concentration

(except certain commercial

use)

New York

Dishwater, Detergent

Nutrient Runoff Law

Dishwasher & Laundry 1972-1979*, 2010&2013 Phosphorus is allowable in

NYS up to 0.5% by weight.

The NYS law also states

“There is no change to the

phosphorus limits for

detergents used to clean dairy

equipment or food processing

equipment”

Ohio

SB214

Laundry & Dishwasher 1990& 2010 Limit concentration of P in

detergent to 0.5%

Pennsylvania Act 15 Dishwasher &Laundry 1990*, 2010 Limit concentration of P in

detergent to 0.5%

Wisconsin

Assembly Bill 281

Dishwasher& Laundry 1972-1979* , 2010 Limit concentration of P in

detergent to 0.5%

Ontario -Canada

Environmental Protection Act

(1999)

( P Conc. Regs)

Laundry& Dishwasher 1985 & 2010 Limits concentration of P in

laundry detergents to .5%

(household) 2.2 %(

commercial). Limit of .5 % P

for household dishwashing

detergent

Québec- Canada

Environmental Protection Act

(1999)

( P Conc. Regs)

Chapter. Q-2, ss. 31, 46,109.1

Laundry& Dishwasher 1985& 2002&2010 Limits concentration of P in

laundry detergents to .5%

(household) 2.2 %

(commercial). Limit of .5 % P

for household dishwashing

detergent


50

*Note information was obtained from (Laws, 2000) which is why there is a date range rather one date

C.4 Open Water Disposal of Sediment

C.4.1 Description of Open Water Disposal of Sediment Regulations

Disposal of dredge material occurs in the Great Lakes. This process can be a source of nutrients as the

dredged materials that are released into open water can cause the release of phosphorus contained in the

sediments into the water. However, there is little evidence that this has any significant negative long term

effects as dumping is a temporary incident and no lasting effects have been found on the ecological

community (Jones & Lee, 1981; Lewis et al., 2001). It has also been suggested that dispersed dredged

material reduces the sunlight in the lakes causing less growth of beneficial algae and more growth of

cyanobacteria or blue/green algae, and this combined with the temporary release of phosphorus may be of

concern. However, this is an issue that is still under debate (Great Lakes Dredging Team, 2005). Some

jurisdictions have put in place legislation to ban open water disposal of dredged materials, other areas

regulate it so that it does not exceed water quality standards or contravene any other environmental

legislation or regulations.

C.4.2 Regions Where Regulations are used to Limit Open Water Disposal of Sediment

While all regions have various pieces of legislation that govern the dumping of sediment in open water in

order to limit water quality impairment, only a few regions have completely banned open water disposal

of sediment (Table 9). Figure 12 shows that Wisconsin and Minnesota have instituted complete bans on

open water disposal of sediments in the Great Lakes while the other jurisdictions have not banned this

activity. Instead these jurisdictions have regulations that stipulate certain conditions must be met before

open water disposal is allowed (Table 9).

Table 9: Dredging Regulations in the US and Canada Jurisdiction Permits Open

Water Disposal

Description of Conditions

Illinois yes Must comply with state water quality standards & mitigate impacts (Great Lakes

Dredging Team, 2005).

Indiana yes Must comply with state water quality standards (Great Lakes Dredging Team, 2005).

Michigan yes Must comply with state water quality standards (Great Lakes Dredging Team, 2005).

Minnesota no Only beneficial use projects are permitted (Great Lakes Dredging Team, 2005).

New York yes Must follow state management guidelines for sediments classified under specific

categories (Great Lakes Dredging Team, 2005).

Ohio yes Must comply with water quality standards, looking to phase out open water disposal

Pennsylvania yes Must comply with water quality standards (Great Lakes Dredging Team, 2005).

Wisconsin no Open water disposal only allows as last resort requires direct legislative authority

(Great Lakes Dredging Team, 2005).

Canada yes Must comply with a large variety of Canadian federal and provincial legislation

including CEPA CEAA, Fisheries Act, Shipping Act,

Ontario yes Environmental Assessment Act, Ontario Water Resources Act, Planning Act,

Conservation Authorities Act, .Beds of Navigable Waters, Public Land Act, must

comply with provincial Environmental Protection Act and brownfields regulations

about classifying and disposing sediment (Ontario Ministry of the Environment,

2011).

Québec yes Under certain conditions; must comply with criteria for the assessment of sediment

quality in Québec and the application framework for dredging (EC et MDDEP,

2007)


51

Figure 12: Great Lakes Regions with a Ban on Open Water Disposal of Sediments: Only two out of the ten Great Lakes Jurisdictions have instituted a

complete ban on open water disposal of sediments, Minnesota and Wisconsin (shown in red), other jurisdictions permit open water sediment disposal subject to

conditions


52

C.5 Information Programs for Point Source Pollution

C.5.1 Information Programs for Point Source Pollution

Educational programs are generally useful tools for engaging the public in watershed management. Point

sources of nutrients generally come from industrial or municipal (government operated) wastewater

treatment plants. It is important that operators of both municipal and industrial facilities have access to

information on innovative technologies that can assist in wastewater treatment and nutrient reduction

(Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2011.

C.5.2 Regions where Information Programs are Available

In order to promote adoption of innovative technologies, some jurisdictions in the Great Lakes have

created special information and research programs. One example of this is the Water Technology

Acceleration Partnership (WaterTAP), which was created under Ontario’s Water Opportunities Act, to

support research and development as well as the commercialization of new technologies and innovations

in Ontario's water sector (Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2011). Another interesting initiative is

Indiana’s Watershed Leadership Academy. This academy is operated by Purdue University and it

provides training for professionals in healthy watershed management and best management practices

(Purdue University, 2008). A list of the major information and research programs available in the Great

Lakes region that relate to point source pollution is available in the Appendix Table K.

C.6 Technical and Financial Assistance programs for Point Source Pollution

C. 6.1 Description of Technical and Financial Assistance programs for Point Source Pollution

Technical and financial assistance is often used by municipalities for upgrading infrastructure, including

municipal wastewater treatment systems and phasing out or increasing the environmental performance of

Combined Sewer Systems. As effluent limits become more stringent and combined sewer systems are

phased out, financial assistance will be increasingly needed (Alliance for the Great Lakes, 2012).

C.6.2 Regions Where Technical and Financial Assistance is Available for Point Source Projects

Major sources of funding and technical assistance currently available in the Great Lakes Region for point

source related projects are summarized in the Appendix –Table F. This list is not exhaustive but attempts

to give a picture of the overall scope of programs and touch on major funding programs. Funding

programs do exist for infrastructure upgrades related to point source pollution management in all

jurisdictions in the Great Lakes Region. However, the scope of the various funding programs varies

greatly and some areas have both state and federal funding programs while others possess only one.

Section D: Other Policies and Programs for Nutrient Management

D.1 Water Quality Trading Programs

D.1.1 Description of Water Quality Trading Programs

There has been increasing interest both in and outside of the Great Lakes in using water quality trading

programs as a way to control nutrients (Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc), 2009). However, water

quality trading may not work out in every case and care must be taken to ensure that best management


53

practices that are selected for a particular program are effective and that the program is not simply

displacing a water quality problem (Selman et al., 2009). An International Overview of Water Quality

Trading Programs published by the World Resources Institute found that there are five key factors that

stakeholders believe are important for the successful implementation of their trading programs (Selman et

al., 2009). These factors are:

Strong regulatory and/or non-regulatory drivers to create demand for water quality credit;

Minimal potential liability risks to the regulated community;

Robust, consistent, and standardized estimation methodologies for nonpoint source actions;

Standardized tools, transparent processes, and online registries to minimize transaction costs; and

Buy-in from local and state stakeholders.

The findings of this report are also supported by a recent review of Water Quality Trading (WQT)

Programs in the U.S. (Industrial Economics Incorporated, 2009). This report highlighted some of the

barriers to implementation of water quality trading and ways that these could be addressed to encourage

implementation. The barrier that was most often cited was flexibility and support for the concept of WQT

in institutions. Other often cited barriers were economic and regulatory. The report concludes by stating

that many of these issues can be addressed by making changes to support WQT, such as the establishment

of a technical outreach group to provide on-site, hands-on assistance to struggling new programs

(Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc), 2009).


54

D.1.2 Great Lakes Regions Where Water Quality Trading regulations are in place to facilitate

nutrient trading

United States

The first U.S multistate nutrient trading agreement was signed on August 9th 2012 (Electric Power

Research Institute, 2012). This pilot project aims to provide an alternative opportunity for reduction of

nutrients in the Ohio River basin. Its participants will include both non –point sources of nutrients like

agriculture and point sources like power plants. Participants are invited to provide input as the aim is to

collaboratively develop this project (Electric Power Research Institute, 2012). Examples of different

approaches used to implement water quality trading programs in these jurisdictions are listed in Table 10:

Nutrient Trading Approaches Used in the Table 10.

Table 10: Nutrient Trading Approaches Used in the U.S. Water Body Program State Pollutants Year

Launched

Program

Type

Market

Structure

Great Miami river,

Mad River,

Stillwater River

Ohio River Basin

Trading/Great

Miami River

watershed

Trading Pilot

OH Phosphorus

and Nitrogen

2006 Open-

market

Third party

broker

Minnesota River Southern

Minnesota Beet

Sugar

Cooperative

Permit

MN Phosphorus 1999 Case by

case

Sole source

offsets

Minnesota River Rahr Malting

Phosphorus

Offset

MN

Phosphorus

Nitrogen,

Sediment,

CBOD

1997 Case by

case

Sole source

offsets

Red Cedar River Red Cedar River

Nutrient Trading

Pilot Program

WI Phosphorus 1997 Case by

case

Bilateral

Negotiations

Long Island Sound

Long Island

Sound Trading

Program

CT Nitrogen 2002 Cap and

trade

Exchange

The States of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio have legal provisions that specifically contemplate water

quality trading (U.S. EPA, 2008). Minnesota has a specific statewide policy in place for trading (U.S.

EPA, 2008). Pennsylvania law allows nutrient trading, however the current focus of their nutrient

trading program is only on the Chesapeake bay watershed (Environmental Quality Board. 25 PA. CODE

CH. 96 , 2010). In New York, Indiana and Illinois pilot projects have been carried out for water quality

trading but no legal provisions facilitating trading or policies apply statewide (Environmental Trading

Network, 2012).In Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Minnesota provisions and policy apply statewide,

including in parts of the States that are within the Great Lakes basin (U.S. EPA, 2008).

Ontario

In Ontario, there are currently two jurisdictions where water quality trading projects are allowed by law:

the South Nation Reserve watershed and Lake Simcoe Watershed (Conservation Ontario, 2003;

Provincial Bill 99; Ontario Water Resources Act, 1990)(Figure 13). A pilot project was has run in the

South Nation Watershed and a feasibility study has been conducted for the Lake Simcoe Watershed.

Section 75 of the Ontario Water Resource Act (1990) also allows for the creation of regulations

establishing and governing water quality trading in other parts of the province if a report is made


55

beforehand that includes an assessment of the potential for water quality trading to improve water quality

in the area.

Figure 13 shows which of the Great Lakes States currently have water quality trading legal provisions

and/or policies in place and compares this with the status of water quality trading legal provisions and/or

policies in the Canadian Great Lakes provinces


56

*Note: Regulations/policies allow WQT programs in Lake Simcoe and South Nation watersheds in Ontario and in Chesapeake Bay in Pennsylvania and could be expanded to other watersheds in future. This is different than in the states of WI, MN, MI, and OH which already have state wide regulation and policies in place available for any watershed trading program that becomes established there.

Figure 13: Status of Water Quality Trading Legal Provisions and Policies in Great Lakes Jurisdictions: Six out of the ten Great Lakes jurisdictions

have implemented Water Quality Trading Legal Provision and Policies. Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Minnesota (coloured in brown) currently have specific statewide legal

provisions and/or policies in place for trading, Ontario and Pennsylvania (coloured in pink) have implemented legal provisions and policies to allow water quality trading in certain

watersheds but not throughout the state/province.


57

D.2 Priority Watersheds

D.2.1 Description of Policies Focusing on Priority Watersheds

The literature reviewed for this report suggests that there is an increasing need for nutrient management

efforts to target critical source areas. Targeting critical source areas or priority watersheds where nutrient

pollution is a major concern makes effective use of the limited resources available to control nutrient

pollution (International Missisquoi Bay Study Board, 2012. As part of the 2012 Great Lakes Water

Quality Agreement Canada and the U.S. have agreed to identify watersheds that are a priority for nutrient

control, and develop and implement management plans, including phosphorus load reduction targets and

controls, for these watersheds, as appropriate. There are several examples where this approach has been

used in the past. One example of binational cooperation to target a priority watershed is the Missisquoi

Bay watershed. In this example managers from Québec and Vermont worked with the IJC to gather

information in the form of digital photographic imagery and data on nutrient loading to develop a model

of critical source areas where educational, financial and regulatory efforts should be focused

(International Missisquoi Bay Study Board, 2012).

The National Fish and Wildlife Federation applies a similar priority watershed approach in Chesapeake

Bay. The Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Program uses the Chesapeake Bay Program's

geospatial analyses to identify priority areas for water quality restoration. Through a partnership with U.S.

EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Program, grants are awarded to priority areas to implement innovative, cost

effective approaches to reduce or eliminate nutrient pollution (National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,

2012).

Recent efforts by USGS have resulted in the creation of SPARROW (SPAtially Referenced Regressions

On Watershed attributes). SPARROW is a modelling tool that utilizes in-stream water-quality

measurements and spatially referenced characteristics of watersheds to empirically estimate the origin and

fate of contaminants in river networks. This tool is intended to be used by water managers throughout the

United States, including the Great Lakes region to plan watershed management. Similarly, other

modelling tools that have been developed for use of watershed managers to calculate nutrient loading in

Canada and the U.S. such as the Generalized Watershed Loading Function model (GWLF) or CANWET

(Canadian ArcView Nutrient and Water Evaluation Tool) could be used for this purpose (Singh et al.,

2007). However, in order for these tools to be fully effective in identifying priority watersheds more data

from nutrient monitoring programs may be needed. There may also be a need to coordinate information

gathered in both the U.S. and Canada.


58

D.2.2 Regions where Priority Watershed Policies are Implemented

U.S.

There are a variety of different ways that managers in the U.S. identify watersheds that require special

management action and implement programs to address these requirements. Watersheds may be identified

by State agencies or the U.S. EPA as part of the Clean Water Act requirements to determine impaired

water or they may be identified through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan.

Federal Actions

The U.S. EPA's places management action priority on State or Tribal watersheds that have been listed on

the Clean Water Act's approved 303(d) list as being impaired directly or indirectly by nutrients (Clean

Water Act, 1972). The U.S. EPA also places special emphasis on waters where the State or Tribe has

pursued management actions (TMDL development and implementation and/or Nine element watershed

management-plan development/implementation). If there are any State/Tribal waters that are not listed on

the 303(d) list or have not been assessed for that list yet but that demonstrate characteristics of nutrient

impairment , these waters are also a priority for monitoring and assessment to determine how best those

waters can attain approved Water Quality Standards (U.S. EPA Region 5,2012).

State Actions

As discussed above, States identified waters that are impaired for TDML development and the

implementation of a watershed management plan. One example of where this has been successful in the

past is Lake Mendota Watershed in Wisconsin. In this example, the Wisconsin DNR studied the status of

nutrient management in the areas of water, land and information and education. Data gathered was used in

models to set objectives for water quality and implementation of BMPs. A Citizens Advisory Committee

was established to deliver information on the project and listen to feedback from the public. Most of the

actions to achieve nonpoint source pollutant load reduction were undertaken through voluntary

participation. The project also designated some sites that met certain criteria as critical. Landowners of

critical sites were required by law to address specific issues in those areas (Wisconsin DNR et al., 2000).

The program is often touted as an example of a successful nutrient management effort as the research and

public input processes it implemented served as a model for other areas (National Association of

Conservation Districts, 2001). Since the publication of the 1995 phosphorus budget and the development

of the successful Lake Mendota Watershed Plan there have been many changes in agricultural practices in

the identified areas that have resulted in increased levels of phosphorus (Kara, Heimerl, Killpack, Van de

Bogert, Yoshida, & Carpenter, 2012). Researchers recently modelled the effect that different changes in

agricultural practices would have on the watershed and were able to focus planning efforts to address

potential issues. The researchers noted that very few jurisdictions collect the detailed information

required to create nutrient budgets as was done in this case study and even fewer proceed with adaptive

management. Unfortunately this lack of information often hampers effective nutrient management (Kara,

Heimerl, Killpack, Van de Bogert, Yoshida, & Carpenter, 2012).

Ohio recently enacted a priority watershed- related legal mechanism that can be used to protect any

watershed designated as being in distress. A watershed is designated as being in distress by a majority

vote from the Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Commission which invokes two important rules. Firstly,

there is a significant restriction in the ability to land apply manure in a distressed watershed between

December 15 and March 1 and when ground is frozen or snow-covered outside those dates. Secondly,

farms generating or utilizing all but a small amount of manure are required to conform to an approved

nutrient management plan (Kilbert et al, 2012).

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) Action Plan identifies five targeted geographic watersheds


59

(Fox River, Saginaw River, Maumee River, St. Louis River, and Genesee River) for nonpoint source

pollution control measures (GLRI Action Plan, 2010). Three of these targeted watersheds (Maumee

River, Saginaw River, and Lower Fox River) have been clearly identified as watersheds with excessive

phosphorus inputs, the occurrence of harmful algal blooms, or the occurrence of nuisance algae

(Cladophora) in the corresponding nearshore areas (GLRI Action Plan, 2010). The GLRI Inter-agency

Task Force has identified smaller priority sub-watersheds located within these larger targeted watersheds

for coordinated phosphorus reduction efforts based on the existence of watershed management plans,

percentage of agricultural land, potential for high impact phosphorus reduction practices, and local

interest (GLRI Action Plan, 2010). These priority sub-watersheds are the Upper Blanchard River

Watershed, Upper East River and Upper Duck Creek and Swartz and Kearsley Creek Watersheds (GLRI

Action Plan, 2010).

Canada (Ontario)

Although the 2012 GLWQA will require Ontario to identify watersheds that are a priority for nutrient

control in the future, there is no current province-wide strategy to identify priority watersheds for

nonpoint source pollution control measures. However Ontario does have a unique mechanism that can be

used to target actions in all sub-watersheds that fall within the boundaries of the Great Lakes Basin. There

are thirty six Conservation Authorities (CAs) in Ontario that are responsible for the implementation of a

number of watershed based management programs including monitoring water quality status within each

watershed and implementing a variety of management actions. These CAs are interested in taking on a

more active role in working with the provincial and federal authorities to identify priority watersheds for

non-point source pollution control and implement management actions (Conservation Ontario, 2012). If

necessary other legal tools can be leveraged to effectively reduce nutrient pollution in highly impaired

priority watersheds. This has already been done for the Lake Simcoe Watershed in Ontario which was

identified as a priority watershed for nutrient reduction in 2008.

The Lake Simcoe Protection Act (2008) provides the legislative authority for the development of an

official watershed plan (The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, 2009).. One of the many objectives of the

Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, which was created under the Act, is to reduce phosphorus and other

nutrients of concern in Lake Simcoe and its tributaries. Complimentary to the Act and Plan is the Lake

Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy. This Strategy puts in place aggressive targets to reduce the high

phosphorus levels in the lake by almost 40 per cent (Ministry of the Environment, 2012). Both the Lake

Simcoe Plan and the Phosphorus Reduction Strategy were built on consultation with citizens and expert

advice from scientists (Ontario Ministry of the Environment , 2012). The Strategy requires many policies

aimed at reducing nutrient loading to the Lake be implemented. For example, it requires that there are no

increases in phosphorus inputs from waste water treatment plants in the watershed. Within five years of

the date the Plan came into effect, municipalities, in collaboration with the Lake Simcoe Region

Conservation Authority are required to prepare and implement comprehensive stormwater management

master plans for each settlement. The plan takes an adaptive management approach requiring monitoring

and adjusting goals and stewardship policies as needed (Government of Ontario, 2009).

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/local/lake_simcoe_protection/index.htm

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/


60

Summary This report aims to assist the IJC’s Lake Erie Ecosystem Priority Management Team by developing a

better understanding of how governments are currently addressing the issue of nutrient management in the

Great Lakes Basin. It has identified legislation, policies and programs at the federal, provincial/state level

that fall into four main categories.

Section A: Agricultural Sources of Nutrient Pollution

Agricultural pollution can be very difficult to regulate because there are such a wide range of agricultural

activities that can contribute to nutrient runoff. Point source effluent discharge limits and treatment

standards are also not easily applicable to most agricultural operations (Perez, 2011). Confined Animal

Feeding Operations (CAFOs) generate large amount of animal manure which contains nutrients. If not

managed properly, the nutrient containing manure from these operations may runoff into nearby

waterbodies. All Great Lakes jurisdictions have regulations requiring limits on the amount of manure

from CAFOs applied to the land as fertilizer. These requirements are usually structured to require

applicators to measure the phosphorus or nitrogen content in the manure and calculate the crops

phosphorus or nitrogen needs, however, five of the Great lakes States employ a more stringent approach.

Three of the Great Lakes jurisdictions completely prohibit the application of manure on frozen ground

while many of the other jurisdictions allow it continent on meeting certain restrictions. Nutrient pollution

may also originate from non- CAFO farming operations. Six out of the ten Great Lakes jurisdictions have

requirements for nutrient management planning for non-CAFOs.

Much of the nutrient pollution from agriculture is not considered a point source and so is generally dealt

with by non-regulatory means such as encouraging the use of best management practices (BMPs). There

are a variety of programs operating in the Great Lakes Basin that offer information, incentives and

technical assistance to encourage the voluntary adoption of BMPs Some of the most effective of these

programs are those that encourage voluntary certification of BMPs. Six out of the ten Great Lakes

jurisdictions have implemented these types of programs.

Section B: Non-Point Source Pollution from Stormwater and Other Sources

Non-point source nutrient pollution is not limited to agriculture. Urban stormwater is being increasingly

recognized as an important source of nutrient pollution All of the Great Lakes States require stormwater

management planning as part of a permitting regulatory process. In Canada, stormwater management

planning is generally the responsibility of local authorities. Both jurisdictions are working towards

encouraging the adoption of Green Infrastructure as a means of reducing stormwater quantity and

improving its quality (removing nutrients). Many Great Lakes municipalities have implemented green

infrastructure pilot projects. However, more support in the form of formalized policies, regulation and

financial incentives is required in all jurisdictions. The U.S. EPA is considering the inclusion of green

infrastructure or other stormwater management practices in its new stormwater rules (expected 2013).

There are several areas where rules in Canada could be modified to encourage green infrastructure in a

similar way.

Another source of nutrient pollution from urban or suburban areas is the application of fertilizer to turf or

gardens. Six of eight Great Lakes States have passed state-wide legislation to limit the use of phosphorus

containing lawn fertilizers. Other Great Lakes jurisdictions rely on local controls. In the Great Lakes and

St. Lawrence Cities Initiative’s recent review of Stormwater management in the Great Lakes Basin, lack


61

of adequate funding for program implementation was cited most frequently as an obstacle to moving

forward with stormwater management and non-point source pollution reduction programs (Great Lakes

and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, 2011). This report found several large granting programs that can

provide funding to municipalities however it did not review municipal funding sources for non-point

source or stormwater projects. This is significant because most funding for stormwater management is

self-generated by appropriations such as municipal taxes.

Septic systems represent another potential source of non-point source pollution. While the Great Lakes

provinces require mandatory on-site sewage maintenance inspections, none of the Great Lake states have

similar statewide regulations; it is the responsibility of each local authority to decide whether to

implement such a program. However, it is unclear to what extent septic systems represent a source of

nutrient to the Great Lakes. Therefore, this may be another area for further investigation.

Finally, biosolids (nutrient rich digested sewage solids) can also be a significant source of non-point

source nutrient pollution if applied to the land at inopportune times or in locations prone to runoff

(OMAFRA, 2010). All of the Great Lakes jurisdictions have rules that specify that biosolids must take

place at specified setbacks from surface water, on certain types of terrain and at an agronomically

appropriate rate to minimize nutrients runoff. However, there is a wide range of setback distances that

are used in different jurisdictions. Two jurisdictions completely prohibit application of biosolids when the

ground is frozen. The others allow application as long as applicators meet a set of conditions designed to

minimize the likelihood of runoff.

Section C: Point Source Regulations

All of Great Lakes jurisdictions have a permitting system in place to limit industrial and municipal

discharge of nutrients in effluent. In both Canada and the U.S., the creation of numeric nutrient water

quality standards or objectives forms the basis for establishement of effluent limits in permits, however

approaches differ slightly. Numeric nutrient water quality standards have only been created for two Great

Lakes states to date although most of the rest have provided a timeline for their creation. These standards

are needed to institute total daily maximum loading (TDML) limits for facilities that require permits to

discharge effluent into waterbodies. In Canada, water quality guidelines are used to establish limits in

permitsand are not loadings based. In both Countries, monitoring for some form of nutrients is a

requirement of most permits, however, it is not clear how many facilities monitor for various forms of

phosphorus.

Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) represent a source of point source water pollution because they

contain untreated water which may be high in nutrients and other pollutants (Alliance for the Great Lakes,

2012). All jurisdictions have banned the construction of new combined sewers and require mitigation

plans for existing combined sewers. No jurisdiction has completely banned repairs or replacement of

existing systems which is likely due to the high cost of separating these systems. Funding programs do

exist for infrastructure upgrades related to point source pollution management in all jurisdictions in the

Great Lakes Region. However, the scope of the various funding programs varies greatly.

Disposal of dredge material in open waters can be a source of nutrients to the Great Lakes as the material

that is released can potentially cause the release of phosphorus contained in the sediments. Some Great

Lakes jurisdictions have put in place legislation to ban open water disposal of dredged materials, but most

areas regulate it so that it does not exceed water quality standards or contravene any other environmental

legislation or regulations.

Finally, limiting the amount of nutrients (nitrogen or phosphorus) entering municipal wastewater systems

can be an effective way of eliminating nutrient point source pollution. In the Great Lakes this approach

has been used in creating regulation limiting the amount of phosphorus in both laundry and dish

detergents in all of the Great Lakes jurisdictions.


62

Section D: Other Policies and Programs for Nutrient Management

There has been increasing interest both in and outside of the Great Lakes in the use of two water quality

management strategies: water quality trading and identifying priority watersheds for management actions.

Both of these strategies can be applied for nutrient management.

In four out of the ten Great Lakes jurisidcitons, state-or province-wide legal provisions and policies for

water quality trading have been implemented. Five of the other Great Lakes juriscitions have carried out

pilot projects in at least one watershed but most of these jurisdictions do not have legal provisions or

policies currently in place to faciltate the implementation of other water quality trading projects.. While

water quality trading may not work out in every case, it has been proven useful in some instances.

As part of the 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Canada and the U.S. have agreed to identify

watersheds that are a priority for nutrient control, and develop and implement management plans

(including phosphorus load reduction targets and control) for these watersheds, as appropriate. The U.S.

Great Lakes States have made some progress towards this goal because of their obligations under the

Clean Water Act, 1972 which has required all states to create a list of nutrient impaired waters. These

waters that have since become management action priorities for state and federal governments and many

have started work on watershed management plans. In addition, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

Action Plan has already identified five targeted geographic watersheds (Fox River, Saginaw River,

Maumee River, St. Louis River, and Genesee River) for nonpoint source pollution control measures in the

U.S. Ontario has identified the Lake Simcoe watershed as a priority and has implemented legislation and

strategies to address the issues facing Lake Simcoe including the development of the Lake Simcoe

Phosphorus Reduction Strategy. Ontario’s watershed based Conservation Authorities are uniquely

positioned to enable similar efforts in other watersheds in Ontario in the future. Further efforts to

identify, develop nutrient reduction strategies and watershed plans for priority watersheds will be required

for both Canada and the U.S. to meet their obligations under the 2012 GLWQA.


63

Works Cited Alliance for the Great Lakes. (2012). Reducing Combined Sewer Overflows in the Great Lakes: Why

Investing in Infrastructure is Critical to Improving Water Quality.

Baril, P., Maranda, Y., & Baudrand, J. (2005). Integrated watershe management in Quebec:a participatory

approach centred on local solidarity. Europe INBO (International Network of Basin

Organizations) 2005 Communications Papers. Namur: INBO.

Beaulieu, M. (2004). Manure Management in Canada. Retrieved from Statistics Canada:

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/Statcan/21-021-M/21-021-MIE2004001.pdf

Behrn, D. (2013, Jan 9). MMSD ordered to provide 'green infrastructure' for storm water. Milwaukee

Wisconsin Sentinel.

Benidickson, J. (2009). Introduction. In Environmental Law (pp. 3-11). Toronto: Irwin Law Inc.

Binstock , M. (2011). Greening Stormwater Management in Ontario: An Analysis of Challenges and

Opportunities. Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy.

Canadian Council of Environment Ministers (CCME). (2006). Municipal Wastewater Effluent in Canada

(Backgrounder). Canadian Council of Environment Ministers (CCME).

Canadian Council of Environment Ministers (CCME). (2009). Canada-wide Strategy for the Management

of Municipal Wastewater Effluent. Retrieved 2012, from Canadian Council of Environment

Ministers (CCME): http://www.ccme.ca/ourwork/water.html?category_id=81

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2010). A Review of the Current Canadian

Legislative Famework for Wastewater Biosolids. CCME.

Canadian Water Network. (2012). About Us: Vision and Mission. Retrieved 2012, from Canadian Water

Network: http://www.cwn-rce.ca/about/vision-and-mission/

Centner, T. U., & Newton, G. L. (2011). Meeting environmental requirements for the land application of

manure. Journal of Animal Science, 4364-4369.

City of New York. (2012). NY State State Biosolids Facilities and Processing Law. Retrieved 2012, from

City of New York: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/laws/state_biosolids.shtml

Commission, I. J. (2012). Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Retrieved 2012, from

http://www.ec.gc.ca/grandslacs-

greatlakes/default.asp?lang=En&n=A1C62826&offset=1&toc=show

Conservation Cropping Systems Initiative. (2012). Home. http://www.in.gov/isda/ccsi/index.htm.

Conservation Ontario. (2003). Watershed Economic Incentives Through Phosphorus Trading and Water

Quality.

Conservation Ontario. (2010). Watershed Stewardship. Retrieved from Conservation Ontario:

http://www.conservation-ontario.on.ca/stewardship/programs.html

Conservation Ontario. (2012). Conservation Ontario Comments on Ontario’s Draft Great Lakes Strategy.

Conservation Ontario.

Conservation Ontario. (2012). Using an Integrated Watershed Management Approach to Realize

Efficiencies. Newmarket: Conservation Ontario .

Conservation Ontario. (2012). Watershed Management Projects. Retrieved 2012, from Conservation

Ontario: http://www.conservation-ontario.on.ca/projects/iwmp/index.html

Conservation Technology Information Center. (2012). About Conservation Technology Information

Center. Retrieved 2012, from Conservation Technology Information Center:

http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC%20HOME/ABOUT%20CTIC/

Cooperative Science Monitoring Initiative. (2010). Information. Retrieved 2012, from Cooperative

Science Monitoring Initiative: http://cooperativescience.net/?page_id=53

Copeland, C. (2003). CRS Report for Congress: Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads of

Pollutants. Washington: Congressional Research Service-The Library of Congress.

Copeland, C. (2010). Clean Water Act: A Summary of the Law. Congressional Research Service.


64

Cornell University Soil and Water Laboratory . (2012). Variable Source Area Hydrology. Retrieved 2012,

from Soil and Water Laboratory Cornell University:

http://soilandwater.bee.cornell.edu/Research/VSA/extension.html

Cornell University's Nutrient Management Spear Program. (2012). Cornell University's Nutrient

Management Spear Progra. Retrieved 2012, from Cornell University:

http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/

Cox, A., Granato, T., & Kollias , L. (2012). Land Application of Biosolids by the Metropolitan Water

Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. In C. Jakobsson, Ecosystem Health & Sustainable

Agriculture - EHSA Book 1. Baltic University Press.

Crable, A. (2010, July 6). Phosphate ban in dishwasher detergent goes into effect. Lancaster Online.

Crops Nutrients Council. (2006). Adoption of Environmentally and Economically Sustainable Beneficial

Management Practices. Retrieved 2012, from Crops Nutrients Council:

http://www.cropnutrientscouncil.ca/_documents/pdf/CNC_final_planning.pdf

Currier, B., Minton, G., Pitt, R., Roesner, L., Stenstrom, M., Schiff, K., et al. (2006). The Feasibility of

Numeric Effluent Limits Applicable to Discharges of Storm WaterAssociated with Municipal,

Industrial and Construction Activities. Storm Water Panel to the California State Water

Resources Control Board.

de Loe, R., & Kreutzwiser, R. (2007). Challenging the status Quo:the Evolution of Water Governance in

Canada. In K. Bakker, Eau Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Dolan, D., & McGunagle, K. (2005). Lake Erie Toatal Phosphorus Loading Analysis and Update:1996-

2002. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 11-22.

Eckman, K., Walker, R., Bouapao, L., & Nuckles, K. (2008). non-Point Source Pollution (NPS) Project

Evaluation Practices in Minnesota: Summary Report. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Water

Resources Center.

Ecojustice. (2008). Green Cities Great Lakes: Using Green Infrastructure to Combat Combined Sewer

Overflows. Ecojustice.

Ecojustice, & Christensen, R. (2011). WaterProof 3 Canada’s drinking Water report Card. Ecojustice.

Electric Power Research Institute. (2012). Ohio River Basin Trading Project. Retrieved 2012, from

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI):

http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=423&mode=2&in_hi_userid=230564&cac

hed=true

Environment Canada . (2012 ). Detroit River Area of Concern. Retrieved 2012 , from Environment

Canada : http://www.ec.gc.ca/raps-pas/default.asp?lang=En&n=3B1C62BD-1

Environment Canada. (2011). Canada Water Act Annual Report for April 2010 to March 2011.

Government of Canada.

Environment Canada. (2011). Great Lakes Surveillance Program. Retrieved 2012, from Environment

Canada: http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/default.asp?lang=en&n=3F61CB56-1

Environment Canada. (2011). Lakewide Management Plans. Retrieved from Environment Canada:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/grandslacs-greatlakes/default.asp?lang=En&n=0CB6DFA3-1

Environment Canada. (2012). Bay of Quinte Area of Concern. Retrieved 2012, from Environment Canada

: http://www.ec.gc.ca/raps-pas/default.asp?lang=En&n=73F09CED-1

Environment Canada. (2012). Expanding Environment Canada’s Great Lakes Research and Monitoring

Program. Retrieved 2012, from Environment Canada:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/scitech/default.asp?lang=En&n=6A2D63E5-

1&xsl=privateArticles2,viewfull&po=39C1DFF7

Environment Canada. (2012). Government of Canada Delivers on New Wastewater Regulations.

Retrieved July 2012, from Environment Canada: http://www.ec.gc.ca/eu-

ww/default.asp?lang=en&n=BC799641-1

Environment Canada. (2012). Great Lakes Areas of Concern . Retrieved 2012, from Environment

Canada: http://www.ec.gc.ca/raps-pas/default.asp?lang=En&n=A290294A-1


65

Environment Canada. (2012). Great Lakes Sustainability Fund. Retrieved 2012, from Environment

Canada: http://www.ec.gc.ca/raps-pas/default.asp?lang=En&n=F328E319-1

Environment Canada. (2012). Niagara River Area of Concern . Retrieved 2012, from Environment

Canada.

Environment Canada. (2012). St Lawrence Area of Concern. Retrieved 2012, from Environment Canada:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/raps-pas/default.asp?lang=En&n=4948AC55-1

Environment Canada. (2012). Wheatley Habour Delisted Area of Concern . Retrieved 2012, from

Environment Canada : http://www.ec.gc.ca/raps-pas/default.asp?lang=En&n=299C927C-1

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. (2000). Ecosystem Monitoring. Changing Perspectives, ECO

Annual Report, 1999-2000, pp. 128-131.

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. (2011). Engaging Solutions Annual Report 2010-2011.

Retrieved 2013, from Environmental Commissioner of Ontario:

http://www.eco.on.ca/uploads/Reports-Annual/2010_11/Final-English-Bookmarked-2010-AR.pdf

Environmental Registry. (2007). Sewer Use Best Management Practices Documents for Industrial

Discharges to Municipal Sewers. Retrieved 2012, from Environmental Registry:

http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-

External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTAxMDU1&statusId=MTUwOTYz&language=en

Environmental Trading Network. (2012). State Programs and Policies. Retrieved from Environmental

Trading Network: http://www.envtn.org/State_Programs___Rules.html#New_York

ERCA. (2012). Water Quality Monitoring Program. Retrieved 2012, from

http://www.erca.org/watershed/water_quality_monitoring_program.cfm

Eutrophication Advisory Work Group to the International Joint Commission (IJC). (2009). Work Group

Report on Eutrophication. Windsor: IJC.

Federation of Canadian Municipalities. (2012). Green Municipal Fund. Retrieved 2012, from Federation

of Canadian Municipalities: http://fcm.ca/home/programs/green-municipal-fund/about-the-

program.htm

Federation of Canadian Municipalities. (2012, September 11). New national report card says Canada's

municipal infrastructure "at risk". Retrieved 2012, from http://www.fcm.ca/home/media/news-

releases/2012/new-national-report-card-says-canadas-municipal-infrastructure-at-risk.htm

Freek, K. (2012, August 28). To Market We Go. Retrieved 2012, from Blue Economy Initiative:

http://www.blue-economy.ca/news/market-we-go

Government of Canada. (1999). Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Government of Canada. (2005). Canadian Enviornmental Sustainability Indicators: Freshwater Quality

Indicator: Data Sources and Methods. Her Majestry the Queen in Right og Canada.

Government of Canada. (2009-2010). Regulations Amending the Phosphorus Concentration Regulations.

Retrieved 2012, from Canada Gazzette: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2009/2009-06-

24/html/sor-dors178-eng.html

Government of Canada. (2013). gas Tax Fund. Retrieved from Infrastructure Canada:

http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/prog/gtf-fte-eng.html

Government of Ontario. (1990). Ontario Water Resources Act. Retrieved 2012, from e-laws:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90o40_e.htm

Government of Ontario. (1990). Procedure F-5-5 Determination of Treatment Requirements for

Municipal and Provate Combined and Separate Storm Sewer Systems. Government of Ontario.

Government of Ontario. (2002). Nutrient Management Act, 2002 reg 267/03. Retrieved 2012, from e-law

Ontario: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_030267_e.htm#BK77

Government of Ontario. (2009). Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. (2011, June). Stormwater management in the Great Lakes

and St. Lawrence Basin. Retrieved 2012, from Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative:

http://www.glslcities.org/greencities/stormwater/Stormwater%20Management%20Report_Englis

h_Final2_Updated.pdf


66

Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. (2012). Sustainable Municipal Water Management A

Green CiTTS Report. Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative.

Great Lakes Cities Initiative 2012 Resulutions. (2012). 2012 Resulutions. Retrieved from Great Lakes

Cities Initiative: http://www.glslcities.org/annual-

meetings/2012/2012%20GLSLCI%20Approved%20Resolutions.pdf

Great Lakes Commission. (2006). Great Lakes Monitoring Inventory and Gap Analysis. Great Lakes

Commission.

Great Lakes Commission. (2011). Resolution: Nutrient Management in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence

River Basin . Retrieved from Great Lakes Commission:

http://www.glc.org/about/resolutions/11/nutrient.html

Great Lakes Commission. (2012). NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT: A SUMMARY OF STATE AND

PROVINCIAL PROGRAMS INT THE GREAT LAKES -ST. LAWRENCE RIVER REGION. Ann

Arbor: Great Lakes Commission.

Great Lakes Dredging Team. (2005). Open Water Disposal of Dredged Materials in the Great Lakes-St.

Lawrece River Basin. Great Lakes Commission.

Great Lakes Phosphorus Forum. (2009). Proceedings of Great Lakes Phosphorus Forum. Great Lakes

Phosphorus Forum. Windsor.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. (2010). Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan 2010-2014.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition. (2012). About Us. Retrieved from Green Infrastructure Ontario

Coalition: http://www.greeninfrastructureontario.org/about-us

Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition. (2013). Benefits of Green Infrasturcture. Retrieved 2013, from

Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition: http://www.greeninfrastructureontario.org/benefits

Greene County Soil and Water Conservation District. (2012). Agricultural Programs . Retrieved 2012,

from Greene County Soil and Water Conservation District: http://www.gcswcd.com/ag-

prgms.html

GSA General Services Administration . (2011). Benefits and Challenges of Green Roofs on Public and

Commercial Buildings: A Report of the United States Generation Services Administration. GSA.

Heidelberg University. (2012 ). National Center for Water Quality Research. Retrieved 2012, from

http://www.heidelberg.edu/academiclife/distinctive/ncwqr

Hunt, S. (2012, July 18). State plan intends to reduce farm pollution, Lake Erie algae. The Columbus

Dispatch.

ICF Marbek . (2012). Low Impact Development Discussion Paper . Ottawa.

IDEM. (2012). Land Application of Biosolids and Industrial Waste Products. Retrieved July 2012, from

Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM): http://www.in.gov/idem/5901.htm

Illinois Department of Agriculture. (2012). The Livestock Management Facilities Program . Retrieved

2012, from Illinois Department of Agriculture: http://www.agr.state.il.us/Environment/LMFA/

Illinois Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Storm Water Management Program . Retrieved July 25,

2012, from Illinois Department of Transportation:

http://www.dot.state.il.us/desenv/environmental/stormwater.html

Illinois DNR. (2012). Cost Share Programs. Retrieved 2012, from Illinois DNR:

http://www.dnr.state.il.us/orep/pfc/incentives.htm#ALP

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). NPDES Permit No ILA01 . Retrieved 2013, from

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/permits/cafo/general-

npdes-permit.pdf

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Permit Programs. Retrieved July 25, 2012, from Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/permits/waste-

water/index.html

Illinois EPA. (2009). General Storm Water Permit for Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems .

Retrieved 2012, from Illinois EPA: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/permits/storm-

water/ms4.html


67

Illinois EPA. (2011). Green Infrastructure Plan for Illinois. Retrieved from Illinois EPA:

http://www.epa.state.il.us/green-infrastructure/index.html

Illinois EPA. (2012). Ecosystems Program. Retrieved 2012, from Illinois EPA:

http://dnr.state.il.us/orep/pfc/ecosystem/

Illinois EPA. (2012). Illinois Green Infrastructure Grant Program for Stormwater Management (IGIG).

Retrieved from Illinois EPA: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/financial-assistance/igig.html

Illinois EPA. (2012). Illinois Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program. Retrieved 2012, from

http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/vlmp/index.html

Illinois EPA. (2012). Nonpoint Source Unit. Retrieved 2012, from Illinois EPA:

http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/watershed/nonpoint-source.html

Illinois EPA Joint Commitee on Adminstrative Rules. (2012). TITLE 77: PUBLIC HEALTH. Retrieved

July 2012, from Illinois EPA:

http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/077/077009050001100R.html

Indiana Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts. (2012). The Indiana Conservation

Partnership. Retrieved 2012, from Indiana Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts:

http://www.iaswcd.org/icp/index.html

Indiana Associtation of Soil and Water Conservation Districts. (2012). Indiana Conservation Partnership

Technical Resources :Tool for ICP Employees. Retrieved 2012, from Indiana Associtation of Soil

and Water Conservation Districts: http://www.iaswcd.org/icp/icptecresources.html

Indiana Clean Lakes Program. (2010). Indiana Clean Lakes Program. Retrieved 2012, from IU School of

Public & Environmental Affairs: http://www.indiana.edu/~clp/VMlakelocations.php

Indiana Department of Environmental Management. (n.d.). Permit Guide: Storm Water Run-off -

Construction Sites. Retrieved July 25, 2012, from Indiana Department of Environmental

Management: http://www.in.gov/idem/5912.htm

Indiana Finance Authority. (2012). About The State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Programs. Retrieved

2012, from Indiana Finance Authority: http://www.in.gov/ifa/srf/

Indiana State Department of Agriculture. (2012). Clean Water Indiana. Retrieved 2012, from Indiana

State Department of Agriculture: http://www.in.gov/isda/2379.htm

Indiana State Department of Agriculture. (2012). Indiana's On-Farm Network. Retrieved 2012, from

Indiana's On-Farm Network:

http://www.in.gov/isda/ofn/?WT.cg_n=ISDA_DSC_billboards&WT.cg_s=051811_03_on-

farm_network

Indiana State Department of Health. (2012). Onsite Sewage Systems Program. Retrieved July 2012, from

Indiana State Department of Health: http://www.in.gov/isdh/23283.htm

Industrial Economics,Incorporated (IEc) . (2008). EPA Water Quality Trading Evaluation. EPA's office

of Policy, Economics and Innovation (OPEI).

Infrastructure Canada. (2012). Building Canada Fund – Funding Categories in Detail. Retrieved 2012,

from Infrastructure Canada: http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/prog/bcf-fcc-categ-details-

eng.html#envir1

Innovative Stormwater Management Practices: An Online Database and Showcase of Low Impact

Development Practices in Ontario. (2013). Retrieved 2013, from Innovative Stormwater

Management: http://www.iswm.ca/lid_map.php

International Joint Commission. (2011). About the Great Lakes water Quality Agreement. Retrieved

2012, from International Joint Commission: http://www.ijc.org/rel/agree/quality.html#ann3

International Joint Commission. (2011). Fifteenth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality.

International Joint Commission.

International Joint Commission. (2012). The 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Retrieved 10

2012, from http://www.ec.gc.ca/grandslacs-

greatlakes/default.asp?lang=En&n=A1C62826&offset=5&toc=show

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION UNITED STATES AND CANADA. (1987). Revised Great

Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978. Governments of Canada and the United States.


68

International Missisquoi Bay Study Board. (2012). International Missisquoi Bay Study Board

Missisquoi Bay Critical Source Area Study. Prepared for the International Joint Commission.

Jolley, J., & Kleinschmit, S. (2012). nonpoint Source Pollution Reduction in Coastal communities: An

Extension Service Guide to Stormwater Manageemtn Practices. Journal of Extension, 50(4).

Jones, J., Clary, J., Strecker, E., Quigley, M., & Moeller, J. (2012). BMP Effectiveness for Nutrients

Bacteria,Solids,Metals and Runoff Volume. Stormwater, March-April.

Jones, R. A., & Lee, G. F. (1981). The Significance of Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal as a

Source of Nitrogen and Phosphorus for Estuarine Waters. In Estuaries and Nutrients (pp. 517-

530). Clifton ,NJ: Humana Press.

Kara, E., Heimerl, C., Killpack, T., Van de Bogert, M., Yoshida, H., & Carpenter, S. (2012). Assessing a

decade of phosphorus management in Lake Mendota , Wisconsin watershed and scenarios for

enhanced phosphorus management. Aquatic Sciences, 241-253.

Kennedy, A. (2010). Using Community-Based Social Marketing Techniques to Enhance Environmental

Regulation. Sustainability, 1138-2260.

Kilbert, K., Tisler, T., & Hohl, M. (2012). Legal Tools for Reducing Harmful Algal Blooms in Lake Erie.

University of Toledo College of Law.

Lake Champlain Basin Program. (2004). Phosphorus - Point Sources. Retrieved 2012, from Lake

Champlain Basin Atlas: http://www.lcbp.org/atlas/html/is_ppoint.htm

Lake Erie LaMP . (2011). Lake Erie Binational Nutrient Management Strategy. Lake Erie LaMP Work

Group Nutrient Management Task Group.

Lake Erie Millennium Network Synthesis Team. (2011). Lake Erie Nutrient Loading and Harmful Algal

Blooms: Research Findings and Management Implications. Retrieved 2012, from Ohio Seagrant:

http://www.ohioseagrant.osu.edu/_documents/publications/TS/TS-

060%2020June2011LakeErieNutrientLoadingAndHABSfinal.pdf

Lake Erie Nutrient Science Task Group. (2009). Status of Nutrients in Lake Erie Basin. Lake Erie

Lakewide Management Plan.

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. (2011). Stormwater Pond Maintenance and Anoxic

Conditions Investigation Final Report 2011. Newmarket: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation

Authority.

Laporte, J. (2010). Factsheet: Winter Application of Manure and Other Agricultural Source Materials.

Retrieved 2013, from OMAFRA: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/10-

073.htm

Laws, E. (2000). Aquatic Pollution: An Introductory Text. Wiley & Sons Inc.

LEAP:Livestock Environmental Assurance Program . (2012). What is LEAP. Retrieved 2012, from

LEAP:Livestock Environmental Assurance Program: http://www.ohleap.org/WisLeap/index.html

Legislative Coordinating Commision. (2012). Clean Water Fud. Retrieved 2012, from Minnesota's

Legacy: http://www.legacy.leg.mn/funds/clean-water-fund

Lehman, J., Bell, D., & MacDonald, K. (2009). Reduced river phosphorus following implementation of a

lawn fertilizer ordinance. Lake and Reservoir Management, 307–312.

Lewis, M. A., Weber, R. S., & Moore, J. C. (2001). Dredging impact on an urbanized Florida bayou:

effects on benthos and algal-periphyton. Environmental Pollution, 161-171.

Mackerel, K. (2012, Sept 7). Canada and U.S. update protection of Great Lakes. Globe and Mail.

MAPAQ. (2012). Prime Vert. Retrieved 2012, from MAPAQ:

http://www.mapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/productions/md/programmes/pages/primevert.aspx

Maurer, A. (2012, June 27). New CFO and CAFO rules require operational changes. Purdue University

News Service.

MDARD Environmental Stewardship Division. (2011). Right to Farm Program Fiscal Year Report 2011.

Retrieved 2012, from MDARD: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdard/FY_2011_Report_-

_FINAL_375317_7.pdf

MDDEP. (2002). Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs. Retrieved 2012,

from Wastewater: http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/eaux-usees/index-en.htm


69

MDDEP. (2012). The Quebec Volunteer Lake-Monitoring Program. Retrieved 2012, from MDDEP:

http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/rsvl/presentation-en.pdf

MDDEP. (n.d.). Réglementation -Règlement sur les exploitations agricoles. Retrieved 2012, from

MDDEP: http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/milieu_agri/agricole/index.htm

MDEQ. (2012). Environmental Stewardship: Programs. Retrieved 2012, from MDEQ:

http://www.michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7-125-1572_2875_31944---,00.html

Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP). (2011). Michigan Agriculture

Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) Policy. Retrieved 2012, from MEAP:

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CE8QFjAA&url=

http%3A%2F%2Fmacd.org%2F_literature_124050%2FTechnician_Specialization_Policy&ei=d_

YbUPOrHuam6wGluIDAAg&usg=AFQjCNEeruPZhitI-_KpKBF1AQlNEnHfJA

Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP). (2012). About. Retrieved 2012,

from Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP):

http://www.maeap.org/about/

Michigan Department of Enviornmental Quality. (n.d.). Michigan's Stormwater Program. Retrieved July

25, 2012, from Michigan Department of Enviornmental Quality:

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3682_3716---,00.html

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (2012). Guide to Environmental, Health, and Safety

Regulations, SECTION ONE – ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS :CHAPTER 3: Wastewater.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ). (2013, Jan 18). DEQ NPDES Permit Public

Comment. Retrieved from Department of Environmental Quality:

http://www.deq.state.mi.us/owis/Page/main/Home.aspx

Michigan DEQ. (2005). PERMIT NO. MIG019000 -State of Michigan NPDES Wastewater General

Permit Concentrated Animal Feeding operation. Retrieved 2012, from Michigan DEQ:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wb-npdes-cafo-generalpermit-MIG019000-

2010_316373_7.pdf

Michigan DEQ. (2011). Michigan Nutrient Framework. Retrieved 2012, from Michigan DEQ:

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3313-264525--,00.html

Michigan DEQ. (2012). Clean Michigan Initiative. Retrieved 2012, from Michigan DEQ:

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3307_31116---,00.html

Michigan DEQ. (2012). Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program. Retrieved 2012, from Michigan DEQ:

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3313_3686_3731-195536--,00.html

Michigan DEQ. (2012). Environmental Assistance Centre. Retrieved 2012, from Michigan DEQ:

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3307_36106---,00.html

Michigan DEQ. (2012). Michigan's Biosolids Program. Retrieved July 2012, from Michigan DEQ:

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3683_3720---,00.html

Michigan DEQ. (2012). Non-Point Source Program. Retrieved 2012, from Michigan DEQ:

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3313_3682_3714-13061--,00.html

Michigan DEQ. (2012). Resource Management Division - Septage Program. Retrieved July 2012, from

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality: http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-

3313_3682_3717---,00.html

Michigan DNR. (2012). Sustainable Soil and Water Quality Practices on Forest Land . Retrieved 2012,

from Michigan DNR: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-30301_31154_31261---

,00.html

Michigan Environmental Council. (2010). Phosphate-free dish detergent now the law in Michigan;

healthier lawn fertilizer up next . Retrieved 2012, from Michigan Environmental Council :

http://www.environmentalcouncil.org/priorities/article.php?x=219

Michigan Legislature. (2010). Phosphate Fertilizer Restrictions: House Bill 5368. Retrieved 2012, from

House Fiscal Agency: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-

2010/billanalysis/House/htm/2009-HLA-5368-6.htm


70

Michigan State University. (2012). MSU Nutrient Management Program Information. Retrieved 2012,

from Michigan State University Nutrient Management:

http://msunm.canr.msu.edu/intro%20page.html

Michigan Turfgrass Association. (2012). Michigan Turfgrass Environmental Stewardship Initiative – .

Retrieved 2012, from Michigan Turfgrass Association: http://www.michiganturfgrass.org/mtesp-

initiative-program-87/

Michigan Water Stewardship Program. (2012). About Michigan Water Stewardship Program (MWSP).

Retrieved 2012, from Michigan Water Stewardship Program:

http://www.miwaterstewardship.org/aboutmwsp/partnerstewardshipprograms

Miller, K. L. (2012). STATE LAWS BANNING PHOSPHORUS FERTILIZER USE. Retrieved 2012, from

Connecticut general Assembly: OLR Research Report: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-

0076.htm

Ministere Agriculture, Pêcheries et Alimentation Québec (MAPAQ). (2012). Agroenvironnement.

Retrieved 2012, from Agriculture, Pêcheries et Alimentation Québec:

http://www.mapaq.gouv.qc.ca/fr/Productions/Agroenvironnement/Pages/Agroenvironnement.asp

x

Ministry of the Environment. (2008). Design Guidelines for Sewage Works. Government of Ontario,

Ministry of the Environment.

Ministry of the Environment. (2011). Clean Water Act. Retrieved 07 25, 2012, from Ontario Ministry of

the Environment:

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/legislation/clean_water_act/index.htm

Ministry of the Environment. (2012). Ontario’s Draft Great Lakes Strategy. Queen's Printer for Ontario.

Ministry of the Environment. (2012). Regulating Municipal and Private Wastewater. Retrieved 2012,

from Ministry of the Environment:

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/subject/wastewater/STDPROD_093733.html

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. (2012). Grants. Retrieved 2012, from Minnesota Board of

Water and Soil Resources: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. (2007). Effectiveness of the Minnesota Phosphorus Lawn Fertilizer

Law.

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. (2012). 2012 Certified Manure Testing Laboratories. Retrieved

2012, from Minnesota Department of Agriculture:

http://www2.mda.state.mn.us/webapp/lis/manurelabs.jsp

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. (2012). Ag Water Quality Certification Program | Frequently

Asked Questions. Retrieved 2012, from Minnesota Department of Agriculture:

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/en/protecting/waterprotection/awqcprogram/awqcfaq.aspx

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. (2012). Agriculture Best Management Practices (BMP) Loan

Program. Retrieved 2012, from Minnesota Department of Agriculture:

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/agbmp

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. (2012). BMPs for Nitrogen Fertilizer Use in Minnesota. Retrieved


http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/bmps/nitrogenbmps.aspx

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. (2012). Manure Management. Retrieved 2012, from Minnesota

Department of Agriculture:

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/conservation/practices/manuremgmt.aspx

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. (2012). Nutrient Management Initiative Program in Minnesota.

Retrieved from Minnesota Department of Agriculture: http://www.mda.state.mn.us/nmi

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. (2012). Sustainable Agriculture Demonstration Grant Program.

Retrieved 2012, from Minnesota Department of Agriculture:

http://www.mda.state.mn.us/en/grants/grants/demogrant.aspx


71

Minnesota Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Minnesota Phosphorus Lawn Fertilizer Law. Retrieved


http://www.mda.state.mn.us/protecting/waterprotection/lawncwaterq.aspx

Minnesota DNR. (2012). Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool. Retrieved 2012, from Minnesota

DNR: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/watershed_tool/index.html

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2007). Feedlot Rules Overview Minnesota Rules Chapter 7020 .

Retrieved 2012, from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=3583

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2010). Stormwater Management. Retrieved July 25, 2012, from

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-

and-programs/stormwater/stormwater-management/stormwater-management.html

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2012). Clean Water Partnership & Section 319 Funds. Retrieved

2012, from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/water-nonpoint-source-

issues/clean-water-partnership/financial-assistance-for-nonpoint-source-water-pollution-projects-

clean-water-partnership-and-section-319-programs.html

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2012). Environmental Data Access:Surface Water Data. Retrieved

2012, from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/topics/environmental-data/eda-environmental-data-

access/eda-surface-water-searches/eda-surface-water-data-home.html

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2012). Minnesota's Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems

Program (SSTS). Retrieved July 2012, from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/wastewater/subsurface-

sewage-treatment-system-ssts/minnesota-s-subsurface-sewage-treatment-systems-program-

ssts.html

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2012). Phosphorus Management P lans. Retrieved 2012, from

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-

monitoring-and-reporting/water-quality-and-pollutants/phosphorus/phosphorus-management-

plans-pmp.html

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2013). Minimal Impact Design standards(MIDS): Enhancing

stormwater management in Minnesota. Retrieved from Mineesota Pollution Control Agency:

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/stormwater/stormwater-

minimal-impact-design-standards-mids.html

MOE. (2012). Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network. Retrieved 2012, from MOE:

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/monitoring_and_reporting/provincial_water_quality_

monitoring_network/index.htm

MPCA. (2005). Applying Manure in Sensitve Areas: State requirements and reccomended practices to

protect water quality. MPCA and NRCS.

MPCA. (2012). Volunteer Surface Water Monitoring. Retrieved 2012, from MPCA:

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-monitoring-and-reporting/volunteer-water-

monitoring/volunteer-surface-water-monitoring.html?menuid=&redirect=1

National Association of Conservation Districts. (2001). TDML CAse Study:Wisconsin. Retrieved 2012,

from National Association of Conservation Districts:

http://www.nacdnet.org/policy/environment/water/tmdl/casestudies/wisconsin.phtml

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. (2012). Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction. Retrieved

2012, from National Fish and Wildlife Foundation:

http://www.nfwf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Chesapeake_Bay_Stewardship_Fund&CONTE

NTID=25625&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2012). Coastal Programs: Partnering with States to

Manage Our Coastline. Retrieved 2012, from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/programs/czm.html


72

National Water Program. (2012). Animal Waste Management Educational Programs. Retrieved 2012,

from National Water Program:

http://www.usawaterquality.org/themes/animal/extension/educational.html

Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2012). Agricultural Management Assistance. Retrieved 2012,

from Natural Resources Conservation Service:

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/ama

New York DEC. (2009). Citizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program-Volunteers at Work. Retrieved

2012, from NY DEC: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/79219.html

New York Department of Environmental Conservation. (2012). Dishwasher Detergent and Nutrient

Runoff Law. Retrieved July 25, 2012, from New York Department of Environmental

Conservation: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/67239.html

New York Department of Environmental Conservation. (2012). Storm Water. Retrieved July 25, 2012,

from New York Department of Environmental Conservation:


New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2009). STATE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE

ELIMINATION SYSTEM (SPDES) GENERAL PERMIT FOR CAFOs. Retrieved 2013, from New

York Department of Environmental Protection:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/cafoeclpublicdraft.pdf

New York Soil and Water Conservation Committee. (2012). Agricultural Environmental Management.

Retrieved 2012, from New York Soil and Water Conservation Committee: http://www.nys-

soilandwater.org/aem/index.html

New York State DEC. (2012). New York State Great Lakes Protection Fund. Retrieved 2012, from NY

DEC: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/25582.html

Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. (2011). Drinking Water Source Protection Background

Documen tPrescribed Drinking Water Threat 8:. Retrieved 2012, from Source Protection

Niagara: http://www.sourceprotection-

niagara.ca/pdf/ProposedSPP/ExplanitoryDocAppendixA/08%20and%2009%20Comrcial%20Fert

ilizer.pdf

NOAA. (2012). 2012 Lake Huron Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative. Retrieved 2012, from

NOAA: http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/projects/csmi_lake_huron/csmi_lake_huron.html

NRCS. (2012). Soils. Retrieved 2012, from NRCS: http://soils.usda.gov/

NY DEC. (2009). Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) CAFO SPDES General Permit. Retrieved

2012, from NY DEC: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/55368.html

NY DEC. (2012). Cost-Share Grants. Retrieved 2012, from NY DEC:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5285.html

NY DEC. (2012). Permit Information and Assistance. Retrieved 2012, from NY DEC:


NY State Soil and water Conservation Committee . (2012). New York State Conservation Reserve

Enhancement Program. Retrieved 2012, from NY State Soil and water Conservation Committe:

http://www.nys-soilandwater.org/crep/index.html

ODNR Division of Soil & Water Resources. (2012). Resource Management Program: Agriculture

Pollution Abatement. Retrieved 2012, from Ohio DNR :

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/8856/Default.aspx

Ohio Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Stormwater Management program. Retrieved July 25, 2012,

from Ohio Department of Transportation:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/stormwater/Pages/default.aspx

Ohio DNR. (2012). Agriculture Pollution Abatement. Retrieved 2012, from Ohio DNR:

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/8856/Default.aspx

Ohio DNR. (2012). Ohio Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Retrieved 2012, from Ohio DNR:

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/nps/index.aspx#Local%20Watershed%20Planning


73

Ohio DNR. (2012). Ohio Stream Quality Monitoring (SQM) Project. Retrieved 2012, from Ohio DNR:

http://ohiodnr.com/watercraft/sqm/tabid/2550/default.aspx

Ohio DNR. (2012). Source Water Assessment and Protection Program. Retrieved from Ohio DNR:

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ddagw/swap_faqs.aspx

Ohio DNR Division of Soil and Water Conservation . (2012). DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER

CONSERVATION. Retrieved 2012, from Ohio DNR Division of Soil and Water Conservation :

http://ohiodnr.com/tabid/10630/Default.aspx

Ohio EPA. (-). CAFO NPDES Permits- Part VII of individual permits. Retrieved 2012, from Ohio EPA:

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/cafo/land_app.aspx

Ohio EPA . (2012). Division of Surface Water Lake Erie Unit. Retrieved 2012, from Ohio EPA :

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/lakeerie/index.aspx

Ohio EPA. (2003). Ohio Credible Data Program. Retrieved 2012, from Ohio EPA:

http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/credibledata/index.aspx

Ohio EPA. (2010). Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force. Retrieved 2011, from Ohio EPA:

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/lakeerie/ptaskforce/Task_Force_Final_Report_April_2010.pd

f

Ohio EPA. (2010). Surface Water Improvement Fund (SWIF) Grants Program. Retrieved 2012, from

Ohio EPA Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program:

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/nps/index.aspx

Ohio EPA. (2011). Ohio Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. Retrieved 2012, from Ohio EPA:

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/nps/index.aspx

Ohio EPA. (2012). Compliance Assistance Unit. Retrieved 2012, from Ohio EPA:

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/compl_assist/compasst.aspx

Ohio EPA. (2012). Statewide Biological and Water Quality Monitoring & Assessment. Retrieved 2012,

from Ohio EPA: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/bioassess/ohstrat.aspx

Ohio Lake Management Society. (2011). Citizen Lake Awareness and Monitoring. Retrieved 2012, from

Ohio Lake Management Society:

http://www.olms.org/pdf/Lake%20Summary%20Report%202011.pdf

Ohio Legislature. (2010). 1501:15-5-05 Land application of animal manure. Retrieved 2013, from

Lawwriter Ohio Laws: http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/1501%3A15-5-05

Ohio Legislature. (2010). Ohio Senate Bill 214. Retrieved 2012, from Ohio Legislature:

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=127_SB_214

OMAFRA. (2005). Determining the Phosphorus Index from a Field. Retrieved 2012, from OMAFRA:

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/05-067.htm

OMAFRA. (2005). The Farming and Food Production Protection Act (FFPPA) and Nuisance

Complaints. Retrieved 2012, from OMAFRA:

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/05-013.htm

OMAFRA. (2011). Agricultural Erosion Control Structures Training Course. Retrieved 2011, from

OMAFRA: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/environment/erosion_course.htm

OMAFRA. (2011). Sewage Biosolids - Managing Urban Nutrients Responsibly for Crop Production.

Retrieved 2012, from OMAFRA:

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/nm/nasm/info/brochure.htm

OMAFRA. (2011). Soils Ontario. Retrieved 2012, from OMAFRA:

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/gis/soils_ont.htm

OMAFRA. (2012). Canada-Ontario Environmental Farm Plan. Retrieved 2012, from Ontario Minstry of

Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs:

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/environment/efp/efp.htm

OMAFRA. (2012). Growing Forward. Retrieved 2012, from OMAFRA:

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/about/growingforward/2011-index.htm

OMAFRA. (2012). New Directions. Retrieved 2012, from OMAFRA:

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/research/new_directions/overview.htm


74

OMAFRA. (2012). Nutrient Management. Retrieved 2012, from OMAFRA:

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/agops/index.html

OMOE. (2012). Lake Partner Program. Retrieved 2012, from MOE:

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/local/lake_partner_program/index.htm

OMAFRA. (2010). Project Summary: Agricultural Resource Inventory (ARI) 1983 . Retrieved 2012,

from OMAFRA : http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/landuse/gis/ari_1983.htm

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. (2012). Provincial Policy Statement: Five-Year

Review. Retrieved from Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing:

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page7243.aspx

Ontario Ministry of the Enviornment. (2012). Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network. Retrieved

2012, from Ontario Ministry of the Enviornment:

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/monitoring_and_reporting/provincial_water_quality_

monitoring_network/index.htm

Ontario Ministry of the Environment . (2012). Lake Simcoe Protection. Retrieved 2012, from OMOE:

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/local/lake_simcoe_protection/index.htm

Ontario Ministry of the Environment. (1994). Provincial Water Quality Objectives. Ontario Ministry of

the Environment.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment. (2011). EVALUATING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

IMPACTING ON WATER RESOURCESPART III A HANDBOOK FOR DREDGING AND

DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL IN ONTARIO - LEGISLATION, POLICIES, SEDIMENT

CLASSIFICATION AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS. Queen's Printer for Ontario 1991, 1994, 2011.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment. (2011). Water Opportunities Act. Retrieved July 2012, from

Ontario Ministry of the Environment:

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/legislation/water_opportunities/index.htm

Ontario Ministry of the Environment. (2012). Environmental Compliance Reports. Retrieved 2012, from

Ontario Ministry of the Environment:

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/industry/compliance_and_enforcement/environmental

_compliance_reports/index.htm

Ontario MNR. (2012). Ontario Stewardship:About US. Retrieved 2012, from Ontario Stewardship:

http://www.ontariostewardship.org/index.php/about_us

Ontario MOE. (2010). Water Quality in Ontario.

Ontario Onsite WastewaterAssociation. (n.d.). MOE - Septic Systems and Hauled Sewage Regulation

Changes. Retrieved 2012, from Ontario Onsite WastewaterAssociation:

http://www.oowa.org/MOE/MOE%20septic%20haulage.pdf

PA Environmental Quality Board. (2005). Rules and Regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding

Operations and Other Agricultural Operations. Retrieved 2012, from [25 PA. CODE CHS. 91

AND 92]: http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol35/35-43/1945.html

PA Infrastructure Investment Authority. (2012). PENNVEST Funding Programs. Retrieved 2012, from

PA Infrastructure Investment Authority:

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/funding_programs/9322

PaOneStop. (2012). PaOneStop Home. Retrieved 2012, from PaOneStop:

http://www.paonestop.org/need.html

Parn, J., Pinay, G., & Mander, U. (2012). Indicators of nutrients transport from agricultural catchments

under temperate climate: A review. Ecological Indicaotrs, 4-15.

Pennsylvania DEP. (2011). Manure Managemetn Plan Guidance. Retrieved 2013, from Pennsylvania

DEP: http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-86014/361-0300-

002%20combined.pdf

Pennsylvania DEP. (2012). Citizens' Volunteer Monitoring Program Initiatives. Retrieved 2012, from

Pennsylvania DEP:

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=554213&mode=2


75

Pennsylvania DEP. (2012). Growing Greener. Retrieved 2012, from Pennsylvania DEP:

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/growing_greener/13958

Pennsylvania DEP. (n.d.). Pollution Prevention/Energy Efficiency Site Visits. Retrieved 2012, from

Pennsylvania DEP: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/pollprev/SiteVisit/SiteVisit.html

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. (2012). Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP).

Retrieved 2012, from Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture:

http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_24476_10297_0_43/A

gWebsite/ProgramDetail.aspx?name=Resource-Enhancement-and-Protection-

%28REAP%29&navid=12&parentnavid=0&palid=22&

Pennsylvania Department of Environment (DEP). (2012). Act 537 (The Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities

Act). Retrieved 2012, from Pennsylvania Department of Environment (DEP):

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/sewage_and_disposal/10583

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. (1978). Pennsylvania’s Storm Water Management

Act (Act 167) Fact Sheet. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. (2012). Bureau of Conservation and Restoration .

Retrieved 2012, from Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection:

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/bureau_of_conservation_and_restoratio

n/10593

Pennsylvania Legislature. (2008). PHOSPHATE DETERGENT ACT - Act 15. Retrieved 2012, from

Pennsylvania Legislature: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/HTM/2008/0/0015..HTM

Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Program. (2005). Act 38 Laws & Regulations. Retrieved 2012, from

Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Progr:

http://panutrientmgmt.cas.psu.edu/main_laws_regulations.htm

Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Program. (2012). General Program Overview. Retrieved 2012, from

Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Program:

http://panutrientmgmt.cas.psu.edu/gen_overview.htm

Pennsylvania State Extension. (2012). Agronomy Guide. Retrieved 2012, from Pennsylvania State

Extension: http://extension.psu.edu/agronomy-guide

Pennsylvannia Department of Enviornmental Protection(DEP). (2012). Onlot Sewage Program (Home

Buyer's / Builders Guide). Retrieved 2012, from Pennsylvannia Department of Enviornmental

Protection(DEP):

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wqp/wqp_wm/FACTS/pa1607.htm

Pennsylvannia Department of Environmental Protection. (2012). Regulation and Beneficial Use of

Biosolids . Retrieved July 2012, from Pennsylvannia Department of Environmental Protection:

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/biosolids/10588

Perez, M. (2011). Regulating Farmers: Lessons Learned From the Delmarva Peninsula. 23(6).

Phosphorus Reduction Task Force to GLC. (2012). Priorities for Reducing Phosphorus Loadings and

Abating Algal Blooms in The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin: Opportunities and

Challenges for improving Great Lakes Aquatic Ecosystems. Great Lakes Commission.

Puckett, L. (1995). Identifying the Major Sources of Nutrient Water Pollution. Environ. Sci. Technol,

408-414.

Purdue University. (2008). Indiana Watershed Leadership Program. Retrieved 2012, from Purdue

University: https://engineering.purdue.edu/watersheds/

Quebec. (2002). Regulation to prohibit the sale of certain dishwashing detergents. Retrieved 2012, from

Quebec:

http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=3&file=/Q_2

/Q2R30_A.HTM

Quebec Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs. (2002). Guide de

présentation des demandes d'autorisation pour les systèmes de traitement des eaux usées

d’origine domestique. Retrieved 2012, from Quebec Ministère du Développement durable, de


76

l'Environnement et des Parcs: http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/eaux-

usees/usees/annexe3.htm#performance

Reid, K. (2011). A modified Ontario P index as a tool for on-farm phopsphorus management. Candian

Journal of Soil Science, 455-466.

Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. (2012). Rideau Valley Rural Clean Water Program. Retrieved

2012, from Rideau Valley Conservation Authority:

http://www.rvca.ca/programs/rcwp/rvca_rcwp.html

Robertson, D., & Saad, D. (2011). Nutrient Inputs to the Laurentian Great Lakes by Source and

Watershed Estimated Using SPARROW Watershed Models. Journal of the American Water

Resources Association, 1011-1033.

Saad, D., Schwarz, G., Robertson, D., & Booth, N. (2011). A Multi-Agency Nutrient Dataset Used to

Estimate Loads, Improve Monitoring Design, and Calibrate Regional Nutrient Sparrow Models.

Journal of the American water resources Association, 933-949.

Schiller, M., Bouchard, R., & Moore, L. (2010). Protecting Drinking Water In Lake Ontario –10 Years of

Utility Led Research. World Water Congress and Exhibition. Montreal .

Selman, M., Branosky, E., & Jones, C. (2009). Water Quality Trading Programs: An International

Overview. World Resources Institute.

Shepard, R. (1999). Making Our Nonpoint Source Pollution Education Programs Effective. Journal of

Extension, 37(5).

Shirley, S. (2012). STRATÉGIE DE PROTECTION ET DE CONSERVATION DES SOURCES

DESTINÉES À L’ALIMENTATION EN EAU POTABLE - PIERRE ARCAND ANNONCE LA

TENUE D’UNE CONSULTATION PUBLIQUE. Retrieved 2013, from MDDEP:

http://www.mddefp.gouv.qc.ca/infuseur/communique.asp?No=2067

Sierra Legal. (2006). The Great Lakes Sewage Report Card. Sierra Legal.

Singh, A., Rudra, R., Ahmed, I., Gharabaghi, B., & Goel, P. (2007). Application of CANWET and HSPF

for TDML Evaluation under Southern Ontario Conditions. Fourth Conference on Watershed

Management to Meet Water Quality and TMDLS, (pp. 11-13). San Antonio, TX.

Smith, R. (2010). Methods of Aquatic Ecology Course Manual and Reference. Department of Biology

University if Waterloo.

Stantec. (2012, November). Lake Ontario Collaborative Technical Report. Retrieved December 2012,

from CTC Source Protection Region : http://www.ctcswp.ca/Lake-Ontario-Collaborative/lake-

ontario-collaborative.html

State of Michigan. (1994). Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA). Retrieved

2012, from Michigan Attourney General: http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-164-18157-

46073--,00.html

State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group. (2009). An Urgent Call to Action A Report of the State-EPA

Nutrient Innovations Task Group. US EPA.

Stehouwer, R. (2012). Land Application of Sewage Sludge in Pennsylvania - Biosolids Quality . Retrieved

July 2012, from Penn State Extension: http://extension.psu.edu/cmeg/esi/biosolids-quality

TRCA. (2012). STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA. Toronto.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) . Retrieved July 25, 2012, from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/munic.cfm

U.S. EPA. (2008). EPA Water Qualiy Trading Evaluation. U.S. EPA.

U.S. EPA. (2009). 5th National Conference for Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Outreach. Retrieved

2012, from U.S. EPA: http://epa.gov/owow/NPS/outreach2009/

U.S. EPA. (2012). Clean Water Act Compliance Assitance. Retrieved 2012, from U.S. EPA:

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/bystatute/cwa/index.html

U.S. EPA. (2012). Clean water State Revolving Fund. Retrieved 2012, from U.S. EPA:

http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/cwsrf/cwsrf_index.cfm


77

U.S. EPA. (2012). Construction and Development Status of Rulemaking to revise Numeric Turbidity

Limit. Retrieved 2012, from U.S. EPA:

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/construction/index.cfm

U.S. EPA. (2012). Great Lakes Monitoring Beach Indicators Trophic State of the Great Lakes. Retrieved

2012, from U.S. EPA: http://www.epa.gov/glindicators/water/trophicb.html

U.S. EPA. (2012). NPDES: Animal Feeding Operations. Retrieved 2012, from U.S. EPA:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=7

U.S. EPA. (2012). PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL

POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM Consolidated Concentrated Animal

Feeding Operations (CAFO) Regulations. U.S. EPA.

U.S. EPA. (2012). Progress towards Adopting Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Numeric Water

Quality Standards. Retrieved 2012, from U.S. EPA:

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/nutrients/dataset_standards.cfm

U.S. EPA. (2012). Source Water Assessments. Retrieved 2012, from U.S. EPA:

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/sourcewater/protection/sourcewaterassessments.

cfm

U.S. EPA. (2012). What is Green Infrastructure? Retrieved 2013, from U.S. EPA:

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_what.cfm

U.S. EPA. (n.d.). Water Permitting 101. Office of Wastewater Management - Water Permitting.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012). Farm Bill. Retrieved from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

http://www.fws.gov/partners/farmBill.html

U.S. EPA. (2012). Action towards Limiting Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loads from NPDES-Permitted

Facilities. Retrieved 2012, from U.S. EPA:

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/nutrients/dataset_npdes.cfm

United Soybean Board. (2008). Environmental Audit. Retrieved 2013, from United Soybean Board:

http://www.unitedsoybean.org/wp-

content/uploads/USLivestockandPoultryEnvironmentalAudit.pdf

United Soybean Board. (2010). State Summary Illinois- Environmental Audit. Retrieved 2012, from

United Soybean Board: http://www.ilsoy.org/_data/mediaCenter/files/713.pdf

University of Guelph. (2012). Ontario Agricultural College. Retrieved 2012, from University of Guelph:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/oac/research

University of Illinois. (2012). Compliance Assistance. Retrieved 2012, from Illinois Sustainable

Technologyt Center: http://www.istc.illinois.edu/tech/compliance_assistance.cfm

University of Illinois Extension. (2012). Illinois Manure Management Plan - Contents. Retrieved 2012,

from University of Illinois Extension: http://web.extension.illinois.edu/clmt/immp_contents.cfm

University of Minnesota. (2012). Onsite Sewage Treatment Program. Retrieved 2012, from University of

Minnesota: http://septic.umn.edu/

University of Minnesota. (2012). Phosphorus Loss Assessment. Retrieved 2012, from University of

Minnesota: http://www.mnpi.umn.edu/

University of Wisconsin Extension Citizen-Based Water Monitoring Network. (2012). Discovery Farms'

Trained Local Samplers Program. Retrieved 2012, from University of Wisconsin Extension

Citizen-Based Water Monitoring Network: http://watermonitoring.uwex.edu/level3/disco.html

University of Wisconsin Madison. (2012). Precision Agricultural-Landscape Modeling System PALMS.

Retrieved 2012, from Speace Science and Engineering Centre University of Wisconsin Madison:

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/research/palms/

United States 1994 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Policy . (1994). United States of America.

US EPA. (2010). Green Infrastructure Case Studies: Municipal Policies for Managing Stormwater with

Green Infrastructure. US EPA.

US EPA (2012) Water Green Infrastructure:Federal Regulatory Programs. (2012). Retrieved 2012, from

U.S. EPA: http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/gi_regulatory.cfm


78

US EPA. (2010). Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Clean Water Act Settlement. Retrieved 2013,

from US EPA: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/cwa/neorsd.html

US EPA. (2012). Clean Water Act Section 319. Retrieved 2012, from US EPA:

http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/NPS/cwact.html

US EPA. (2012). Data Access Tool to Help States Develop Strategies to Address Nitrogen and

Phosphorus Pollution. Retrieved 2012, from US EPA:

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/nutrients/npdat_index.cfm

US EPA. (2012). Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Retrieved from US EPA:

http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/dwsrf/index.cfm

US EPA. (2012). Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Retrieved from US EPA:

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glri/

US EPA. (2012). Proposed National Rulemaking to Strengthen the Stormwater Program. Retrieved 2013,

from US EPA: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/rulemaking.cfm

USDA. (2010). News and Events 2010. Retrieved 2012, from USDA Agricultural Research Service:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2010/100809.htm

USDA. (2012). Indiana Soil Health. Retrieved 2012, from NRCS:

http://www.in.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/Soil%20Health/soil_health.html

USEPA. (2012). Nutrients Management Research. Retrieved 2012, from USEPA:

http://www.epa.gov/research/waterscience/water-nutrients.htm

USGS. (2012). Forecast/Nowcast Nutrient Loading: Great Lakes Tributary Moniotring Initiative.

Retrieved 2012, from USGS:

http://cida.usgs.gov/glri/projects/nearshore_health/forecast_loadings.html

Wagner, K., & Corbin, W. (2003). Approaches for Determining Appropriate nutrient Targets in TDML

development for Lakes. Proceedings of rthe Water Environment Federation, National TDML

Science and Policy 2003, (pp. 554-571).

West Virginia DEP. (2011). National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Individual

Permits . Retrieved 2012, from West Virginia DEP:

http://www.dep.wv.gov/wwe/permit/individual/pages/default.aspx

Western Lake Superior Sanitary District. (2012). Biosolid regulations. Retrieved 2012, from Western

Lake Superior Sanitary District: http://www.wlssd.com/wastewater_biosolids_regulations.php

Wisconsin Citizen-Based Water Monitoring Network. (2012). Wisconsin Water Monitoring . Retrieved

2012, from University of Wisconsin: http://watermonitoring.uwex.edu/level2/stream.html

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP). (2012). Nutrient

Management – General Information. Retrieved 2012, from Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,

Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP):

http://datcp.wi.gov/farms/nutrient_management/index.aspx

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (2012). Storm Water Runoff Regulation . Retrieved July 25,

2012, from Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/learn_more/regulations.html

Wisconsin DNR. (2007). Wisconsin’s NR 243 animal feeding operation rule. Retrieved 2012, from

Wisconsin DNR: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/AgBusiness/NR243.html

Wisconsin DNR. (2012). Runoff Management Administrative Rules. Retrieved 2012, from Wisconsin

DNR: http://dnr.wi.gov/regulations/runoffrules.html

Wisconsin DNR. (2012). Targeted Runoff Management Grants Program. Retrieved 2013, from

Wisconsin DNR: http://dnr.wi.gov/aid/targetedrunoff.html

Wisconsin DNR. (2012). Turf Management Regulation. Retrieved 2012, from Wisconsin DNR:

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/stormwater/standards/turf_nutrient.html

Wisconsin DNR. (2012). Wisconsin Administrative Code. Retrieved 2012, from Wisconsin DNR:

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/ww/ctlrules.htm

Wisconsin DNR. (2012). Wisconsin's Environmental Compliance Audit Program. Retrieved 2012, from

Wisconsin DNR: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/CompAssist/Audit.html


79

Wisconsin DNR. (2012). Wisconsin's Priority Watershed and Priority Lake Program . Retrieved 2012,

from Wisconsin DNR: http://dnr.wi.gov/runoff/watershed.htm

Wisconsin DNR, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection and Dane and

Columbia County Land Conservation Districts. (2000). Non Point Source Control Plan for the

Lake Mendota Priority Watershe Project. Wisconsin DNR.

Wisconsin Manure Management Advisory System. (2012). Wisconsin Manure Management Advisory

System. Retrieved 2012, from Wisconsin Manure Management Advisory System:

http://www.manureadvisorysystem.wi.gov/app/

Workgroup on Parties Implementation Great Lakes Science Advisory Board. (2000). Nonpoint Sources of

Pollution to the Great Lakes Basin. Great Lakes Science Advisory Board.

Workgroup on Parties Implementation Great Lakes Science Advisory Board. (2000). Nonpoint Sources of

Pollution to the Great Lakes Basin. Great Lakes Science Advisory Board.

World Resources Institute. (2005). Sources of Nutrient Pollution. Retrieved 2012, from World Resources

Institute: http://www.wri.org/project/eutrophication/about/sources

Woyzbun, E. (2010). Spatial Analysis of the Adoption of Nutrient Management Related Best Management

Practices in Ontario. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.