Nutrient Reductions Seen Slow

Mississippi River Basin Lags Behind in Reducing Nutrient Runoff

Todd Neeley
By  Todd Neeley , DTN Staff Reporter
Connect with Todd:
Most Mississippi River basin states have not finished plans to reduce nutrient runoff into the Gulf of Mexico. (Map courtesy of the Lower Mississippi River Sub-Basin Committee on Gulf Hypoxia)

OMAHA (DTN) -- Most Mississippi River basin states have not finished plans to reduce nutrient runoff into the Gulf of Mexico, have not set specific reduction targets or timelines, and have expressed concern about a limited ability to monitor water quality and measure the progress, according to a new EPA inspector general report.

EPA responded to the report by taking four specific actions. That includes improving the measures of state reduction strategy performance; reporting changes in nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations in basin streams and rivers; establishing a shared reporting network of sites with long-term nutrient monitoring and stream-flow records in order to analyze changes in nutrients and sediments; and updating the 2008 action plan through the Gulf hypoxia task force work group.

Only Iowa and Ohio completed final nutrient reduction strategies among the 12 states in the basin by 2013, the IG report said. Environmental groups and others have contended for years that EPA should set numeric standards in the basin, to essentially force a one-size-fits-all approach to reducing nutrients on the national level.

The IG said only three states -- Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin -- have set nutrient reduction goals.

"Of these three states, only Minnesota has a timeframe for meeting these goals," the IG report said. "Without both goals and timeframes, we believe the EPA and the states will be unlikely to determine if these strategies are reducing nutrients in the MARB (the basin). The EPA encouraged these 12 states to develop methods to track progress toward achieving nutrient reduction goals, but these states have been reluctant to commit to this."

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

The IG found that of the 12 task force states, only Iowa and Minnesota established nitrogen and phosphorus reduction goals. Wisconsin is the only state to set phosphorus reduction goals. The other states do not have nutrient reduction goals in place, according to the IG. So far only Minnesota's draft strategy has a timeframe for achieving nutrient reductions.

Minnesota set reduction goals of 20% for nitrogen and 35% for phosphorous. "While this is a positive step, Minnesota accounts for just 2.9% of nitrogen and 2% of phosphorus discharged to the Gulf of Mexico, according to the USGS," the IG report said. "The other 11 task force states contribute approximately 80% of the nitrogen and phosphorus reaching the Gulf of Mexico.

"Most of these states do not have nutrient reduction goals and therefore have no timeframe for achieving nutrient reductions. Iowa and Wisconsin have goals, but do not have a timeframe for achieving these goals."

VERIFICATION 'COMPLICATED'

Further, the IG report said state and regional personnel interviewed "expressed a concern about their ability to monitor water quality and to a lesser extent, measure the progress of the strategies." The IG found that financial and technical constraints were among the reasons cited for lack of progress. Measurement and verification methods are "complicated," the IG said, because several factors need to be considered when determining the success of state strategies.

"Both the USGS and the National Academies have expressed the concern that currently there is no clear way to track this and therefore no way to determine the effectiveness of specific management practices in reducing nutrient loadings," the IG report said. "Additionally, it is often difficult to draw a causal link between changes in land management practices and the resulting nutrient load because there is often a lag time. It could take years or even decades for the effects to be fully realized."

The IG said the state-level nutrient reduction strategies "show promise" for reducing nutrients and improving local water quality. However, the report said "progress in strategy development has been slow. Additionally, many of the strategies do not include reduction goals and milestones. This will make it difficult to hold states accountable for reductions.

"While an emphasis on local waters is vital for achieving the nation's clean water goals, there is no assurance that individual state successes will result in the nutrient reductions needed for the watershed as a whole."

Read the EPA inspector general's report here, http://tinyurl.com/…

Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com

Follow Todd on Twitter @toddneeleyDTN

(AG/CZ)

P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[R1] D[300x250] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[R2] D[300x250] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
DIM[1x3] LBL[article-box] SEL[] IDX[] TMPL[standalone] T[]
P[R3] D[300x250] M[0x0] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Todd Neeley

Todd Neeley
Connect with Todd: