tPA/6Q0/R-15/286 | October 2015 | www.epa.gov/research
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-USDA-USGS Working Meeting on
Management Strategies for Reactive
Nitrogen and Co-Pollutants
June 24-26, 2014
The Nitrogen Cascade
New Nitrogen
En»rgy Rrosfueuon NO*
4 ccm>u5licfi of tossl tuc«s
Food ProdueOoo NH,
& or svTitJx'Ct totfuros
NO„ "H*
Terrestrial
Agricultural
M
Atmospheric I stratosphere |
troposphere
NOy, NH„, N^g
crcps HH ¦jriim.sls
tj SOUS
tonssis
Vegetated
J
serfs
Populated
people |-»| tanostape
tj *** Li
NCV NH„ Nofg
Aquatic
r
GrmmcfwalCT
Suria« Water
& Wetlands
Coastal Say's
4 EiluafttS
n
Oceani
NO*
NHj
HjO
NiO
Office of Research and Development
Western Ecology Division
-------
EPA Report Number EPA/600/R-15/286
October 2015
[this page intentionally left blank]
October 2015
-------
EPA-USDA-USGS
Management Strategies for Reactive Nitrogen and Co-Pollutants
Disclaimer
The document was developed by The Cadmus Group, Inc. under contract with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. Furthermore, this document is a summary of the views of the workshop
participants and publication does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the agencies and no
official endorsement should be inferred.
Citation
This document should be referred to as:
US EPA. 2015. EPA-USDA-USGS Working Meeting on Management Strategies for Reactive Nitrogen and
Co-Pollutants. EPA report, October 2015.
-------
EPA-USDA-USGS
Management Strategies for Reactive Nitrogen and Co-Pollutants
[this page intentionally left blank]
iv
-------
EPA-USDA-USGS
Management Strategies for Reactive Nitrogen and Co-Pollutants
Acknowledgements
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, and United
States Geologic Survey would like to thank the speakers and others who participated in the working
meeting on Management Strategies for Reactive Nitrogen and Co-Pollutants. Their dedication and hard
work at the meeting and following the meeting to produce these proceedings are greatly appreciated.
Steering Committee
Mary Ann Rozum, USDA
Ray Knighton, USDA
Marc Ribaudo, USDA
Chris Gross, USDA
Mark Walbridge, USDA
Charlie Walthall, USDA
Wayne Honeycutt, USDA
John Davis, USDA
Skip Hyberg, USDA
Greg Crosby, USDA
Terrell Erickson, USDA
Leif Moon-Neilsen, Washington State University
Isaac Madsen, Washington State University
Neil Dubrovsky, USGS
Mike Woodside, USGS
Anne Rea, EPA
Mary Reiley, EPA
Randy Waite, EPA
Roberta Parry, EPA
Randy Bruins, EPA
Chris Clark, EPA
Donna Perla, EPA
Bill Schrock, EPA
Rhonda Thompson, EPA
Dan Sobota, NRC
Michelle McCrackin, NRC
Brendan Hall, EPA
Jana Compton, EPA
Jim Galloway, University of Virginia and SAB
Otto Doering, Purdue University and SAB
Tom Theis, University of Illinois Chicago and SAB
v
-------
EPA-USDA-USGS
Management Strategies for Reactive Nitrogen and Co-Pollutants
Speakers
Otto Doering, Purdue University
Betsy Southerland, USEPA-OW
Wayne Honeycutt, USDA-NRCS
Paul Capel, USGS-NAWQA
Jan Willem Erisman, Amsterdam University
Andrew Sharpley, University of Arkansas
Eric Davidson, Woods Hole Research Center
Jim Galloway, University of Virginia
Denice Shaw, USEPA
Ann Bartuska, USDA
Workgroup Leaders
Jana Compton, EPA (Workgroup 1)
Neil Dubrovsky, USGS (Workgroup 1)
Marc Ribaudo, USDA (Workgroup 2)
Roberta Parry, EPA (Workgroup 2)
Mary Ann Rozum, USDA (Workgroup 3)
Randy Bruins, EPA (Workgroup 3)
Chris Clark, EPA (Workgroup 4)
Ray Knighton, USDA (Workgroup 4)
Workshop Planners/Coordinators:
Jana Compton, EPA
Laura Blake, The Cadmus Group
Note Takers:
Kate Dunlap, The Cadmus Group
Brendan Hall, EPA
Leif Nielsen, Washington State University
Isaac Madsen, Washington State University
Appendix B includes a complete list of all persons who participated in the meeting, including their
affiliations and contact information.
Report cover photo credits:
Figure ES-1 (The Nitrogen Cascade) from Reactive Nitrogen in the United States: An Analysis of Inputs,
Flows, Consequences and Management Options. A Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB-
11-013)
vi
-------
EPA-USDA-USGS Management Strategies for Reactive Nitrogen and Co-Pollutants
Table of Contents
Disclaimer iii
Citation iii
Acknowledgements v
Table of Contents vii
List of Figures viii
List of Tables viii
Acronyms x
1 Executive Summary 12
2 Summary paper from the meeting 14
3 Meeting agenda 38
4 Plenary Session 42
Workgroup 1: Inventory, Monitoring, & Analysis 64
6 Workgroup 2: Policy Solutions 70
7 Workgroup 3: Technical Solutions 74
8 Workgroup 4: Crosswalk 81
Meeting Wrap-up 87
References 91
Appendix A. Meeting Agenda 93
Appendix B. Meeting Participants 97
vii
-------
EPA-USDA-USGS
Management Strategies for Reactive Nitrogen and Co-Pollutants
List of Figures
Figure 1. Diagram of the Nitrogen Cascade. Source: Dr. Jana Compton's presentation, slide 11. 42
Figure 2. Sources of Reactive Nitrogen Introduced into the U.S. in 2002 (Tg N/yr). Source: Dr. Otto
Doering's presentation, slide 5. 44
Figure 3. The Nitrogen Cascade. Source: Figure ES-1 (The Nitrogen Cascade) from Reactive Nitrogen in the
United States: An Analysis of Inputs, Flows, Consequences and Management Options. A Report of the EPA
Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB-11-013). 45
Figure 4. Mass-budget chart demonstrating the inputs and outputs of nitrogen (kg/ha) in three states-
Source: Dr. Capel's presentation, slide 10. 49
Figure 5. Tons of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer per 1,000 ha used in various countries. Source: Dr.
Erisman's presentation, slide 5. 51
Figure 6. Diagram of the watershed phosphorus continuum. Source: Dr. Sharplev's presentation, slide 13
(from Haygarth et al.. 2014). 53
Figure 7. Diagram of the fates of N fixation in the U.S. in 2007. Source: Dr. Davidson's presentation, slide
3. 54
Figure 8. Differences in protein production (blue line), consumption (red line), and the impact of
eliminating food waste ("An opportunity") and consuming the recommended amount of protein
("Another one"). Source: Dr. Galloway's presentation, slide 20. 57
Figure 9. Agency programs mapped on the Nitrogen Cascade. 64
Figure 10. An example topic model of EPA. USDA, and USGS Nr and P research generated from all projects
in the SMAP inventory using VOSviewer software (www.vosviewer.com). 85
Figure 11. The Nitrogen Cascade with numbered areas identifying topics to categorize the SMAP
inventory. In example: Topic 1 is all new Nr inputs from humans, while topic 7 is all terrestrial Nr. and topic
7 A is agricultural Nr. 86
Figure 12. An example Pushgraph™ model of all (> 20,000) EPA. USDA, and USGS Nr and P projects in the
SMAP inventory mapped over a framework of all USDA NIFA projects (> 60,000 projects). 86
List of Tables
Table 1. Top four recommended conservation practices by retailers and conservationists. Results from the
Conservationists and Agricultural Retailer 4R Nutrient Stewardship Survey. 55
Table 2. Research needs allocated to federal agencies. 72
VIII
-------
EPA-USDA-USGS Management Strategies for Reactive Nitrogen and Co-Pollutants
[this page intentionally left blank]
ix
-------
EPA-USDA-USGS
Management Strategies for Reactive Nitrogen and Co-Pollutants
Acronyms
AMoN
Ammonia Monitoring Network
APEX
Agricultural Policy/Environmental extender
ARS
Agricultural Research Service
BMP
Best Management Practice
CAA
Clean Air Act
CAFO
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
CEAP
Conservation Effects Assessment Project
CMAQ
Community Multi-scale Air Quality
CWA
Clean Water Act
DOE
U.S. Department of Energy
ENA
European Nitrogen Assessment
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GWMA
Ground Water Management Area
GRACEnet
Greenhouse Gas Reduction through Agricultural Carbon Enhancement Network
INC
Integrated Nitrogen Committee
LTAR
Long Term Agricultural Research
LTER
Long Term Ecological Research
MRTN
Maximum Return To Nitrogen
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NADP
National Atmospheric Deposition Program
NAPAP
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NAWQA
National Water Quality Assessment
NEON
National Ecological Observatory Network
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
NIFA
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPS
National Park Service
-------
EPA-USDA-USGS
Management Strategies for Reactive Nitrogen and Co-Pollutants
Nr
Reactive Nitrogen
NRC
National Research Council
NRCS
National Resources Conservation Service
NSF
National Science Foundation
NUE
Nitrogen Use Efficiency
NWIS
National Water Quality Information System
NWQMC
National Water Quality Monitoring Conference
OAR
Office of Air and Radiation
ORD
Office of Research and Development
RCN
Research Coordination Network
RCPP
Regional Conservation Partnership Program
REAP
Renewable Energy Assessment Project
SAB
Science Advisory Board
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
SESYNC
Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center
SMAP
Science and Management Action Plan
STORET
STOrage and RETrieval Data Warehouse
STREON
Stream Experimental Observatory Network
TMDL
Total Maximum Daily Load
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
WWTF
Waste Water Treatment Facility
xi
-------
1 Executive Summary
USDA
iiUSGS
science for a changing world
Joint Agency Opportunities in the Science and Management of
Nitrogen and Co-Pollutants
Human needs for food, fuel and fiber have dramatically increased the creation rate of reactive nitrogen (N) fixed
from the atmosphere during the last century. In spite of the many benefits to society, excess N in the
environment is associated with many large-scale environmental concerns. Effective and efficient management
of N releases is critical to balancing the nation's food, fuel and fiber demands against the impacts of excess N on
human health and the environment.
The U.S. has had varied success in effectively managing reactive N in recent decades. Together with the states,
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have carried out many
programs to reduce N and co-pollutant release to air, land and water. Through Clean Air Act legislation,
emissions of oxidized nitrogen have declined by approximately 52% since 1990. However, N use of fertilizers,
and N loads to rivers and the coastal zone have stayed constant or increased during the same time frame, and
the unregulated emissions of reduced forms of N continue to increase. Although we have known about the
consequences of N and co-pollutant enrichment for many decades and have increased our N use efficiency in
some sectors, issues related to drinking water nitrate violations, harmful algal blooms and depth of hypoxic
zones have magnified during the last decade. The appropriate technologies and basic knowledge for effectively
mitigating reactive agricultural N loss already exist, but excess loadings of reactive N to the atmosphere and
water continue, due mostly to the lack of adoption of BMPs and appropriate technologies. The 'human
dimension' that accounts for this adoption gap is just as complex and heterogeneous as the natural world,
emphasizing the need for new strategies.
In June 2014, Scientists and managers from government, academia, non-governmental organizations and the
private sector came together to review the science and management related to reactive nitrogen and co-
pollutants (e.g. phosphorus, sulfur) across the USDA, EPA and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The purpose of the
meeting was to develop a collaborative research and management partnership between USDA, USGS and EPA,
in order to promote sustainable management of reactive nitrogen. Workshop participants identified research
needs in monitoring, policy research, technical solutions research, collaboration, communication and database
alignment. Participants agreed that achieving our common goals of improving air and water quality, food
security, and human health and welfare will require coordination of research, policies and management across
a variety of Federal agencies. Several important themes emerged.
Policy research needs: Targeted information is needed on environmental and economic effects of policy
options. Conservation practice adoption studies are needed to explore the user response to different incentives,
including certification schemes and consumer labeling. Research on the interactions and trade-offs of different
policy options. And more coordination is needed across agencies in policy research.
12
-------
Research needs on fluxes and
impacts: While many aspects of the
N cycle are tracked on a somewhat
regular basis (see figure), a number
of the internal components, such as
losses from farm fields to air and
water, are not well-monitored at the
appropriate temporal and spatial
scales needed for regular
assessment. Rapid and timely
assessment of N loads to the
environment will hinge on the
availability of improved field-level
information on agricultural N and
co-pollutant use. Integration of
field- and watershed-scale N data
and models across agencies,
collaboration on ongoing studies
and better coordination of existing data sets through the National Water Quality Monitoring Council were all
recognized as key opportunities.
Research needs in Technical Solutions: Review of existing research, and standardized data collection and sharing
through systematic review, meta-analysis, and improved data planning are important aspects of tackling the
reactive N problem. Since the drivers and solutions to issues surrounding nutrient-related problems vary by
region, regional collaborative centers focused on nutrient management are encouraged, through the newly
established regional climate hubs and the Long-Term Agro-ecosystem Research (LTAR) network. Key questions
regarding the human dimension include the motivations of the stakeholders involved, their available resources
and their sources of information. Supply-chain perspective and partnerships and closing the food life cycle will
be important new areas of focus.
Communication needs: Perhaps most importantly, agencies need to work together to develop a reactive N
communication strategy. Reactive N and co-pollutants are not widely recognized by the public as essential to
food production and as significant environmental problems. There is a strong need to communicate the problem
and solution options in a clear and concise way to both policy makers and the public. Improving recognition that
reactive N pollution is an important issue may be facilitated by placing a dollar value on reactive N externalities,
and energy costs associated with reactive N production. Finally, USDA's mission of integrating food production
with environmental and human health protection could be supported and reinforced by the missions of both
EPA and USGS.
Achieving our common goals of improving air and water quality, food security, and human health and welfare
will require coordination of research, policies and management across a variety of Federal agencies. An outcome
of this meeting is the formation of a collaborative relationship between USDA. EPA and USGS scientists and
management that advances reactive N research to inform science based management, improves
communications, and recommends alternative approaches to managing N in an integrated framework.
13
-------
2 Summary paper from the meeting
Joint Agency Opportunities in the Science and Management of
Nitrogen and Co-Pollutants
Summary paper from a meeting held June 24 - 26, 2014, in Arlington, VA
Jana E. Compton1, Randall J.F. Bruins1, Christopher M. Clark1, Neil M. Dubrovsky2, Raymond E.
Knighton3, Roberta Parry4, Marc Ribaudo5, MaryAnn Rozum3 and Mark R. Walbridge6
1US EPA, Office of Research and Development, 2USGS-National Water Quality Assessment, 3USDA-
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, 4US EPA, Office of Water, 5USDA-Economic Research Service,
6USDA-Agricultural Research Service
ABSTRACT
Scientists and managers from government, academia, non-governmental organizations and the private
sector came together in June 2014 to review the science and management related to reactive nitrogen
and co-pollutants (e.g., phosphorus, sulfur) across the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of the meeting
was to develop a collaborative research and management partnership between USDA, USGS and EPA,
in order to promote sustainable management of reactive nitrogen. Achieving our common goals of
improving air and water quality, food security, and human health and welfare will require coordination
of research, policies and management across a variety of Federal agencies, and this workshop identified
a number of key areas of future coordination. An outcome of this meeting is the formation of a
collaborative relationship between EPA, USGS and USDA that advances reactive N research to inform
science based management, improves communications, and recommends alternative approaches to
managing N in an integrated framework.
BACKGROUND
Human needs forfood, fuel and fiber have dramatically increased the creation rate of reactive nitrogen
(Nr)1 during the last century. In spite of the many benefits to society, excess reactive nitrogen in the
environment is associated with many large-scale environmental concerns. Acting in concert with
several co-pollutants - e.g., phosphorus (P) compounds released to soil and water and
sulfur (S) compounds released to air - N compounds contribute to eutrophication of surface waters,
harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, air pollution, drinking water contamination, stratospheric ozone
depletion and climate change (Sutton et al. 2011; Davidson et al. 2012). Agricultural activities are the
1 All references to nitrogen in this document refer to its reactive forms and thus exclude nitrogen gas (N2), which is the
largest component of our atmosphere but is inert until transformed by free-living or symbiotic N-fixing microbes, lightning,
production of fertilizers through the Haber-Bosch process or fossil fuel combustion to a reactive form such as ammonia,
nitrate, nitrous oxide or another oxidized or organically-bound species.
14
-------
largest human source of reactive N in the US (Figure 1; EPA SAB 2011), comprising more than half of
the inputs at 18.6 Tg N yr1 in 2002, with fossil fuel combustion, industrial uses, and natural N fixation
each comprising a similar fraction of the other 16.3 Tg N yr1. Of the approximately 28.5 Tg (teragrams
or 1012 g) N fixed by human actions in 2002, over 65% was used to support agricultural activities; (e.g.,
creation of synthetic fertilizers; human-driven biological N fixation by crops like soybeans and alfalfa).
Much of this N moves beyond its intended use in the production of food, fuel and fiber and escapes
management efforts to retain or remove it. Altogether it is estimated that at least 60% of the N fixed
by human activities in the US is released directly to the environment (Houlton et al. 2012), with an
additional 20% lost through the food supply chain and thus also lost to the environment (Leach et al.
2012). Effective and efficient management of reactive N releases is critical to balancing the nation's
food, fuel and fiber demands against the impacts of excess N on human health and the environment.
The U.S. has had varied success in effectively managing reactive N in recent decades. Together with
the states, USEPA, USDA and other organizations have carried out many programs to reduce N and
co-pollutant release to air, land and water. Through Clean Air Act (CAA) legislation, NOx release to
the environment from fossil fuel combustion has declined by approximately 52% since 1990 (Figure
2). There has been no comparable decline in emissions of reduced forms of N (NHX), which are
unregulated under the Clean Air Act, and thus are beginning to contribute more to total N emissions
and deposition (Du et al. 2014). Nitrogen loads to rivers and the coastal zone have stayed constant or
increased during the same time frame (Sprague et al. 2011). While it is difficult to directly track the
movement of N from non-point sources, such as fertilizer from agriculture, into air and water, this
constant or increase in N delivery to rivers and the coast suggests that there have been no broad
improvements in the control of N transfer to groundwater and/or aquatic ecosystems. Nitrogen
fertilizer application in the US has remained relatively constant over this time period (Figure 2), and
grain and milk production continue to increase, revealing an increase in the efficiency of agricultural
N use at the national scale. Although we have known about the consequences of N and co-pollutant
enrichment for many decades and have increased our N use efficiency in some sectors, issues related
to drinking water nitrate violations, harmful algal blooms and depth of hypoxic zones have magnified
during the last decade (EPA 2009; Michalak et al. 2013; Exner et al. 2014; Pellerin et al. 2014). These
realities underline the need for new strategies.
Achieving the benefits of food, energy and material production while mitigating the environmental,
economic and health damages caused by excess reactive N will require a more comprehensive
management approach (Figure 3). EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) convened an Integrated
Nitrogen Committee (INC) to consider this problem; the INC recommendations included coordinating
EPA's N research and management strategies for N with those of other agencies and stakeholders (EPA
SAB 2011). To achieve environmental improvements, the agencies must coordinate monitoring,
modeling, research and management responsibilities for each agency. No one agency bears the
responsibility of tracking the inputs, fate and effects of N. Each agency brings a unique combination of
missions, programs, data and expertise to the challenge of rebalancing the nation's aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems, sustaining or enhancing ecological integrity, and protecting human health and
well-being.
To address the large environmental N contributions from agriculture, the June 2014 workshop
convened scientists from multiple federal agencies, and experts from other sectors, to discuss the
needed interagency coordination. Workshop participants identified research needs in monitoring,
policy research, technical solutions research, collaboration, communication and database alignment.
15
-------
In this paper, we discuss gaps and opportunities for improved science and management of reactive N
in the environment.
MAJOR THEMES:
1. Achieving our common goals of improving air and water quality, food security, and human health
and welfare will require coordination of research, policies and management across a variety of
Federal agencies;
2. Rapid and timely assessment of N loads to the environment will hinge on the availability of
improved field-level information on agricultural N and co-pollutant use. This information will
only come through closer interactions and coordination with growers, extension programs, crop
advisors and farm dealers;
3. Integration of field- and watershed-scale N data and models across agencies is a critical need;
4. Since the drivers and solutions to issues surrounding nutrient-related problems vary by region,
regional collaborative centers focused on nutrient management are encouraged, through the
newly established regional climate hubs and the Long-Term Agro-ecosystem Research (LTAR)
network; and
5. Communicating with the public about N problems and solutions is a major challenge. Even
though society's demands for food, fuel, fiber, clean air and clean water all are closely bound to
current patterns of N use and release, the general public is 1) relatively unaware of these issues
except when there is an extreme drinking water violation or hypoxic event, and 2) if aware, little
appreciation for how their choices impact the situation and their role in solving the problem.
STATUS AND RESEARCH NEEDS ON N AND P INPUTS, FLUXES AND IMPACTS
The dynamics of the N cascade make coordinated activity a necessity for successfully addressing excess
reactive N in the environment. In Figure 3 we identify the major roles of different US agencies and
departments in monitoring N fluxes along the cascade. Given the lack of frequent national reporting
and synthesis on the movement of reactive N from farmlands or wastewater treatment plants to
aquatic ecosystems, or the deposition of reduced N species to terrestrial systems, documenting
changes in N release to the environment over time is challenging. While many of the inputs to the
cascade are tracked on a somewhat regular basis, a number of the internal components, such as losses
from farm fields to air and water, are not well-monitored at the appropriate temporal and spatial scales
needed for regular assessment. Here we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of data pathways in
Figure 3.
National NOx emissions are fairly well documented and updated annually (US EPA National Emission
Inventory). These records show a 52% reduction in NOx-N emissions between 1990 and 2011 (Figure
2), as a consequence of the CAA regulations. Assuming a linear relationship between population growth
and NOx emissions, without controls on emissions, there would have been a 6-fold increase in NOx over
this same time period. As long as these controls continue, NOx levels in the U.S. should continue to
decrease. Wet ammonium deposition has shown a substantial increase over the US during this same
time period, with largest increases in the mid-west and southeast (Du et al. 2014). Ammonia emissions
are not regulated under the CAA, and these emissions are rising and becoming a larger portion of the
total deposition. Overall, wet N deposition has remained constant across the entire US from 1990-
16
-------
2011, and the trends vary by form and over space. Because of the growing importance of NH3 as a
component of reactive N emissions, a more extensive air quality monitoring network is required to
sufficiently characterize spatial and temporal variability in NH3 concentrations and deposition, and to
maintain the current NhV wet deposition program.
Inputs to agricultural systems from synthetic fertilizer and crop N fixation represent approximately 65%
of the annual input of reactive N to the environment (Figure 2). These inputs and theirfates are tracked
and studied by different processes and entities, with varying levels of certainty. For example, estimates
of fertilizer inputs, while not comprehensive, are much more reliable than estimates of biological N
fixation (Sobota et al. 2013). The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Survey (NASS) collects
information about farm-level fertilizer expenditures and practices. Fertilizer sales data are also
collected by the states each year at the county level and reported to the Association of American Plant
Food Control Officials (AAPFCO). This information is periodically synthesized and spatially distributed
for different research efforts (e.g., Brakebill et al. 2011 for the USGS SPARROW model; Howarth et al.
2011 for the NANI model), but there is no consistent annual reporting of these data, or explicit
monitoring on how these sales relate to application rates on the farm. USDA has been responsible for
a similar effort tracking manure production and distribution across the landscape, although reporting
is less frequent (Kellogg et al. 2000) and needs to be updated. Recently, biological N fixation by crop
plants surpassed NOx-N emissions to become the second largest reactive N flux in the US (Figure 2),
although there is no particular agency or program responsible for reporting these data (Sobota et al.
2013). There has been good progress in the efficiency of N use in agriculture. Maize production has
increased along with nutrient use efficiency (NUE) since the 1970s. Similarly, milk production has
increased, while nitrogen excretion has stayed the same since the 1970s. However, there has still been
a net increase in synthetic N fertilizer use of approximately 70% since the 1970s (USDA ERS). Much of
this N is released to the environment (Houlton et al. 2013) and many opportunities to reduce N losses
from agriculture remain (Ribaudo et al. 2011).
In terms of our progress in decreasing the release of N to the environment beyond intended uses, aside
from the NOx reductions, we do not have the data available or the information is not accessible to
estimate reductions since 2002 in Nr from crop and animal production or from septic or sewage
discharges. Though there is a wealth of data collected, we need to improve comparability, consistency,
uncertainty and accessibility of these datasets. A recent improvement in this area is the Water Quality
Portal, a website that compiles data from the USGS National Water Quality Information System (NWIS),
the EPA Storage and Retrieval data warehouse (STORET), and the USDA Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) Sustaining The Earth's Watersheds - Agricultural Research Database System (STEWARDS). By
increasing collaboration among states and agencies, we could be more strategic about water quality
monitoring (e.g., co-locating stream gages with water quality sites, maintaining long-term records for
trends assessment in the face of uncertain funding), thereby improving the type of data available while
simultaneously saving resources. Some key challenges we face in the US include working to increase
NUE on farms, including the management of animal wastes, as well as to approach demand issues by
educating consumers and businesses about the impacts of food waste and over-consumption of
protein. Finally, while we have a general understanding of the ecosystem and environmental changes
in the Nitrogen Cascade, we are in need of additional monitoring to establish links between
management practices and changes in the N flux to both ground and surface water, quantify biological
responses and public welfare impacts, and assist in the derivation of numeric water quality standards.
17
-------
From our review of the existing monitoring data, two opportunities emerged to improve the collective
assessment capability: 1) targeted improvements in monitoring and modeling of inputs and losses to
the environment, particularly from the agricultural sector; and 2) better coordination across datasets
to make data more useable across agencies. Specific recommendations are provided in Table 1.
As noted above, there are important research needs on inputs, fluxes and impacts. However, these
research needs should not be a barrier to continuing to actively decrease the amount of Nr introduced
into the US, and lost to the US environment. For example, we know we need to increase NUE at all
stages, we know we need to decrease food waste, and we know we need to decrease the over-
consumption of protein. Action on all of these will have a direct and positive reduction on Nr in the US
environment.
POLICY ELEMENTS AND RESEARCH NEEDS
Developing effective policies for managing nitrogen depends on good data about the sources of
reactive nitrogen, costs of treatment, and the environmental quality goals. This section describes some
of the basics about cost-effective policy that came out of the workshop discussions, and research that
contributes to good policy design.
Policy Elements
What elements are included in good policy focused on N and co-pollutants? The following section
presents a list of elements that should be included in good policy. Five key policy elements were
identified.
Policies should include clear and measurable goals. Without clear and measurable goals, policy is apt
to be weaker and less successful. For example, some group members underscored the need for numeric
nutrient criteria within TMDL plans. With narrative rather than numeric criteria in place, goals are often
unclear and difficult to measure. Setting clear and measurable goals, however, enables proactive and
adaptive management. Further differentiating effective and ineffective policies and building a base of
knowledge is essential to ongoing stewardship.
Policies should be based on implementation realities. Policy on N and co-pollutants should be based
on current realities. With the complicated political environment and uncertainties around farmer
adoption, among other issues, policymaking should be informed by the latest scientific findings. Using
the right approach for the circumstances is critical to success whether regulatory (e.g., taxation,
standards-setting with compliance, etc.) or voluntary (e.g., certification schemes, education programs,
financial incentives, etc.). Two examples of current realities were described. In one example a plenary
speaker discussed how farmers get fertilization information. Most farmers get information about
applying fertilizer from fertilizer suppliers or certified crop advisors rather than from Cooperative
Extension (Davidson et al. 2015). Policy design that incorporates this contextual understanding is apt
to be more successful. Many farmers rent the farmland and then have the incentive to gain as much
revenue from the land as possible in the short term with less regard for maintaining long term land
quality or reducing externalities like excess reactive N. The challenge is designing effective programs
within these contexts.
18
-------
Policy should be based on current science and proven results. Due to the complexity of reactive N
movement through environmental media, policies for reducing reactive N need to make use of the best
science on the Nitrogen Cascade. Policymakers in the US should also take into account lessons learned
dealing with excess reactive N from other regions (e.g., Europe) before promoting untested strategies
or soliciting expensive and time-consuming new research. For example, setting short-term water
quality goals can be made more difficult by the fact that groundwater storage in some systems can
result in 20-30 year lags in measurable N reductions (Sanford and Pope 2013). Scientific understanding
among policymakers is essential to setting appropriate goals and writing policies that will have
measurable impact.
Policy design should capitalize on low-hanging fruit first to be more cost-effective. One example is a
USDA tool called the MRTN, or Maximum Return To Nitrogen, that only a small fraction (about 11%) of
Corn Belt farmers use, but that could result in reductions of approximately 10% of current loads.
Increasing knowledge and use of such tools is one area for improving NUE. As another example,
research has strongly indicated that a large share of reactive N lost to the environment originates from
a relatively small share of cropland (White et al. 2014; Nowak et al. 2006; Robertson et al. 2014). Being
able to identify this land and target conservation resources to these acres would greatly improve the
cost-effectiveness of policies.
Policy should be coordinated. New policies should be designed to complement existing laws and the
work of agencies at Federal, state, and local levels. It is important to anticipate the impacts of new
policies because there can be unintended consequences due to interactions with existing policies.
Policies should be coordinated between the EPA, USDA, USGS, and other entities to prevent
counterproductive activities and gain increased effectiveness.
Policy Research Needs
What research is needed to ensure that those elements can be included in policy? Given the need for
clear and measurable goals and for coordinated policies, we identified the following four general
areas for research.
Policy Research Need 1 - Targeted information on environmental and economic effects of policy
options. The first is related to a better understanding of the science of reactive N management that
would lead to stronger and more complete data on the environmental and economic effects of
different policy options. There is a strong need for an improved understanding of the whole Nitrogen
Cascade, especially transformations, the air-water interface, and the effects of climate change. For
example, we need at least annual information on (1) N application rates to fields, (2) N loss rates to
waterways, and (3) denitrification rates at appropriate spatial scales to link to options. There is a need
for better knowledge of the agronomics of different management options so that farmers and program
managers can make informed decisions, including the economic outcomes for individual farmers or
firms, environmental outcomes (including for ecosystems limited by different nutrients and for farms),
and biological and health outcomes (including basic science and dose-response relationships). This
would include measures of variability of outcomes due to fluctuations in weather and climate. There is
also the need for the development of field-level modeling tools that can be used to estimate, with
known confidence, the reductions in reactive N loss that alternative management systems can achieve.
19
-------
Policy Research Need 2 - Conservation practice adoption studies that explore the response to
different incentives, including certification schemes and consumer labeling. Closely related is
research on behavior. New and comprehensive adoption studies that explore how economic actors
respond to different incentives are needed. While adoption studies for conservation management have
been conducted in the past, new policy options now exist and we have entered a new era. Farms have
been further consolidated, monitoring and other technologies have advanced, there are more tenant
farmers, conservation budgets are getting smaller, social media has changed communication, climate
change effects are uncertain, and risk has increased. Understanding who makes and influences
decisions and on what basis, the impacts of perceived risk, the consequences associated with
implementing different policy options, and their ground-truthed effectiveness is essential for
policymakers to make pragmatic design decisions. This last point is crucial because nutrient
management is not seen as critical by farmers and lacks extensive support. An important example of
needed research is an exploration of the possible options for certification schemes and consumer
labeling. Throughout the conference, certification schemes and consumer labeling were a point of
interest. Products that reduce excess reactive N or improve NUE could have designations or labels,
perhaps tied to an economic, environmental, or public health consequence. A strong label program
could be used to motivate behavior change throughout the supply chain. A label could also make the
issue clearer and more tangible for the public.
Policy Research Need 3 - Research on the interactions and trade-offs of different policy options. A
better understanding of the science of reactive N management, and of adoption decisions, contributes
to the third area of needed research; a priori research on the interactions and trade-offs of different
policy options. This includes estimating the consequences of policy interactions, distribution of benefits
and costs across different stakeholders, and cost-effectiveness of alternative policy designs. Such
research is vital to finding the low-hanging fruit that can lead to more cost-effective policies. There is
also a research need for a systematic review of existing literature on the issue. Such a review should
be done before commencing new research, to use resources efficiently and build upon current
knowledge.
Policy Research Need 4 - Agency Coordination in Policy Research. For the final element, a coordinated
approach, we identified three institutional needs. First, the EPA, USDA, USGS and other agencies with
research missions related to N (e.g., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Park
Service, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation and state
agencies) need to improve inter-agency coordination in general. To do so, it is first critical to know the
sum of work being done on the issue across the agencies. Through this understanding - possibly in the
form of a coordinated strategic research plan - the EPA, USDA, and USGS can improve their collective
efficiency and effectiveness. Second, the agencies need to look into developing a platform for ongoing
communication on N. Collaboration on the front-end should help the agencies to avoid duplication or
discord, and open discussions about research findings can allow agencies to consider the potential
implications and agency response to these findings. For example, EPA briefed USDA scientists and
managers recently on an upcoming publication on the costs of reactive N, with the aim of improved
understanding of the work, limitations and gaps. One of the take-home messages of this meeting was
20
-------
that the agencies should do this more often with important areas of work. Finally, considering the lack
of public engagement with the issue, the agencies should encourage more coordination in the
messages they convey on N. With so many scientists communicating so many messages, and with the
inherent complexity of the issue, the public lacks understanding of the issue and its importance.
TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS AND RESEARCH NEEDS
Federal agencies play critical roles in identifying and promoting the most effective on-farm and
downstream practices for reducing reactive N and co-pollutant losses and impacts to air and water,
and therefore better interagency coordination is needed in reactive N management, research and
knowledge exchange. Technical solutions are closely allied with policy solutions, so the technical needs
and opportunities articulated in the June 2014 workshop echo several of the policy themes above, and
are played out in research portfolio discussion that follows. These themes include systematic review
and data planning; basic knowledge about the N cascade; regional collaboration; watershed planning;
improving practice adoption; and examination of whole supply chains.
Review of existing research, and standardized data collection and sharing
Systematic review, meta-analysis, and improved data planning are important aspects of tackling the
reactive N problem. Research on the loss of reactive N to the environment has gone on for quite some
time, while involving many disciplines and different aspects of the N cascade, synoptic and integrative
analyses across this body of work have been lacking.
The systematic review of existing research should be treated as a research field of its own, consisting
of its own methods and statistical analyses. The National Institutes of Health have made some major
steps in this direction (Talley et al. 2011) which may provide a framework for future work by the USDA,
EPA and USGS. These methods can be applied to gaps in knowledge relative to the nitrogen cascade,
technology issues and gaps in implementation and adoption. An important initial step toward this
retrospective analysis is coordinating the development of specific research questions.
The funding of the recent Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) watershed study syntheses
may provide a useful model for sponsorship of this kind of integrative research; those solicitations
sought senior level researchers with broad experience and relative freedom to identify problems and
needs. Given the breadth of reactive N research datasets, however, a successful team should couple
seniority of experience with next-generation skills in data reduction and analysis. Finally, individuals
need to be identified within the key agencies to champion the dissemination and implementation of
what is learned.
Equal in importance with reviewing previous research is creating a cohesive plan for the sharing and
accessing of data collected in the future. For example, the Coordinated Agricultural Projects funded by
NIFA require intra-project data consistency. A consortium of field researchers and data experts is
needed to move this issue forward.
Regional Focus Groups for Collaboration and Best-Practice Recommendations
21
-------
State-to-state variations in nutrient management practice recommendations often reflect the lack of a
regionally shared knowledge base and analysis. A new platform is needed for effective collaboration
on reactive N and co-pollutants at the regional level. The initial emphasis would be on synthesizing
regional knowledge and extending this knowledge to practitioners, rather than on new research. These
regional groups would connect the efforts of agencies and other entities around nutrient management
issues unique to that region, such as regionally appropriate soils, weather (including snowmelt and
frozen ground), surface and groundwater hydrology, and crop and livestock types. The groups would
organize systematic reviews and meta-analyses, coordinate region-specific agronomic modeling and
analysis, and support consistency in practice recommendations including fertilizer application. Such
efforts would also provide a platform for conducting the human dimensions research called for below.
The extension and research activities (ERAs) serve as a model and could be more successful if funding
was available to support this work. By enhancing regional coordination, information sharing, and the
leveraging of existing research programs, a relatively small investment could have a disproportionate
impact on reactive N management.
In addition to coordinating regional synthesis and extension, these groups could be very effective in
leveraging funding through existing programs for reactive N research or extension activities. For
example, they could take advantage of existing regional and national research infrastructure in the
USDA-ARS LTAR network, by coordinating proposals to expand LTAR nutrient research. These groups
could expand or develop partnerships with GRACEnet sites
(http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htmPnp code=212&docid=21223) or the
USDA-ARS Renewable Energy Assessment Project (now known as the Resilient Economic Agricultural
Practices; Karlen and Johnson 2014). They could also take advantage of the NRCS Regional
Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and the NIFA Sustainable Corn Project
(www.sustainablecorn.org) to fund the on-farm conservation/management activities necessary to
operationalize the knowledge being synthesized. Their activities should also be coordinated with those
of the EPA/USDA Ammonia Emissions Workgroup.
Revitalized watershed-based planning and analysis
Watershed-based planning remains a key approach for engaging stakeholders in the targeting of
management and environmental enhancement efforts to where they can be most effective. However,
the Agencies' focus on watershed planning has waned in recent years. There is a need for training of
personnel in watershed planning, as well as the vetting and provision of watershed planning tools that
(a) incorporate causal analysis and (b) are integrated with NRCS practice standards. These include
watershed modeling tools capable of identifying critical source areas within watersheds, practice-
targeting and scenario analysis, and incorporation of air deposition and groundwater interactions. This
can also include regulatory limits such as TMDLs (total maximum daily loads, for example the as in
Chesapeake Bay). Development and use of improved monitoring tools that provide rapid feedback are
required for adaptive management implementation. Ranking criteria for conservation financial
assistance programs should be based on watershed needs.
To be successful, however, watershed planning approaches need more than the right technical tools;
they must also include farmers or farm/commodity groups as stakeholders on strategic planning
committees from the outset, to foster a sense of engagement and empowerment that will be a
22
-------
powerful motivation for change or adoption of new measures. They must also incorporate the social
and economic dimensions of the watershed.
In addition to water quality improvement, watershed planning can provide a platform for documenting
practice effectiveness at field and wider scales, but this can only succeed in watersheds with higher
levels of agency coordination and appropriate monitoring design.
Improving practice adoption by growers: The human dimension
The appropriate technologies and basic knowledge for effectively mitigating reactive agricultural N loss
already exist, but excess loadings of reactive N to the atmosphere and water continue, due mostly to
the lack of adoption of BMPs and appropriate technologies. The 'human dimension' that accounts for
this adoption gap is just as complex and heterogeneous as the natural world. Key questions regarding
the human dimension include the motivations of the stakeholders involved, their available resources
and their sources of information.
The most prominent and often mentioned stakeholder is the land manager/grower, as it is the
decisions of these individuals that dictate whether BMPs or technologies for N loss reduction are used.
However, as noted in the previous section, crop advisors and fertilizer/equipment dealers play
increasingly important roles as trusted sources of information on which land managers base their
decisions. As a conduit for best-practice information to the land managers, better communication
between Land Grant extension programs, crop advisors and farm dealers is needed.
But the financial motivations behind land manager decisions remain paramount and must therefore be
central to research on practice adoption. More attention also must be paid to documentation and
provision of information on BMP success and cost effectiveness in order to build grower trust. On-farm
participatory research and demonstration may be a key to enhancing grower adoption. It should
further be recognized that producers, consumers, retailers, and everyone else involved in the supply
chain play important roles in forming the market pressures that land managers face; each of these
groups could play a role in helping to improve reactive N management and associated outcomes.
Supply-chain perspective and partnerships
While the farm, watershed and regional levels of coordination are all critical, some aspects of reactive
N management are best addressed by adopting broader perspectives on supply chains, material life
cycles, consumers and technology development. For example, USDA National Institute for Food and
Agriculture has funded life-cycle analysis studies for C, N and water in major commodity production
(sustainablecorn.org, see N factsheet). Approaches should be found for better integrating agency
resources (for example, geographic information) with private technology development. For example,
DuPont has partnered with ARS on use of soil maps to precision-match corn varieties to soil types and
nutrients.
With respect to animal wastes, research is needed on the effects of feed composition on animal
productivity and nutrient content in manure, recovery of nutrients from wastes, and application rates
for products from these nutrient recovery technologies. Although basic technologies for anaerobic
digestion and liquid-solid separation of manures exist, development of more advanced nutrient
23
-------
recovery technologies is needed to improve nutrient separation, decrease cost per unit weight,
improved on-farm nutrient storage, and produce diverse products with readily available local and non-
local markets.
Closing the food life cycle
The introduction of Nrto the agricultural sector is one of the many resources needed to produce food.
The process begins with the addition of N to a field, proceeds through growing, harvesting, marketing
and consumption of the crop or animal product, and concludes with the generation of waste food and
nutrients. This food life cycle has many components and associated stakeholders, each with the
opportunity to make food production/consumption less intrusive on our environment with respect to
N losses. As illustrated in Figure 4 (Opportunities for Action), N is lost during food production and
processing, distribution and sale, and purchase and consumption. Depending on the step, different
stakeholders have the ability to influences N losses. The consumer, in particular, has a unique role to
play. They can assist in closing the food cycle by 1) decreasing food waste and 2) changing diets. The
latter can be done by reducing the over-consumption of protein (with respect to USDA guidelines), and
changing the type of protein that is consumed from meat to vegetable protein. In the US, at least 65%
of the nitrogen contained in crops moves into the animal feed system, rather than directly to plant-
based food (calculated from Jordan and Weller 1996). Thus, the consumer, like the farmer, is an
integral part of the effective solution to the reactive nitrogen problem in the environment. As noted
earlier, a necessary first step is to educate why a focus on N is important, and what producers and
consumers can do through changes in their own decisions and actions.
Although it is difficult to change food decisions by education alone, this topic points to some new areas
of research that connect human health, economics, social factors and the N cycle. Sociological and
economic research is needed to determine the kinds of information that will be needed to develop a
public education campaign identifying the costs and benefits of dietary selection on human health,
food costs, economic opportunity distributions among urban versus rural areas, water demand and
cost, and the associations that this complex interplay has on Nr loads and environmental impacts.
CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE USDA, EPA AND USGS RESEARCH PORTFOLIOS
There is much federal research, past and present, on the technical and policy aspects of nitrogen
management. This research spans a range of scientific domains (e.g. from biogeochemical cycling to
socioeconomics), and scale (from the farm to the nation). Here we establish a baseline database of
current and past research activities across EPA, USDA, and USGS in order to: (1) facilitate a better
understanding of the full breadth of federal research on Nr, (2) identify key areas of overlap among
agencies where efforts could be leveraged, (3) identify redundancies where consolidation of efforts
would be advantageous, and (4) identify key knowledge gaps where greater research was needed.
Because there is no single federal agency or office within an agency tasked with managing research or
programs related to nitrogen, and because of the inherent breadth of the Nr cascade across media and
scientific domains, this initial step was particularly difficult. As identified in the SAB report (EPA, 2011),
there is a strong need for a coordinating interagency working group for Nr. As there was no such group
24
-------
prior to this workshop, we began building this infrastructure. Differences in how agencies and offices
collect, store, and make available research activities and data presented a structural barrier to meeting
the objectives.
Research efforts from the USDA, EPA, and USGS were collected, reformatted, and consolidated. Project
data from USDA came from the Research, Education, and Economics Information System (REEIS), a
source of information on the research, education and extension programs, projects and activities of
the USDA NIFA, ARS, NASS, FS, and ERS (http://www.reeis.usda.gov/). Project data from EPA came from
the Science Inventory (SI), which is the central repository for research activities primarily under the
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). Project data from the USGS came from the USGS
Publications Warehouse (PW), the database of all publications from the USGS from approximately the
past century (http://pubs.er.usgs.gOv/#home).
More than 20,000 documents were identified that were associated with the Nr Cascade, across a wide
range of topics (Figure 5). The dominant contribution was from USDA (73%), though EPA (23%) and
USGS (1%) also had significant contributions in specific focal areas germane to those organizations. We
were not able to incorporate all relevant USGS research for the workshop, and thus this number is
lower than it should be; also, the categories for USGS work integrated large studies, as opposed to
many individual reports and papers in the USDA work. Although incomplete, there were many projects
in several research areas that could be leveraged to advance multi-agency research and policy ends
related to managing nitrogen. Some initial findings and research gaps are summarized below:
• Strategic leveraging of USDA, EPA, and USGS efforts seemed most appropriate and potentially
advantageous along the pathway from farms to streams.
• There was much more emphasis for all agencies on the biological, physical, and biogeochemical
aspects of the N Cascade as compared with social aspects such as behavior, socioeconomics,
and policy.
• Overlap amongst the agencies was related primarily to natural resource science domains such
as soil, water, air, forests, and rangelands.
• Science related to the basic biology and production of plants and animals was strongly
represented by USDA but had very little overlap with EPA and USGS.
• There was a noticeable separation in EPA efforts related to air versus water reflecting the lack
of connection between air vs. water research and management at EPA. Although some of this
is expected and appropriate, greater effort in integration where advantageous is needed (e.g.,
watershed management, wetland emissions).
It was concluded before the workshop that this was a significant and worthy undertaking, and one that
would require sustained effort from all participants and Agencies involved to fully realize the benefits.
The workshop confirmed this conclusion, as it takes time and effort to coalesce a diverse group of
participants around a complex undertaking, even if the overarching goal is simple. However, significant
progress was made, and several actionable steps were identified to move the process forward:
• Specific and detailed input from the other working groups is needed to strategically utilize the
database.
• Better characterization of the socioeconomic and policy considerations is needed to adequately
map the various research activities.
25
-------
• Expansion of the dataset for EPA (to program office activities) and USGS (not all efforts are in
the initial analysis), as well as inclusion of other federal agencies (e.g. NSF, NOAA, NASA) is
critical to development of a full landscape of efforts.
• Iterative analyses of the resulting database by multiple federal stakeholders and using multiple
approaches is necessary prior to planning how specifically to integrate these efforts towards a
coherent goal.
• A synthesis of the science represented in the database could also serve to validate the findings
in this document and other existing strategic planning documents.
CROSS-CUTTING ISSUE: COMMUNICATION
Perhaps most importantly, agencies need to work together to develop a reactive N communication
strategy. Reactive N and co-pollutants are not widely recognized by the public as essential to food
production and as significant environmental problems. Public awareness rises during hypoxic events
(Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico) and when large cities fall out of compliance due to NO3"
contamination or harmful algal blooms (Des Moines, IA in 2013; Toledo, OH in 2014). The collective
costs of nutrient pollution are significant (van Grinsven et al. 2013; Sobota et al. 2015). Drinking water
contamination and lake closures due to neurotoxin-producing HABs provide a strong motivation to act,
but often these events are transient or episodic. There is a strong need to communicate the problem
and solution options in a clear and concise way to both policy makers and the public. Improving
recognition that reactive N pollution is an important issue may be facilitated by placing a dollar value
on reactive N externalities, and energy costs associated with reactive N production. Together, agencies
could create assessment reports for N similar to the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
(NAPAP) reports for acid rain, which led to policy changes and successful reductions in NOx emissions.
Finally, USDA's mission of integrating food production with environmental and human health
protection could be supported and reinforced by both EPA and USGS.
NEXT STEPS
The anticipated outcome of this meeting is the formation of a collaborative relationship between EPA,
USGS and USDA that advances reactive N research to inform science based management, improves
communications, and recommends alternative approaches to managing N in an integrated framework.
Next steps:
1) Creation of a Joint Science and Management Action Plan to support EPA-USDA-USGS N and co-
pollutant management.
2) Coalition between USDA, USGS, and EPA and a steering committee that will be committed to
securing what is needed to implement the actions identified in the Joint Science and Management
Action.
3) Continue to inventory and identify connections and common ground for the research across
agencies, expanding to involve key regional entities, state agencies and land grant universities.
26
-------
4) Annual meetings on nutrient-related topics of complementary interest (water quality monitoring,
food security, source measurements, etc.).
5) Identify mechanisms and build support for regional nutrient centers, perhaps working through
the newly established regional climate hubs and the Long Term Agricultural Research program.
REFERENCES
Alexander, R.B., P.J. Johnes, E.W. Boyer and R.A. Smith. 2002. A comparison of models for estimating
the riverine export of nitrogen from large watersheds. Biogeochemistry, 57:295-339.
Davidson, E.A., M.B. David, J.N. Galloway, C.L. Goodale, R. Haeuber, and J.A. Harrison. 2012. Excess
nitrogen in the US environment: Trends, risks, and solutions. Issues Ecol. Report Number 15.
Davidson, E. A., E.C. Suddick, C.W. Rice, L.S. Prokopy. 2015. More Food, Low Pollution (Mo Fo Lo Po):
A Grand Challenge for the 21st Century. Journal of Environmental Quality 44:305-311.
Du, E., W. de Vries, J.N. Galloway, X. Hu and J. Fang. 2014. Changes in wet nitrogen deposition in the
United States between 1985 and 2012. Environmental Research Letters, 9:095004.
Exner, M.E., A.J. Hirsh, and R.F. Spalding. 2014. Nebraska's groundwater legacy: Nitrate contamination
beneath irrigated cropland. Water Resources Research.
Galloway, J.N., J.D. Aber, J.W. Erisman, S.P. Seitzinger, R.W. Howarth, E.B. Cowling, B.J. Cosby. 2003.
The Nitrogen Cascade. Bioscience 53(4): 341-356.
Karlen, D.L., and J.M.F. Johnson. 2014. Crop residue considerations for sustainable bioenergy feedstock
supplies. BioEnergy Research 7:465-467.
Howarth, R., D. Swaney, G. Billen, J. Gamier, B. Hong, C. Humborg, P. Johnes, C. Morth, and R. Marino.
Nitrogen fluxes from the landscape are controlled by net anthropogenic nitrogen inputs and by
climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:37-43.
Jordan, T.E., and D.E. Weller. 1996. Human contributions to terrestrial nitrogen flux. Bioscience
46:655-664.
Kellogg, R.L., C.H. Lander., D.C. Moffitt et al. 2000. Manure nutrients relative to the capacity of cropland
and pastureland to assimilate nutrients: spatial and temporal trends for the United States. Washington,
DC: US Department of Agriculture.
Leach, A.M., J.N. Galloway, A. Bleeker, J.W. Erisman, R. Kohn, and J. Kitzes. 2012. A nitrogen footprint
model to help consumers understand their role in nitrogen losses to the environment. Environmental
Development, 1(1), 40-66.
27
-------
McCrackin, M.L., J.A. Harrison, and J.E. Compton. 2013. A comparison of NEWS and SPARROW models
to understand sources of nitrogen delivered to US coastal areas. Biogeochemistry 114:281-297.
Michalak, A. M., et al. (2013). "Record-setting algal bloom in Lake Erie caused by agricultural and
meteorological trends consistent with expected future conditions." Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 110(16): 6448-6452.
Nowak, P., S. Bowen, and P.E. Cabot. 2006. Disproportionality as a framework for linking social and
biophysical systems. Sociology of Natural Resources 19(2): 153-173.
Pellerin, Brian A., et al. 2014. Mississippi River nitrate loads from high frequency sensor measurements
and regression-based load estimation. Environmental Science ^Technology 48: 12612-12619.
Ribaudo, M.O., J. Delgado, L. Hansen, M. Livingston, R. Mosheim, and J. Wiliamson. 2011. Nitrogen in
agricultural systems: Implications for conservation policy. Economic Research Service Report 127.
USD A, Washington, DC.
Robertson, D.M., D.A. Saad, and G.E. Schwarz, 2014. Spatial Variability in Nutrient Transport by HUC8,
State, and Subbasin Based on Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin SPARROW Models. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association. DOI: 10.1111/jawr. 12153.
Sanford, Ward E. and Jason P. Pope, 2013, Quantifying groundwater's role in delaying improvements
to Chesapeake Bay water quality. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47:13330-13338,
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es401334k
SAB (Science Advisory Board to the US Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Reactive nitrogen in
the United States: an analysis of inputs, flows, consequences, and management options. Washington,
DC: US Environmental Protection Agency.
Sobota D.J., J.E. Compton, and J.A. Harrison. 2013. Reactive nitrogen inputs to US lands and waterways:
How certain are we about sources and fluxes? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11:82-90.
Sobota, D.J., J.E. Compton, M.L. McCrackin, and S. Singh. 2015. Cost of reactive nitrogen release from
human activities to the environment in the United States. Environmental Research Letters 10: 025006.
Sprague, L.A., R.M. Hirsch, and B.T. Aulenbach. 2011. Nitrate in the Mississippi River and Its Tributaries,
1980 to 2008: Are We Making Progress? Environmental Science & Technology 45:7209-7216.
Sutton, Mark A., et al., eds. 2011. The European nitrogen assessment: sources, effects and policy
perspectives. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Talley, E.M., D. Newman, D. Mimno, B.W. Herr II, H.M. Wallach, G.A.P.C. Burns, A.G.M. Leenders, and
A. McCallum. Database of NIH grants using machine-learned categories and graphical
clustering. Nature Methods 8 (2011): 443-444.
28
-------
US EPA. 2013. National Emissions inventory (NEI) Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.html. Viewed 5 March 2013.
USGS. 2013. Nitrogen statistics and information. Accessed April 9, 2013.
http://minerals.usgs.gOv/minerals/pubs/commodity/nitrogen/index.html#myb.
van Grinsven, H.J., M. Holland, B.H. Jacobsen, Z. Klimont, M.A. Sutton and W.J. Willems. 2013. Costs
and benefits of nitrogen for Europe and implications for mitigation. Environmental Science &
Technology 47:3571-3579.
White, M.J., C. Santhi, N. Kannan, J.G. Arnold, D. Marmel, L. Norfleet, P. Allen, M. DiLuzia, X. Wang, J.
Atwood, E. Haney, and M. Vaughn Johnson. 2014. Nutrient Delivery from the Mississippi River to the
Gulf of Mexico and Effects of Cropland Conservation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69:26-40.
29
-------
Table 1. Needs and gaps in monitoring data collection for estimating N fixed and released.
Data type
Specific need or opportunity
General
Gaps in the
N cascade
• N cycling in agricultural systems must be understood within the larger context of "nutrient" cycling generally
(especially in conjunction with phosphorus), so as not to perpetuate past failures of nutrient management
strategies
• Mechanisms surrounding nitrate leaching are well understood, but a nitrogen index similar to the P-index
(i.e., not simply a hydrological index) should be developed. The N-lndex should be easy to use and should also
have the capability to account for potential risk of surface N losses and N2O and NH3 emissions.
• The subgroups on animal systems, crop systems, and watersheds all noted difficulties in tying together N
cycling dynamics at different scales
Edge-of-
field and
other Water
Quality
Monitoring
• Improve comparability, consistency, and accessibility of datasets
0 Through the National Water Quality Monitoring Council (e.g., federal and state databases, STORET,
NWIS)
0 Incorporate USDA CEAP watersheds, ARS watersheds, NIFA funded research
0 Incorporate university databases, LTERs.
• Improve monitoring in smaller, headwater watersheds to increase data availability in these areas and improve
sensitivity of USGS and USDA models.
• Improve effects-based monitoring in downstream estuarine and coastal waters
• Increase collaboration between states and agencies to be more strategic about water quality monitoring and
focus on co-locating stream flow gages with water quality sites. Perhaps the NWQMC could be the clearing
house for these discussions, as NADP is for the air deposition scientific community.
Water
Quality
Modeling
• Integration of models (a good example is recent APEX-SPARROW integration). Additional needs include
coupled watershed-to-receiving water simulation models.
• Moving smaller scale models to larger scales and vice versa; empirical and mechanistic.
• Model comparisons should be encouraged to establish a weight-of-evidence approach.
Air Quality
and GHG
Monitoring
and
Modeling
• Stay the course with NOx emission monitoring and trends
• Build an improved monitoring network sufficient to characterize spatial and temporal variability in NH3
concentrations and deposition, and to support models (CMAQ).
• Continue efforts to link with GRACENet.
• Invite all USDA-ARS sites to join AMoN (ammonia monitoring network).
Synthetic
Fertilizer
• Finer scale data needed (downscaling state data to fields is inherently inaccurate and doesn't account for
differences in nutrient use efficiency or other management)
• Work with fertilizer companies and crop advisers to improve information about fertilizer use
• Develop approaches to gather and aggregate farm-scale data while maintaining privacy
Manure
• Continue to update the Kellogg report which estimates county-level manure production.
• Collect more information on manure storage/handling/ application/decomposition.
Waste
Water
• Improve measured/reported information from small and large waste water treatment facilities in terms of
their treatment process and N export.
Effects
• Conceptually, we have enough information to link N inputs and reductions to responses; however, we do not
have sufficient data to support quantifying those responses or derive water quality standards, highlighting
needs for further monitoring efforts.
• Synthesize information on ecological, social and economic responses to changes in N cascade over time.
• Combine data sets and modeling approaches to quantify critical loads of N for ecological effects.
• Work together to identify and communicate the central role of N in cause-effect relationships (e.g.,
eutrophication, hypoxia, acidification, ozone depletion, smog/air quality, climate change), and identify the
role of N cycling in multi-pollutant interactions.
30
-------
Table 2. WG3 identified a number of opportunities in each of their key message areas.
Systematic Review and Meta-
Analysis of Existing Research, and
Standardized Collection and
Sharing Of Data
• Research solicitations focused on synthesis and meta-analysis of the existing
body of research relevant to N management
• Provide infrastructure to compile syntheses as they are done and to make all
aspects (original and derivative databases, datasets and analyses) available for
continuing synthesis
• Research on the development of regional and site-specific nutrient use
efficiency benchmark metrics as a potential basis for evaluating crop and
animal production systems
• Development of consistent data collection methods, as exemplified in USDA-
ARS Greenhouse gas Reduction through Agricultural Carbon Enhancement
network (GRACEnet), to make data more comparable on open data platforms.
Initiate Regional Focus Groups for
Collaboration and Refinement of
Best-Practice Recommendations
• Catalytic funding or encouragement of regional/national focal points for
knowledge translation and implementation regarding N/nutrient management
• Leveraging of existing projects such as GRACEnet, ARS-REAP, LTAR, RCPP, the
Sustainable Corn Project or the Ammonia Emissions Workgroup to achieve N
research and extension outcomes.
Improving Practice Adoption by
Growers: the Human Dimension
• Coordinate cross-agency adoption of the 4Rs in crop management to deliver a
uniform message using uniform language. Recognize that additional BMPs may
be needed.
• Support NRCS and other (including private sector) efforts to provide web-based
and extremely user-friendly nutrient management tools, accessible to farmers
and consultants.
• Initiate agency outreach to crop advisors and fertilizer and equipment dealers,
emphasizing key and current information about success and reliability of best
practices for N and nutrient management. Include cost-effectiveness, labor
and equipment needs to implement practices. Determine if other social
barriers to adoption exist.
• Conduct or promote collaboration with food retailers that can link green
labeling/sustainable sourcing initiatives with improved nutrient management
outcomes; promote the use of defensible science in these efforts.
• Increase focus on cost-effectiveness of practices, including opportunity costs
(such as practices recommended to occur at busiest times)
• Support socio-economic research on the efficacy and impediments of a variety
of voluntary, incentive-based, and regulatory approaches to encouraging
improved nutrient use management.
Revitalized Watershed-based
Planning and Analysis
• Renew programmatic emphasis on watershed planning and management as a
basis for producer engagement and enhancing practice adoption.
Supply-Chain Perspective and
Partnership Development
• Work directly with retailers, integrators and cooperatives to address the entire
animal production value chain more sustainably; promote the use of defensible
science in these efforts
• Develop rules encouraging public-private partnerships to develop improved
technologies integrated with Agency resources, or to identify new technologies
qualifying for NRCS cost-sharing
• Integrate nutrient management perspectives into the USDA, EPA and DOE
Biogas Roadmap and the Bio-economy Initiative
31
-------
Improved Basic Understanding of N
• Basic N research can also be coordinated with NSF, NOAA, NASA and other
Cycling
federal agencies in addition to EPA, USGS and USDA.
• Research on improving N use in the human food cycle, including recovery and
health issues
• N research needs to be linked to phosphorus management in agriculture where
appropriate
• Climate, drought, intense storms and extreme temperature need to be
factored into N management recommendations and tools
• N management recommendations and tools should be made more responsive
to farmer behaviors and human dimensions
Table 3. Opportunities to improve communication.
1
Link agency missions in order to better integrate linkages of food production, human
health protection, and environmental protection.
2
Develop better visuals illustrating the importance of reactive N, toward new
perceptions of how changes in the N cycle affect food systems, human health, aquatic
life, and the environment.
3
Expand efforts toward understanding the consequences of reactive N pollution for
societal well-being, by putting dollar values on reactive N externalities and energy costs
associated with reactive N production.
4
Articulate possible future solutions to reactive N pollution problems involving
interagency collaborations, promoting scientific, policy, technological, and/or
management based approaches.
5
Importance of telling success stories (CAA declines in NOx, Tampa Bay improvements
in bay health, Nebraska drinking water improvements).
6
Create reports for the reactive N management equivalent to the NAPAP reports for acid
rain.
32
-------
Figure 1. Sources of nitrogen introduced into the U.S. in 2002 (units are Tg N yr"1; EPA SAB INC 2011).
Agriculture
*L . I
Natural Industry
Cultiv.-i'jon BNF
Traospertartiort
Fossil Fuel
Stationary
Hatnef Beach N Fertiliz er
33
-------
Figure 2. Nitrogen inputs from synthetic fertilizer application and NOx emissions for the
conterminous US from 1941 to 2011 (USGS 2013; US EPA 2013).
*—1
T—1
UD
H
UD
H
U3
T—1
UD
UD
UD
*—1
LO
LO
UD
UD
rv
r->
00
00
cn
cn
o
O
t 1
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
cn
CT)
cn
cn
cn
o
O
o
t—i
T-\
1
i
H
T—1
H
H
1
H
*—i
H
(N
CM
(N
-i)
34
-------
Figure 3. Agency research programs mapped onto the Nitrogen Cascade.
Particulate
^7 /
Stratospheric
effects
N2O
NADP
CASTNet
Greenhouse gas
effects
1
m N20
US DA
1 GRACENet
EPA
N20
(terrestrial;
35
-------
Figure 4. Opportunities for action to decrease N release to the environment in the food cycle.
Field
Food
Produced
N not taken
up by crop
Food
Processed
Food for
Sale
Food
Purchased
Food
Consumed
T
V
V
~
V
V
Crop
Food
Food
Food
Human
processing
processing
waste
waste
waste
waste
waste
Improve
Improve
Improve
Improve
Improve
recycling
recycling
recycling
recycling
WWT
(Farmer)
(Processor)
(Retailer)
Eat to
(Municipality)
Improve
NJE
(Farmer)
USDA
Guidelines
(Consumer)
36
-------
Figure 5, Visualizing nutrient-related research funded by USDA, EPA and USGS.
Semantic analysis was performed on a database
of over 20,000 discrete documents related to
nutrient science supported by USDA, EPA, and
USGS using the Pushgraph™ visualization tool.
Each document is represented by a colored circle
below and is described by topics or the co-
occurrence of words in the document. A science
map of the documents was created by placing
documents with similar topics next to each other.
biodiversity
foj'ag^
*
biodiese
LEGEND
USGS
HI EPA
• »•
fungi^
erosion. fertilizers
• irrigation TCa • •
climate
forests / y
* »f!
e CQ|j antibiotics
rangeland
i Pity
\lakes
/s'win® stream!
•Ifc rivers water quality
. ^wildlife & . ,
m . g&watersheds
ate/
/•
A closer look at the interagency science map above reveals
the linkages between science subject matter/topics and the
science strengths of each agency. For example, erosion of
nutrients is closely associated with fertilizers and irrigation
indicating a linkage between those topics. The science in this
area is heavily dominated by USDA. USGS investments are
largely in water quality aspects of streams, rivers, and
watersheds. EPA and USDA have also invested in water
quality issues. Visualizing science investments in this way
allows identification of interrelationships between the science
and the ability to identify potential scientific gaps.
37
-------
3 Meeting agenda
Purpose of the Meeting
Excess reactive nitrogen (Nr) compounds in the environment are associated with many large-scale
environmental concerns, including eutrophication of surface waters, toxic algae blooms, hypoxia, air
pollution, nitrogen saturation in forests, drinking water contamination, and global warming. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other federal
and state agencies have implemented programs and continue to work with states and stakeholders to
reduce the risks posed by excessive Nr. However, a more comprehensive and integrated approach is
needed to more efficiently and effectively manage and use Nr to achieve its benefits, such as fertilizer for
food production, and mitigate its damages as it is introduced to and cycles repeatedly through the
environment in different forms and media.
The purpose of this meeting was to develop a collaborative research and management partnership
between EPA, USDA, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), to promote sustainable management of Nr
and co-pollutants (e.g., phosphorus, sediment, and sulfur). This was the first in an anticipated series of
meetings to further research collaboration on the topic of Nr management with additional stakeholder
groups including other agencies, universities, non-governmental organizations (NGO), and industry.
Meeting participants were charged with the task of identifying areas of common, complementary, and
gaps in research and outreach activities between the three agencies on Nr and co-pollutants in support of
joint decision-making, and to develop an action plan for collaboration on research, monitoring, and
management implementation and evaluation. The desired outcome of the meeting is the formation of a
collaborative relationship between EPA, USGS and USDA that advances Nr research to inform science-
based management, improves communications, and recommends alternative approaches to managing Nr
in an integrated framework.
Meeting Design
The workshop agenda is provided in Appendix A. The workshop included a mix of plenary session
presentations and workgroup sessions (with frequent report-outs to the entire group). Additional
information regarding the plenary session presentations and breakout workgroup sessions is provided
below. Following the meeting, the Steering Committee continued to meet to plan and develop the post-
meeting products.
Participation in the meeting was targeted at federal agency personnel who engaged in nitrogen research
and/or management, as well as subject matter experts (from academia, public interest groups, etc.) who
can provide valuable contributions to the discussions. See Appendix B for participant list.
Plenary Session Presentations
Each speaker's presentation slides from the plenary sessions are provided in Attachment 1. This workshop
proceedings report contain a brief summary of each speaker's talking points from the meeting. Each
summary was sent to the speaker for review of accuracy and to allow for additional input to better clarify
38
-------
information. Prior to the meeting, the speakers were provided a list of topics to discuss and/or questions
to address in their talks and/or to prepare to answer as part of a speaker panel.
Workgroup Sessions
Summaries of the four workgroup topics are presented in four chapters in this report. The topics are
presented below, along with a summary of the charge and desired products. The charge questions helped
the workgroups to define the scope of their discussions.
Workgroup 1: Inventory, monitoring and analysis of the amount and effects of nutrient release to the
environment.
Leads -Jana Compton, EPA; Neil Dubrovsky, USGS
Charge - Summarize information from Science Advisory Board (SAB) Integrated Nitrogen Committee
(INC) and related recent syntheses. Arrive at the meeting with a presentation for the start of the
meeting to provide context. Identify agency research links and research gaps.
Product - Joint agency white paper on the statement of the problem. Section for the Science and
Management Action Plan summarizing the role of each agency in inventory, monitoring and
analysis/assessment of the amount and effects of nutrient release, including a statement about the
gaps, barriers and current state of connection between these research efforts.
Workgroup 2: Policy solutions - Connections to water and air quality goals, criteria and standards,
especially incentives, trading programs and Connections to energy and food decisions and policy.
Connections to farmer decisions and consumer decisions
Leads - Marc Ribaudo, USDA; Roberta Parry, EPA
Charge - Summarize the role of each agency in research and management of nutrients, particularly
nonpoint source. Arrive at the meeting with presentations on these roles and the potential connections
and gaps.
Product - Section for the Science and Management Action Plan summarizing agency/department roles
in nutrient policy solutions, including an assessment of the gaps, barriers and current state of
connection between these research efforts.
Workgroup 3: Technical solutions - On-farm nutrient management and restoration/mitigation
downstream of farm fields and watersheds.
Leads - Mary Ann Rozum, USDA; Randy Bruins, EPA
Charge - Summarize the role of each agency in research and management of nutrients, particularly
nonpoint source. Arrive at the meeting with presentations on these roles and the potential connections
and gaps.
Product - Section for the Science and Management Action Plan summarizing agency/department roles
in the science of on-farm management and restoration/mitigation downstream, including an
assessment of the gaps, barriers and current state of connection between these research efforts.
39
-------
Workgroup 4: A crosswalk of existing research plans and structure between USGS, USDA, and EPA.
Leads - Chris Clark, EPA; Ray Knighton, USDA
Charge - Arrive at the meeting with a draft crosswalk document showing current research programs
and common ground between our different research programs, breaking down silos where needed.
Product - Science and Management Action Plan summarizing agency/department roles in nutrient
management across the US. This plan will identify opportunities, gaps and identify future directions.
Identify existing activities in research and program implementation that address this issue and a
discussion of whether we know if they are effective - and if not, why. Identify barriers to success;
Identify new research that is needed; Identify new program opportunities that can be either solely or
jointly developed, but with a clear understanding of how either of those addresses some of the
identified issues.
Meeting Proceedings
This meeting proceedings report contains a brief summary of each plenary session speaker's talk, as well
as notes from each of the workgroup sessions. Only minor edits were made to the workgroup session
notes to combine similar ideas and comments, as well as to exclude unrelated topics. The goal of the
meeting was to exchange ideas, not to reach consensus on any particular topic; therefore, all relevant
discussion is included in this document.
Following this Introduction chapter, the remaining chapters of the meeting's proceedings document are
organized similar to the meeting agenda (Appendix A), as follows:
Section 2. Plenary Session Talks
• Welcome and Charge for Meeting, Jana Compton (USEPA-ORD)
• The Need for Cross-Agency Coordination on Nutrient Science and Management
o Otto Doering, Purdue University (SAB INC Perspective)
o Betsy Southerland, USEPA-OW
o Wayne Honeycutt, USDA-NRCS
o Paul Capel, USGS-NAWQA
• Lessons Learned from the European Union
o Jan Willem Erisman, Amsterdam University
• Lessons Learned from the NSF Research Coordination Networks
o Andrew Sharpley, University of Arkansas (Phosphorus)
o Eric Davidson, Woods Hole Research Center (Nitrogen)
o Discussion on Linkages Between Nitrogen and Phosphorus Management
40
-------
• Nutrient Management Challenges - Current and Future
o Jim Galloway, University of Virginia (Future of Reactive Nitrogen Use)
o Denice Shaw, USEPA (Nutrient Sensor - Market Stimulation - Public/Private Collaboration)
o Discussion on How to Achieve Reductions
• Opportunities and Challenges for Cross-Agency Coordination on Nutrient Science and Management
o Ann Bartuska, USDA
o Desired Outcomes of the Meeting
o What do we want to see change?
o What is your hoped outcome of this meeting?
Section 3. Workgroup 1 Session Summary
• Inventory, monitoring, and analysis of the amount and effects of nutrient release to the environment.
Section 4. Workgroup 2 Session Summary
• Policy solutions - Connections to water and air quality goals, criteria and standards, especially
incentives, trading programs and Connections to energy and food decisions and policy. Connections
to farmer decisions and consumer decisions
Section 5. Workgroup 3 Session Summary
• Technical solutions - On-farm nutrient management and restoration/mitigation downstream of farm
fields and watersheds.
Section 6. Workgroup 4 Session Summary
• A crosswalk of existing research plans and structure between USGS, USDA, and EPA.
Section 7. Meeting Wrap-up
• Discussion on Science Management Action Plan
• Panel Discussions
Section 8. References
Appendix B. Workshop Agenda
Appendix A. Workshop Participants
Attachment 1. Plenary Presentation Slides
41
-------
4 Plenary Session
Welcome & Charge for Meeting, Jana Compton, USEPA-ORD
This meeting, which is the first in an anticipated series of meetings, is the result of nearly two years of
planning and collaboration between staff from EPA, USDA, and USGS, as well as university researchers.
Participants consist of approximately one-third each from EPA, USDA, and other organizations including
USGS (Appendix B). The primary objective of this meeting is to enhance research collaboration among the
three agencies, stakeholder groups, universities, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and industry on
the topic of Nr management using a cross-media, systems-oriented approach. Developing a collaborative
research partnership will allow for more effective promotion of sustainable management of Nr and co-
pollutants
Meeting participants are charged with building on previous work related to management of Nr and co-
pollutants and identifying gaps and opportunities for research, as well as charting tangible, actionable
next steps. Several publications were identified as recommended pre-meeting reading material, including:
EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) report Reactive Nitrogen in the United States: An Analysis of Inputs,
Flows, Consequences and Management Options; Kansas City Consensus on Nitrogen Use Efficiency 2013;
EPA's memo Working in Partnership with States to Address Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution through
Use of a Framework for State Nutrient Reductions; and USDA's The Challenge of Documenting Water
Quality Benefits of Conservation Practices: A Review of USDA-ARS's Conservation Effects Assessment
Project Watershed Studies, among others.
Emphasis was given on addressing Nr management from the Nitrogen Cascade perspective. The Nitrogen
Cascade refers to the movement of Nr among environmental media (i.e., air, land, and water), which
causes a cascade of effects as it cycles in and out of organic and inorganic forms and passes through
multiple ecosystems. As shown in Figure 1, excessive N, including nitrogen oxide (NOx), nitrous oxide
(N20), ammonia (NH3), ammonium (NH4+), and nitrate (N03~) has myriad adverse impacts on air, land, and
water quality.
Figure 1. Diagram of the Nitrogen Cascade. Source: Dr. Jana Compton's presentation, slide 11,
42
-------
To achieve the goals of inter-agency collaboration and communication and allow for attendees to shape
the final products, meeting attendees were asked to be active participants in the conversation and think
about the issue from a scientific (rather than agency) perspective as needed. It was reiterated that Nr is
widely recognized as a problem and the focus of the discussion will be on reducing Nr loads rather than
describing Nr's adverse environmental, social, and economic impacts. To fully address the issues
surrounding Nr management, meeting participants joined one of four workgroups, as detailed in Section
1. Each of the four workgroups was tasked with identifying key messages on their topic, identifying
research gaps and opportunities, and presenting concrete next steps. Refer to Chapters 3 through 6 for
details on workgroup outcomes.
Four key publications are expected from this meeting: (1) this report; (2) an Executive Summary of the key
messages from each of the four workgroups; (3) a joint Science and Management Action Plan (SMAP) to
support EPA, USDA, and USGS Nr and co-pollutant management; and (4) a publication summarizing key
messages to be produced approximately six months after the meeting. An EPA, USDA, and USGS coalition
will be formed to begin work on implementing the specific management actions identified in the joint
SMAP. The coalition and steering committee will work to ensure continued inter-agency collaboration and
accountability, track accomplishments, and communicate successes and lessons learned.
43
-------
The Need for Cross-Agency Coordination on Nutrient Science and Management
Perspective form the USEPA Science Advisory Board Integrated Nitrogen Committee, Dr. Otto Doering,
Purdue University
Anthropogenic creation of Nr through the Haber-Bosch processes has essential benefits as a fertilizer for
food production. However, only a small portion of Nr actually goes towards its intended use, while a
significant majority is lost to the environment. Excess Nr in the environment is associated with numerous
environmental concerns, which have been well documented in the literature. Dealing with the problem
of Nr is complex and challenging because nitrogen changes form and flows readily through different media
(i.e., air, land, and water). Current trends indicate that anthropogenic activities introduce an estimated
five times more Nr into the U.S. environment than natural sources, and agricultural activities account for
more than half (53%) of the Nr production and use (Figure 2).
Natural Industry
Nonfartilize* Haber Bosch N
BNF
Agriculture
Figure 2. Sources of Reactive Nitrogen Introduced into the U.S. in 2002 (Tg N/yr). Source: Dr. Otto
Doering's presentation, slide 5.
The problem of Nr in the environment is a "wicked" problem as opposed to a "tame" problem. Tame
problems are those that have a defined problem, a technical solution, and are solvable using the scientific
method. Reactive N is considered to be a wicked problem for a variety of reasons: there is no agreement
between stakeholders on what the problem is; there is no defined solution or endpoint; the problem
changes over time and there is high uncertainty; and values and goals are not necessarily shared by all
parties involved.
To help bring the issue of Nr to EPA's attention as a priority problem, the SAB's Integrated Nitrogen
Committee (INC) published the report Reactive Nitrogen in the United States: An Analysis of Inputs, Flows,
Consequences and Management Options. The 2011 study analyzed the sources and fate of Nr and
provided advice to EPA on integrated nitrogen research and management strategies. Given that excessive
Nr in the environment is a widely recognized problem, the report focuses primarily on solutions rather
than reviewing the adverse impacts of Nr loading to the environment. The SAB report recommends that
EPA use the Nitrogen Cascade as a framework for addressing environmental loading and allowing for more
44
-------
effective management of Nr (Figure 3). The report also recommends using an intra- and inter-agency
approach through coordination among EPA offices and with other federal agencies, such as LJSDA and
USGS. The SAB suggested an initial target of a 25% reduction in excess Nr across sectors in the U.S. While
the authors recognized that this reduction in Nr alone would not solve the problem, they note that it could
be achieved in the near-term with current technology and at acceptable cost. However, there would have
to be the national will to do so across the full interconnected scope of the nitrogen cascade.
The dynamic of the nitrogen cascade makes coordinated activity a necessity to successfully address
excess Nr.
The Nitrogen Cascade
New Nitrogen
En»rgy Production NOk
& cofrtHistrai of treat tuets
Food Production
& crcaUofs of synSw&c letters
NO^NH,,.
Atmospheric
stratosphere
troposphere
NOy, NHj. NlXg
Terrestrial
Agricultural
H
crops HH animals
lj ^ Li
Vegetated
tofeste
grassland
tj «*» L-l
Populated
| people |—landscape [
NOy, NH„, Nofg
NO,
NHj
HjO
Aquatic
r
Surface Water
4 Weflands
<2
{jftHjnilWif.OT
Coastal Bays
iEstuawrs
|oceans
Figure 3, The Nitrogen Cascade. Source: Figure ES-1 (The Nitrogen Cascade) from Reactive Nitrogen in
the United States: An Analysis of Inputs, Flows, Consequences and Management Options. A Report of
the EPA Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB-11-013).
As a concluding point, Dr. Doering emphasized the importance of building relationships during this
meeting, and continuing collaborations in the future to communicate what type of projects are underway
in terms of managing Nr. After his talk, a participant called on others to reflect on whether there is a need
to develop a more appropriate term than "reactive nitrogen," comparing the phrase to the difference
between "global warming" and "climate change." Branding of Nr management was bought up several
times throughout the meeting as an opportunity to better educate policy makers and the public on the
issue.
45
-------
Perspective from USEPA, Dr. Betsy Southerland, USEPA-OW
Historically, EPA, USDA, state and local governments, and numerous stakeholders have made progress to
reduce Nr and co-pollutant loadings (principally phosphorus but also pesticides, sediment, and pathogens)
that cause the adverse impacts of aquatic ecosystem collapse, terrestrial biodiversity changes, and
degradation of drinking source waters leading to costly water treatment. Several EPA programs have
made progress in reducing Nr and co-pollutants in the environment, including the Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) and permitting programs. Despite these efforts, Nr and co-pollutants continue to be released
and discharged at concentrations that cause significant adverse impacts, and EPA recognizes that we are
not where we should be. EPA would like to continue ongoing work with USDA and expand collaboration
between EPA, states and USDA to address nonpoint sources, and with USGS, which provides essential
monitoring data and modeling analyses. EPA values the historical and ongoing work with our federal
partners, as we recognize the importance of reducing nonpoint sources of nutrient pollution. This cannot
be done without collaboration between federal partners, states, and local entities.
Several key factors limit EPA's ability to make significant progress on reducing Nr in the environment:
1. The effects of Nr cross traditional media-specific regulatory boundaries. For example, Nr can
cause effects regulated by the Clean Air Act (CAA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and Clean
Water Act (CWA). EPA's offices are organized on a media-basis (i.e., air and water), which makes
it challenging to address the problem from the Nitrogen Cascade perspective.
2. Often the adverse effects are not due to direct toxicity but rather to changes in ecosystem
structure and function, some of which may be seen as beneficial. For example some recreational
fish species thrive in quasi-eutrophic conditions.
3. Nitrogen cycles through the environment, converting between organic and inorganic forms, each
of which has different effects.
4. Universal nitrogen water quality standards would not be protective, since the behavior and effects
of Nr vary based on site-specific conditions such as light availability, turbidity, and flow.
5. There are often tradeoffs and unforeseen consequences with Nr management actions. These
need to be considered when working to minimize Nr loading to the environment.
6. A key challenge is that a substantial portion of the pollutants come from nonpoint sources, and
the CWA provides limited authority for regulation. EPA would like to continue to work with states,
which may have authority, and USDA to ensure that progress is being made to minimize Nr
loadings from nonpoint sources.
To address the issue of Nr in the environment, EPA's Office of Water (OW) has five areas of emphasis.
First, EPA promotes state adoption of numeric nutrient water quality criteria. Numeric criteria provide a
quantitative target on which to base TMDL endpoints and permit limits. This year, EPA has been training
states on how to derive scientifically defensible numeric nutrient criteria and how to protect downstream
waters from nutrient loading. EPA has been taking what they have learned about deriving numeric
nutrient criteria in the past decade and during the Florida nutrient standards promulgation, to the EPA
Regions and the states and bringing back what they have learned while implementing their own programs.
The lessons from the workshops will be turned into webinars and updated technical support for the states
in the future. Second, EPA is helping states identify nutrient impaired waterbodies before they become
46
-------
over-eutrophied. Third, EPA is promoting the development and implementation of innovative and cost-
effective approaches to managing Nr. For example, EPA's Nutrient-Smart (N-Smart) is an incentive-based
program that works with small and midsized wastewater treatment facilities (WWTF) to reduce nutrient
loadings. Fourth, EPA's OW is collaborating with EPA's OAR on Secondary National Air Quality Standards
for nitrogen and sulfur, and coordinating policy goals. Finally, EPA works with states, USDA, and USGS to
implement nonpoint source controls across the landscape at the local watershed scale through the CWA
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program.
Each agency brings complimentary statutes, regulations, goals, programs, and expertise to the challenge
of bringing the nation's waters back into balance to provide sustained ecological integrity and human
health protection and the ecosystem services needed for human well-being.
• EPA's programs bring water quality criteria, standards, point source controls under the CWA, and
nonpoint source controls. Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) protect
water quality (and other ecological endpoints) from air deposition.
• USDA brings conservation programs, rural wastewater treatment, and state of the art agricultural
research, innovation grants, and training through the Agriculture Act, or Farm Bill, that enable
agricultural communities to reduce nutrient loadings to water from both point and nonpoint
sources.
• USGS brings monitoring, modeling, and trends analysis of nutrients in surface water and
groundwater, and the impact on aquatic ecosystems, drinking water sources, and drinking water
wells. The databases and models developed and maintained by USGS are essential to determining
source contributions, water quality trends, and alternative management analysis, particularly in
the area of nonpoint sources where EPA has the largest regulatory hurdles.
Following Dr. Southerland's talk, a meeting participant asked if there are projections about the
development of wastewater treatment processes to convert Nr. Dr. Southerland noted that to-date,
emphasis has been given on total nitrogen (TN) reduction and some states are taking a technology-based,
rather than water quality-based, approach to reducing TN loads. EPA received a petition from the Natural
Resources Defense Council to redefine secondary treatment. When EPA reviewed the data available from
EPA's Secondary Treatment Performance Report (US EPA, Office of Water, November 2012) and Clean
Watersheds Needs Survey 2008: Report to Congress (EPA-832-R-10-002), they found that the only
secondary treatment plants that were reporting on nitrogen and phosphorus loadings, had already added
advanced treatment options. Therefore EPA denied the petition because the data were not available to
be able to redefine secondary treatment or set a national floor on reductions. EPA is in the process of
obtaining these data now, which may be used in future analyses.
Perspective from USDA, Wayne Honey cult, USDA-NRCS
The USDA's mission is to provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development,
nutrition, and related issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient
management.
This includes enhancing food production while also reducing N-loss from croplands and soils. Inter-agency
coordination is key to managing Nr and there is a need to focus agency research agendas and management
approaches with an eye to adoption of conservation practices. Approximately 70% of U.S. land is privately
47
-------
owned, which means that private land owners will be the primary implementers of conservation practices.
Part of USDA's role is to quantify the effectiveness of conservation practices in minimizing N losses, and
fund adoption of such standards. USDA conducts some edge-of-field monitoring to quantify the impact of
conservation practices on water quality, but mostly relies on USGS and EPA to conduct in-stream
monitoring.
Conservation practices must be cost-effective if they are to be widely adopted and implemented. Dr.
Honeycutt emphasized the importance of considering economics and the farmer's bottom-line when
discussing adoption of conservation practices and/or enhancing nutrient use efficiency. The agricultural
community is generally risk-averse; therefore it would be helpful to quantify risk-reduction attributes
from conservation practices. To the extent that these risk reductions can be quantified, then conservation
adoption could be further enhanced if the lower risk associated with conservation was reflected in loan
interest rates and insurance premiums. . This would simultaneously help the farmer meet their bottom-
line while also minimizing the impact of Nr on the environment.
The USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has strong partnerships with many
landowners, but some areas are not being reached. Traditionally, NRCS has relied on the agricultural
community reaching out to them for assistance. However, the culture is shifting towards expanding
outreach and coordination with landowners, as well as with fertilizer sellers and crop advisors, where the
majority of landowners learn about nitrogen management options. Dr. Honeycutt also noted that there
are many partnership opportunities to enhance conservation practice implementation.
Perspective from USGS, Dr. Paul Capel, USGS-NAWQA
The USGS is the Nations' earth science agency. The agency is non-regulatory, impartial, and tends to work
at large scales. USGS collects, monitors, and analyzes data, particularly through its National Water Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) Program. NAWQA has a network of monitoring sites to collect data on surface
water and groundwater. Data are used to identify temporal trends in water quality and conduct modeling
analyses to understand the natural and anthropogenic factors controlling water quality. Sites are
specifically targeted based on land and water use, and are sampled routinely, employing consistent
analytical methods to allow for cross-site comparisons.
Reactive nitrogen is derived from several sources including atmospheric deposition, nitrogen fixation (i.e.,
the Haber-Bosch process), synthetic fertilizers, and manure. As demonstrated in Figure 4, the majority of
Nr in the U.S. is used on crops. In order to better manage Nr, key data are needed. First, there is a need
to quantify the amount of Nr released to the aquatic environment and understand how it moves through
different media. Data collected from USGS' monitoring networks can help with this type of analysis but
more data and information are needed. Second, the impacts of extreme hydrologic events on Nr transport
are not well understood. These events are becoming more frequent with climate change and have the
potential to negate any prior decreases in Nr loss to the environment related to implementation of
conservation practices. Third, there is a need to better understand Nr inputs from WWTFs, for which data
may be unmeasured or unreported. And finally, there is a need to understand how recycled manure from
grazing impacts Nr transport through the environment.
48
-------
EXPLANATION
Input
Atmospheric deposition
Fixation
Fertilizer
Manure
Output
Surplus
Volatilization
Crops
Pasture/hay
Maryland
Indiana
Iowa
Figure 4. Mass-budget chart demonstrating the inputs and outputs of nitrogen (kg/ha) in three states.
Source: Dr. Capei's presentation, slide 10.
Two types of field-based studies can help to expand our understanding of nitrogen transformations and
movement through the environment: synoptic studies and long-term network studies. Synoptic studies
provide a lot of information at many locations over short time frames (e.g., the USGS' Midwest Stream
Quality Assessment). Long-term networks allow for evaluation of trends and help to validate models.
Increasing interactions between models and modelers from the three agencies will be helpful in answering
some of the questions related to Nr management. A recent success was when USDA's Agricultural
Policy/Environmental extender (APEX) model was used to refine the existing USGS' SPARROW model.
More collaborative efforts such as this would be helpful.
Lessons Learned from the European Union, Dr. Jan Willem Erisman, Free University Amsterdam
and Louis Bolk Institute
Dr. Erisman is the Director of the Louis Bolk Institute, which conducts research and provides advice on
sustainable agriculture, nutrition, and health in the European Union (EU). The EU is comprised of 28
member states and 500 million consumers, including 14 million farmers. Approximately two thirds of EU
land is used for animal feed. In 2011, the European Nitrogen Assessment (ENA) was launched to review
the current scientific understanding of nitrogen sources, impacts, and interactions across Europe
(http://www.nine-esf.org/ENA-Book). The ENA takes into account current policies and the economic costs
and benefits as a basis for informing the development of future policies at local and global scales. In the
EU, nitrogen emissions have been linked to a suite of effects on ecosystems, human health, the
greenhouse gas balance, and crops. An analysis of temporal trends in nitrogen inputs in the EU indicates
that between 1990 and 1980 there was a five-fold increase; however, because of environmental policies
and measures, inputs have since been reduced by 20%. Emissions of Nr have also decreased in the EU as
49
-------
a result of environmental measures in place. In addition, during the 2000 to 2010 period, there was a
reduction in the number of exceedances of nitrogen critical loads.
Several policies have been particularly instrumental in reducing Nr inputs to the environment in the EU.
The Ambient Air Quality Directive, the National Emissions Ceiling Directive, and the Gothenburg Protocol
played important roles in atmospheric nitrogen reductions. The Nitrate Directive has been instrumental
to reduce agricultural nitrogen input aiming at improvement of ground- and surface water quality. An EU
task force on Nr has been developed and is currently chaired by the United Kingdom and Denmark. The
task force uses an integrated approach and brings together different agencies and ministerial groups from
across Europe to address the issue of nutrient management.
An analysis of fertilizer use in various countries and regions indicates that fertilizer use is comparable in
the U.S. and Europe (Figure 5). Also similarly to the U.S., the majority (80%) of nitrogen in Europe is from
agriculture and most is distributed as Nr in water. However, country variability is high in the EU and the
Netherlands is one of the greatest users. In response to these findings, The Netherlands implemented
policies and actions to reduce Nr. For example, since 2002, livestock farms that produce more manure N
than 170 kg/ha/yr for arable land and 250 kg/ha/yr for grassland are obliged to (a) enter into manure
transfer contracts with other farmers, (b) reduce their livestock numbers, or (c) buy additional land.
Furthermore, farmers have to use low emission manure application technologies (e.g. manure injection),
cover manure storage facilities and implement low emission housing systems to reduce ammonia
emissions. To-date, the country's actions have been successful and not only have Nr inputs been reduced,
but the country has also been able to simultaneously increase agricultural production in the process. An
assessment of success stories to limit Nr in Europe was made and the measures were categorized as
follows:
1. The most optimal measures to limit the Nr cascade are to limit the creation or production of Nr;
2. Once in the cascade the focus should be on the increase in Nitrogen Use Efficiency; and
3. Finally, if the above does not work, Nr should be converted back into N2 as soon as possible (end
of pipe).
The following top five technical measures were listed:
1. Substituting inorganic synthetic fertilizers with organic manure, which reduced NH3, N03~, and
N20 by up to 20%;
2. Decreasing the nitrogen content of animal feed, which reduced NH3 and N20 by up to 20%, and
N03" by up to 11%;
3. Using 25% less nitrogen fertilizer, which reduced N03", NOx, and N20 by 23%, 5%, and 10%,
respectively;
4. Balancing fertilizer nutrients to crop, which reduced NH3, N03", and N20 by 20%, up to 60%, and
20%, respectively; and
5. Installing low NOx burners at power plants, which reduced NOx by up to 60%.
50
-------
4501
400
350
300
250-
200-
150-
100
50
China
India
Indonesia
Russia
USA
0 I i i i i i i i i
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Figure 5, Tons of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer per 1,000 ha used in various countries. Source: Dr.
Erisman's presentation, slide 5.
Both societal benefits and costs have been incurred as a result of Nr management actions in the
Netherlands. Air quality has improved, swimmability has increased, there are fewer lake algal blooms, and
odors from livestock operations have been reduced. However, there has also been a reduction in pasture
birds and bees; there are no longer cows in the field since they have been moved indoors; and landscapes
are now primarily monoculture.
A variety of factors can contribute to or hinder the effectiveness of Nr management policies. Examples of
factors that help to ensure policy effectiveness include: regulatory pressure, cost-effectiveness, and
ensuring that the implementer is given clear insight into his/her own actions in relation to the
environmental consequences. Conservation practices may become cost-effective through optimization,
emissions trading, or monetizing external costs by adjusting the price, implementing fines, or via taxation.
Some reasons why policies may be ineffective or less effective can include: practical difficulties (e.g., slurry
injection is more time consuming and external labor are often needed); the measures are not profitable;
if policies, training, and education are geared towards increasing production only; and if the stakeholders
do not support or understand the reasoning behind the measures. Dr. Erisman recommended four best
management practices (BMP) for producers to reduce Nr inputs:
1. Educating farmers. There should be a focus on basic farmers' knowledge and principles (e.g., of
soil, weather, plants, and biology) and new developments (e.g., technology and breeding).
2. Independent extension services. These are essential to help farmers improve nutrient
management while increasing yields and other income.
Wcrtd
EU-27
• Africa
—Australia and New Zealand
— Braiil
51
-------
3. Nutrient field management. Nutrient inputs to agricultural systems should be guided by the
principles of the right product at the right place at the right time and with the right amount.
4. Participation. Participatory approaches for new developments and local solutions will increase
their acceptance and the potential effects. With cooperatives that work together in an area with
regional knowledge and with experience and knowledge input from the outside, progress can be
made while keeping the local and regional characteristics of farming, crops, etc.
Lessons Learned from the National Science Foundation Research Coordination Networks
Phosphorus, Dr. Andrew Sharpley, University of Arkansas
The Phosphorus Research Coordination Network (P-RCN) is comprised of 45 members from six continents.
The primary goal of the P-RCN is to achieve a closed human phosphorus cycle and develop a more
sustainable food system by engaging scientists, farmers, government agencies, and policy makers to
envision, assess, and communicate pathways to improve phosphorus use efficiency and generate robust
phosphorus recycling pathways. The P-RCN coordinates among ongoing efforts, such as Arizona State
University's Sustainable Phosphorus Initiative, the Global Phosphorus Research Initiative, and Global
TraPs, among others.
The Phosphorus Research Coordination Network has four working groups: (1) Recycling; (2)
Efficiency/Conservation in Production; (3) Demand for Phosphorus; and (4) Fate, Transport, and Impact.
The Recycling workgroup researches strategies for reduction and recovery of phosphorus flows in the
human, animal, and waste systems. The Efficiency/Conservation in Production workgroup researches the
economic, social, institutional, and informational barriers and opportunities for conservation practices,
adoption of new technologies, and acceptability of phosphorus efficient crops and practices. The Demand
for Phosphorus workgroup researches the global, regional, and country historical and forecasted trends
in phosphorus demand drivers. The workgroup also looks into what these trends of demand suggest about
total global phosphorus demand when coupled with population growth forecasts. The Fate, Transport,
and Impact workgroup researches how phosphorus is being managed on the land, and how it is mobilized
and transferred from a resource to a pollutant. The workgroup also looks into what can and can't be done
to minimize further water quality degradation.
A case study was presented for the Maumee River in Northwestern Ohio, which drains into Lake Erie. In
response to the implementation of adaptive management strategies, the total flow of phosphorus in the
river was reduced by half during the 1975 and 2012 period. Specific management actions that might be
taken include; subsurface application of fertilizer and manure, planting cover crops, fertilizing spring, and
managing tile drainage. Further it must be ignored that non-manageable climate fluctuations or a shift in
seasonal rainfall patterns and intensity can exacerbate nutrient loss from current and future conservation
systems.
To better understand the extent to which conservation practices should be employed and where,
researchers may classify watersheds along a "watershed phosphorus continuum" based on in-stream
phosphorus characteristics and trends (Figure 6). The three categories include: "equilibrium,"
"accumulation," and "depletion." Watersheds in the equilibrium category have generally equal
phosphorus inputs and outputs and require minimal intervention in terms of phosphorus management.
Watersheds in the accumulation category have high inputs and may be storing phosphorus for later
release. Strategies should be focused on reducing phosphorus imports by creating internal phosphorus
52
-------
source supplies. Watersheds in the depletion category have higher outputs than inputs and strategies
should focus on limiting phosphorus mobilization and transport to the waterbody along with reuse of
legacy phosphorus. Dr. Sharpley discussed two case studies: the Yangtze River and the River Thames. In
the Yangtze River, fertilizer inputs were linked to in-stream dissolved phosphorus and the river was placed
in the accumulation category. In contrast, the River Thames receives the majority of its phosphorus from
point sources, which have been steadily reducing since the 1990s due to policy changes, and the river falls
in the depletion category.
Figure 6. Diagram of the watershed phosphorus continuum. Source: Dr. Sharpley's presentation, siide
13 (from Haygarth et al., 2014).
Nitrogen, Dr. Eric Davidson, Woods Hole Research Center
The majority of Nr in the U.S. is created by humans, either intentionally or unintentionally, and used in
fertilizers or created by vehicle emissions. Overall, anthropogenic activities account for about 80% of the
total l\l2 fixed in the U.S, but roughly only a third of our nitrogen inputs actually go to their intended
products (Figure 7). Nr in the environment is a widespread and growing problem. In addition to nutrient
enrichment of the environment, there is also a growing awareness of interactions of climate change and
extreme weather events on the impacts of an altered nitrogen cycle. For example, mitigating NOx
emissions may be even more important in warmer climates due to the effect of temperature on
tropospheric ozone production, and extreme weather events such as droughts and floods make on-farm
nutrient management more difficult.
Equilibrium, Accumulation , Depletion
P
Load
Time
53
-------
Natural N Fixation
Intentional
N Fixation
Unintentional N Fixation
Figure 7. Diagram of the fates of N fixation in the U.S. in 2007. Source: Dr. Davidson's presentation,
slide 3.
-------
Throughout Dr. Davidson's presentation, a number of publications and case studies regarding nitrogen
inputs and loss the environment were discussed. One case study related cow milk nitrogen and manure
nitrogen in Wisconsin dairy farms. The study found that nitrogen becomes more concentrated in the milk,
rather than in the manure, when the feed is modified to be more balanced, cow hormone levels are
managed, and when the cows are milked three times per day. A separate study on fertilizer nitrogen use
efficiency (NUE) determined that farmers are receiving mixed economic signals. Specifically, nitrogen
fertilizer costs are high enough to incentivize farmers to improve NUE, however the risk of applying too
little nitrogen is high. Applying nitrogen fertilizer provides an important economic margin of safety, similar
to a relatively inexpensive insurance.
A survey of retailers and conservationists was recently conducted to: identify areas for focusing and
targeting outreach; identify opportunities for retailers and conservationists to work cooperatively to help
ensure that the agricultural community leverages the full power of voluntary nutrient stewardship; and
better quantify existing implementation of the 4Rs. 4R Nutrient Stewardship refers to the Right source,
the Right rate, the Right time, and the Right place for nutrient fertilizer application. As evidenced by the
top four recommended conservation practices (Table 1), there is disconnect between what the retailers
and the conservations perceive are the most urgent best practices to implement to manage agricultural
nutrient loss. The survey also showed that conservations agents often are not well informed about the
4Rs, and retailers often do not have up to date information about conservation district activities.
Table 1. Top four recommended conservation practices by retailers and conservationists. Results from
the Conservationists and Agricultural Retailer 4R Nutrient Stewardship Survey.
Retailers
Conservationists
Soil fertility testing (98%)
Planting cover crops (75%)
Use N stabilizers (91%)
Soil fertility testing (74%)
Variable rate technology nutrient application (86%)
Conservation tillage (71%)
Split nutrient application (80%)
Applying buffer strips (65%)
Dr. Davidson discussed the need for more Nr management success stories. One example is in the Nebraska
Central Platte Watershed, which has high groundwater N03" levels. Following passage of enabling
legislation, the watershed was broken down into groundwater management areas (GWMA). In GWMAs
with low N03" levels, fall and winter nitrogen application was banned on sandy soil and nitrogen
application was allowed on heavier textured soils only after November 1st. In GWMAs with moderate
levels of N03", nitrogen fertilizer application was only allowed after March 1st, annual soil and irrigation
water tests were required, lab analysis and nutrient accounting were only required if manure was to be
applied, and annual reporting was required, among other requirements. In GWMAs with high levels of
N03" (i.e., > 15 mg/L), the same requirements of the moderate GWMAs applied, and also split nitrogen
application, use of a nitrification inhibitor, or sidedress application, were required. As a result of these
policies, groundwater N03" levels have been steadily decreasing, though levels still remain above EPA's
maximum contaminant level of 10 mg/L N03".
55
-------
Discussion on Linkages between Nitrogen and Phosphorus Management
During the open discussion, several key issues were discussed, as summarized below.
Spring versus fall fertilizer application. Applying fertilizer at the right time is one of the 4R's of nutrient
stewardship and can significantly reduce nutrient loss to the environment. Some researchers argue that
fall application is ideal because in the spring, workload is heavier, fertilizer is typically more expensive,
there is less soil compaction on frozen ground, and because the soils are more water depleted meaning
there is less potential for runoff. Other researchers felt that applying during the spring would minimize Nr
environmental loss. Ultimately, researchers and agency representatives agreed that hydrology is the
primary driver of Nr transport to the environment and it must be considered when determining when and
how much fertilizer to apply. Rather than make broad-blanket statements about when fertilizers should
be applied, the agencies and other groups need to empower farmers with the information they need to
make wise decisions about fertilizer application. Farmers also need to consider upcoming weather
conditions and know the condition of their soil to ensure appropriate application of fertilizers.
Advancing the conversation between the conservation community and crop advisors. The majority of
farmers receive their information from their crop advisors, fertilizer sellers, and their families. Advisors
routinely stop by to see how farmers are doing and assess their yield, so they are the primary contacts.
Therefore, extension representatives need to work more proactively with crop advisors and fertilizer
sellers to ensure that the science behind Nr management is widely and effectively disseminated, and help
farmers reduce Nr loss.
Conservation practices. The agencies need more research on the effectiveness of conservation practices
and understand the extent to which they are having environmental and cost benefits. Extension
representatives could discuss the best conservation practices with the crop advisors as well as farmers to
help ensure that they are implemented effectively. The agricultural community is generally risk-averse
and we need to be cognizant about whether or not conservation practices are cost-effective. These
practices will not be implemented if they affect the farmer's profit margin. We also need to consider that
farmers tend to think in the short-term and if the environmental benefits and cost-effectiveness are only
seen in the long-term, this may limit implementation.
Unintended consequences of nutrient management. We must be cognizant of the potential adverse
impacts or unintended consequences of managing one nutrient over the other. For example, a BMP
implemented to limit N loss, may exacerbate the problem with P. This doesn't necessarily mean we need
to avoid implementing these practices, it just means that we need to be aware of them.
56
-------
Nutrient Management Challenges - Current and Future
Future of Reactive Nitrogen Use, Dr. Jim Galloway, University of Virginia
The U.S. has seen many successes in recent decades managing Nr. For example, controls on emissions
have led to a significant reduction in NOx. If these controls had not been enacted, there would have been
a 6-fold increase in NOx over time. As long as we stay the course and continue to implement controls, NOx
levels in the U.S. will continue to decrease. Also, maize production has increased along with NUE since the
1970s. Similarly, milk production has increased, while nitrogen excretion has stayed the same since the
1970s. Overall, during the last 40 years, management actions in the U.S. have provided more food and
energy with less Nr being formed. This is equivalent to a savings of 15 to 20 Tg nitrogen, or about half of
what the U.S. currently creates.
While we have had many successes, we have also missed opportunities to decrease Nr. Most notably,
food waste and over consumption of protein in this country result in a significant amount of lost Nr (Figure
8). The average U.S. citizen's footprint is around 40 kg N/yr, mostly associated with food production and
consumption. Nr formation would decrease by 40% in the U.S. if we both eliminated our food waste
(shown in Figure 8 as 'An opportunity') and if people ate to the protein recommendations (shown in Figure
8 as 'Another one'). In terms of our progress on the SAB's recommendations, aside from the NOx
reductions, we do not have the data available or the information is not accessible to estimate reductions
since 2002 in Nrfrom crop and animal production or from sewage discharges. Specifically, NH3 monitoring
networks need to be expanded; not enough WWTFs have advanced treatment to denitrify N03"; and it is
not clear that our increased use of corn-based biofuels is an effective use of nitrogen. A key challenge we
face in the U.S. is working to increase NUE and educate consumers and retailers about the impacts of food
waste and over-consumption of protein.
5
'a.
o
TO
P
C
o
V-
CL
E
TO
O
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Recommended protein consumption
Art opportunity
Another one!
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
—Total ——Consumed
Figure 8. Differences in protein production (blue line), consumption (red line), and the impact of
eliminating food waste ("An opportunity") and consuming the recommended amount of protein
("Another one"). Source: Dr. Galloway's presentation, slide 20,
57
-------
Nutrient Sensor - Market Stimulation - Public/Private Collaboration, Dr. Denice Shaw, USEPA
Social and technological challenges can help to solve the problem of Nr in the environment. The Ideation
Challenge, sponsored by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, USDA, EPA, NOAA, and
other agencies and organizations, involved a global call to identify innovative, next generation ideas
leading to a fundamental change in the way we manage or recover nutrients. Sixty one solutions were
presented during the challenge and three winners were selected, receiving $5,000 each. The winning
solutions included:
1. A decision support tool to identify fields most vulnerable to erosion that would benefit most from
BMPs.
2. Performance-based incentive payments for efficient and effective conservation practices.
3. A real-time controlled drainage system for tile-drained fields to provide quantified evidence of
nutrient reductions.
In November 2013, experts, entrepreneurs, and stakeholders gathered at the Nutrient Visioneering
Meeting to identify key needs for managing Nr in the environment. One of the needs identified was to
improve baseline data and lower the cost of monitoring. Their solution was to present to private and
public manufacturers, the challenge of developing a more affordable nutrient sensor with capacity for
networking and interoperability (edge of field and waterbodies). The end-users of the sensor would be
WWTF representatives, watershed groups, and academia. Under the challenge, participating
manufacturers produce and present a prototype within a year; the panel provides the manufacturers with
results and feedback in private, providing no-risk beta testing; and after nine to ten months the panel asks
for the final instruments to be submitted to go through a final verification process. The sensor challenge
has been such a success that a new challenge is underway to develop cost-effective phosphorus removal
and recovery technology for the Everglades in Florida.
Discussion on How to Achieve Reductions
During the open discussion, several key issues were discussed, as summarized below.
SAB recommended Nr reductions. The SAB was intentionally conservative in their recommendation for a
25% reduction in Nr across sectors in the U.S. When preparing the report, the authors worked with focus
groups to understand how challenging it would be to meet the recommended reduction, as well as to
understand key technological, social, and economic barriers. The goal was to be able to tell the various
sectors involved (e.g., transportation, energy, and agriculture) that they could realistically meet the
reductions at acceptable cost levels. When preparing the report, the SAB committee could sense that the
energy sector was already ahead of the others in terms of meeting their reductions, and the
recommended 25% reduction in NOx would have happened regardless of whether or not the SAB report
was published.
Education opportunities. Education is widely recognized as an important aspect of N management.
Consumers and retailers need to be educated about reducing food waste and eating protein at the
recommended level. Regarding the sensor challenge, developing the technology is not sufficient; potential
users need to be educated about the product or it will not be implemented. Importantly, relatively few
farmers are being reached, partly related to reduced funding availability. We need to work together to
ensure that we are implementing on-the-ground educational programs about Nr management. To
58
-------
accomplish this, conservationists and the agricultural community need to stray from the 'us' versus 'them'
mentality and work together.
Opportunities and Challenges for Cross-Agency Coordination on Nutrient Science and
Management, Dr. Ann Bartuska, USDA
Experts from numerous offices and programs across USDA and EPA, as well as within USGS and other
organizations have joined for this meeting. We must take advantage of this opportunity and ensure that
the dialogue and coordination continues. During the presentations and panel discussions, a variety of
action items were proposed and discussed throughout the meeting. To facilitate implementation of these
action items, those action items should be assigned specifically to the relevant agency programs. For
example, on-farm research activities are most appropriate for USDA's National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) program; expanding NH3 emissions and flux should be assigned to EPA's Office of Air
and Radiation (OAR) programs. As we identify the specifics, it will become clear where to invest and how
to prioritize actions. We need to leave this meeting with a specific and actionable list (not a laundry list)
of tasks, as well as performance measures to hold ourselves accountable.
This workshop reinforces the value of inter-agency and intra-agency coordination, as well as the
importance of building upon previous research. Several participants mentioned the National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) as an example of a successful research-based program that
should be emulated for Nr management. First authorized in 1980, NAPAP is a cooperative federal program
designed to coordinate research on acid rain and report findings to Congress. Reports are published every
few years and the research is designed around policy questions posed by decision makers. A similar
program should be implemented for Nr management, and while funding is always a challenge, this should
not limit the group from moving forward. For example, participants from this meeting should contact
representatives from the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC). SESYNC is a national
research center that has funding and may serve as a resource in facilitating coordination between the
agencies and furthering Nr management research. Participants from this meeting should also reach out
to land-grant universities, postdocs and non-governmental organizations to initiate an Nr research
program.
A host of data are available and needs to be tapped into. Likewise, there are opportunities for
technological innovation to further progress on Nr management. Aside from the well-known agency
databases and state datasets, researchers need to also take advantage of data and findings from Long
Term Ecological Research (LTER), National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) and Stream
Experimental Observatory Network (STREON) sites. Researchers from USDA and EPA should coordinate
research with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the NSF to investigate the
potential of new and innovative technologies such as improving satellite capabilities to allow for detection
of waterbody nutrient levels and eutrophication. As we've learned during this meeting, fostering and
sustaining international relationships will also allow us to learn from each other and export information
and lessons learned.
59
-------
Desired Outcomes of the Meeting
Meeting participants were asked to share their desired outcomes from the meeting. The common thread
among participant responses was to enhance collaboration and coordination between the agencies and
develop long-lasting partnerships that will allow the different program offices to work together on the
issue of Nr management. The following is a summary of what was said:
• Produce a solid approach for documenting Nr reductions.
• Leave the meeting feeling optimistic that the agencies will enhance coordination and
collaboration and jointly address the issue of Nr management.
• Develop relationships with other participants so that this can continue on an informal basis.
• Enhance collaboration and cooperation between agencies and departments.
• Learn about future research and extension priorities.
• Formalize agency endorsement of USDA and USGS collaboration.
• Integrate social science research into the hard sciences of Nr management.
• Move away from focusing on the individual processes and approach the issue at the systems level,
looking at the N life cycle and reductions in total Nr.
• Leave the meeting with a sense that we are making progress towards a coordinated research
program, and agreement between the agencies on what has been done and future directions.
• Engage in serious conversations about the policy efforts that the agencies have had and what can
be done to alter policies that have unintended consequences.
• Gain a better understanding of how to get farms to operate on a whole-farm basis.
• Learn how to translate on what goes on in this room during this meeting, down to the farmer
level.
• Improve and increase collaboration between EPA and USDA's NRCS in the policy arena, and
ensure that the two agencies recognize that throwing technology on bad-science won't help the
situation.
• Identify case studies on inter-agency cooperation, and learn how to communicate the outcome
of those efforts.
• Link actions taken to reduce Nr loads up to the watershed scale and down to the coast so we can
have case studies on the benefits of taking action.
• Would like folks to take off their agency hat to have a more open discussion and perhaps better
answers and more creative solutions.
• Approach this meeting with an understanding that we can't discuss N without discussing P as well,
or nutrients in general.
• Build the foundation for successful collaboration.
• Increase trust and allow for open discussion between participants.
60
-------
• Think more about integrating science with practice.
• Increase efficiency across agencies through better collaborations, and create better tools and
ways to address the problem.
• Would like the agencies to be proactive, rather than just reactive, and consider future issues such
as climate change when addressing Nr management.
• Learn about clear documentation of practice effectiveness for both air and water quality.
• Understand where the data gaps and tools are, relative to agency policies.
• Learn about nutrients in general.
• Focus on the branding issue to come up with a more catchy phrase then "reactive nitrogen."
• Learn about more options for controlling N through conservation practices.
• Address the issue from the systems-based approach, and not disregard conservation practices.
• Would like to see some publications come out of this meeting.
• Would like to see greater collaboration between agencies, particularly at the watershed scale.
• Take the research that has been done and apply an integration/synthesis to implement policy that
is equitable down to the farm-scale.
• Understand how the USGS can assist partners in their policy and regulatory frameworks.
• In the long-term, break down some of the agency silos.
• Look into the energy savings from reducing anthropogenic N fixation.
• Learn how EPA and USDA can collaborate more closely and exchange water quality and air data.
• Develop documents that explain to directors and executives the importance of inter-agency
collaborations.
• Connect with other researchers and policy makers.
• Identify gaps in current monitoring activities and ensure that we are monitoring in the right spots
to allow for analysis of long-term trends.
• Leverage the information available and action plans developed during this workshop to inform
future action in the field.
• Put a greater emphasis on synthesizing and translating the information available to make it more
usable by the general public and farmers implementing conservation practices.
• Learn more about the air-water interface and opportunities to address the issue in a coordinated
fashion.
• Gain a better understanding of how watershed analyses need to be improved and how to relate
results to the field-scale.
• Map the efforts from the perspective of smaller organizations and NGOs, to ensure that changes
we make at the larger-scale have an impact.
61
-------
Find opportunities to work with concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO), and involve
industry, and integrate the systems-based approach.
Identify ways to better target lands to put under conservation. Learn how to talk with landowners
and communicate to them why their land should be protected. Ensure that lands are targeted and
make a difference on Nr load reductions.
Develop a plan and a goal for Nr management, taking into account cost-effectiveness and
considering what has been done and lessons learned in the Netherlands.
Looking forward to the "ah ha" moments where we identify opportunities during the meeting.
Improve communication to those in the field; translating messages so that they can be
implemented on the ground.
Improve collaboration with state nonpoint source programs.
With regards to the inventory of agency programs and publications, move forward in improving
data quality, resolution, and accessibility.
Involve other agencies (e.g., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the
Department of Transportation) to address the problem.
Ensure that the collaboration and cooperation continues after this meeting.
Get a good understanding of how and where agencies are working together.
Gain a perspective of where there are barriers that need to be broken down.
Understand what types of achievements could be made if we collaborate.
Gain insight into the technical challenges associated with nutrient management. Think from the
producer perspective to help communicate solutions and challenges and deal with potentially
competing values.
Consider the air perspective and the positives of N as we come up with solutions during the
meeting.
Better engage the states in Nr management in the future.
62
-------
[this page intentionally left blank]
63
-------
Workgroup 1: Inventory, Monitoring, & Analysis
Workgroup 1 was charged with: (1) summarizing information from the 2011 SAB report and determining
if the information is available to calculate changes in Nrflux across sectors during the 2002 to 2012 period;
(2) identifying agency research and links; and (3) preparing the Joint Science Management Action Plan. In
this summary, we focus on 1 and 2 above; the Joint Science Management Action Plan will be forthcoming.
Prior to the meeting, Workgroup 1 began compiling an inventory of major regional and national agency
programs involved in monitoring N fluxes. In the process of developing the inventory, Workgroup 1
mapped agency activities on the Nitrogen Cascade (Figure 9) and began assessing the reliability, certainty,
and frequency of inventory data.
Stratospheric
Particulate effects
matter A N2O
Greenho'use gas
effects
Figure 9. Agency programs mapped on the Nitrogen Cascade.
64
-------
Several key messages emerged from the Workgroup 1 discussions:
1. Documenting change in Nr release to the environment between 2002 and 2012 period is
challenging given the lack of frequent reporting and synthesis on releases such as to aquatic
ecosystems from farmlands or from wastewater treatment plants and to terrestrial systems from
deposition of reduced N species.
2. Uncertainty surrounding Nr effects can be minimized if we integrate the data collected by various
agencies, organizations, and institutions.
3. Assessing Nr is hindered by the gaps between field measures, edge of field, and stream and
groundwater monitoring networks.
4. The environmental, human health, economic, and social impacts of Nr releases to the
environment need to be communicated more effectively to the general public and policy makers.
There are gaps and opportunities for improving data availability in the areas of water quality, air quality,
waste water discharges, manure releases, and fertilizer inputs that would allow for estimating changes in
Nr flux across sectors during the 2002 to 2012 period. Documenting change in Nr release to the
environment between 2002 and 2012 period is challenging given the lack of frequent reporting and
synthesis on releases such as to aquatic ecosystems from farmlands or from wastewater treatment plants
and to terrestrial systems from deposition of reduced N species. The exception is NOx release, which is
fairly well documented and updated annually (EPA's National Emission Inventory); we were able to
identify a 47% reduction in NOx emissions from 2002 to 2012. Finally, we have a solid conceptual
understanding of the ecosystem and environmental changes in the Nitrogen Cascade, but we are in need
of additional monitoring aimed at understanding ecological effects to quantify biological responses and
public welfare impacts and assist in the derivation of numeric water quality standards.
Perhaps most importantly, we need to develop an Nr communication strategy. Currently, Nr is not widely
recognized by the public or policy makers as a significant problem. There is a strong need to communicate
the problem in a clear and concise way to both policy makers and the public. Improving recognition that
Nr pollution is an important issue may be facilitated by placing a dollar value on N externalities and energy
costs associated with N production. We could also create reports for Nr that are equivalent to the acid
rain National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) reports, which led to policy changes and
successful reductions in NOx emissions. Finally, USDA's mission of integrating food production with
environmental and human health protection could be reinforced by both EPA and USGS.
Gaps and Opportunities by Information Type
Water Quality Monitoring
There is a wealth of data available though we need to improve comparability, consistency, and
accessibility of these datasets. A recent improvement in this area is the Water Quality Portal, a website
that serves data aggregated from the USGS National Water Quality Information System (NWIS), the EPA
Storage and Retrieval data warehouse (STORET), and the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
Sustaining The Earth's Watersheds - Agricultural Research Database System (STEWARDS). Although this
effort represents data from over 400 state, federal, tribal, and local agencies, data from additional
sources, such as USDA's NIFA funded research, NSF funded research, emerging university databases and
LTER sites, should be pursued. For example, despite the large volume of data available, we are in need of
65
-------
improved water quality monitoring, particularly in smaller, headwater streams as well as in downstream
estuarine and coastal waters. Data from headwater watersheds will not only improve overall data
availability, but will also help to improve sensitivity of USGS and USDA models. Participants from this
workshop could look to the National Water Quality Monitoring Council, a co-sponsor of the Water Quality
Portal, as a model for how to improve coordination and collaboration among water quality researchers.
By increasing collaboration among states and agencies, we could be more strategic about water quality
monitoring (e.g., co-locating stream flow gages with water quality sites, maintaining long-term records
for trends assessment in the face of erratic funding), thereby improving the type of data available while
simultaneously saving resources.
Specific suggestions for interagency coordination:
• Improve comparability, consistency, and accessibility of datasets
o Through the National Water Quality Monitoring Council (e.g., federal and state databases,
STORET, NWIS),
o Incorporate USDA Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) watersheds, ARS
watersheds, NIFA funded research, and
o Incorporate university databases, LTERs.
• Improve monitoring in smaller, headwater watersheds to increase data availability in these areas
and improve sensitivity of USGS and USDA models.
• Improve effects-based monitoring in downstream estuarine and coastal waters.
• Increase collaboration between states and agencies to be more strategic about water quality
monitoring and focus on co-locating stream flow gages with water quality sites. Perhaps the
National Water Quality Monitoring Conference (NWQMC) could be the clearing house for these
discussions, as NADP is for the air deposition scientific community.
Water Quality Modeling
There are also a number of opportunities for improvements by inter-agency collaboration in the modeling
arena. Several water quality modeling frameworks are used by different entities, and by integrating the
models, we could enhance their capabilities. The USGS SPARROW model captures stream and river loads
but does not make the connection to field-level losses; USDA's APEX model captures field-level losses but
does not scale up to larger watersheds. Integrating these models could strengthen the much-needed
connection between farm practices and regional surface water quality. However, data availability is also
an issue for modeling. Detailed data on farm practices, including APEX model predictions of farm-level
losses, are based on proprietary information and cannot be disclosed publically. This imposes certain
technical limitations on model-based assessments and other scientific assessments of the off-farm
benefits of conservation practices. To address these challenges, statistical approaches are needed to
spatially aggregate data on farm practices to geographic scales (e.g., HUC8 or HUC12) that protect farmer
privacy. Although there are few examples (Alexander et al. 2002; McCrackin et al. 2013), model
comparisons provide a much needed weight-of-evidence approach for decision-makers.
66
-------
Specific suggestions for interagency coordination:
• Integration of models (a good example is recent APEX-SPARROW integration). Additional needs
include coupled watershed-to-receiving water simulation models.
• Moving smaller scale models to larger scales and vice versa; empirical and mechanistic.
• Model comparisons should be encouraged to establish a weight-of-evidence approach.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Modeling
Between 2002 and 2012, NOx emissions decreased significantly, and we should stay the course with our
NOx emissions monitoring networks and reduction activities. However, concentrations and deposition of
reduced N species is less well constrained. We are in need of building a more extensive air quality
monitoring network sufficient to characterize spatial and temporal variability in NH3 concentrations and
deposition, and maintaining the current NH4 wet deposition program. Such new data, particularly in
agricultural areas, would help to support models such as EPA's Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ)
Model. A first step would be for all USDA Long Term Agricultural Research (LTAR) sites to join NADP's
ammonia monitoring network (AMoN).
The USDA-ARS Greenhouse Gas Reduction through Agricultural Carbon Enhancement network
(GRACEnet) uses standard measurement protocols for collection of trace gas, plant growth, land
management and other information. These GRACEnet datasets are used to test and validate agro-
ecosystem models that estimate the gas emissions of reactive nitrogen (N20, NOx, NH3) losses from
agricultural soils across the U.S. that are reported in the USDA and EPA greenhouse gas inventories. This
is another unique dataset that will benefit from increased interagency cooperation.
Specific suggestions for interagency coordination:
• Stay the course with NOx emissions monitoring and trends.
• Build an improved monitoring network sufficient to characterize spatial and temporal variability
in NH3 concentrations and deposition, and to support models (e.g., CMAQ).
• Continue efforts to link with GRACENet.
• Invite all USDA-ARS sites to join AMoN.
Synthetic Fertilizer
Synthetic fertilizer is currently the largest input of N to the entire U.S., and while there is reporting of
fertilizer sales, better information is needed to quantify the release of fertilizer N beyond the field to the
environment. Fertilizer sales data are available on a county-scale, but there is a need for more reliable
fine-scale data (i.e., field- or crop-level). Scaling down state-wide data is necessary, and better methods
to do so should be investigated. Similarly, there is no comprehensive data on the timing of fertilizer
application, despite this being a critical factor in leakage of Nr to the environment and does not take into
consideration NUE or other management activities that may be implemented. Given the limitations
associated with proprietary information, the agencies should increase collaboration with fertilizer
companies and crop advisors to identify acceptable methods for spatially aggregating farm-scale data,
thereby maintaining privacy while allowing for an estimation of finer-scale fertilizer use.
Specific suggestions for interagency coordination:
67
-------
• Finer scale data needed (downscaling state data to fields is inherently inaccurate and doesn't
account for differences in nutrient use efficiency or other management).
• Work with fertilizer companies and crop advisers to improve information about fertilizer use.
• Develop approaches to gather and aggregate farm-scale data while maintaining privacy.
Manure
USDA's report on manure (Kellogg et al. 2000) provides important estimates of county-level manure
production. The data in the SAB report are based on USDA's 2002 Census data and are in need of being
updated based on the most recent Census output. Meeting participants from USDA noted that this report
is in the process of being updated internally, but it has not yet been released. Aside from gaining a better
understanding of county-level manure inputs, there is a general need for more data and information on
manure storage, handling, application, and decomposition practices that are being implemented. More
refined information is especially needed on manure deposited during grazing, which is estimated to be
more than twice the mass of manure produced in CAFOs ( 3.2 versus 1.2 Tg of N, respectively; Sobota et
al. 2013). Participants agreed on the importance of updating and publishing these estimates on a frequent
basis.
Specific suggestions for interagency coordination:
• Continue to update the Kellogg (2000) report which estimates county-level manure production.
• Collect more information on manure storage/handling/application/decomposition.
Waste Water
Waste water discharges are important contributors of Nr directly to aquatic ecosystems, yet available
data do not allow for quantifying releases from all systems at the temporal scale needed for assessment.
We need an improved understanding of the treatment processes in place at WWTFs across the country.
In addition, there is a need for more complete measurement and reporting of WWTF nutrient discharges
and to provide better estimates of the N in wastewater that is converted to N2.
Specific suggestions for interagency coordination:
• Improve measured/reported information from small and large waste water treatment facilities in
terms of their treatment process and N export.
Communications
Specific suggestions for interagency coordination on communication:
• Consider linkages among agency missions in order to better integrate linkages of food production,
human health protection, and environmental protection.
• Develop better visuals illustrating the importance of Nr, toward new perceptions of how changes
in the Nr cycle affect food systems, human health, aquatic life, and the environment.
• Expand efforts toward understanding the consequences of Nr pollution for societal well-being, by
putting dollar values on N externalities and energy costs associated with N production.
• Articulate possible future solutions to Nr pollution problems involving interagency collaborations,
promoting scientific, policy, technological, and/or management based approaches.
• Create reports for the Nitrogen Cascade equivalent to the acid rain NAPAP reports.
68
-------
Effects Monitoring
Specific suggestions for interagency coordination on effects monitoring:
Conceptually, we have enough information to link N inputs and reductions to responses; however, we do
not have sufficient data to support quantifying those responses or derive water quality standards,
highlighting needs for further monitoring efforts.
• Synthesize information on ecological, social, and economic responses to changes in N cascade
over time.
• Combine data sets and modeling approaches to quantify critical loads of Nr for ecological effects.
• Work together to identify and communicate the central role of N in cause-effect relationships
(e.g., eutrophication, hypoxia, acidification, ozone depletion, smog/air quality, climate change),
and identify the role of Nr cycling in multi-pollutant interactions.
69
-------
6 Workgroup 2: Policy Solutions
Introduction
Before the conference, the leads from Workgroup 2 developed two documents to guide discussion. The
first was a matrix outline of policy tools that included: the nature of the tool (voluntary, incentive driven,
etc.); a description of the application of the tool; and examples of selected programs where the tool was
utilized (see below). The second document was an outline of initial research needs in: physical processes;
farmer behavior; and approaches to policy design. The initial charge to the group was: What is keeping us
from designing good policy? As the group met over the several days, the focus turned to: What elements
are included in good policy, what research is needed to ensure that these elements are included in policy,
and what research is needed to ensure that these elements can be included? Then the question became:
How might EPA, USDA and USGS divide that research responsibility between them? Ultimately the group
focused on research required to provide policy makers the information they need to design effective
policies.
Policy Elements
What elements are included in good policy focused on Nr and co-pollutants? Through dialogue, reflection
on the plenary talks, and independent work during off-hours, Workgroup 2 developed a list of elements
that should be included in good policy. Five key policy elements were identified.
(1) Policies should include clear and measurable goals. Without clear and measurable goals, policy is apt
to be weaker and less successful. For example, some group members underscored the need for numeric
nutrient criteria within TMDL plans. With narrative rather than numeric criteria in place, goals are often
unclear and difficult to measure. Setting clear and measurable goals, however, enables proactive and
adaptive management. Further, differentiating effective and ineffective policies and building a base of
knowledge is essential to ongoing stewardship.
(2) Policies should be based on implementation realities. Workgroup 2 advocated that policy on Nr and
co-pollutants be based on current realities. With the complicated political environment and uncertainties
around farmer adoption, among other issues, policymaking should be done with blinders off. Using the
right approach for the circumstances is critical to success whether regulatory (e.g., taxation, standards-
setting with compliance, etc.) or voluntary (e.g., certification schemes, education programs, financial
incentives, etc.). Two examples of current realities were described. In one example a plenary speaker
discussed how farmers get fertilization information. Most farmers get information about applying
fertilizer from input suppliers or certified crop advisors rather than from Cooperative Extension. Policy
design that incorporates this contextual understanding is apt to be more successful. In another example,
many farmers cash rent their land and out of necessity, focus on short-term financial goals, thereby
ignoring conservation measures that provide the most benefits in the future. The challenge is designing
effective programs within these contexts.
(3) Policy should be based on current science and proven results. Due to the complexity of Nr movement
through environmental media, policies for reducing nitrogen need to make use of the best science on the
Nitrogen Cascade. Policymakers in the U.S. should also take into account lessons learned from other
locales dealing with excess Nr (such as Europe) before promoting untested strategies or soliciting
expensive and time-consuming new research. For example, setting short-term water quality goals can be
made more difficult by the fact that groundwater storage in some systems can result in 20-30 year lags
70
-------
in measurable nitrogen reductions. Scientific understanding among policymakers is essential to setting
appropriate goals and writing policies that will have measurable impact.
(4) Policy design should capitalize on low-hanging fruit first to be more cost-effective. One example is a
USDA tool called the MRTN, or Maximum Return To Nitrogen, that only a small fraction (about 11%) of
Corn Belt farmers use but that could result in significant reductions (about 10% of loads). Increasing
knowledge and use of such tools is one area for improving NUE. As another example, research has strongly
indicated that a large share of nitrogen lost to the environment originates from a relatively small share of
cropland. Being able to identify this land and target conservation resources to these acres would greatly
improve the cost-effectiveness of policies.
(5) Policy should be coordinated. New policy should be designed to complement existing laws and the
work of agencies at federal, state, and local levels. It is important to anticipate the impacts of new policies
because there can be unintended consequences due to interactions with existing policies. Policies should
be coordinated between the EPA, USDA, USGS, and other entities to prevent counterproductive activities
and gain increased effectiveness.
Research Needs
What research is needed to ensure that those elements can be included in policy? Given the need for clear
and measurable goals, Workgroup 2 members identified three general areas for research. The first is
related to a better understanding of the science of nitrogen management that would lead to stronger and
more complete data on the environmental and economic effects of different policy options. There is a
strong need for an improved understanding of the whole Nitrogen Cascade, especially transformations,
the air-water interface, and climate change effects. There is a need for better knowledge of the
agronomics of different management options so that farmers and program managers can make informed
decisions, including the economic outcomes for individual farmers or firms, environmental outcomes
(including for ecosystems limited by different nutrients and for farms), and biological and health outcomes
(including basic science and dose-response relationships). This would include measures of variability of
outcomes due the fluctuations in weather and climate. There is also the need for the development of
field-level modeling tools that can be used to estimate, with known confidence, the reductions in nitrogen
loss that alternative management systems can achieve.
Closely related is research on behavior. New and comprehensive adoption studies that explore how
economic actors respond to different incentives are needed. While adoption studies for conservation
management have been conducted in the past, new policy options now exist and we have entered a new
era. Farms have further consolidated, monitoring and other technology has advanced, there are more
tenant farmers, conservation budgets are getting smaller, social media has changed communication,
climate change effects are uncertain, and risk has increased. Understanding who makes and influences
decisions and on what basis, the impacts of perceived risk, the consequences associated with
implementing different policy options, and their ground-proofed effectiveness is essential for
policymakers to make pragmatic design decisions. This last point is crucial because nutrient management
is not seen as critical by farmers and lacks extensive support. An important example of needed research
is an exploration of the possible options for certification schemes and consumer labeling. Throughout
the conference, certification schemes and consumer labeling were a point of interest. Products that
reduce excess Nr or improve NUE could have designations or labels, perhaps tied to an economic,
environmental, or public health consequence. A strong label program could be used to motivate behavior
71
-------
change throughout the supply chain. A label could also make the issue clearer and more tangible for the
public.
A better understanding of the science of nitrogen management and of adoption decisions contributes to
the third area of needed research; a priori research on the interactions and trade-offs of different policy
options. This includes estimating the consequences of policy interactions, distribution of benefits and
costs across different stakeholders, and cost-effectiveness of alternative policy designs. Such research is
vital to finding the low-hanging fruit that can lead to more cost-effective policies. There is also a research
need for a systematic review of existing literature on the issue. Such a review should be done before
commencing new research, to use resources efficiently and build upon current knowledge.
For the final element, a coordinated approach, Workgroup 2 members identified three institutional needs.
First, the EPA, USDA, and USGS need to improve inter-agency coordination in general. To do so, it is first
critical to know the sum of work being done on the issue across the agencies. Through this understanding
- possibly in the form of a coordinated strategic research plan - the EPA, USDA, and USGS can improve
their collective efficiency and effectiveness. Second, the agencies need look into developing a platform
for ongoing communication on Nr. Collaboration on the front-end should help the agencies to avoid
duplication or discord. Finally, considering the lack of public engagement with the issue, the agencies
should encourage more coordination in the messages they convey on Nr. With so many scientists
communicating so many messages, and with the inherent complexity of the issue, the public lacks
understanding of the issue and its importance.
Agency Assignments
How should the EPA, USDA, and USGS divide that research responsibility between them? Workgroup 2
members tried to answer that question for some of the issues raised, with the results in Table 2.
Table 2. Research needs allocated to federal agencies.
Research Need
Agency
Stronger and more complete data on the effects of different policy options
EPA, USDA, USGS
Comprehensive adoption studies that explore the consequences of different policy
options
EPA, USDA
Exploration of the possibility for certification schemes and consumer labeling
EPA, USDA
Improved understanding of the Nitrogen Cascade
EPA, USDA, USGS
Systematic review of existing literature on critical issues
EPA, USDA, USGS
Summary of work being done on the issue across the agencies
EPA, USDA, USGS
Developing a platform for ongoing communication
EPA, USDA, USGS
initiating unified messaging
EPA, USDA, USGS
72
-------
Five Cross-cutting Messages
Finally the workgroup presented five critical areas where policy makers need information and need to be
creative in policy design.
(1) Knowing the effectiveness/impact of the proposed policy action. This includes biophysics of
agronomic and environmental impacts, cost distributions, unintended consequences, policy design trade-
offs, risk assessments, positive or negative synergies between policies, monitoring, and appropriate
metrics among other things. It also includes the essential behavioral understanding of response to
policies.
(2) Designing policies that align and integrate institutional resources, authority, and responsibility. This
needs to be done across agencies and jurisdictions. This includes involving the right actors/participants,
dealing with site-specific issues, institutional turf, and assessing the trade-offs between different policy
instruments - all in the context of the multi-media trade-offs brought on by the Nitrogen Cascade.
(3) Creating measurable goals. This is essential for policy initiation to get everyone on the same page (as
in # 2 above). It also requires the knowledge base from # 1 above for setting the goal and for measuring
progress. This is essential for adaptive management and gaining commitment.
(4) Understanding the synergies (positive and negative) and the trade-offs between policies and
between actions. Policies can be competing or complimentary. There are also critical trade-offs in policy
design between different policy alternatives; incentives, voluntary, compliance, etc. This also includes an
understanding of the barriers to policy; unclear goals, unwillingness to change, and risk issues.
(5) Communication. This requires improved efforts at all levels: general public awareness, communication
between agencies, actors, and jurisdictions, and communication to critical players (farmers, crop
consultants, soil and water conservations districts, etc.). It requires consistent messaging and verification.
73
-------
7 Workgroup 3: Technical Solutions
Technical Solutions: On-Farm Nutrient Management and Restoration/Mitigation Downstream Of Farm
Fields and Watersheds
Workgroup 3 consisted of a members from USDA-ARS, USDA-NRCS, USDA-NIFA, EPA-ORD, EPA-OW, DOE,
as well as land grant university personnel. The group was tasked with describing agency roles in on-farm
and downstream technical solutions to Nr loss to both air and water, with the goal of finding gaps in Nr
management and research and opportunities for coordinated action by Federal agencies. The group was
divided along lines of expertise into subgroups to discuss crop management, animal management, and
watershed management. The following themes, many of which emerged repeatedly across the three
groups, form the basis of this summary: systematic review and data planning; regional collaboration;
improving practice adoption; watershed planning; examination of whole supply chains; and basic
knowledge about the Nr cascade.
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Existing Research, and Standardized Collection and Sharing Of
Data
Important Gaps
Systematic review, meta-analysis, and improved data planning are important aspects of tackling the Nr
problem. Research on the loss of Nr to the environment has been going on for quite some time, and a
plethora of research has been conducted in many disciplines regarding different aspects of the Nr cascade,
but synoptic and integrative analysis across this body of work has been lacking.
The systematic review of this research should be treated as a research field of its own, consisting of its
own methods and statistical analyses. The National Institutes of Health has made some major steps in this
direction which may provide a framework for future work in the USDA, EPA and USGS. An important step
in making progress towards this systematic analysis is to develop specific research questions; these
methods can be applied to gaps in implementation and adoption, technology issues, and gaps in
knowledge relative to the Nitrogen Cascade.
The funding of the recent Conservation Effects Assessment Project watershed study syntheses may
provide a useful model for sponsorship of this kind of integrative research; those solicitations sought
senior level researchers with broad experience and relative freedom to identify problems and needs.
Given the breadth of the Nr research dataset, however, a successful team should couple seniority of
experience with next-generation skills in data reduction and analysis. Finally, individuals need to be
identified within the most appropriate agencies to champion the dissemination and implementation of
what is learned.
Of equal importance with reviewing previous research is creating a cohesive plan for the sharing and
accessing of data collected in the future. (For example, the Coordinated Agricultural Projects funded by
NIFA require intra-project data consistency). A consortium of field researchers and data experts is needed
to move this issue forward.
Specific Opportunities for Federal Agencies
• Research solicitations focused on synthesis and meta-analysis of the existing body of research
relevant to Nr management.
74
-------
• Provide infrastructure to compile syntheses as they are done and to make all aspects (original and
derivative databases, datasets and analyses) available for continuing synthesis.
• Research on the development of regional and site-specific NUE benchmark metrics as a potential
basis for evaluating crop and animal production systems.
• Development of consistent data collection methods, as exemplified in USDA-ARS' GRACEnet, to
make data more comparable on open data platforms.
Initiate Regional Focus Groups for Collaboration and Refinement of Best-Practice Recommendations
Important Gaps
State-to-state variation in nutrient management practice recommendations often reflects the lack of a
regionally shared knowledge base and analysis. A new, or newly strengthened, platform is needed for
effective collaboration on Nr/nutrients at the regional level. Initially, the primary emphasis would be on
regional knowledge synthesis and extension to practitioners, rather than on new research. These regional
groups would connect the efforts of agencies and other entities around nutrient management issues
unique to that region, such as regionally appropriate soils, weather (including snowmelt and frozen
ground), surface and groundwater hydrology, crop and livestock types. The groups would organize
systematic reviews and meta-analyses, coordinate region-specific agronomic modeling and analysis, and
support consistency in practice recommendations including fertilizer application. Such efforts would also
provide a platform for conducting the human dimensions research called for below. The extension and
research activities (ERAs) serve as a model and could be more successful if some funding was available for
their work. A relatively small investment can have a disproportionate impact on Nr management through
enhanced regional coordination, information sharing, and leveraging of existing research programs.
In addition to coordinating regional synthesis and extension, these groups can be very effective in
leveraging funding for Nr research or extension activities through existing programs. For example, they
could take advantage of existing regional and national research infrastructure in the USDA-ARS Long Term
Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) network by coordinating proposals to expand nutrient research at these
LTARs. These groups could expand or develop partnerships with GRACEnet sites2 or USDA-ARS Renewable
Energy Assessment Project (now known as the Resilient Economic Agricultural Practices) team3. They
could also take advantage of the NRCS Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and the NIFA
Sustainable Corn Project4 to fund the on-farm conservation/management activities necessary to
operationalize the knowledge being synthesized. Their activities should also be coordinated with those of
the EPA/USDA Ammonia Emissions Workgroup.
Specific Opportunities for Federal Agencies
• Catalytic funding or encouragement of regional/national focal points for knowledge translation
and implementation regarding Nr/nutrient management.
2 http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/programs.htm7np code=212&docid=21223
3 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fsl2155-Q14-9407-v
4 www.sustainablecorn.org
75
-------
• Leveraging of existing projects such as GRACEnet, ARS-Renewable Energy Assessment Project
(REAP), LTAR, RCPP, the Sustainable Corn Project or the Ammonia Emissions Workgroup to
achieve Nr research and extension outcomes.
Improving Practice Adoption by Growers: the Human Dimension
Important Gaps
The appropriate technologies and basic knowledge for mitigating nitrogen loss are largely in existence but
excess loadings of Nr to the atmosphere and water continue, due mostly to a lack of adoption of BMPs
and appropriate technologies. The missing piece between the development and the adoption of BMPs
can be termed the 'human dimension.' This 'human dimension' gap is as complex and heterogeneous as
the natural world on which it sits. Three key components to the human dimension are the identities of
the stakeholders involved, their motivations, their available resources and their sources of information.
The most prominent and often mentioned stakeholder is the land manager/grower, as it is the decisions
of these individuals which dictate whether the BMPs or technologies for Nr loss reduction are used.
However, crop advisors and the dealers of fertilizers and equipment play increasingly important roles as
the trusted sources of information on which land managers base their decisions. Stronger communication
is needed between Land Grant extension programs and the crop advisors and farm dealers, as a conduit
for best-practice information to the land managers.
The motivation behind land manager decisions remains the financial bottom line. The economic realities
facing the land manger overwhelmingly influence their actions and must therefore be central to research
on practice adoption. More attention must be paid to documentation and provision of information on
BMP success and cost effectiveness in order to build grower trust. On-farm participatory research and
demonstration may also be a key to enhancing grower adoption. It should further be recognized that
producers, consumers, retailers, and everyone else involved in the supply chain plays a role in forming the
market pressures which the land manager is facing, and thus could also be enlisted to help improve Nr
management outcomes.
Specific Opportunities for Federal Agencies:
• Coordinate cross-agency adoption of the 4Rs in crop management to deliver a uniform message
using uniform language. Recognize that additional BMPs may be needed.
• Support NRCS and other (including private sector) efforts to provide web-based and extremely
user-friendly nutrient management tools, accessible to farmers and consultants.
• Initiate agency outreach to crop advisors and fertilizer and equipment dealers, emphasizing key
and current information about success and reliability of best practices for Nr and nutrient
management. Include cost-effectiveness, labor and equipment needs to implement practices.
Determine if other social barriers to adoption exist.
• Conduct or promote collaboration with food retailers that can link green labeling/sustainable
sourcing initiatives with improved nutrient management outcomes; promote the use of
defensible science in these efforts.
76
-------
• Increase focus on cost-effectiveness of practices, including opportunity costs (such as practices
recommended to occur at busiest times).
• Support socio-economic research on the efficacy and impediments of a variety of voluntary,
incentive-based, and regulatory approaches to encouraging improved nutrient use management.
Revitalized Watershed-based Planning and Analysis
Important Gaps
Watershed-based planning remains a key approach for engaging stakeholders in environmental
enhancement and targeting management efforts to where they can be most effective. However, the
Agencies' focus on watershed planning has waned in recent years. There is a need for training of personnel
in watershed planning, as well as the vetting and provision of watershed planning tools that (a)
incorporate causal analysis and (b) are integrated with NRCS practice standards. These include watershed
modeling tools capable of identifying critical source areas within watersheds, practice-targeting and
scenario analysis, and incorporation of air deposition and groundwater interactions. Development and
use of improved monitoring tools that provide rapid feedback are required for adaptive management
implementation. Ranking criteria for conservation financial assistance programs should be based on
watershed needs.
To be successful, however, watershed planning approaches need more than the right technical tools; they
must also include farmers or farm/commodity groups as stakeholders on strategic planning committees
from the outset, to foster a sense of engagement and empowerment that will be a powerful motivation
for change or adoption of new measures. They must also incorporate the social and economic dimensions
of the watershed.
In addition to water quality improvement, watershed planning can provide a platform for documenting
practice effectiveness at field and wider scales, but this can only succeed in watersheds with higher levels
of agency coordination and appropriate monitoring design.
Specific Opportunities for Federal Agencies
• Renew programmatic emphasis on watershed planning and management as a basis for
producer engagement and enhancing practice adoption.
Supply-Chain Perspective and Partnership Development
Important Gaps
While the farm, watershed and regional levels of coordination are all critical, some aspects of Nr
management are best addressed by adopting broader perspectives on supply chains, material life cycles,
consumers and technology development. For example, NIFA has funded life-cycle analysis studies for
carbon, nitrogen and water in major commodity production (sustainablecorn.org, see nitrogen factsheet).
Approaches should be found for better integrating Agency resources (for example, geographic
information) with private technology development. For example, DuPont has partnered with ARS on use
of soil maps to precision-match corn varieties to soil types and nutrients.
77
-------
With respect to animal wastes, research is needed on the effects of feed composition on animal
productivity and nutrient content in manure, recovery of nutrients from wastes, and application rates for
products from these nutrient recovery technologies. Although basic technologies for anaerobic digestion
and liquid-solid separation of manures exist, development of more advanced nutrient recovery
technologies are needed to improve nutrient separation, decrease cost per unit weight, improved on-
farm nutrient storage, and produce diverse products with readily available local and non-local markets.
Specific Opportunities for Federal Agencies:
• Work directly with retailers, integrators and cooperatives to address the entire animal production
value chain more sustainably; promote the use of defensible science in these efforts.
• Develop rules encouraging public-private partnerships to develop improved technologies
integrated with Agency resources, or to identify new technologies qualifying for NRCS cost-
sharing.
• Integrate nutrient management perspectives into the USDA, EPA and the U.S. Department of
Energy's Biogas Roadmap and the Bio-economy Initiative.
Improved Basic Understanding of N Cycling
Important Gaps
Working Group 3 also discussed gaps in the basic understanding of certain parts of the Nitrogen Cascade.
• There is still much work to be done to understand N20 and NH3 emissions and their variation
across landscapes.
• The mechanisms surrounding N03" leaching are pretty well understood, but an N-index similar to
the P-index (i.e., not simply a hydrological index) should be developed. The N-lndex should be
easy to use and should also have the capability to account for potential risk of surface N losses
and N20 and NH3 emissions.
• The subgroups on animal systems, crop systems, and watersheds all noted difficulties in tying
together Nr cycling dynamics at different scales.
• N cycling in agricultural systems must be understood within the larger context of nutrient cycling
generally (especially in conjunction with phosphorus), so as not to perpetuate past failures of
nutrient management strategies.
Specific Opportunities for Federal Agencies
• Basic N research can also be coordinated with the National Science Foundation (NSF), NOAA,
NASA and other federal agencies in addition to EPA, USGS and USDA.
• N research needs to be linked to phosphorus management in agriculture.
• Climate, drought, intense storms and extreme temperature need to be factored into N
management recommendations and tools.
78
-------
• N management recommendations and tools should be made more responsive to farmer
behaviors and human dimensions.
79
-------
[this page intentionally left blank]
80
-------
8 Workgroup 4; Crosswalk
Prior to the first SMAP meeting, Workgroup 4 was charged with identifying current EPA, USDA, and USGS
research activities and common ground between agencies. Activities were defined at both the program
level (large multi-project investments) and project level (often but not always a single research effort).
For the working group to be able to identify existing Nr and P research activities within agencies, a
research infrastructure was needed. Differences in how agencies collect, store, and make available
research activities and data presents a structural barrier that Workgroup 4 has been working to overcome
prior to the meeting. This effort is working to dissolve program silos, and provide a common platform
from which all workgroups in the SMAP can access.
There were three approaches to building the infrastructure of past and ongoing research activities within
the EPA, USDA, and USGS. Workgroup 4 discovered that a multi-staged approach was necessary to meet
both breadth and depth criteria to support an actionable crosswalk. Development of a crosswalk of agency
research supports several objectives, including to: (a) identify areas of overlap and opportunity among
research projects, (b) identify clusters of similar activity and isolated projects, (c) determine which projects
are focused on which steps in the Nitrogen Cascade, (d) identify which agencies and offices are responsible
for which activities, (e) develop a tool that other working groups can utilize, and (e) identify research gaps
in need of greater attention. The three approaches of developing a crosswalk of existing research prior to
the meeting included:
1. A topical analysis of the associations among agency projects to elucidate various clusters of
projects which are highly associated with one another, isolated projects, and topical areas that
are poorly connected (Figure 10). This stage did not completely identify gaps because associations
are based on the presence (not absence) of a keyword, nor explicitly overlay projects based on
where in the Nitrogen Cascade their focus was aimed. This was for stage 2. Nevertheless, it
provides a very useful overview of all the related work irrespective of Nitrogen Cascade
architecture.
2. Mapping the individual projects to different steps in the Nitrogen Cascade (Figure 11, Galloway et
al. 2003), and to different topics not specifically covered in the Nitrogen Cascade but relevant to
Nr and co-pollutant management (e.g., social and economic resistance to nutrient management
technologies on the farm). In addition to the overlay with the Nitrogen Cascade, simple scoring
algorithms were developed to help differentiate between projects that were highly relevant to a
particular topic versus only marginally relevant. The scoring algorithms will help users identify
specific interests along the Nitrogen Cascade (i.e., "tell me all the projects related to Nr emissions
from agriculture to the atmosphere").
3. An inventory of larger-scale programs among agencies and the various organizational
architectures involved in their management.
Each of the approaches listed above gave a unique and functional perspective on the body of research
able to be brought to bear in the overall workshop goals. The Topical Analysis (Approach 1) gave a broad
brush overview of agency efforts, and helped identify some areas that were underrepresented (e.g.,
connections to "policy" within EPA research on Nr were relatively weak). The Topical Analysis did not,
however: (a) identify which agencies and offices were responsible for which projects when projects were
lumped together, nor (b) was it easily manipulated to ask specific questions related to the Nitrogen
Cascade and management of Nr and co-pollutants. The mapping and scoring of individual projects
81
-------
(Approach 2) helped in these two areas. Users could identify and rank projects from EPA, USDA, and USGS
(combined or separately) associated with various steps in the Nitrogen Cascade. Although the
functionality had not been built in, it was quickly identified in the workshop the need for more flexibility
beyond the biogeochemical lens of the Nitrogen Cascade, and at a greater spatial resolution. However, to
a certain extent with Approach 2, we "lost the forest for the trees." Large programs and projects were
separated into many individual outputs of those programs (e.g., often represented in a peer reviewed
paper), which obscured a superstructure that existed to hold and manage associated efforts. This was the
function of Approach 3 (not begun prior to the workshop). The intent was to integrate the three
approaches to present a broad and detailed picture of research activities within EPA, USDA, and USGS
related to Nr and co-pollutants.
Much of the discussion during the meeting centered around: 1) explaining the development of the SMAP
inventory and the current tools being used to assess the inventory, 2) brainstorming about what other
federal agencies should be included in the SMAP, and 3) developing questions to query the SMAP
inventory to meet the overall workshop goals, assess completeness of the inventory, and identify agency
overlap and knowledge gaps.
A critical next step that was determined during the meeting was to get input and question development
from other SMAP workgroups. The inventory and associated tools is only useful in that they can help to
answer specific questions (e.g., "What is being researched by the federal government related to reducing
ammonia emissions from poultry production?") The universe of possible questions was deemed too large
for Workgroup 4 to tackle without specific input from the other workgroups. Ideally this would be a
prioritized list of topics with sufficient explanatory text and detail that we can query the inventory for
research on those topics. This iterative step is needed to query the completeness of the SMAP inventory,
and determine the quantity and extent of research that address research questions that the workgroups
want to find out more about. SMAP participants can then break off into smaller groups to assess and
synthesize the state of knowledge on certain areas, as well as coordinate multi-agency efforts to fill key
gaps.
Three overarching topics to query against the inventory were identified by Workgroup 4 in discussions
within Workgroup 4 and with the larger group: 1) reduce new inputs of Nr (from the Haber-Bosch process,
biological production, and energy production), 2) increase the NUE in plant and animal production
systems, and 3) transforming residual Nr to N2 through denitrification. Specific methods can be inserted
along the Nitrogen Cascade that are associated with one or more of these general topics in reducing Nr in
the environment.
Moving forward, an essential activity will be to expand project data included in the inventory from the
EPA Program Offices (currently it is only from the Office of Research and Development), as well as expand
project information where needed from USDA and USGS. Project data from USDA is relatively complete,
but U.S. Forest Service data is lacking. USGS data is thought to be severely underrepresented, and is in the
process of being updated. In addition to expanding on these three agencies, we will coordinate with other
federal agencies to bring in relevant project and program information, such as: NSF, NOAA, NASA, the
National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). In addition to federal agencies,
several NGOs at the meeting could be key partners in developing a more comprehensive inventory.
Further steps to analyzing the SMAP inventory is progressing using ChalkLabs Pushgraph™ software to
delve deeper into associations between projects, and frame agency research to a larger overall map of
scientific research (Figure 12).
82
-------
Successful utilization of the SMAP inventory and analysis of EPA, USDA, and USGS research activities will
support the SMAP to reach its goal of reducing Nr and co-pollutants. The inventory, however, is merely
the first step, and a sustained effort is needed to develop a comprehensive strategy to managing Nr and
co-pollutants in the environment.
Summary of Meeting Notes
1. SMAP Research and Inventory Needs
• It was felt that Workgroup 4 had a good start on a programmatic inventory of agency
investments, and identifying agency roles and strengths.
o More than 20,000 projects/documents identified on Nrand P across the three federal
agencies (EPA, USDA, USGS).
o Agency investments are being mapped to science research topics.
• Topic models are more useful if they are driven by questions. What are the specific questions
that need answers in the SMAP? An SMAP process for developing and prioritizing crosscutting
questions is needed.
• Workgroup 4, as the research crosswalk functional team, needs to identify priority areas
needing attention, and leverage existing research data to answer questions. Workgroup 4
needs input from the other workgroups. What information do they need?
• Keywords need to be identified for each question being asked of the data in the SMAP
inventory?
• Feedback is needed from the other workgroups for performance metrics.
• There are two pathways to developing questions to query the SMAP inventory: 1) asking what
information other groups want to know, and 2) posing initial questions to test the SMAP
inventories functionality. Potential starting areas to develop questions to query the SMAP
inventory are: 1) agricultural losses of Nr to water, 2) agricultural losses of Nr to air, and 3)
NUE.
• The Nitrogen Cascade does not capture everything in the Nr universe, so should new topics
outside of the Nitrogen Cascade topics be developed?
• Currently, the SMAP inventory only has project abstracts. We are hoping that the abstracts
will eventually be linked to peer-reviewed publications and other outputs and impacts.
Getting outputs and outcomes for agency projects will add a lot more detail to our
understanding of existing, overlapping, and gaps in agency research.
• As an iterative sustainable process, how often should an analysis like this be done? Is once a
year an appropriate timeframe?
2. Coordination Opportunities
• Intra-agency research has been fairly well coordinated in comparison with interagency
coordinated research, though both could be enhanced.
• Further develop collaborative partnerships with additional federal agencies, such as: NSF,
NOAA, NASA, NPS, and FWS.
83
-------
• Synthesis of a large and diverse portfolio of agency science investments should be viewed as
an asset.
• Optimization, mitigation, and reduction - how do we link these areas across the chain of
research?
• Further index the SMAP inventory to Nitrogen Cascade topics and processes.
• Since the SMAP focuses on Nr and co-pollutants it was suggested that a similar protocol be
created for P.
• How can a sustainable process be created for doing cross-agency coordination and
collaboration beyond the initial workshop?
3. Questions, Research Gaps, and Future Directions
• Evaluate Nitrogen Cascade topics with the following questions:
o What are sources of new Nr?
o What are opportunities to recycle/reuse Nr?
o What are opportunities/challenges to convert Nr to N2?
• There is a need to have more input and data from NGOs, industry, and academia. If these
groups are not included, perceived gaps in knowledge from federal agencies might not really
exist.
• What amount of Nr reduction is obtainable? At what level can a sustainable amount of Nr in
the environment be reached? The SAB report suggests a 25 percent reduction in Nr, but what
is realistic? How much can NUE be increased in the field to make a noticeable reduction? How
much can denitrification activity be increased in the field and in waterways and be
economically viable?
• Is it possible to cut the seven-fold increase of Nr compared to natural levels to three and one-
half times that of natural levels? If two-thirds of the Nr to water and air are currently lost,
how much of that Nr can be recovered?
• The consumer drives many choices in the Nr lifecycle, so how are social and economic aspects
of Nr to the Nitrogen Cascade best represented?
• It might be beneficial to explore linking Nr and P issues in air and water with human health,
an example question given was: If I eat grapes from Chile, what is my Nr impact? It was
suggested to look into how the EPA's OAR has gone about doing this with NOx and particulate
matter.
• Why not have Energy Star metrics for nitrogen?
• From creating new Nr, to recycling and reusing Nr, to converting Nr to N2, are there
opportunities for additional reductions?
84
-------
• There is a lot of interest in the recycling of Nr - mainly in the terrestrial area. How are reuse
questions generated to query the database? What about financing and incentives, or paper
performance? How can BMPs be linked to other areas of impact?
• How much agency research is focused on protein consumption, food waste, and wastewater
treatment?
• From the "Slice and Dice" activity there was interest from other workgroups in using the
Pushgraph™ topic model software to explore the SMAP inventory,
• What kinds of ideas out there could come back to agencies from the SMAP inventory and
Pushgraph™ software to then turn around and fund new research?
• The SMAP group needs to determine what eventual success and completion for this project
looks like.
rt— ^
F*
dbnfcmdov
¦<¦{¦ . -<#r HB»ipi5S*sriculi«i
'us* m-w*
' cwc KMdfeml'
:ss: lilt
f-.Micr.r&tQ*
Figure 10. An example topic model of EPA, USDA, and USGS Nr and P research generated from ail
projects in the SMAP inventory using VOSviewer software fwww.vosviewer.com)
85
-------
The Nitrogen Cascade
New Nitrogen
Energy Production NO*
& corotHistJcn of tosstt fuels
Food Production NHi
& creation of syrtthefec fcftArars
HOr NH,, Njjjg
Atmospheric
stratosphere
old*?
troposphere
NOy, NH,, Mwg
Agri
:ul
-
tural
crops
anurias I
t fc| sous
J
Vegetated
xjresJs
grasslands
SMS
Populated
I people W landscape
1*1 ^ Li
NOy, NH„ Nprg
NOt
nh3
N 20,000) EPA, USDA, and USGS Nr and P projects in
the SMAP inventory mapped over a framework of ail USDA NIFA projects (> 60,000 projects).
86
-------
Meeting Wrap-up
Discussion on Science Management Action Plan
Participants representing EPA, USDA, and USGS were asked what kind of reports they would like to see
come out of this meeting. Participant responses are summarized below:
• There is a lot of information available in terms of Nr management and the objective of the SMAP
should be to identify the priority barriers and map out the roles of the different agencies to knock
down those barriers. The agencies need to be leaders in publicizing that Nr is a problem, educating
the public about the issue, and coordinating management actions.
• The SMAP should be a document that we can take to our managers to help this very political
process get off the ground and moving. Distributing the SMAP to management will also hopefully
allow the agencies to get more focused and collaborate.
• Along with preparing the SMAP, the agencies need to develop a coordinated and consistent
approach to measuring and monitoring. Some researchers felt that the National Atmospheric
Deposition Program (NADP) network and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction through Agricultural
Carbon Enhancement Network (GRACEnet) may be good models to follow. However one
researcher pointed out that a system like NADP for soil or water would not work for Nr because
a lot of the information that would be collected would be proprietary and illegal to distribute.
More broadly, even if these two systems don't directly serve as ideal models, both systems have
a standardized data collection system and anyone using the data knows it is of a certain level of
quality. Nr data needs to be collected consistently and reliably to allow for data comparison.
• A significant proportion of Nr inputs are from agricultural activities, and while there is a suite of
conservation practices that can be implemented, their effectiveness is not well known. The
fertilizer industry recently committed $7-10 million for fertilizer BMPs, requesting ideas from
conservationists. This is a good start and these types of efforts need to also be led by the agencies
as well.
Panel Discussions
Key Research Gaps and Opportunities (Ray Knighton, Jim Galloway, Paul Capel)
During the panel discussion, several research gaps and opportunities regarding Nr management were
mentioned:
• Relatively little is known about the dry deposition rate of organic nitrogen on a geospatial scale.
• To ensure effective Nr management, the social and behavioral sciences need to be involved. The
American farmer has changed dramatically over the years and researchers need to understand
the most effective means of communication.
• As recommended in the SAB report, the terms NHX and NOy should be used to refer to total
inorganic N (NH3 and NH4+) and all oxidized forms of N other than N20, respectively.
87
-------
• We have an important opportunity to brand the Nr problem and communicate the complex issues
concisely and effectively to the public and policy makers.
• New and innovative technologies are available, such as the nutrient sensors discussed by Denise
Shaw. Potential users need to be educated about new technologies available to ensure that they
are deployed.
Technical and Policy Gaps (Mary Ann Rozum, Randy Bruins, Otto Doering)
A key issue with nitrogen is that the problem is not being communicated effectively to the public or policy
makers. It is a complicated problem and in order for policy makers to be engaged, we need to be able to
speak intelligently about the issue and ensure that the science behind the effects of Nr is communicated
in a concise and easily understandable manner.
A new USDA agricultural census is available and these data need to be thoroughly mined. For example,
recent census data show that the agricultural community is an aging demographic and that the majority
of farm land is rented. How will this impact how information is disseminated to farmers? What kind of
new college courses can be offered to engage students? How can we most effectively partner with crop
advisors? There are a number of opportunities to work with agricultural workers, particularly the livestock
community, which is not represented at this meeting.
The panel also discussed how USDA can balance its priorities to enhance production while minimizing
food waste and protecting the environment. For example, children and teenagers are now being provided
healthier lunches to help solve the childhood obesity epidemic. However, these meals are often thrown
away and add to food waste, which was identified by Dr. Galloway as a key contributor to Nr in the U.S.
Cross-Connections between USDA, EPA, and USGS (Chris Clark, Mark Walbridge)
Several opportunities for USDA, EPA, and USGS to collaborate and coordinate efforts were identified
during this panel session:
• Dr. Walbridge emphasized that he will work with Dr. Compton and others to get USDA's ARS
involved in EPA's NH3 deposition and flux monitoring.
• USDA's ARS offers a tremendous amount of research that is led primarily by land-grant
universities. Eight research sites were recently added to the program and within each site there
are a multitude of agencies and programs involved. Importantly, much of this information is
conducted on private lands and ARS should work to disseminate this information, as allowable.
• By developing the inventory of agency programs, we are able to better understand gaps and cross-
connections between programs. We now need to delve into the specific topic items (e.g., cover
crops, poultry) and mine the information to develop an architectural plan to move forward on
priority topics.
• Given advancements in technology and social media within the past 15 years, the agencies and
researchers need to ensure that our modes of communication are effective and take advantage
of social media to disseminate information.
88
-------
• In addition to increasing collaboration between the agencies, we need to recognize that the
problem cannot be solved without the private sector- this problem will take the whole set of
actors to get it under control.
After the brief panel discussion, Dr. Erisman from Amsterdam University provided final remarks from a
global context. It was extremely helpful for him to see the links between the agencies and better
understand the differences between Europe and the U.S. He did not realize the extent to which our
management actions are largely implemented voluntarily, and the legal issues surrounding dissemination
of proprietary information (e.g., private lands data collected by USDA and USGS). Dr. Erisman encouraged
greater emphasis on the food chain and engaging suppliers, retailers, and consumers to reduce food waste
and protein consumption to recommended levels, to ultimately reduce Nr inputs. Also more work needs
to be done on effects-based monitoring. Conceptually we know there are impacts, but we are not able to
quantify them.
89
-------
[this page intentionally left blank]
90
-------
References
Alexander, RB, PJ Johnes, EW Boyer and RA Smith. 2002. A comparison of models for estimating the
riverine export of nitrogen from large watersheds. Biogeochemistry, 57:295-339.
Galloway, J.N., Aber, J.D., Erisman, J.W., Seitzinger, S.P., Howarth, R.W., Cowling, E.B., Cosby, B.J. 2003.
The Nitrogen Cascade. Bioscience. 53(4): 341-356.
Haygarth, P.M., H.P. Jarvie, S.M. Powers, A.N. Sharpley, J.J. Elser, J. Shen, H. M. Peterson, N.I. Chen, N.J.K.
Howden, T. Burt, F. Worrall, F.S. Zhang, and X.J. Liu. 2014. Sustainable phosphorus management and
the need for a long-term perspective: The legacy hypothesis. Environ. Sci. Technol. In press.
Kellogg, RL, Lander CH, Moffitt DC, et al. 2000. Manure nutrients relative to the capacity of cropland and
pastureland to assimilate nutrients: spatial and temporal trends for the United States. Washington,
DC: US Department of Agriculture.
McCrackin, ML, JA Harrison, and JE Compton. 2013. A comparison of NEWS and SPARROW models to
understand sources of nitrogen delivered to US coastal areas. Biogeochemistry 114:281-297.
Sobota DJ, JE Compton, and JA Harrison. 2013. Reactive nitrogen inputs to US lands and waterways: how
certain are we about sources and fluxes? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11:82-90.
91
-------
[this page intentionally left blank]
92
-------
Appendix A. Meeting Agenda
DAY 1: Tuesday, June 24, 2014
8:00 - 8:15am
Arrive and Check-In
8:15 - 8:30am
Welcome and Charge for Meeting (Jana Compton, USEPA-ORD)
8:30 - 9:00am
Logistics and Introductions (Laura Blake, The Cadmus Group, Inc.)
9:00-10:20am
The Need for Cross-Agency Coordination on Nutrient Science and Management
SAB INC Perspective, Otto Doering, Purdue University (20 min)
Betsy Southerland, USEPA-OW (20 min)
Wayne Honeycutt, USDA-NRCS (20 min)
Paul Capel, USGS-NAWQA (20 min)
10:20-10:30am
BREAK
10:30-11:30am
Lessons Learned from the European Union (Jan Willem Erisman, Amsterdam University)
11:30-12:00pm
LUNCH (pick up lunch and bring back to main meeting room for working lunch)
12:00-12:45pm
Workgroup Reports on Progress Prior to Meeting
Workgroup 1: Inventory, Monitoring, & Analysis (10 min)
Workgroup 2: Policy Solutions (10 min)
Workgroup 3: Technical Solutions (10 min)
Workgroup 4: Crosswalk (10 min)
12:45-1:30pm
Discussion on Desired Outcomes of Meeting (Facilitated by Laura Blake, Cadmus)
1. What do we want to see change?
2. What is your desired outcome of the meeting?
1:30-4:00pm
Workgroup Meetings
1. Review expanded outlines and progress to date.
2. New materials and additions to the outline.
3. Coordination with other workgroups - identify which pieces are needed.
4:00-4:45pm
Reconvene for Workgroup Reports -Brief update on progress & cross-connections
Workgroup 1: Inventory, Monitoring, & Analysis (10 min)
Workgroup 2: Policy Solutions (10 min)
Workgroup 3: Technical Solutions (10 min)
Workgroup 4: Crosswalk (10 min)
4:45 -5:00pm
Charge for Day 2 (Ray Knighton, USDA-NIFA)
5:00pm
END OF DAY 1
93
-------
DAY 2: Wednesday, June 25, 2014
8:30 - 10:00am
Lessons Learned from the NSF Research Coordination Networks (Facilitated by Jim
Galloway, University of Virginia)
Phosphorus, Andrew Sharpley, University of Arkansas (30 min)
Nitrogen, Eric Davidson, Woods Hole Research Center (30 min)
Discussion on Linkages Between Nitrogen and Phosphorus Management (30 min)
10:00-10:15am
BREAK
10:15-11:30am
Nutrient Management Challenges-Current and Future (Facilitated by Wayne Honeycutt,
USDA-NRCS)
Future of Reactive Nitrogen Use, Jim Galloway, University of Virginia (30 min)
Nutrient Sensor - Market Stimulation - Public/Private Collaboration, Denice Shaw,
USEPA (15 min)
Discussion on How to Achieve Reductions (30 min)
11:30-12:00pm
Panel Discussion on Science Management Action Plan (Facilitated by Ray Knighton,
USDA-NIFA)
1. What are the primary technical barriers to reductions?
2. What are the primary policy barriers to reductions?
3. What common ground do we have in terms of research and management
between agencies?
4. What are some of the low-hanging opportunities?
12:00-1:00pm
LUNCH (on your own)
1:00-4:00pm
Workgroup Meetings
1. Refine position statement ideas.
2. Identify research gaps based on expert judgment in your group.
3. Envision the future in science, policy, and technical solutions for nutrient issues.
4:00 -5:00pm
Workgroup Slice and Dice - Cross-workgroup discussion and updates on progress made
during the workgroup meetings.
5:00pm
END OF DAY 2
94
-------
DAY 3: Thursday, June 26, 2014
8:30 - 9:50am
Workgroup Reports - Identify key research needs; identify coordination opportunities
Workgroup 1: Inventory, Monitoring, & Analysis (20 min)
Workgroup 2: Policy Solutions (20 min)
Workgroup 3: Technical Solutions (20 min)
Workgroup 4: Crosswalk (20 min)
9:50-10:15am
Opportunities and Challenges for Cross-Agency Coordination on Nutrient Science and
Management (Ann Bartuska, USDA)
10:15-10:30am
BREAK
10:30-11:30am
Meeting Wrap-up - Panel Discussions (Facilitated by Jana Compton, USEPA-ORD)
Key Research Gaps and Opportunities (Ray Knighton, USDA-NIFA; Jim Galloway,
University of Virginia; Paul Capel, USGS-NAWQA) (20 min)
Technical and Policy Gaps (Rozum, Bruins, Doering) (20 min)
Cross-Connections Between USDA, EPA, and USGS (Clark, Walbridge) (20 min)
11:30-12:00pm
Closing Remarks and Next Steps (Jana Compton, USEPA-ORD)
12:00pm
END OF MEETING
95
-------
[this page intentionally left blank]
96
-------
Appendix R. Meeting Participants
Last Name
First Name
Affiliation
Abler
Dave
Penn State University
Alexander
Rich
USGS-NAWQA
Anderson
Karma
USDA-NRCS
Arbuckle
J.
Iowa State University
Bartuska
Anne
USDA
Bindraban
Prem
Virtual Fertilizer Research Center
Blake
Laura
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Brouder
Sylvie
Purdue University
Bruins
Randy
USEPA-ORD
Capel
Paul
USGS-NAWQA
Cattaneo
Lia
University of Virginia
Chaitovitz
Chuck
GETF
Christensen
Jay
USEPA-ORD
Clark
Christopher
USEPA-ORD
Compton
Jana
USEPA-ORD
Cooter
Ellen
USEPA-ORD
Costa
Allison
USE PA-OAR
Crosby
Greg
USDA-NIFA
Davidson
Eric
Woods Hole Research Center
Delgado
Jorge
USDA-ARS
Dettmann
Marc
GETF
Dobrowolski
Jim
USDA-NIFA
Doering
Otto
Purdue University
Dunlap
Kate
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Duriancik
Lisa
USDA-NRCS
Erickson
Terrell
USDA-NRCS
Erisman
Jan Willem
University of Amsterdam
Flahive
Katie
USEPA-OW
Frear
Craig
Washington State University
Galloway
Jim
University of Virginia
Greaver
Tara
USEPA-ORD
Greene
Rick
USEPA-ORD
Gross
Chris
USDA-NRCS
Grubb
Karen
USDA-NIFA
Hagerthey
Scot
USEPA-ORD
Hagy
Jim
USEPA-ORD
Hall
Brendan
USEPA-OW
Haq
Zia
DOE
Heberling
Matt
USEPA-ORD
Honeycutt
Wayne
USDA-NRCS
Hyberg
Skip
USDA-FSA
-------
Last Name
First Name
Affiliation
Jaynes
Dan
USDA-ARS
Joern
Brad
Purdue University
Johnson
Jane
USDA-ARS
Jordan
Steve
USEPA-ORD
Knighton
Ray
USDA-NIFA
Kohn
Richard
University of Maryland
Larsen
Erika
USEPA-OW
Lear
Gary
USEPA-OAP
Lory
John
University of Missouri
Lynch
Jason
USE PA-OAR
Madsen
Isaac
Washington State University
Magnien
Rob
NOAA
McCarty
Gregory
USDA-ARS
McNamee
Julie
NPS-ARD
Meisinger
Jack
USDA-ARS
Moody
Lara
The Fertilizer Institute
Nielsen
Leif
Washington State University
Osmond
Deanna
North Carolina State University
Perez
Michelle
World Resources Institute
Perla
Donna
USEPA-ORD
Pramanik
Amit
WERF
Puchalski
Melissa
USEPA
Ribaudo
Marc
USDA-ERS
Rozum
Mary Ann
USDA-NIFA
Schomberg
Harry
USDA
Searcy
Erin
DOE
Sharpley
Andrew
University of Arkansas
Shaw
Denice
USEPA-ORD
Southerland
Betsy
USEPA-OW
Stauffer
Beth
USEPA-OST
Stoddard
John
USEPA-ORD
Stokes
Bryce
CNJV DOE
Theis
Tom
University of Illinois at Chicago
Thomas
Dana
USEPA-OW
Vance
Rodney
USDA-NIFA
Walbridge
Mark
USDA-ARS
Walker
John
USEPA-ORD
Zwicke
Greg
USDA-NRCS
98
------- |