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Samantha Dupre and is not for citation.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
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.
i
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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 NonCAFOs .......................................................................................................................................... 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
ii
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
iii
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
iv
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
Canada (Ontario) .............................................................................................................................. 59
Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 60
Works Cited ............................................................................................................................................. 63
v
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
vi
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
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
Total Phosphorus (TP): This is a
measure of all forms of the nutrient
phosphorus dissolved or particulate
reactive or nonreactive.
1
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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).
2
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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 phosphorusreduction 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
3
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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)
4
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
5
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
6
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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 postharvest 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
7
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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 nonagricultural 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
8
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
9
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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).
10
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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).
11
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
12
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
13
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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 NonCAFOs
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.
14
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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).
15
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
16
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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).
17
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
18
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
19
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
20
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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 costsharing, 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.
21
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
22
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
23
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
Rain water harvesting(Rain
Barrels-Cistern)
54%
Permeable Pavement
45%
x
x
Bioretention (rain gardens,
vegetated filter strips ect)
40%
x
x
Green Roofs
36%
Preserve Urban Forests/ other
natural vegetation
Retention
Detention
x
Reduced CSO
Frequency
Water
Quality
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
34%
x
x
x
x
Enhanced Swales
34%
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
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
24
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
25
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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 nonpoint 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 postdevelopment 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 postdevelopment 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
26
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
27
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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)
28
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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 § 172101 et seq.)
Wisconsin
(WSA 94.643)
Indiana
355 IAC 71-1)
Year
passed/effective
dates
2010/2010
2010/2012
2002/2004
2010/2012
2009/2010
2012
Applicators
affected
Exempt
applicators and
allowed P
fertilizer use
Applicator “for
hire”
Golf courses,
commercial sod
farms,
agricultural
lands, right of
ways, P
deficient areas,
new turf& lawn
repair
Prohibited must
clean up if
inadvertent
All persons
All persons
All persons
All persons
Applicators
Golf courses;
Commercial
farm land;
Phosphorus
deficiency;
Establish new
turf
Gardens;
Agricultural
lands and
production; Sod
farms;
Phosphorus
deficiency;
Establish new
turf
Prohibited,
must clean up if
inadvertent
Sod farms;
Agricultural
land and
production;
Phosphorus
deficiency;
Establish new
turf
N/A
Prohibited,
must clean up
if inadvertent
Golf courses;
Sod farms;
Agricultural
lands and
production;
Phosphorus
deficiency;
Establish new
turf
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
Application to
impervious
surfaces
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
29
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
30
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
31
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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).
32
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
33
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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. (federalapplies 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.
34
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
Michigan
Ohio
Regulation and
Regulatory Authority
Septage Program-DEQ
& County Health
Departments
ORC chapter 3718,
sewage treatment
systems (including
home sewage treatment
systems)-Ohio
Department of Health
Description
Regulations Regarding Inspections
Michigan is the only state without a
statewide sanitary code. (Michigan
DEQ, 2012).
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).
No statewide regulation for inspection.
Counties are individually responsible for
this.
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
35
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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 HealthNYSDEC 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.
Wisconsin
Chapter NR 204
DOMESTIC
SEWAGE SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT
Subsurface Sewage
Treatment Systems
(SSTS) (septic
systems) are regulated
by Minnesota Statutes
115.55 and 115.56.
Regulations about design, placement and
capacity of home treatment systems. No
mention of nutrients.
Illinois Administrative
Code: 77: PUBLIC
HEALTH CHAPTER
I: DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH
SUBCHAPTER :
WATER AND
SEWAGE-PART 905
PRIVATE SEWAGE
DISPOSAL CODE
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
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)
Minnesota
Illinois
Indiana
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)
Department of Health reviews and
approves plans and specifications for
onsite sewage disposal, no regulations
specific to nutrients (Indiana State
Department of Health, 2012).
36
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)
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.
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.
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.
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
Pennsylvania
Ontario
Québec
Onlot Sewage Program
-administered by
municipalities on
behalf of PADEP
under Act 537 and
Chapter 71, 72, and 73
Ontario’s Building
Code Act(OBCA),
Ontario Environmental
Protection Act (MOE),
Ontario Water
Resources Act
(OWRA)
Regulation respecting
waste water disposal
systems for isolated
dwellings Environment
Quality Act, item 4.1
of Q-2, r.22
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)
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.
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.
37
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.
Inspection of systems under construction
or of existing systems is mandatory.
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
38
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
39
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
40
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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).
41
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
42
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
Table 6: Permitting Legislation for Municipal and Industrial Dischargers
Jurisdiction
Applicable regulation
U.S.
Clean Water Act-NPDES
permit system*administered
by individual states
Type of
Facility
Requiring
permit
Municipal
and
Industrial
Ontario
Ontario Water Resources
Act, Ontario Environmental
Protection Act
Municipal
and
Industrial
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
Process for Determination of Nutrient
Limit for Issuance of Permit
Permit Requires
Monitoring for
TP/TN?
Two approaches are used: 1Technology-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).
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).
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.
In some cases –(refer
to Table 7)
Yes for all municpal
facilities and some
industriall
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
43
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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 20132014. 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) Canadawide 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).
44
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
45
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
46
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
47
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
48
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
Illinois
(415 ILCS 92/) Regulation of
Phosphorus in Detergents Act
Indiana
IC 13-18-9
Chapter 9. Prohibitions on
Certain Detergents
Type of detergent affected
Dishwasher or laundry or
other
Effective Date/Dates
2010
Dishwasher and Laundry
1976/2012
Michigan
Ban on Phosphorus in
Detergent
Minnesota
HF N.1382
Dishwasher & laundry
1977& 2010
Dishwasher & Laundry
1972-1979 *, 2010
New York
Dishwater, Detergent
Nutrient Runoff Law
Dishwasher & Laundry
1972-1979*, 2010&2013
Ohio
SB214
Pennsylvania Act 15
Laundry & Dishwasher
1990& 2010
Dishwasher &Laundry
1990*, 2010
Wisconsin
Assembly Bill 281
Ontario -Canada
Environmental Protection Act
(1999)
( P Conc. Regs)
Dishwasher& Laundry
1972-1979* , 2010
Laundry& Dishwasher
1985 & 2010
Québec- Canada
Environmental Protection Act
(1999)
( P Conc. Regs)
Chapter. Q-2, ss. 31, 46,109.1
Laundry& Dishwasher
1985& 2002&2010
49
Scope of Regulations
Bans sale of detergent with >
0.5% concentration (except
certain commercial use)
Prohibits use of laundry
detergent or residential
dishwasher detergent
containing >0.5% P
concentration except for
certain commercial use
Bans sale of detergent with
>0.5% P concentration
Bans sale of detergent with
>0.5% P concentration
(except certain commercial
use)
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”
Limit concentration of P in
detergent to 0.5%
Limit concentration of P in
detergent to 0.5%
Limit concentration of P in
detergent to 0.5%
Limits concentration of P in
laundry detergents to .5%
(household) 2.2 %(
commercial). Limit of .5 % P
for household dishwashing
detergent
Limits concentration of P in
laundry detergents to .5%
(household) 2.2 %
(commercial). Limit of .5 % P
for household dishwashing
detergent
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
*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
Illinois
Permits Open
Water Disposal
yes
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
yes
yes
no
yes
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
yes
yes
no
Canada
yes
Ontario
yes
Québec
yes
Description of Conditions
Must comply with state water quality standards & mitigate impacts (Great Lakes
Dredging Team, 2005).
Must comply with state water quality standards (Great Lakes Dredging Team, 2005).
Must comply with state water quality standards (Great Lakes Dredging Team, 2005).
Only beneficial use projects are permitted (Great Lakes Dredging Team, 2005).
Must follow state management guidelines for sediments classified under specific
categories (Great Lakes Dredging Team, 2005).
Must comply with water quality standards, looking to phase out open water disposal
Must comply with water quality standards (Great Lakes Dredging Team, 2005).
Open water disposal only allows as last resort requires direct legislative authority
(Great Lakes Dredging Team, 2005).
Must comply with a large variety of Canadian federal and provincial legislation
including CEPA CEAA, Fisheries Act, Shipping Act,
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).
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)
50
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
51
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
52
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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).
53
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
Great Miami river,
Mad River,
Stillwater River
Ohio River Basin
Trading/Great
Miami River
watershed
Trading Pilot
Southern
Minnesota Beet
Sugar
Cooperative
Permit
Rahr Malting
Phosphorus
Offset
OH
Phosphorus
and Nitrogen
MN
Red Cedar River
Nutrient Trading
Pilot Program
Long Island
Sound Trading
Program
Minnesota River
Minnesota River
Red Cedar River
Long Island Sound
Year
Launched
2006
Program
Type
Openmarket
Market
Structure
Third party
broker
Phosphorus
1999
Case by
case
Sole source
offsets
1997
Case by
case
Sole source
offsets
WI
Phosphorus
Nitrogen,
Sediment,
CBOD
Phosphorus
1997
Case by
case
Bilateral
Negotiations
CT
Nitrogen
2002
Cap and
trade
Exchange
MN
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
54
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
55
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
*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.
56
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
57
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
58
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
(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).
59
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
60
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
61
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
62
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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/grandslacsgreatlakes/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.
63
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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:19962002. 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=6A2D63E51&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/euww/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
64
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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-WEBExternal/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-theprogram.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/newsreleases/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/p2/2009/2009-0624/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
65
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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/annualmeetings/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/agprgms.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/generalnpdes-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/wastewater/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/stormwater/ms4.html
66
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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_onfarm_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-detailseng.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/grandslacsgreatlakes/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.
67
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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. 517530). 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/TS060%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/10073.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
68
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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-MIG0190002010_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/0,4561,7-1353313_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/20092010/billanalysis/House/htm/2009-HLA-5368-6.htm
69
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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/mtespinitiative-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-R0076.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
2012, from Minnesota Department of Agriculture:
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
70
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
Minnesota Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Minnesota Phosphorus Lawn Fertilizer Law. Retrieved
2012, from Minnesota Department of Agriculture:
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-typesand-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-sourceissues/clean-water-partnership/financial-assistance-for-nonpoint-source-water-pollution-projectsclean-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-dataaccess/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/subsurfacesewage-treatment-system-ssts/minnesota-s-subsurface-sewage-treatment-systems-programssts.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/watermonitoring-and-reporting/water-quality-and-pollutants/phosphorus/phosphorus-managementplans-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/stormwaterminimal-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-watermonitoring/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
71
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8468.html
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.nyssoilandwater.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.sourceprotectionniagara.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:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/52690.html
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
72
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
73
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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-86014/361-0300002%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
74
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
75
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
l'Environnement et des Parcs: http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/eauxusees/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/lakeontario-collaborative.html
State of Michigan. (1994). Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA). Retrieved
2012, from Michigan Attourney General: http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-164-1815746073--,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
76
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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/wpcontent/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
77
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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
78
DRAFT - FOR INTERNAL STAFF USE ONLY
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.
79