U.S. ACTION
2018-2023
PLAN FOR LAKE
ERIE
? Sydenham^
CHATHAM-
HkentIi
ft
Image credit: Michigan Sea Grant
Commitments and strategy for phosphorus
reduction
This document outlines federal and state efforts to achieve the
binational phosphorus load reduction targets adopted in 2016 under
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Page i
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie
COMMITMENTS AND STRATEGY FOR PHOSPHORUS REDUCTION
PURPOSE
Excessive algal growth in Lake Erie poses significant threats to the ecosystem and human health a source of
drinking water for 1 2 million people in the U.S. and Canada. Harmful and nuisance algal growth has
increased significantly in the past 1 0 years, in large part because of high levels of nutrients, specifically
phosphorus that is delivered from major rivers during spring storms. Record-setting algal blooms and
associated "dead zones" - oxygen depleted areas created when algae die and decompose - threaten
drinking water quality and Lake Erie's critical $1 2.9 billion tourism industry and world class fishery.
Immediate and strategic actions are needed to address this problem which impacts 5 U.S. States and the
province of Ontario.
Through the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Annex 4 (Nutrients), binational phosphorus
reduction targets were adopted for the western and central basins of Lake Erie to address harmful algal
blooms and hypoxia. While the bulk of the phosphorus reductions will come from sources in Ohio, Michigan,
and Indiana, all 5 of the U.S. states in the basin are committed to taking action to reduce nutrient loadings
and minimize problems of excessive algal growth in Lake Erie. The U.S. Action Plan presents a summary of
each state's efforts, coupled with federal activities, which together comprise our overarching strategy to
achieve the goals in the basin. In addition, more detailed implementation plans were developed at the state-
level.
The primary goal of this plan is to enable U.S. federal and state partners and our stakeholders to measure
and track our collective progress in meeting the phosphorus reduction targets in Lake Erie. Our objectives are
to:
Clearly articulate federal and state commitments
Identify potential policy/program needs
Provide focus for allocation of resources
Establish accountability for actions and results
Provide a consistent framework across the Lake Erie basin for implementing programs and monitoring
success
This plan was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Indiana Conservation Partnership
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office, in collaboration with:
Ohio Department of Agriculture
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio Lake Erie Commission
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
United States Army Corps of Engineers
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Geological Survey
Page ii
-------
PURPOSE[[[ II
BACKGROUND[[[ 1
Problem and drivers 2
Lake Erie's 3 basins 3
The Need to Control Phosphorus 4
GLWQA Commitments 5
PHOSPHORUS REDUCTION GOALS AND PRIORITY WATERSHEDS .................................... 7
Major Sources of Phosphorus 7
Load Allocations 8
Basin-specific Goals 1 0
Western Basin Goals 1 1
U.S. Targets to Address HABs 1 1
Central Basin Goals 1 2
Targets to Address Hypoxia 1 2
Eastern Basin Goals 1 2
Priority Tributaries 1 3
MAJOR PARTNERS AN ONS 14
Key Partners 1 4
Overall strategy 1 5
Strategy for reducing agricultural sources 1 7
STATE-LED EFFORTS[[[ 24
Ohio 25
Michigan 32
Indiana 38
Pennsylvania 42
New York 46
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
How we will implement AM 1 07
Timeframes and key milestones for AM 1 08
The importance of monitoring design 1 1 1
Current Status and Next Steps 1 1 2
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND REPORTING
Page iv
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
BACKGROUND
The Lake Erie Basin encompasses two countries, five U.S. states, more than ten thousand square miles of
farmland, and the urban centers of Ft. Wayne, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Erie, and Buffalo.
Within this large and diverse
landscape resides a
population of more than 1 0
million people that rely on the
Lake for clean drinking water,
swimming and fishing
opportunities, and other
services. Recurring episodes of
massive algal blooms in
western Lake Erie over the last
decade threaten the drinking
water supply and can
significantly limit the use and
enjoyment of the Lake.
Harmful and nuisance algal growth has increased significantly in the past 1 0 years, in large part because of
high levels of nutrients, specifically phosphorus that is delivered from major rivers during spring storms. The
negative impacts of harmful algal blooms (HABs) have been highly publicized and have spurred significant
effort to protect the public through advisory systems, drinking water treatment technology, and forecasting
tools. Although significant progress has been made in these areas (identifying and responding to HABs),
continued investments in strategic and coordinated actions across the basin are needed to ultimately address
this problem by reducing the input of nutrients to the Lake that fuel algal growth.
Recent years have seen federal and state governments heed this call by renewing their commitment to nutrient
management.
In 201 2, the U.S. and Canadian governments signed an updated binational Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement (GLWQA). Under Annex 4 of the GLWQA, the U.S. and Canada committed to
develop phosphorus loading targets and allocations for Lake Erie by 2016 and domestic action plans
by 2018.
After significant scientific review and consultation, in February 201 6 the U.S. and Canada formally
adopted new phosphorus targets for the western and central basins of Lake Erie. In the U.S., domestic
action plans are required for four States: Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Pennsylvania. Public
consultation and engagement on the draft plans took place in 2017. The U.S. and Canadian plans
were finalized in February 201 8 and posted to the GLWQA Annex 4 website:
https://binational.net/ a nnexes / a 4/.
This overarching joint plan presents a coordinated approach to link and scale up the efforts across the states
to achieve the nutrient goals in the basin. It builds on the work to date by summarizing actions that are being
taken across the basin and providing a mechanism for tracking progress to ensure accountability.
Page 1
DefroiJ,
Michigan
Toledo
Indiana
Clevelan
Ft Wayne
New York
Pennsylvania
Legend
Lake Erie Basin
(US)
Lake Erie Basin
(Canada)
s\s Tributaries
i
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Problem and drivers
Harmful algal blooms (HABs) are a growing threat around the world, with serious consequences for the
environment and human health. HABs can potentially produce toxins capable of causing illness or irritation,
sometimes even death, in pets, livestock and humans. Concentrations of the algal toxins in the raw water
supply can be extremely high measurements of microcystin during the 201 1 bloom were 50 times higher
than the World Health Organization limit for safe body contact, and 1,200 times higher than the limit for safe
drinking water. In August 201 4, more than 500,000 people were without drinking water for three days when
elevated levels of algal toxins forced the closure of the Toledo, Ohio, drinking water treatment plant. In
addition to producing toxins, HABs pose other treatment challenges for public water systems, such as taste and
odor.
Western Lake Erie
Bloom Severity
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Images provided by NOAA and Ohio Sea
Grant. Left: Satellite image of 2011 algal
bloom. Top right: Bloom Severity Index 2002-
2016. Bottom right: Lake Erie algal blooms.
- ฆ i
't'- ฆ
The severity of algal blooms in Lake Erie have increased over the past decade, with 2015 being the worst
year on record. Viewable from space, the green water persists for weeks during summer as blooms are
carried by winds and currents eastward through the Lake. The algae can foul beaches and clog water intakes,
negatively impact commercial fishing and the ability of residents and visitors to enjoy the many recreational
opportunities Lake Erie has to offer.
Excessive nuisance algal growth also contributes to hypoxia - low oxygen dead zones that are created when
algae die and decompose. Since the early 2000s, the hypoxic (low-oxygen) area in the Central Basin of Lake
Erie has increased to about 4,500 km2, on average, with the largest hypoxic event of 8,800 km2 occurring in
201 2, subsequent to the record setting algal bloom in 201 1. Hypoxic conditions can affect the growth and
survival of fish species. In 201 2, hypoxic conditions were responsible for tens of thousands of dead fish
washing up on a 40 km stretch of Ontario's shoreline.
Page 2
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Cladophora and other types of nuisance benthic algae filamentous algae that grows on the rocky substrate
is also a concern, primarily in the Lake's eastern basin. Excessive Cladophora growth degrades fish habitat
and can be a significant nuisance when it sloughs off and washes onto shore. Beyond clogging industrial
water intakes and degrading fish habitat, rotting mats of Cladophora on beaches encourage the growth of
bacteria and are a factor in beach closures. The presence of Cladophora also may create an environment
conducive to the development of botulism, which results in bird and fish deaths.
Lake Erie's 3 basins
Water moves through Lake
Erie relatively fast. Lake
Erie has the shortest
residence time of the Great
Lakes: on average, water is
replaced in Lake Erie every
2.7 years (for comparison,
Lake Ontario is 6 years;
Lake Superior is 173
years). Most of the water
enters the western basin of
the Lake, where it quickly
(in a matter of days) flows
into the central basin. From
there water moves through
the eastern basin and
eventually flows into Lake
Ontario.
Along the way, nutrients
and algae interact in
unique ways in each of
Lake Erie's three distinct
basins. The Western Basin
receives about 61 percent
of the whole lake annual
total phosphorus load, while the Central Basin and Eastern Basin receive 28 percent and 1 1 percent,
respectively. The types and densities of algae growing in each basin is different due to the depth, water
temperature, substrate, and local influence of tributaries.
The Western Basin is very shallow with an average depth of 7.4 meters (24 feet) and a maximum depth of
1 9 meters (62 feet). It is warm, and it receives most of the total phosphorus load because of the size of the
Detroit and Maumee Rivers. As a result, algal blooms dominated by the blue-green alga (cyanobacteria)
Microcystis aeruginosa occur regularly in the summer months. This species can form blooms that contain toxins
(e.g., microcystin) dangerous to humans and wildlife.
The Central Basin is deeper with an average depth of 1 8.3 meters (60 feet) and a maximum depth of 25
meters (82 feet). Algal blooms that originate in the Western basin often move into the central basin, as well.
Blooms also form at the mouth of Sandusky River, which is the third highest tributary nutrient load to the Lake
overall. Excess phosphorus also contributes to hypoxic conditions (low-oxygen) in the cold bottom layer of the
Lake (the hypolimnion) when algae die and decompose. The biological activity uses up the oxygen during the
Page 3
Lake Erie
Lake Erie watershed
International border
Port Huron
ONTARIO
Guelph
Kitchenerซ
>
Sarnia
London
Buffalo
NEW YORK
MICHIGAN
INDIANA
Toledo
OHIO
Fort Wayne
Lake Saint
Clair
Detrolt^Windsor
Learpington
WE^RN J
BASIN1 y
X
\
\
\
\
EASTERN
^"ฆ"IN
Chatham-Kent
CENTBAl V AVC
bAsin
*
\
.
Erie"
PENNSYLVANIA
Cleveland
Cold oxygen-poor water
t
Map of Lake Erie watershed showing depth profile of lake basins. Source: Environment and
Climate Change Canada
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
summer, leaving little to none for the aquatic community which suffocates or moves elsewhere, creating Lake
Erie's "Dead Zone."
The Eastern Basin is the deepest of the three basins with an average depth of 24 meters (80 feet) and a
maximum depth of 64 meters (21 0 feet). While the phosphorus levels in the Eastern basin are generally much
lower than the Western and Central basins, conditions are adequate to promote the excessive growth of
algae, primarily Cladophora, on the rocky substrate. Mats of Clodophora can cause beach fouling,
undesirable odors from decomposing Cladophora, clogged industrial intakes and degraded fish habitat.
These conditions are experienced more frequently on the northern shore of the basin.
The Need to Control Phos phorus
This is not a new problem; in fact, algal blooms in the 1 970s were a major driver of the first Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. Lake Erie is susceptible to excessive algal growth, in part, due to its physical
characteristics as the smallest of the Great Lakes by volume, the shallowest and southernmost, Lake Erie
waters are the warmest and the most biologically productive. However, Lake Erie also receives the highest
loads of phosphorus of all the Great Lakes. Lake Erie is exposed to the greatest stress from urbanization,
industrialization and agriculture. It is the most populated of the Great Lakes, serving a population of over 1 1
million. Lake Erie surpasses all the other Great Lakes in the amount of effluent received from sewage
treatment plants and is also most subjected to sediment loading due to the nature of the underlying geology
and land use.
Total Phosphorus Concentrations (pg/L) based on lake-wide cruises conducted by Environment and Climate Change
Canada and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
The Lake is responding to high levels of nutrients and other recent changes in the ecosystem. Data collected by
Environment and Climate Change Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency show that, while
phosphorus concentrations in the Lake can be highly variable, the concentrations in the western and central
Total Phosphorus
Spring 2013 (Lakes Ontario and Superior)
Spring 2014 (Lake Erie, Michigan, Huron and Georgian Bay)
0.5
2.5
5
10 15
50
Page 4
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
basins consistently exceed the desired levels for a healthy ecosystem. Annual estimates of loading from
tributaries and other sources indicate that the total annual amount of phosphorus entering the Lake varies
significantly each year due to the corresponding variability in nonpoint runoff. Since the resurgence of blooms
in the late 1 990s, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of the phosphorus load to Lake Erie
that is in dissolved, as opposed to particulate, form. Dissolved phosphorus1 is more easily taken up by algae
and contributes to increased algal growth.
Compounding this problem, the ecosystem has changed due to the spread of invasive zebra and quagga
mussels that became established in the 1 990s. Invasive mussels retain and recycle nutrients in nearshore areas
through their filtering and excretion activities. In addition, the increased water quality results in greater
penetration of solar energy for chlorophyll production and warming of the water column, allowing algae to
grow at greater depths. These alterations to water clarity and in-lake nutrient cycling is resulting in greater
nuisance algal growth in the nearshore regions, closer to where humans interact with the Lake.
Other factors contributing to the resurgence of algae include the loss of wetlands and riparian vegetation that
once trapped nutrients. Increasing temperatures in recent years is creating longer growing seasons for algae,
and more frequent high-intensity spring storms are delivering nutrients at a critical time when they can
promote the intensity and duration of summer algal blooms. While many factors contribute to algal growth,
controlling phosphorus concentrations and loads remain the best management strategy to address these
problems.
Phosphorus is the growth-limiting nutrient and the primary focus of this action plan. While many other nutrients
are present in water, such as nitrogen, silica, carbon, and even trace metals, these nutrients are considered to
be only secondarily or seasonally limiting in Lake Erie. However, there is increasing evidence that both N and
P should be considered as part of a more comprehensive nutrient management strategy to control harmful
algal blooms. For instance, emerging research indicates that phosphorus reduction in the absence of nitrogen
reduction would not reduce the toxicity of algal blooms2. In other words, while Microcystis blooms would be
smaller in spatial extent, they could continue to be toxic and possibly toxic longer throughout the season.
Our current strategy is focused on phosphorus reduction, and assumes that management actions to reduce
phosphorus will also reduce nitrogen. USEPA's external Science Advisory Board supported this approach and
recommended a number of research questions to focus further investigations on the role of nitrogen in toxin
production. Moving forward, we will continue to research and monitor the effects of nitrogen loads and
concentrations so that management decisions and actions can be adapted as necessary.
The U.S. and Canada committed in the 2012 GLWQA to manage nutrients to achieve the following overarching
goals, called Lake Ecosystem Objectives:
1. Minimize the extent of hypoxic zones associated with excessive phosphorus.
2. Maintain the levels of algae below the level constituting a nuisance condition.
3. Maintain algal species consistent with healthy aquatic ecosystems in the nearshore waters of the Great
Lakes.
4. Maintain cyanobacteria at levels that do not produce concentrations of toxins that pose a threat to
human or ecosystem health in the waters of the Great Lakes.
1 Known as "soluble reactive phosphorus" or "dissolved reactive phosphorus". These terms tend to be used interchangeably.
2 C.J. Gobler et al. (2016) The dual role of nitrogen supply in controlling the growth and toxicity
of cyanobacterial blooms. Harmful Algae 54: 87-97. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.hal.2016.01.010
Page 5
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
5. Maintain an oligotrophic state, relative algal biomass, and algal species consistent with healthy
aquatic ecosystems, in the open waters of Lakes Superior, Michigan, Huron and Ontario.
6. Maintain mesotrophic conditions in the open waters of the western and central basins of Lake Erie, and
oligotrophic conditions in the eastern basin of Lake Erie.
In response to this commitment, following a robust science-based process and binational public consultation,
Canada and the U.S. adopted the following phosphorus reduction targets (compared to a 2008 baseline) for
Lake Erie:
To minimize the extent of hypoxic zones in the waters of the central basin of Lake Erie: a 40
percent reduction in total phosphorus (TP) entering the western and central basins of Lake Eriefrom
the United States and from Canadato achieve an annual load of 6,000 metric tons to the central
basin. This amounts to a reduction from the United States and Canada of 3,31 6 metric tons and
21 2 metric tons respectively.
To maintain algal species consistent with healthy aquatic ecosystems in the nearshore waters of
the western and central basins of Lake Erie: a 40 percent reduction in spring TP and soluble reactive
phosphorus (SRP) loads from the following watersheds where algae is a localized problem: in
Canada, Thames River and Leamington tributaries; and in the United States, Maumee River, River
Raisin, Portage River, Toussaint Creek, Sandusky River and Huron River (Ohio).
To maintain cyanobacteria biomass at levels that do not produce concentrations of toxins that
pose a threat to human or ecosystem health in the waters of the western basin of Lake Erie: a
40 percent reduction in spring TP and SRP loads from the Maumee River in the United States. Using
2008 as the baseline, this equates to a spring (March-July) load of 860 metric tons TP and 1 86 metric
tons SRP.
While these reductions are expected to reduce open lake phosphorus concentrations in the Eastern Basin, and
thereby have positive impacts on excessive nuisance Cladophora growth on the lake bottom, the science
remains unclear whether reductions in phosphorus loading from sources in Lake Erie's Eastern basin are
warranted. In the spirit of adaptive management, the U.S. and Canada committed to re-evaluate the viability
of setting targets for the Eastern basin in 2020. In the interim, the U.S. and Canada agreed to take
precautionary actions and support targeted research efforts aimed to improve our scientific understanding of
how to effectively manage the Cladophora problem in the Eastern basin and elsewhere in the Great Lakes.
Technical resources for more information:
Recommended Phosphorus Loading Targets for Lake Erie - Factsheet:
Annex 4 Objectives and Targets Task Team Final Report to the Nutrients Annex Subcommittee:
Annex 4 Multi Modeling Report:
EPA Science Advisory Board Final report:
Page 6
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
PHOSPHORUS REDUCTION GOALS AND PRIORITY WATERSHEDS
Major Sources of Phos phorus
Lake
Huron
' Grand
River ON
11%
11%
Point Source
41%
Nonpoint
Source
78%
101 ^Eighteenrriye Complex
Thames
lanticoke
57
West Basin Total 3234
Point Source Atmospheric
9%| 2%
.ynn
340
*65 Sydenham} River
ftier
Clinton River
Catfish
Creek
178
Eastern
Basin
104
143
Rougt
Lake
St. Clair
Hurc
323
Detroit River
[Erie-Chataugua Complex
Lake Erie
73%
Average Total Annual Phosphorus Loads 2003-2013 from Maccoux et al 2016.
As shown above, most of the total annual phosphorus load to the Lake is delivered from a few major
tributaries: the Maumee, Detroit, and Sandusky Rivers in the U.S. and the Thames and Grand Rivers in
Onta rio.
On average, runoff from nonpoint sources are estimated to be responsible for about 72 percent of the total
phosphorus load entering Lake Erie each year; in the western basin, nonpoint sources are estimated to
contribute upwards of 89 percent of the annual total phosphorus load in that portion of the lake's tributaries.
Nonpoint sources include a combination of present day and legacy sources. These loads can be highly
variable from year to year.
The source and timing of delivery of nutrients is important to understand because loads of similar magnitude
can have different impacts on the Lake. Phosphorus loads from the Maumee River, for example, are the
single best predictor of the severity of the western basin bloom. This is in part because the phosphorus
concentrations are so high. The Detroit River has a high nutrient load, but a much higher flow and low
concentrations of nutrients. Lake Huron water comprises 95 percent of the flow of the Detroit River via the St.
Clair River. As a result, the concentration of TP in the Detroit River is much smaller than the Maumee River
Page 7
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
(0.014 mg/L versus 0.42 mg/L respectively, or 25 times smaller, during the period 201 1 -201 3). The Detroit
River TP concentration is too low to spur an algal bloom, but the load over time contributes to excess algal
growth, which contributes to hypoxia.
The 2008 Water Year was selected as the baseline year from which to compute recommended load reduction
percentages (a Water Year runs from October through September). This year was selected in part because it
was the most recently available information at the time the modeling to develop the targets was being done
in 2014-2015. Since then, researchers updated the phosphorus loading estimates for Lake Erie through 201 3.
The baseline values can be found in Maccoux et. al 201 6:
These lake-wide loading estimates are calculated by tabulating readily available monitoring data from
multiple sources including municipal and industrial point source dischargers, tributaries, connecting channels,
and atmospheric deposition. In some cases, we have limited data and made assumptions to derive an
estimate. For example, while believed to be a small source (~6%), the estimate for atmospheric load is
derived from 2-3 monitoring sites in the basin. The largest loads are delivered by major tributaries, many of
which have high frequency data collection and thereby high confidence in loading estimates. There are some
tributaries however, with little to no monitoring. Loading estimates for unmonitored tributaries were calculated
based on unit area loads from nearby tributaries. As we improve the sampling frequency or load estimation
methods, loads will likely change simply because we have better data.
Note that 94% of the 2008 annual TP load from the Maumee was nonpoint source (NPS) in origin, while 34%
of the Detroit River load (includes the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair and Detroit River sources) was from NPS,
1 6% from Lake Huron, and the remaining 50% from point sources (PS) (primarily Detroit's Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP)). More information on tributary sources can be found in each state's DAP.
Using 2008 as the baseline, we determined that a reduction of 3,528 metric tons would be required to
achieve the annual TP loading target of 6,000 metric tons. Each country agreed to reduce their load to the
central basin of Lake Erie by 40% from 2008 levels. Therefc 1 oacl reduction of " ' metric tons,
or approximat< million pounds per year, is needed from U.S. sources.
The 2008 annual TP estimates were used to develop initial allocations of this target among the States in the
basin, shown below. This is intended to convey the relative magnitude of load reductions needed. We expect
to improve on these estimates as new data are collected.
Note that while we have generally high confidence in the lake-wide total loads, our confidence in the
estimates for individual tributaries varies. In some cases, tributary estimates were based on very limited data.
Furthermore, in some cases the multi-state watershed loads will need to be allocated using more precise
methods. For example, here the Maumee River load was apportioned between Ohio, Michigan and Indiana
based on percentage of land in the drainage area. This initial approximation will be refined as water quality
monitoring data become available.
Page 8
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Preliminary TP Load Allocations by State, expressed in metric tons per year (MTA) for the 2008 water
year (October 1 2017 - September 30, 2018).
Note: target loads are estimated only for priority tributaries (in green)
Confidence in
WY 2008 TP Load
40% Reduction
Target Load
estimate
Estimate (MTA)
Amount
(MTA)
Michigan
Huron-Erie Corridor
Belle-Pine Complex
low
47
Black River-MI
low
31
Clinton River
low
193
Rouge River
low
125
Detroit WWTP
high
865
Total Detroit River (U.S. Portion)
1,261
504
756
Western Basin
Huron River-MI
low
39
Raisin River
high
262
105
157
Swan Creek
low
55
Maumee River*
low
267
107
160
Total Michigan Allocation
1,883
753
1,130
Indiana
Western Basin
Maumee River*
low
724
290
435
Total Indiana Allocation
724
290
435
Ohio
Western Basin
Maumee River*
high
2,821
1,128
1,693
Ottawa River
low
32
Portage River
low
359
144
215
Direct dischargers
high
19
Central Basin
Sandusky River
high
1,101
440
661
Huron River-OH
low
205
82
123
Vermilion River
high
202
81
121
Black River-OH
low
54
Rocky River
low
47
Cuyahoga River
high
452
181
271
Chagrin River
low
28
Grand River-OH
low
165
66
99
Direct dischargers
high
141
Total Ohio Allocation
5,625
2,250
3,375
Page 9
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Pennsylvania
Central Basin
Ashtabula-Conneaut
Complex
Total PA Allocation (Central Basin)
low
69
69
28
41
Eastern Basin
Erie-Chautauqua
Complex
low
128
New York
Eastern Basin
Cattaraugus Creek
Eighteenmile
Complex
Direct dischargers
low
low
high
111
57
65
Western + Central Basin
8,301
3,321
4,981
Lake wide Total
8,662
3,321
5,341
*Maumee River loads distributed among Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana based on percentage land use in the basin.
Basin-specific Goals
Reductions in total and dissolved forms of phosphorus,
especially under high flow conditions, are necessary to
combat nutrient related problems in Lake Erie. The three key
nutrient issues to be addressed through this plan are:
in the western basin, blue-green algae
(cyanobacteria) blooms and associated toxins,
in the central basin, seasonal hypoxia areas of
low oxygen, and
in the eastern basin, excessive growth of nuisance
algae, primarily Cladophora, on the lake bottom.
Harmful and nuisance algae:
.... , , , r i Cyanobacteria A* Cladophora
The applicable goals and targets are described for each
basin below. Seasonal hypoxia: LฐW ฐ"Vien conditions
exacerbated by excess
nutrients
Harmful and nuisance
algae and seasonal
hypoxia impact areas in
Lake Erie in the 2000s
Page 1 0
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
VV<;- ; r boMik;-;:;!s
The goal in the western basin is to reduce the amount of cyanobacteria biomass to mild levels 90% of the
time. The total cyanobacteria biomass is measured by remote sensing and in situ measurements using a
severity index developed by NOAA. The target was set based on modeling which showed that reducing the
spring phosphorus loads from the Maumee River would produce blooms no worse than what was observed in
2004 or 201 2. In 201 2 the severity index was 2.9 on a scale of 1 to 1 0. It is important to note that even in a
"mild" bloom year, there can still be impacts in shoreline areas, which is why tributaries where blooms were
observed forming at the mouths in nearshore areas were also prioritized for reduction.
The U.S. and Canada set unique targets for the nearshore priority tributaries to take into account the timing
and availability of phosphorus to algae. The 40% reductions apply to both total and dissolved forms of
phosphorus during the critical spring and early summer months when the phosphorus can be easily taken up by
algae to spur growth. The targets for these tributaries are also unique in that they are expressed in terms of
loads and concentrations. Specifically, the flow weighted mean concentration (FWMC) which is a way to
normalize the load for flow. This is important because much of the load is delivered during storm events. It
means that efforts to reduce the load must take into account and try to also reduce the amount of runoff. It
also provides an important backstop and relative measure of whether P reduction efforts are actually having
an impact. In the event of a dry year, the load may be low due to less runoff, but the FWMC will still be high
if the proportion of phosphorus in that runoff is high.
The calculation of spring load requires high frequency flow and water quality monitoring, which is now in
place for all priority tributaries. However, due to a lack of 2008 baseline data, spring loading and
concentration targets have so far only been developed for the Maumee and Sandusky Rivers. For example, a
40 percent reduction in spring TP and SRP loads from the Maumee River equates to a spring (March-July)
load of 860 metric tons TP and 1 86 metric tons SRP, and FWMCs of 0.23 mg/L TP and 0.05 mg/L SRP,
based on 2008 baseline data for the stream gage at Waterville, Ohio. Similar calculations are being
performed for the other priority tributaries and will be updated in the State DAPs as they become available.
U.S. Targets to Address HABs
Priority Tributary
Spring (March - July)
Targets
Load
Metric tons
FWMC
mg/L
Maumee River
860 TP
186 SRP
0.23 TP
0.05 SRP
Portage River
tbd
tbd
Sandusky River
230 TP
43 SRP
0.23 TP
0.05 SRP
River Raisin
50 TP
SRP tbd
0.09 TP
SRP tbd
Page 1 1
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
The U.S. and Canada agreed to limit the total phosphorus (TP) load to Lake Erie's central basin, which includes
inputs from the St. Clair-Detroit River corridor, to 6,000 Metric Tons per year (MTA) annually. This was based
on modeling of the hypoxic zone which indicated that 6,000 MTA is the maximum load that would result in a
dissolved oxygen concentration of at least 2 mg/L in the bottom waters during the summer stratified period.
In the U.S., the priority tributaries for minimizing central basin hypoxia are the Detroit, Maumee, Portage,
Sandusky, and Cuyahoga Rivers. Reductions of 40% from these 5 rivers, as shown below, will achieve a total
reduction of 2,800 metric tons, which is 84% of the reduction needed from the U.S. towards the binational
target.
Targets to Address Hyp oxia
Priority Tributary
WY 2008 Annual TP
Load (MTA)
40% Reduction Amount
Target TP Load (MTA)
Detroit River (U.S.
share)
1,261
504
756
Maumee River
3,812
1,525
2,287
Portage River
359
144
215
Sandusky River
1,100
440
660
Cuyahoga River
452
181
271
In the Eastern basin, the goal is to maintain levels of algae below that constituting a nuisance condition, and to
maintain an oligotrophic state, relative algal biomass, and algal species consistent with healthy aquatic
ecosystems, in the open waters. The incidence of shoreline fouling and nearshore Cladophora growth on the
U.S. side is limited.
Offshore nutrient levels are already meeting or below the interim target concentration of 10 jJg/L TP, and
expected to be lowered further as loads from the western and central basins are reduced. The models
indicate that if the 40% reductions are achieved, the resulting concentration in the eastern basin would be as
low as 6 jJg/L TP. Until such time that specific targets are identified for Eastern basin tributaries or nearshore
areas, the U.S. will continue to use the open lake concentration (measured as spring mean), along with reports
of nuisance algae conditions, as indicators for the achievement of Lake Ecosystem Objectives.
Location
Interim Target
concentration
Timeframe
Source
Eastern Lake Erie (open
waters)
1 0 |jg/L TP
Spring (April-May)
2012 GLWQA
Page 1 2
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
f ;ฆ i ;n-i rr r ia -:i
The Annex 4 Objectives and Targets Task Team identified 1 1 priority tributaries in the U.S., as shown below.
Lake Erie Priority Tributaries in the U.S.
Basin
Tributary
Nutrient Issue and Target
Cyanobacteria:
40%
Spring TP & SRP
Reduction
Central Basin
Hypoxia: 40%
Annual P Reduction
Eastern Basin
Cladophora:
insufficient science
to establish P
reduction target at
this time
Western
Detroit River
X
Western
River Raisin
X
X
Western
Maumee River
X
X
Western
Portage River
X
X
Western
Toussaint Creek
X
Central
Sandusky River
X
X
Central
Huron River
X
X
Central
Vermillion River
X
Central
Cuyahoga River
X
Central
Grand River
X
Eastern
Cattaraugus Creek*
X
Page 1 3
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
MAJOR PARTNERS AND ACTIONS
K'i; V -R:
In June of 2015, nearly a year before Canada and the U.S. officially adopted the new targets for Lake Erie,
the Governors of Ohio and Michigan along with the Premier of Ontario signed a collaborative agreement to
work to achieve the recommended 40% reductions in phosphorus by 2025. The Collaborative also set an
aspirational goal of a 20% reduction by 2020. The timeframe and preliminary implementation plans
developed pursuant to this agreement speak to the level of commitment across the region to work together to
solve this problem.
Producers and landowners in the Western basin are the key audience we need to influence if we are to be
successful. Surveys of U.S. farmers in the Western basin indicate there is tremendous potential to improve
landowner knowledge and awareness of the issues. Adoption of agricultural management practices to control
phosphorus losses are reliant on voluntary actions by farmers, and require investments in time and money. A
201 6 USDA study estimated that $277 M is invested annually in conservation a considerable portion of
which comes from private landowner investments.
We recognize the importance of BMP adoption that occurs outside of the direct involvement of government
programs. Furthermore, we do not expect that government programs will be directly involved in all the work
that is needed to achieve goals for Lake Erie. Many nongovernmental organizations such as universities,
conservation districts, and private sector entities such as agricultural crop advisors have a role to play. These
organizations can connect with land owners in unique ways to advance knowledge and understanding of
nutrient management strategies. We need the help of these and other key partners to educate and engage
local citizens like Lake Erie associations and local governments (cities, townships, counties), watershed groups,
cooperative extensions, agri-business and commodity organizations, among others.
Finally, while agriculture has a large role to play in achieving the needed reductions in Lake Erie, reductions
will be needed from urban, suburban, and rural non-farm areas too. Most U.S. wastewater treatment facilities
in the basin are currently permitted to discharge 1.0 mg/L of Total Phosphorus. However, many are actually
discharging at lower rates and others present opportunities to reduce discharges in the absence of significant
investments in new treatment technologies or infrastructure. Possibly the best example of this is the Detroit
facility, which through optimization methods is discharging at 0.3-0.6 mg/L. This was accomplished without
significant capital investments.
Local governments have important roles and areas of responsibility. In Ohio, the City of Toledo and Lucas
County are highly motivated to work on solving the problem and are making significant investments in projects
to ensure they can provide clean drinking water to residents. Other examples of local government roles
include CSO long term control plans and county health department home sewage treatment controls.
Successful implementation of this domestic action plan will require broad support, coordination, and
collaboration among agencies, academia, local government, private industry, and citizens. All of these groups
have a role to play in contributing to the restoration of Lake Erie. Through this plan, USEPA and its federal
and state partners aim to provide a framework within which all the key players can work together to
implement actions that are impactful and cost effective.
Page 1 4
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Recognizing that there is no silver bullet to address the problem, and a combination of strategies addressing
multiple sources will be needed, we know that reducing nonpoint phosphorus losses during storm
events, especially during the spring, is of utmost importance and will be critical to our success
in preventing harmful and nuisance algal blooms in Lake Erie. It is clear that our ongoing efforts to
limit excess phosphorus loading to the Lake through municipal sewage treatment, managing stormwater, and
implementing best management practices on agricultural lands must continue and be accelerated. But we
also know that what worked in the past is no longer sufficient, so we must go further to find opportunities to
improve our effectiveness and ability to adapt to new challenges.
In the past, our management strategies aimed to reduce the whole-lake annual total phosphorus load; we now
have to refine our management strategies to consider where the phosphorus is coming from, when, and in
what form. Having multiple endpoints to manage towards will enable more effective targeting to the problem,
but it requires that program managers be nimble and adjust management priorities in response to new
challenges. For example, adding focus to dissolved rather than particulate phosphorus is a major paradigm
shift for most agricultural conservation programs which have traditionally focused on preventing soil erosion.
Likewise, traditional programs to address waters impaired for nutrients through water quality monitoring,
assessments, TMDLs, and implementation of point and nonpoint source controls have historically focused on
controlling sediment-bound nutrients or dissolved nitrate in groundwater. Wastewater treatment plants do not
have discharge or monitoring requirements for SRP. The idea that we need to control the more bioavailable
forms of phosphorus has not been on the radar for long3, and in many cases our first step will be to start
collecting SRP data. It is not possible or necessary at this time to develop a detailed accounting of the
treatment needs, but we are working to dramatically improve our knowledge about potential sources through
more robust monitoring and assessments.
Accelerated water management as we utrient management is essential to addressing
algal bloom issues in La > and the key focus of our strategy. We will employ multiple tactics
to target efforts at the sources in most need of control through cost effective measures. As stated earlier, a
significant portion of the phosphorus reductions needed in the Lake Erie basin will rely on voluntary actions by
private landowners. We are leveraging many funding resources to accelerate implementation of conservation
programs, while also aiming to expand the tools available. Some of the new emerging technologies include
variable rate technologies, drainage water management, saturated buffers, phosphorus removal beds or
structures, two stage ditches, blind inlets, and phosphorus-optimal wetlands. Comprehensive conservation
planning to address specific water quality concerns, hydrologic flow pathways, and soil nutrient status will be
essential to identifying effective conservation options for site-specific conditions.
Federal, state, and local authorities have numerous regulatory and nonregulatory programs and authorities
available to help meet the reduction goals laid out in this plan. In some instances, new regulations or stronger
enforcement of existing regulations will need to occur. Ohio for example has adopted new regulations to
restrict the application of fertilizer on frozen or snow-covered ground, and require fertilizer applicators be
trained and certified in proper nutrient management. This plan focuses on prioritizing efforts to accelerate
nutrient management and water management in the region through optimization of existing programs and
collaboration with non-government partners (e.g. the 4R Certification Program). No new federal regulations
are being proposed at this time.
3 Baker, D.B., Confessor, R., Ewing, D.E., Johnson, L.T., Kramer, J.W., Merryfield, B.J., 2014. Phosphorus loading to Lake Erie
from the Maumee, Sandusky and Cuyahoga rivers: the importance of bioavailability. J. Great Lakes Res. 40, 502-517.
Page 1 5
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
The individual State action plans describe in more detail the specific phosphorus reduction measures, program
and policies that are suitable for their jurisdiction. To summarize, the highest priority measures to manage
tributary phosphorus loading to address algae impacts in the Lake Erie basin include the following:
ฆ On agricultural lands:
o Reduce nutrient applications on frozen or snow-covered ground, saturated soils, and prior to
significant rain events.
o Adopt 4Rs Nutrient Stewardship Certification program or other comprehensive nutrient
management programs, with an emphasis on soil-testing, variable rate technologies, and
subsurface placement, where appropriate,
o Target conservation practices to areas most prone to phosphorus losses as part of a whole
farm comprehensive planning approach,
o Rotate crops, retain crop residues, and maintain other living ground cover between plantings
to reduce soil erosion and improve soil health,
o Encourage and accelerate investments in edge of field practices to intercept and infiltrate
phosphorus runoff from farm fields (e.g. buffers, wetlands, erosion control structures),
o Manage drainage systems to hold back or delay delivery of surface runoff and subsurface
flow to receiving waterbodies while maintaining healthy agronomic function,
o Encourage implementation of innovative phosphorous removal structures or blind inlets where
appropriate.
ฆ In urban, suburban and non-farm rural areas;
o Reduce total phosphorus from the highest loading municipal dischargers in the western and
central Lake Erie basins. Conduct optimization and upgrade studies to evaluate costs and
compliance options for further reductions to point source discharges of total and dissolved
phosphorus.
o Encourage and accelerate investments in green infrastructure for urban stormwater.
o Incorporate watershed scale considerations into local land use development planning,
o Phase out residential phosphorus fertilizer applications,
o identify and correct failing home sewage treatment systems, either through
repair/replacement or connection to public sewers,
o Establish ecological buffers for rivers, streams and wetlands to intercept and infiltrate
stormwater runoff, reduce flashiness, and prevent streambank erosion.
ฆ Wherever possible in the landscape
o Restore streams to address current
stream health concerns and legacy
loads.
o Restore wetlands and riparian habitat
to filter nutrients while benefiting
aquatic communities.
Kelsey Creek stream restoration, Ohio. Source: Ohio EPA.
Kelsey Creek
3 Years Later
Page 1 6
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Strategy for reducing agricultural sources
The WLEB holds some of the most productive farmland in the Midwest. Using appropriate BMPs is important
for all farms, but is critically important in WLEB due to the amount of intensive agriculture and magnitude
(40%) of phosphorus reduction needed to prevent harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie.
In September 201 7, a group of experts & researchers prepared the white paper titled, Summary of Findings
and Strategies to Move Toward a 40% Phosphorus Reduction4. In this paper, the researchers combined insights
from the effectiveness of BMPs at field and watershed scales, with behavioral analyses of the likelihood of
practices to be adopted.
The lead agricultural agencies and partners at the state and federal level reviewed the white paper and
concurred with several of the researchers' findings and recommendations. Here we explain how we intend to
apply these recommendations as part of our adaptive management strategy for agriculture.
Agricultural producers should be following the 4R's of Nutrient Stewardship (right time, right place, right rate,
and right source). In addition to precision in nutrient management other BMPs like blind inlets and cover crops
are necessary to manage drainage and control erosion. Advancing toward a 40% reduction will likely
require a combination of changes in practices, that are appropriately placed in the landscape, adequately
funded, and promoted through multiple policy mechanisms and incentives.
Through the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Certification Program, nearly 2.8 million acres have
been enrolled representing more than 5,900 farmers and 45 Certified Crop Advisors and
Ag. Retailers in the WLEB. In support of Ohio's DAP, The Nature Conservancy, Ohio
Agribusiness Association, and the 4R Nutrient Stewardship Council will continue to reach
out to WLEB retailers and CCAs to enroll in the program. Their goal is to have 80% of
farmed acres in the WLEB under 4R certified management by 2020. In addition to Ohio,
ten other states and the province of Ontario are looking to adopt the 4R Nutrient
Stewardship Certification Program by 2020. See https://4rcertified.org/ for the latest news.
Overall, the majority of farmers in the WLEB are concerned and knowledgeable about nutrient loss and water
quality impacts, but are not convinced the proposed BMPs are effective (either feasible to implement or likely
to reduce nutrient loss and improve water quality) (Zhang et al. 201 6; Wilson In Review). Recent survey data
in the Maumee River watershed indicates ~1 /3 of farmers (equivalent to about 1 /3 of the acres in the basin)
are engaged in best practices or are willing to do so, ~1 /3 are hesitant but considering best practices, and
1/3 are unlikely to change their practices in the short-term (specific numbers depend on the practice)
(Wilson et al. 201 4).
To identify feasible policy solutions that will result in improvements in water quality and likely be adopted by
the agricultural community, we must consider both the effectiveness of BMPs at reducing phosphorus loss at
field and watershed scales, as well as the likelihood that farmers will adopt the BMP. For example, while
watershed modeling indicates that cover crops and subsurface placement of fertilizer or manure (along with
filter strips) show great promise at achieving the 40% reduction at specified adoption levels (Scavia et al,
4 By Kristen Fussell, Gail Hesse, Laura Johnson, Kevin King, Greg LaBarge, Jay Martin, Jeffrey Reutter, Robyn Wilson, and
Christopher Winslow.
Page 1 7
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
2017), not all are equally promising from a behavioral standpoint. Furthermore, research on the performance
and economics associated with BMP implementation is ongoing. Currently, the most promising practices
behaviorally may be determining application rates based on soil testing, followed by subsurface placement,
and then cover crops. A 2017 survey by Ohio State University5 indicates that targeting those individuals who
are currently willing to consider the practice or focusing on the larger farms may be sufficient to achieve
necessary adoption levels. These tactics could result in more acreage under conservation, but may not
necessarily be the highest risk acres from a biophysical standpoint. Continual evaluation of BMP effectiveness,
costs, and implementation will be necessary to ensure that forecasted reductions are being achieved and
resulting in the desired water quality improvements.
In the following table, we summarize the current research findings and recommendations for some of the most
promising BMPs from a behavioral and effectiveness standpoint. These are highly effective BMPs that need to
be implemented more broadly on the landscape. However, we recognize there is no silver bullet solution and
these BMPs should be adopted as part of comprehensive plans and systems of practices to reduce P from in
field, edge of field, and in stream legacy sources. More assessment of the significance of these sources is
required to help guide future effective restoration efforts and overall progress toward reductions of DRP and
TP instreams and the lake.
4 Decline in soil P with
ฆ ฎ crop offtake is slow
"jฎ Time for ground water to il^ 1
*ป reach stream can vary from
days to years
Wetlands and
buffers can trap,
then recycle P
BMPs can take time to
Adoption of BMPs by
decrease P runoff
farmers is variable
W'ฆ-3'
Uptake and release of P by stream and
lake sediments affects waterbody
response time ,
Hydro-chemical
response
Illustration of legacy P processes modified from Sharpley et al. 201 3.
5 Prokup, A., Wilson, R., Zubko, C., Heeren, A, and Roe, B. 2017. 4R Nutrient Stewardship in the Western
Lake Erie Basin. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, School of Environment & Natural
Resources.
Page 1 8
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
BMP
Soil test-
informed
application
rates
Description
Soil testing should
be done with
sufficient frequency
and density to
accurately inform
rates (e.g., once in
the crop rotation,
at a minimum
following the 590
standards).
Effectiveness at reducing
phosphorus
Generally, no application
of fertilizer is needed for
corn or soybeans when
STP levels are above 40
ppm Bray PI or 58 ppm
Mehlich lll-ICP due to a
lack of economic return
(note this threshold is
higher for wheat and
vegetable crops).
Subsurface
placement
Inserting fertilizer
when applied (e.g.,
banding, in-furrow
with seed)
Subsurface placement can
reduce DRP loss
significantly at the field
level (King et al. 201 5;
Williams et al. 201 6).
Watershed modeling
analyses found that
subsurface placement on
all row crop acres across
the Maumee watershed
could result in reductions
of DRP of 46% (annual)
and 42% (spring), and
reductions of TP of 29%
(annual) and 27%
(spring) (Gildow et al.
2016).
Page 1 9
Current status of
adoption
Likelihood to
adopt
Additional notes
As of 2016, 60%
of farmers in the
WLEB were
reporting an
intention to
determine
application rates
based on soil test
results. Another
30% indicated a
willingness to do so
in the future.
As of 2015, 25%
of farmers in the
WLEB were
reporting
subsurface
application
(banding, in
furrow), while 21%
reported broadcast
without
incorporation, and
54% broadcast
with incorporation.
Very High
~90% of the
target farming
population is willing
to use soil tests at
sufficient frequency
to inform nutrient
application and
likely to do so with
little additional
persuasion.
High -
~65% of the
target farming
population appears
willing to use
subsurface
placement, and
may be persuaded
with better
information about
the relative costs
and benefits (i.e.
increased
application cost vs.
decreased
application rates).
Adoption of soil-test-informed
application rates is generally low-
cost, or no-cost, to farmers and
provides concrete on-farm
benefits.
Adoption of subsurface placement
is limited by the cost and
accessibility of the equipment and
the slower speed at which
fertilizer is applied.
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Conservation
cropping
systems
Tile drainage
control
structures (in
field)
Systems of practices to
build soil health.
Cover crops can be
utilized in a
conservation cropping
system to take up and
recycle soil nutrients,
and when
implemented in
combination with
rotating crops and
long term no till can
reduce runoff by
maintaining/increasing
organic matter in soils.
Drainage water
control structures let
the farmer retain
water on fields during
dry periods, which
facilitates more
infiltration in the soil,
crop uptake of
nutrients and reduces
runoff.
Soils containing more
soil organic matter
can retain more
water from each
rainfall event and
make more of it
available to plants.
(Hudson, 1994).
Recent edge of field
studies in NW Ohio
have shown cover
crops to be very
effective at reducing
N losses with limited
benefit to P in the
short term, but more
research is needed.
Drainage water
management can
reduce DRP and TP
from tiles by greater
than 50% (Ross et a I.,
2016).
Eliminating direct
connections between
the soil surface and
tile drains, such as by
converting tile risers
to blind inlets, can
reduce P loss by 60%
Behavioral data
indicates that
-75% of the WLEB
acres are in
conservation tillage
or no-till, and
adoption of cover
crops is at -20%.
Behavioral data
indicates that
current adoption
levels are at
<20%, but another
1 5% of farmers
are willing to
consider the
practice.
Medium
Approximately
-58% of the
target farming
population appears
willing to use cover
crops. Because
future on-farm
benefits can take 5
to 1 0 years to
realize, they are
unlikely to do so
without incentives to
off-set the short-
term cost/risks.
Low
There is relatively
low interest in this
practice, due to the
expense of
installing structures,
additional level of
management
needed and
concerns about
More research is needed to assess
the long term benefits of cover
crops on water quality, on which
types of cover crop species are
most effective at scavenging P,
and on cover crop P removal
strategies that could be used to
support drawdown.
More research is also needed on
the use of soil amendments
(gypsum).
If implemented properly,
drainage management should not
reduce yields and in fact could
improve yields during dry
seasons, and improve ease of
field operations.
flooding.
Page 20
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
P filters and
drainage
management
(edge of
field)
Innovative BMPs like
saturated buffers, two
stage ditches, and P
removal structures can
intercept and treat P
in surface or
subsurface runoff from
fields and drainage
ditches.
(Smith and Livingston,
2013).
Research on
effectiveness of these
types of innovative
practices is underway
by USDA ARS and
NRCS CEAP. Initial
studies demonstrate
they can be highly
effective at capturing
runoff and filtering
dissolved P.
Page 21
Low
These practices are
less likely to be
adopted because
they are new and
more data and
communication on
practice benefits is
needed.
For greater effectiveness, focus
and edge of field P filtering and
drainage management practices
where opportunities exist to treat
DRP runoff from fields exhibiting
high soil test P (>1 50 ppm).
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Based on our review of these findings and other information, our proposed strategy for agriculture is as
follows:
1. Continue to promote whole-farm comprehensive conservation planning to identify fields (or areas
within fields) and management options that lower the risk of P losses.
a. Continue financial and technical assistance to help farmers overcome short term risks and
barriers to adoption of practices.
b. Track progress towards building soil health and effective nutrient management through a
systems approach.
c. Prioritize incentive programs where conservation practices are needed most i.e., focus on
fields with the greatest estimated P losses.
d. Support extension education and outreach to provide more information to land owners on the
benefits of various conservation options, especially edge of field and drainage management
practices. Focus outreach to those individuals who are currently willing to consider and adopt
the practice, and those who are community leaders and can help to extend the practice to
others.
2. Focus resources on expanding adoption of the most effective P reduction BMPs as follows:
a. Nutrient Management expand adoption of the 4R's of Nutrient Stewardship (right time, right
place, right rate, and right source), with emphasis on:
i. Soil-test informed application rates through education/outreach and adoption of
variable rate technologies.
ii. Subsurface placement through making equipment available/affordable.
iii. Timing of application through development and use of innovative tools like precision
ag and runoff risk advisory tools; also continue to educate producers on the
importance of following fertilizer and manure application guidance and regulations.
iv. Source support research and development of manure transformation technologies;
also ensure compliance with existing fertilizer and manure application guidance and
regulations.
b. Agricultural water management this includes in-field, edge of field, and in-stream practices
to reduce surface and subsurface runoff and filter p to prevent it from moving downstream.
i. By promoting Soil Health and Conservation Cropping Systems initiatives
ii. By prioritizing implementation of phosphorus filtering practices to treat runoff from
fields (or areas within fields) exhibiting high soil test P (>1 50 ppm).
3. Enhance collaboration and communications among agricultural partners (government agencies, land
grant universities, certified crop advisors, farm bureaus, commodity groups) to significantly ramp up
farmer education and outreach in WLEB.
Page 22
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
a. There are numerous ongoing collaborations between the partners that, when combined with
efforts like CEAP Watersheds and edge of field monitoring and research, will aid in
demonstrating efficacy of practices (e.g. Blanchard River Demonstration Farms, 4R Nutrient
Stewardship Certification Program, and Indiana's Nutrient Strategy/Soil Health Strategy).
b. Voluntary adoption of recommended practices will not occur unless outreach focuses
specifically on building farmer's confidence in their ability to implement a set of cost-effective
solutions. Continued support for and coordination with extension and education efforts in the
region (e.g. SERA-17, Field to Faucet, Transforming Drainage) will be critical for our success.
4. Continue to support research to fill key information gaps, such as:
a. Alternative strategies and programs to aid farmers who are dealing with manure application
and distribution challenges.
b. Cost-benefit relationship for cover crops, water management, and other BMPs, e.g., cost-
benefit analysis of fertilizer placement tool bar for farmers.
c. How soil health impacts nutrient cycling, stratification and fertility; water holding capacity; P
loss; and water infiltration as well as soil health interactions with tillage and fertility
management.
d. What combination of practices will effectively retain water to reduce load delivery at the
watershed scale.
As part of the adaptive management framework, we will periodically compile and assess information from
conservation assessments, edge of field monitoring, and watershed and behavioral models to evaluate the
effectiveness of suites of management practices at reaching nutrient reduction targets, as well as assess the
likely adoption levels as a result of different policy mechanisms. For example, we anticipate future farmer
surveys will inform the pace of progress towards meeting the 40% reduction target for individual
recommendations (e.g., cover crops, subsurface placement, soil test informed application rates, etc).
There is evidence that well-designed outreach and incentive programs could result in increased voluntary
adoption of BMPs due to the high level of motivation to act among farmers in the WLEB (Prokup et al. 201 7).
An increase in voluntary actions means there will be less of a need for regulations. Additional modelling work
underway will help us understand what can be achieved through voluntary adoption with available resources.
Page 23
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
STATE-LED EFFORTS
In many ways, the States are at the forefront in developing phosphorus reduction strategies for Lake Erie. A
number of state-led efforts have been building momentum in recent years:
Ohio convened a Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force in 2007 in response to the increased harmful algal
blooms in the early 2000s. Their findings led to formation of an Agricultural Nutrients and Water
Quality Working Group to identify and implement, at the state level, agricultural practice initiatives
which would ultimately result in the reduction of harmful algal blooms developing in Ohio's inland
lakes and Lake Erie. These efforts were further coordinated with the development of Ohio's statewide
Nutrient Reduction Strategy in 201 2. The Task Force II final report (201 3) includes a detailed review
of state and federal efforts, including research results from some of the initial studies recommended
by the Task Force I and a phosphorus target for Lake Erie's Western Basin.
On June 1 3, 201 5, the governors of Ohio and Michigan, and the premier of Ontario signed the
Western Basin of Lake Erie Collaborative Agreement, in which they committed to a goal of reducing
phosphorus loadings to Lake Erie by 40 percent by 2025. The Collaborative is intended to advance
nutrient reduction efforts under GLWQA. For example, in response to the Collaborative, Michigan and
Ohio developed implementation plans ahead of the GLWQA 201 8 deadline for domestic action
plans.
Later in 2015, the Great Lakes Commissioners from the eight Great Lakes states and two Canadian
provinces endorsed a joint action plan developed by the Commission's Lake Erie Nutrient Targets
(LENT) Working Group, which proposed a set of 1 0 steps to achieve the 40% reduction targets.
10 ioO?
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Ohio
Ohio's Lake Erie Watershed
Ohio's Lake Erie Watershed covers 1 1,649 square miles
(7,455,360 acres) and drains portions of 35 counties with a
total population of 4.65 million people. Of this land, more
than 72 percent is agricultural or open space, 20 percent is
wooded, and slightly more than 2 percent remains wetland.
The developed and urban environment which includes
industrial, commercial, residential, quarries, transportation
and institutional uses, accounts for 4 percent. The remaining 1
percent is covered by inland lakes and rivers.
There are eight counties along the coast: Lucas, Ottawa,
Sandusky, Erie, Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake, and Ashtabula.
There are 332 cities or villages and 403 townships in Ohio's
part of the watershed. This includes the major metropolitan
areas of Toledo and Cleveland.
Major Sources of Phosphorus
Based on the USDA 201 2 Census of Agriculture there are approximately 20,700 farms within the Lake Erie
basin, with over 1 4,000 located in the Western Lake Erie Basin (WLEB) watershed. Soybeans, corn, wheat
and hay are the four dominant crops within the Lake Erie watershed. Soybeans and corn make up
approximately 90 percent of the production, with over 50 and 39 percent of the acreage respectively.
There are 65 concentrated animal feeding facilities permitted within the Lake Erie watershed in Ohio. These
operations are permitted through the Ohio Department of Agriculture - Division of Livestock Environmental
Permitting (DLEP). Permitted livestock facilities are concentrated in Northwest Ohio, with 56 of the
concentrated animal feeding operations in the WLEB. These permitted facilities must follow manure
management plans and DLEP reviews manure application rates and records.
While agriculture is the dominant land use in Ohio's portion of the Lake Erie basin, and more highly
concentrated in northwest Ohio, the distribution of point and nonpoint sources of phosphorus can vary
significantly by watershed.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency conducted a nutrient mass balance study6 to evaluate major
sources of phosphorus in watersheds across the state, including the most significant four of the Annex 4 priority
watersheds in Ohio (Maumee, Portage, Sandusky, and Cuyahoga). The next edition of this study, required by
state law to be completed by the end of 201 8, will include the Huron, another Annex 4 priority watershed.
6 Nutrient Mass Balance Study for Ohio's Major Rivers:
http://epa.ohio.aov/Portals/35/documents/Final%20Nutrient%20Mass%20Balance%20Report 12 30 1 6p
df.pdf
-Toledo
Cleveland
Waters
Akron;
Columbus
\N atฉrS
Page 25
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Ontario
Michigan
Lake Erie
Grand
Indiana
Cuyahoga
Portage
Huron
Sandusky
Annex 4 Priority Watershed
Lake Erie Drainage
Major Lake Erie Tributary
fH State Boundary
I""1"! County Boundary
Ohio
Olio
Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
30
Sources of Phosphorus in the Maumee River Watershed
The Maumee River drains 6,568 sq. mi. in northwestern Ohio, southeastern Michigan and northeastern Indiana.
Agricultural production dominates the watershed, which includes the fertile drained lands of the Great Black
Swamp. There is a notable shift in land use as the river enters the Toledo metropolitan area downstream of
Waterville. Downstream of this point, the proportion of agricultural production reduces from 79 percent to 49
percent whereas both high/low intensity development and natural iands increase in proportion.
Total P loads from the Maumee River were 2,295 metric tons per year (mta) in water year (WY) 201 3
(October-September) and 2,062 mta for WY 2014.
In WY1 3, the nonpoint source was the largest proportion of the load in the Maumee River at 87 percent for
total P. The permitted point sources (NPDES) comprised 9 percent of the total P, and home sewage treatment
systems (HSTS) are the remaining 4 percent. The NPDES sources are further broken down into source
categories corresponding to plant type and size. The majority of the NPDES load (47 percent) is from major
WWTPs. The second largest NPDES contribution is from out of state sources at 28 percent of the NPDES total
P load.
Sources of Phosphorus in the Portage River Watershed
The Portage River drains 585 sq. mi. in northwest Ohio. Agricultural production dominates the landscape, with
81 percent of the total land area being dedicated to agricultural production. Natural areas and low intensity
development were similar to each other at 8.4 percent and 8.7 percent respectively.
Total P loads from the Portage River were 1 68 metric tons per year (mta) in WY 201 3 and 21 9 mta for WY
2014.
In WY1 3, the nonpoint source was the largest proportion of the load in the Portage River at 84 percent for
total P. The permitted point sources (NPDES) comprised 1 1 percent, and HSTS are the remaining 6 percent.
The largest permitted point source load contributor is major WWTPs (34 percent). CSOs and class 2 WWTPs
Page 26
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
(0.5 1.0 mgd) are also large total P load contributors contributing 22 and 27 percent of the total NPDES
loads, respectively.
Sources of Phosphorus in the Sandusky River Watershed
The Sandusky River drains 1,420 sq. mi. in north central Ohio. Agricultural production dominates, with 80
percent of the total land area. Natural areas are the second leading land use at 1 1 percent and the
remainder are developed lands. The watershed is home to 220,000 people (1 20 people per square mile),
making it the least densely populated of Ohio's major watersheds.
Total P loads from the Sandusky River were 71 1 metric tons per year (mta) in WY1 3 and 615 mta for
WY14. In WY1 3, the nonpoint source was the largest proportion of the load in the Sandusky River at 94
percent for total P. The NPDES sources comprised 4 percent, and HSTS are the remaining 2 percent of the
total P loads. The largest NPDES load contributor is from CSOs, comprising 42 percent of the NPDES total P
load. The major WWTPs contributed a similar amount of total P as the Class 2 facilities (0.5 1.0 mgd) for
total P at 28 and 23 percent, respectively. Discharge limits for phosphorus are the reason that the major
WWTPs are not the leading NPDES source.
Sources of Phosphorus in the Cuyahoga River Watershed
The Cuyahoga River drains 808 sq. mi. in northeast Ohio. Natural areas and low intensity development
dominate the land use of the Cuyahoga watershed at 38 percent and 36 percent, respectively. Closer to the
lake shore, there is a notable shift in land use with a reduction of natural and agricultural areas to largely low
and high intensity development, 56 percent and 36 percent, respectively.
Total P loads from the Cuyahoga River were 327 metric tons per year (mta) in WY1 3 and 402 mta for
WY14. In WY1 3, the nonpoint source was the largest proportion of the total P load in the Cuyahoga River at
60 percent. The NPDES sources comprised 29 percent, and HSTS are the remaining 1 4 percent of the total P
load. The single largest NPDES load contributor is from major WWTPs for total P comprising 56 percent of
the total P load. CSOs were the second leading NPDES contributor at 40 percent of the NPDES total P load.
Ohio's Domestic Action Plan includes actions to reduce Harmful Algae Blooms in the Western Basin of Lake Erie
and address the low oxygen levels in the Central Basin of Lake Erie.
Priority tributaries of Lake Erie in Ohio include the Maumee, Portage, and Toussaint Rivers which flow to the
Western Basin, and the Sandusky, Huron, Vermilion, Cuyahoga, and Grand Rivers which flow to the Central
Basin of Lake Erie.
On June 1 3, 2015, the governors of Ohio and Michigan, and the premier of Ontario signed a Collaborative
Agreement to reduce total and dissolved phosphorus loadings to the Western Basin of Lake Erie by 40
percent by 2025. The Collaborative also set an aspirational goal of a 20 percent reduction by 2020. This
goal applies to Ohio's western basin tributary watersheds, which include the Maumee River, Portage River
and Toussaint River. Annex 4 added to these goals by specifying that the 40% reductions occur during the
spring (March July) timeframe. The same springtime loading goal also applies to the Sandusky River to
control HABs occurring in the Sandusky Bay.
Due to a lack of 2008 baseline data, specific tributary loading and concentration targets have so far only
been developed for the Maumee, Sandusky, and Cuyahoga Rivers. Ohio EPA will continue to develop a
Page 27
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
process to identify additional targets for all Annex 4 priority watersheds as data become available. This
includes targets to be set within the very large Maumee River watershed that is shared with Indiana and
Michigan. Options being considered include applying the percentage reduction targets to a year which had a
similar flow to 2008, or using modeling methods to estimate the 2008 load.
A precursor to the DAP, Ohio's Collaborative Implementation Framework identified tiered priority areas within
the Maumee at the HUC 1 2 level. These were derived in part from the application of multiple watershed
models to identify potential hotspots. Prioritization of implementation efforts will continue as these models are
refined and additional water quality data are collected. Ohio EPA has used this information to prioritize
water quality monitoring at 'sentinel sites' within the basin: subwatersheds that were likely to have relatively
higher contributions of phosphorus, and therefore would be expected to demonstrate water quality
improvements in response to management actions more quickly. For maps and details please refer to
Appendix B of the Ohio DAP.
The Ohio Lake Erie Commission (OLEC) will serve as the overall coordinating entity working in conjunction with
the various state, federal agencies and other partners to achieve the Domestic Action Plan and WLEB
Collaborative goals. The responsibility and accountability for ensuring implementation of programs and
progress toward the agreed to goals will be with the various state agencies; Ohio Department of Agriculture
(ODA) has responsibility for agricultural nonpoint; Ohio EPA has responsibility for point source and water
quality monitoring; and the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) for home sewage treatment systems. Ohio
Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) will be responsible for private lands wildlife habitat management
and Lake Erie fisheries.
1. Agricultural Land Management
a. ODA will monitor the progress of academic research into edge of field, Tri-state Fertility
Guide, and Phosphorus Index adjustments.
b. ODA will target the Ohio Clean Lake Initiative - Impaired Watershed Restoration Program
within select sub-basins of the Maumee and Sandusky Rivers in portions of 1 0 counties. This
"systems approach" uses a combination of management practices (soil testing, cover crops,
drainage water management, fertilizer placement technology and manure storage structures
and/or roofed feed lots).
c. ODA will collaborate with USDA via Ohio's network of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
on the Lake Erie CREP, cost share for installation of on-farm best management practices, and
providing technical assistance.
d. ODA will continue to educate producers on the importance of following the fertilizer and
manure application restrictions and fertilizer certification requirements. Implementation and
enforcement of these restrictions will be a top priority for ODA and Ohio's SWCDs.
2. Community-Based Nutrient Reduction
a. Ohio EPA will evaluate those facilities in the Maumee River basin that currently do not have a
permit limit for total phosphorus and that are discharging less than 1 MGD to determine
options on a facility by facility basis for reducing phosphorus discharge.
b. Ohio EPA will continue to focus State Revolving Loan Fund dollars and coordinate with other
infrastructure funding programs to direct funding at priority CSO separation projects,
wastewater treatment plant upgrades, storm water management, and, in conjunction with
ODH, home sewage treatment systems.
c. OEPA and OLEC will work to improve the Watershed Implementation Plan/TMDL
Implementation Plan coverage and quality throughout the Lake Erie watershed in Ohio. Cost
Pc
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
share from the state for the WIP will be sought through a re-allocation of existing dollars or
new funding.
d. Ohio EPA's stormwater management program working with ODA, local SWCDs and
watershed groups will investigate opportunities to utilize storm water management in
addressing hydrologic factors that influence nutrient loading into Lake Erie. Revisions to the
Rain Water Manual7 may include increasing upland, channel or storm water storage,
floodplain reconnection, and nutrient treatment.
3. Restore and Support Ecosystem Services
a. ODNR, in cooperation with Ohio EPA, will continue to fund and complete engineering and
design work for potential in-water coastal wetland restoration projects in the western basin
and Sandusky Bay that beneficially use dredged material and can help assimilate in-lake
nutrients.
b. ODNR will continue to coordinate with and assist the USFWS/NOAA Upper Midwest and
Great Lakes Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) coastal conservation workgroup to
develop a tool to identify potentially restorable wetlands, and in cooperation with Ohio Sea
Grant shall jointly fund projects to investigate and quantify nutrient processing and reduction
benefits of coastal wetlands.
The years 2020 and 2025 will be used as major benchmarks for tracking progress.
The tabulated list of activities with their corresponding milestones are as follows.
Ag ricultural:
1. Preliminary proposal of updated Tri-State Fertility Guidelines and Phosphorus Risk Index in April,
2018.
2. ODA's Clean Lake Initiative will complete construction of awarded projects in 201 8.
3. The pilot Farm Stewardship Certification Program will run in the western basin of the Lake Erie
watershed through spring, 201 8 to collect information to be used to develop a larger program.
4. The initial round of Agricultural Fertilizer Applicator Certifications was completed as of September
30, 2017 as required by law. Education and outreach for new certifications will be ongoing.
Communities:
5. The review of significant minor facilities that discharge phosphorus is underway and will be completed
within the next 5 years. The last permit on the list of identified significant minor facilities expires May
31, 2022.
6. Funding has been made available for 1 3 Watershed Implementation and NPS-IS Implementation
Plans to be created or updated in the Maumee watershed. Plan status will be updated in spring
201 8, and plans should be completed by 201 9.
7. The Rain Water Manual is currently under revision with drafts expected in April 201 8 and a
completed update by the end of 201 8.
Restoration:
8. Several Sandusky Bay coastal wetland construction projects will begin construction phase in 201 8.
7
Page 29
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
How Progress Will Be Measured
In addition to participating in the federal and binational efforts to track and report progress under the
GLWQA Annex 4, such as , Ohio will use the following methods for measuring its progress:
The primary indicator of progress will be water quality monitoring and associated load calculations at
the key downstream station on each of the Annex 4 priority watersheds in Ohio.
Ohio continues to collaborate with federal and research partners to enhance the monitoring network
to capture an improved data set for measuring and tracking loads at smaller and larger watersheds,
particularly within the Maumee River watershed.
These data will be used as part of an overall water quality monitoring strategy which includes
monitoring data from edge of field, sub-watershed, Annex 4 priority watersheds, and Lake Erie in
order to provide a total picture of nutrient sources and the nutrient delivery system.
Ohio EPA, ODNR, USGS, and Heidelberg University have established many sampling stations in the Lake Erie
watershed. Some of these stations are in the same locations to take advantage of USGS streamflow gage
locations. Ensuring funding for these stations for the long term is critical to measuring the success of nutrient
reduction efforts. Since 201 4, Ohio has prepared an annual Water Monitoring Fact Sheet to summarize the
observed phosphorus loads concentrations in comparison to the target levels. The fact sheets can be accessed
at the OLEC homepage;
LIKEERJt
20 MILES
10 20 KILOMETERS
Location of sampling stations in Ohio's Water Year 201 6 Monitoring Summary.
Page 30
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
PIฆ; M i c f: n ;;j~ ae :nฆ e n -v- nJ it 5 i.xf 1 ฆ; i n a
Ohio will continue to engage the public in further development and implementation of the DAP through
periodic public meetings and discussions with stakeholder groups. Because we are using an adaptive
management approach, Ohio's DAP may be updated in the future as new environmental and nutrient loading
data become available and knowledge gaps are filled.
For more details on Ohio's DAP, visit:
Page 31
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Michigan
Michigan's Portion of the Lake Erie Basin
Michigan has 5,800 square miles of area tributary to Lake Erie. It encompasses the Detroit Metropolitan
area, as well as other urban areas. It also encompasses agricultural areas. For purposes of the DAP and the
Collaborative Agreement that was signed by Michigan, Ohio and Ontario, Michigan is focused on three major
watersheds in the Western Lake Erie Basin. These include the mouth of the Detroit River (for all sources of
flow to the upstream St. Glair-Detroit River System), the River Raisin, and Michigan's portion of the Maumee
River watershed.
RIVER RAISIN
MAUMEE TRIBS
Michigan's Priority Watersheds for P reduction to Lake Erie.
Major Sources of Phos phorus
Major sources of phosphorus (P) in the Michigan watershed to Lake Erie include municipal wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs) and stormwater point sources, non-point sources, and agricultural sources. Each of
the priority watersheds has an identified dominant source that will be addressed. The mouth of the Detroit
River is point source, while River Raisin and Michigan's portion of the Maumee watershed are agricultural
sources.
Page 32
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Municipal sources
Michigan has the unique situation where one regulated entity comprises the bulk of the State's phosphorus
load to Lake Erie: the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA). The GLWA Water Resource Recovery Facility
(formerly the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department WWTP) is the largest single site wastewater
treatment facility in the U.S. The Facility services 35% of the state's population contained within Detroit and
76 other communities in a service area of more than 946 square miles. Detroit's treated wastewater and
stormwater runoff was estimated to make up over 60% of the U.S. load to the Detroit River in 2008. The next
largest wastewater sources are in the municipal areas of Wyandotte, Ypsilanti township, and the city of
Monroe: the Wayne County Downriver facility (DWTF), the Ypsilanti Community Utility Authority (YCUA
WWTP), and the Monroe Metro WWTP. Together with the GLWA, these four WWTPs discharge over 90%
of the total P load from point sources to Lake Erie.
Michigan implemented a statewide residential fertilizer phosphorus ban in 201 2. Phosphorus fertilizer
applications are restricted on residential and commercial lawns in Michigan, including athletic fields and golf
courses statewide. This includes applications by both homeowners and commercial applicators. A more
restrictive ban in 2006 in the city of Ann Arbor has been shown to reduce phosphorus loadings in surface
waters in residential areas by about 30 percent.
Agricultural sources
Agriculture is the dominant land use in the River Raisin and Michigan's portion of the Maumee River Basin. The
predominant crops are corn, soybeans and wheat.
The River Raisin Watershed drains approximately 1,072 square miles in southeastern Michigan before it
reaches Lake Erie. As of 201 0, the watershed was home to 178,577 people and 65% of the land was used
for agriculture.
Michigan's portion of the Maumee River basin is relatively small, about 300,000 acres in size representing
about 7 percent of the land area in the basin. Land use in Michigan's portion is mainly agriculture, including
eight concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. These 8 CAFOs use about 21,000 acres for land application, representing 7 percent of the
Michigan portion.
It total, there are 14 concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in Michigan's portion of the Western
Lake Erie Basin (WLEB). Nine of these CAFOs are for dairy, three are for swine, and two are for heifers. The
latest general permit ensures protection of all water resources, including: storage, comprehensive nutrient
management plans (NMPs), and other needed requirements. These CAFOs have been and will continue to be
inspected for compliance with permit conditions. For example, the NPDES permit requires six months of
available liquid manure storage by December 1st in any given year.
Other Sources
Other sources such as storm water, pet wastes, lawns, tributaries to the Lake, septic systems, and dredged
sediments also can contribute P to Lake Erie.
Page 33
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Ph OS ph onn k Fnc'^-v vVju- ฆ, 'i*'.eฆ:s
On June 1 3, 2015, the governors of Ohio and Michigan, and the premier of Ontario signed a Collaborative
Agreement to reduce phosphorus loadings to the Western Basin of Lake Erie by 40% by 2025. Michigan's
specific objectives to meet the larger ecosystem goals established under Annex 4 and its commitment under
the Collaborative Agreement are as follows. Based on 2008 loads, reduce the following by 40%:
Annual total phosphorus (TP) loads from the Detroit River.
Spring and Annual TP loads from the River Raisin.
Spring soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) loads from the River Raisin.
Spring TP and SRP, and annual TP contributions from the Maumee River. This objective will be refined
for Michigan's waters of the Maumee River following results of watershed monitoring conducted by
Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana.
According to Maccoux et. al. 201 6, the U.S. share of the Detroit River load in 2008 was ~1,261 tons. A 40%
reduction from that baseline value is 504 tons, for a target load of 757 tons. Based on available monitoring
data from the GLWA, it appears that the Detroit River has already achieved a reduction of 400 metric tons
TP, or 32%. This reduction is mainly due to additional controls at the discharge points at the GLWA Detroit
WRRF and its associated treated combined sewer overflows (CSOs).
River Raisin P data are based upon water quality and flow data collected by Heidelberg University's
Tributary Loading Program and an adjacent U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauging station (No.
04176500), and accounting for loads from the Monroe WWTP. Historically, the River Raisin long term data
record is robust; however, some years (2008, 201 0, 201 2, and 201 3) had significant water quality data
gaps. Using the 2008 baseline annual load of 262 MT and normalizing for flows, it appears that there has
been a 25% TP load reduction since 2008. No trend in SRP is discernible, and spring TP and SRP loads have
not yet been analyzed.
Michigan's tributaries to the Maumee River are Bean Creek and the St. Joseph River. There is very limited
data on streamflow or phosphorus monitoring data for either tributary. These data are not sufficient to
calculate loads or flow weighted mean concentration targets with confidence.
Priority Objective
2008 TP
Target Load*
40 Percent Reduction
Amount
Target Load
Detroit River TP Load
1,261
504
756
River Raisin TP Load
262
105
157
River Raisin SRP Load**
N/A
TBD
TBD
Ml Maumee River TP Load
267+
107
160
Ml Maumee River SRP Load**
N/A
TBD
TBD
Total Michigan Load Allocation
1,883
753
1,130
* Based on 2008 load estimates established by Annex 4. + Load estimate based on percentage of
land use in Michigan's portion of the Maumee River Watershed. ** No SRP loading estimate have
been determined for the River Raisin or the Maumee River.
Page 34
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
The development and implementation of Michigan's DAP is being led by the Quality of Life (QOL)
departments including the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD), Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), and Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). For
municipal sources, the four major WWTPs contributing over 90% of the P load will be the focus for reduction
(i.e. P limits changed from 1.0 mg/l to a growing season average of 0.6 mg/l). The approach on agricultural
lands will use comprehensive conservation planning to identify site-specific best management practices (BMPs)
for individual fields. These BMPs will result in the greatest environmental benefit, while maintaining
productivity. This will ensure that technical and financial assistance can be utilized most efficiently and
effectively.
Michigan's DAP is focused on achieving P reduction goals for the mouth of the Detroit River, the River Raisin
Watershed, and Michigan's portion of the Maumee River Watershed. Because of focusing on these areas, it
does not mean that the QOL departments will not implement P correction in other areas that drain to the
WLEB. However, the total loads removed from other WLEB watersheds will be in addition to the loads
removed in the priority watersheds.
The primary tool for working with agriculture in the WLEB is the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance
Program (MAEAP). MAEAP is an innovative, proactive program that helps farms of all sizes and all
commodities voluntarily minimize agricultural pollution risks. In 2017, MAEAP initiated a new database to
better track the cumulative impact of conservation practices across the watershed or county scale. In 201 8-
201 9, this database will be enhanced with spatial mapping that will enable technicians and farmers to target
acres that are most vulnerable to sediment and nutrient loss.
Michigan has been proactive and successful in reducing P loads to Lake Erie since 2008, but the work is not
complete. Michigan remains committed to addressing current problems by focusing on the following major
actions:
1. Maintain the reductions achieved in the GLWA WRRF discharge as a result of the tightened permit
limits.
2. Achieve reductions in P discharged from the Wayne County Downriver WWTP, and continue
reductions at YCUA WWTP.
3. Identify priority areas in Michigan's portion of the Maumee River Watershed for P reductions.
Identify and implement priority actions to reduce P loads from Michigan's portion of the Maumee
River Watershed.
4. Support and invest in research to better understand the causes of HABs, including invasive mussels and
SRP (urban and rural sources) and how these factors impact HAB events.
5. Utilize research and field demonstrations to identify the suite of BMPs that work collectively to reduce
both TP and SRP at the field implementation level.
6. Implement P control actions in the River Raisin Watershed to achieve the target load reductions.
7. Maintain and expand partnerships to provide valuable technical and financial assistance to farmers.
Maintain an increased level of Conservation District MAEAP technical assistance levels.
8. Increase and maintain MAEAP practice implementation for long term water quality improvement.
9. Improve and increase outreach to the public and farmers to promote understanding of the WLEB and
good conservation practices by initiating new targeted outreach campaigns, workshops, field
demonstrations and information sharing.
1 0. Promote wetland restoration and land management to reduce P loading.
Page 35
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
^;v;er 1 j
The Collaborative Agreement calls for an aspirational goal of a 20% reduction by 2020 and a goal of a
40% reduction by 2025.
Michigan's DAP Workplan outlines timelines for activities and includes several near-term milestones, such as:
Monitoring to improve understanding of phosphorus contributions from Michigan's portion of the
Maumee watershed. Michigan initiated surface water monitoring in Bean Creek and the St. Joseph
river in 201 6. Results were used to inform development of a more detailed monitoring strategy for
2017.
Development of watershed management plans for Tiffin and Bean Creek watersheds (target
completion is January 201 9).
Issuance of more stringent permit limits at 2 WWTPs (Wayne County & Monroe) by 2020.
Undertake a study to evaluate SRP discharge quality as a function of level of municipal treatment.
Increase farmer participation in MAEAP, e.g. cropland nutrient management implementation on
35,000 additional acres each year.
Implementation of drain water management controls on 3,300 acres per year for 3 years.
H a v,- P ; o t,:;e*V i: i S:'; " - ?:> ฆ U
In addition to participating in the federal and binational efforts to track and report progress under the
GLWQA Annex 4, such as , Michigan will use the following methods for measuring its progress:
Tracking changes to in-stream P concentrations, and load reduction measurements:
The QOL agencies will create an online presence to track performance against the percent reduction
goals.
For the Detroit River, reductions will be calculated primarily using the GLWA and Wayne County
discharge monitoring.
For the Raisin River, reductions will be tracked using the monitoring data at the USGS gauging station
and the Monroe WWTP discharge monitoring.
Michigan will also develop a long term monitoring strategy for the Maumee River tributaries (i.e.,
Bean Creek and St. Joseph River) as appropriate for its contribution to overall P loads from
Michigan's portions of the Maumee River Watershed.
Tracking progress of actions taken to reduce P loads from point and nonpoint sources:
Point Sources
Reduce TP concentration limits in NPDES permits for four largest municipal wastewater facilities:
the GLWA Facility, the DWTF, the YCUA WWTP, and the Monroe Metro WWTP.
Permit limits consistently achieved at the largest WWTPs; no significant noncompliance.
Continue to remove untreated CSOs.
Continue to implement other programs including:
o Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems programs
o CAFO permits
o Biosolids permits.
Page 36
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Nonpoint Sources
The River Raisin Watershed and Michigan's portion of the Maumee River Watershed will have
USEPA approved 319 watershed management plans.
Annually document that at least an additional 3.5 percent or 35,000 more cropland acres in
WLEB are managed under nutrient management plans.
Maintain a minimum of 85 percent MAEAP reverification rate for farms in the WLEB
Through MAEAP technical assistance:
a. Reduce additional sediment entering the waters in the WLEB by 44,000 tons per year;
b. Reduce additional P loading by 74,000 pounds per year; and
c. Reduce additional nitrogen (N) loading by 176,000 pound per year.
Through MDEQ Nonpoint Source program, add an additional 1 20 drain water management
controls to reduce tile line discharges from 3,300 acres of cropland per year for three years.
The QOL agencies are committed to improve and increase outreach to the public and farmers to promote an
understanding of the WLEB ecosystem conditions and the importance of good conservation practices by
initiating new targeted outreach campaigns, workshops, field demonstrations and information sharing. For
example, advancement of goals set in the DAP will be regularly reported as part of Michigan Water
Strategy implementation through outlets including a public Great Lakes e-mail list with nearly 1 0,000 current
subscribers, a Michigan Water Strategy Web page ( ), QOL agency Twitter
accounts using the #MiWaterStrategy hashtag, and other platforms. Implementation progress will also be
distributed from the QOL agencies through e-mail lists, web features, and individual program messaging with
the inclusion of webinars, community meetings, infographics, and digital media approaches.
Michigan will continue to engage the public in further development and implementation of the DAP through
these outreach mechanisms. Because we are using an adaptive management approach, Michigan's DAP may
be updated in the future as new environmental and nutrient loading data become available and knowledge
gaps are filled. For more details on Michigan's DAP, visit:
Page 37
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Indiana
Indiana's Portion of the Lake Erie Basin
Indiana drains roughly 1 2 percent of the western
Lake Erie basin (WLEB) and is comprised of the St.
Joseph, Maumee, Auglaize, and St. Marys
watersheds that encompass approximately
821,300 acres in the counties of Steuben, DeKalb,
Allen, Noble, Adams, and Wells. The St. Joseph
River and the St. Marys River enter Indiana from
Ohio and, at their confluence near Fort Wayne,
form the Maumee River, which flows approximately
29 miles eastward into and through Ohio for
another 1 08 miles to its mouth at Maumee Bay in
Lake Erie near Toledo.
This portion of the WLEB is home to nearly a half
million people. The largest city is Ft. Wayne with a
population of approximately 260,000. More than
70 percent of the land is used for agriculture, 1 5
percent is developed, and the remaining 15
percent is comprised of forests, wetlands, and open
water.
Major Sources of Phosphorus
STEUBEN
DEKALB
ADAMS
Opportunities exist to reduce phosphorus (P) and
other nutrient inputs from both urban and rural
landscapes, including point (approximately 15-
20%) and non-point sources (approximately 80-
85%). Indiana's DAP seeks to address these
sources by effecting the most change with the least
cost; prioritizing resources to areas with the most P reduction potential; seeking to engage citizens who are not
participating in conservation efforts; using social indicators; and employing adaptive management. Emphasis
will be on using existing regulatory instruments and implementing voluntary best management practices.
I I Maumee
I I Auglaize
This map is intended to serve as an
aid in graphic representation only
This information Is not warranted for
accuracy or other purposes.
Data Sources: Obtained from
the State of Indiana Geographic
Information Office Library.
WELLS
Mapped By/On. Joanna Wood. Office of Water Quality. October 13. 2tJ1C
Map Projection & Datum UTM Zone 16 N, NADS 3
w
NOBLE
Western
Lake Erie Basin Counties and Watersheds
0 5 10 20 Kilometers
1 i i i I i i i I
IiliIIIiI
0 5 10 20 Miles
LEGEND
I I County Boundary
Tributaries
Rivers
I I StMarys
I I St Joseph
n
Point sources
There are four major (one million gallons/day) municipal waste water treatment plants (WWTPs) with a TP
effluent limit of 1 mg/L including Fort Wayne, Decatur, Auburn, and Butler. These WWTPs average a
discharge concentration below the 1 mg/L TP limit. There are three minor municipal WWTPs and an
additional seven industrial/other minor dischargers.
Within the developed areas, there are seven combined sewer overflow (CSO) communities including Auburn,
Berne, Butler, Decatur, Fort Wayne, New Haven, and Waterloo, each with an approved long term control
plan (LTCP) or consent decree with compliance schedules. There are 1 3 designated municipal separate storm
Page 38
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
sewer systems (MS4s) with approved storm water management plans (SWMPs) including one in Adams
County, 1 1 in Allen County, and one in DeKalb County.
Nonpoint sources
The leading source of phosphorus is runoff derived from land disturbing activities, septic system failures and
agricultural production. Row crop agricultural land, with corn and soybean rotation predominating, is mostly
drained by subsurface tiles which, during significant rainfall events, discharge to streams transporting
phosphorus, nitrogen, and in some cases suspended sediment.
There are 78 active, regulated confined feeding operations (CFOs) in the WLEB with 50 in Adams County, 1 2
in Allen County, 1 2 in DeKalb County, 1 in Steuben, and 3 in Wells County.
8, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) regulates
facility design, construction, and maintenance; facility setbacks from streams, wells, roads, property
boundaries, and residences; manure handling and storage; manure application rates and setbacks; monitoring
and record keeping; storm water run-off from the production area; closure of manure storage structures; the
handling of emergency spills; and waste digesters located on a CFO regulated site. Operators are required
to test manure for nitrogen and phosphorus, conduct soil tests of manure application fields and apply manure
at nitrogen or phosphorus limited agronomic rates depending on soil phosphorus levels. Approximately
36,000 acres within Indiana's portion of the WLEB are used for application of manure generated by animals
regulated by IDEM.
9, is a rule administered by
the Indiana Office of the State Chemist to ensure fertilizer materials are applied, handled, and transported
effectively and safely in a manner that protects water quality. It pertains to both commercial and private
fertilizer applicators. Any entity that only distributes but does not use fertilizer material must obtain a
fertilizer distributor business license.
Ph
The focus of Indiana's DAP is the reduction goal for the Maumee River, which drives harmful algal blooms
(HABs) in the WLEB and contributes to central basin hypoxia. Indiana's goal is to meet the spring-time flow
weighted mean concentration (FWMC) targets of 0.23 mg/L and 0.05 mg/L for TP and SRP respectively in
the Maumee River as it flows across the border into Ohio. The watershed contributing the most phosphorus to
the Maumee River appears to be the St. Marys. Using different models, analysis of water quality monitoring
data from IDEM, Allen County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Tri-State Watershed Alliance
(TSWA), and the City of Fort Wayne indicates the highest TP concentrations and loads here. Using the FWMC
target for TP, the load duration curves show most of the sampling events exceed the target across all flow
conditions signifying both point sources and nonpoint sources. Nutrient loading from unregulated livestock
operations and community septic system failures are of concern. To better characterize nutrient loading in the
St. Marys watershed, Indiana will fund a USGS auto-sampler monitoring site through a USEPA Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative (GLRI) grant for a minimum of three years and will support additional monitoring by the
local water monitoring entities.
8
9
Page 39
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Indiana's DAP, founded on the principle of adaptive management, is informed by the intensive planning,
research and steadfast work that is already underway in the WLEB. All watersheds except the Auglaize have
an approved watershed management plan (WMP) and Total Maximum Daily Load Report (TMDL). The DAP is
developed by an advisory committee comprised of representatives from different stakeholder sectors10 and
led by IDEM. This advisory committee identifies three major priorities for implementation to achieve the 40%
reduction goal in WLEB:
1. Restore natural hydrology and ecological functions
i. Promote water management that emphasizes the importance of allowing water to infiltrate
where it falls. In urban landscapes, create a green infrastructure paradigm by seeking
incentives and opportunities for it. In rural and agricultural landscapes, restore stream sinuosity
and riparian buffers, and address runoff and drainage with soil health strategies, saturated
buffers, constructed wetlands, and drainage water management techniques, to name a few.
2. Urban/Rural: use existing regulatory instruments and best management practices (BMPs) to reduce
nutrients. A few examples include:
i. WWTPs and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) will employ optimization techniques
and track improvements.
ii. CSO communities will implement their LTCPs and associated compliance schedules and track
progress.
iii. MS4 communities will implement their SWMPs and track progress.
iv. Put infrastructure in place and extend sewers to communities with failing septic systems.
v. Septic system installation, operation, maintenance, and repair will follow the site specific
design regulations and septic system failure rates will be tracked.
3. Agriculture: use existing regulatory instruments and voluntary conservation practices.
i. Ensure compliance with the CFO and Fertilizer Certification rules via routine inspections and
timely investigate reports of nutrient mismanagement/runoff from unregulated farms.
ii. Implement best nutrient management practices by employing the "4 Rs" namely, applying the
right nutrient source at the right rate at the right time in the right place.
iii. Emphasize soil health: Healthy soil with a higher organic content reduces erosion, requires less
nutrient inputs, ameliorates the effects of flood and drought, and reduces nutrient and
sediment loading to streams and rivers.
Indiana will use various indicators, including social indicators, to track progress from different sectors and will
use 2020 as a checkpoint to determine progress toward the target P loads on the Maumee to validate or re-
evaluate the priority watersheds, programs and practices. By that time, Indiana plans to have more baseline
monitoring at the HUC-1 2 scale that will facilitate setting a timeframe for achieving the P target loads in the
10 Members include Adam's Co. Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Allen Co. SWCD, City of Fort Wayne, DeKalb
Co.unty SWCD, Indiana Farm Bureau, Indiana Pork Producers, Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne, Indiana State
Department of Agriculture, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resource Conservation Service of USDA, Sierra
Club, St. Joseph Watershed Alliance, Steuben Co. SWCD , The Nature Conservancy, Tri-State Watershed Alliance, United
States Geological Survey. As time allows: Agribusiness Council of Indiana, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Allen Co. MS4,
City of Auburn, Hoosier Environmental Council, Purdue University, and The Andersons, Inc.
Page 40
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
sub-watersheds in order to meet the FWMC on the Maumee. A few key projects over the next few years
include the following:
The City of Fort Wayne LTCP and Tunnel Works Project: construction began in 2017 with all parts of
the Tunnel Works system to be completed and operational by 2025, which will reduce CSOs to the St.
Marys and Maumee Rivers by 90%, from about 71 times per year to just four.
Adams County Regional Sewer District (RSD): extension of sewer to the unincorporated community of
Pleasant Mills commenced in 201 7.
DeKalb County Updated Onsite Sewage System and Installation Ordinance: implementation of this
ordinance that passed in 2017.
Allen County SWCD Upper Maumee P-Risk Pilot project: 4-year CWA Section 31 9(h) grant to reduce
P loss from 1 0,000+ cropland acres, reduce 4,800 tons of sediment, 1 6,300 lbs. nitrogen, and 8,300
pounds of phosphorus; commencing in 201 8.
4R Nutrient Stewardship Certification Program: Indiana has 1 certified retailer. The Nutrient
Stewardship Council will work toward the goal of having 80% of farmed acres under certified
management by 2025.
St. Marys River Watershed Initiative: 4-year CWA Section 31 9(h) grant to implement a paired
watershed monitoring project and soil health monitoring through 2021.
Rethinking Drainage for the 21st Century: Purdue University and the Nature Conservancy will conduct
workshops with county surveyors and drainage professionals; goal is to establish an innovative
drainage pilot project.
In addition to participating in the federal and binational efforts to track and report progress under the
GLWQA Annex 4, such as , Indiana will use the following methods for measuring its progress:
Ambient water quality monitoring data will be reported annually for the fixed station grab sample
sites operated at the state, local and municipal levels, as well as for the Antwerp, OH and Fort
Wayne, IN USGS operated auto-sampler sites.
The spring tillage and cover crop transect is done every other year, and the fall tillage and cover
crop transect is done every year. Data from these transects are used to track the extent of residue
and cover crops in use in each county and reported annually. These data are important for capturing
the voluntary adoption of these practices that occurs both with and without assistance or cost-share.
The nutrient load reductions calculated using the Region 5 BMP Load Reduction Model for all Indiana
Conservation Partnership (ICP) assisted conservation practices will be reported annually.
POTW discharge monitoring reports are submitted monthly and will be graphed annually.
Cost-share program project milestones and updates will be reported annually.
Indiana will continue to engage the public in further development and implementation of the DAP through
periodic public meetings and discussions with stakeholder groups. Because we are using an adaptive
management approach, Indiana's DAP may be updated in the future as new environmental and nutrient
loading data become available and knowledge gaps are filled. For more details on Indiana's DAP, visit:
Page 41
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania's Portion of the
Lake Erie Basin
The Pennsylvania Lake Erie Central Basin
watershed covers approximately 375
square miles (mi2) within Erie and Crawford
Counties. The Central Basin is defined as all
watershed area draining to Lake Erie from
the base of Presque Isle (Longitude
42.1 09938, Latitude -80.1 59606) west to
the Pennsylvania-Ohio border, containing
eight significant named tributaries ranging
in size from 6.94 mi2 to 1 53.1 0 mi2 and six
small watershed areas that discharge
directly to the Lake.
Approximately 32 percent of the land is
used for agriculture, 14 percent is
developed, and the remaining 54 percent is
comprised of forests, wetlands and open
water.
Major Sources of Phosphorus
Previous screenings of Pennsylvania Central
Basin tributaries identified no significant
point source or non-point source phosphorus
discharges. It is estimated that
Pennsylvania's annual total phosphorus
loading to the Central Basin during the years
annum (MTA) from all sources. This represents
phosphorus loading to the Central Basin.
Municipal sources
Within the developed areas, there are seven NPDES-permitted Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)
that discharge to Central Basin tributaries. Five POTWs are Minor Sewage Facilities discharging less than 1
million gallons per day (MGD) and two are Major Sewage Facilities discharging greater than 1 MGD and
less than 5MGD. Major Sewage Facilities in Pennsylvania discharging to Lake Erie tributaries have NPDES
permit conditions limiting maximum effluent concentration of total phosphorus to 1.0 milligram per liter.
Pennsylvania has a growing number of non-publicly owned Small Flow Treatment Facilities (SFTFs) in the
Central Basin watershed that treat wastewater for an individual facility including single-family residences,
individual residential/community developments, or businesses that do not have access to publicly-owned
.
Walnut Creek
Elk Creek
Crooked
Creek
Ashtabula
Creeks
Conneaut Creek
Crawford
2008-201 3 averaged approximately 40.7 metric tons per
approximately 0.5% of the total annual U.S. and Canadian
The Lake Erie Watershed of Pennsylvania
Central Basin Tributaries
Legend
Stream
County
X///A Un-named Tributaries - Central Basin
j Central Basin Watershed
j Pennsylvania
f nFPASTMFfTOf WVIW.KFMTAl
The Central Basin of Pennsylvania's
Lake Erie watershed encompases
375 square miles of mixed land use
spanning agriculture to urban.
Data Credits: PADEP, PA Sea Grant
Jake Moore-DEP-5/31/2017
Page 42
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
wastewater infrastructure. There are 1 66 SFTFs located in the Central Basin with additional facilities being
permitted annually.
Pennsylvania also has five designated municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) within the Central
Basin, three of which maintain MS4 NPDES General Permits (PAG-1 3), one that maintains an MS4 Individual
Permit, and one municipality that is waived from requirements due to meeting criteria in 40 CFR 1 22.32 (d)
and (e).
Agricultural sources
Approximately 1 1 9.3 square miles of the Pennsylvania Central Basin watershed, around 31.8%, is defined as
agricultural land use, consisting largely of viticulture, fruit crops, row crops, and commercial ornamental tree
and shrub operations. There are two Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in Pennsylvania
Central Basin watershed, one in Erie County that is a Concentrated Animal Operation (CAO) with greater than
300 animal equivalent units, and one in Crawford County that is an agricultural operation with greater than
1 000 animal equivalent units.
Current estimates of Total Phosphorus loading to the Lake is not of sufficient resolution to determine a load
from the Pennsylvania drainage to the Central Basin. The data indicate that little, if any reductions would be
needed from this area to achieve a 40% reduction from the 2008 baseline. Due to a lack of significant
nutrient sources, focus in the DAP was placed on creating a better understanding of Pennsylvania phosphorus
loading characteristics through acquiring data, developing a gap analysis, then completing a tributary land
use assessment and GIS-based nutrient modeling. Additional focus will be placed in watersheds that are
experiencing localized nutrient and urban stormwater impairments and have watershed management plans.
S A r.i
Pennsylvania's DAP looks to enhance Central Basin phosphorus reductions through partnering with county
agencies and non-governmental organizations to implement programs addressing various sources of
phosphorus. The following cooperative programs are examples of management efforts:
Program Name: Pennsylvania Vested in Environmental Sustainability (PA VinES)
Program Partner: Erie County Conservation District (ECCD)
PA VinES is a cooperative, coordinated agricultural initiative between Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), ECCD, Penn State Cooperative Extension, Cornell University, USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service, and Pennsylvania Farm Bureau. The mission is to foster and promote
concepts of environmental consciousness and sustainability through education, outreach, and self-assessment
to reduce conflicts between viticulture and water quality in the Lake Erie basin. The program focuses on a
guided self-assessment workbook that identifies opportunities to enhance environmental sustainability and
profitability, then provides an ECCD-sponsored cost-share program for installation of agricultural best
management practices to reduce non-point source pollution runoff.
Program Name: Erie County Small Flow Treatment Facility (SFTF) Program
Program Partner: Erie County Department of Health (ECDH)
Certain soil types in the Pennsylvania Lake Erie Central Basin can be challenging for the proper function of
traditional, in-ground, on-lot private sewage treatment in the absence of public sewage collection
Page 43
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
infrastructure. There are currently 1 66 permitted Non-Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Systems and
Small Flow Treatment Facilities (SFTF) in Pennsylvania's Central Basin tributaries. In previous years, ECDH
discovered that a significant percentage of these systems were in noncompliance for violations such as lack of
disinfection, inadequate operation and maintenance, and failure to submit reports. These systems contribute
to nutrient, bacterial, and other forms of pollution of Lake Erie tributaries. ECDH is dedicating staff to the
SFTF Program to provide a better understanding of the impact on streams by:
Conducting geospatial mapping of SFTF locations.
Identifying treatment system owners who are failing to submit required self-monitoring reports.
Contacting system owners to provide education and outreach.
Monitoring and sampling of SFTF outfalls.
Developing and implementing a more robust compliance program to evaluate, quantify, and abate
pollution to Lake Erie tributaries.
Program Name: Urban Stormwater Management and Green Infrastructure Initiatives
Program Partners: Erie County Department of Planning (ECDP), Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs)
The Pennsylvania Lake Erie Central Basin watersheds are geographically outside of the urban core of the
City of Erie metropolitan area, although one of Erie County's fastest growing commercial corridors is in the
Central Basin tributary of Walnut Creek. Additionally, the Erie County Comprehensive Plan and associated
Erie County Demographic Study anticipate continued residential and commercial growth in the Central Basin
tributaries extending west from the City of Erie. Urban stormwater management and green infrastructure
programs will be integral to assuring that water quality issues caused by past development are rectified and
that new problems are avoided through contemporary stormwater management and green infrastructure.
Opportunities exist for the coordination of MS4 permit obligations for communities in the Lake Erie Basin and
the streamlining of how municipalities manage stormwater both within their own jurisdictions and across
watershed boundaries. Partnerships to encourage municipal stormwater management coordination include
Erie County government resources such as the ECDP and NGOs. Likely areas of coordination include Minimum
Control Measures such as Public Education and Outreach, Public Involvement and Participation, and Illicit
Discharge Detection and Elimination.
Pennsylvania will use indicators to track reductions from the various sectors and will evaluate in 2022 the
progress made toward meeting the programmatic and practice commitments in the DAP.
In addition to participating in the federal and binational efforts to track and report progress under the
GLWQA Annex 4, such as , Pennsylvania plans to use the following methods for measuring its
progress:
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) will compile and evaluate conservation
practices installed through state grants and will report annually.
Page 44
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
PADEP will quantify and report known phosphorus contribution and reduction data for the purposes of
tracking and accounting for total lakewide phosphorus reductions.
PADEP will implement an Adaptive Management approach to allow for adjustments and
improvements to programs and practices.
Pennsylvania will continue to engage the public in further development and implementation of the DAP
through periodic public meetings and discussions with stakeholder groups. Because we are using an adaptive
management approach, Pennsylvania's DAP may be updated in the future as new environmental and nutrient
loading data become available and knowledge gaps are filled. For more details, please visit the PADEP
Great Lakes Program webpage:
blleiฃXฑv:;v:,d;:y:y;>ixao:,/^^
Page 45
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
few Yv-rk
fe.V ?ฃ: r i h* r* Of 'ih-tf V:|S ฃk-':-in
New York's Lake Erie watershed is comprised of 1 2 HUC-1 0 sub-watersheds that encompass approximately
1.5 million acres in the counties of Erie, Chautauqua, Cattaraugus and very small portions of Allegany and
Wyoming. In total, there are 2,441 miles of small lakes, rivers and streams draining to Lake Erie. The Buffalo
River and Cattaraugus Creek are the largest tributaries and sub-watersheds, flowing westward into the
eastern basin of Lake Erie. The Buffalo River enters Lake Erie at the head of the Niagara River so nearly all
of its water leads directly downstream towards Lake Ontario having minimal or no impact on Lake Erie. The
Cattaraugus Creek enters Lake Erie approximately 30 miles south of the Niagara River and most of its
outflow mixes within the nearshore flowing north into the Niagara River.
Within the watershed, there are three cities: Buffalo, Lackawanna and Dunkirk, and several villages such as
Westfield, Fredonia, Silver Creek, Gowanda, Arcade, Hamburg and Springville. Buffalo is the largest with a
population of over 350,000, although geographically within the Lake Erie watershed, its municipal
wastewater is discharged directly into the Niagara River after treatment, with exception of a couple overflow
outlets into the Buffalo River.
The Lake Erie watershed varies from heavily developed areas in the northeast along the Lake to suburban
areas in the central portion and rural/agricultural in the southwest. Urban sprawl, both residential and
commercial, is a significant issue in the upper portion of the watershed. Fragmented forests are the primary
land cover in the southeastern portion of the basin. The predominant land cover classifications are agricultural
lands (46%) and deciduous and mixed forest (42% combined) lands, according to the USEPA's multi-resolution
land classification (MRLC) map information. Agricultural lands are classified as row crops or pasture/hay
lands based on MRLC interpreted data. The MLRC national data distinguishes between natural grassland and
old fields, hay, pasture, and row crops. There are no lands classified as natural grasslands in the basin. In NY,
pasture/hay lands and row crops are often referred to as grasslands by the management agencies. In the
southwestern portion of the watershed, especially along the Lake escarpment, conversion of croplands to
grape vineyards is occurring.
While New York State Department of Conservation (DEC) does not believe that there are any major sources
of P within the Lake Erie watershed that are resulting in widespread impairments or other detrimental impacts
to the Lake, there are a variety of municipal and agricultural sources that are known, or have the potential, to
contribute to P loadings within the watershed.
Municipal sources
There are 1 0 Major Municipal and 1 8 State Significant Municipal wastewater treatment facilities in New
York's Lake Erie watershed, the largest being Buffalo Sewer Authority; and 29 private/industrial facilities.
Within the developed areas, there is 1 combined sewer overflow (CSO) community (Dunkirk) with an
approved long term control plan (LTCP). There is one designated municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4s) (Buffalo) with an approved storm water management plans (SWMPs).
Page 46
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Agricultural sources
Runoff from row crop agricultural land (primarily grape vineyards, corn and soybeans) is another potentially
significant source. Because much of this land is drained by subsurface tiles it can behave as developed land
(impervious surfaces) during significant rainfall events with rapid discharge to streams.
There are 29 active CAFOs in New York's portion of the Eastern Basin of Lake Erie, of which six are large
CAFOs (more than 700 dairy cows or their equivalent), and 23 are medium CAFOs (More than 200, but less
than 700, dairy cows or their equivalent).
Wyoming
Chautauqua
^ Lake Erie Watershed
Stream Segment
Impaired
Minor Impacts
Threatened
+ SPDES Facilities*
CAFOs*
Source. MV'SDEC Data Selector 'Concentrated Aninal Feeding Operations (farna)
Date: May 2017 'State Pollutar! Dischage tllinr nation System -acrtittes
Genesee
my
Ph osphorus Management Goals & Priority Watersheds
The focus of New York's Nine Element Lake Erie Watershed Plan is to maintain the "Interim Substance
Objective for Total Phosphorous Concentration in Open Waters of Eastern Basin of Lake Erie" of 1 Opg/L,
consistent with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as amended in 201 2. New York's Lake Erie
nearshore waters are classified as "Class A-Specia!" based on their best use as a source of water supply for
drinking, culinary or food-processing purposes, primary or secondary recreation and fishing. These waters are
not designated as "impaired or threatened" due to nutrients in the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Priority
Water Bodies List (PWL). However, they are designated as "impaired" due to pathogens and bacteria
Page 47
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
contributing to beach closures, and toxic chemicals (PCBs and Mercury) attributed to fish consumption
restrictions. Within the watershed, 1 3 stream segments are designated as impaired or suspected due to
nutrient contamination. The Cattaraugus Creek sub-watershed is of primary focus due to its water loading to
the Lake and approximately 50 miles of nutrient and suspended sediment stressed or threatened stream
segments. In the upper section and tributaries, DEC's prior "Rotating Intensive Basin Survey" (RIBS) sampling
results indicated slightly impacted conditions. In such samples the community is slightly altered from natural
conditions. Some sensitive species are not present and the overall abundance of macroinvertebrates is
somewhat lower. However, the effects on the fauna appear to be relatively insignificant and water quality is
considered to be good. The nutrient biotic index and impact source determination indicate low enrichment in
the stream and fauna that is most similar to (natural) communities influenced by impoundment effects and
nonpoint sources. Aquatic life support is considered to be fully supported in the stream, and there are no other
apparent water quality impacts to designated uses.
The Lake Erie Watershed Protection Alliance (LEWPA), a voluntary collaboration among Erie, Chautauqua and
Cattaraugus counties and 80 municipalities, is developing a Nine-Element Watershed Management Plan for
the entire eastern Lake Erie watershed in partnership with the New York DEC.
Other partners in Lake Erie watershed protection include:
Seneca Nation of Indians (SNI) SNI are the largest tribal member (in terms of reservation acreage
and population) within the historic Iroquois Confederacy of Nations. They govern a major reservation
along the lower section of Cattaraugus Creek and have an innovative environmental management
program to protect and conserve natural resources incorporating Traditional Ecological Knowledge
(TEK) into local management practices.
Buffalo-Niagara Riverkeeper (BNR) a local non-profit chapter of national Riverkeeper organization
that works closely with LEWPA, local governments, state agencies and others to promote water quality
and public awareness of water uses and issues. BNR is developing a Niagara River watershed plan
component called "Healthy Niagara" that will be integrated with the Lake Erie 9-Element Plan in the
future.
Academic Institutions including New York Sea Grant, State University of New York (SUNY) at
Buffalo, SUNY College at Buffalo, SUNY College at Fredonia, Canisius University, Hobart College,
Medaille College, and local community colleges that all have environmental science curricula enabling
researchers and students to work on different aspects of watershed management.
Local chapters of regional/state/national organizations focusing on natural resource protection and
conservation, including Southtowns Walleye, Trout Unlimited, Isaak Walton League, Fly Fishers
Federation, New York Audubon, Buffalo Audubon, Western NY Land Conservancy, Niagara Musky
Association, The Nature Conservancy, Alliance for the Great Lakes, Ducks Unlimited, Sierra Club,
Citizens Campaign for the Environment and others.
Under New York's "Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Act of 2006" and its implementing Great
Lakes Action Agenda, New York DEC has organized a Lake Erie-Niagara River Watershed Work Group,
consisting of 60 stakeholder organizations and 1 40 individuals. The work group has elected to begin
developing an integrated implementation plan to promote watershed health and ecological and community
resiliency within the Cattaraugus Creek watershed. Current planning activities are focused on developing
Page 48
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
collaborative and innovative solutions to address nonpoint source pollution, flooding and erosion issues and
protection and restoration of natural infrastructure such as floodplains, riparian buffers and headwater
forests.
The Cattaraugus Creek sub-watershed was studied as a whole at the 8-digit HUC scale. It encompasses about
358,000 acres, or 550 square miles, in the southeast portion of the Lake Erie watershed. It has moderately
high (56%) natural cover, including forests, wetlands, and open water. The remainder of the sub-watershed is
primarily agricultural lands with scattered rural residential sites and small villages. The main matrix forests
include both climax (hemlock-northern hardwood forest; beech-maple mesic forest; maple-basswood forest)
and successional (mix of northern and southern hardwoods) forest types. There are a large number of
intermittent and perennial streams flowing into the main stem of the Cattaraugus Creek. This main stem is
about 50 miles long, segmented at Springville by a defunct hydroelectric dam. There are high quality riverine
biological communities in the small headwater streams with intact forests, and more affected larger streams
from upstream agricultural runoff in the lower part of the watershed.
In 201 7, New York DEC and USGS initiated a tributary monitoring program in order to better characterize
nutrient, pathogen and bacteria concentrations and loading from streams within the overall Lake Erie
watershed. The objective of this project is to collect baseline nutrient water quality data that can be used to 1)
build a watershed model that will help focus future water quality improvement efforts in the basin, and 2) aid
in future regional target-setting efforts for nutrient reduction. Sites were selected by the New York DEC by
including segments from the impaired waters list, input from LEWPA, and to cover a range of watershed size
and land use types. Sample collection will be conducted by the USGS and will include event sampling and
flow data to be used in calculation of pollutant loads. This project is funded by GLRI and NYS.
New York, with U.S. partners and Canada committed to re-evaluate the viability of setting science-based
numeric targets for the Eastern basin in 2020. In the interim, New York will support four major efforts:
Lake Erie tributary monitoring
1 -2 years of water quality sampling beginning summer of 201 7. This will provide baseline data for
development of a watershed model as part of the 9 Element plan for NY's Lake Erie Watershed.
Development of the 9 element plan
The data collected through the Lake Erie tributary monitoring project will be used to support the 9 element
plan, which is expected to be developed by 2020.
Nuisance and harmful algal bloom research
New York State is committed to participating in Annex 4's Cladophora initiatives/research. New York will
continue ongoing research efforts on algal blooms both within Lake Erie and other New York waters.
Reduced residential fertilizer use
New York State implemented a ban on phosphorous-containing residential fertilizers in 2016 and will continue
an active enforcement/surveillance program to monitor compliance of residential fertilizer sales.
Page 49
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
New York is participating in the federal and binational efforts to track and report progress under the
GLWQA Annex 4, such as . Additional milestones and performance metrics will be identified in the
Nine-Element Watershed Management Plan for the eastern Lake Erie watershed.
Pvi-KK rh-c:
New York State DEC and the Lake Erie Watershed Protection Alliance will engage the public in the
development and implementation of the Lake Erie watershed based plan through the 9-element planning
process. For more information, please visit:
Page 50
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
FEDERALLY-LED EFFORTS
The federal government has made substantial progress in understanding and managing Great Lakes HABs
and hypoxia events through coordinated research and management programs. HAB and hypoxia prevention
in Lake Erie requires a strong federal coordination role, in addition to state and local leadership, due to the
fact that the waters are shared among two countries and 5 States. Federal governments are coordinating
efforts to meet GLWQA objectives with domestic statutes and authorities so that opportunities to prevent
HABs and hypoxia are maximized.
For example, in response to the 201 4 amendments to the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act (HABHRCA), federal agencies are collaborating to develop a research plan and action strategy
to address the causes and effects of HABs and hypoxia in the Great Lakes. This work is coordinated by an
Interagency Working Group of 1 3 federal agencies co-chaired by NOAA and USEPA.
Furthermore, under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), federal governments have allocated
significant expenditures since 201 0 for a wide array of projects aimed at reducing nutrient loading into the
Great Lakes. As an example, in response to the 2014 drinking water ban in Toledo, Ohio, federal and state
agencies quickly received nearly $12 million in GLRI funds for projects intended to reduce and monitor HABs
in western Lake Erie. More than $67 million of GLRI funds were invested in the Lake Erie basin from 201 0
through 201 6 to reduce nutrient pollution and to support related science and monitoring work. The GLRI is
implemented by an Interagency Task Force of 1 1 federal departments or agencies.
While many federal agency programs support phosphorus reduction, monitoring, and research efforts in the
Great Lakes, the lead agencies involved in the Lake Erie Action Plan are USEPA, USDA, USACE, USGS, and
NOAA. The following sections summarize each Agency's relevant programs and authorities, and highlight
current efforts to address the problems in Lake Erie.
Center to our approach is the effort we are making to improve coordination, communication and collaboration
among government and non-government partners. Federal, state and local leaders have to work in
partnership to be successful in affecting change over such a large region and adapting management for
continual progress. Success will require active participation and continued diligence among multiple levels of
government and stakeholders in the region.
Page 51
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
The USEPA is working with state and federal partners to combat nutrient pollution to Lake Erie in several
ways. Through oversight of regulatory and nonregulatory programs, USEPA provides significant technical and
financial support to States for nutrient management and HABs prevention work. As the lead agency
coordinating the implementation of the GLWQA and the GLRI, USEPA has an important role in assisting Great
Lakes States and partners working collaboratively to minimize and prevent HABs. USEPA is also leading a
national research program and studies the effects of HABs in order to provide the latest scientific information
on health effects, analytical methods, and recommendations for public water systems on treatment
technologies available to manage risks from harmful algal blooms and cyanotoxins. USEPA brings significant
resources to bear to address the challenges posed by excess nutrients and algae necessary to meet the
Agency's core mission to protect human health and the environment.
CLEAN WATER ACT PROGRAMS
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1 948 was the first major U.S. law to address water pollution. As
amended in 1 972, the law became commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The 1 972 amendments
established the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of the United States, and
gave USEPA the authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for
industry. While significant progress has been made in cleaning up waters of the U.S., nutrient pollution remains
one of America's most widespread and costly environmental and public health challenges.
Under the CWA, USEPA reviews and approves state water quality standards for nutrients, and works with
states to identify waterbodies impaired by nutrients and then develop pollution diets - Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs) - to restore them. TMDLs are then implemented through State regulatory and nonregulatory
programs, with USEPA oversight and technical assistance. For example, USEPA Regional offices work closely
with the states to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) which regulates point
source discharges to waterbodies. Nutrient pollution from runoff and diffuse sources is managed through State
nonpoint source management programs, with federal funding for projects under Section 31 9 of the CWA.
CWA Section 31 9 funding for nonpoint source control projects in the Lake Erie Basin to date totals over $22
million, complementing an additional $19 million in matching funds from state and local partners. Projects,
most of which are in the WLEB, have focused on reducing nutrient losses from cropland, restoring stream
banks, establishing riparian buffers and upgrading septic systems. Estimated annual pollutant load reductions
from these projects total 1 27,454 pounds of phosphorus, 302,638 pounds of nitrogen and 88,741 tons of
sediment.
A critical backbone for the water programs are measurements of water quality conditions and stressors
through routine monitoring and assessment. Under Section 1 06 of the CWA, USEPA provides funding to states
to support their ambient water quality monitoring programs and their participation the
- a collaborative program between USEPA, states, and tribes designed to assess the
quality of the nation's coastal waters, lakes and reservoirs, rivers and streams, and wetlands using a statistical
Page 52
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
survey design. USEPA leverages national and state-level programs to monitor and report on trends in nutrients
and water quality conditions in Lake Erie waters specifically, as described in more detail below.
GREAT LAKES PROGRAMS
Created in 1 987, USEPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) serves as the liaison with Canada
and is specifically charged with coordinating actions of the Agency (including actions by headquarters and
regional offices thereof) with the actions of other federal agencies and state and local authorities to meet
GLWQA objectives and commitments. GLNPO is authorized under the Clean Water Act to monitor the water
quality of Great Lakes, and develop and implement action plans and strategies to improve Great Lakes
water quality.
The GLRI was launched in 201 0 with the goal to restore and maintain the environmental integrity of the Great
Lakes ecosystem, in accordance with the GLWQA and the CWA. USEPA's GLNPO coordinates implementation
of the GLRI, by leading an Interagency Task Force of 1 1 federal departments or agencies. The federal
partners fund work directly or through others such as states, tribes, cities, universities, and non-governmental
organizations. In December 201 6, as part of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN
Act), Congress placed USEPA's GLRI authorities in Section 1 1 8(c)(7) of the CWA. The WIIN Act authorized
$300 million per fiscal year from 2017 through 2021 to carry out activities in support of the GLRI and the
GLWQA.
A significant portion of GLRI investments are targeted to restoration and supporting science in high-priority
watersheds and receiving waters that have high potential or known risk for experiencing HABs and/or
hypoxia events, including the Fox River-Green Bay, Saginaw River-Saginaw Bay, and Maumee River-western
Lake Erie. GLRI has five focus areas As it pertains to HABs and hypoxia, funding and results from GLRI Focus
Area 3: "Reducing Nutrient Runoff that Contributes to Harmful/Nuisance Algal Blooms", Focus Area 4:
"Habitats and Species", and Focus Area 5: "Science-based Adaptive Management", all support work to
achieve GLWQA Annex 4 commitments. Attainment of GLWQA Annex 4 commitments will in turn contribute to
achievement of GLRI Action Plan goals.
Coordination is an essential aspect to implement the binational commitments under the GLWQA through the
GLRI and CWA programs.
As called for in the 201 2 amendments to the GLWQA, USEPA and Environment and Climate Change Canada
(ECCC) established a Great Lakes Executive Committee (GLEC) to help coordinate and implement the
programs and other measures undertaken to achieve the purpose of the GLWQA. To meet the commitments
under GLWQA Annex 4, USEPA co-chairs the Nutrients Annex Subcommittee with ECCC, which has
representation from more than 20 federal, state, and regional organizations.
Similarly, to meet the commitments under GLWQA Annex 2, USEPA and ECCC lead the development of
binational action plans for each Great Lake, known as Lakewide Action and Management Plans (LAMPs).
Through partnership with many stakeholders, these plans are intended to facilitate information sharing, set
priorities, and assist in coordinating binational environmental protection and restoration activities. The next
Lake Erie LAMP will be issued in 201 8. Actions to address nutrients identified in the Annex 4 DAPs will be
incorporated into the LAMP.
Page 53
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
GLRI
t
Great Lakes Interagency Task Force Chaired by
USEPA
t
Federal Agencies
GLWQA
t
International
Governing Bodies
~
Great Lakes Executive Committee Co-Chaired by
USEPA and Environment & Climate Change Canada
irst Nations and
Native American Canadian Provinces
Tribes
Industry
Coordination under GLRI and GLWQA. Though the GLRI and GLWQA function independently, there are
crossovers between the members and stakeholders. The GLRI is not a part of the GLWQA governance structure,
but if is a fool that provides information used to implement the GL WQA.
USEPA has conducted water quality surveys in Lake
Erie, twice a year in spring and summer since 1 983.
Measurements of water chemistry, including nutrients,
are collected from 20 fixed stations in the open
waters of Lake Erie. In addition, USEPA measures the
oxygen and temperature profiles at 1 0 sites in the
The Lake Guardian is the largest Great Lakes
research and monitoring vessel owned by U.S. EPA.
Long term monitoring programs
USEPA works with many partners to monitor and report on environmental status and trends. State of the Great
Lakes reports are produced jointly by USEPA and ECCC to provide independent, science-based reporting on
the health of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. These assessments are informed by GLNPO's long term
surveillance programs and by periodic intensive studies under the Cooperative Science and Monitoring
Initiative (CSMI). The CSMI is conducted on each Great Lake annually on a rotational basis. Lake Erie was the
CSMI Great Lake for 201 4. Planning is already
underway for the next CSMI in 201 9 in coordination
with other federal partners, states and universities.
Page 54
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Central Basin of Lake Erie throughout the stratified season each year. The annual dissolved oxygen (DO)
monitoring program helps to determine if the areal extent or duration of the oxygen-depleted area in the
bottom waters of the Central Basin of Lake Erie is improving or further deteriorating. These long term data
are a critical resource for federal and state water quality agencies to assess the effectiveness of phosphorous
load reduction programs.
IM
MICHIGAN
ER 92
Ell60 ER91M
CANADA
ER 30
ER 38
ER 31
ER78M ER 32
ER 37 a
__ ER73 ER 36
ER 42 0 q
ER 43
W-
ER 10
ER 09
ER 15M
ER 63
NEW
YORK
PENNSYLVANIA
ER 59
ER 58
40
OHIO
80
ZD Miles
Legend
Open Lake Stations
GLNPO Water Quality Survey Sampling Stations. All 20 sites in Lake Erie are sampled for nutrients each
spring and summer. In addition, the 1 0 sites in the central basin are studied more intensely for hypoxia
annually.
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the federal law that protects public drinking water supplies
throughout the nation. Under the SDWA, USEPA sets standards for drinking water quality and with its partners
implements various technical and financial programs to ensure drinking water safety. Congress passed the
SDWA in 1 974. It was most recently amended in 2015 with the passage of the Drinking Water Protection
Act, which requires USEPA to develop and report to Congress a strategic plan outlining the risks to human
health from drinking water provided by public water systems contaminated with algal toxins and to
Page 55
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
recommend feasible treatment options, including procedures and source water protection practices, to
mitigate any adverse public health effects of algal toxins.
Algal toxins are not currently regulated under the SDWA. In 2015, USEPA developed, and submitted to
Congress, the outlining how the Agency will
continue to assess and manage algal toxins in drinking water.
USEPA has included cyanobacteria and multiple cyanotoxins in the published of unregulated contaminants
to be monitored by public water systems as required by the SDWA. Ten (1 0) cyanotoxins were included in the
fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule ( ), proposed on December 1 1, 201 5 to be
monitored between 201 8 and 2020 using USEPA approved analytical methods. This monitoring provides a
basis for future regulatory determinations and, as warranted, actions to protect public health. In 201 5, USEPA
developed Health Advisories (HA) for two cyanobacteria I toxins, and supporting guidance for states and
utilities. USEPA is developing a
to protect the public from incidental ingestion of
these two cyanotoxins during primary contact recreation.
NATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
USEPA supports a that studies the pathways and effects of nutrients on ecosystems
and focuses in finding innovative and optimal solutions to reduce nutrient pollution. USEPA is conducting a
national study on i.e., how to control nutrients, develop and implement water treatment
technologies at municipal wastewater plants. USEPA also helped manage the
which allowed teams from all over the world to participate in developing affordable dissolved nitrate and/or
phosphate sensors.
USEPA is leading a multi-agency project among the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), to develop
an early warning indicator system using historical and current satellite data to detect algal blooms in U.S.
freshwater systems. The Cyanobacteria Assessment Network (CyAN) project supports federal, state, and local
partners in their monitoring efforts to assess water quality to protect aquatic and human health.
USEPA is leveraging its programs and authorities to accelerate nutrient reductions and the supporting science
needed to inform and target new implementation efforts. Many new and innovative projects are being
funded under GLRI that will have direct impact on achievement of phosphorus reduction goals in Lake Erie.
USEPA is also working to enhance state and national programs to monitor and report on trends in nutrients
and water quality conditions in Lake Erie nearshore waters and in tributary watersheds.
Accelerating nonpoint source nutrient reduction
In an effort to accelerate implementation of nonpoint source projects at the local level, USEPA has offered
competitive funding opportunities for implementation of watershed management plans under the GLRI nearly
Page 56
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
every year since 201 0. These projects add significantly to the funding opportunities typically available for
this type of work under base federal and state nonpoint programs. For example, federal funding under CWA
31 9 totaled $22M for nonpoint projects in Lake Erie from 2002-2015 and reported phosphorus reductions of
1 27,454 lbs. From 201 0-201 5, USEPA funded $26 M in GLRI grants for agricultural nutrient reduction and
$1 0 M for urban stormwater projects in Lake Erie. These projects are expected to provide an additional
200,000 lbs phosphorus reduction.
Pay for performance
USEPA is supporting a number of pilot programs in GLRI priority watersheds aimed at testing non-traditional
funding options to accelerate the implementation of conservation practices in agricultural areas. For example,
in 201 7, USEPA provided a GLRI grant to support a pilot Phosphorus Risk Reduction project in the River Raisin
watershed. The project aims to equip farmers with tools to help identify fields most at risk for phosphorus and
sediment loss, compare conservation practice benefits, and plan manure/fertilizer application to reduce
runoff. Farmers, conservation technicians, and private industry partners will work together to implement the
pilot through a unique grassroots engagement process. Project partners will build upon existing capacity in the
watershed to accelerate the adoption of needed conservation practices in the River Raisin Watershed to help
meet the 40% phosphorus reduction targets in the Western Lake Erie basin.
Improved watershed monitoring and assessments in WLEB
USEPA is partnering with WLEB States to improve watershed monitoring and assessments, including
development of nutrient TMDLs, in several Lake Erie watersheds. In the Maumee river basin in particular,
USEPA is working with Indiana, Michigan and Ohio, to establish a water quality monitoring network to track
phosphorus loads and concentrations against the Annex 4 targets. This effort will require new and continued
investments in high frequency monitoring to accurately capture loads and dissolved phosphorus contributions.
USEPA is also supporting these states in establishing targets and baselines for subwatersheds to the Maumee.
Currently, a contractor to USEPA is developing a protocol for assessing whether the TMDLs for upstream
watersheds (specifically the St. Joseph and Tiffin rivers) are sufficient to meet the Annex 4 goals downstream.
This analysis is unique for the TMDL program and will be critically important to determining how future state
TMDLs are developed to assist in meeting the goals of Annex 4.
Enhanced rtearshore monitoring
USEPA is coordinating CWA and GLRI programs and funding to support enhanced monitoring of Lake Erie
nearshore areas. In 201 0, the Great Lakes was fully incorporated into USEPA's National Coastal Condition
Assessment (NCCA) for the first time. The NCCA - one of four National Aquatic Resource Surveys - is designed
to yield unbiased estimates of the condition of the nearshore waters and to assess changes over time. The
201 0 Great Lakes assessment found that over 30% of Lake Erie's nearshore waters were in poor condition
for excess phosphorus. The 201 5 survey was enhanced with 34 additional Lake Erie sites to allow for more
refined assessments of the western, central and eastern basins. Furthermore, USEPA provided CWA and GLRI
funds to support Ohio's development of a new nearshore monitoring program, built on the NCCA the
. The program assesses water quality and habitat annually
and in 201 6 transects were added to map the central basin anoxic zone.
Page 57
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Total Phosphorus
100
i
--
T [
Ji
T
A
sn
PL It
1
fiu
Lake Lake Lake Lake Erie Lake
Superior Michigan Huron Ontario
ฆ Good ~ Fair HHPoor ฆ Missing
Caption: Nearshore waters condition assessment for phosphorus from
2010 Great Lakes Technical Memorandum
In-lake monitoring and modeling
In support of the 201 4 Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative (CSMI), the Ohio Lake Erie Commission
secured a grant from USEPA to assemble a team of researchers with expertise in lake sediment sampling and
experimentation, watershed monitoring and modeling, and lake ecosystem simulation modeling. The study,
, demonstrated through in-lake sediment sampling and modeling, that internal phosphorus
loading from sediments is a relatively minor contributor to the development of HABs. The results confirmed the
central importance of the Maumee River as a source of phosphorus during the critical spring period leading to
development of HABs.
Cladophora research
USEPA is working with USGS, NOAA and academic partners to develop a Cladophora Research Program. The
program will consist of concerted monitoring efforts at sentinel sites, coupled with enhancements to Cladophora
growth models to better understand Cladophora growth and allow for future development of phosphorus
targets in Lake Erie's eastern basin and the other Great Lakes. We intend to enhance and build on Canada's
monitoring of the northern shore of Lake Erie by conducting exploratory monitoring on the U.S. side in 201 8;
this will be followed by a more intensive effort in 201 9 under CSMI. The goal is to update Cladophora growth
models so that by 2020, we can determine whether a phosphorus target can be developed for the eastern
basin of Erie to minimize the impacts of nuisance benthic algae.
Page 58
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
USD A
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) promotes innovation in agriculture and preservation of our Nation's
natural resources through conservation, restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working
lands. Multiple agencies within USDA implement programs to address conservation needs and improve
effectiveness of agricultural management measures through innovative research and education. USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides voluntary, incentive-based conservation technical and
financial assistance to landowners through local field offices in nearly every county of the nation. NRCS also
conducts leading edge research to assess the effects of conservation practices and programs through the
Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP). The USDA also supports intramural and extramural research,
extension and education efforts through the Agricultural Research Service (ARS, intramural research) and the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA, extramural research, education and extension) to develop
and improve best management practices for agricultural production, ensuring a safe and abundant food and
fiber supply while preserving natural resources.
V";:: r " G < v "> ,4 i n :> 5>
NRCS FARM BILL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) assists landowners in developing conservation plans
and enrolling private working lands into conservation programs, working with more than 500,000 farmers
and ranchers nationwide to implement conservation practices that prevent soil erosion, protect wildlife habitat,
and promote clean air and water. NRCS provides technical and financial assistance to producers in the Lake
Erie watershed through voluntary Conservation Technical Assistance Program (CTA), the Environmental Quality
Incentive Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the Agricultural Conservation Easement
Program (ACEP), and the new Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP).
CTA is the 'Boots on the Ground' professional NRCS Conservation Planners that are available to any
group or individual interested in conserving our natural resources and sustaining agricultural
production in this country.
EQIP assists people in reducing soil erosion, enhancing water supplies, improving water quality,
increasing wildlife habitat, and reducing damages caused by floods and other natural disasters. EQIP
incorporates National, State and Local priorities into ranking of applications.
CSP is the largest conservation program in the United States with 70 million acres of productive
agricultural and forest land enrolled and is completely focused on working lands. CSP helps farmers
build on their existing conservation efforts while strengthening their operation's financial bottom line.
ACEP protects the long-term viability of the nation's food supply by preventing conversion of
productive working lands to non-agricultural uses. NRCS provides financial assistance to eligible
partners for purchasing Agricultural Land Easements under ACEP that protect the agricultural use and
conservation values of eligible land.
A new program in the 201 4 Farm Bill is the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). Under
this program, nearly $40 million has been awarded to four projects in the Great Lakes region,
including a significant project in the WLEB: the Tri-State Western Lake Erie Basin Phosphorus Reduction
Initiative. This RCPP project rallies together more than 40 partners to spur voluntary conservation
practices that will reduce phosphorus runoff in the WLEB. NRCS dedicated $1 7.5 million matched by
$36 million from partners.
Page 59
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
The Western Lake Erie Basin of the Great Lakes (WLEB) was made a special priority area by USDA in 201 2.
NRCS prioritizes the delivery of conservation assistance on private agricultural lands using several methods.
Each NRCS State Conservationist is advised by a State Technical Committee made up of stakeholders from
federal and state natural resource agencies, American Indian Tribes, agricultural and environmental
organizations, and agricultural producers. They provide information, analysis, and recommendations on the
implementation of the natural resources conservation authorities of the agency, in addition, local partners at
the county level provide input for prioritizing resource concerns under EQIP. These two mechanisms are critical
to the NRCS model of locally lead conservation.
GLRI PRIORITY WATERSHEDS
The Maumee River basin is one of four GLRI Priority Watersheds for nutrient reduction to address harmful
algal blooms. NRCS, in partnership with USEPA, implements the GLRI to provide additional targeted
assistance to address GLRI Action Plan objectives through EQIP and CTA program authorities. GLRI EQIP
applications are funded on a competitive basis considering factors that reduce soil loss, improve water
quality, reduce nutrients in surface water, and focus limited funds to the most vulnerable soils around Lake
Erie. EQIP application screening and ranking criteria are informed by science and assessments, to help
identify the applications yielding the greatest benefits. NRCS also collaborates with USGS, USEPA, and USDA
ARS to conduct edge of field monitoring in GLRI priority watersheds.
GLRI priority watersheds are determined with
state and local input, and informed with analysis
of geospatial data, agricultural extent and
conservation opportunities, water quality model
results (e.g. SPARROW and CEAP Cropland
Assessment results), other watershed condition
information (e.g. CWA 303d listings) and
consideration for monitoring or assessment in the
watershed. This process resulted in the selection
of two Phosphorus Priority Areas within the
larger WLEB GLRI Priority Watershed being
jointly recognized by USDA-NRCS, USEPA-
Great Lakes National Program Office, USGS,
and NOAA National Weather Service: the
Blanchard River in Ohio, and the St. Marys and
Upper Maumee subwatersheds in Indiana. In
both of these areas, NRCS collaborates with
multiple partners to prioritize funding for
phosphorus reduction and edge of field
monitoring activities.
~ Phosphorus Priority Areas
| STATE BOUNDARIES
Great Lakes Basin
Location of GLRI Priority Phosphorus Reduction Areas (shaded
green) within the WLEB watershed. There are 5 priority areas
in the Great Lakes basin, these areas marked 2 and 3 refer to
the St. Marys/Upper Maumee, and Blanchard River,
respectively. More detailed maps of these areas are
available at:
https:/ / www.eDa.aov/sites / production/files/2016-
1 2/documents/201 6-alri-rfa-supplementary-material-
20161 21 6-7pp.pdf
Page 60
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
WESTERN LAKE ERIE BASIN INITIATIVE
In March 201 6, USDA began implementing the WLEB Initiative: a new strategy which aims to double the level
of conservation applied in the WLEB through additional targeted assistance. USDA will invest an additional
$41 million, for a combined three-year investment of $77 million so that, by the end of 201 8, NRCS estimates
that it will be able to assist farmers in applying conservation systems on about 870,000 acres of cultivated
cropland across the WLEB.
NRCS had been active in the Lake Erie watershed prior to the 201 6 WLEB Initiative. Since 2009, NRCS has
invested over $73 million in technical and financial assistance to farmers in the WLEB through Farm Bill
Programs. The conservation improvements they have made through more than 2,000 conservation contracts
now cover more than 580,000 acres. Farmers and landowners in the region have stepped up, and with their
help the conservation practices these funds supported reduced edge of field annual nutrient and sediment
losses by an estimated 7 million pounds of nitrogen, 1.2 million pounds of phosphorous, and 488,000 tons of
sediment between 2009 and 2014.
Taken together, the combination of Farm Bill (WLEB Initiative, RCPP, and other Farm Bill programs) and GLRI
funding is expected to significantly increase the rate of adoption of conservation practices in the WLEB. To
illustrate, the chart below summarizes the amount of financial assistance to farmers and livestock producers in
the Lake Erie basin from 201 0-2017.
NRCS Assistance in the Lake Erie Watershed, 201 0-2017
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000 1 I WLEB initiative
l RCPP
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
I
l GLRI
Other Farm Bill Programs
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Source: USDA NRCS. A total of $ 109 million was obligated to farmer contracts from 2010-2017 to reduce soil loss and
improve water quality. Assuming a flat cost-share rate of 75% in most instances, farmers would have matched these funds with
additional $36 million, for a total investment of $ 145 million over the 8-year period.
Page 61
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
CONSERVATION EFFECTS ASSESSMENTS
The Conservation Effects Assessment Project, or CEAP, is a multi-agency effort to quantify the environmental
effects of conservation practices and programs and develop the science base for managing the agricultural
landscape for environmental quality. CEAP findings are used to guide USDA conservation policy and program
development and delivery and help stakeholders, including policy-makers, conservationists, farmers and
ranchers, make more informed conservation decisions. CEAP assessments in the Western Lake Erie Basin are
carried out at basin, small watershed, and edge of field scales and address various ecosystem services
related to agroecological systems, including but not limited to water, air, and soil quality, yields, and
biodiversity on cropland and for wildlife resource concerns.
A number of recent CEAP publications are highly relevant to nutrient management efforts in Lake Erie. The
results and science from these studies have been used to inform both federal and state programs and
strategies in the basin under this Domestic Action Plan. For example, a national synthesis of the CEAP findings
and lessons learned were published in 201 2 and used to inform NRCS program design and delivery including
GLRI's Priority Watershed approach, methods for estimating P reductions annually and updates to
conservation practice standards. Results from future and on-going CEAP assessments will be used to support
documentation of progress and metrics for this Domestic Action Plan.
To access CEAP reports and storymaps, visit:
The CEAP-1 National Assessment (2003-06) was the first time CEAP-Cropland provided a regional
assessment of the "current" conservation efforts in the Great Lakes region, including estimating rates
and types of conservation adoption; their impacts on soils, yields, and water quality; and ongoing
conservation needs. CEAP-1 generated a report on the Great Lakes Region released in 201 1. CEAP-
2 will provide an updated version (2015-2016) of this assessment.
"Effects of Conservation Practice Adoption on Cultivated Cropland Acres in Western Lake Erie
Basin, 2003-06 and 2012", released in 201 6, found that conservation efforts increased between the
two survey periods. Assessment of phosphorus management practices showed phosphorus application
rates declined, use of improved phosphorus application methods increased, and phosphorus
application timing remained unchanged. At the same time, use of complementary structural practices
to reduce sediment losses and surface flow losses increased. Model assessment suggests the
conservation practices adopted between 2003-06 and 201 2 reduced phosphorus losses from
cultivated cropland in the Western Lake Erie Basin by 1 1.4 million pounds per year.
"Conservation Practice Adoption on Cultivated Cropland Acres: Effects on Instream Nutrient and
Sediment Dynamics in Western Lake Erie Basin, 2003-06 and 2012" (2017). This analysis considers
the impact of conservation adoption on instream and delivery dynamics of nutrient and sediment and
draws attention to the need to consider legacy loads and associated time-lags when setting
conservation goals and determining metrics of success. Once fully functional, conservation practices
adopted between 2003-06 and 201 2 will further reduce edge of field phosphorus losses from
cropland by 17 percent, reduce phosphorus deposition in the Western Lake Erie hydrological system
by 30 percent, and reduce phosphorus delivery to Lake Erie by 3 percent, relative to 2003-06
values. Note: this survey period ended in 201 2, and as noted in the 201 6 Cropland Assessment,
conservation efforts increased after that time.
Page 62
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Western Lake Erie Basin Conservation Effects Assessment Project - Wildlife "(2016). USDA NRCS
and ARS in partnership with The Nature Conservancy and The Ohio State University developed a
process for assessing and predicting stream fish community condition response to agricultural
conservation practices. Results showed that many streams in the WLEB have high levels of sediment
and nutrients that potentially limit fish community health in more than 1 0,000 km of streams and rivers,
representing more than 50% of the watershed, and that suites of practices are needed to achieve
measurable improvements to fish communities. Results also showed that, while improvements in stream
health could be made by maintaining current conservation practice treatment levels and further
treating farm acres in high-need of treatment (~8% of the watershed), a much larger portion of the
watershed (48%) needs to be treated to achieve widespread benefits for stream fishes. The findings
are being used to help identify areas within the WLEB where additional agricultural conservation
treatment will result in the most benefit to stream fish communities.
Watershed-scale Assessments of the Effects of Conservation Practices. The CEAP Watersheds
component quantifies cumulative changes in water quality and changes in processes due to
conservation practices implemented within a watershed through both monitoring and modeling in small
watersheds and within (subwatersheds and fields). Three CEAP studies in the WLEB recently ended in
the Auglaize, the Tiffin and Rock Creek in the Sandusky. One study remains active in the St. Joseph
River watershed in Indiana, and another was recently added for the Blanchard River Ohio starting in
201 8. Results from these studies are published in peer reviewed journals and include findings on the
need for systems of conservation practices, tradeoffs among practices, tile drainage and dissolved
phosphorous contributions, and new innovative practices.
ARS EDGE OF FIELD RESEARCH
The USDA Agricultural Research Service Soil Drainage
Research Unit located in Columbus, Ohio, has
established a water quality monitoring network
dedicated to quantifying the impacts of agricultural
practices on edge of field water quality. The current
network is comprised of 40 monitored fields on 20
separate farms across the intensively drained region
of Ohio. A majority of the sites are located in the
Western Lake Erie Basin. The first edge of field
monitoring sites were installed in 2003, with
additional sites instrumented over the past twelve
years. Since its inception, the edge of field monitoring
network has facilitated multidisciplinary research
efforts aimed at developing solutions for the complex
water quality problems found in tile-drained
landscapes. The edge of field monitoring network has
been an integral component of several regional and
national initiatives including NRCS CEAP, the GLRI, the
new Western Lake Erie Basin Initiative and multiple
Conservation Innovation Grants with university
partners and non-governmental organizations.
Recently, the edge of field monitoring network has
Photo of edge of field runoff from Williams et al. 2016
11 http://lakeerieceap.com
Page 63
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
also become part of the Eastern Corn Belt Long-Term Agroecosystem Research Network, The Ohio State
University Field to Faucet Initiative, and the 4R Research Project.
NIFA RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND EXTENSION
USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) invests in and provides national leadership to advance
agricultural research, education, an extension to solve societal challenges by providing competitive and
capacity funding grants. Through support to both land grant universities and local offices of the Cooperative
Extension System, NIFA is supports delivery of science-based information to a range of audiences to improve
practices and support communities. Extension, in partnership with NIFA, translates research into action by
bringing cutting-edge discoveries from research laboratories to those who can put knowledge into practice.
Land-Grant University System faculty and staff experts extend extension's reach even further by providing
science-based content for eXtension.org. This site offers an online resource where users have continual access
to research information on a wide range of topics, fosters collaboration between Extension professionals, and
even supports education that provides Continuing Education Units to certified agricultural professionals.
An important resource for research and extension on issues related to agricultural nutrient management and
water quality is the Southern Extension and Research Activity (SERA) 17 ( ),an
information exchange group administered through the Southern Region Land Grant Universities. SERA-17
functions on a voluntary basis with over 300 members from around the world, and is the "go-to" organization
for expert, up-to-date science-based information on agricultural nutrient management (particularly P).
Reauthorized in 201 3, the Hatch Multistate Committee SERA-17: Innovative Solutions to Minimize
Phosphorus Losses from Agriculture is identifying P sensitive watersheds and water bodies and expanding
and improving upon the Phosphorus Index site assessment tool, an integral part of a nutrient management
plan. Work on this tool includes developing best management practices to reduce agricultural P losses, animal
manure application strategies to reduce nutrient run off, and new soil testing methods that can more
accurately identify sites where P loss will be of significant environmental concern.
National Integrated Water Quality program (NIWQP)
The NIWQP was supported by the Section 406 Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1 998 until 2014, when the program last received appropriations to support grants for applied research,
extension and education projects for universities. NIWQP supported a Great Lakes Regional Water Quality
Coordination Program at one time for integrated land grant university research, education and extension
programming in the region. This program worked on issues such as drainage management, nutrient and
manure management, social indicators, behavior change and training to support adoption and maintenance
for conservation, e.g. the manure applicators training network. It also promoted collaboration and
collaborative projects between land grant programs and sea grant programs within and across institutions.
Some of the integrated watershed projects supported by the NIWQP are still ongoing. Topics include
conservation effects assessment in the WLEB (as part of CEAP), two-stage ditches and water quality; drainage
spacing and drainage water management practices for water quality; and human dimension of agricultural
producer nutrient management practices and conservation behavior. The Ohio State University also received
funding through the NIWQP to improve surface water quality by improving the education and outreach
efforts to current and future streamside landowners in the risk-based context of degraded watersheds in the
Great Lakes region. Some of this prior effort evolved into the North Central Water Program, which currently
offers webinars and educational programming on agriculture, water quality, and watershed planning.
Page 64
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)
AFRI was established by Congress in the 2008 Farm Bill and re-authorized in the 201 4 Farm Bill. NIFA's AFRI
funding portfolio includes both single- and multi-function research, education, and extension grants that
address key problems of national, regional, and multi-state importance. AFRI-funded projects sustain all
components of agriculture, including farm efficiency and profitability, ranching, renewable energy, forestry
(both urban and agroforestry), aquaculture, rural communities and entrepreneurship, human nutrition, food
safety, biotechnology, and conventional breeding. Within the AFRI, there are several areas that support
research to improve water quality, natural resource management, and the environmental impact of
agricultural production.
The Water for Agriculture Challenge Area supports the development of management practices, technologies,
and tools for farmers, ranchers, forest owners and managers, public decision makers, public and private
managers, and citizens to improve water resource quantity and quality. The AFRI Foundational Program has
an existing priority on Sustainable Agroecosystems: Functions, Processes and Management. This program
supports research projects that will lead to substantial improvements in water, nutrient, carbon, and/or land
use efficiencies or footprints, or improvements to impaired natural resources and ecosystem services.
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
The USDA SBIR program operates under the authority of the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 201 6. The
program has ten program areas; such as Air, Water, and Soil and Aquaculture; that provides competitive
grants to qualified small businesses to support high quality research related to important scientific problems
and opportunities in agriculture that could lead to significant public benefits. A 2014 Phase I project was
awarded to Metamateria Technologies in Ohio to look at the feasibility developing a controlled drainage
technology using novel nano-engineered porous ceramic media that can control nutrients and trace
pharmaceuticals in the agricultural drainage discharge, with a specific emphasis of reducing P loading into
Lake Erie.
NRCS is collaborating with other agencies, universities and organizations on numerous innovative projects.
These projects demonstrate how USDA is applying over 80 years of experience, science-based assessment,
and on-the-ground success, to meet the challenges in Lake Erie.
Western Lake Erie Basin Initiative Strategy
The WLEB Initiative is one of the key results of a series of partner workshops NRCS held in fall 2015 to
develop recommendations for accelerating conservation in the Basin. The initiative further sharpens the focus
of NRCS investments and helps increase the impact of ongoing work by conservation groups and state and
local governments. This partnership will work with data from the CEAP Reports and other sources along with
the recommendations of farmers and other conservation partners to match the right conservation solution to the
unique qualities of each field to maximize the impact of each dollar invested.
Page 65
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
The goal of the WLEB Initiative is to accelerate conservation opportunities for agricultural producers in several
ways.
The WLEB Initiative invests an additional $41 million, for a combined three-year investment of $77
million, effectively doubling the amount of funding available for technical and financial assistance to
implement conservation practices.
As a result of these conservation investments, edge of field losses will be reduced by more than
640,000 pounds of total phosphorus (annually), 1 75,000 pounds that is in the form of soluble
phosphorus12. These edge of field phosphorus reductions will contribute to reducing the phosphorus
load reaching tributaries that empty into Lake Erie.
NRCS gives priority consideration for financial assistance to highly vulnerable soils, particularly in
areas draining directly to Lake Erie tributaries.
The four elements of the Initiative strategy are: avoid excess nutrient application, control nutrient and
sediment movement, trap nutrient and sediment losses and manage hydrological pathways to reduce
nutrient and sediment losses.
Erie P Market: A Multi-Jurisdictional Water Quality Trading Framework for Western Lake Erie
The Erie P Market project was launched in early 201 6 through a two-year Conservation Innovation
Grant from NRCS to develop and test a multijurisdictional framework for water quality trading in
the WLEB. Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio participate, with Ontario observing to share experiences. Modeled
after the Ohio River Basin water quality trading project (Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky), Erie P Market seeks to
explore the potential for water quality trading to as another tool to achieve a WLEB phosphorus reduction
targets.
Demonstration Farms
Demonstration Farms are sites where universities, government agencies, the local farmer and the general
public can gather to review active water quality research and agricultural best management practices as well
as innovative practices. One such site is the Blanchard River Demonstration Farms Network (BRDFN) - a joint
partnership between NRCS and the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation launched in 201 6. BRDFN is designed to
showcase and demonstrate leading edge conservation practices on agricultural land to improve water quality.
This project will test new and standard conservation systems for reducing phosphorus and share lessons
learned with farmers, agribusiness, conservation agencies and the public. For more information, see:
New CEAP Watersheds projects in WLEB
A new small watershed assessment study under CEAP was initiated in 201 8 in the Blanchard River Watershed.
The assessment, funded by USDA NRCS, in partnership with USDA ARS and Heidelberg University, will be
carried out over 3 to 5 years initially but is desired to be a long-term project. USGS is also a partner and will
be supporting stream gages within the study watersheds. The study will relate water quality and soil changes
within paired watersheds to conservation practices on the ground to assess watershed water quality
effectiveness. In the future, local partners on the project will be able to extend insights on the effectiveness of
practices in conjunction with the existing outreach and demonstration efforts such as the Blanchard River
Demonstration Farms and Blanchard River Watershed Partnership.
In addition, NRCS and ARS recently established a new CEAP Watersheds project to evaluate the progressive
and cumulative effects of stacking conservation practices as part of a system. A new and innovative project
12
Page 66
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
initiated in 2016 in the Western Lake Erie Basin will measure reductions from implementing a series of
conservation practices in a treatment train. As practices are implemented, phosphorus reductions will be
assessed in the field, at the edge of field and instream.
Designing and Evaluating More Effective Conservation Practices for Phosphorous Removal
USDA ARS has been working in partnership with NRCS under CEAP Watershed Assessments to identify the
need for new or modified conservation practice standards, and evaluate those for performance over time.
Continued long-term assessment of newly developed practice standards is important to determine the practice
life span per design standards as well as any future operational or maintenance needs to maintain
effectiveness over time, in support of adaptive management, new practices are designed specifically to
target other flow paths or sources of nutrients, based on new knowledge. These innovative practices include
the Phosphorous Removal Structure and the Blind Inlet, among others.
Recently, a new phosphorous removal structure was installed under the design of USDA ARS in a farm field in
Ohio to treat tile drainage. The Phosphorous Removal Structure (shown below) is designed to collect untreated
tile drainage water, which contains dissolved phosphorous, filter the untreated drainage water through steel
slag (or other phosphorous removal medium), and allow the filtered and now treated water to flow out of a
collection pipe and into a drainage ditch. This practice is designed to focus treatment on the dissolved or
soluble forms of phosphorous, which are known to be important for minimizing algal blooms in Lake Erie.
Downward
flow through
PSM
Upward flow
through PSM
Distribution manifold for
^ untreated water
< Collection
manifold for
outlet
Tile inlet:
untreated
water
Treated water outlet
Impermeable liner/layer
Tile
inlet: untreated water
Collection
manifold for
outlet
vertical pipe
carrying --
untreated
water
downward
Distribution manifold
for untreated water
^Treated
water outlet
Removing Phosphorous from Tile Drainage Water: The structure can be designed have water flow from the top-downward
(a) or the bottom-upward (b). Design b is useful for sites that are limited based on hydraulic head due to a shallow drainage
ditch, flat landscape, or a current tile outlet drain located near the bottom of a drainage ditch. Diagram by Stan Livingston,
USDA-ARS. Penn, C.J., Bowen, J.M. 2017. Design and construction of phosphorus removal structures for improving water
quality. Imps://www.ars.usda.aov/research/publications/publication/?seaNo 1 15=344469
Page 67
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Science-based management of agricultural drainage channels in the WLEB
Two-stage ditches and other alternative channel designs in agricultural drainage can be more sustainable
than traditional channelization practices and reduce nutrient and sediment loss. Ohio State University is
conducting social science research, including semi-structured interviews with county drainage officials and
surveys of landowners in the WLEB, to identify important barriers to adoption of alternative channel designs.
Understanding these barriers will help tailor outreach and education efforts, and target extension to areas
where adoption of this innovative practice will have the greatest effect on improving water quality.
Transforming Drainage
This USDA NIFA-funded and Purdue University-led project brings a team of researchers and extension
specialists in the Midwest together to address the need to provide more secure water for crops throughout the
growing season while maintaining adequate drainage during wet periods and limiting nutrient losses through
practices that store water in the landscape. This project delivers extension-based programming across the
Great Lakes region, with several field sites in the Lake Erie basin.
One practice being tested, saturated buffers, stores water within the soil of field buffers by diverting tile
water into shallow laterals that raise the water table within the buffer and slows outflow. The research on
saturated buffers suggests that they are effective at removing nitrate from tile drain water before it is
discharged into surface waters. Another practice, controlled drainage, has been shown to be effective in
reducing the outflow of water and nitrate-nitrogen from drainage systems. The project is also looking at a
closed loop system of drainage water recycling, in which drainage water is recirculated onto the same field,
or water drained from one field can be used to irrigate another field.
DRAINAGE WATER RECYCLING
Image from ttp:
CONTROLLED DRAINAGE
SATURATED BUFFERS
%>
Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) pilot project in WLEB
Developed by USDA ARS, National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment in Ames IA, Environmental
Defense Fund and The Nature Conservancy, in partnership with USDA NRCS CIG and CEAP, and with
contributions from Environmental Defense Fund and The Nature Conservancy, the ACPF tool comprises a
framework and geospatial approach for incorporating precision conservation concepts and a systems
approach to conservation into the agricultural watershed planning process. NRCS and ARS are planning to use
ACPF with universities and conservation partners in the region as a pilot project in 6 selected watersheds in
the WLEB. The ACPF framework is receptive to landowner and community preferences, is compatible with
voluntary implementation policies, and could be used to inform more effective small watershed (HUC 12)
conservation strategies. The framework identifies many options to locate multiple practices and scenarios that
Page 68
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
can be evaluated as part of the comprehensive conservation planning and program delivery processes at
watershed and farm level scales. It focuses on effective citing of edge of field practices for greatest effect
within a small watershed. Traditional as well as innovative practices and trapping practices, such as wetlands,
are included. This pilot will also help the ACPF development team adjust and expand the ACPF for WLEB
landscapes and practices used there.
Linking Soil Health Assessment to Edge of Field Water Quality in the Great Lakes Basin
NRCS is working with researchers at the University of Wisconsin Green Bay, Purdue University, and the
USGS Water Science Centers to conduct soil quality assessments in concert with the GLRI edge of field
monitoring programs. The focus of this project is to establish standardized, in-field soil health monitoring
protocols for edge of field sites, create a robust baseline dataset of soil health at edge of field sites, and
connect field-scale soil health parameters with the water quality leaving these fields. For more information:
Page 69
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has leveraged several authorities that have provided Interagency
Partners and related stakeholders with broad technical support and site specific activities related to
addressing the increase of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in the Western Lake Erie Basin (WLEB) of the Great
Lakes. It has become clear that achieving the reduction of phosphorus (P) loads from the Maumee River
watershed to reduce the HABs will require collaborative and adaptive approaches. A combination of actions
will be needed including: improved fertilizer management; and measures to minimize losses of P from the
field, edge of field, riparian zones, and instream. It is these latter two areas of action (riparian and instream
P reductions) that the USACE is currently working on.
Cu;: r?.;. O C > n ;.j i"";?: A-rf ^ I r:
Two of the most noteworthy USACE authorities applied to addressing concerns related to HABs include the
Great Lakes Tributary Modeling Program (GLTM) and the Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research
Program (EMRRP). Data and models that were originally developed under the USACE GLTM have been
further refined and then applied in several subsequent projects led by other federal and state agencies and
research programs to help understand the causes, establish targets, and evaluate potential solutions to meet
the targets necessary to address the HAB problem in the WLEB. These watershed, river, and lake models
were crucial to the establishment of the 40% Phosphorus (P) load reduction target for the WLEB and to
gaining consensus among agencies and researchers on the challenges of and potential approaches to meeting
the targets.
In addition to the work conducted under the GLTM and EMRRP that is specifically geared toward HABs issues,
USACE is also conducting projects and has established interagency partnerships under other authorities such as
the Great Lakes Fisheries and Ecosystem Restoration (GLFER) and Section 441 of the Water Resources
Development Act. The projects and partnerships conducted under these authorities are potentially synergistic
opportunities to address P reduction while meeting the missions of the authorities. For example, wetlands or
stream restoration projects for flood mitigation, or habitat restoration projects could also potentially provide
water quality improvements through nutrient reductions. In addition, the WLEB Partnership facilitates the multi-
agency and stakeholder collaboration that will be necessary to achieve the P load reductions in the Maumee
basin.
USACE-related work performed in the Maumee River basin under each of these authorities (GLTMP, EMRRP,
GLFER, and Section 441) are described below.
GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODELING PROGRAM (GLTM)
The GLTM program was established through Section 51 6(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1 996. This authority enables USACE to develop tools to assist state and local agencies with the planning and
implementation of measures for soil conservation, sedimentation and nonpoint source pollution prevention.
Models with underlying data can be developed at all tributaries to the Great Lakes that discharge to federal
navigation channels or Areas of Concern (AOCs). The ultimate goal of this program is to reduce watershed
loadings of sediments and pollutants from tributaries in order to enhance Great Lakes water quality, delist
Great Lakes AOCs, and reduce the need for navigation dredging.
Page 70
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Modeling work in Western Lake Erie Basin (WLEB) that predated the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)
was coordinated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) and USDA Agricultural Research Station (ARS) and provided enormous benefits related to
accelerating a better understanding best management practices that would later be directly used to help
evaluate scenarios informing Lake Erie agricultural nutrient management. The GLTM program provides USACE
with the authority to develop models but these models are then handed off to stakeholders that can help
facilitate the implementation of prioritized management actions across the watershed. There were two types
of models developed under the GLTM for the Maumee basin: river/lake models and watershed models. The
river/lake model has become the Western Lake Erie Ecosystem Model (WLEEM), operated by Limnotech in
support of many WLEB projects.
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION RESEARCH PROGRAM (EMRRP)
The EMRRP is USACE's responsive, tactical research and development response to the demand for new and
expanding technologies to address the need for ecosystem assessment, restoration, and management activities
at the project level. The EMRRP provides rapid, cost-effective technology to meet USACE's most pressing
research and development needs in functional assessment, restoration, and stewardship of high priority
ecosystems. The EMRRP is targeted toward ecosystems of particular concern to USACE, namely: streams,
riparian corridors, wetlands, and special aquatic sites. Technologies developed under the EMRRP build upon a
sound understanding of ecosystem functions, which lead to sustainable stewardship of USACE resources.
Under EMRRP, USACE has initiated an effort to evaluate the potential utility of wetlands in reducing
phosphorus loading to the WLEB. Wetlands, both natural and designed, have long been understood to
provide water quality improvement benefits, including nutrient reduction. The main challenge to large-scale
implementation of wetlands used to reduce phosphorus in agricultural runoff is in identifying the factors that
optimize phosphorus removal. The current USACE scope of work includes several initial studies that will
advance the body of knowledge regarding wetland optimization for phosphorus removal and will lay the
foundation for subsequent full-scale testing in priority Great Lakes watersheds. Although the present work
focuses mainly on the Maumee River watershed and WLEB, the findings and outcomes will be readily
transferrable to other priority Great Lakes watersheds. In fact, the current work includes monitoring and data
analysis support for pilot wetlands being built by the Outagamie County Land Conservation Department in the
Fox River watershed of Green Bay.
GREAT LAKES FISHERIES AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION (GLFER)
GLFER, authorized under Section 506 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, is a full service
program to plan, design, and construct projects that restore ecosystems across the large landscape of the
Great Lakes watershed. The GLFER program is implemented in partnership with the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, who coordinates the review of project proposals by representatives from state, tribal, and
federal agencies. Individual projects require a non-federal partner(s) to provide 35% of project costs
(including all lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations) and to operate and maintain the completed
projects. State, tribal, and local agencies, as well as non-profit and private interests are eligible to sponsor
GLFER projects.
Page 71
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
WLEB PARTNERSHIP
The WLEB Study was established through Section 441 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1 999. This
authority includes the ability to evaluate comprehensive investigations of measures to improve fish and wildlife
habitat, navigation, flood risk management, recreation, and water quality in the WLEB, including the Maumee,
Ottawa and Portage River watersheds. One of the key results of the work under this authority was the
formation of the WLEB Partnership in 2006. USACE and USDA-NRCS Co-chair the leadership of this
interagency team that includes a wide array of both federal and non-federal representation.
USACE is leveraging its authority under the EMRRP to evaluate potential approaches and collaborative
opportunities to reduce P loads in riparian zones and instream. USACE Engineer Research and Development
Center (ERDC), the Buffalo, Chicago, and Detroit Districts are working with stakeholders to evaluate targeted
wetlands restoration and creation as a potentially long-term and effective means for P removal. USACE is
also working with USEPA to enhance and expand current WLEB ecosystem model capabilities so that decision
makers can evaluate loading scenarios and eutrophication response indicators in the Lake.
P Optimal Wetlands
USACE is working in collaboration with other Great Lakes stakeholders interested in the subject of wetlands
for phosphorus reduction, including The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, academic institutions and other
federal agencies, to conduct research and engineering evaluation to inform decision-making about the
potential for treatment wetlands to be a significant part of controlling phosphorus from agricultural runoff in
the Great Lakes. One of the challenges to large-scale implementation of wetlands (besides loss of private
agricultural land) is identifying the factors that optimize phosphorus removal. A comprehensive literature
review and analysis led by researchers at the USACE ERDC found that soil phosphorus sorption capacity
(SPSC) is a significant factor in wetland phosphorus removal function and may help explain why phosphorus
retention in wetlands can vary significantly. This work reinforces the importance of understanding the role of
legacy phosphorus.
We are collecting SPSC data at several constructed sites to validate assumptions and standardize these
assumptions for future prioritization of work. This presents an important step forward in effectively siting and
designing wetlands for phosphorus control. Upon completion of the current research effort, which will be
paired with spatial analysis and modeling to identify optimum sites for wetlands, the next steps will include
supplemental monitoring of wetland projects constructed by others, such as the Maumee Bay State Park
wetlands led by the University of Toledo. USACE and partners anticipate construction of new full-scale
wetland sites to test and demonstrate the potential of P optimal wetlands starting in 201 9.
Lake Ecosystem Modeling
The Western Lake Erie Ecosystem Model (WLEEM) is an integrated hydrodynamic/sediment transport/water
quality model of the Maumee River and Western Basin of Lake Erie was first developed in 201 0 WLEEM is a
Page 72
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
time-dependent, 3-D model that computes temporal and spatial profiles of water, sediment, nutrients, and
plankton and benthos dynamics as a function of loadings from the watershed and Detroit River and hydro-
meteorological forcing functions. As recommended by USEPA's Science Advisory Board, future work will
expand this model to include all of Lake Erie and will incorporate updated Cladophora growth models. This
expanded model will also link to existing basin tributary monitoring network and watershed loading models,
The goal of this new effort is to create a tool for decision makers that looks at a linked suite of impacts and
effects of new lake-wide loading scenarios and eutrophication response indicators.
Page 73
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
USGS
USGS provides a key science support role in nutrient load estimation, assessment of water quality trends, and
HABs and hypoxia forecasting.
USGS operates several streamflow gages which provide the critical underpinnings of tributary nutrient load
estimates. Daily and hourly streamflow data in many cases are provided in real time. As part of the Great
Lakes monitoring program, USGS scientists collected samples and used state-of-the-art sensors to gather
water-quality data for 30 major Great Lakes tributaries during 201 1 through 201 3. Sophisticated models
were then used to analyze these data and estimate nutrient and sediment loads.
USGS staff across the region conduct monitoring and research to help managers track and understand the
development of HABs and hypoxia in the Great Lakes. USGS topical experts also participate and provide
expertise at various levels of the GLRI, the GLWQA, and the HABHRCA interagency working group. In
support of Annex 4 of the GLWQA, USGS has provided scientific expertise specifically related to the
monitoring and fate and transport of nutrients. USGS topical experts from the across the country have joined
this process to provide additional support and guidance based on their experience from working in areas such
as the Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi River Basin.
Current and Ongoing Programs and Authorities
Within the Lake Erie Basin, the GWSIP either fully or partially funds the operation of numerous streamflow
and ground water-level monitoring stations. High-frequency streamflow data generated by the program are
necessary for computing nutrient and sediment loads. Streamflow monitoring sites on most of the tributaries to
Lake Erie that are being monitored for nutrient loads are at least partially funded by the GWSIP.
NATIONAL WATER QUALITY PROGRAM (NWQP)
The National Water Quality Program provides an understanding of water-quality conditions; whether
conditions are getting better or worse over time; and how natural features and human activities affect those
conditions. Long-term NWQP activities have provided an overall assessment of water quality conditions in the
rivers and streams of the Lake Erie basin, including an assessment of water-quality trends from 1 972-201 2 at
selected streamflow monitoring stations.
GROUNDWATER AND STREAMFLOW INFORMATION PROGRAM (GWSIP)
Honday, July 10, 2017 14:30ET
The Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program (GWSIP) is
one of four Water Programs funded by Congress to identify,
measure, and assess the Nation's water resources.
The GWSIP is the principal USGS Program for streamflow and
ground water-level data in real-time and over the long-term, at the
regional/national scales providing critical information for the
understanding of the Nation's water resources.
Page 74
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
COOPERATIVE MATCHING FUNDS (CMF)
The Cooperative Matching Funds Program is a USGS program that is designed to bring local, State, and
Tribal water science needs and decision-making together with national capabilities related to USGS
nationally consistent methods and quality assurance; innovative monitoring technology, models, and analysis
tools; and robust data management and delivery systems. The significant ties to local, State, and Tribal issues
allows the Cooperative Matching Funds Program to respond to emerging water issues, raising those issues to
regional and national visibility. In addition to the GWSIP, many streamflow monitoring sites in the Lake Erie
basin are operated using a combination of CMF and partner (local, State, federal, etc.) funds. Water Science
Centers in New York, Ohio, and Indiana all have local agreements with those States to perform water
quantity and water quality monitoring to help support activities related to Lake Erie nutrient reduction
strategies under Annex 4 of the GLWQA.
USGS'S WATER SCIENCE CENTERS
USGS has Water Science Centers located in each Great Lakes state that regularly work closely with local and
State water resource entities. These entities often enter into Cooperative Agreements with the Centers to
allow the USGS to perform monitoring and science support activities to assist in achieving the overall nutrient
reduction goals. Staff located at these Centers within the Lake Erie basin (Mi, OH, IN, PA, and NY) provide
expertise on local and regional water quantity and water quality issues and regularly participate on team
and committees related to large regional issues such as the GLWQA and HABHRCA.
GLRI GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MONITORING
Under the GLRI, USGS is monitoring nutrient inputs to all of the Great Lakes from 26 of the tributaries with the
largest nutrient contributions to the Lakes. This information is being used to track changes in nutrient inputs
over time and reveal potential impacts of the various conservation efforts and best management practices
(BMPs) across the basin. Ten of the twenty-six monitoring sites are on rivers flowing into Lake Erie.
GLRI EDGE OF FIELD MONITORING
Under the GLRI, USGS is working jointly with USDA-NRCS
and USEPA to identify the direct impacts of agriculture
BMPs by monitoring at "edge of field" locations where
BMPs have been incorporated. Information from this effort
allows NRCS and other managers to track the direct
impacts of BMPs and potentially identify specific BMPs that
are most successful at reducing sediment and nutrient loss
from fields. Edge of field monitoring locations in the Lake
Erie basin are located in the Black Creek watershed in
Indiana and the Eagle Creek watershed in Ohio.
Page 75
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Real-time Nutrient Loads Using Water Quality Surrogates
In addition to the traditional monitoring of nutrient loads, USGS is in the process of developing surrogate
models for estimating "real-time" concentrations of nutrients at the same 26 tributaries mentioned previously,
with 1 0 located on tributaries to Lake Erie. These surrogate models will allow USGS to estimate nutrient
concentrations based on previously defined relationships to basic water quality parameters such as turbidity,
specific conductance, and dissolved oxygen. The USGS real-time data network
( ) along with these surrogate models will allow USGS to estimate nutrient
concentrations and, when combined with streamflow data, nutrient loads and subsequently present the
information in real-time on the USGS website.
In-situ Dissolved Phosphorus Monitoring
Determining the amount of dissolved phosphorus in the water is becoming increasingly important as many
researchers have identified links between the dissolved form and HABs production. Currently, the dissolved
phosphorus concentrations are determined by collecting water samples and analyzing those samples in a lab.
This process can often take several days depending on sampling logistics and transportation/shipping times.
USGS is in the process of installing in-situ phosphate analyzers at several of the Lake Erie tributary monitoring
sites. Once installed and connected to the USGS real-time data network ( ),
these analyzers will record dissolved phosphorus concentrations in the stream on an hourly basis and the
results will be available on the USGS website in real-time. This information will be very useful to HABs
forecasters and local managers to support in decision making.
Investigation of Nutrient Cycling in Rivermouths
The goal of this work is to evaluate the magnitude of rivermouth effects on the delivery of nutrients to the
nearshore zone. Algal blooms and nearshore productivity are strongly influenced by the nutrient loads, the
timing of nutrient delivery and nutrient form upon delivery. Estimating the rivermouth effect on nutrients
requires a complicated connection of water mixing models with assessments of biotic communities in the
rivermouths and in the water column itself. Results of this effort may lead to a better understanding of
potential restoration of rivermouth habitats could offer a mechanism to minimize impacts of excessive nutrient
loads from upstream watersheds. Study sites for this effort are located across the Great Lakes basin, including
the Maumee River in Ohio.
NowCast for Drinking Water and Recreational Sites
The USGS has led the research and implementation of "Nowcast" models for determining in real-time the
quality of Great Lakes recreational waters, specifically near beaches and water intakes. These models were
initially developed to estimate E. coli concentrations; however, additional work has shown that using regression
models to estimate toxin concentrations from cyanoHABs is also feasible. USGS scientists are continuing to
work closely with local and State partners along the Lake Erie shoreline in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York
( ; to collect data to develop, test, and expand the use of models
and "Nowcasts" to provide estimates of toxin concentrations at Great Lakes drinking-water and recreational
sites.
Page 76
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
NOAA's dedicated scientists use cutting-edge research and high-tech instrumentation to provide citizens,
planners, managers and other decision makers with reliable information they need when they need it. NOAA's
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, in concert with academic, agency, and private sector
partners, has been actively monitoring Lake Erie and issuing forecasts on cyanobacteria location and
concentration since 2008. In addition to leading a number of HABs and Hypoxia in the Great
Lakes, NOAA works in partnership with Great Lakes states and USEPA to address nonpoint source pollution
through coastal zone management programs, and supports vital education and outreach through the Sea
Grant Program. These ongoing programs are spurring innovative approaches to meet the challenges in Lake
Erie. For example, NOAA's National Weather Service forecast models are being used to develop decision
support tools to help farmers make informed decisions on the best time to apply fertilizer to their fields.
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT (CZM) PROGRAM
The program is a voluntary partnership between the federal government and U.S. coastal and Great Lakes
states and territories authorized by the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1 972 to address national
coastal issues. A wide range of issues are addressed through the program, including coastal development,
water quality, public access, habitat protection, energy facility siting, ocean governance and planning, coastal
hazards, and climate change. One of the primary components is the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program, which was established in 1 990 by Section 621 7 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments, and is jointly administered by NOAA and USEPA. The goal of CZARA is to ensure that
participating states have the necessary tools to prevent and control polluted runoff. All coastal and Great
Lakes states and territories that participate in the National Coastal Zone Management Program are required
to develop coastal nonpoint pollution control programs which include management measures to use in
controlling runoff from six main sources: agriculture, forestry, urban areas, marinas, hydromodification
(shoreline and stream channel modification), wetlands, and riparian and vegetated treatment systems.
HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM AND HYPOXIA RESEARCH AND CONTROL ACT
Originally established in 1 998, the amendments
of 2004 and 2014 reaffirmed and expanded the mandate for NOAA to advance the scientific understanding
and ability to detect, monitor, assess, and predict HAB and hypoxia events. This legislation established the
Interagency Working Group on HABHRCA (IWG-HABHRCA). It tasked the group with coordinating and
convening federal agencies to discuss HAB and hypoxia events in the United States, and to develop action
plans, reports, and assessments of these situations. NOAA co-chairs the IWG-HABHRCA with USEPA and 1 1
other federal agencies participate.
NOAA is authorized by the HABHRCA to conduct research in its labs and centers and to fund research by
extramural partners. The National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) oversees a number of HABs
research programs including:
Page //
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Harmful Algal Bloom Forecasting
Harmful Algal Bloom Rapid Response
Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms
Physiology, Molecular Ecology
Harmful Algal Bloom Sensors
SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM
For 50 years, Sea Grant has been putting science to work for America's coastal communities. NOAA Sea
Grant is a federal-private partnership supporting innovative research, outreach and education in 33
universities including each of the Great Lakes States. Current efforts in Lake Erie include funding opportunities
to investigate approaches for nutrient load reduction, study algal toxin production and related human health
impacts, research algal bloom dynamics, develop improved information for toxin reduction at water treatment
plants.
NOAA'S GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
NOAA-GLERL and its partners conduct innovative research on the Great Lakes and coastal ecosystems to
increase the understanding of environmental conditions in the Great Lakes Basin which, in turn, provides
information for resource use and management decisions needed to address current and emerging issues. Key
research programs include: Ecosystem Dynamics, Integrated Physical and Ecological Modeling and
Forecasting, and Observing Systems and Advanced Technology. Many of these programs provide critical
data to drive Lake Erie ecosystem models. For example, the Great Lakes Coastal Forecasting System is a set
of hydrodynamic computer models that predict lake circulation and other physical processes (e.g. circulation,
thermal structure, waves, ice dynamics) of the lakes and connecting channels. NOAA-GLERL conducts weekly
on-lake monitoring of the Lake Erie algal bloom from June October. NOAA-GLERL also produces a yearly
report on HAB areal extent derived from NASA MODIS imagery and weekly hyperspectral overflights.
Hyperspectral flyovers detect and map HABs near water intakes and under clouds where satellite coverage is
ineffective. These hyperspectral data are being used to differentiate HABs from other phytoplankton for
more accurate toxin prediction. Additionally, buoys and sensors collect observations of water quality
characteristics in real time.
Western Lake Erie Monitoring Stations
Lake Erie
Ontario
Michigan
| New Yo
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
New and/or innovative efforts in Lake Erie
With support of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, NOAA has made vast improvements in detecting,
monitoring, and forecasting HABs in recent years. HABs bulletins provide analysis of the location of blooms, as
well as 3-day forecasts of transport, mixing, scum formation, and bloom decline. NOAA is also developing
forecasts to warn Lake Erie drinking-water managers when hypoxic water approaches intake pipes, and to
help farmers decide when to apply fertilizer to their fields.
HAB Forecasting in Lake Erie
The Lake Erie HAB Tracker produces daily 5-day
forecasts of bloom concentration and trajectory, using
daily satellite imagery, real-time monitoring data,
and modeling. The Tracker measures where the bloom
will travel, providing important information to
municipal drinking water managers who are
concerned about HABs reaching water intake pipes.
NOAA and partners produce early season HAB
forecasts starting in mid-May. The seasonal forecast
estimates bloom severity based on Maumee River
discharge and bioavailable phosphorus using data
from Heidelberg University National Center for
Water Quality Research. During the HAB season
(from July through October) each year, HABs Bulletins
are published twice weekly. A post season assessment
is published in November.
"A Lab in a Can": Firsf-Ever Deployment of Freshwater Environmental Sample Processor
In 2016, NOAA GLERL deployed the world's first freshwater Environmental Sample Processor (ESP) near the
Toledo, Ohio, water intake in Lake Erie. Via this "lab in a can", NOAA expects near real-time detection of HABs
and their toxins throughout the bloom season. The ESP provides local and municipal managers early warnings of
blooms and toxicity.
Monitoring HABs and Hypoxia in Lake Erie
Field monitoring, buoys, sensors and satellite data assist in the development of tools that predict the
magnitude and movement of algal blooms to help NOAA to quantify the influence of nutrients and HAB
growth and toxicity and provide critical information to regional stakeholders. NOAA, in collaboration with
University of Michigan Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research (CIGLR), provides in-lake monitoring at
eight sites weekly and deploys continuous near-real time water quality monitoring buoys at four of those sites
from June - October in Lake Erie. Additionally, observations of water quality characteristics including water
temperature, phosphorus, nitrogen, chlorophyll and phycocyanin are reported on the GLERL Real-time Buoys
website and the Great Lakes Observing System (GLOS) HAB Data Portal. To support the hypoxia forecasts,
sensors deployed around the central basin provide near-continuous temperature and dissolved oxygen
measurements at various depths. NOAA is also collaborating with Environment and Climate Change Canada
Absent
Cyanobacteria! Densify as measured by satellite. Source:
modified from August 31, 2017 Bulletin.
Page 79
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
to monitor Lake St. Clair, and conduct weekly airborne observations using a hyperspectral imaging system
flying over U.S. and Canadian waters under the NOAA/ECCC Bilateral Agreement. More information is
available at https://www.alerl.noaa.aov//res/HABs and Hypoxia /.
Hypoxia Early Warning System
In 201 6 GLERL and the Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research received a five year grant from
NOAA's Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research to develop a model to predict the movement of
hypoxic (low oxygen) water in Lake Erie's central basin. This model will provide an early warning to drinking
water intake managers when an encounter with hypoxic water is likely. Hypoxic water requires expensive
treatment to remove metals and other contaminants prior to distribution in the public supply system.
Runoff Risk Advisory Forecasts for Farmers
Runoff Risk Decision Support was first
developed in 2008 in the state of
Wisconsin, in response to a previous
winter and spring season punctuated
with contaminated runoff events. In
following years, Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative (GLRI) funding
enabled expansion to other Great Lakes States and improvements to the modeling approach. There are
currently state working groups consisting of academia, state, and federal agencies coordinating on the
development of second generation runoff risk tools. Beta-release tools are currently available in Ml, OH,
MN, and Wl as of spring 201 8. Collaboration for building similar tools in the remaining Great Lake States
(IL, IN, NY) is expected to ramp up in 201 8, as well.
Legend
Ohio Runoff Risk Advisory Forecast (beta)
w.aqri.ohio.qov
is a real-time forecasting tool that gives farmers guidance about when to apply
fertilizers to their fields. Fertilizer application generally occurs during the winter and spring, the riskiest times
of year for runoff from rain and
snowmelt. In fact, a significant
percentage of annual nutrient losses can
occur from only a few large runoff
events per year. The information
provided by Runoff Risk helps farmers
ensure that fertilizer and manure stay
on the fields, instead of washing off into
waterways. Relying on NOAA's
National Weather Service (NWS)
modeling, on-farm research data, and
multi-partner collaboration, this tool Western Basin and Grand Lake
offers a science-based approach to
nutrient application timing.
Ohio Runoff Forecast
No Event
Low
Medium
^
^'9h nkfort Charleston*
VNT ST
VIRGIN!/
Page 80
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Ff I>K\^I w51iONS AN'i \! U JbS
Federal authorities, programs and funding can provide a framework and resources to support achievement of
the phosphorus reduction goals in Lake Erie. A main thrust of this plan is to track the investments and
phosphorus reductions so that over time we can identify the most impactful and cost effective approaches.
USEPA & federal partners will continue to support states with financial and technical assistance as they work
with their local agricultural community, watershed protection groups, water utilities, landowners, and
municipalities to develop nutrient reduction strategies tailored to their unique set of challenges and
opportunities. For example, we are working with the agricultural interests in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana on an
implementation strategy to accelerate adoption of the most effective management practices.
Our efforts are focused on three major types of actions: 1) accelerate nutrient reductions, 2) enhance
monitoring and research efforts to better understand the effectiveness of actions taken to reduce nutrient
loadings, and 3) identify ways to improve implementation of federal programs and policies. Our strategy at
this time is focused on leveraging existing federal authorities and programs. We believe the federal
programs, once coupled with State programs, such as Ohio's recent legislation restricting winter application of
fertilizer and manure, will have significant impact on reducing phosphorus loads to Lake Erie.
The following table outlines the actions being taken in the near-term based on current federal funding
commitments. This list is expected to grow and change over time, in response to resources allocated by
Congress and Agency leadership priorities. Agencies will continue to identify projects that align with existing
program authorities, and seek innovative ways to accelerate efforts to restore Lake Erie as appropriations
allow. For example, USEPA has traditionally provided GLRI funding for watershed management activities to
reduce nutrients and runoff, through an annual grants competition, ~$5M per year Great Lakes wide. In
response to the 2014 drinking water ban in Toledo, Ohio, federal and state agencies quickly received nearly
$1 2 million in GLRI funds for projects intended to reduce and monitor HABs in western Lake Erie. In FY17,
USEPA and federal partners were able to commit an additional $1 2M to high priority Lake Erie
implementation, monitoring, and research projects. If current funding levels continue, we would expect to
prioritize additional funding for implementation of P reduction projects as identified in the domestic action
plans, once finalized.
Page 81
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Federal Actions and Milestones: 2018-2023
Activity
Objectives
Cost
Responsible
Parties
Timeframe
Major Milestones
Programs/Projects 1
Source Reductions |
WLEB Initiative
Coordinated strategy using
funding from multiple Farm
Bill programs and GLRI to
double the number of acres
under conservation in WLEB.
$77 M
USDA NRCS
FY 2016-
2018
Programs have combined
goals of 870,000 acres
of conservation systems
to reduce edge of field
losses by 640,000 lbs TP
(290 metric tons) and
175,000 lbs SRP.
RCPP Tri-State
Western Lake Erie
Basin Phosphorus
Reduction
Initiative
A diverse team of partners
using a targeted approach
to identify high-priority sub-
watersheds for phosphorus
reduction and implement
conservation practices on the
855,000 acres that have
been identified as the most
critical areas to treat.
Over $1 7M from
NRCS and over $28M
from Conservation
Partners
USDA NRCS; Michigan
Department of
Agriculture & Rural
Development
FY 2015 -
2019
RCPP will accomplish 1 80
acres of wetland
restorations; 500
conservation plans;
60,000 acres of nutrient
management; and 1 000
environmental risk
assessments.
GLRI Ag Nonpoint
Source Projects
Implementation of watershed
management and domestic
action plans to reduce
nutrient loading from
$5.6 M currently
obligated of
USEPA grants to State
and local partners
FY 2015-2019
Anticipate over 1 00,000
pounds phosphorus
Page 82
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
agricultural lands. Projects
will target best management
practices to critical source
areas.
anticipated $1 3 M
cost
reduction in Lake Erie
watersheds
Great Lakes
Sediment and
Nutrient Reduction
Program
Great Lakes Commission
provides grants to local
governments and nonprofit
organizations to control
nutrient & sediment losses in
order to reduce the nutrient
loading into the Great Lakes.
Approximately$l .8 M
in the Great Lakes
Basin for the current
contract period.
Over $1 4M from
201 0 - 201 6 utilizing
Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative
(GLRI) funding.
USDA NRCS & GLC
2017-2021
14,000 pounds of
phosphorus annually
across the Great Lakes
Basin.
Conservation
Partners Program
National Fish & Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF) is
managing two USDA grants
awarded through this
program to Ohio State
University Extension and
Ohio Soybean Council to
develop resources to help
improve nutrient
management and farmer
outreach in the Western
Basin of Lake Erie.
Approximately $1M
USDA NRCS & NFWF
2014 - 2018
Deliverables include
Nutrient Management
Plans and the
development of a Best
Management Practice
manual.
Runoff and drainage management
Conservation
Technical
Assistance and
Implement whole-farm
conservation plans to
improve water quality,
reduce nutrients loss, and
Determined annually
and dependent on
funding
appropriations under
the Agricultural Act of
USDA NRCS and local
conservation partners
Determined
annually and
dependent on
funding levels.
Acres treated and
associated phosphorus
reductions reported
annually under GLRI
Page 83
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Financial
Assistance
slow runoff from agricultural
operations.
Promote adoption of
drainage water
management, phosphorus
filters, and other innovative
techniques to reduce and
treat runoff from agricultural
land.
Optimize siting of wetland
restorations, creations and
enhancements to treat
agricultural runoff.
2014, (also known as
the Farm Bill), and the
GLRI.
Action Plan II and Action
Plan III.
Transforming
Drainage project
Expand extension education
materials and programming
on enhancing the
management of drainage
water to address water
security and nutrient use.
Understanding of potential
benefits of these practices on
yield, water budget, and
water quality.
~$5 M
USDA NIFA, Purdue
University Research
and Extension, other
universities
2015-2020
Deliver extension-based
programming across the
Great Lakes region, with
several field sites in the
Lake Erie basin.
Provide innovative
drainage water
treatment or recycling
options for producers
based on the costs and
benefits of implementing
the drainage water
storage practices at field
sites.
Agricultural
Conservation
Planning
Apply assessment tools,
framework and geospatial
analysis, to small watershed
TBD annually
USDA ARS and NRCS,
universities,
conservation partners
2018-2019
Produce effective
watershed scale
conservation options for
Page 84
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Framework (ACPF)
pilot in WLEB
assessment and
comprehensive precision
comprehensive conservation
planning.
Supports agricultural
watershed planning process.
land owners in up to 6
small watersheds in OH
and IN, including the new
CEAP Watershed in the
Blanchard River.
Explore using output as
part of locally-led
conservation planning
process.
Runoff Risk
Decision Support
Tools for Nutrient
Application Timing
In partnership with Great
Lake States, develop real-
time decision support tools
based on National Weather
Service modeling and
forecasts that provide
producers guidance on the
risk that runoff could occur,
so that nutrient application
preceding runoff events can
be avoided.
$1.6 M in GLRI
funding to date
NOAA/NWS/NCRFC,
state agencies and
academic researchers
Ongoing, since
FY1 5
On-going work includes
modeling improvements
and expanding
collaboration.
Planned work includes
analysis to estimate the
ability of Runoff Risk to
reduce nutrient losses by
analyzing edge of field
data and investigating
the factors affecting
likelihood of adoption by
producers.
GLRI Urban
Nonpoint Source
Projects
Implementation of green
infrastructure practices to
reduce stormwater runoff
from urban areas
$2.6 M currently
obligated; total
investment tbd
USEPA, State and
local municipal
partners
FY 2015-2019
Over 250 million gallons
of untreated urban
runoff captured or
treated by GLRI-funded
projects (broader than
Lake Erie)
Ottawa River
Wetland
This Great Lakes Fisheries &
Ecosystem Restoration
(GLFER) project will convert
$3.2 M
USACE, the City of
Toledo, and the
2016-2021
The restored wetlands
will be designed to
maintain a hydrologic
Page 85
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Restoration
Toledo, OH
1 6 acres of urban/industrial
land into high quality flood
plain wetlands and
associated riparian habitat.
Toledo/ Lucas County
Port Authority
connection with the river
and result in the capture
and treatment of roughly
24 million gallons of
overland flow each year
P Optimal
Wetlands Demo
site
Construct and actively
monitor one or more
permanent demonstration
wetlands that are sited and
designed for maximum P
uptake to evaluate as a
priority action that may occur
systemically throughout the
basin
TBD (estimated cost
~$2 M)
USACE, USGS
2019 and
beyond
Construction of one or
more demonstration sites
in Western Lake Erie
basin in 201 9
Hydrologic Health
Initiative
Demonstrate potential for
nutrient reduction from
conversion of marginal
cropland to riparian habitat
TBD
USEPA, OEPA,
partners TBD
2019
Identify partners to
secure riparian easement
for pilot project
Monitoring, Assessment and applied research
BMP Effectiveness
ARS Edge of Field
Water Quality
Research
Determine the effectiveness
of various conservation
practices by monitoring
changes in nutrient losses
from fields over time (an
extension of CEAP
Watersheds)
TBD annually
USDA ARS and NRCS,
numerous external
partners
201 1 - present,
on-going
Peer reviewed papers
published regularly;
conservation practice
standards evaluated in
conjunction with field
scale assessment.
Conservation
Effects Assessment
Project (CEAP) -
National
Cropland
Assessment
CEAP Cropland was
established to develop a
methodology for estimating
the environmental benefits
and effects of conservation
practices on cultivated
cropland at regional scales.
The assessment has been on
TBD annually
USDA NRCS, USDA
ARS, Texas A&M
University
2003-present,
on-going
Next report assessing
201 6 conservation
condition is expected to
be released in 201 9.
Prior reports released by
USDA NRCS in 201 1
(Great Lakes), 201 6 and
2017 (WLEB).
Page 86
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
a 5-year cycle in the WLEB,
but future timing is TBD.
Conservation
Effects Assessment
Project (CEAP) -
Watersheds -
Stacked Practices
Study
A new and innovative project
initiated in 201 6 in the WLEB
aimed at measuring
reductions from implementing
a series of conservation
practices in a treatment train.
Practices will be implemented
as a system and reductions
assessed in the field, at the
edge of field and instream.
$50,000 annually
USDA NRCS and
USDA ARS
201 6- present,
on-going
Initial results in 201 9.
Data on the sequential
and cumulative effects of
"stacked" conservation
practices in 3 small
watersheds in
northwestern Ohio.
Edge of Field
BMP Monitoring in
GLRI Priority
Watersheds
Determine the effectiveness
of various GLRI-funded BMPs
by monitoring changes in
nutrient loads leaving fields
over time and tracking
changes in soil health
characteristics of the
impacted fields
$1.9M annually
through 201 9
USGS, NRCS, and
USEPA
2016-2019
Initial results by Fall
2018
Blanchard River
Demonstration
Farms Network,
Ohio
A GLRI-supported project
designed to showcase and
demonstrate leading edge
conservation practices to
improve Great Lakes water
quality.
$1 M
USDA NRCS & Ohio
Farm Bureau
Federation, USDA ARS
(monitoring)
2016 -2020
Edge of Field monitoring,
economic analysis, and
outreach to farmers and
landowners.
P-Optimal
Wetlands - Soil
research
Research to understand the
role of legacy phosphorus in
areas being considered for
wetland creation.
$200,000
USACE
2017-2019
Development of standard
soil phosphorus sorption
capacity (SPSC) data
collection needed to
identify potential
constructed wetlands
Tributary/watershed
Conservation
Effects Assessment
Project (CEAP) -
Long-term watershed-scale
assessment of conservation
practice effects on water
TBD annually
USDA NRCS, USDA
ARS, university
partners, USGS
2004-present,
on-going
Peer reviewed papers
published regularly; new
conservation practice
Page 87
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Watershed
Assessment
Studies
quality, water management
and soils in selected
watersheds in the WLEB.
standards being
developed and
evaluated in conjunction
with field and watershed
scale assessment.
Great Lakes
Tributary
Monitoring
Program
Track changes and identify
long-term trends in nutrient
and sediment loads to the
Great Lakes.
$1.1 M annually
through 201 9
USGS
2016-2019
Early results (201 1-2013
annual loading estimates)
were published in early
201 8. The next round of
results thru 201 6 are
expected by 2019.
Enhanced State
Watershed
Monitoring
Track changes in nutrient and
sediment loads at specific
locations in Lake Erie
watersheds with high
frequency monitoring
(including dissolved
phosphorus spring loads)
Varies annually; FY1 7
cost was $0.7 M
USGS, NYSDEC,
OEPA, IDEM, MDEQ
2016-2019
Annual reporting
Investigation of
Nutrient Cycling in
Rivermouths
Evaluate the magnitude of
rivermouth effects on the
delivery of nutrients to the
nearshore zone
$0.6 M
USGS
2016-18
Final report expected in
spring 201 9
P-Optimal
Wetlands -
Watershed
modeling
Using existing models and
partnerships prioritize,
evaluate, & monitor
permanent wetland
restoration projects designed
to maximize phosphorus
removal
$385,000
USACE
2016-2018
Identification of one or
more optimal sites in
WLEB to construct and
conduct long term
efficacy monitoring
Load allocations
Develop a methodology for
allocating in-lake targets for
subwatersheds to the
Maumee River.
~$100K
USEPA, OEPA, MDEQ,
IDEM
2017-2018
Methodology and initial
findings for St. Joseph
and Tiffin Rivers
expected in 201 8.
Pilot integrated
water
management
strategies
Spatial analysis and
landscape modeling
conducted in 2014-2017
identified opportunities to
tbd
USEPA, partners TBD
2018-2020
Disseminate tools and
information to assist local
watershed planners in
Ohio and Michigan. Seek
Page 88
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
implement drainage
management in selected Lake
Erie & Saginaw Bay
watersheds.
partners to develop pilot
projects to demonstrate
the potential nutrient
reduction impacts of
implementing a system of
drainage management
practices.
Tools for
estimating nutrient
reductions
Update the pollutant removal
rates and improve
functionality in two tools used
by nonpoint source program
managers: The Spreadsheet
Tool for Estimating Pollutant
Loads (STEPL) and "the
Region 5 Model" (R5 Model)
Varies annually; $80K
invested in 2015-
2017
USEPA
Ongoing, since
2016
Updates to STEPL and
the R5 Model were
released in 2017. A
web-based version is
anticipated by 2019.
In Lake
Cladophora
research
GLRI will support a concerted
monitoring and modeling
effort at several sentinel sites
to better understand nuisance
Cladophora growth and
allow for future development
of phosphorus targets in Lake
Erie's eastern basin and the
other Great Lakes.
Total cost estimated to
be $1.5 M
USEPA, USGS, NOAA
and academic
partners
2018-2020
Data collected over
201 8 and 201 9 field
seasons will be used to
update and enhance
Cladophora growth
models
Remote sensing of
benthic algae
Analysis of satellite data to
survey the extent of
submerged aquatic
vegetation (including
Cladophora) in the lower
Great Lakes
$300K
NOAA and partners
TBD
2019
Maps and summary
statistics of benthic algae
Nea rshore
assessment
An enhancement to the
NCCA, 34 sites were added
to the 201 5 survey of Lake
Erie coastal condition
~$100K
USEPA and partners
2019
Assessments of nea rshore
condition for western,
central and eastern
basins
Page 89
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Offshore
monitoring
USEPA's Great Lakes
National Program Office
long term monitoring
programs
USEPA and partners
Ongoing
Spring and summer
surveys of water quality
and annual hypoxia
monitoring
HAB Forecasting
Now operational, NOAA's
HABs Bulletin provides short
and long term projections of
Microcystis blooms in western
Lake Erie. These forecasts
help water managers
identify which blooms are
potentially harmful, where
they are, how big they are,
and where they're likely
headed.
~$300 K per year
NOAA CO-OPS,
NOAA-GLERL and
CIGLR; Heidelberg
University and other
partners
Ongoing
Early season forecast
based on tributary loads.
Twice weekly publication
of the HAB Bulletin.
Daily bloom movement
observations using the
HAB Tracker.
Hypoxia
Forecasting
Develop a low oxygen
warning system for drinking
water managers in central
Lake Erie basin.
$1.5 M
NOAA-GLERL and
CIGLR
2017-2022
Development of a model
for fine-scale hypoxia
forecasting to drinking
water intakes.
Environmental
Sample Processor
Provide water intake
managers early warning of
HAB toxicity.
~$600 K per year
NOAA-GLERL and
CIGLR
Ongoing
Daily HAB toxicity
detection during 2017
season
HABs and
Hypoxia
Monitoring
Weekly and real-time
monitoring of relevant water
quality parameters to
support HABs and hypoxia
forecasts. In addition to
analysis of water samples,
monitoring techniques also
include airborne
observations, satellite
imagery, buoys and sensors.
~$700 K per year
NOAA-GLERL and
CIGLR, and Michigan
Tech Research Institute
Ongoing
Yearly satellite remote
sensing estimates of
average HAB extent. In
2017, weekly data
sharing including toxicity;
weekly cyanobacteria
mapping of areas near
shore, over water
intakes, and under clouds
not visible to satellites.
Page 90
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
"Nowcast" for
drinking-water
and recreational
sites
Develop models for
determining, in real-time, the
quality of Great Lakes
waters near beaches and
water intakes.
$0.7 M
USGS/various State
and local partners
2017-19
Implementation of new
sites and enhancements
to existing sites by 201 9
Lake Ecosystem
Modeling
Expand and enhance current
model and link to watershed
model for evaluation of
nutrient loading scenarios
and eutrophication response.
TBD
USACE, USEPA
2018-2020
Development of a whole
lake integrated
watershed-lake
ecosystem model
Program assessment/improvement activities
Science Advisory
Board
USEPA sought Science
Advisory Board external
peer review of the
phosphorus reduction targets
and supporting science. The
review was conducted in two
phases during 2015 - 2017.
USEPA and GLWQA
Annex 4 Subcommittee
Started in
2015 and is
ongoing
activity
Implementation of SAB
recommendations as part
of an adaptive
management approach
Tracking system
Efforts underway to improve
methods for computing loads
and report to the public
through the GLC's ErieStat
Pilot & Blue Accounting
Initiative
USEPA and GLWQA
Annex 4 Subcommittee
201 8 and
beyond
Annual tracking and
reporting of phosphorus
loads
Socio-economic
analysis of
agriculture
incentive
programs
A GLRI grant was awarded
to the Great Lakes
Commission to lead this
project in FY17. The goal of
the project is to understand
whether GLRI investments in
ag priority watersheds to
date are being successful in
changing farmer attitudes
and willingness to adopt
conservation practices.
$750k
TBD
FY18-19
Analysis and rankings of
ag incentive projects
funded under GLRI and
recommendations to
improve program
implementation
Page 91
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
GLRI Adaptive
Management
A pilot study is examining
GLRI work in the WLEB to
inform science based
adaptive management and
implementation of GLRI
USEPA, USGS, NOAA,
NRCS, USFWS, USACE
FY 1 6-1 8
Report from Pilot study in
early FY1 8 will include
recommendations to the
GLRI Regional Working
Group to consider in
development of GLRI
Action Plan III
GLRI Action Plan
III
The next GLRI Action Plan
(2020-2024) will improve
the integration of GLRI and
U.S. domestic responsibilities
under the GLWQA.
Interagency task force
of 1 1 federal
agencies, in
consultation with the
States and tribes.
Coordination led by
USEPA GLNPO.
FY1 8-FY19
Major Milestones:
November 201 8 Public
Comment
September 201 9 - Final
Agricultural
nutrient reduction
strategy
A diverse group of partners
in Ohio, Michigan, and
Indiana developed the
agricultural nutrient reduction
strategy component of the
U.S. Action Plan for Lake
Erie.
State and federal
agriculture, water
quality, and
conservation
representatives;
commodity groups;
agribusiness
associations; and farm
bureaus.
FY18-23
Semi-annual meetings
and coordination to
develop and implement
strategy.
Western Lake Erie
Basin Partnership
(WLEB)
Partnership
The WLEB Partnership is a
federal and non-federal
interagency tri-state effort
chaired by USDA-NRCS OH
and USACE Buffalo District.
The partnership is dedicated
to improve land and water
resource management in the
basin and promote a healthy,
productive watershed
NRCS, USACE, USEPA,
USFWS, USGS; IN, Ml,
OH; IN, Ml & OH
State Technical
Committees; ODNR
Division of Soil &
Water Conservation;
NACD; Maumee River
Basin Partnership of
Local Governments
Started in
2006 and is an
ongoing
regional
partnership
activity
Semi-annual meetings
and outreach to identify,
prioritize and enhance
projects
Great Lakes
HABHRCA
Federal action strategy for
HABs and Hypoxia research
in the Great Lakes
Interagency working
group chaired by
NOAA and USEPA
FY1 8 and
beyond
Biannual progress reports
Page 92
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
The first priority of all partners in implementing these actions in Lake Erie is to minimize HABs and hypoxia by
significantly limiting nutrient loading that fuels excessive algal growth. The plan relies on continued significant
investments in time and resources, collaboration and coordination of many activities at multiple scales, and
continued diligence among all partners as they work to identify, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of
actions through an adaptive management framework.
How and when the Lake will respond
10
8
6
4
2
0
Lake Erie Algal Bloom Severity, 2002-2017. The green bars show how the bloom severity would have been reduced if there
was a 40% reduction in phosphorus loading. Source: NOAA.
As summarized in the Annex 4 Objectives and Targets Task Team 201 5 report, achieving the phosphorus
reduction targets should achieve the following ecological outcomes for Lake Erie:
Phosphorus loads from the Maumee River are the single best predictor of the severity of the western
basin bloom. A 40% reduction in spring loads (Total and Dissolved Phosphorus) from the Maumee
should significantly reduce the risk of harmful algal blooms in the Western basin by limiting
cyanobacteria biomass to "mild" levels in most years. The spatial extent and density of algal biomass
in the open waters would be drastically reduced. Significant blooms would still occur occasionally in
extremely wet years.
40% reductions in spring phosphorus loads in nearshore priority tributaries would further limit the
development of smaller cyanobacteria I blooms along the shore.
Lake Erie Severity Index
with 40% P reduction
observed
reduced |
target bloom
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
Page 93
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Together, the reductions from the Maumee and nearshore tributaries should dramatically reduce the
extent and intensity of cyanobacteria growth, which we believe will also hinder toxin production, even
though the extent or intensity of the bloom doesn't always correlate to the toxicity. Generally
speaking, higher toxin levels are found in dense scums and mats. It is expected that reducing
cyanobacteria biomass will have drastic improvements to the Lake's ecologic health and minimize
shoreline fouling and potential human health impacts posed by HABs.
Reducing the annual TP load to the Central basin to 6,000 MT should raise the average summer
hypolimnetic dissolved oxygen concentration to 2.0 mg/liter or higher. This is the threshold for
hypoxia and should result in improvements to the Central Basin bottom habitat and reductions in
internal loading of phosphorus from Central Basin bottom sediments during periods of anoxia.
The reductions needed to address algal blooms and hypoxia should lower the open lake phosphorus
concentrations, helping to address Cladophora issues in the Eastern basin, while supplying enough
nutrients to support the fisheries. Eutrophic levels would be lowered to mesotrophic conditions in the
open waters of the western and central basins of Lake Erie, and oligotrophic conditions would be
maintained in the eastern basin of Lake Erie.
It is difficult to predict when we will see these expected environmental outcomes in the Lake. The short
residence time (2.7 years) and the fact that algal blooms in Lake Erie dissipated in response to phosphorus
reductions in the 1 980s, indicates that the Lake could again respond quickly to phosphorus reductions. Low
phosphorus loads in the drought conditions of 201 2 and 201 6 were associated with a small bloom, providing
a natural experiment to support this, however the reduced loads were primarily due to below average
rainfall. The challenge will be to reduce loads during average and wet years. Due to the lag time within the
system and interannual variability we will need to demonstrate progress over many years before we can
claim success.
Project Management
Components
Effects
Measurement
Components
Schematic showing the major elements of lag time in water quality response to best management practice programs for
nonpoint source control. Planning process and measurement components are not part of a system lag in physical response, but
often contribute to a perceived lag between action and result (Meals, et. al. 2010)13.
13 Meals, D.W., S.A. Dressing, and T.E. Davenport. "Lag Time in Water Quality Response to Best Management Practices: A
Review." Journal of Environmental Quality 39(2010/1): 85-96. DOI: 10.2134/jeq2009.0108.
Page 94
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
While we are optimistic that improvements will be seen by 2020 and 2025, there are many factors that could
delay the Lake's recovery. For one, the actual implementation of measures to achieve reductions of this
magnitude will take significant time and effort to achieve. Add to that, there is a tremendous amount of
phosphorus already in the system, bound to sediments in the soils and the streambeds, and on the lake bottom,
that will need time to work its way through the system. Little is understood about this legacy load, particularly
up in the tributary watersheds (Sharpley et al., 201 3)14.
Finally, and perhaps most important, variability of the weather and climate poses another major challenge.
Recent research indicates that both precipitation and river discharge have both increased in the last decade,
thereby increasing loads delivered to the Lake (Stow, 201 5)15. So, while there is potential for the Lake to
respond to management actions, the likelihood and ability to sustain lower blooms is unclear under current
precipitation and discharge trends which are not possible to control (Jarvie et al., 2017)16.
The predictions we make today may not hold true in 1 0 years if the frequency of large rainfall events
continues to increase. It is for this reason that our strategy is focused not only on traditional means of
reducing lo" ฆ- - ."ฉugh soui uctions but advancing collaboration in the region to
accelerate water management and develop more effective and Innovative approaches for
controlling the timing and delivery of phos ph orus to the Lake. This will require an adaptive
management approach in which management strategies are updated in the future as new environmental data
become available and knowledge gaps are filled.
Reducing phosphorus loads to the Western and Central basins by 40% will not be easy. The predominant
sources and pathways in need of control will vary in the region, depending on the land management, soil type
and other factors. In some areas, success will be seen sooner than others, but it won't be until the largest
sources make a dent in their contribution that we will see lasting impacts in the Lake. The biggest challenge,
and highest priority for reduction in the U.S, is the Maumee river.
The Maumee has the largest watershed of any Great Lakes river, with 6,571 square miles in Michigan,
Indiana, and Ohio, 72% percent of which are used to grow crops. While NRCS farmer surveys indicate
farmers are using conservation and stewardship practices to a significant degree 99 percent of cropland
acres in WLEB have at least one conservation practice in use17 efforts to date have not been adequate to
prevent HABs. Wider farmer adoption of the most effective practices will be necessary to meet and sustain
the 40% reduction goals.
A significant portion of the phosphorus that is contributing to the harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie originates
from surface and subsurface losses of commercial and organic fertilizer applied to cropland. According to
USDA researchers, soluble phosphorus loss is the greatest treatment need in the Western Basin, and the
14 Sharpley, A., H.P. Jarvie, A. Buda, L. May, B. Spears, and P. Kleinman. "Phosphorus Legacy: Overcoming the Effects of Past
Management Practices to Mitigate Future Water Quality Impairment." Journal of Environmental Quality 42(201 3): 1 308-
1 326. DOI: 10.21 34/jeq201 3.03.0098.
15 Stow, C.A., Y. Cha, L.T. Johnson, R. Confesor, and R.P. Richards. 2015. Long-term and seasonal trend decomposition of
Maumee River nutrient inputs to western Lake Erie. Environmental Science & Technology, 49: 3392-3400.
16 Obenour, D.R., A.D. Gronewold, C.A. Stow, and D. Scavia. "Using a Bayesian Hierarchical Model to Improve Lake Erie
Cyanobacteria Bloom Forecasts." Water Resources Research 50(2014/10): 7847-7860. 10.1002/2014WR015616.
17 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2016. Effects of Conservation
Practice Adoption on Cultivated Cropland Acres in Western Lake Erie Basin, 2003-06 and 2012.
Page 95
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
majority of soluble phosphorus losses occur through subsurface tile drains (King et al, 201 4 and Smith et al.
2014, USDA NRCS 201 6). Conservation practices applied as a system, rather than individually, are needed
to more effectively reduce surface and subsurface phosphorus losses (Francesconi et al. 2014)18.
Although achieving the 40% reduction goals will be challenging, recent studies indicate it could be possible. In
the Maumee River basin, for example, an application of multiple watershed models demonstrated that the
forty percent reduction goal could be achieved through widespread adoption of conservation practices
targeted to the areas where they are needed most19. In another study, USDA researchers simulated adoption
of improved nutrient management, erosion control and cover crops on 95% of cropped acres to achieve a
total phosphorus reduction of 43% at the edges of fields5. However, the instream delivered reductions are
often much less than edge of field reductions because there are many interacting instream dynamics that
impact load deliveries between the edge of field and Lake Erie. For example, a recent USDA CEAP study
suggests that once conservation practices in place in 201 2 are fully functional, annual edge of field
phosphorus losses may decline from 2003-06 levels by 17 percent, but this will only decrease annual total
phosphorus deliveries to Lake Erie by 3 percent20. It is also important to note that a 95% adoption rate of this
full suite of practices in this scenario, would be challenging and take time and technical and financial resources
to achieve and sustain under current conservation incentive programs.
Implementing a suite of conservation practices on nearly every acre in the watershed through voluntary
programs may not seem realistic or feasible, but NRCS data suggests farmers are already moving in the right
direction. In 201 2, the average number of practices per acre was 2.4, with an average conservation
investment per acre per year of $57. These data suggest farmers in the region are incorporating the idea of
complementary practices and comprehensive management into how they manage their fields.
USDA assessments indicate that incremental progress is possible and needed throughout the Maumee river
basin. If annual loadings are considered on a per acre basis, the average amount of phosphorus discharged
by the Maumee River is a little more than 1 pound per acre per year (lbs/a/y)21. Ohio farmers are applying,
on average, 1 9 lbs/a/y. Model simulations show that with the conservation practices in use in the Western
Lake Erie basin in 201 2, cultivated cropland acres lose about 1.9 pounds of phosphorus per acre per year,
about half a pound less per acre than they were losing with conservation practices in place in 2003-06. For
many farmers already doing a good job, agronomic losses of this magnitude are considered minimal, and any
further reductions would require more precise nutrient management, such as broad use of variable rate
technology. In other cases, what was considered adequate in the past will no longer be good enough.
Most of the phosphorus that feeds the blooms each summer is delivered through a handful of
storm events. The timing and delivery of phosphorus runoff is critically important to manage. At a
minimum, every producer should be following the 4Rs of nutrient stewardship, in addition, efforts
to better manage nutrients must be coupled with efforts to better manage runoff.
18 Francesconi, W., C. O. Williams, D. R. Smith, J. R. Williams, and J. Jeong. "Phosphorus Modeling in Tile Drained Agricultural
Systems Using APEX." Journal of Fertilizers and Pesticides 7 (166/2016). DOI: 10.4172/2471-2728.1000166.
19 Scavia D., M. Kalcic, R. Logsdon Muenich, N. Aloysius, J. Arnold, C. Boles, R. Confesor, J. DePinto, M. Gildow, J. Martin, J.
Read, T. Redder, D. Robertson, S. Sowa, Y.C. Wang, M. White, and H. Yen. 2016. Informing Lake Erie Agriculture Nutrient
Management via Scenario Evaluation.
20 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2017. Effects of Conservation
Practices on Water Erosion and Loss of Sediment at the Edge of the Field: A National Assessment Based on the 2003-06 CEAP
Survey and APEX Modeling Databases.
21 Based on average annual export during 2000-2015, measured at Waterville, averaged over the entire drainage area.
Page 96
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
While recent studies indicate WLEB farmers are doing a good job overall, HABs are not responding to long
term average annual loading trends. As much as 90% of the total phosphorus load to a river can be
delivered during storm events. This is especially challenging during the spring runoff period, when soils are
saturated and typically bare of vegetation. Water flowing over bare soils can cause soil erosion and losses
of manure or fertilizer that was applied, even from the previous fall.
Improved water management is becoming increasingly important under current and future weather conditions.
Recent research has shown that precipitation and discharge has increased in the past decade (Stow et al.
2015), which accounts for ~35% of the increase in loading since 2002 (Jarvie et al. 201 7). Recorded rainfall
data near Bowling Green, Ohio shows that in the past 1 0 to 15 years, the frequency of large rainfall events
doubled (Kevin King, unpublished data). Success will clearly require new and innovative approaches, including
new science and technology that is on the horizon.
Event Size
ง .2
53
it
O Q-
^ o
CM .
IS
13
3 CO
E I
3 OJ
o
30
25
20
15
10
5
8 Events in 16 Years! i
20 Events in 16 Years
1
3 in 2015
1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014
Time
Source: Dr. Kevin King, USDA ARS.
How much reduction is expected to occur?
In an effort to understand whether current resources and proposed actions will be sufficient to meet the
phosphorus reduction goals, USEPA conducted a preliminary analysis using existing, readily available
information on total phosphorus (Ibs/yr) reductions achieved by a few of the key federal and state programs
and projects at work in the basin. Based on that information, we would anticipate a total source reduction of
~3.2 M lbs TP from 2008 levels by 201 9. This estimate is based on a combination of projected estimates
and reported accomplishments for NRCS-assisted conservation practices, CWA 31 9 and GLRI funded projects,
and WWTPs. Because there are many interacting instream dynamics that impact load deliveries between
sources upstream and Lake Erie, we assumed that reductions from upstream sources need to be 1.5 times
greater than the desired reduction delivered to the Lake22. This would yield a projected reduction to the Lake
of ~2.4 million lbs, which is 34% of the reduction needed from the U.S. (7.3 million lbs).
22 Although we have applied a ratio here to try to help understand what might be possible with continued edge of field loss
reductions due to conservation practice adoption, we have no accurate way of translating edge of field reductions to
reductions in the Lake due to unknown factors around legacy load dynamics.
Page 97
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Simple calculations like this can be useful for guiding program implementation, but certainly are not robust
enough for an accurate assessment of progress. There are many potential sources of error:
Reductions are not calculated the same way (differences in methodology).
Reductions are not additive (the sum of benefits for multiple practices is not equal to the sum of their
individual benefits).
We haven't accounted for any new sources that could potentially offset these reductions (e.g. changes
in land use or land management; new livestock operations).
We are assuming the reduction is maintained (management continues to occur, permit conditions are
met, and structural practices are maintained).
We applied a ratio to translate source reductions to reductions in the lake. In fact, there is no accurate
way to predict this.
Furthermore, projecting load reductions in the lake from implementation of NPS BMPs upstream is even more
complicated because:
Actual BMP performance can be site specific.
Not all acres are contributing equally. Treating acres with the highest losses will return the biggest
gains initially, but like a diet, over time the reductions get harder to achieve.
Annual load delivery is highly dependent on storm events.
Legacy sources are dynamic and variable. As nutrients are transported downstream, they can
transform from solid phase (attached to sediments) to soluble forms.
The size of the legacy P pool in the basin is currently unknown and unaccounted for.
This is why in the future, we will rely on more comprehensive assessments (such as CEAP) and examine multiple
indicators to assess progress (these are described further in the How Progress Will Be Measured Section).
We know that only a fraction of the fertilizers applied to the landscape makes its way into Lake Erie. Most of
the P in the fertilizers applied to fields is taken up by crops, some remains in the soil, and a small fraction is
lost to nearby streams, and ultimately to Lake Erie. Along the way, nutrients can transform from solid phase
(attached to sediment) to soluble forms, and that is impacted by stream dynamics and chemistry.
Legacy P in the fields
The bad news; in-field legacy nutrients which are present due to past management continue to be
remobilized and contribute to current loads.
T d news: it hasn't become legacy in the stream yet, and with proper management the in-
field legacy P can be drawn down by crops. Utilizing a conservation cropping system, farmers can account for
fields or areas within fields with high soil test P and incorporate them into their nutrient management. One
immediate benefit of this is that with variable rate fertilizer application technology, accurate soil P testing
may lower the overall amount of fertilizer P needed an immediate cost saving. Additional system
components can be put in place to trap and treat P runoff before it leaves the field and enters a waterbody.
Page 98
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
The science has shown that the right conservation cropping practices in the right places does reduce edge of
field losses, and when implemented on the most vulnerable acres can significantly reduce downstream
loading.
Legacy P in the streams
The bad news; Some of the P that was deposited in waterways in past years contributes to current
loads. At the moment, we don't know exactly how much and we can't accurately predict the rate at which it
will be remobilized into the system because it is highly weather dependent and variable (e.g. big storms can
transport sediment that was deposited decades before). However, ongoing watershed and field-based
research will provide better answers in the near future.
T d news: as corrective actions are taken to reduce P losses at edge of field, less P will end
up as in stream legacy P. Also efforts to stabilize streambanks and to reduce magnitude and velocity of
stream flows will reduce transport of legacy P in streams to the lake.
Legacy P in the lake
The bad news: There is some evidence that algal seeding in the lake's sediments may influence the
threshold for response to nutrients delivered to the lake, such that algae respond more quickly and more
intensely to any delivered nutrient loads (Obenour et a I., 201 4). In-lake nutrient cycling can delay measurable
remediation of the eutrophic conditions, even after external nutrient loading has been reduced (Matisoff et al.
201 6;23 Paerl et al. 201 6a24, Sharpley et al. 201 325).
T d news: Presently, the internal phosphorus loading from sediments is a relatively small
contributor to the whole lake load26. However, the relative significance of the internal P load could change
over time, because as external loads to the lake are decreased, relatively more P will be remobilized from
the bottom sediments.
In summary, the impact of legacy P (either in the fields, between the fields and rivers, in the rivers, or in the
lake) is a dynamic and complex process that could significantly delay when the benefits of upstream source
reductions will become apparent. This will continue to be a challenge and is one of the reasons why our
management strategy is not focused solely on source reduction but on P transport, timing and delivery of P
runoff. We know the only way to reduce legacy loads is to: 1) Decrease the amount replenishing the
hydrologic system at the upper end by reducing edge of field losses and, 2) Remediate its impact through
stream restoration or other mechanisms to bind the in-stream legacy P so it doesn't remobilize. A holistic
management approach is necessary to appropriately address all components of the system.
23 Matisoff, G., E.M. Kaltenberg, R.L. Steely, S.K. Hummel, J. Seo, K.J. Gibbons, T.B. Bridgeman, Y. Seo, M. Behbahani, W.F.
James, L.T. Johnson, P. Doan, M. Dittrich, M.A. Evans, and J.D. Chaffin. 2016. Internal loading of phosphorus in western Lake
Erie. Journal of Great Lakes Research 42:775-788.
24 Paerl, H.W., W.S. Gardner, K.E. Havens, A.R. Joyner, M.J. McCarthy, S.E. Newell, B. Qin, and J.T. Scott. 2016a. Mitigating
cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms in aquatic ecosystems impacted by climate change and anthropogenic nutrients. 2016.
Harmful Algae 54:21 3-222.
25 Sharpley, A.N., H.P. Jarvie, A. Buda, L. May, B. Spears, and P. Kleinman. 201 3. Phosphorus legacy: Overcoming the effects
of past management practices to mitigate future water quality impairment. Journal of Environmental Quality 42:1 308-1 326.
26
Page 99
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
v-e ;vr. ;u'::rk io f i o a 'WU:3 fey
We cannot at this time predict with accuracy exactly when and how the P reduction goals for Lake Erie will be
met. Specifically related to NPS BMP implementation and associated P reductions, we remain optimistic that
the actions proposed in this plan are on the right track to meet the 40% reduction goals in the WLEB for the
following reasons:
1. Our initial estimate of projected source reductions is conservative in that it does not include all federal,
State and locally-funded programs; not does it include voluntary practice adoption by farmers
(outside of incentive programs).
2. Some recent actions like Ohio's ban on manure or fertilizer application on frozen or snow covered
ground, will likely result in significant reductions that have not been quantified.
3. The phosphorus reductions associated with training and education efforts are also difficult to quantify,
such as Ohio Department of Agriculture's fertilizer certification program, which trained over 8,000
farmers in western basin counties on proper nutrient management in the past 2 years.
4. We currently only track and report on the adoption that is assisted through conservation programs but
in fact we know the actual adoption on the landscape is much higher. For example, Indiana's 201 5
and 201 6 tillage transects verified over a million acres in cover crops statewide. This means the actual
adoption of cover crops on the landscape was 4-5 times greater than the amount of acres touched by
assistance programs. We also know from the USDA CEAP Cropland studies that private voluntary
farmer efforts are providing substantial and increasing efforts in the WLEB.
5. Current adoption of practices to prevent soil erosion is good, but there is room for improvement in
nutrient management, drainage management, and comprehensive cropping systems.
6. There is evidence that well-designed outreach and incentive programs could result in increased
voluntary adoption of BMPs due to the high level of motivation to act among farmers in the WLEB
(Prokup et al. 201 7).
7. Many more farmers are willing to adopt and studies indicate if they do, enough acres would be
treated to meet the 40%27.
8. The proposed strategies engage multiple sector groups and partners to identify the most effective
strategies for reducing P from both point and nonpoint sources.
9. The strategy for reducing agricultural sources recognizes the need to tailor solutions to individual
farms, continue to build systems & implement comprehensive solutions.
1 0. While legacy P could significantly delay when the benefits of upstream source reductions will be
apparent, we have opportunities to lessen its impact and are researching innovative technologies.
27 Wilson (in review) found that moving motivated farmers from "willing to adopt" to "actually adopting" would result in
~770,000 acres of additional cover crops and ~1.025 million acres of additional subsurface placement. Assuming current
adoption rates are maintained this would raise the adoption levels to 38% (total) adopting cover crops and 64% of farmers
(total) adopting subsurface placement. The estimated multi-year average (2005-2014) total phosphorus (TP) load resulting
from these total adoption levels, in addition to other practices already in place on the landscape (filter strips 30%) would
meet the Maumee River March-July TP loading target of 860 metric tons (MT). It is important to note that meeting the 860 MT
loading target on average does not ensure that the target will be met for each individual year, as relatively high loading
years like 201 1 and 2015 still exceeded the target according to this modeled scenario. Citation: Wilson, R.S., D. Schlea, C.
Boles, and T. Redder. In review. "Using models of farmer behavior to inform eutrophication policy in the Great Lakes." Water
Research.
Page 1 00
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Importantly, we expect a number of outcomes will occur that will advance our collective efforts to reduce
nutrient loading to Lake Erie. By implementing the commitments identified in this plan, we will:
significantly increase the rate of adoption of key management practices on agricultural lands such as
nutrient management, drainage water management, and soil health initiatives,
test and demonstrate effectiveness of new technologies, such as saturated buffers, blind inlets,
phosphorus removal structures and P-optimal wetlands.
significantly improve our tracking and measurements of phosphorus loadings to the Lake. This includes
additional long term stream water quality monitoring stations and improvements to watershed and in-
lake models.
improve coordination and tracking of actions and investments, so that cost effective measures can be
identified.
strengthen local watershed restoration activities to help meet downstream objectives in the Lake,
increase stakeholder awareness & collaboration through dissemination and engagement of this plan.
Page 1 01
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
HOW PROGRESS WILL BE MEASURED
We are continuing to develop binational and domestic approaches for tracking progress under Annex 4.
Our efforts to date have largely been focused on developing a binational approach for tracking loads on
annual basis, which we committed to begin reporting in 201 8. The load estimation exercise is a critical
backbone of a broader effort to track and report progress under Annex 4. In addition to phosphorus, federal
and state partners must periodically assess and report on our progress implementing the DAPs. ent is
not to focus on where we are falling short, but on how we can work together and support each
other to improve our collective success.
Three key pieces of information have to be integrated in order to assess our progress:
Reductions in loading by source (directly measured for point sources; estimated from models for
nonpoint sources)
Changes in nutrient concentrations and loads as estimated by flow-adjusted trends. This will require
long-term (at least 1 0 years) data to account for precipitation variability, which impacts streamflow.
Attainment of LEOs as measured by eutrophication response indicators
Federal and state agencies have developed an initial suite of indicators and metrics for measuring progress.
This information will serve multiple purposes:
Convey information on progress toward achieving:
o P reduction goals
o Lake Ecosystem Objectives
Evaluate and understand:
o Effectiveness of the actions to achieve the P reduction goals
o Effectiveness of the targets to achieve the LEOs
Conduct Adaptive Management:
o Compare current state to projected outcomes
o Explain factors affecting water quality trends
o Enhance models using improved understanding of trends and ecosystem responses
o Adjust DAPs as necessary to achieve desired water quality outcomes
The ultimate measure of progress will be a clean and healthy Lake Erie, no longer plagued by excess nutrients
and algae. Restoring water quality in the Lake and its tributary watersheds is the main objective but will take
time. Efforts to monitor progress will require continued, ongoing monitoring as part of a science-based
adaptive management approach.
Agencies will look to a number of monitoring programs to track progress in the near and long-term. The
following tables summarize the indicators to be used in the U.S. These indicators are categorized into three
groups: Group 1 Indicators measure progress "on the ground"; Group 2 Indicators measure progress in
streams and watersheds; and Group 3 Indicators measure outcomes in the Lake. For each, we identified
potential metrics, the lead Agency who will measure and at what frequency.
Page 1 02
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
i oup- 1 ln^kw-ior.
1
Measuring Progress On the Ground
Near-term
Measure
Scale
Program
Lead
Frequency
Potential Metrics
1.1
Conservation
WLEB,
Farm bill
NRCS
Annual
# acres treated, $$ contracted,
practice
State
(multiple), GLRI
# contracts, # of practices,
adoption
estimated phosphorus reductions
at edge of field
1.2
Nutrient
WLEB,
GLRI, CWA
USEPA,
Annual
# acres, project costs, # of
reduction
State
31 9, State
States
practices, estimated phosphorus
projects
programs
reductions at edge of field
Long-1
term
1.3
Effects of
agricultural
conservation
practice
adoption on
cultivated
croplands
WLEB
CEAP
NRCS
5-10 years
Changes in farmer adoption
rates, $$ invested in
conservation, acres in need of
treatment, average phosphorus
reductions per acre attributed to
conservation
1.4
Agricultural
Fields
Edge of field
USGS,
On-going
Measured reductions in
conservation
within
monitoring
ARS and
phosphorus losses at edge of
practice
effectiveness
WLEB
sub-
watersh
eds
(USGS, NRCS),
CEAP and EOF
research (ARS,
NRCS)
NRCS
field
Page 1 03
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
2
Measuring Progress in Tributary Watersheds
Near-term
Measure
Scale
Program
Lead
Frequency
Potential Metrics
2.1
Tributary
phosphorus
loadings
WLEB
priority
tributaries
Multiple
States,
Heidelberg,
USGS
Seasonal/
Annual
Spring and annual FWMC,
loads, and discharge
2.2
Nutrient loadings
Varies -
small
watershed
basin
wide
Multiple
States,
Heidelberg,
USGS
USEPA,
USGS
Seasonal/
Annual
Spring and annual FWMC,
loads, and discharge
Lake wide annual estimates for
monitored and unmonitored
tributaries
Long-1
term
2.3
Tributary water
quality
Varies
GL Tributary
monitoring
program
USGS
Varies by
need
Long term water quality trends,
changes in hydrology,
subwatershed loads
2.4
Watershed
effects of
agricultural
conservation
practices
Selected
HUC1 2s
CEAP
ARS, NRCS,
university
Seasonal/
Annual
Long term field and watershed
water quality trends from
conservation, modeled instream
load reductions attributed to
conservation
2.5
Watershed
stressors
County
NLCD
Ag Census
USGS
USDA
5 years
Land use, population changes
Cropland and livestock
production
Page 1 04
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
4 i nvi ,'t O I'i
3
Measuring Progress in the Lake
Near-term
Measure
Scale
Program
Lead
Frequency
Potential Metrics
3.1
HAB severity
WLEB
Forecast/bulle
tins
NOAA,
Heidelberg
Annual
Algal bloom severity,
cyanobacteria biomass
3.2
Hypoxia
Central
basin
multiple
USEPA,
OEPA,
Universities
Annual
Extent of low oxygen zone
Long-1
term
3.3
Open-lake
Lake
Lake
USEPA
Annual
Offshore phosphorus
water quality &
Guardian
surveys
concentrations, dissolved oxygen
central basin
depletion rates, and other water
hypoxia
quality metrics
3.4
Nearshore water
quality
Near-
shore
NCCA
USEPA
5 years
Proportion of nearshore in
good/fair/poor condition for
nutrients
3.5
Nutrients and
algae
Lake
SOGL
USEPA
3 years
Proportion of offshore in
good/fair/poor condition for
nutrients
Page 1 05
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Adaptive management (AM) is a long term, structured and iterative process for continually improving
management results by learning from the outcomes of previous policies and practices.
(0
Establish goals
& objectives
Communicate
current
understanding
|
งm
A
syn
e1
inesize at
valuate
ImQll
Do
The Adaptive Management Cycle. Source: Delta Stewardship Council. 201 3a. "The Delta Plan." Sacramento, California: Delta
Stewardship Council.
In the context of the DAPs, AM refers to the process of updating implementation strategies in response to
changing environmental and economic conditions. This approach is necessary because natural systems are
inherently variable and the impacts of management actions are difficult to predict accurately. Uncertainty is
made even greater with a changing climate and ecosystem changes caused by invasive species.
It is imperative that we implement a long term AM strategy so that we can evaluate our progress and adjust
actions over time. We committed in the GLWQA to assess, and where necessary, develop, and implement
regulatory and non-regulatory programs to reduce phosphorus loading from multiple sources. A wealth of
information must be collected over several years before we will be able to determine whether the mitigation
activities presented in this plan will be effective in reducing phosphorus loads to the Lake. There are three
potential outcomes: the actions have been immediately effective in meeting targets, the actions are effective
but with a delay in meeting targets due to legacy effects, or the actions are ineffective at current adoption
levels. Each of these scenarios would trigger a different management response.
Page 1 06
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
As we move forward in implementing our AM framework, we will examine the following questions to address
implementation challenges and opportunities, incorporate new data and scientific knowledge and refine
decision support tools and management strategies toward achievement of water quality outcomes:
5^ What progress has been made implementing the DAPs?
5^ What are the changes in water quality?
5^ What are we learning about factors affecting water quality changes to better implement practices?
5^ What refinements are needed in monitoring and modeling approaches to better assess trends?
>ฆ* Do we need to update our models in response to better understanding other ecosystem drivers (e.g.
implications of climate variability, legacy phosphorus, invasive mussels, etc.)?
>ฆ* Do we need to change our programs or policies to minimize obstacles or accelerate progress towards
achieving the LEOs?
How we will implement AM
One of the biggest changes in the 201 2 GLWQA was the increased importance both countries placed on
engaging the broadest range of governments, organizations, and the public in work to restore and protect
Great Lakes water quality. Canada and United States committed to report on progress every three years to
document domestic and binational actions to achieve nutrient objectives. The International Joint Commission is
tasked with reviewing and seeking public input on our progress. It is through the GLWQA's enhanced
governance structure that all stakeholders can collaborate to identify program and policy changes that will
accelerate our progress in restoring Lake Erie.
Institutional
Collaboration
Adjust
Monitor
Learn
Evaluate
Arrangements
Caption: The GLWQA governance structure provides the institutional framework needed to effectively implement AM
in Lake Erie. Source: htt
Page 1 07
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
USEPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) specifically recommended establishing a formal committee to develop
and implement the AM framework in Lake Erie. For the time being, the Annex 4 Subcommittee serves this role
and is already modifying its membership and workgroups to conduct AM in more structured way over the next
3-5 years. As we implement and refine our approach, our goal is to build on the passive forms of AM that
occur now to more fully realize the learning opportunities available under a more deliberate and active AM
framework.
Active vs Passive Adaptive
Management
Less learning
Passive
Choose "best" management
Monitor
Evaluate
> More learning
Active
Deliberate,structured experimentation
Choose management to push system
Develop testable hypotheses,
alternative mod els
Structure monitoring, research to test
hypotheses, differentiate models
Caption: Active vs Passive Adaptive Management. Source: Craig Stow, NOAA GLERL
Taken together, the federal and state action plans have all the components necessary to successfully
implement AM:
Defined problem (s)
Authorization to address problem (s)
An institutional framework to support collaboration
Defined objectives
A work plan and reporting cycle
Performance measures
Timeframes and key milestones for AM
AM is applied at different timeframes for different purposes. On an annual basis, we will track and report
status of loads, update and calibrate models, and prioritize implementation resources. Every 3-5 years we
will conduct analyses to evaluate progress and determine whether there is a need to change course.
Page 1 08
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada have committed to revise the DAPs at least every 5 years, starting in
2023. With that said, over the first 5 years of implementing this DAP, we expect there will be opportunities to
identify management approaches and actions that are or are not working; consider scientific, fiscal and policy
developments; and adjust our management strategies and implementation plans as appropriate.
We have aligned our domestic AM framework in the U.S. with the timelines and schedules already established
under the GLWQA. For example, we are required to report progress towards implementing phosphorus
reduction strategies every 3 years under the Progress Report of the Parties (PRP). Concurrent with the PRP, the
Parties conduct a great lakes-wide assessment of ecosystem condition and trends (the State of the Great
Lakes, or SOGL). The 5 year operating cycles for CSMI and LAMPs also offer opportunities for incorporating
A4 activities into broader lakewide monitoring, research and assessment efforts under Annexes 2 and 1 0. In
the U.S., we will also schedule decision points around the availability of other domestic assessments and
strategic plans updated every 5 years, such as the GLRI Action Plan, USDA Farm Bill, National Coastal
Condition Assessment (NCCA) and the USDA WLEB Cropland Assessment (CEAP). The key milestones for AM
are summarized below.
Page 1 09
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Schedule for Adaptive Management of the U.S. DAP
AM Activity When Where reported Other key milestones
conducted
Finalize DAPs
February
2018
Binational.net
and domestic
websites
Update loads through
Spring
June GLEC
ErieStat release
2016
2018
Finalize binational P
Winter
Lake Erie LAMP
reduction strategy and
2018-
AM framework
2019
Conduct baseline water
Summer
PRP/June GLEC
1 0 years since 2008 baseline for targets
quality analysis for
priority tributaries where
have long term
2019
+ SOGL
Lake Erie CSMI field year; concerted
Cladophora monitoring effort; develop
monitoring since 2008
whole lake ecosystem model; results of
2015 nearshore assessment (NCCA)
available; pilot new SOGL indicator for
nutrient loads
Development of next 5-year Action Plan
for GLRI; potentially new USDA Farm Bill;
new WLEB CEAP Cropland Assessment
U.S. & Canada revisit
2020
December GLEC
U.S. federal and state partners start
ability to set Eastern basin
implementing GLRI Action Plan 3 (2020-
target
2024)
New York & local partners start
implementing watershed-based plan for
eastern Lake Erie
USEPA & WLEB States
2021-
2022 PRP +
Lake Erie CSMI data analysis & reporting
assess progress towards
2022
SOGL
2020 milestones
U.S. & Canada
2023
Binational.net
Update Lake Erie LAMP
revise/update DAPs
and domestic
websites
USEPA & WLEB States
2025
2025 PRP +
1 0 years since WLEB Collaborative
assess progress towards
SOGL
agreement signed
2025 milestones
Page 1 1 0
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
The importance of monitoring design
While we are eager to demonstrate progress in reducing phosphorus loads to the Lake, it is critical that we
first take the time to design and collect data that will be suitable to inform management decisions. Estimation
of pollutant load through monitoring is a complex task that requires accurate measurement of both pollutant
concentration and water flow and careful calculation, often based on a statistical approach. Both flow and
concentration vary considerably over time, especially for nonpoint source pollutants. Accurate load estimation
becomes an exercise in both how many samples to take and when to take them to account for this variability.
It is imperative that the monitoring program be designed for good load estimation at the start.
The tracking and reporting of seasonal and annual loads is a critical backbone of our ability to assess
progress under Annex 4. Hence, our initial efforts have been focused on two immediate priorities:
1. Develop a coordinated monitoring strategy and network for collecting compatible tributary data to
evaluate progress towards the new phosphorus targets; and
2. Developing a system to routinely and reliably track and report loads.
In the past, loads to the lake were estimated periodically by the late Dr. Dave Dolan. Most recently, loads
were updated through 201 3 by his former graduate student, Matthew Maccoux, working with ECCC
researchers (Maccoux et al. 201 6). These approaches for calculating whole lake loadings relied on whatever
monitoring data were available even if they were not collected at sufficient frequency to accurately estimate
loads. In general, in order to accurately calculate tributary loads, you most often must have high frequency
sampling. The choice of when to collect concentration samples is also critical. Even with a lot of samples, some
of the variability in loads over time can often be due to climatic patterns, so it may take time to see a change
in watershed response - at least 5-1 0 years or more.
We will have to use caution interpreting progress in any given year. Many of the changes we see in tributary
loading from one year to the next are simply due to the weather, and it will take many years before we can
tell whether a reduction has actually occurred. Furthermore, if a decrease in phosphorus loads is observed, it
can be difficult to attribute that change as a response to management action. Changes can be detected
sooner in small watersheds, if significant implementation occurs in a short period of time and data collection is
sufficiently robust to capture it.
According to a 201 5 study28 led by the Northeast-Midwest Institute, long-term, targeted
water quality monitoring in conjunction with significant increases in adoption would be
necessary to detect statistically significant reductions in nutrient loads to Lake Erie
resulting from the implementation of agricultural BMPs. At a minimum, 10 years of data is
needed to detect a 40% reduction in loads. However, more time is needed to detect a
smaller reduction. It would take 40 years to detect a 10% reduction in load. Findings from
this report and the CEAP Watersheds Synthesis Study have been used to better coordinate
the location of small watershed monitoring sites and conservation incentive areas in high
priority watersheds.
28 Betanzo, E.A., Choquette, A.F., Reckhow, K.H., Hayes, L., Hagen, E.R., Argue, D.M., and Cangelosi, A.A., 2015,
Water data to answer urgent water policy questions: Monitoring design, available data and filling data gaps for
determining the effectiveness of agricultural management practices for reducing tributary nutrient loads to Lake
Erie, Northeast-Midwest Institute Report, 1 69 p., http://www.nemw.ora /.
Page 1 11
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Current Status and Next Steps
Over the past two years, the Annex 4 Subcommittee and task teams have made significant progress in
developing a systematic and improved process for updating loads that is based on the historic Dolan method.
This involves modernizing the Dolan approach (e.g. ECCC developed a tool to automate aspects of the
calculations), and developing an institutional framework in which the Parties will be able to do this routinely to
meet GLWQA reporting commitments. USEPA, ECCC and federal and state/provincial partners have a plan
in place to update the whole lake loading calculations through water year 201 6; we anticipate reporting
those results in June 201 8.
Binational workgroups established under Annex 4 have provided valuable technical assessments and
recommendations that will improve efforts for collecting compatible tributary and in-lake data. These groups
have so far developed inventories of tributary monitoring sites in the Lake Erie watershed and in-lake HABs
monitoring sites in the WLEB. The groups have also provided guidance on sampling frequency and load
estimation approaches that will help ensure adequate monitoring to reliably calculate loads and flow
weighted mean concentrations (FWMCs). The design of our monitoring strategy in Lake Erie draws from a
well-established body of knowledge on monitoring design for nonpoint source pollutants, such as the technical
guidance documents and resources developed by USEPA's National Nonpoint Source Monitoring program:
ig.. Through these efforts, monitoring agencies were able
to ensure that all priority tributaries in the U.S. have or will soon have monitoring at sufficient frequency to
calculate loads and FWMCs.
Similarly, a new sampling method for Lake Erie HABs has been developed and will be used by most parties
starting in 201 8. The new method consists of a scum sampling protocol that will improve consistency among the
many entities sampling HABs in the WLEB (see attached map). A third workgroup will be formed in 201 8 to
evaluate the modeling needs. Together, the monitoring and modeling approaches recommended by these
workgroups will continue to inform our domestic and binational adaptive management approaches.
Annex 4 workgroup summary of monitoring near the mouths of U.S. priority tributaries
Monitoring for
Monitoring all
Tributary
loads/FWMCs?
parameters?
Notes
River Raisin
YES
YES
Maumee River
YES
YES
Continuous SRP beginning spring 201 8
Portage River
YES
YES
Sandusky River
YES
YES
Monthly sampling with surrogates and soluble
P sensor began in fall 201 7; this will enable
Huron River
SOON
YES
annual reporting of loads starting in 2020
Vermilion River
YES
YES
Continuous SRP beginning spring 2019
Cuyahoga River
YES
YES
Monthly sampling with surrogates and soluble
P sensor began in fall 201 7; this will enable
Grand River (Ohio)
SOON
YES
annual reporting of loads starting in 2020
Cattaraugus Creek
YES
YES
Continuous SRP beginning spring 201 8
Page 1 1 2
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
Michigan
Lucas Co.
Ottawa Co
Lake Erie Monitoring Locations
Western Basin
fhio
9 Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
Canada
~
4+/month
2-3/month
1/month
<1/month
Erie Co.
Sampling Stations
O NOAA
G Charter boat captains
~ GB BGSU
A. ODNR
ฉ osu
0 USGS
ฉ UT-LEC
-fr OEPA
_ Q MM BGSU
A GLNPO ~
ฎ ECCC-WHERD a
S3 ECCC-WQMS ฃ>
Michigan/Canada
Ohio
Ohio County Boundaries
Lake Political Boundaries
Map developed by Ohio EPA based on inventory by the Annex 4 workgroup.
Page 1 13
-------
U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie (February 2018 Final)
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND REPORTING
This plan will not be successful without the engagement and support of the many active partners in the Great
Lakes region. We engaged stakeholders in the development of the domestic action plans in 201 7, through in-
person engagement sessions with targeted stakeholder groups. We will continue to engage Great Lakes
stakeholders as we implement these plans and track progress towards achieving the phosphorus reduction
goals.
The U.S. and Canada are required to report on the progress of implementing the GLWQA every three years.
In 201 6, the first Progress Report of the Parties (PRP) was issued under the revised GLWQA. A formal report
was developed and the information was presented at the Great Lakes public forum. The International Joint
Commission is responsible for evaluating the governments' progress and providing stakeholder feedback to
agencies implementing the GLWQA. Great Lakes stakeholders will continue to have this opportunity to
provide public input to the progress being made under Annex 4, and specifically the implementation of
actions to achieve phosphorus reduction goals, at the Great Lakes Public Forum.
In addition to the triennial PRP and annual LAMP reports, the Annex 4 Subcommittee intends to host webinars
to keep the public apprised of our progress implementing the Lake Erie domestic action plans. The Annex 4
Subcommittee will track and report phosphorus loads on an annual basis, in coordination with the Lake Erie
HABs forecast and Lakewide Annual Report. The Subcommittee is also collaborating with the Great Lakes
Commission (GLC) to develop a binational information platform for tracking progress.
A pilot project of the GLCs Blue Accounting Initiative, ErieStat uses metrics and relevant data to measure
progress toward the jurisdictions' shared goals for nutrient reduction in Lake Erie. Importantly this tool will
enable us to track progress of
water quality metrics, while also
tracking the impacts of
strategies and investments
intended to reduce phosphorus
loading. Information on the
website will be updated at least
annually. Visit
or for more information.
The U.S. Action Plan can be accessed here:
The full suite of U.S., state and Canada-Ontario domestic action plans can be accessed here:
httos: / /binationa I.net /annexes /a4 /.
% Blue Accounting ErieStat
Tracking Progress Toward a Healthier Lake Erie
Page 1 1 4
------- |