THE USE OF RESTORED WETLANDS IN WESTERN ......reduce contaminants in surface water discharges. There are millions of acres suitable for wetland restoration throughout the U.S. Johnson,

THE USE OF RESTORED WETLANDS IN

WESTERN TENNESSEE TO REDUCE NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT

LOADING THROUGH WATER QUALITY TRADING

Prepared by: The Nature Conservancy, Tennessee Applied Ecological Services, Inc. Kieser and Associates, Inc. 2012

i

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Index to Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................ 1 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Feasibility Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 6 Introduction to Water Quality Trading ........................................................................................... 8 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 12

1.1 Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 13 1.2 Stormwater Regulation ........................................................................................................ 29 1.3 Incorporation of MS4’s in TMDLs ...................................................................................... 30 1.4 Far-Field Trading Drivers .................................................................................................... 30

Methods ............................................................................................................................................. 32 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 55 Conclusions & Recommendations .................................................................................................. 84 Appendix A ..................................................................................................................................... 120 Appendix B ..................................................................................................................................... 127 Appendix C ..................................................................................................................................... 134 References Cited............................................................................................................................. 136 Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 141 TABLES Table 1. Hydrological soils groups & corresponding attributes ................................................. 18 Table 2. Area of wetland within the three watersheds of the study area .................................... 19 Table 3. Land Use/Cover Composition .......................................................................................... 20 Table 4. Comparison of EPA & TDEC Nutrient Criteria Options for Total Phosphorus (TP)

& Nitrogen (nitrate plus nitrite) ............................................................................................ 33 Table 5. Probable Range of Nutrient Effluent Limits .................................................................. 35 Table 6. Range of nitrogen reduction requirements for existing STPs in the Lower Hatchie

Watershed ................................................................................................................................ 36 Table 7. Range of phosphorus reduction requirements for existing STPs in the Lower

Hatchie Watershed .................................................................................................................. 36 Table 8. Range of nitrogen reduction requirements for existing STPs in the Loosahatchie

Watershed ................................................................................................................................ 37 Table 9. Range of phosphorus reduction requirements for existing STPs in the Loosahatchie

Watershed ................................................................................................................................ 37 Table 10. Range of nitrogen reduction requirements for existing STPs in the Wolf

Watershed ................................................................................................................................ 37 Table 11. Range of phosphorus reduction requirements for existing STPs in the Wolf

Watershed ................................................................................................................................ 38 Table 12. Summary of SWAT Model Set Up and Use ................................................................. 46 Table 13. 13-Year Precipitation Data; Wet, Dry, & Normal Years Selected During That

Period ....................................................................................................................................... 46 Table 14. SWAT Model Output ..................................................................................................... 48 Table 15. Summary of STELLA model runs for estimating pollutant removal ................................. 54 Table 16. Wetland/Forebay Construction Costs ........................................................................... 65

ii

Table 17. Construction Cost for Nitrogen Removal. .................................................................... 65 Table 18. Construction Cost for Phosphorus Removal ................................................................ 66 Table 19. Construction Cost for Sediment Removal .................................................................... 66 Table 20. Probable Range of Nutrient Effluent Limits ................................................................ 66 Table 21. Estimate of Bioavailable Phosphorus by Source Type (Barr, 2004) .......................... 70 Table 22. Trade Ratio Development ............................................................................................... 75 Table 23. Summary of Treatment Facilities in Study Area ......................................................... 80 Table 24. Summary of Potential Pollution Reductions Associated With Stormwater BMP’s . 82 Table 25. Summary of Assumptions for Treatment Plant Upgrade Costs ................................. 92 Table 26. Summary of Assumptions for Treatment Plant Upgrade Costs ................................. 92 Table 27. Summary of Upgrade Costs for TP Effluent Limits, Using 2011 Dollars .................. 93 Table 28. Median Unit Treatment Costs for Stormwater BMP Retrofits, Using 2011 Dollars 94 Table 29. Optimum Wetland & Forebay Sizes for Nutrient & Sediment Removal .................. 96 Table 30. Summary Results of a Life-Cycle Cost Assessment of Restored Wetlands ............... 97 Table 31. Annual Nitrogen Reduction Unit Costs......................................................................... 98 Table 32. Growing Season Nitrogen Reduction Unit Costs ......................................................... 99 Table 33. Annual Phosphorus Reduction Unit Costs ................................................................. 100 Table 34. Growing Season Phosphorus Reduction Unit Costs .................................................. 101 Table 35. Annual Sediment Reduction Unit Costs ...................................................................... 102 Table 36. Growing Season Sediment Reduction Unit Costs ...................................................... 103 Table 37. Cost Comparison for Annual Wetlands Credit Reductions, Performance Level

10mg ....................................................................................................................................... 105 Table 38. Cost Comparison for Growing Season Wetland Credit Reductions, Performance

Level 10mg ............................................................................................................................. 105 Table 39. Cost Comparison for Annual Wetlands Credit Reductions, Performance Level 5mg . Table 40. Cost Comparison for Growing Season Wetlands Credit Reduction, Performance

Level 5mg ............................................................................................................................... 106 Table 41. Cost Comparison for Annual Wetlands Credit Reductions, Performance Level 3mg ......................................................................................................................................... 107 Table 42. Cost Comparison for Growing Season Wetlands Credit Reductions, Performance

Level 3mg ............................................................................................................................... 107 Table 43. Cost Comparison for Annual Wetlands Credit Reductions, Performance Levels

1mg ......................................................................................................................................... 108 Table 44. Cost Comparison for Growing Season Wetlands Credit Reductions, Performance

Levels 1mg ............................................................................................................................. 108 Table 45. Cost Comparison for Annual Wetlands Credit Reductions, Performance Levels 0.5

mg ........................................................................................................................................... 109 Table 46. Cost Comparison for Growing Season Wetlands Credit Reductions, Performance

Levels 0.5 mg ......................................................................................................................... 109 Table 47. Cost Comparison for Annual Wetlands Credit Reductions, Performance Levels 0.3

mg ........................................................................................................................................... 110 Table 48. Cost Comparison for Growing Season Wetlands Credit Reductions, Performance

Level 0.3 mg ........................................................................................................................... 110 Table 49. Unit Cost Savings for Annual Wetland Credit Reductions, Performance Levels 10

mg ........................................................................................................................................... 111 Table 50. Unit Cost Savings for Growing Season Wetlands Credit Reductions, Performance

iii

Level 10 mg ............................................................................................................................ 112 Table 51. Unit Cost Savings for Annual Wetlands Credit Reductions, Performance Level 1

mg ........................................................................................................................................... 112 Table 52. Unit Cost Savings for Annual Wetland Credit Reductions, Performance Level 0.3 ... Table 53. Total Cost Savings for Annual Wetlands Credit Reductions in the Lower Hatchie

Basin, Performance Level 10mg .......................................................................................... 113 Table 54. Total Cost Savings for Growing Season Wetland Credit Reductions in the Lower

Hatchie Basin, Performance Level 10 mg ........................................................................... 114 Table 55. Total Cost Savings for Annual Wetlands Credit Reductions in the Loosahatchie

Basin, Performance Level 10 mg ......................................................................................... 114 Table 56. Total Cost Savings for Growing Season Wetland Credit Reductions in the

Loosahatchie Basin, Performance Level 10 mg ................................................................. 114 Table 57. Total Cost Savings for Annual Wetlands Credit Reductions in the Wolf Basin,

Performance Level 10 mg ..................................................................................................... 115 Table 58. Total Cost Savings for Growing Season Wetlands Credit Reductions in the Wolf

Basin, Performance Level 10 mg ......................................................................................... 115 Table 59. Total Cost Savings for Annual Wetlands Credit Reduction in the Lower Hatchie

Basin, Performance Level 1 mg ........................................................................................... 115 Table 60. Total Cost Savings for Annual Wetlands Credit Reduction in the Loosahatchie

Basin, Performance Level 1 mg ........................................................................................... 116 Table 61. Total Cost Savings for Annual Wetlands Credit Reductions in the Wolf Basin,

Performance Level 1 mg ....................................................................................................... 116 Table 62. Total Cost Savings for Annual Wetlands Credit Reduction in the Lower Hatchie

Basin, Performance Level 0.3 mg ........................................................................................ 116 Table 63. Total Cost Savings for Annual Wetlands Credit Reductions in the Loosahatchie

Basin, Performance Level 0.3 mg ........................................................................................ 117 Table 64. Total Cost Savings for Annual Wetlands Credit Reductions in the Wolf Basin,

Performance Level 0.3 mg .................................................................................................... 117 Table 65. Compiled Data Layers ................................................................................................. 135 FIGURES Figure 1. Study Area Within the Mississippi River Basin .......................................................... 12 Figure 2. Study Area, Three Watersheds 8-Digit HUCs .............................................................. 13 Figure 3. Study Area, Aerial Map .................................................................................................. 14 Figure 4. Digital Elevation Model of the Study Area ................................................................... 15 Figure 5. Subwatershed Unit Boundaries Definded by EPA 12-Digit HUCs ............................. 16 Figure 6. Hydric Soils ...................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 7. Hydrologic Soils Groups ................................................................................................. 18 Figure 8. Wetlands in the Study Area ............................................................................................ 19 Figure 9. 2001 NLCD Land Cover ................................................................................................. 21 Figure 10. Impervious Cover .......................................................................................................... 22 Figure 11. EPA Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion IX, Level III Ecoregions (EPA 2000) .............. 26 Figure 12. EPA Aggregate Nutrient Ecoregion X, Level III Ecoregions (EPA 2001) ............... 27 Figure 13. Level IV Ecoregions of Tennessee (TDEC 2001) ........................................................ 28 Figure 14. Prioritized 12-Digit HUCs ............................................................................................. 40

iv

Figure 15. Land Use Composition .................................................................................................. 41 Figure 16. Permit Locations in Association with Individual Permit Types................................ 42 Figure 17. SWAT Model Results for May 2002 Flow ................................................................... 43 Figure 18. Potential Wetland Restoration Areas .......................................................................... 44 Figure 19. Subwatersheds Selected for Refined SWAT Model Analysis & Used in Stella ....... 45 Figure 20. Annual Precipitation During a 13-Year Period from 1998-2011 .............................. 47 Figure 21. Monthly Precipitation During the 13-Year Study Period from 1998 -2011 ............. 47 Figure 22. Annual Comparison of Subwatershed Accumulation of Flow, Nitrogen,

Phosphorous & Sediment for the Month of May (2002, 2004, 2007) ................................. 49 Figure 23. Watershed 1/Subwatershed 36 ..................................................................................... 56 Figure 24. Watershed 2/Subwatershed 49 ..................................................................................... 56 Figure 25. Watershed 33/Subwatershed 8 ..................................................................................... 57 Figure 26. Watershed 37/Subwatershed 6 ..................................................................................... 58 Figure 27. Watershed 1/Subwatershed 36, Modeling Nitrogen Removal ................................... 60 Figure 28. Watershed 2/Subwatershed 49, Modeled Nitrogen Removal .................................... 60 Figure 29. Watershed 33/Subwatershed 8, Modeled Nitrogen Removal .................................... 61 Figure 30. Watershed 37/Subwatershed 6, Modeled Nitrogen Removal .................................... 62 Figure 31. Watershed 1/Subwatershed 36, Modeled Phosphorus Removal ............................... 63 Figure 32. Watershed 2/Subwatershed 49, Modeled Phosphorus Removal ............................... 63 Figure 33. Watershed 33/Subwatershed 8, Modeled Phosphorus Removal ............................... 64 Figure 34. Watershed 37/Subwatershed 6, Modeled Phosphorus Removal ............................... 64 Figure 35. Example of How SWAT Output Can Be Applied to Determine the Location

Factor for TP ........................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 36. Example of How SWAT Output Can Be Applied to Determine the Location

Factor for TN........................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 37. Permit Locations in Association With Individual Permit Types .............................. 80 Figure 38. Illustration of Cost-Effective Management Options (CTIC, 2006) ........................... 85 Figure 39. STELLA Model Input Variables................................................................................ 127 Figure 40. Mass Balance Model for Sediment Treatment .......................................................... 129 Figure 41. Sediment Removal Model ........................................................................................... 130 Figure 42. Cost Opinion Calculations .......................................................................................... 132 Figure 43. Model Outputs ............................................................................................................. 133 Figure 44. Graphical Removal Values ......................................................................................... 134 Figure 45. Tabular Removal Values ............................................................................................. 134 Figure 46. Compiled Data Layers ................................................................................................. 135

1

Acronym and Abbreviation Glossary AES Applied Ecological Services, Inc. AS Activated Sludge Ag Agriculture ArcGIS Software system offered by ESRI ArcSWAT Software program linking SWAT and ArcGIS BMP Best Management Practice BNR Biological Nutrient Removal BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CBOD5 Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand CFR Code of Federal Regulations CTIC Conservation Technology Information Center CWA Clean Water Act DEM Digital Elevation Model DIN Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen DON Dissolved Organic Nitrogen EBPR Enhanced Biological Phosphate Removal ENR Enhanced Nutrient Removal EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESRI Provider of ArcGIS products ETN Environmental Trading Network FLOW_OUT Average Daily Streamflow Out GAP Gap Analysis Program GIS Geographic Information System HUC Hydraulic Unit Codes IBI Index of Biotic Integrity K&A Kieser & Associates LA Load Allocation LULC Land Use/Land Cover MEP Maximum Extent Practicable MGD Millions of Gallons Discharge MOS Margin of Safety MRB Mississippi River Basin MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System N Nitrogen N2 Nitrogen (Gaseous) NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service NH3 Ammonia NH4+ Ammonium NLCD National Land Cover Database NO2 Nitrite NO3 Nitrate

2

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS National Resources Conservation Service NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council NWI National Wetland Inventory O&M Operations & Maintenance ORGAN_OUT Organic Nitrogen Transported Out ORGN Organic Nitrogen Yield ORGP NO3 in Surface Runoff ORGP_OUT Organic Phosphorus Transported Out P Phosphorus PDEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection PON Particulate Organic Nitrogen PPM Parts Per Million PRECIP Precipitation rbCOD Readily Biodegradable Chemical Oxygen Demand RCH Reach SCM Stormwater Control Measure Sed Sediment SED_OUT Sediment Transported with Water Out SMU Subwatershed Management Unit SPARROW Spatially Referenced Regressions on Watershed attributes (USGS model) SRP Soluble Reactive Phosphorus STATSGO State Soil Geographic Database STELLA® Commercial software program (published by ISEE Systems, Inc.) STP Sewage Treatment Plant SUB Subwatershed SWAT Soil and Water Assessment Tool SWMP Stormwater Management Plan SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SYLD Sediment Yield TBEL Technology Based Effluent Limit TDEC Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation TF Trickling Filter the Board Tennessee Water Quality Control Board TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TN Total Nitrogen TNC The Nature Conservancy TP Total Phosphorus TSS Total Suspended Solids TWG Targeted Watershed Grant USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services USGS U.S. Geological Survey

3

WLA Wasteload Allocation WQ Water Quality WQBEL Water Quality Based Effluent Limit WQS Water Quality Standards WQT Water Quality Trading WSH Watershed WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

4

Summary

The Tennessee Chapter of The Nature Conservancy and researchers from Applied Ecological Services (AES) and Kieser & Associates (K&A) investigated the potential for restored wetlands to reduce contaminants in surface water discharges. There are millions of acres suitable for wetland restoration throughout the U.S. Johnson, et al. (2008) reported over 13 million acres of wetlands have been lost, primarily for agricultural production, in Iowa alone. Land that was previously wetland but was drained for agriculture is particularly suited for restoration. Huge national investments, primarily through the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wetland Reserve Program, have attempted to leverage the restoration of wetlands. Restoring wetlands would represent a significant alignment between conservation interests locally and in the Gulf of Mexico to satisfy water quality improvement needs in agriculture, residential and industrial developments, and municipal wastewater treatment facilities. This study evaluated the potential of restored wetlands in low lying agricultural lands to enhance water quality. The modeled study sites are tributary to watersheds where contaminants contribute to Gulf of Mexico hypoxia. The study also evaluated funding opportunities and credit sales potential when agricultural lands are converted to wetlands.

5

Introduction In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded a Targeted Watershed Grant (TWG) to The Nature Conservancy (TNC). The purpose of the grant was to conduct water quality trading (WQT) market feasibility analysis to determine the potential for alternative funding sources for wetland conservation in West Tennessee. TNC partnered with Applied Ecological Services and Kieser & Associates to conduct the feasibility study. TNC identified three potential pilot watersheds in Tennessee for this assessment – the Wolf, Loosahatchie, and Lower Hatchie River Basins. Pollutants of interest in these watersheds included nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. These pollutants were identified based on their contributions to the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as local water quality impairments for eutrophication and sedimentation/siltation. Within the selected watersheds, WQT could serve as an alternative regulatory compliance option for municipal sewage treatment plants (STP) and municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Wetland restoration has demonstrated success and is widely accepted by scientific and regulatory communities. The use of wetlands for water filtration has been widely demonstrated as feasible. Linking water quality driven wetland restorations with market trading credits to serve the needs of those requiring water quality improvement for surface water discharges can be practical and feasible where adequate land is available for wetland restoration. Economical land with suitable topography is generally very available in low-lying areas adjacent to streams. Water quality trading is an alternative compliance tool that can be used as one component of a broader strategy for achieving environmental conservation goals. It should be noted that WQT is considered voluntary. Trading is associated with discharge permits that are enforceable. However, the permitted entity and the credit generator voluntarily choose to participate in the WQT market. This report details efforts to assess the feasibility of WQT for the three selected watersheds in West Tennessee. The assessment analyzed the watershed conditions to determine if trading would be feasible or viable. Certain components are necessary for trading to be a cost-effective option that protects the beneficial uses of the nation’s waters. To assess the favorability of the watershed conditions, this analysis evaluated pollutant suitability, economic suitability, and stakeholder readiness. Economic feasibility to provide reliable, sustainable water quality treatment in healthy wetland ecological systems at cost effective rates was assessed by this project. Where trading is feasible, it can improve the efficiency of meeting new water quality effluent limits. If WQT is determined to be feasible in the study area, the results of this study could be incorporated into the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation plan for Tennessee. In addition, the assessment outcomes would be relevant beyond West Tennessee and could be applied to other areas in the Lower Mississippi River basin. The combination of WQT and optimal siting of constructed wetlands represents a substantial, widely applicable and important advancement in conservation efforts. The concept could have far-ranging benefits for water quality improvement. Restored wetlands can remove a portion of the pollutant load from the inflow waters and consequently reduce pollution loading to the Gulf of Mexico.

6

Feasibility Analysis A WQT market feasibility analysis requires the collection and analysis of present technical and economic condition data to support trading. The assessment analyzes the market setting and the ability for WQT to contribute to achieving environmental conservation and protection goals. Analysis of these components also enables the identification of potential barriers to successful WQT market implementation. It also can indicate additional informational needs, including better characterization of public perceptions and stakeholder concerns. A feasibility analysis is not a WQT program, rather it analyzes the conditions and assess if WQT is viable. However, the report can serve as a foundation or guide for stakeholders when designing a trading program. The EPA has described a set of circumstances under which WQT might be viable. These conditions include:

1. The presence of a regulatory driver, such as water discharge restrictions authorized under the federal Clean Water Act;

2. Pollutant reduction solutions that have significantly different implementation costs; 3. Pollutant reduction targets that do not require all possible reduction solutions to be implemented

to achieve the targets; and 4. Stakeholder willingness to implement innovative approaches to achieve water quality goals.

We assessed these conditions for this WQT feasibility analysis in the three watersheds in West Tennessee. In addition to the conditions described above, WQT will only be protective of water quality where certain spatial and temporal characteristics are present including, an adequate supply of tradable pollution reduction credits to meet credit demand by buyers. In addition, the supply must be situated such that trade transactions occur without the buyer causing or contributing to a water quality violation. Trading programs must take into account the critical time period when a stressor could impact the designated beneficial uses of the water body. Credits generated outside of the critical period cannot be used to offset discharges during the critical period. Credit generation must be contemporaneous with the NPDES permit averaging period. A brief summary of other watershed characteristics that the EPA considers appropriate for implementing WQT include:

Beneficial water resources uses that are fully protected by the combination of conventional treatment methods and the use of WQT (permitted discharges cannot cause or contribute to a water quality violation);

Alternative compliance for the trade of newly required effluent limits (anti-backsliding);

Trades are used to meet Water Quality Based Effluent Limit (WQBELs) requirements, as opposed to Technology Based Effluent Limits (TBELs);

Voluntary participation by entities choosing this regulatory compliance alternative; and

A combination of best available science, standard methods, and discount factors used to estimate credits. This ensures equal or greater reductions of discharge loading to the water resource

7

Purpose

The feasibility analysis assessed WQT potential in three watersheds in western Tennessee – the Wolf, Loosahatchie, and Lower Hatchie River Basins. In these watersheds, modeled wetlands estimated nutrient and sediment reduction credits. The Project Team reviewed existing watershed data and information and existing regulatory drivers to evaluate potential implications of more stringent pollution reduction requirements. This assessment was a preliminary analysis, based primarily on existing data, to determine pollutant and economic suitability for WQT. It evaluated the use of trading markets as a voluntary compliance tool for achieving water quality goals. This analysis was intended to characterize the relevant trading conditions within the watershed, identify data gaps, and provide recommendations regarding WQT feasibility where the analysis supported such recommendations. The goal of this assessment was not to collect new data or design a trading program. However, this analysis provided a foundation for identifying the next steps required for implementing WQT in these watersheds.

8

Introduction to Water Quality Trading Water quality trading can be economically viable where there is a cost differential for pollutant reductions among sources. However, trading is only feasible when it fits with environmental protection goals. When protection such goals are met, entities with higher compliance costs can purchase pollution reduction credits from entities with lower reduction costs. There are four types of WQT trading options:

1. Pretreatment trading; 2. Trading among point sources; 3. Trading among point and non-point sources; and 4. Trading among non-point sources.

Pretreatment trading programs involve trades among industrial users within a municipality. Under this scenario, a municipality sets a maximum allowable load instead of allocating individual loads to each discharger. For example, entities discharging to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) would trade among themselves to meet maximum effluent limits set for the POTW. The other three trading options involve trades among direct dischargers to water bodies. These dischargers can be point or non-point sources, and the actual market participants will vary depending on the program design. The specifics of WQT market implementation will determine how credit transactions occur. Trading can occur either directly or through a credit exchange facilitated by a third party. An example of direct trading would be if two point sources engaged in a trade agreement in which one source is the credit generator and the other source is the credit purchaser. Under this scenario, the two sources interact directly to exchange pollution reduction credits. Direct trading can also occur in situations involving multiple facilities. In this case, a trade agreement covers all sources and trades are regulated by an overall pollution limit set by a permit. Alternatively, credit exchanges can be established to facilitate trading. In these situations, all sources sell and purchase credits through the exchange. In the case of trades with non-point sources, typically a land manager implements a best management practice (BMP) that reduces the pollution. If, for example, a farmer reduces pollution beyond what is required, the farmer can sell pollution reduction credits. Potential buyers include dischargers with reduction costs that are higher than the price of a credit. Therefore, WQT would also provide an additional revenue stream for farmers to assist with the costs of conservation practices. This study examined the feasibility of rural area wetland creation to offset wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) effluent limit requirements for nutrients and total suspended solids (TSS). Under the study scenario, the non-point source would be an offsite constructed wetland that would remove nutrients and sediment through natural processes. Pollution reduction credits achieved by these wetlands could then be purchased by WWTPs when it is economically efficient and fulfills environmental management goals. All WQT programs must comply with federal water quality regulations and state water quality standards.

Legal Basis

Trading programs operate within existing federal Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act) authority and related state authority. WQT is not specifically mentioned in either the CWA or Code of Federal

9

Regulations (CFR). However, the EPA has endorsed WQT markets as an option for meeting water quality compliance goals. Some states and local entities have implemented various rules, regulations, or other systems for incorporating WQT into water quality programs. Trading can also occur through third-party purchases, such as a non-profit organization, with the goal of protecting water resources. Water quality goals are achieved, in part, through implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Under the NPDES program, regulated entities must obtain a permit prior to discharging into waters of the U.S. Permits contain source-specific technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) and/or water-quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs). In general, WQBELs are included when TBELs are not sufficient to meet water quality standards. NPDES permits also include monitoring and reporting requirements. NPDES permit effluent limits must be designed to achieve water quality standards established under CWA Section 303. Although WQT is not specifically mentioned in federal statute, the EPA has endorsed trading markets as a means of achieving water quality goals. As a result, trading markets can be evaluated as a potential compliance tool and can be implemented when trading is economical and consistent with management goals. All requirements included in an NPDES permit must be honored, and WQT is only an option for new effluent limits and pollutants that meet certain conditions.

Tennessee

Tennessee could adapt and implement WQT through the state’s NPDES permit program. State regulators could incorporate trading into existing water quality programs without establishing specific trading rules. As potential models for its own implementation, Tennessee can look to the multiple WQT programs that currently exist throughout the United States. These programs vary in their design, complexity, and stage of implementation. A directory of existing programs is available through the Environmental Trading Network (ETN). The EPA also maintains a website on WQT that provides guidance and descriptions of existing programs.

Environmental Protection

Implementation of a WQT program must be consistent with the requirements of the CWA and trading must contribute to the achievement of environmental management goals. NPDES permits define the pollution effluent limits necessary to achieve water quality standards. Implementing WQT under NPDES permit regulatory authority helps ensure that trading activity contributes to compliance with those standards. Trading must provide the same or greater environmental protection than traditional or technology-based pollutant reductions. WQT is not intended to be an alternative to compliance with water quality standards. The types of pollutants that can be traded are limited and the geographic scope of trading must be defined. Presently, the EPA only endorses trading for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. Other pollutants would require additional scrutiny before they could be included in a trading program. Clearly defining the geographic scope of a trading market ensures that reductions will occur within the watershed of concern. In general, a trading program should be designed to address a specific water quality problem. All dischargers participating in a trading market should be contributing to the same problem. Trading markets should include sources that contribute to the specific program but should not be larger than necessary. The goal of WQT is to help improve water quality, which is not accomplished if one watershed or water body is cleaned up at the expense of another. Trading is not an option in all situations, and market implementation must consider multiple factors to ensure trading achieves the required environmental protection. To comply with NPDES permit

10

requirements, pollution reductions traded through WQT must be equal or greater to the conditions specified in the permit. Tradable pollution reduction credits are calculated based on the amount of reduction achieved by various practices. In addition, the timing of reductions must comply with timing requirements in the permit. Also, credits must be adjusted using trade ratios to ensure the environmental impacts of reductions from a seller are comparable to the impacts of reductions from the buyer in the absence of trading.

Credits

WQT markets measure pollution reduction in terms of credits. A credit typically is assessed by the mass of pollutant reduced in a specified time period, adjusted for various equivalencies. The reduction goals of a buyer can be converted into credit demand based on discharge permit requirements and the protection goals of the water resource of concern. The credit calculation also takes into account differences between the buyer and the seller. Such differences include location, pollutant forms, fate and transport characteristics, as well as temporal variation in pollution contribution. These differences are incorporated into the establishment of trade ratios to offset buyer discharge with offsite credit generation.

Trade Ratios

WQT must create an equal to or greater than pollutant reduction compared to reductions using on-site technologies to meet compliance goals. To help ensure this standard of protection, trade ratios are incorporated into credits generated by certain sources, such as agricultural non-point sources. Trade ratios are factors applied to the overall pollution reduction achieved by a source to account for uncertainty or adjust for water quality improvement equivalency. These ratios ensure that tradable credits reflect equivalent or greater pollutant reductions to achieve water quality goals. Identifying the proper trade ratio requires consideration of multiple features. These features include but are not limited to:

Location within the watershed relative to the issue of concern; Distance between the buyer and seller; Pollutant forms being discharged and reduced; Ability of a water body to naturally remove or transform a pollutant; and Uncertainty introduced by incomplete information or model estimations.

Holistic Management

WQT markets also create additional environmental benefits beyond the pollution reduction achieved directly by credit generation. Trades that involve agricultural non-point sources can be achieved when farmers implement best management practices (BMPs) to reduce pollution and generate credits. Depending on the type of BMP implemented, potential ancillary benefits include habitat creation, flood storage and hydrograph dampening. BMPs that are installed to generate nutrient reduction credits also often reduce other pollutants, such as sediment and bacteria. Likewise, BMPs that generate sediment reduction credits can provide the additional benefit of nutrient reduction.

Review of EPA WQT Guidance and Existing Programs

The EPA issued its WQT policy in 2003, which outlines the types of trades endorsed by the agency and general guidelines for trading programs. In 2007, the EPA also published a Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers (http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/trading/WQTToolkit). This document provides detailed guidance for establishing WQT programs, such as the types of trades allowed by the EPA and

11

steps for evaluating pollution reductions and estimating credits. The Toolkit also provides detailed descriptions of various trading scenarios. The EPA maintains a website with relevant documents pertaining to WQT and a directory of existing trading programs (http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/trading). Tennessee has at least one existing WQT program. In 2006, the EPA awarded a Cooperative Watershed Agreement Grant to create and test an ecological credit trading market in the Beaver Creek Watershed within Knox County. The program would allow trading of nutrient and sediment credits as part of a larger watershed management plan to restore water quality and ecosystem health in the region. A trading pilot study was completed in 2009. The 2009 report assessed the water quality needs of the watershed, trading opportunities, and a proposed credit market framework.

12

BACKGROUND

Study Area and Geographic Setting

The geographic scope of trading must be defined to ensure that reductions occur within the watershed basins of concern. The size of a trading region varies depending on the specific watershed characteristics and needs. All dischargers involved in a trading program should be contributing to the same problem. Trading markets should include sources that contribute to the specific problem but should not be larger than necessary. In some cases, the geographic scope will be defined by total maximum daily load (TMDL) requirements set by regulatory agencies. For the purposes of this report, the feasibility assessment focused on three basins in Tennessee – the Wolf, Loosahatchie, and Lower Hatchie River Basins. These basins provide a diversity of land uses, non-point source nutrient and sediment loading, and water quality conditions. The land use within the study area selected is very similar to the Mississippi River Basin (MRB) as a whole with regard to the percentage of land under agricultural production. Goolsby et al. (2001) noted the land uses in the MRB as about 58% under agricultural production, and roughly 41.4% in undeveloped and natural conditions. Summary data in association with the NLCD land cover classes for this study (see Data Sources in Appendix) indicate the following land cover: 43.3% agricultural production and 46%1 undeveloped conditions (excluding ag lands), of that only 11.0% of the land area is wetlands and open water.

Figure 1. Study area within the Mississippi River Basin.

1 This number includes fallow fields and pastures distinguished in the land use data.

13

1.1 Study Area

The study area, approximately 3,021 mi2, was comprised of three major basins: Lower Hatchie (1,462 mi2), Loosahatchie (742 mi2) and Wolf (815 mi2). The majority of the study area was in the state of Tennessee, with a small area extending into Mississippi. All three basins drain into the Mississippi River. Memphis is the largest metropolitan area in the region, and the majority of the remaining land area is agricultural.

Lower Hatchie: The largest of the three basins can be characterized by wide, expansive floodplain areas that are frequently flooded. The western two-thirds of the area is dominated by cultivated crops and agricultural lands. The eastern third is much more natural with substantial areas of forest and steeper slopes. Loosahatchie: The smallest of the three basins can be characterized by substantial siltation issues due to cultivated agricultural lands. Some development and impervious cover are associated with the City of Millington. Wolf: This basin is characterized by development and impervious cover associated with the metropolitan area of Memphis in the lower Watershedes. The upper Watershedes have substantial topographic relief and remain relatively natural and free of 303d listings.

Figure 2. Study Area, Three Watersheds 8-Digit HUCs.

14

Figure 3. Study Area, Aerial Map.

Topography

One of the first steps in watershed planning is to identify the topography of the study region in order to model hydrology and create a watershed boundary. The study team created a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the regional topography using data provided by TNC. The DEM formed the backbone for much of the watershed analysis featured in this report, including the SWAT model analysis used to estimate pollutant loading.

15

Figure 4. Digital Elevation Model of the study area.

Subwatershed and Management Unit Boundaries

The terms hydrology and hydraulics describe the effects of precipitation, runoff, and evaporation on the character and flow pattern of water in streams and lakes and on adjacent land surfaces. The basis for hydrology and hydraulic studies in watersheds usually begins with an understanding of how topography naturally delineates the land into watersheds, subwatersheds, and Subwatershed Management Units (SMUs). The Team aligned the DEM model with EPA Hydraulic Unit Codes (HUC), the numerical classification for subwatersheds in the United States.

16

Figure 5. Subwatershed Unit Boundaries definded by EPA 12-Digit HUCs

Soil

Soil properties are a key component to consider when designing and implementing wetlands and other environmental conservation Best Management Practices (BMPs) in watersheds. Some soils that are saturated for extended periods throughout the year become hydric soils because of a high groundwater table. These soils provide the key to wetland restoration potential. Tiles were often used to lower this water table and drain the hydric soils area. Soils also exhibit differences in erodibility depending on their composition (i.e., clay vs. silt) and the slope of the land. Soil erodibility is especially important to consider on construction sites where improper installation or maintenance of erosion control devises can lead to detrimental amounts of turbid water entering a waterway. Soils also exhibit different infiltration capabilities. Knowing how a soil will hold water ultimately affects decisions about the type and location of infiltration BMPs such as wetland restorations and detention basins. The study team mapped the soils of the study area using data provided by the county soil survey.

17

Hydric Soils

Hydric soils are important because they indicate the presence of existing or drained wetlands and are a useful indicator of depressional areas and potential wetland restoration/sites for water quality treatment. Often, drain tiles are found in areas that exhibit hydric soils. Because these drainage systems divert the water, wetlands that were once present no longer exist, however breaking these tiles can generally restore hydrology. With the hydrology restored a wetland can then be created that when planted with native species will enhance the habitat value of the wetland.

Figure 6. Hydric soils.

Hydrologic Soil Groups

Hydrologic soil groups are based on a soil infiltration and transmission rates (permeability) and are used primarily by engineers to estimate runoff potential and inform decisions regarding how development sites should be designed and constructed for control of stormwater runoff. Wetland restoration projects are often recommended based on infiltration and permeability rates of a particular hydrologic soil group. The hydrologic soil group categories and corresponding soil texture, drainage description, runoff potential, infiltration rate, and transmission rate are shown in Table 1. Hydrologic soil groups are classified into four primary categories; A, B, C, and D, and three dual classes,

18

A/D, B/D, and C/D. For a complete description of the soil groups see Appendix A.

The hydrologic soil groups for our study area are shown below.

Figure 7. Hydrologic soils groups.

HSG Soil Texture

Drainage Description Runoff

Potential Infiltration Rate Transmission Rate

A Sand, Loamy Sand, or Sandy

Loam

Well to Excessively Drained

Low High High

B Silt Loam or Loam Moderately Well to Well

Drained Moderate Moderate Moderate C Sandy Clay Loam Somewhat Poorly Drained High Low Low

D

Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Silty Clay,

or Clay

Poorly Drained

High Very Low Very Low

Table 1. Hydrologic soil groups and corresponding attributes.

Wetlands

Functional wetlands do more for waters quality improvement and flood damage reduction than any other natural resource within a watershed. And, wetlands typically provide habitat for a wide variety of plant and animal species. They also provide groundwater recharge and discharge, filter sediments and nutrients

19

in runoff, and help maintain water levels in streams during drought periods. Wetland information and mapping is available for the entire watershed area from National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) published the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping data used to quantify wetland areas per watershed. The combination of soils, land use/land cover and NWI data was used to map and quantify potential BMP locations and WQ trading sites throughout the watershed.

Watershed Wetland Acres Wetland Percent Lower Hatchie 129,273 Acres 6.7 Loosahatchie 36,108 Acres 1.9

Wolf 53,746 Acres 2.8 Table 2. Area of wetland within the three watersheds of the study area.

Figure 8. Wetlands in the study area.

Land Use/Land Cover

The existing (2001) land use/land cover is depicted on Figure 9 with acreages for each land use/land cover type quantified in Table 3. There were several sources of land use/land cover data available for the watershed consisting of 2001 NLCD, 2010 USFWS GAP Land Cover and USDA/NRCS-NASS Cropland data 2009. Each data set had its strengths and weaknesses however the Team found the 2001 NCLD and NASS Cropland data to be the most beneficial. 2001 NLCD data was preferred for the watershed SWAT modeling and general cover type mapping because of its spatial resolution and representation of cover

20

types when compared to the most recently acquired aerial photos. The study did rely on the NASS Cropland data for its overall SWAT modeling because it was the most recently acquired information and had a very refined classification associated with agriculture cover types. Unfortunately when the Team inspected these classes over an aerial photo the resolution of the data and accuracy of cover types seemed very inaccurate. In addition the GAP Land cover data appeared to be inaccurate as well.

Land Use/Land Cover Class Acres Percent

Open Water 17179.8 0.9%

Developed, Open Space 112291.2 5.8%

Developed, Low Intensity 62957.4 3.3%

Developed, Medium Intensity 23153.3 1.2%

Developed, High Intensity 5834.0 0.3%

Barren Land 794.3 0.0%

Deciduous Forest 397585.9 20.6%

Evergreen Forest 50593.9 2.6%

Mixed Forest 43073.7 2.2%

Shrub/Scrub 182965.5 9.5%

Grassland/Herbaceous 3431.5 0.2%

Pasture/Hay 227550.9 11.8%

Cultivated Crops 610404.0 31.6%

Woody Wetlands 186522.4 9.6%

Emergent Herbaceous 8472.8 0.4% Table 3. Land use/cover composition

21

Figure 9. 2001 NLCD Land cover.

Impervious Cover

Impervious cover can often be a significant contributor to water quality degradation due to runoff. Runoff measures at the watershed/subwatershed scale can be a precursory means of evaluating stream impacts and characterizing stream health (Zielinski 2002). The study team identified impervious surfaces within the study area using NLCD 2001 data (Figure 10, impervious cover shown in red). The majority of area impacted by impervious cover within the study area was found near the City of Memphis. As noted above, developed lands account for about 11% of the overall study area.

22

Figure 10. Impervious cover.

Pollutant Suitability

Pollutant Forms Suitable for Trading

The U.S. EPA considers nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to be appropriate pollutants for trading. These pollutants were identified as suitable for trading in the 2003 EPA Water Quality Trading Policy and the EPA Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers. Pilot projects have demonstrated the effectiveness of WQT for these pollutants in terms of cost effectiveness, overall loading reductions, and avoidance of localized hotspots. According to EPA’s policy, trading of other pollutants would require additional review. For trading to be a viable option, a pollutant must be able to be sufficiently controlled, measured, and assessed in terms of its environmental impact. To effectively improve water quality, the pollutant being reduced and traded must be contributing to the problem. Pollutant forms vary depending on the source of the effluent and each form has differing effects on aquatic ecosystems. Trading markets should agree upon a tradable form or equivalents that meet regulatory compliance requirements and fit with environmental protection goals. WQT also must fit with timing requirements

23

specified in regulatory permits. Water quality trading should focus on the forms of nitrogen and phosphorus, in particular, established by regulatory limits and discharge permits, as well as the relative environmental impacts of the various nutrient forms. If a loading limit has been set for total nitrogen (TN) or total phosphorus (TP), trading should be based on this form to meet regulatory compliance obligations and the environmental protection goals associated with the regulatory standards. In addition, trading should consider the environmental problem being addressed and the differing environmental impacts of the various forms of phosphorus being discharged. More environmental benefit will be gained from reducing the concentrations of bio-available nitrogen or phosphorus than by reducing other forms. Timing of discharges and site-specific conditions that influence conversion from one form to another must also be taken into account.

Nitrogen

Human activities, such as fertilizer applications and fossil fuel combustion, have substantially increased the amount of nitrogen entering the environment. Nitrogen sources include agriculture, wastewater treatment plants, industrial discharges and atmospheric deposition. Excessive nitrogen can lead to eutrophication, low dissolved oxygen, and direct toxicity. Phosphorus levels typically determine eutrophication in freshwater systems. However, nitrogen is most often the limiting nutrient in coastal and marine environments, such as the Gulf of Mexico, and therefore has a larger impact in these systems. The form of nitrogen present in the aquatic system determines its impact on the ecosystem. Total nitrogen consists of organic and inorganic forms. Organic nitrogen is chemically bound as part of organic compounds or molecules that compose organic matter. Sources of organic N include decomposing biological material such as manure, wastewater treatment plan discharges, and some industrial activities. Organic nitrogen is not bio-available, but eventually it will mineralize into inorganic forms that can be used by plants or aquatic organisms. Inorganic forms of nitrogen include nitrate (NO3

-), nitrite (NO2-),

ammonia (NH3), and ammonium (NH4+).

Nitrate is the N form typically associated with excessive algal blooms and low dissolved oxygen. Chemical processes in aquatic systems can convert the nitrogen from one form to another. For this reason, it’s important to measure multiple parameters and understand individual characteristics of local water bodies. For example, pH determines the ratio between ammonia and ammonium. At a lower pH, the amount of ammonia present is very low and ammonium dominates. However, as pH increases, the relative proportion of ammonia also increases. Ammonia has relatively high direct toxicity to aquatic life. Nitrogen can be removed from aquatic systems through various attenuation pathways, including vegetative uptake of dissolved inorganic nitrogen and denitrification into gaseous nitrogen (N2).

Phosphorus

Anthropogenic sources have substantially increased the amount of phosphorus in aquatic systems. Agriculture and municipal wastewater treatment plants contribute large amounts of phosphorus to the environment. Excessive phosphorus leads to water quality impacts such as eutrophication, low dissolved oxygen, and other biological impairments. Phosphorus is typically the limiting nutrient regulating plant growth in freshwater systems. The form of phosphorus present in the aquatic system determines the impact on the ecosystem. Total phosphorus consists of dissolved and particulate forms. Phosphorus in effluent is measured as TP. Dissolved phosphorus can be organic or inorganic. The form that is directly taken up by aquatic plans is

24

ortho-phosphate, which is measured as Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP). Particulate phosphorus includes phosphorus precipitates, plankton, and sediment-bound or particulate-bound phosphorus. This form of phosphorus is not bio-available for plant growth. However, chemical processes can convert particulate phosphorus to bio-available ortho-phosphate. Soluble phosphorus is the primary form discharged from wastewater treatment plant facilities while agricultural systems typically discharge non-soluble phosphorus. Although both sources discharge phosphorus, the discharges have differing environmental impacts. This difference should be considered when establishing a trading program.

Sediment

Sediment loading originates primarily from terrestrial soil erosion transported by surface runoff and channel erosion of streambanks and bedload sediments. Human activities can influence the amount of sediment discharged by altering runoff pathways and intensity, and by exposing more soil surface to erosion. Sources of sediment include disruption of the riparian zone leading to streambank erosion, agriculture, stormwater, and urban activities such as construction. Excessive sediment loading can impair aquatic ecosystems because of excessive deposition and high levels of suspended particles. Direct impacts of sediment are reduced habitat quality, impaired spawning grounds, and diminished food supplies for fish. Indirect impacts include increased pollutant loading from sediment-bound chemicals, low dissolved oxygen from organic sediment decomposition, and increased temperatures from wider channels.

This report considered sediments in the form of total suspended solids (TSS). Because wastewater treatment plant facilities and MS4s monitor for TSS, this trading assessment focused on sources of sediment as measured by TSS. Measured TSS particulates by wastewater treatment plants are typically less than 1 mm in size and are small enough to remain suspended in the water column. Suspended solids include silt as well as biological particles such as plankton and other small organisms.

Location Factor/Delivery Ratio

The location factor and/or delivery ratio considers the spatial relationship between buyers and sellers. The location factor addresses the potential for in-stream attenuation between the credit generator or credit purchaser and the downstream water resource of concern. The delivery ratio addresses the potential for in-stream attenuation of nutrients between an upstream credit generator and a downstream credit purchaser. If natural processes remove pollutants in the distance between the seller and the buyer, then one unit of reduction upstream is not equal to one unit of reduction at the downstream buyer. As a result, the credit seller would have to reduce an additional amount to account for natural attenuation and provide the buyer with a credit that is equivalent to the purchaser’s own reduction.

Equivalence Factors

The equivalence factors consider differences in environmental impacts from the different forms of pollutants or impacts caused by interactions among multiple stressors. For example, this factor would adjust for differences in the levels of bioavailable nutrients between the credit buyer and seller. This adjustment incorporates consideration of the pollutant form(s) most directly contributing to the water quality problem being addressed.

25

Uncertainty Factors

The uncertainty factors consider any introduced uncertainty, potential for errors, or information gaps in calculating reductions and assigning credits. Uncertainty can be introduced through multiple pathways. For example, water quality monitoring data represent sample measurements and therefore do not provide a complete picture of water quality under all conditions. Model estimates used to derive predicted credit reductions from various BMPs also introduce uncertainty. Models are designed to simplify the real world and therefore incorporate various assumptions necessary to calculate an estimate. The variability created by these assumptions therefore has to be incorporated into the credit calculation. Errors also occur due to the incomplete scientific understanding about watersheds and ecosystem interactions. Applying an uncertainty factor to the credit calculation incorporates a margin of safety to help ensure the discharge reductions will achieve the desired water quality goals.

Policy Factors

Policy factors consider any additional socio-political goals decision-makers want to achieve. For example, policymakers might want to create a net conservation benefit and therefore a retirement requirement would be incorporated into the trading program. Incentives for early adoption or specific BMPs could also be incorporated as part of an effort to advance other watershed goals.

Timing

In order for WQT to be viable, all NPDES permit requirements must be fulfilled. This includes aligning discharges and reductions within the regulatory timeframes. Various regulatory requirements have differing compliance deadlines. All proper procedures, as outlined in the NPDES permit, must be followed as part of a trading program. Due to the procedural requirements of some NPDES permits, WQT might not be a viable option in all watersheds. Some high-flow NPS credit generation options would not supply credits during low-flow critical periods. WQT markets are most effective when loading is reported as a mass and effluent discharges are calculated using an annual averaging period.

Regulatory Drivers

Two sets of efforts aimed at protecting water resources were considered in this study as the primary regulatory drivers for WQT. These efforts can be divided into near-field and far-field water quality protection goals. Near-field water quality protection included the development of TMDLs and numeric nutrient criteria to protect the designated beneficial uses of local water bodies. Far-field protection efforts involved requirements developed to improve water quality in the greater Mississippi River Basin or the Gulf of Mexico. Both protection goals were assessed in terms of the potential for more stringent nutrient permit effluent limits, and the effects of such regulations on the viability of WQT as a flexible compliance option.

Near-Field Trading Drivers

The EPA promotes the development of nutrient criteria for lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands. Generally, these criteria are expected to be developed by the states with final approval by the EPA. To assist states with setting nutrient criteria, the EPA published guidance materials that describe methods for criteria development. The guidance documents describe development methods based primarily on algal

26

response characteristics and support an approach where watersheds are grouped by similar physical, chemical, and biological attributes. The EPA technical documents described a process for creating aggregate nutrient ecoregions based on Level III Ecoregions (EPA 2000). In this guidance, the EPA reviewed existing data and aggregated Level III Ecoregions into regions of similar stressor response characteristics. The EPA then produced documents that provide nutrient criteria development guidance tailored for specific ecoregions (EPA 2000) (EPA 2001). The region-specific guidance documents build on the previously described methodology for aggregate ecoregions where monitoring data is used to link nutrient concentrations and algae response. Although the EPA guidance recommends grouping the ecoregions, the agency also recommends that states and tribes acknowledge variability within the ecoregions. To this end, regulatory entities should create watershed grouping at a finer resolution based on similar stressor response characteristics. Figures 11-13 show EPA maps for Aggregate Ecoregion IX and X. These aggregate nutrient ecoregions include western Tennessee and the Wolf, Lower Hatchie, and Loosahatchie watersheds. To evaluate potential nutrient standards, specific criteria development guidance was gathered from Ecoregions 73, 74, 65, and 71 (listed from west to east).

Figure 11. EPA aggregate nutrient ecoregion IX, level III ecoregions (EPA 2000).

27

Figure 12. EPA aggregate nutrient ecoregion X, level III ecoregions (EPA 2001).

Tennessee

Tennessee nutrient criteria development has been evolving for more than a decade. The state currently has narrative nutrient criteria and is in the process of developing numeric criteria. Prior to the establishment of numeric limits, a 2001 document issued by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) provided guidance for interpreting Tennessee’s narrative criteria (TDEC 2001). Tennessee’s nutrient criteria were first established as part of an Emergency Rule signed by the Tennessee

28

Water Quality Control Board (the Board) in July 2003 and approved by the EPA in December 2003. TDEC later issued a revised nutrient criteria development plan, which was approved by the EPA in 2007 (TDEC 2007). This plan projects that state-wide tiered river, stream, lake, and reservoir nutrient criteria will be completed in 2012 (TDEC 2007). This document described the efforts and methodologies used by TDEC to develop nutrient criteria for Tennessee. The TDEC nutrient criteria development strategy differs from the EPA technical guidance in two ways. First, TDEC places the primary emphasis for establishing nutrient criteria on macroinvertebrates, with algal response serving as a second line of evidence. The EPA technical guidance (EPA 2000) places the primary emphasis on algal response. Secondly, the TDEC development strategy selects the 90th percentile thresholds in reference streams regarding biological impacts. The EPA recommended strategy used the 75th percentile threshold for algal response. The EPA has yet to approve the current Tennessee approach. The 2007 TDEC guidance does not contain legally binding numeric nutrient criteria. Rather, it describes the process the state is taking to develop and incorporate nutrient parameters into water quality standards. The draft document includes a development timeline, which states the agency expects to complete its data analysis and draft nutrient and biological guidelines in 2011. According to the draft, in 2012 the agency plans to initiate its next triennial review of water quality standards. As of February 2012, Tennessee had established one site-specific numeric nutrient criterion. A chlorophyll-α limit was set for Pickwick Reservoir to enable the reservoir to meet the recreational goals of that water body. A review of Tennessee’s nutrient criteria development strategy indicated the procedure appears robust. TDEC derives its numeric criteria using an Ecoregion IV map (Figure 13). This map uses the same numbering system as the Ecoregion III map, but adds a letter to differentiate the Level IV regions. Using these Level IV Ecoregions provides a finer resolution for analysis, as recommended by the EPA nutrient WQS development guidance. In addition, TDEC monitors a large number of reference streams, which is uncommon compared to other state nutrient criteria development efforts. Operating at a smaller spatial scale and with a substantial amount of data reduces the variability and uncertainty associated with the data analysis. As such, the final selected criteria are more robust and scientifically defensible.

Figure 13. Level IV ecoregions of Tennessee (TDEC 2001).

The TDEC nutrient criteria development strategy emphasized multiple lines of evidence for determining impairment. This strategy uses a stressor response approach based on the macroinvertebrate index of biotic integrity (IBI). The impact of a given stressor determines how effluent limits will be implemented in a water body. Nutrient loading is not considered a concern for a water body if the loading does not impact the designated beneficial use. This strategy avoids complications associated with independent applicability requirements. Under the independent applicability requirement, nutrient criteria must be met

29

even when a stream achieves its beneficial uses. However, under Tennessee’s chosen strategy, if the IBI scores of a particular stream are acceptable, then the nutrient criteria are not treated as independently applicable. Implementation of WQT programs that use credits generated by nonpoint sources could be complicated by some of the chosen methods for incorporating nutrient criteria into discharge permits. The TDEC document states, “Nutrient criteria, if adopted, should have a different flow basis than do other fish and aquatic life criteria. Following a review of EPA guidance, we have recommended a 30Q5 flow. Additionally, the criteria should be applied as a monthly average limit” (TDEC 2001). A 30-day, five-year low-flow condition (30Q5) has implications for credit timing in a WQT program. Complying with the TDEC recommendation would require a monthly credit supply in order to remain contemporaneous with NPDES permit effluent limits. TDEC has also been in the process of establishing TMDLs, including nutrient allocations, for the identified impaired water bodies in the state. As of 2011, TMDLs had been established for all of the listed water bodies on the 1998 303(d) list. Nutrient-related TMDLs for Tennessee were scheduled in two groups: Phase I and Phase II. Phase I TMDLs are driven by nonpoint source impacts and require only load allocation reduction efforts. Phase II TMDLs include reductions from point sources in the form of NPDES waste load allocations. These TMDLs have delayed development timelines. Personal communications with TDEC provided valuable insight about the strategy for developing effluent limits for water bodies with TMDLs. TMDLs are used to set Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs) based on allocations established to protect the water resource against the listed impairments. TDEC is advancing an innovative strategy to set discharge limits for water bodies with a nutrient TMDL requirement. The WQBELs for TMDLs will be set based on considerations of available technology (and associated cost increases) and relative source contribution in the watershed. This implies a higher technology requirement (i.e. higher cost) for NPDES permittees discharging to water bodies where point-source contributions represent a higher percentage of the watershed total load.

Stormwater Regulation

Stormwater is increasingly recognized as a substantial contributor to water quality impairments. The NPDES program made considerable strides in improving water quality by controlling pollution from major municipal and industrial sources. However, diffuse pollution sources, including stormwater, continue to contribute to water quality impairments. Water quality impacts from precipitation events have increased due to alterations in the natural hydrologic cycle from land use changes, in particular urban development. Under natural conditions, a substantial proportion of precipitation is taken up by vegetation or infiltrates through the soil profile and contributes to groundwater recharge. Impervious surfaces in urban areas reduce natural infiltration and increase surface runoff. Urban runoff discharges to surface waters in episodic bursts of high volumes unlike the release of stormwater from natural systems. Alterations in the volume, rate, and pathways of stormwater runoff can impact stream ecosystems and other aquatic resources. More intense stormwater runoff can cause stream channel erosion and increased pollutant transport. Increases in pollutant loading can include sediment, nutrients, bacteria, and toxic metals. In addition, less infiltration results in diminished groundwater recharge and decreased base flow for streams. In dry seasons, low base flows negatively impact aquatic habitats and ecosystem quality. Stormwater NPDES permits require MS4s to reduce pollutant loading to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). The EPA has not explicitly defined MEP, which helps allow for flexibility when establishing site-

30

specific permit conditions. However, the MEP designation can create complications when implementing WQT programs. If an entity is reducing its stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable, that entity cannot generate pollution reduction credits. By definition, it is not possible to reduce pollutant discharges beyond MEP. In addition, the MEP designation causes issues with determining a baseline. Establishing a baseline is necessary for calculating the reductions achieved and the credits generated. Trading stormwater pollution reduction credits could become possible by using a surrogate parameter, such as flow. Establishing effluent limits also would make WQT a viable option for stormwater; however, this tends to be politically unpopular.

Incorporation of MS4s in TMDLs

Under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, the EPA is authorized to establish additional water quality regulations when established effluent limits are not sufficient to achieve water quality standards. Under this program, states are required to identify impaired waters within their state and determine the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that will enable restoration of water quality in the listed waters. TMDLs are divided into point-source wasteload allocations (WLAs), non-point source load allocations (LAs), and a margin of safety (MOS). These limits associated with these allocations are incorporated into NPDES permits for permitted entities discharging into water bodies with TMDLs. Typically, TMDL allocations are included in permits as numeric limits. However, as mentioned above, MS4 NPDES permits rely on MEP goals instead of numeric criteria. Under current EPA guidance (for a review of TMDL history see Appendix A) incorporating MS4 discharges into TMDL WLAs would make WQT markets a viable option for meeting stormwater pollution reduction goals. As discussed in the previous section, trading is not feasible for MS4s with MEP requirements, given the inherent flexibility of MEP. However, trading is an option for MS4s subject to TMDL WLAs. The EPA guidance memoranda introduced measureable milestones and recommended surrogate parameters for estimating pollution reductions. This guidance would allow for the introduction of water quality trading into the NPDES stormwater program.

Far-Field Trading Drivers

Nutrient loading continues to contribute to water quality and ecosystem impairment in the Gulf of Mexico. High levels of nitrogen and phosphorus lead to algae blooms and hypoxia. A substantial portion of this nutrient loading comes from agricultural activities in the Mississippi River Basin. An Action Plan was released in 2008 by the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force. This document proposed a national strategy to address hypoxia in the Gulf and improve overall water quality in the Basin. The 2008 Action Plan suggested 45 percent reductions in both riverine total nitrogen load and riverine total phosphorus load. These reduction goals are non-binding and not enforceable. However, they do provide a general target for nutrient reductions that would help reduce hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Protecting the Mississippi River for aquatic life and nutrient reduction goals to address hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico could serve as drivers for future effluent limit restrictions in NPDES permits. EPA recently contracted with Tetra Tech, Inc., to support efforts to develop near-shore Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi River nutrient and dissolved oxygen criteria (Tetra Tech, Inc. 2010). One part of this contract will involve developing a nutrient model to evaluate relative nutrient contributions from the mouth of the Mississippi River to the Northern Gulf of Mexico coastal waters. The second part of this effort will be to establish a model to evaluate concentrations of nutrients at strategic points along the main stem of the Mississippi River, including the mouth of major tributaries. This work could result in information and recommendations that likely will influence NPDES effluent limits for permittees in the Mississippi River

31

Basin. Prior to the EPA releasing nutrient criteria development models, estimates of probable effluent limits will be based on information in the EPA aggregated nutrient Ecoregion X document and Ecoregion 73 guidance document. Additionally, this assessment takes into account information in the Gulf of Mexico 2008 Action Plan (GHAP 2008). Goals put forth in this action plan provide useful information for evaluating the potential range of future NPDES effluent limits. The action plan states:

Significant reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus are needed. To achieve the Coastal Goal for the size of the hypoxic zone and improve water quality in the Basin, a dual nutrient strategy targeting at least a 45% reduction in riverine total nitrogen load and in riverine total phosphorus load [...] (GHAP 2008).

In addition to activity within regulatory agencies, there continues to be third-party pressure on the EPA to promulgate regulations that would reduce nutrient loading to the Gulf of Mexico. On March 13, 2012, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., along with several other entities, filed a lawsuit against the EPA (NRDC v. EPA 2012). The lawsuit declared that the EPA had an obligation to address nutrient pollution to the Mississippi River Basin and Gulf of Mexico. It is unclear whether the lawsuit will result in additional nutrient regulations for the region. However, there is expected to be a sizeable reduction requirement associated with both near-field beneficial use protection and the Gulf of Mexico protection goals.

32

Methods

Supply and Demand Analysis

Review of Current Effluent Limits

At this time, Tennessee has narrative nutrient criteria, but TDEC is in the process of establishing numeric nutrient criteria. None of the permitted STPs in the study area (for which information was available) currently have numeric nutrient limits assigned in NPDES permits. MS4s are not currentlysubject to numeric effluent limits. The EPA is working with stakeholders to determine how to proceed with reducing stormwater pollution. As such, the remainder of the discussion on quantifying potential credit demand focuses on STPs.

Probable Effluent Limit Ranges

In the absence of numeric nutrient criteria, this report relies on estimated ranges of probable effluent limits. TDEC’s numeric interpretation of the narrative nutrient criteria is summarized in Table 4. These values were derived by applying the nutrient criteria development strategies proposed by TDEC and the EPA. For the purposes of this assessment, the variability among the criteria options is more important than the actual concentration selected as the standard. The methods recommended by EPA and those used by TDEC generally result in similar values, with few exceptions. Variation between the EPA and TDEC values is typically within one order of magnitude. In addition, the majority of the standards are in the tens or hundreds of µg/L of nutrient. As a result, the NPDES permit effluent limits will not vary substantially if one or the other criterion is applied. Also, both the near-field and far-field drivers for WQS development were evaluated. This evaluation indicated that the variability among the WQS estimation methods and drivers for both near-field and far-field drivers will not affect the wastewater treatment technologies required for compliance.

33

Ecoregion Number (s)

Ecoregion Level

Used in Documentation

EPA Guidance TP Nutrient

Criteria (µg/l)

Based on 25th Percentile

EPA Guidance NO3+NO2

Nitrogen Nutrient

Criteria (µg/l)


TDEC Proposed TP

Nutrient Criteria (µg/l)


TDEC Proposed NO3+NO2 Nutrient Criteria

(µg/l)

Based on 90th

Percentile

29, 33, 35, 37, 40, 45, 64, 65, 71, 72, and 74

Aggregated Nutrient Ecoregion IX

36.56 430

34 and 73 Aggregated Nutrient

Ecoregion X 128 140

65 Ecoregion Level III 22.50 95

71 Ecoregion Level III 30 345



65a, 65b, 65i Ecoregion Level IV 40 340

65j Ecoregion Level IV 40 220

71e Ecoregion Level IV 40 3,480

71f Ecoregion Level IV 30 320

71g Ecoregion Level IV 30 920

71h, 71l Ecoregion Level IV 180 920

73a Ecoregion Level IV 250 390

74a Ecoregion Level IV 120 220

74b Ecoregion Level IV 100 1,190

Table 4. Comparison of EPA and TDEC nutrient criteria options for total phosphorus (TP) and nitrogen (nitrate plus nitrite).

The study team assumed that local numeric nutrient criteria will result in more restrictive effluent limits than far-field protection goals. Thereby both local and downstream reduction goals will be satisfied concurrently by local effluent limits. The numeric nutrient criteria presented in Table 4 could be sufficiently restrictive to require the range of NPDES permit effluent limits described later in this section. Assigning individual permit effluent limits will take into account several factors, including:

Stream background conditions End-of-pipe dilution capability of the stream Technology capability Discharge timing

34

Precedent Studies

A second estimate of the expected range of effluent limits in Tennessee was based on a review of NPDES nutrient effluent limits in other states. A statewide nutrient removal cost impact study was conducted for Utah (CH2M HILL 2010). The 2010 study was based on tiered classes for effluent limits (Tier 1: 0.1 mg/L TP and 10 mg/L TN and Tier 2: 1 mg/L TP and 20 mg/L TN). Another study evaluated the costs for wastewater nutrient removal (Colorado Water Quality Control Division 2010). The Division’s benchmarking summary reviewed systems that could comply with TP effluent limits of 1, 0.5, and 0.3 mg/L and TN effluent limits of 10, 5, and 3 mg/L. Foess et al. evaluated smaller biological nutrient reduction facilities (Foess, et al. 1998). In their study, Foess et al. selected facilities performing at 1-2 mg/L TP and 6-8 mg/L TN. Jiang et al. studied a similar set of effluent limits for smaller facilities (Jiang et al. 2005) (Jiang et al. 2004). Metcalf & Eddy (2008) reviewed performance and cost data for the Chesapeake Bay (Metcalf & Eddy | AECOM 2008). Their study surveyed facilities targeting 8 or 6 mg/L TN and 1 or 0.8 mg/L TP. Finally, the EPA guidance manual for biological nutrient removal processes provided insight on actual plant design performance goals (EPA 2008). The EPA document reviews facilities where nitrogen performance capabilities were grouped into high effluent concentrations (above 5 mg/L TN), medium concentrations (3-5 mg/L TN), and low concentrations (averaging below 3 mg/L TN). The EPA study also reviewed phosphorus performance ranges of low (0.1 to 0.5 mg/L TP) and very low (less than 0.1 mg/L TP). These values can be compared to observed effluent limits. The benchmarked studies reviewed for this assessment indicated phosphorus effluent limits were 2.0, 1.0, 0.5, 0.3, and 0.1 mg/L TP or lower. The studies identified common effluent limit categories for nitrogen of 10, 8, 5, and 3 mg/L TN. The nitrogen effluent limits are typical for estuary protection goals but can also be protective of lakes and streams when TP is not the limiting nutrient for algal growth. Reports on sewage treatment plant (STP) effluent limits for TP and TN indicated some regulators took into account technology costs for smaller facilities. These facilities typically experience more compliance uncertainty than larger facilities (Foess, et al. 1998). The treatment performance uncertainty is due to biological nutrient removal (BNR) performance variability. BNR performance varies based on diurnal and seasonal flow changes, organic carbon, and nutrient loading fluctuations. Additional variation is also due to the limited ability for a site to buffer wastewater temperature changes, intermittent industrial influent loading, and dry weather to wet weather flushing events. The Foess study noted that earlier nutrient control permits allowed smaller facilities to comply with 2 mg/L effluent limits. This might not be the case in Tennessee. A review of the studies published before 2005 indicates that often only TP or TN reductions were required without limits on the other parameter. Table 5 summarizes the probable effluent limit ranges for nitrogen and phosphorus. The costs of each option also will be calculated. For options 1 and 2, the STP estimated upgrade costs will be based on using BNR. The remaining four options will be based on using BNR plus enhanced nutrient removal (ENR). The increased treatment with chemical precipitants and/or filtration units is required due to the limitations of BNR technology to consistently perform at a level that will attain compliance. Cost comparisons with nonpoint source-generated credits will be made using a unit cost of dollars per pound of nutrient removed ($/lb of TP, $/lb of TN, $/combined pound of TP+TN). All economic assessments will be based on present worth valuations that consider facility lifecycle costs, including capital, replacement, operation, and maintenance.

35

Option Number Possible TP Effluent

Limit (mg/L)

Possible NO2+NO3 Driven TN equivalent Effluent Limit (mg/L)

1 1 10 2 1 8 3 0.5 8 4 0.5 5 5 0.3 5 6 0.3 3

Table 5. Probable Range of Nutrient Effluent Limits

To demonstrate the economic and technical feasibility of WQT, the high, medium, and low effluent limit options were used to develop a range of credit demand and supply costs. The project team recommends using options 1, 4, and 6 to demonstrate the range of demand and evaluate the economic feasibility. The actual demand also will depend on other factors, such as stormwater pollution reduction constraints. The credit demand by a stormwater permitted footprint will depend on the amount of pollution reductions that can be achieved within the footprint itself. This will be influenced by the land uses within the stormwater footprint. For example, areas with a high percentage of impervious surfaces, such as industrial areas, are not likely to achieve substantial stormwater pollution reduction from BMPs alone. However, residential areas or areas with low development density could install on-site BMPs to reduce stormwater runoff. In addition, it should be noted that TDEC methodology for assigning nutrient criteria are likely to result in different effluent limits for dischargers in different watersheds. The effluent limits for point sources will depend on the relative contribution of point sources to the overall nutrient loading within the watershed. As such, watersheds with higher point source contributions will have more restrictive nutrient limits for point sources. In the case of this study, the MS4 NPDES permit for Memphis will have more restrictive limits than MS4 permits in the other two watersheds, which are dominated by agricultural land use.

Potential STP Demand under Probable Effluent Limits

In order to assess potential credit demand, it is necessary to calculate the existing loading and the estimated reductions each facility would face under more stringent effluent limits. The chosen effluent limits were based on the assessment of probable effluent limits, as discussed above in detail. These limits reflect options 1, 4, and 6, which the project team recommended for use when evaluating demand and economic feasibility of WQT. The following tables summarize the range of nutrient reductions for existing facilities under three potential nutrient effluent limits for nitrogen and phosphorus. Estimated reductions for TSS are not included because STPs are assumed to be discharging below turbidity limits. In some cases, the available permit information did not provide existing loading information but did provide flow data. For these facilities, the median loading for facilities in the same size category was used as an “assumed concentration.” This concentration, combined with the flow data from the permit database, was used to calculate the estimated reduction associated with the nutrient effluent limit scenarios.

36

Flow Rate

10 mg/L TN limit

Estimated reduction (lbs/yr)

5 mg/L TN limit


3 mg/L TN limit


≥1 MGD n=5

N/A n=0

12,957 n=1

Median: 25,721 Min: 1,957

Max: 49,487 n=2

0.20-1 n=2

Median: 13,211 Min: 8,767

Max: 17,656 n=2

Median: 19,817 Min: 13,151 Max: 26,484

n=2

Median: 22,459 Min: 14,904 Max: 30,015

n=2 <0.2 n=4

Median: 594 Min: 304 Max: 868

n=4

Median: 890 Min: 228

Max: 1,301 n=4

Median: 1,009 Min: 259

Max: 1,475 n=4

Table 6. Range of nitrogen reduction requirements for existing STPs in the Lower Hatchie watershed

Flow Rate

1 mg/L TP limit


0.5 mg/L TP limit


0.3 mg/L TP limit


≥1 MGD n=5

Median: 7,697 Min: 2,243

Max: 13,151 n=2

Median: 11,376 Min: 239

Max: 14,794 n=3

Median: 15,029 Min: 1,091

Max: 15,452 n=3

0.20-1 n=2

Median: 5,285 Min: 3,507 Max: 7,062

n=2

Median: 5,945 Min: 3,945 Max: 7,945

n=2

Median: 6,209 Min: 4,121 Max: 8,298

n=2 <0.2 n=4

Median: 237 Min: 61

Max: 347 n=4

Median: 267 Min: 68

Max: 390 n=4

Median: 279 Min: 72

Max: 408 n=4

Table 7. Range of phosphorus reduction requirements for existing STPs in the Lower Hatchie watershed

Flow Rate

10 mg/L TN limit


5 mg/L TN limit


3 mg/L TN limit


≥1 MGD n=4

N/A n=0

38,712 n=1

74,024 n=1

0.20-1 Median: 22,783 Median: 22,582 Median: 24,287

37

n=3 Min: 18,321 Max: 27,245

n=2

Min: 658 Max: 40,867

n=3

Min: 3,702 Max: 46,316

n=3 <0.2 n=10

Median: 426 Min: 8

Max: 5,479 n=9

Median: 639 Min: 12

Max: 8,219 n=9

Median: 673 Min: 13

Max: 9,315 n=10

Table 8. Range of nitrogen reduction requirements for existing STPs in the Loosahatchie watershed

Flow Rate

1 mg/L TP limit


0.5 mg/L TP limit


0.3 mg/L TP limit


≥1 MGD n=4

N/A n=0

3,598 n=1

Median: 2,260 Min: 1,808 Max: 7,129

n=4 0.20-1

n=3 Median: 2,024

Min: 1,245 Max: 10,898

n=3

Median: 2,450 Min: 2,006

Max: 12,260 n=3

Median: 2,620 Min: 2,310

Max: 12,805 n=3

<0.2 n=10

Median: 207 Min: 3

Max: 2,192 n=10

Median: 233 Min: 4

Max: 2,466 n=10

Median: 243 Min: 4

Max: 2,575 n=10

Table 9. Range of phosphorus reduction requirements for existing STPs in the Loosahatchie watershed

Flow Rate

10 mg/L TN limit


5 mg/L TN limit


3 mg/L TN limit


≥1 MGD n=4

N/A n=0

N/A n=0

N/A n=0

0.20-1 n=0

N/A n=0

N/A n=0

N/A n=0

<0.2 n=5


Max: 4,466 n=5


Max: 5,151 n=5


Max: 5,425 n=5

Table 10. Range of nitrogen reduction requirements for existing STPs in the Wolf watershed

38

Flow Rate

1 mg/L TP limit


0.5 mg/L TP limit


0.3 mg/L TP limit


≥1 MGD n=4

N/A n=0


n=4


Max: 3,699 n=4

0.20-1 n=0

N/A n=0

N/A n=0

N/A n=0

<0.2 n=5


n=4


n=4


n=4 Table 11. Range of phosphorus reduction requirements for existing STPs in the Wolf watershed

As can be seen from the tables above, there is substantial variation in the amount of nutrient reductions that would be required for existing STPs in the study area. However, this analysis did reveal a few trends. It should be emphasized that these observations are only illustrations based on a preliminary review. Detailed research on existing loading would be necessary to draw more concrete conclusions. Based on the available information about existing nitrogen loading, existing facilities larger than 1 MGD would be in compliance with a TN limit of 10 mg/L and no additional reductions would be required. Also, as expected, the smallest facilities face the smallest cumulative loading reductions under all potential nutrient limits, while making up the largest population of dischargers. In addition to quantifying the overall potential credit demand, it is also necessary to assess to additional considerations when determining the demand for WQT program development. The first consideration involves assessing the potential volume of credit transactions. The transaction volume will be determined by the distribution of credit demand. For example, if a credit seller can sell most of his or her credits to one or two buyers, the transaction volume will be relatively low. However, if no large buyer exists, the credit seller must engage multiple buyers, thereby increasing the transaction volume and associated transaction costs. The second consideration involves determining the number of NPDES entities that would benefit from a WQT program. As is the case in this study area, smaller STPs often do not generate sufficient credit demand to overcome transaction costs and make WQT economically viable. However, these facilities represent the largest number of STPs in the watershed, and a substantial number of these communities or entities would benefit from WQT programs. Therefore, for these small facilities to benefit from WQT, provisions would have to be implemented for WQT to be a viable alternative compliance tool.

Potential Credit Supply

For this study, WQT credits are generated by restored wetlands. These wetlands would be constructed offsite from STPs or MS4s. Wetlands could be designed to treat all or a portion of the catchment area.

39

The following section discusses the methods for selecting the study area and prioritizing wetland site selection.

GIS and SWAT Analysis

The study team assembled a comprehensive GIS database containing data from various sources. Geographic data were evaluated for completeness, consistency and applicability to mapping and modeling hydrology and site suitability for potential water quality enhancement projects. Data collection efforts were focused on data layers that would inform and guide the initial field efforts and identification of potential BMP site locations and treatment types that would serve as examples or representative sites for evaluating treatment potential. Geospatial data was compiled to create maps used to inform, communicate and document available information and conditions in the study area.

Locating BMP Opportunities

Preliminary data analysis utilized GIS to identify potential BMP locations and treatment types. The first step to this process was to identify the most impacted by phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment. After this we identified areas where BMP treatments could be implement to reduce pollutants. Potential BMP areas were initially identified based on the presence of favorable soil and location within the watershed. Other considerations were integrated into the overall subwatershed selection process that included market logistics and scenarios driving demand for trade of credits. Additional data included TDEC’s Pollution Permit information, MS4 municipal data, dominant land uses per subwatershed and stream networks (upstream and downstream). The following rationale was used to prioritize subwatershed opportunities:

1. 12-digit HUCS w/ 303d listed impairments related to nitrates, phosphorous and sediment (Figure 14)

2. Total linear miles of 303d listed impairments (Figure 14) 3. Land Use composition and distribution of priority HUCs in each of the three 8-digit HUCs

(Figure 15) 4. Location of MS4s and/or municipal permit in relation to impaired stream watershed. (Figure 16) 5. Areas or potential locations available for treatment (Figure 16) 6. Locations of treatment in association to potential credit sales (in many cases water treatment

plants) (Figure 16) 7. SWAT model results (Figure 17)

40

Figure 14. Prioritized 12-digit HUCs

WSH: 1 WSH: 2

WSH: 37

WSH: 33

41

Figure 15. Land use composition. Information from this map was used to select sites composed of different land cover types. Watershed 1/37 had more development while watersheds 33 and 2 were composed of primarily agricultural lands.

WSH: 1 WSH: 2

WSH: 37

WSH: 33

42

Figure 16. Permit locations in association with “Individual” permit types. Many of these locations are associated with treatment plants that offer potential buyers of water quality credits.

43

Figure 17. SWAT model results for May 2002 flow.

Identification of Impacted Areas

The project team used GIS to quantify and summarize TMDL river miles by drainage area. This exercise allowed us to quickly tabulate and clearly visualize most areas of impact, which helped focus field efforts and identify areas for potential site-specific projects. offer the greatest pollutant load reduction for the dollars invested. Using EPA’s TMDL stream database (www.epa.gov/waters/data/downloads.html) stream segments were joined to the attributes associated with the 303d impairment cause. This allowed us to map streams listed as 303d because of nitrogen, sedimentation or phosphorous. In addition we quantified and summarized total stream miles mapped as 303d impaired streams by the HUC 12. This provided a simple method for prioritizing HUC 12 areas. 12-digit HUCs with the most river miles of 303d streams were identified. Then streams impaired because of phosphorus, sediment and nitrates were mapped. This identified where the impairments and opportunities for pollutant trading might exist.

Identification of Potential BMP Sites

Conceptually, anywhere hydric soils that were not functioning as wetlands (drained wetlands) offered potential wetland restoration opportunities and reconnection of natural hydrology and floodplain (Figure 18).

44

Figure 18. Potential wetland restoration (BMP) areas

Prioritizing Subwatersheds

An Arc Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model was developed for the entire study area. Four subwatersheds were selected for detailed analysis and used to generate pollutant loading for each identified subwatershed (Figure 19). Pollutant loads were used as inputs for a customized STELLA model, which predicted load reduction and associated implementation costs.

45

Figure 19. Subwatersheds selected for refined SWAT model analysis and used in STELLA. MS4s are symbolized in orange.

Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)

For this study we used the ArcSWAT extension in ArcGIS to prepare SWAT modeling. This extension provided an integrated interface for the SWAT model (Arnold et. al., 1998) in ArcGIS, and utilized many of the existing hydrologic and topographic tools that existed in ArcGIS Spatial Analyst. SWAT is a watershed scale model developed to predict impacts of land management practices on water, sediment and agricultural chemical yields. The model utilizes available input data consisting of soils, land use, topography and management conditions; the model does allow for input of other more customized data depending upon how refined the model needs to be and how one plans to apply it. SWAT results were used to further understand levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment runoff from the watershed over time. SWAT was applied at two different scales for two different types of analysis as part of this study:

1. SWAT was run for the entire study area (three 8 digit HUCS: Lower Hatchie, Loosahatchie and Wolf) and used to prioritize and evaluate constituent accumulation and potential opportunities for treatment.

2. Based upon this model run, in combination with the previously described “Selecting Watershed” section, four subwatersheds were chosen for a more detailed modeling approach.

This approach used more refined data and included addition refinement of DEM (for detailed description of these see the table below or Appendix B). By setting up two separate models we were able evaluate smaller contributing drainage areas, which were needed for quantifying pollutant loads and potential reductions at the site and Best Management Practice (BMP) design level. Outputs for each selected

WSH: 1

WSH: 33

WSH: 37

WSH: 2

46

subwatershed were used as inputs for the STELLA model. A summary of the parameters associated with the two SWAT model runs can be seen on the table below. Model Input data Runtime Use1. Entire Study

Area DEM: 10 meter LULC: NASS 2009 Soil: STATSGO Slope: 10 meter Hydro: Topographically generated

1998-2011 Monthly

Used to prioritize subwatersheds and understand how much nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment the study area is contributing to Mississippi River

2. Refined Drainages: 1, 2, 33 and 37

DEM: 10 meter LULC: NLCD 2001 Soil: STATSGO Slope: 10 meter Hydro: burned in ESRI detailed streams

1998-2011 Daily Used: 2002, 2004 and 2007

Used to identify high, low and normal precipitation year and provide pollutant input and contribution per constituent levels for integration with STELLA.

Table 12. Summary of SWAT model set up and use.

Monthly precipitation trends over a thirteen-year period indicated the dry season to be July through September and the wet season November through January (Table 13, and Figures 21 and 22). The wettest year occurred in 2010, driest in 2008 and average or what might be consider normal in 2001. By removing the maximum and minimum precipitation years, we chose 2002, 2004 and 2007 as years to represent the “typical” wet, dry and normal precipitation year. These years were run in SWAT for the four refined watersheds: 1, 2, 33 and 37, (Table 13) and constituent outputs were used as inputs to the STELLA model.

Year Precip (In.) 1998 5030.3 1999 4543.4 2000 3595.6 2001 4229.3

2002 Wet Year 4704.3 2003 5049.7

2004 Dry Year 3579.2 2005 4979.7 2006 4746.5

2007 Normal Year 3906.9 2008 2940.5 2009 3269.7 2010 5171.0 2011 3717.1

Table 13. 13-year precipitation data; wet, dry, and normal years selected during that period.

47

Figure 20. Annual precipitation during a 13-year period from 1998-2011.

Figure 21. Monthly precipitation during the 13-year study period from 1998 through 2011.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Annual Precipitation

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

13579111357911135791113579111357911135791113579111357911135791113579111357911135791113579111357911

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Monthly Precipitation

48

RCH RCH SUB RCH SUB RCH SUB RCH

Watershed Name

Area (SQ MI) (Ac.)

Year Prec. (In) Sum

Flow (cfs/day)

Ave

N (lb/ac) Ave

N (lb) Sum

P (lb/ac) Ave

P (lb) Sum

Sed. (T/Ac)

Ave

Sed. (T)

Sum

Watershed #1 Upper Cane

Creek

45.3 28992

2002 37 12.01 1.42 64606.11 0.19 47711.56 2.53 672666.45 2004 39 7.77 1.16 53199.17 0.15 37844.11 1.05 279215.57 2007 40 7.77 1.28 58856.20 0.14 36461.81 1.91 509764.15

Watershed #2 Lower Cane

Creek

40.0 25600

2002 37 22.95 1.80 172988.79 0.23 123507.37 2.25 1251692.51 2004 39 16.95 1.47 143166.04 0.20 97983.35 0.99 533290.65 2007 40 16.60 1.66 159322.60 0.21 105856.28 1.71 976208.67

Watershed #33 West Beaver

Creek

28.0 17920

2002 37 10.95 0.13 6388.39 0.02 5218.56 0.03 7135.19 2004 39 7.77 0.09 4363.06 0.02 3839.79 0.02 4438.63 2007 40 7.06 0.11 5037.60 0.02 4863.84 0.02 4854.75

Watershed #37 Little Big Creek

59.4 38016

2002 37 26.48 1.65 216544.82 0.21 153475.02 1.24 1079060.21 2004 39 20.13 1.12 151230.74 0.14 104258.37 0.53 451938.70 2007 40 20.13 1.32 177809.84 0.17 125395.85 0.91 810238.23

Table 14. SWAT model output Note:

Year: 2002: Low year for precipitation 2004: Normal year for precipitation 2007: High year for precipitation

Sub: 1, 2, 33 and 37 SUB: Subwatershed File PRECIP: Total amount of precipitation falling on the Subwatershed during time step (mm H2O converted to in.).

SYLD: Sediment yield (metric tons/ha converted to ton/ac). Sediment from the Subwatershed that is transported into the Watershed during the time step. ORGN: Organic N yield (kg N/ha converted to lb/ac). Organic nitrogen transported out of the Subwatershed and into the Watershed during the time step. ORGP: NO3 in surface runoff (kg N/ha converted to lb/ac). Nitrate transported by the surface runoff into the Watershed during the time step. RCH: Watershed File FLOW_OUT: Average daily streamflow out of Watershed during time step (m3/s converted to cfs). ORGN_OUT: Organic nitrogen transported with water out of Watershed during time step (kg N converted to lbs) ORGP_OUT: Organic phosphorus transported with water out of Watershed during time step (kg P converted to lbs). SED_OUT: Sediment transported with water out of Watershed during time step (metric tons to tons).

Figure 17, shown previously, demonstrates the ArcSWAT output. This map illustrates modeled flows by subwatershed for the entire study area summarized for the month of May 2002. On the map low flows are shown in green (<0.69 cms), medium flows (0.7-1.38 cms) in yellow and high flows (1.39-2.07 cms) in red. A series of maps was constructed for comparing SWAT results associated with flow, nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment for the month of May, 2002, 2004 and 2007 years (Figure 22). Watersheds 1, 2, 33 and 37 are all located directly upstream of the highly impaired subwatersheds (red) in order to capture constituent and sediment load accumulation prior to “watersheding” these segments.

49

Year Flow: red-high, yellow-medium, green-low

Nitrogen: red-high, yellow-medium, green-low

Phosphorous: red-high, yellow-medium, green-low

Sediment: red-high, yellow-medium, green-low

2002 NormalPrecip. Year

2004 Low Precip. Year

2007 High Precip. Year

Figure 22. Annual comparison of subwatershed accumulation of flow, nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment for the month of May (2002, 2004, 2007).

50

STELLA Modeling

The project team determined that a comprehensive, dynamic model was needed to evaluate and size the treatment wetland elements that would provide the treatment of the watersheds’ stormwater runoff. The software, STELLATM by ISEE Systems, Inc. (version 9.1), was selected as the platform on which to build an analysis model. STELLA is a commercial software package that allows the user to model complex dynamic systems processes with mathematical relationships. It has a graphical user interface that can accept variable user input and display model output via numerical readouts, tables, and graphs. An additional advantage is that the proprietary software allows the user to provide a runtime version of the final model so that others without the full software version can manipulate desired variables and run the model. In this study we’ve designed the model with the following run-time variables: wetland depth (0.1-5 feet) wetland forebay size (1-30 acres), wetland acres (0-50 acres), hydraulic loading rate (0-5 feet per day), capital recovery rate (0-15%), land price (0-10,000 dollars per acre) and the subwatershed of study.

Treatment Elements

The elements modeled in STELLA included: A treatment wetland, for denitrification and phosphorus removal; A control structure and associated piping, to limit the outflow rate from the system and allow

adequate retention time for the treatment functions to perform; and A sedimentation forebay, used to capture the sediment runoff from the watershed and prevent the

filling of the treatment wetland with sediment. The forebay is a basin excavated to a depth of approximately five feet and modeled for periodic dredging of accumulated sediment.

Design Life and Element Maintenance

We modeled the design life of the system to be 30 years. Expected annual maintenance includes re-grading of rill erosion areas, maintaining the outlet control system, maintaining the vegetation in the wetland, and periodic removal of trapped sediment in the forebay.

Construction and Maintenance Costs

Construction and annual maintenance costs were based on the project team’s recent nationwide experience in designing and building wetlands. In addition we have estimated the anticipated annual maintenance of the modeled systems based on our on-the-ground experience. We estimated wetland construction costs using aggregated 2012 construction fees. We calculated the cost to be $3.50 per cubic yard of excavation for treatment wetlands having a depth of 1 to 4 feet for water storage, based on the inflow channel incision depth of the subwatershed Watershed. To promote the growth of vegetation in the excavated wetland, an additional one foot depth of excavation and topsoil replacement was included in the wetland cost at a unit construction cost of $4.50 per cubic yard. Additional construction costs included planting and soil preparation, and planting at $1,230 per acre. Costs included $5,000 for piping and structures of the outlet control system, and $300 per acre for erosion control. Maintenance costs were calculated based on a cost of $200 per acre for normal maintenance and $2.25 per ton of accumulated sediment removal.

51

Basic Model Inputs

To quantify contaminant removals, the project team developed equations and algorithms for wetland treatment using first-order reduction equations for nitrogen and phosphorus removal and using the Stoke’s law equation for forebay element sediment removal. The first-order reduction equations are calculated for a user-defined hydraulic loading rate, unless dry conditions limit the outflow of water from the treatment wetland. These equations were derived from the project Team’s past monitoring experience and literature. The recommended design hydraulic loading rate is 0.4 feet per day. In each watershed, surface water runoff and N, P and TSS amounts were obtained from a SWAT model using daily values. The SWAT model was based on a three-year period. Data included a normal rainfall year (2007), a dry rainfall year (2004) and a wet rainfall year (2002). These three years were combined into a single three-year analysis period. Finally, the combined data for the three-year period were evaluated within specific watersheds. Treatment elements within the STELLA model included those described above. A sediment forebay was selected for the STELLA modeling after initial modeling was conducted using a filter strip buffer. During initial modeling, our analysis indicated that the volume of sediment within the watershed in the southeastern Wolf River study area overwhelmed the 30-foot wide proposed agricultural filter strips without continuous sediment removal maintenance. The sediment would then quickly pass into the modeled wetland treatment element, filling the wetland and depleting nutrient capture. Within the STELLA model, area and depth of both the forebay and the treatment wetland were scaled to account for channel incision (due to erosion). In addition, the cost of land per acre was customized to estimate the cost of acquiring the land needed for both the wetland and the sedimentation forebay. Construction and maintenance costs were calculated based on the mathematical relationships between wetland and forebay sizes selected by the model analyst, and the construction costs described above. Lastly, the model analyst selects an annual rate of return to convert the construction costs and maintenance costs into annual amortized costs for trading credit valuation.

Model Constraints

The model was designed for only four catchment areas within the study area. However, these catchment areas each had different characteristics and could be considered representative of the area as a whole. In order to apply this model to other catchment areas, the user had to assess the characteristics of the area of interest and select the modeled area that provided the closest match. The production of sediment runoff in agricultural watersheds can be problematic (such as in Watershed37/Subwatershed 6).The analyst should pay particular attention to the five-year forebay sediment accumulation depth when running the model and ensure that the depth is less than or equal to five feet by enlarging the forebay area to meet this constraint. It may be found that the watershed is not applicable for trading credit sales of nitrogen or phosphorus due to the extent of sediment runoff from the watershed. Combining smaller wetland implementation projects upstream and/or other land use BMPs to reduce sediments in highly eroding areas is advised in these types of conditions. Inflation costs are not included in the model except as an addition to the capital recovery rate. The growing season is defined as a 180-day period between the first of April and the end of September. An additional constraint of the model is that the concentrations of nutrients and sediment are pre-determined by the inputs (Table 8, above), which were derived from the SWAT modeling. The user is limited to select from four input concentrations to reflect more localized conditions or potential changes in these concentrations.

52

Model Outputs

STELLA model runs were conducted for the four subwatershed areas to quantify a relationship between the wetland sizes and the extent of nitrogen and phosphorus removal accomplished by the wetland. Nitrogen and phosphorus removal was assumed to be done in the wetland element, with the forebay element primarily accounting for sediment capture. In general, the STELLA model output indicated that modeled wetlands provided substantial nitrogen removal, up to a point. Nitrogen removal gradually increased with wetland size in all watersheds until the wetland size resulted in a dilution of total nitrogen concentration. This is not unexpected. The larger wetlands, while capable of removing total nitrogen, are less efficient at doing so. The reason for this is that the vegetation and microorganisms in a smaller wetland are able to maximize the volume of total nitrogen for productive growth. In larger wetlands, the amount of vegetation and the number of microorganisms is so large that a smaller amount of nitrogen is captured or converted by each individual. Growing season nitrogen removal should increase steadily at the beginning of the season (April, as defined in this model). At this time, the plants in the wetland have the greatest demand for nitrogen and other nutrients for maximum growth. As the season progresses, the peak of nitrogen capture is likely to occur shortly after the maximum diversity of plants has emerged and has begun capturing the nitrogen (July). The nitrogen captured by the plants should then remain bound in the plant material through the remainder of the season (September). The model illustrated this expected uptake pattern. As was the case with nitrogen, the model simulations demonstrated increasing phosphorus removal with wetland size until the removal peaked at a certain size. In large wetlands, the concentration of phosphorus within the wetland was diminished by the wetland size. While the efficacy of phosphorus removal by wetlands is much less than that of nitrogen, studies have indicated that phosphorus capture primarily occurs in microorganism adsorption (Swindell and Jackson, 1990), sediment deposition (Klopatek, 1978), and vegetative uptake (Breen, 1990; Moss 1988). In addition, studies have indicated that phosphorus capture through vegetative uptake increases throughout a growing season. Phosphorus capture in vegetation has been estimated as high as 67- 80% of total phosphorus (Breen, 1990; Thut, 1989), after which time the remainder of the phosphorus is expected to be captured in the soil. Wetland sediments with high organic content were found to be phosphorus sinks (Klopatek, 1978). The relationship between wetland size and pollutant removal was used to identify the optimum wetland size for nitrogen and phosphorus removal and optimum forebay size for sediment removal in each subwatershed. The STELLA model then was used to estimate the pollutant removal associated with these optimum sizes. The model also was used to estimate the pollutant removal associated with a one-acre wetland in all four subwatersheds. The results of these model runs are summarized in the table below.

53

Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36Optimum wetland size for TN: 5 acres Optimum wetland size for TP: 15 acres

Wetland Acres

Crediting Period

Total Nitrogen Reduced

(lbs)

Total Phosphorus

Reduced (lbs)

Total Sediment Reduced

(tons) 1 Annually 1,410 9 201

Growing Season 1,072 2 56 5 Annually 6,085 45 249

Growing Season 4,401 5 69 15 Annually 12,213 169 285

Growing Season 8,869 44 80


Wetland Acres

Crediting Period


(lbs)

Total Phosphorus

Reduced (lbs)


(tons) 1 Annually 1,608 191 9,774

Growing Season 818 79 3,660 5 Annually 5,659 941 10,611

Growing Season 1,480 205 3,925


Wetland Acres

Crediting Period


(lbs)

Total Phosphorus

Reduced (lbs)


(tons) 1 Annually 912 113 18,219

Growing Season 338 27 7,729 10 Annually 10,304 2,013 20,295

Growing Season 3,426 498 8,645


54

Wetland Acres

Crediting Period


(lbs)

Total Phosphorus

Reduced (lbs)


(tons) 1 Annually 786 77 68,679

Growing Season 257 10 29,135 5 Annually 5,965 883 69,332

Growing Season 1,811 157 29,354 15 Annually 17,842 3,708 72,384

Growing Season 5,006 725 30,674 Table 15. Summary of STELLA model runs for estimating pollutant removal

55

Results

STELLA Model Outputs

Forebay Size Requirements for Sediment Removal

A sediment forebay element was included in the treatment system due to the high amounts of sediment runoff from the agricultural land use in western Tennessee. Initially, filter strips were included in the treatment system, but the depth of sediment and the lengths of filter strips required precluded their use within the study watersheds. In other parts of the country, filter strips have been used effectively, especially in areas with heavier soils which are less prone to erosion. The forebay design criteria used in this study included a constraint that forebays should not require dredging of accumulated sediment more frequently than every five years and that a maximum forebay depth of five feet should be used for holding sediment. Using these two criteria, the STELLA model was used to define the minimum area required for a sediment trapping forebay for each of the watersheds.

Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36

This 706-acre watershed had the lowest sediment runoff of the four watersheds studied – an estimated 900 tons during the 3- year SWAT analysis period. Consequently, only a minimal 0.1-acre forebay was required for sediment trapping and this small forebay was found to accumulate sediment to a depth of only 1.9 feet in a STELLA-modeled five-year period. The forebay for this treatment system could be constructed with a reduced holding capacity resulting in reduced construction costs. With the minimal size forebay, the system averaged 268 tons of annual sediment removal (89 percent of the total sediment runoff). By comparison, a five-acre forebay removed an average of 272 tons annually – only four tons more per year – showing that a greater surface area did not result in substantially increased sediment removal for this watershed.

56

Figure 23. Watershed 1/Subwatershed 36.


This 315-acre watershed had 34,170 tons of sediment runoff during the 3-year SWAT analysis period. A 2.9-acre forebay was required for sediment trapping and this forebay accumulated sediment to a depth of 4.9 feet in a STELLA-modeled average five-year period. This forebay removed an average of 11,223 tons of sediment annually (98 percent of the inflow sediment). By comparison, a 10-acre forebay removed 11,233 tons annually, which was ten tons more than the almost 3 acre wetland.


SUB: 36

SUB: 49

57


This 423-acre watershed had 62,729 tons of sediment runoff during the 3-year SWAT analysis period. A 5.7-acre forebay was required for sediment trapping and this forebay accumulated sediment to a depth of 4.9 feet in a STELLA-modeled average five-year period. This forebay removed an average of 20,293 tons of sediment annually (97 percent of the inflow sediment). By comparison, a 10-acre forebay removed 20,384 tons of sediment annually – an additional 91 tons.



This 1,043-acre watershed exhibited the greatest sediment runoff during the STELLA-modeled 3-year analysis period - 231,656 tons. A 19.8-acre forebay was required for sediment trapping and this forebay accumulated sediment to a depth of 4.9 feet in an average five-year period. This forebay removed an average of 70,429 tons of sediment annually or 91 percent of the inflow sediment. The annual amount of un-removed sediment was 6,790 tons (over 22 times the total average annual sediment runoff before treatment in the Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 area). The high amount of sediment runoff and resulting

58

enlarged sediment forebay would likely preclude this watershed from participation in a trading credit program. Its inclusion in the study illustrates the problems associated with land uses resulting in substantial areas of bare soil as discussed previously in the report.


Wetland Size vs. Contaminant Removal

STELLA model runs were conducted for the four study catchment areas to quantify a relationship between the wetland sizes and the extent of nitrogen and phosphorus removal accomplished by the wetland. The removals of nitrogen and phosphorus were assumed to be done in the wetland element as discussed in the Appendix with the forebay element primarily modeled for sediment capture.

Nitrogen

In general, the STELLA model output showed found that modeled wetlands provided substantial nitrogen removal, up to a point. Nitrogen removal gradually increased in all watersheds until the wetland size

SUB: 6

59

resulted in a dilution of total nitrogen concentration. This is not unexpected. The larger wetlands, while capable of decreasing total nitrogen, do so at a lower rate of efficiency. The reason for this is that the vegetation and microorganisms in a smaller wetland are able to maximize the volume of total nitrogen for productive growth. In larger wetlands, the amount of vegetation and the number of microorganisms is so large that a smaller amount of nitrogen is captured or converted by each individual. A rough analogy might be to state that it is akin to having 4, 6, or 8 people doing a 2-person job. Crumpton, et al., (1993) described nitrogen removal as a first-order process, where the rate of removal is expected to decrease as concentrations become more diluted. Furthermore, they indicate the time of retention results in larger percentages of nitrogen removal. In the model developed for this report, the amount of nitrogen retention is the same in a 5-acre wetland as it is in a 50-acre wetland. Therefore, there is little additional benefit gained by building the larger wetland. Secondly, growing season removal of nitrogen should increase steadily at the beginning of the season (April, as defined in this model). At this time, the plants in the wetland have the greatest demand for nitrogen and other nutrients for maximum growth. As the season progresses, the peak of nitrogen capture is likely to occur shortly after the maximum diversity of plants has emerged and has begun capturing the nitrogen (July). The nitrogen captured by the plants should then remain bound in the plant material through the remainder of the season (September). The model illustrated this expected uptake pattern. Lastly, the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus spread on the agricultural fields that were the primary source of these pollutants decreases toward the end of the growing season. The largest amount of fertilizer is applied at or immediately following planting. As the plants grow, less fertilizer is used, resulting in lower nitrogen and phosphorus runoff rates into the water column. The results for each subwatershed are summarized below.


The model estimated 164,370 pounds of nitrogen runoff could be removed during the three-year analysis period – an average of 54,790 pounds annually. The wetland nitrogen removal varied from 1,410 pounds of nitrogen removal for a 1-acre wetland to 39,600 pounds for a 50-acre wetland. Nitrogen removal during the growing season trended similarly to annual removal. A 1-acre wetland removed 1,072 pounds of nitrogen during the growing season, and a 50-acre wetland removed 29,130 pounds during the same model simulation. The effectiveness of wetland treatment as a function of size was relatively consistent for this watershed (Figure 27). A 5-acre wetland removed 1,220 lbs per acre of wetland during the average year annually, a 30-acre wetland removed 1,040 lbs./year, and a 50-acre wetland removed 790 lbs./year.

60

Figure 27. Watershed 1/Subwatershed 36, modeled nitrogen removal.


The STELLA model projected 58,302 pounds of nitrogen runoff during the three-year analysis period – an average of 19,434 pounds annually. The model estimated that nitrogen removal by the wetland varied from 1,610 pounds for a 1-acre wetland, and up to 13,800 pounds for a 50-acre wetland. Nitrogen removal during the growing season trended closely with annual removal. A 1-acre wetland was estimated to remove 820 pounds of nitrogen during the growing season and a 50-acre wetland was expected to remove almost twice as much or 6,410 pounds during the same growing season. The model results for this watershed showed a distinct drop in treatment effectiveness for wetlands larger than 10 acres (Figure 28). In a 5-acre wetland, annual nitrogen removal averaged 1,130 pounds per wetland acre. This value decreased slightly to 940 lbs/acre for a 10-acre wetland, but decreased to 580 lbs./acre for a 20-acre wetland and decreased to only 280 lbs./acre for a 50-acre wetland. Growing season nitrogen removal also suggested that treatment effectiveness decreased with increasing wetland size larger than 10 acres.



61

This watershed had an estimated 73,079 pounds of nitrogen runoff, based on the three data years used to generate the model input, which was an average of 24,360 pounds annually. The wetland nitrogen removal for this watershed varied from 912 pounds of nitrogen removal for a 1-acre wetland to 15,409 pounds for a 50-acre wetland. Nitrogen removal during the growing season trended similarly to annual removal. A 1-acre wetland removed 338 pounds of nitrogen during the growing season and a 50-acre wetland removed 5,916 pounds during the same model simulation. This watershed showed a decreasing effectiveness in nitrogen removal in wetlands larger than 15 acres (Figure 29). In a modeled 10-acre wetland, annual nitrogen removal averaged 1,030 pounds per wetland acre but decreased to 861 lbs./acre in a 15-acre wetland. Removal continued to decrease to 690 lbs./acre in a 20-acre wetland and finally, to 310 lbs./acre in a 50-acre wetland. Growing season nitrogen removal also showed a drop in treatment effectiveness with increasing wetland size larger than 15 acres.



This watershed had an estimated 184,920 pounds of nitrogen runoff, based on the three data years used to generate the model input, which was an average of 61,640 pounds annually. The larger size of this watershed and the substantial amount of nitrogen runoff made it an excellent alternative for a treatment wetland. However, as previously discussed, this watershed also had a very large amount of sediment runoff, which would require a large sediment-capture forebay for the wetland to function. The amount of sediment runoff in a watershed can also affect the wetland’s treatment function. The wetland nitrogen removal for this watershed varied from 786 pounds of nitrogen removal for a 1-acre wetland to 35,663 pounds for a 50-acre wetland. Nitrogen removal during the growing season trended similarly to annual removal. A 1-acre wetland removed 257 pounds of nitrogen during the growing season and a 50-acre wetland removed 12,356 pounds during the same model simulation. The model output for this watershed showed decreasing treatment effectiveness for wetlands larger than 35 acres (Figure 30). For wetlands up to 25 acres, removal averaged more than 1,100 pounds per wetland acre. The volume of removal decreased slightly to 1,017 lbs/acre in a 35-acre wetland and continued to decrease to 310 lbs./acre for a 50-acre wetland. Growing season nitrogen removal also showed a similar trend in treatment effectiveness relative to wetland size.

62


Phosphorus

As in the case of nitrogen, we found the model simulations demonstrated increasing phosphorus reduction until the reduction peaked at a certain wetland size. In large wetlands, the concentration of phosphorus within the wetland was diminished because of the wetland size. While the efficacy of phosphorus removal by wetlands is much less than that of nitrogen, studies indicate that phosphorus capture primarily occurs in microorganism adsorption (Swindell and Jackson, 1990), sediment deposition (Klopatek, 1978), and vegetative uptake (Breen, 1990; Moss 1988). Phosphorus is often the limiting nutrient in most vegetative production systems. Studies indicate that phosphorus capture through vegetative uptake increases throughout a growing season. Phosphorus capture in vegetation has been estimated as high as capturing 67- 80% of total phosphorus (Breen, 1990; Thut, 1989), after which time the remainder of the phosphorus is expected to be captured in the soil. Wetland sediments with high organic content were found to be phosphorus sinks (Klopatek, 1978). Following is a summary of the modeled phosphorus removal in each of the four selected catchment areas.


This watershed had an estimated 1,175 pounds of phosphorus runoff based on the three data years used to generate the model input, which was an average of 392 pounds annually. The STELLA model estimated that wetlands would remove additional phosphorus as wetland size increased, up to approximately15 acres (Figure 31). Wetlands larger than 15 acres were not found to remove additional phosphorus. The annual removal ranged from 9 pounds of phosphorus in a 1-acre wetland up to 169 pounds in a 15-acre wetland. A 50-acre wetland was found to remove an additional 39 pounds of phosphorus annually, or 208 pounds. Phosphorus removal during the growing season trended similarly to annual removal but overall was found to be less than nitrogen removal in the growing season. A 1-acre wetland removed 2 pounds of phosphorus during the growing season, a 15-acre wetland removed 44 pounds and a 50 acre wetland removed 54 pounds.

63

Figure 31. Watershed 1/Subwatershed 36, modeled phosphorus removal.


This watershed had an estimated 7,019 pounds of phosphorus runoff, based on the three data years used to generate the model input, which was an average of 2,340 pounds annually. The model simulations demonstrated that modeled wetlands removed additional phosphorus as wetland size increased, up to approximately 10 acres (Figure 32). Larger wetlands were not found to remove substantially more phosphorus. The annual removal ranged from 191 pounds of phosphorus in a 1-acre wetland to 1,265 pounds in a 10-acre wetland. In this watershed the additional removal in a 50-acre wetland was a little greater compared with the first watershed – up to an additional 115 pounds of removal (1,380 pounds of phosphorus annually). Phosphorus removal during the growing season trended similarly to annual removal. A 1-acre wetland removed 79 pounds of phosphorus during the growing season. A 10-acre wetland removed 326 pounds and a 50-acre wetland removed 343 pounds during the growing season.



This watershed had an estimated 11,346 pounds of phosphorus runoff, based on the three data years used to generate the model input, which was an average of 3,782 pounds annually. Like the previous subwatershed, phosphorus removal increased with increasing wetland size, up to 10 acres (Figure 33). Wetlands larger than 10 acres did not demonstrate substantially more phosphorus removal. In fact, the modeling indicated that phosphorous removal actually decreased with wetlands larger than 15 acres. The

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

lb phosphorus removed

wetland size (acres)

phosphorus removal vs wetland sizereach1/subwatershed 36

average annual (lb)

growing season (lb)

0

500

1000

1500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50




average annual (lb)

growing season (lb)

64

annual removal ranged from 113 pounds of phosphorus for a 1-acre wetland element to 2,013 pounds for a 10-acre wetland. A 50-acre wetland removed 1,940 pounds of phosphorus annually. Phosphorus removal during the growing season trended similarly to annual removal. A 1-acre wetland removed 27 pounds of phosphorus during the growing season, a 10-acre wetland removed 498 pounds and a 50-acre wetland removed 486 pounds.



This watershed had an estimated 30,137 pounds of phosphorus runoff, based on the three data years used to generate the model input, which was an average of 10,045 pounds annually. Phosphorus reduction was impacted by the high sediment output in this watershed. Wetlands up to 30 acres were found to be most effective at phosphorus removal (Figure 34). The annual removal ranged from 77 pounds of phosphorus in a 1-acre wetland to 5,878 pounds in a 30-acre wetland. A 50-acre wetland removed 5,883 pounds of phosphorus annually. Phosphorus removal during the growing season trended similarly to annual removal. A 1-acre wetland removed 10 pounds of phosphorus during the growing season, a 30-acre wetland removed 1,331 pounds and a 50-acre wetland removed 1,284 pounds.


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50




average annual (lb)

growing season (lb)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50




average annual (lb)

growing season (lb)

65

Construction Cost per Unit of Pollution Removal

The STELLA model was developed to calculate estimated costs for wetland/forebay construction of various sizes, using 2012 construction unit costs. The model was run using a land cost of $4,000 per acre, forebay sizes required for 5-year sediment runoff containment, channel incision depths estimated from GIS data available, and various wetland sizes. The construction costs per average annual pound of nitrogen and phosphorus removal, and per average annual ton of sediment removal, were calculated from the model results (Tables 16-19). The tabulation of wetland/forebay construction costs showed that the extent of channel incision and the volume required by the sedimentation forebay greatly influenced the construction costs for the wetland treatment system. The channel incision and forebay requirement of the wetland in Watershed 37 was several times larger than the wetlands for the less incised Watersheds 1 and 2. The channel incision is somewhat a function of the characteristic of soils in the western Tennessee basins. This incision will like be substantially less in other parts of the country and even in other areas of Tennessee.

Wetland Area (acres)

Watershed 1 Subarea 36

Forebay -- 0.1 ac Incision – 5’


Forebay – 2.9 ac Incision – 2’





5 $ 203,670 $ 197,730 $ 428,700 $ 1,140,240 10 $ 313,680 $ 227,080 $ 549,150 $ 1,278,800 15 $ 449,180 $ 281,040 $ 681,190 $ 1,450,500 20 $ 590,500 $ 341,580 $ 818,970 $ 1,626,950 50 $ 1,409,160 $ 680,330 $ 1,634,810 $ 2,596,410

Table 16. Wetland/forebay construction costs. The construction costs to remove nitrogen in the wetland systems varied greatly according to the wetland size and the watershed selected. The most effective systems from a construction cost vs. nitrogen removal comparison basis were found in wetlands sized between 10 and 20 acres, whereas higher nitrogen loading and smaller sediment loads were found in less incised watersheds. The wetland systems in Watershed 2 exemplified the optimal system characteristics.






5 33 35 87 191

10 32 24 53 114 15 37 26 53 81 20 29 29 59 70 50 36 49 106 73

Table 17. Construction cost for nitrogen removal ($/pound of average annual removal).

The construction costs to remove phosphorus, like nitrogen removal, varied greatly according to the wetland size and the watershed selected. The most effective systems from a construction cost vs. phosphorus removal were also found in Watershed 2.

66






5 4,526 210 469 1,291

10 3,410 180 273 624 15 2,658 222 299 391 20 3,044 279 371 345 50 6,775 492 842 441

Table 18. Construction cost for phosphorus removal ($/pound of average annual removal). Because the sedimentation forebays were found to remove over 90 percent of the total sediment in the modeled wetlands, the lowest construction costs were found in subwatersheds, which had large sediment loading, and relatively small nitrogen and phosphorus loads. Watershed 37 was such a system and had the lowest sediment removal costs, based on a construction cost per sediment ton removal, in spite of being the most incised of the four watersheds studied. The very low amount of sediment runoff from Watershed 1 greatly increased the cost of the Watershed 1 system to treat sediment.






5 818 19 23 16

10 1,170 20 27 18 15 1,576 25 33 20 20 2,022 30 39 22 50 4,713 60 78 34

Table 19. Construction cost for sediment removal ($/ton of average annual removal).

Table 20 summarizes the probable effluent limit ranges for nitrogen and phosphorus. Estimated upgrade costs for nutrient effluent options 1 and 2 will be based on using BNR. The remaining four options will be based on using BNR plus enhanced nutrient removal (ENR). Enhanced nutrient removal provides increased treatment of pollutants with chemical precipitants and/or filtration units. Enhanced nutrient removal is required where BNR technology inconsistently performs at a level required for compliance. Cost comparisons with nonpoint source-generated credits will be made using a unit cost of dollars per pound of nutrient removed ($/lb of TP, $/lb of TN, $/combined pound of TP+TN). All economic assessments will be based on present worth valuations that consider facility lifecycle costs, including capital, replacement, operation, and maintenance.

Option Number Possible TP Effluent Limit

(mg/L) Possible NO2+NO3 Driven TN equivalent

Effluent Limit (mg/L) 1 1 10 2 1 8 3 0.5 8 4 0.5 5 5 0.3 5 6 0.3 3

Table 20. Probable range of nutrient effluent limits.

To demonstrate the economic and technical feasibility of WQT, the high, medium, and low effluent limit options were used to develop a range of credit demand and supply costs. The study team recommends using options 1, 4, and 6 to demonstrate the range of demand and evaluate the economic feasibility.

67

The actual demand will also depend on stormwater pollution reduction constraints. The credit demand by a stormwater permitted footprint will in turn depend on the amount of pollution reductions that can be achieved within the footprint itself. This will be influenced by the land uses within the stormwater footprint. In addition, it should be noted that TDEC’s methodology for assigning nutrient criteria are likely to result in different effluent limits for dischargers in different watersheds. The effluent limits for point sources will depend on the relative contribution of point sources to the overall nutrient loading within the watershed. As such, watersheds with higher point source contributions will have more restrictive nutrient limits for point sources. In the case of this study, the MS4 NPDES permit for Memphis will have more restrictive limits than MS4 permits in the other two watersheds, which are dominated by agricultural land use.

Baselines

A baseline is the level of stewardship expected by the credit generator before a BMP can be used to generate salable credits. All applicable state and local rules and ordinances must be assessed to determine if the land in question meets the associated requirements. These requirements must be met before pollutant loading reductions can be counted toward credit generation. Additional nonpoint source reductions might be required by TMDLs, and attainment of TMDL goals or appropriate interim TMDL milestones should be incorporated into baseline considerations. Where such regulatory factors do not exist, a clear definition of a baseline must be developed instead. In the absence of applicable regulatory factors, watershed managers and WQT managers can work together to select a stewardship goal that is appropriate for the watershed. One common example in this situation is to select the three-year crop history as a baseline for credit generation. The history provides certainty that additional efforts will be undertaken and also limits the potential that a land manager might remove a BMP only to reinstall it for crediting purposes. Tennessee has a section in its Code that covers allowed discharges and a general prohibition restricting discharges that cause "pollution". However, the nonpoint source discharges from "any agricultural or forestry activity" are not covered by these prohibitions (Tenn. Code 69-3-120(g)). To determine preliminary feasibility of WQT based on wetland credit generation, the project team had to consider that the wetland implementer might not have managed the land prior to installing the wetland. In addition, loading reductions associated with the prior condition of the land converted to wetlands only accounts for a portion of the loading reductions achieved by the restored wetland. A properly installed wetland treatment system, including a forebay with routine maintenance, will achieve pollution reductions from the entire contributing area. A policy would have to be created when a third party like TNC, would purchase land and implement wetlands for credit generation. These types of entities would be adding additional practices and as such could be considered to be in compliance with most baselines. Should the landowner become the wetland implementer, then the three-year cropping history might be used in the overall baseline consideration.

Trade Ratio Development

Introduction

WQT must create an equal or greater pollutant reduction compared to reductions using conventional treatment methods to meet compliance goals. To help ensure this standard of protection, trade ratios are incorporated into the credit calculation process. Trade ratios are factors applied to the overall pollution

68

reduction achieved by a source to account for uncertainty or adjust for water quality improvement equivalency. These ratios, combined with conservative assumptions, help ensure that tradable credits reflect equivalent or greater pollutant reductions compared to conventional methods to achieve water quality goals. Identifying the proper trade ratio requires consideration of multiple features. These features include but are not limited to: location within the watershed relative to the issue of concern, distance between the buyer and seller, pollutant forms being discharged and reduced, ability of a water body to naturally remove or transform a pollutant, and uncertainty introduced by incomplete information or model estimations.

Location Factor

The location factor and/or delivery ratio considers the spatial relationship between buyers and sellers. In this study, output from the SWAT model was used to estimate in-stream attenuation and determine a factor that represents the proportion of pollutant loading that reaches the target site. The SWAT output provided information on nutrient and sediment loading into and out of the channel. A comparison of these two values can be used to estimate the in-stream pollution attenuation as the water travels downstream. An example set of stream channels in the northwestern portion of the study area was used to illustrate how the SWAT output could be used to determine a location factor. For this example, subwatersheds 1, 2, 5, and 6 were selected. According to the watershed map, subwatershed 1 is a headwaters, which flows into subwatershed 2. Subwatershed5 joins with subwatershed 2 and flows into subwatershed 6. To determine the location factor using the SWAT output, the project team calculated the proportion of the loading entering the stream channel in subwatershed 1 that remained in the channel at the mouth of subwatershed 6. The persistence rate of the subwatershed 1 loading then was graphed and a trendline applied. In order to generate a more conservative location factor, the trendline was adjusted down to account for the lowest point.

Figure 35. Example of how SWAT output can be applied to determine the location factor for TP

y = ‐0.0233x + 0.9629R² = 0.8922

0.88

0.89

0.9

0.91

0.92

0.93

0.94

0.95

0 1 2 3 4

Location Factor Determination for TP

TP

Adjusted TP

69

Figure 36. Example of how SWAT output can be applied to determine the location factor for TN

Equivalence Factor

The equivalence factors consider differences in environmental impacts from the different forms of pollutants or impacts caused by interactions among multiple stressors. This factor includes differences in bioavailability of the pollutant forms being discharged. The bioavailability of the pollutant substantially influences the ecological impact of the pollutant in a given time period. WQT programs can require discharge sampling to determine bioavailability. However, this might not be cost effective or necessary. The following section discusses the potential for credit buyers and sellers discharging different forms of nutrients and how to account for differences in bioavailability.

Phosphorus

Understanding the phosphorus forms discharged from different sources types and the relative contribution of each form to the total phosphorus discharged can be used to estimate the amount bioavailable phosphorus. This method can be used for both point sources and non-point sources. A technical memorandum produced by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency described the expected variability in bioavailable phosphorus from different source types. Table 21 provides a summary of the memo results.

y = ‐0.0871x + 0.947R² = 0.962

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0 1 2 3 4

Location Factor Determination for TN

TN

Adjusted TN

70

Table 21. Estimates of bioavailable phosphorus by source type (Barr, 2004).

The bioavailability equivalence factor can be determined by calculating a ratio from the bioavailability portion of the two sources engaged in trading. The bioavailable portion of the buyer’s discharge is the denominator in the ratio. The overall ratio then becomes the equivalence discount factor for the WQT program. Based on the values in Table 21, example equivalency factors include:

For trades between domestic WWTPs: ratio of 85.5/85.5, overall factor of 1.0, expected variability of plus or minus 10%

For trades between domestic WWTP and industrial WWTP: ratio of 85.5/88, overall factor of 0.97, expected variability of plus or minus 15%

For trades between a domestic point source and an agricultural non-point source (fertilizer): ratio of 58/85.5, overall factor of 0.68, expected variability of plus or minus 20%

For trades between an industrial point source and an agricultural non-point source (fertilizer): ratio of 58/88, overall factor of 0.66, expected variability of plus or minus 25%

When agricultural non-point sources are involved in trading, the equivalence factor will depend on the

71

fertilizer management strategy of the source. The above examples are for phosphorus bioavailability associated with cropland runoff from properly managed fertilizer applications. For sites where manure applications are greater than the agronomic recommended rates, the runoff contains higher fractions of bioavailable phosphorus. In those cases, the equivalency factors are:

For trades between a domestic point source and an agricultural non-point source: ratio of 80/85.5, overall factor of 0.94, expected variability of plus or minus 10%

For trades between an industrial point source and an agricultural non-point source: ratio of 80/88, overall factor of 0.91, expected variability of plus or minus 25%

The expected variability indicated in the above ratios is expected to decrease for WQT programs with multiple buyers and sellers. The inclusion of multiple participants in the market results in the weighted average of bioavailability fractions converging toward the most likely value of bioavailability indicated in the review of existing research.

Nitrogen

The amount of bioavailable nitrogen can be estimated by understanding the nitrogen forms discharged from different sources types and the relative contribution of each form to the total nitrogen discharged. As discussed above, total nitrogen (TN) consists of organic and inorganic forms. Organic nitrogen typically is not bioavailable but eventually will mineralize into inorganic forms that can be taken up by aquatic organisms. Inorganic nitrogen includes nitrate (NO3

-), nitrite (NO2-), ammonia (NH3), and ammonium

(NH4+). Of these forms, all of the nitrate, nitrate, and ammonium present in the system is available for

plant growth. Research has indicated that portions of the other nitrogen forms also might be bioavailable. Studies have found a wide range of results regarding the bioavailability of organic nitrogen – both dissolved and particulate. Research has demonstrated that systems with a lot of humic substances can release higher levels of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) than previously thought. In some cases, 20 percent of the DON is photoammoniafied. Both DON and particulate organic nitrogen (PON) can be converted into ammonium or nitrate through photochemical breakdown, bacterial uptake, and zooplankton grazing. Variability in the bioavailability of organic nitrogen complicates the assessment of overall nitrogen bioavailability. Predicting the potential impacts of nitrogen discharges is further complicated by site-specific variation in the response of aquatic organisms to nutrient loading. For the purposes of trading, nitrite, nitrate, and ammonium are considered 100 percent bioavailable while DON and PON are considered 20 percent bioavailable during the summer months. The estimate for DON and PON does not include nitrogen made available through bacteria and zooplankton, and therefore can be considered a conservative estimate.

Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Bioavailability

The bioavailability of nitrogen in runoff from agricultural fields depends on the pathway of the nitrogen loading. Typically, surface runoff is dominated by organic nitrogen while discharge from tile drains contains primarily dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN). The relative contributions of tile drainage and surface runoff to a stream Watershed can be used to estimate the overall proportion of total nitrogen loading that is bioavailable.

Wastewater Effluent Nitrogen Bioavailability

72

The amount of bioavailable nitrogen discharged from STPs depends on the type of pollution removal treatment used at the plant. A review of data in the literature indicates that the effluent discharged from STPs with secondary treatment contains about 10 percent of total nitrogen in the form of DON [cites in Wabash report]. Plants with advanced treatment, however, discharge effluent with DON approximately 40 to 50 percent of TN [cites in Wabash report]. Applying the ratios expressed above (100 percent of DIN is bioavailable and 20 percent of DON is bioavailable), the total proportion of bioavailable nitrogen in WWTP effluent can be calculated. Accordingly, approximately 92 percent of the TN in discharge from the plant with secondary treatment is bioavailable and 60 percent of the TN in discharge from the advanced treatment plant would be bioavailable. The ratio for the secondary treatment plant can be adjusted to provide a conservative estimate of 90 percent bioavailability.

Uncertainty Factor

The uncertainty factor considers any introduced uncertainty, potential for errors, or information gaps in calculating reductions and assigning credits. Uncertainty can be introduced through multiple pathways, including measurement error, model variability, and an incomplete scientific understanding of aquatic ecosystems. For example, it is not always practical or feasible to measure the pollution reduction from BMPs. Instead, these reductions are calculated using models and the best available information. The use of models and indirect estimates introduces uncertainty based on the necessary simplifications and assumptions built into the model. Although uncertainty cannot entirely be avoided, it can be addressed and incorporated into the overall analysis to minimize the potential for adverse effects. Characterizing the relative effects of uncertainty in the underlying assumptions of the WQT estimation process can ensure that the final credits are protective of the environment and meet regulatory compliance goals. WQT programs can account for uncertainty when establishing credits in a variety of ways. One method includes applying a conservative margin of safety (MOS) that is set sufficiently high to ensure all potential uncertainty is covered. However, a high MOS can potentially eliminate the economic value of trading, thus rendering a WQT program impractical. Another method to address uncertainty in the credit estimate process is to incorporate the specific uncertainty characteristics from the actual methods used in determining the WQT credits. As such, the uncertainty factor applied to the final credit estimation is based on the variability from the inputs, credit estimation, and trade ratios. The uncertainty associated with each step of the credit estimation process must be addressed in the uncertainty factor, including loading reduction estimates, equivalence estimates, and the development of location factors. Policy factors are derived from socio-political goals and applied after the credits are estimated; therefore no uncertainty factor is required. Typically, an uncertainty factor for loading reductions from point sources is not necessary. The discharge from these sources is monitored according to regulatory protocols established in the permit of the entity. Although some collection and measurement errors might exist, the methods used are acceptable for meeting regulatory compliance requirements. Trades involving non-point sources should apply an uncertainty factor that addresses the uncertainty associated with estimating BMP pollution reductions. Deriving an uncertainty factor from the credit estimation methodology includes characterizing the uncertainty associated with the estimates of the loading reductions and trade ratio factors. The estimation of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loadings from the watersheds used in the SWAT model included an estimation of the daily accumulations of these pollutants in the watershed, based on land use and soil conditions. Pollutant runoff was modeled as a function of the watershed characteristics and a daily value of precipitation. Variations in precipitation rates during the day will yield vastly difference runoff rates and volumes (i.e., a two-inch daily rainfall that falls in 30 minutes will produce substantially greater runoff volume and rates, and consequently larger amounts of pollutant runoff compared to the same two inches of rain falling uniformly throughout the day). Likewise, changes to land uses and variation in the mapped soil types and topography will introduce variability into the modeled

73

results for pollutant runoff. The STELLA model used a basic first-order rate equation to calculate nitrogen removal, based on a literature-based hydraulic loading rate. This method did not account for increased removals associated with higher water temperatures or decreased removals associated with lower water temperatures. Additional sources of variability and uncertainty include the effects of wetland outlet flow disruptions due to clogging, effects of increased/decreased treatment efficiencies due to variable timing of daily runoff into the wetland, and variations in runoff sediment characteristics, among others. This uncertainty can be reduced using field measurements of runoff and pollutant inflows and their reduction using a prototypical system within a modeled watershed to calibrate the STELLA and SWAT models. A future phase of this project could collect field measurement data from a constructed wetland/forebay system within one of the studied subwatersheds. With this field measurement data, the results can be compared to the modeled data, and the model variables can be adjusted to better reflect actual conditions. This system is recommended to minimize uncertainty in all areas where credits are to be traded. The equivalence factors were derived from conservatives estimates published in peer reviewed literature. The range of variability of these factors is typically a maximum of plus or minus 10 percent. A maximum discount of 38 percent is introduced by the equivalence factors for nonpoint source trading. Therefore, the resulting uncertainty factor (10 percent of 38 percent) is about 4 percent. The location factors were developed using the SWAT model analysis. The same characterization of uncertainty that applies to SWAT for the input and reduction estimates applies to the location factor uncertainty. Given the small study area and other constraints associated with the project scope, limited data was available to calibrate the SWAT model. In addition, the limited data did not allow for quantification of the SWAT model uncertainty. The uncertainty analysis is incorporated into the WQT program by informing decisions to reduce uncertainty or otherwise integrate uncertainty considerations into credit calculations. In some cases, uncertainty can be reduced through additional data collection. The relative sensitivity of the output to the uncertainty associated with each parameter can be used to identify the variables that could benefit from additional data collection. However, in some cases gathering additional data might be prohibitively expensive. Decisions regarding data collection can be made based on the need to reduce uncertainty and funding constraints. The discussion of uncertainty raises the question about how WQT effectively protects the environment when knowledge about the associated reductions is not iron clad. This question sometimes results in bias against WQT as an alternative compliance tool. However, the presence of uncertainty is not unique to WQT. A certain degree of uncertainty is inherent in any scientific assessment because human understanding of the natural environment is incomplete. As a result, environmental regulations are accustomed to incorporating uncertainty. The NPDES permit program is no exception, and these permits apply the best available science but still must incorporate numerous necessary assumptions or simplifications. Indeed, the assumptions used in the NPDES permit process, TMDL development, and other watershed protection efforts can guide how uncertainty is addressed in WQT. The uncertainty factor applied in the credit process can be more or less conservative depending on the policies of the regulators and program managers. However, a more conservative factor will reduce the cost-competitiveness of WQT as a voluntary compliance option. This trade-off should be considered when balancing the uncertainty factor with creating a cost-effective program that meets environmental protection goals. As such, the uncertainty factor should not be overly protective such that it restricts the potential to realize the benefits associated with WQT where it is feasible. In addition, implicit margins of

74

safety are often included in WQT through conservative assumptions applied elsewhere in the credit estimation process. For example, a WQT program could choose to calculate credits based on reductions of nutrients attached to sediment. This overlooks any reductions of soluble nutrients, thereby building in a certain margin of safety.

Policy Factors

Policy factors address any additional socio-political goals chosen by decision-makers. As introduced above, such goals include creating a net conservation benefit by incorporating a retirement requirement into the trading program. Another potential policy goal could involve incentives for early adoption or advancing other watershed goals through encouraging establishment of specific BMPs. A net benefit for the water resource might be added by using a 10 percent credit retirement requirement to the buyer’s obligation.

Supply-Side Trade Ratios

Trading between a point source and a nonpoint source credit generator are evaluated using the following cumulative trade ratio provided in Table 22. Because the evaluation of WQT is being done on a watershed-wide scale and no one specific buyer or seller is identified, a general trade ratio must be selected to illustrate a typical trade ratio. Table 22 was established considering the factors provided in the narrative above and professional judgment regarding a typical and conservative value. The uncertainty factor and bioavailability factors consider previous agricultural land in row cropping without manure applications. In all cases, the cumulative trade ratio is below a 3:1 ratio. The study uses a 3:1 trade ratio as one scenario for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of WQT. If WQT is pursued further in the study area, then a phased approach using a pilot study might be able to reduce these cumulative totals down to the more commonly used 2:1 trade ratio. This ratio also will be applied during the cost-effectiveness evaluation.

75

Trade Ratio Component Considerations

Near Field Far Field TN TP Sediment TN TP Sediment

Equivalence (Bioavailability)

TP 58% NPS 85% STP TN Channel ratio of DIN versus Organic N

15% 32% N/A 15% 32% N/A

Location Factors

Near Field SWAT Model Uncertainty Far Field SWAT and SPARROW model results considerations

35% 15% 35% 45% 25% N/A

Uncertainty Factors

Bioavailability 5% 4% N/A 5% 4% N/A Location

Factor SWAT Assessment

50% 50% 50%

Location Factor Combined SWAT & SPARROW Assessment

55% 55% 55%

STELLA Model Load Reduction Factor

30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%

Policy Factors Net Benefit for Water Resources

10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

Cumulative Values Less Than a 3:1 Trade Ratio

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Table 22. Trade ratio development

Lifetime of Pollution Reduction Unit

Development of a WQT program must determine the appropriate credit lifetime. The lifetime of a pollutant reduction unit considers the persistence of the loading impact on the receiving water. Credit lifetime can be confused with BMP life or contract periods. For clarification purposes, a wetland that is properly constructed and maintained is assumed to have a 30-year lifetime. During those 30 years, the wetland can produce credits annually, across a growing season, or on a monthly basis. The credits are only valid during the contemporaneous periods. In addition, the trade transaction contracts between a

76

buyer and a seller might be written for all 30 years or a fraction of those years. However, the EPA and TDEC are limited by the language of the CWA to restrict permit conditions to be only within the permit period (5-years). In some circumstances, banking of credits across years might be justified. However, that is not the case in Tennessee. The contemporaneous requirements presented in the TDEC narrative standard guidance includes a recommendation that nutrient effluent averaging periods be based on one month. Nonpoint source credit generation in a given month during drought conditions would create a setting where it would be very difficult to comply with a one-month averaging period. The State of Wisconsin (WDNR, 2011) numeric water quality standards includes language that allows a one-year contemporaneous period. Likewise, the EPA allowed one-year contemporaneous periods in the Chesapeake Bay trading programs (USEPA, 2004). This feasibility evaluation considers both the credits produced across an annual period and those within a growing season. Credit lifetime considerations must be taken into account when establishing a stable market for long-term investments. Wetland implementation is an expensive undertaking and will require multiple years of credit generation to be cost-effective, compared to a 20-year upgrade cost at STPs. Therefore, programs across the nation were set up to allow longer contract lengths for implementing structural BMPs. Examples of such programs include the Great Miami River Water Quality Credit Trading program (MCD, 2005) and the Rahr Malting Company NPDES trading permit (MPCA, 1997).

Additional Factors

Program managers considering WQT development should consider other salient water quality factors. The use of WQT can be integrated into existing programs, such as basin plans and other watershed management projects. However, the current sociopolitical management concerns must be addressed if WQT is going to be accepted as an alternative compliance tool. WQT is a subset of the EPA NPDES permit program and is recognized by the EPA as an alternative compliance tool, in the appropriate settings. As such, the EPA and delegated CWA authorities integrate all surface water programs appropriately. Another consideration are the multiple benefits wetland provide to watershed management in addition to the parameter of concern for a WQT program. When trading for one pollutant, other pollutant reductions also occur. In addition, flow attenuation and groundwater recharge can be provided by proper wetland installations. At the national level, a debate exists surrounding whether or not the benefits from one BMP can be divided up and sold in many markets (stacking of ecosystem services). Some entities are concerned that valuation of one service or function will minimize the focus on the other (also important) benefits. Another concern is the potential for increased occurrences of double dipping (e.g., “business as usual”) where a given BMP would be implemented even in the absence of a trading program. Therefore, opponents question the need to allow environmental payments for projects that provide no additional uplift and would be put in place regardless. However, there are other settings where the payments from multiple markets help offset the high implementation or opportunity costs. The federal level offices of the EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have not finalized their decisions on this important topic.

Prevention of Local Hot Spots

Water quality trading provides an environmentally sound, cost-effective, and flexible compliance option when implemented in the proper setting. Trading markets are only viable when WQT contributes to the achievement of watershed protection goals. In order to meet these goals, it is necessary to have a concise definition of water quality attainment. This is vital for determining when protection goals are met and

77

when additional measures should be taken to ensure protection. Generally, the definition of attainment involves permitted limits on pollutant discharges or other regulatory designations or controls. The salient characteristics associated with defining water quality protection include:

Water quality protection goals: o Achieving water quality standards o Providing for water resource beneficial uses

Addressing the likelihood of a permittee to cause or contribute to water quality exceedances, including consideration of:

o Whether the discharge contains a pollutant parameter associated with the identified impairment

o Whether the discharged pollutant concentration is below the water quality standard o Whether the WQT transaction intended to protect a downstream water resource crosses

another impaired water without addressing potential contributions to that impairment

Understanding the spatial and temporal nature of water quality attainment status and how those factors impact watershed management

When a portion of the water body does not meet the definition of attainment or attainment is threatened, the area is considered a local “hot spot”. A common criticism of WQT is that it allows an entity to buy the right to increase pollution discharges, thereby potentially creating localized water quality impairments. However, a WQT program must be designed to avoid the creation of hot spots. Dischargers engaged in WQT must comply with the same definition of attainment as dischargers utilizing conventional pollution reduction strategies. Permitted entities participating in WQT are obligated to comply with 40 CFR 122.44(d) and 40 CFR 122.4(i). These federal NPDES permit regulation provisions can be summarized by 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(i), which states:

“Limitations must control all pollutants or pollutant parameters (either conventional, nonconventional, or toxic pollutants) which the Director determines are or may be discharged at a level which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any State water quality standard, including State narrative criteria for water quality.”

When developing a WQT framework, it is essential to recognize that water quality protection goals are identified and apply for both conventional treatment methods and the WQT compliance option. The effluent limits assigned to permitted entities must comply with the Code of Federal Regulation provisions, regardless of the method of compliance. As such, entities engaged in WQT are held to the same standard as those using conventional treatment methodologies. This recognizes that WQT can be used as an alternative compliance tool in the appropriate setting with sufficient adjustments to the credit value. Determining whether water quality protection goals can be met using WQT involves consideration of the following elements:

Current available understanding of the in-stream attenuation rate for the WQT pollutant parameter of concern

Watershed understanding of those Watershedes considered to be impaired, where the pollutant parameter of concern contributes to the stress

NPDES permit effluent limits that would be assigned to conventional treatments

In addition to considering the above elements, a WQT program also should establish effective eligible

78

boundaries for trade transactions. These boundaries should be set by taking into account the in-stream attenuation rates and the NPDES effluent limits that would be assigned to conventional treatment methods When the watershed understanding is limited, additional WQT framework policies can be introduced to protect against an NPDES permittee causing or contributing to a local hot spot. Provisions that can be used to successfully prevent a local hot spot include water quality monitoring and evaluation and/or only allowing upstream credit generation. In addition, a policy requiring upstream credit generation can be combined with applying trade ratios to address attenuation between the credit buyer and seller. A margin of safety can also be applied to the credit calculation to ensure protection goals are met. Yet another protection option would be to limit the amount of reductions that WQT can provide. For example, allowing WQT to contribute only 20 percent of the total necessary reductions for compliance.

Monitoring Plans

One means of averting the creation of or contribution to hot spots is to improve the watershed understanding. WQT programs can be designed to include water quality monitoring, which would augment existing monitoring programs and accelerate the understanding of local conditions. However, monitoring is costly and the financial resources available to entities engaged in WQT might be limited. Policies can be designed to prevent inadvertently creating undue economic hardships for WQT participants that would unnecessarily reduce the cost-effectiveness of these programs.

Limit Allowable Trades

Another method for preventing hot spots is to only allow trades between an upstream credit generator and a downstream credit buyer. However, in some cases, downstream credit generation can be possible when the proper protective measures are taken. At least two WQT programs in the United States allow trades between point sources with downstream credit generation (MPCA, 2005)2, (CT DEEP, 2002)3. These programs can provide some lucrative trade transaction options. Downstream credit generation can be very beneficial for an upstream buyer when the location factor is favorable. The location factor for a WQT program can take into account conditions that result in limited pollutant attenuation between the discharge point and the water resource of concern (e.g., when the credit generator is in close proximity to the water needing protection). In-stream processes remove nutrients and sediment from the water as it moves downstream. When a discharge occurs relatively far from the water body of concern, a substantial portion of the pollutants can be removed by these processes prior to the water reaching the impaired region. The remaining load that is transmitted to the resource depends on the distance between the discharge and the resource, as well as the local characteristics of the watershed. This in-stream attenuation means that reductions achieved by a discharger located far upstream ultimately result in a smaller amount of loading reductions to the water resource of concern than comparable reductions achieved by dischargers closer to the resource. This is particularly true when there is a relatively high attenuation rate between the upstream discharger and the water needing protection. As such, in certain cases protecting the water body of concern can be achieved much more effectively by reducing pollutant loadings that occur close to the resource. Upstream dischargers then can purchase

2 MPCA. 2005. Minnesota River Basin General Phosphorus Permit Phase 1; NPDES permit MNG420000. Accessed on April 24, 2012 at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/surface-water/basins-and-watersheds/minnesota-river-basin/minnesota-river-basin-general-phosphorus-permit-phase-1.html?menuid=&redirect=1 3 CT DEEP. 2002. Nitrogen Control Program for Long Island Sound. Accessed on April 24, 2012 at: http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2719&q=325572&depNav_GID=1635

79

pollutant reduction credits from downstream generators. The concern with this design, however, is that local pollution hot spots might occur along the upstream portion of the water body between the credit buyer and credit seller. For this type of program to comply with the requirement that permittees engaged in WQT cannot cause or contribute to a water quality violation, the water resources located between the credit buyer and seller must remain in attainment or the discharges should not contain pollutant parameters that contribute to the stress.

Potential Credit Demand

For this assessment, the demand for WQT credits would potentially come from entities regulated by the Clean Water Act and assigned nutrient and/or sediment effluent limits in NPDES permits. Such entities include sewage treatment plants (STPs) and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). STPs are assumed to be discharging below turbidity standards and as such will not generate demand for sediment offset credits. However, MS4s might be potential buyers of sediment credits. Tennessee is currently in the process of establishing numeric nutrient criteria. As these criteria are promulgated, STPs potentially will be assigned numeric nutrient limits in their NPDES permits. In addition, MS4s with NPDES permits also might be subject to nutrient limits, depending on the final strategy adopted by regulators to incorporate stormwater discharges into TMDL allocations. In the absence of a WQT program, STPs with assigned nutrient limits will have to reduce nutrient discharges by installing retrofits or other technology upgrades. In some cases, such upgrades can be very costly. In these circumstances, WQT potentially could provide a more cost-effective alternative compliance tool for reducing nutrient discharges, under the appropriate conditions. All trades in a WQT program must achieve the same or better environmental protection as conventional treatment methods.

Extent of Permitted Entities

The following section discusses the current STPs and MS4s in the study area. The discussion focuses on quantifying the potential WQT demand that could be generated by these permitted entities. Sewage Treatment Plant Permitted Entities The project team obtained permit information about current sewage treatment operations within the study area in order to better inform this assessment and allow for quantitative analysis of potential WQT credit demand. Figure 37 below illustrates the locations of the individual permits within the study area.

80

Figure 37. Permit locations in association with “Individual” permit types

Permit information was available for 21 of the municipal STP facilities within the study area, in addition to information regarding 17 additional STP treatment operations. These additional facilities included entities such as schools, mobile home parks, and gas stations that treat waste on-site. Typically, these entities have relatively small, simple treatment operations, such as a package plant that passes wastewater through an aeration tank, followed by a settling tank, and finally disinfects prior to discharge. A general summary of the permittees with available information is provided in Table 23.

Watershed Flow Rate Number of Facilities

Lower Hatchie ≥1 MGD 5 0.20-1 2 <0.2 4

Loosahatchie ≥1 MGD 4 0.20-1 3 <0.2 10

Wolf ≥1 MGD 4 0.20-1 0 <0.2 5

Table 23. Summary of treatment facilities in study area

The majority of the STPs in the study area are small, with only 13 facilities treating 1 MGD or more. Of

81

the available permit information, none of the STPs had established limits for nitrogen and phosphorus. The available information regarding current treatment capabilities indicated only two facilities were listed as having biological nitrogen control. It should be noted that the information the project team was able to obtain about current treatment was rather limited. Stormwater Permitted Entities In addition to permitted STPs generating demand for WQT, permitted MS4s might also purchase credits in a WQT program to help meet stormwater pollution reduction requirements. Under current regulations, MS4s with NPDES permits have to reduce pollutant loading to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). The EPA has not explicitly defined MEP, which helps allow for flexibility when establishing site-specific permit conditions. However, the MEP designation can create complications when implementing WQT programs. Any reductions achieved by the MS4 would be considered to go toward the MEP requirement. Therefore, an MS4 cannot generate tradable credits. In addition, the inherent flexibility of MEP implies an MS4 would not need to purchase reduction credits. MS4s would likelyonly participate in a WQT program if the current MEP requirement changed and the MS4 was subject to more stringent pollution discharge limits. The EPA is currently exploring assigning MS4s more stringent effluent limits based on quantitative goals instead of MEP. The EPA issued a memo in 2002 that provided guidance for including MS4s as pollutant sources contributing to TMDLs. This memo represented a shift in EPA policy whereby NPDES-permitted MS4s discharging into waters with TMDLs would have to adjust their discharges to comply with the Waste Load Allocation (WLA) of the TMDL. In 2010, the EPA issued a second memo that updated the 2002 guidance. This memo stated that the EPA considered it reasonable to expect numeric limits to be included in NPDES permits for MS4s. The agency received reaction and pushback regarding these efforts and is currently working with stakeholders on this issue. If MS4 discharges were incorporated into TMDL WLAs, WQT markets could be a viable alternative compliance tool for municipalities needing to meet stormwater pollution goals. MS4s could meet some discharge reductions by implementing stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs). Such BMPs could include retention basins, filter strips, swales or wet ponds, among others. However, implementation of stormwater BMPs can be difficult in high-density urban areas where much of the area is already developed. The constraints of developed areas complicate the pollution reduction efforts. In developed areas, stormwater infrastructure, such as curbs, gutters, and piping, is already in place. Therefore, stormwater BMPs will be retrofit installations, which can be substantially more complicated than new installations. In addition, BMP retrofits might have to wait until the stormwater infrastructure is upgraded as part of the traditional utility upgrade cycle. Retrofits also tend to be more expensive than new installations, which can add to the cost of stormwater pollution reduction (CWP, 2007). BMP retrofits can also be less effective in removing stormwater pollutants (CWP, 2007). The optimum BMP design is often not possible in a retrofit situation because of space constraints or other limitations. Some or most BMPs require substantial land area. In situations where sufficient land area is not available, following the appropriate design criteria might be possible for only a fraction of the flow. Therefore, the design must be altered to fit within the constraints, which typically compromises some of the treatment capabilities of the BMP. A summary of potential pollution reductions associated with select stormwater BMPs is provided in the table below. Five stormwater BMPs were selected to serve as examples. This reflects the different pollutant loading associated with runoff from each land use type for a 25-acre catchment area. All values are based on an initial loading associated with national event mean concentrations for each land use type, an average annual precipitation of 54 inches, and the reported median treatment efficiencies of each BMP

82

type. Ideally, the analysis should utilize more localized stormwater pollution data, if such are available.

TSS (tons/yr) TN (lbs/yr) TP (lbs/yr)

Residential

Wet Pond 8.83 293.18 72.60

Bioretention Basin 6.51 435.05 6.98 Open Channel / Swales 8.94 529.62 33.51

Infiltration 9.82 397.22 90.75

Filtering 9.49 302.64 82.37


Commercial

Wet Pond 7.75 293.18 51.52 Bioretention Basin 5.71 435.05 4.95 Open Channel / Swales 7.84 529.62 23.78 Infiltration 8.62 397.22 64.40 Filtering 8.33 302.64 58.46


Industrial



Freeways



Open


Table 24. Summary of potential pollution reductions associated with select stormwater BMPs

83

In the study area, the City of Memphis has a Phase I MS4 NPDES permit. Phase II stormwater permits apply to certain small MS4s, as well as construction sites between one and five acres. Several Phase II MS4 permits have been issued in the study area, including to the City of Millington and Shelby County. Details of these permits were not obtained. These details could be gathered if a detailed stormwater trading program was being considered. Any future EPA and TDEC decisions to incorporate quantitative MS4 discharge goals into TMDL WLAs could increase the pollution reduction cost for these entities. At that time, a more thorough analysis could be conducted to assess potential credit demand by MS4s. If more restrictive MS4 discharge goals were promulgated, WQT could potentially serve as a cost-effective alternative compliance tool for MS4s. In addition, in watersheds where the TMDL is fully allocated, urban areas would benefit from WQT because trading would allow for continued growth and development, as desired by the community. Developing a thorough analysis of potential MS4 credit demand would incorporate the estimated BMP pollution reduction requirements and land use characteristics of the stormwater footprint. The land use of a given area will determine the ease and cost of installing BMP retrofits. Areas characterized by a high proportion of impervious surfaces will be harder to retrofit than areas with relatively little urban development. For example, 55.4 percent of the land area in the City of Millington is considered “developed.” Of this developed area, 2.2 percent is high intensity, 8.5 is medium intensity, 29.7 percent is low intensity, and 14.9 percent is open space. Based on this land-use breakdown, it is likely that Millington would encounter difficulties reducing stormwater pollution from the mostly highly developed areas within its stormwater footprint.

84

Conclusion and Recommendations

Economic Assessment

Water quality trading is a market-based compliance instrument. A trading program will be viable only when certain conditions are met, including adequate environmental protection and economic cost-effectiveness. In order to be cost effective, trades must reduce the overall compliance costs for achieving environmental protection goals. Credit buyers and sellers are more likely to participate in a WQT program when there is an economic incentive to do so. For permittees, an economic incentive exists when the purchase of a reduction credit is substantially less costly than reducing a pollutant discharge through other means, such as conventional treatment methods. The cost savings typically must be sizeable to overcome permittee concerns regarding maintaining direct control of the compliance performance. Likewise, credit sellers will participate in a trading program when the credit generation cost fits into their operation goals. Some managers consider if the purchase price will be equal to or greater than the price paid to implement the practice. Some consider opportunity costs, as well. Other credit generators will install practices that are desirable to their operation, in addition to considering the economic incentives. The sellers in the last group might have justifications based on quality of life goals, such as time management or developing wildlife recreational areas for hunting or birding. In these settings the credit supplier might accept lower than market value because of the ability to leverage the other desired attributes. The following sections assess the potential market participation among both buyers and sellers, in terms of relative pollution reduction costs and overall economic cost-effectiveness.

Trading Transaction Costs and Fees

The direct and indirect costs associated with executing credit transactions need to be minimized in order for WQT to be economically efficient and as cost-effective as pragmatically as possible. In some cases, the transaction costs can be equal to or greater than the price of the credit itself. This often becomes the case in markets where effective procedures are not in place to facilitate credit transactions. Such procedures include identifying candidate sites; developing preliminary credit values, designs, and costs; conducting site inspections/monitoring; and providing documentation and reporting. The first step in facilitating a credit transaction – identifying candidate sites – can produce numerous false leads. As such, this part of the process can be associated with substantial indirect costs that can become a serious issue if not effectively managed. A publication issued by the Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC) entitled Getting Paid for Stewardship: An Agricultural Community Water Quality Trading Guide (CTIC, 2006) illustrates some cost-effective management options, as seen in Figure 38. The four management options described by the CTIC include:

1. Trading partners identified independently: This method has been successfully applied when a single permittee engages in WQT and can provide the necessary knowledge or has a network of nonpoint source professional contacts available to facilitate the credit transaction process.

2. Broker facilitation: Where a broker or middleman provides the knowledge and services required for credit transactions.

3. Aggregator: Where an entity works with several credit generation sites, purchasing and gathering small quantities of credits to sell as a group.

85

4. Central exchange: Where an entity (possibly the regulatory agency) maintains a credit registry and facilitates transactions by leveraging local professionals who value and certify credit generation projects.

The ideal method for managing the transaction process is to create a WQT framework that relies on knowledgeable professionals for site selection, credit valuation, and verification. The last three options illustrated in Figure 38 can be tailored to accomplish this goal. The following sections describe the various types of transaction costs associated with a WQT program and how they can be effectively managed.

Figure 38. Illustration of cost-effective management options (CTIC, 2006)

86

Middle Man

Enlisting middlemen or brokers is one method for efficiently and cost-effectively managing credit transactions. Often there are professionals with experience in nonpoint source conservation, in this case wetland restoration or establishment, who already are familiar with site constraints and possibly also know land managers who would be willing to generate credits. TNC is one such entity and is already working on the siting tasks for other environmental goals. Although brokers and aggregators both are considered middle men, the two differ in terms of who owns the credits. A broker can facilitate a trade without owning the credits, much like a realtor facilitates home sales. An aggregator might choose to purchase the credits from multiple land managers and combine them to sell a bigger block of credits, similar to wetland banking. In other settings, such as the Pennsylvania Chesapeake Bay WQT program, the state Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) operates a clearinghouse for buyers. Under this program, local entities value and submit potential credit generation sites. PDEP then approves and oversees the credit transactions. Alternatively, an internet registry and transaction board could be set up to perform these services.

Legal

An NPDES permittee cannot transfer permit compliance liability to the nonpoint source credit generator. Instead, the NPDES permittee must obtain a sufficient level of credits to meet the compliance obligation. If the credit generator or generation site has deficiencies, the NPDES permittee must rely on other provisions to regain compliance. One way for permittees to maintain a level of control in WQT programs is to provide options for managing their credit balance during periods when a credit generator does not perform adequately. Some of these options can be inexpensive, such as the regulatory agency allowing for a reasonable replacement period. Alternatively, such provisions can add to the cost of the trading program. This is the case when the program includes development of a credit replacement pool that requires the buyer to purchase a percentage of credits as a replacement reserve. In addition, the permittee needs to have the administrative capacity to acquire an adequate amount of credits and perform the inspections and validation procedures to ensure there is equal or greater environmental protection when compared to traditional treatment methods. Provisions for permitees to maintain a level of control regarding credit site deficiencies include a legally binding agreement with the credit generator or middleman. This legal contract may be enforced in court to regain the level of performance necessary for compliance and/or provide for monetary compensation. Additional program compliance assurances include:

Operation of a reserve pool (e.g., 10 percent) set aside for immediate replacement of revoked credits

Regulatory provisions that allow a reasonable replacement period (e.g., Ohio EPA WQT rules allow a 90-day replacement period)

Individual permittees purchase a diverse portfolio of credit generation projects that includes multiple reduction measures and/or surplus credits

For market stability, the WQT program is best when it operates with an appropriate framework that uses the best available science when determining credit values. Credit estimation methods can be updated to provide for adaptive management as the watershed and nonpoint source science and understanding

87

improves. However, as in any market, a buyer will purchase a credit when that credit is assumed to have a set value for a reasonable period of time. Therefore, WQT programs provide both environmental protection improvements and market stability when current transactions are honored for a reasonable period of time and updated credit estimations are only applied to new transactions or during the period when a credit transaction is being reissued.

Inspections

Inspections of the credit generation site are necessary to validate that equivalent or greater levels of environmental protection are being achieved. In trading programs with large volumes of transactions, this can take on the form of auditing a representative sample set. In smaller programs, individual inspections are necessary. Inspections occur at different periods in the BMP life. Oversight of the project construction and vegetation establishment provides a level of assurance that the BMP is installed according to the designs upon which the credit estimation value is based. Likewise, adequate operation and maintenance is required for the BMP to continue to provide the level of credit generation performance reflected in the credit sold. Inspections on an annual basis or other reasonable frequency of inspections are required to assure this performance. Methods for managing the administrative direct costs include employing local professionals with experience in with the practices generating the credits. For instance, agricultural professionals are already working throughout the rural areas and can perform inspections on agricultural BMPs when they are in the vicinity for other business. The professionals can be trained on the principles of the WQT program and certified accordingly. The program itself might audit the work of these certified professionals. Another method is to evaluate the operation and maintenance needs and determine what an adequate return frequency would be for inspections. With wetlands, an annual inspection might be desirable to control vegetation diversity and burrowing rodents. WQT programs can leverage many means, like the examples discussed above, to accomplish the transparency and validation that provides trust in the greater community interested in the program performance.

Reporting

WQT programs are operated under the NPDES compliance provisions in the permit. Trading programs must follow similar monitoring and reporting requirements that traditional STP or stormwater programs would follow. The trading provisions themselves appear in the effluent limit requirement sections, the monitoring and reporting sections and in a special action section that explains the mechanisms being utilized. As such, template inspection and reporting forms allow cost-efficiencies to be gained. In addition, proper record keeping is necessary. Site visits by regulatory officials should find an organized document history of all actions taken. One final note is that public transparency of the WQT program improves acceptance of the environmental integrity of the program. This goal must be balance against an individual’s right to privacy. Certainly, the individual selling a credit is to expect that disclosure must take place regarding the supporting justification for the credits. The credit generator does have a right to expect reasonable limitations managing general public access and off topic inquiries (e.g., request for information not germane to the crediting process). Issues like this are best handled using a combination of input from the NPDES officials and local stakeholders at the watershed policy and management level.

88

Administrative Costs

As discussed above, it is important to properly manage the administrative cost to maintain the cost-effectiveness of WQT. When a trading program framework includes many layer of oversight and uses BMPs that could supply credits for price ranges in the single or low double digit dollar value, administrative costs might be equal to or greater than the BMP implementation costs. Therefore, care must be taken to manage these administrative costs. WQT programs could be requested or required to manage watershed program elements that are not commonly required of typical NPDES permittees instead of requiring extensive sampling. This would acknowledge both the ancillary conservation benefits associated with WQT and the difficulties in quantifying pollution reduction from nonpoint source BMPs. For instance, monitoring requirements could be limited to inspections and not include individualized water quality monitoring at the site. The NPDES Confined Animal Feeding Operation program does not typically require runoff sampling but instead relies on the use of best available science and sound professional principles. It is important to acknowledge reasonable expectations regarding the difficulties in having statistically valid water quality responses linked to an individual trading program. In addition, the WQT program could leverage its administrative structure to coordinate with other programs and advance the watershed understanding. The WQT program can work alongside Farm Bill conservation programs, individuals implementing voluntary implementation, non-governmental conservation activities, and instances of pollutant parameter releases from other sectors. In other words, WQT is one tool of many striving to improve the watershed health. TNC has the potential to align its operational goals alongside a wetland WQT program. TNC can leverage its capabilities and organizational strength to provide a cost-efficient middleman administrative service. As necessary, TNC would work with local conservation professionals who would perform audit processes to provide the accountability and transparency necessary in trade transaction programs.

Buyer Assessment (Willingness to Pay)

Driver Evaluation

Both regulatory and economic drivers must be considered when assessing the viability of a WQT program. Regulatory drivers consist of both near-field and far-field beneficial use goals that require restrictive effluent limits on nutrients and sediment. WQT cannot be used to meet existing effluent limits, but permitted entities can engage in trades to meet new limits. Likewise, WQT can only be used to address Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs). Technology Based Effluent Limits (TBELs) are not considered eligible for this flexible compliance option (EPA, 2003). Tennessee is in the process of developing numeric nutrient criteria. These criteria, in some cases, will result in more stringent effluent limits for permitted discharges. Where WQT is feasible, effluent limits can serve as regulatory drivers for trading. Entities faced with more stringent compliance requirements could meet new compliance goals by purchasing pollution reduction offset credits. Participation in a WQT program would be economically efficient when the cost of purchasing offset credits is less than the cost of implementing additional technological controls but will achieve the same or greater environmental protection. The TDEC nutrient criteria development strategy recognizes that setting stringent limits on point sources in watersheds where point sources are only very minor contributors will have relatively less impact

89

toward protecting the water body. Of the three watersheds selected as the study area, the Wolf has the highest proportion of point source pollution contribution. Given the TDEC nutrient limit methodology, this watershed is most likely to experience the highest demand for WQT credits. A relatively high proportion of discharges within this watershed come from point sources. As such, TDEC is more likely to set nutrient effluent limits that reflect the relative contribution and impact of these discharges. The other two watersheds in the study area are dominated by agricultural land uses. Therefore, point sources in these watersheds are less likely to experience the more restrictive limits. In addition to local nutrient criteria acting as regulatory drivers, water protection goals for the Gulf of Mexico could impact effluent limits in the Mississippi River Basin, including Tennessee. Efforts to reduce the hypoxic zone are calling for a 45% reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus loading to the Gulf (GHAP, 2008). However, it is anticipated that in many states the local pollution reduction goals will be more stringent than reduction requirements imposed for far-field goals. Tennessee might differ, however, because the nutrient criteria process first considers if the biology is impacted and if the impact is nutrient related before requiring NPDES effluent reductions.

Compliance Benefit Scenarios

Offering WQT as a flexible compliance alternative could provide compliance benefits in the following settings: Short-term compliance: NPDES permit representatives can consider the cost savings associated with participating in a WQT program as an interim measure to meet permit compliance schedules. Delaying a facility upgrade is desirable when the useful life of the existing facility is approaching, but the date exceeds the compliance schedule requirements. If a pending TMDL or other water management study is likely to require other pollutant parameter reductions, WQT can be used to stage a facility upgrade that meets both these additional pollutant parameter reduction goals and the new sediment/nutrient effluent limits. Long-term compliance: Participation in a WQT program can provide the most cost savings when the facility buying the credits would need only a few credits to achieve compliance. This is the case with schools and truck stops where the volume of wastewater is relatively small and therefore the overall loading is limited. In addition, these facilities might not have the resources necessary to install and operate nutrient removal technologies. Another setting where a small amount of credits might be sufficient to achieve compliance is when mass effluent limits are based on wet weather hydraulic design capacity. If a facility falling under this type of requirement has a large internal reserve capacity, then the actual load reduction required might be relatively small compared to the load reduction associated with an at capacity plant. The upgrade costs might not reflect this characteristic. Buyers are likely to consider purchasing larger amounts of credits as their compliance option only when the trading program is well-developed and has effective administrative services. Managing future growth: In settings where TMDLs have been fully allocated or the reserve capacity assigned to the wasteload allocation is used up, then WQT can benefit local managers by offering a tool to facilitate continued growth. Permitted Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4): Stormwater permittees can use WQT as an alternative compliance option only under certain circumstances. Stormwater permits are typically based on reducing discharges to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). MEP

90

evaluations consider what reductions are possible given the footprint’s physical characteristics, implementation costs, and stormwater characteristics. This information is used to set the maximum achievable implementation. MEP provisions therefore restrict credit generation for WQT because if an entity can produce a surplus load reduction, then the MEP evaluation did not fully establish the maximum amount of load reduction. To purchase credits, an MS4 must accept a WQBEL, establish a quantifiable baseline, or trade in surrogate parameters (e.g., volume of discharge, which considers both flow and rate). When accepting any of these conditions, a permittee first should carefully consider the likelihood of compliance problems stemming from climatic variability, as well as the reasonableness of the program’s compliance goal determination and implementation provisions.

Existing Treatment and Estimated Upgrade Costs

Wastewater Treatment Facilities Discharges from wastewater treatment facilities must comply with the effluent limitations assigned in NPDES permits. Treatment plant representatives will be required to meet new nutrient effluent limits, as numeric nutrient criteria are promulgated by regulatory agencies. If existing operations are not sufficient to meet the new limits, the facility can be upgraded to provide nutrient removal. In some cases, relatively simple, low-cost retrofits are sufficient for meeting new nutrient effluent limits. In other cases, the necessary upgrades will require high capital costs and will also increase operational costs. In these cases, WQT could provide an alternative compliance option for meeting environmental protection goals at a lower overall cost. Facility upgrade costs depend, in part, on the existing treatment level and the level necessary to meet the effluent limits. Treatment systems can be grouped into three main levels – primary, secondary, and advanced wastewater treatment. Primary treatment removes pollutants that settle or float, but does not remove soluble pollutants. This treatment category includes grit chambers and screens to reduce the inorganic materials in the raw sewage to protect the treatment plant equipment. These processes are followed by primary settling. Prior to the passing of the CWA, primary treatment was the only wastewater treatment method used by many municipalities. Secondary treatment is the minimum treatment level for discharges from municipal wastewater treatment facilities regulated under the CWA. This TBEL and other industrial TBELs are based on sector-specific evaluations of achievable performance. These facilities must meet minimum standards for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and pH for their given sector. In Tennessee, this involves producing an effluent with a monthly average of less than 30 mg/L or less of both BOD and TSS5 or alternatively a monthly average of less than 25 mg/L or less of CBOD5 (carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand) and a TSS limit of 30 mg/L. Secondary treatment facilities are also required to remove 85 percent of BOD5 and total suspended solids from the influent. Conventional secondary treatment technologies generally do not remove nutrients to a substantial extent. However, facilities with secondary treatment generally can be retrofitted to include some nutrient removal capabilities. Advanced wastewater treatment involves additional treatment beyond secondary treatment in order to meet more stringent effluent limits. Advanced treatment processes often involve chemical treatment and filtration or land application through specially designed irrigation systems. Facilities that include advanced treatment processes typically have permits that require reducing one or more of the following discharges: BOD beyond secondary treatment capabilities, nitrogen, phosphorus, synthetic organics and/or metals. One option for improving nutrient removal and meeting new nutrient effluent limits is to upgrade a

91

treatment facility to include Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) technology. BNR can remove both nitrogen and phosphorus, but typically is not sufficient for achieving the most restrictive nutrient limits. Upgrading or retrofitting for BNR involves modifying the treatment system to create a step where the influent is subjected to anoxic conditions. These conditions are favorable for bacteria that denitrify. That is to say, convert nitrate to nitrogen gas. In addition, phosphorus uptake by these bacteria can be in excess of the other bacteria types (i.e., luxury uptake) and can be trapped later as the bacterial solids are removed in the clarifiers. In many cases, adding BNR is relatively inexpensive and can improve the cost-effectiveness of general wastewater treatment, making it a highly attractive option. However, BNR does not work in all settings. Where there are large fluctuations in loading, temperature or flow, BNR technology requires careful management (e.g., when a city accepts a large industrial discharge that is intermittent, either due to seasonal variation or operating only on weekdays). Likewise, the desired biology might be disrupted if an industry discharges biological inhibitors into the system and/or there are wide variations in temperature. In settings where BNR is not sufficiently effective or when more restrictive nutrient effluent limits are required, achieving adequate TN and/or TP removal will require upgrading the facility to include Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR) technologies. ENR typically involves chemical removal of nutrients and often is used to meet more restrictive phosphorus limits. Upgrading to ENR typically involves high capital outlays and can add substantial operational costs. As such, effluent limits that would require ENR can create a financial challenge for some treatment facilities, especially small plants. The size of the facility often correlates with the extent of resources available to install technology upgrades. Larger facilities are more likely to have the technical and economic resources to meet more stringent effluent limits. TDEC defines major facilities as those larger than or equal to one MGD. These facilities benefit from economies of scale, which results in lower costs per unit of reduction as the amount of total reductions increases. Larger facilities also can distribute the costs among a larger base of ratepayers, thereby reducing the cost borne by each individual. Smaller facilities, on the other hand, might face some difficulties paying for the upgrades necessary to meet new permit limits. These facilities might benefit from participation in a WQT market if the cost of purchasing reduction credits is lower than the cost of facility upgrades that would achieve the same environmental protection. Facility upgrade costs must be estimated to assess the potential credit demand within a WQT market. This section of the report summarizes the estimated costs associated with upgrading permitted treatment facilities to include BNR and/or ENR for TN and TP removal. The summarized upgrade costs are based on literature reviews (CTIC, 2011). Actual costs can vary substantially, depending on the following factors:

Actual TN and TP effluent limits

Existing technology and facility upgrade suitability

Facility operating characteristics, including mixed liquor characteristics, ambient temperature, control methods, plant configuration

Characteristics of influent wastewater, including TN and TP concentrations, constituent concentrations, rbCOD:TP and BOD:TN ratios, alkalinity, flow, temporal and seasonal variations

Costs of local labor, material, and operations

Terms of financing arrangements

The cost estimates provided below are intended to be used only as a general guideline. These costs can be used to indicate the order-of-magnitude ranges for various upgrade options. However, a more detailed, plant-specific analysis should be conducted to determine actual upgrade costs. These actual costs then could be compared to the costs associated with purchasing pollution reduction offset credits in a WQT

92

market. If the credit price is lower than the upgrade costs, WQT might be a more cost-effective option for meeting nutrient reduction goals associated with that specific facility, as long as trading would ensure adequate environmental protection. The results of a previous assessment of treatment facility upgrade costs can be used to inform the demand analysis for this report. The prior analysis estimated upgrade costs based on the facility characteristics within the Wabash watershed in Indiana (CTIC, 2011). The existing facilities were grouped into seven generic categories based on size and treatment technology. These categories then were used to conduct the cost analysis. The simulation plants are summarized in the table below.

Flow Range (MGD)

Activated Sludge (AS) Simulation Plant

Lagoon/Trickling Filter (TF) Simulation Plant

< 0.1 0.05 MGD AS 0.5 MGD Lagoon

0.1 to 0.5 0.3 MGD AS 0.3 MGD Lagoon

0.5 to 1.0 0.75 MGD AS --

1.0 to 4.0 -- 2.5 MGD TF

> 4.0 5.0 MGD AS -- Table 25. Summary of assumptions for treatment plant upgrade costs

In addition to the selection of simulation plants, the costs of facility upgrades were also assessed based on two levels of treatment (low and high) for nitrogen removal and two levels of treatment for phosphorus removal. These treatment levels, along with assumptions for influent and baseline concentrations, are summarized in the table below.

TN TP

Treatment Level

Effluent AS Options Lagoon/ TF Options

Effluent AS Options Lagoon/ TF Options

None (influent) 25-35 mg/l 4-8 mg/l

Baseline (no ENR)

20-30 mg/l 2-6 mg/l

Low ENR (1) 5-10 mg/l Pre- or post- anoxic retrofit or land application

Post-anoxic replacement or land application

0.5-1 mg/l EBPR or single-point alum retrofit

EBPR replacement or single-point alum retrofit

High ENR (2) <5 mg/l Pre-/Post-anoxic retrofit

Post-anoxic replacement

<0.5 mg/l EBPR and/or multi-point alum retrofit or land application

EBPR replacement and/or multi-point alum retrofit or land application

Table 26. Summary of assumptions for treatment plant upgrade costs

The table above also indicates additional assumptions that were used to calculate the costs of facility upgrades. Baseline concentrations were assumed to be 25 mg/l for TN and 4 mg/l for TP. In addition, the midpoints of the ranges shown in Table 1 were the assumed average effluent concentrations prior to implementation of ENR. An implicit assumption made when calculating the upgrade costs was that

93

existing secondary treatment processes would be sufficient to nitrify the majority of influent organic nitrogen and ammonia to nitrate. As such, denitrification retrofits would be able to reduce TN. In addition to achieving overall TN reductions, treatment facilities would still need to ensure they meet water quality effluent limits for the various components of TN, including ammonia, which is potentially toxic at certain concentrations. Estimated upgrade costs were calculated based on the above assumptions and are summarized in Table 27. All costs are presented in annual costs, assuming a 20-year lifetime and 6 percent interest rate. Cost data was not available for smaller facilities and lower treatment levels. However, it can be assumed the treatment costs are higher than those presented for lower limits. STP <0.2 MGD STP 0.2-1 MGD STP >1 MGD Min Max Median Min Max Median Min Max Median

10 mg/L TN $15.80 $79.34 $51.50 $2.12 $66.44 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87

5 mg/L TN N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41

3 mg/L TN N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90 STP <0.2 MGD STP 0.2-1 MGD STP >1 MGD

Min Max Median Min Max Median Min Max Media

n1 mg/L TP $130.01 $446.02 $182.54 $3.85 $160.79 $77.40 $5.95 $169.09 $34.880.5 mg/L TP N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58.32 $31.580.3 mg/L TP $139.79 $256.35 $198.07 $13.28 $255.54 $75.74 $8.50 $178.63 $31.18

Table 27. Summary of upgrade costs for TP effluent limits, using 2011 dollars

Stormwater Stormwater BMP retrofit costs were estimated based on the amount of runoff treated under various scenarios. These cost estimates include only construction costs and do not account for operations and management or land costs. In general, retrofit costs are highly variable based on specific site characteristics and limitations.

94

TSS ($/ton) TN ($/lb) TP ($/lb)

Residential

Wet Pond $113,805.72 $3,426.41 $13,837.42 Bioretention Basin $324.10 $4.85 $302.25 Open Channel / Swales $281.04 $4.74 $74.96 Infiltration $306.94 $7.59 $33.21 Filtering $423.52 $13.28 $48.79


Commercial

Wet Pond $191,406.63 $5,057.13 $28,777.92 Bioretention Basin $21,177.21 $278.09 $24,421.18 Open Channel / Swales $18,363.54 $271.94 $6,056.84 Infiltration $20,055.47 $435.10 $2,683.65 Filtering $27,673.43 $761.43 $3,942.08


Industrial

Wet Pond $94,653.08 $4,733.38 $16,850.33 Bioretention Basin $5,428.40 $134.92 $7,412.09 Open Channel / Swales $4,707.16 $131.94 $1,838.32 Infiltration $5,140.86 $211.10 $814.52 Filtering $7,093.59 $369.42 $1,196.46


Freeways

Wet Pond $79,322.12 $4,444.19 $24,162.74 Bioretention Basin $5,724.82 $159.41 $13,375.48 Open Channel / Swales $4,964.21 $155.89 $3,317.33 Infiltration $5,421.58 $249.42 $1,469.83 Filtering $7,480.94 $436.49 $2,159.08


Open

Wet Pond $114,978.98 $5,577.87 $13,837.42 Bioretention Basin $327.45 $7.90 $302.25 Open Channel / Swales $283.94 $7.72 $74.96 Infiltration $310.10 $12.35 $33.21 Filtering $427.89 $21.62 $48.79

Table 28. Median unit treatment costs for stormwater BMP retrofits, using 2011 dollars

The costs above are for stormwater BMP retrofits. As noted above, these costs are for construction and installation only and do not include maintenance costs or land costs. Retrofitted BMPs can have

95

substantial differences in terms of their long-term maintenance needs and the land value in developed areas. As such, the necessary maintenance and associated costs, as well as land costs, should be assessed for each individual project. Retrofitted BMPs also often require more frequent maintenance compared to new installations, which can increase the costs. The additional maintenance is, in part, the result of fitting the BMPs into existing stormwater infrastructure where space is limited. This often requires deviating from optimum BMP design and building smaller BMPs. As such, the BMP often needs to be cleaned out more frequently. However, in certain settings the costs associated with installing a stormwater BMP and the reduced treatment efficiency combine to create a difficult environmental protection issue regarding both performance and cost. In these settings, permit managers will likely consider implementing BMPs elsewhere in the permit’s footprint to locally offset the unresolved impacts of the developed area. However, a city might have multiple streams, creeks, and even rivers that have isolated catchment areas with upstream areas outside the incorporated limits. This is one type of setting where WQT could cost-effectively assist with achieving stormwater protection goals. The difficulties still lay ahead regarding integrating WQT with MEP and TMDL wasteload allocation provisions. A second consideration being undertaken in watersheds such as the Chesapeake Bay and Lake Simcoe, Canada is to use stormwater WQT frameworks to manage pressure for future growth. Combining the complications of implementing retrofits in high-density development and the ability to alleviate the environmental concerns surrounding future growth, stormwater permittees have demonstrated a willingness to work with others to remove or manage the loading quantification barriers that remain in the permit process in order to achieve viable stormwater WQT programs.

Seller Assessment

Cost of Generation

For this assessment, pollution reduction credits will be generated by restored wetlands. Costs associated with restoring wetlands include construction costs, operations and maintenance costs, and land costs. Construction and annual maintenance costs were based on the project team’s recent experience in designing and building wetlands. In addition, the team estimated the anticipated annual maintenance based on on-the-ground experience. Wetland construction costs were estimated using aggregated 2012 construction fees. The cost was calculated to be $3.50 per cubic yard of excavation for treatment wetlands having a depth of 1 to 4 feet for water storage, based on the inflow channel incision depth of the subwatershed. To promote the growth of vegetation in the excavated wetland, an additional one foot depth of excavation and topsoil replacement was included in the wetland cost at a unit construction cost of $4.50 per cubic yard. Additional construction costs included planting, soil preparation, and planting management at $1,230 per acre. Costs included $5,000 for piping and structures of the outlet control system and $300 per acre for erosion control. Maintenance costs were calculated based on a cost of $200 per acre for normal maintenance and $2.25 per ton of accumulated sediment removal. These costs were incorporated into the STELLA model such that the model would calculate the total construction and maintenance costs. The model was used to determine the costs associated with the wetland sizes that optimize treatment efficiencies in each watershed. Table 29 below describes the optimum wetland sizes for nitrogen and phosphorus treatment, as well as the forebay size necessary to accommodate 5 years of sediment loading (the amount of time between forebay dredging).

96

Catchment Area

Optimum Wetland Size for

Nitrogen Removal (Acres)

Optimum Wetland Size for

Phosphorus Removal (Acres)

Optimum Forebay Size

(Acres)


5 15 0.1


5 5 2.9

Watershed 33 Subwatershed 8 10 10 5.7

Watershed 37 Subwatershed 6 5 15 19.8

Table 29. Optimum wetland and forebay sizes for nutrient and sediment removal in the four selected catchment areas

Table 30 below summarizes the results of a life-cycle cost assessment of restored wetlands, based on the STELLA model cost calculations. These cost calculations also include a land tax of 5-percent and a wetland buffer with 4:1 slopes. The present value costs are based on 20-year life-cycle, a 3-percent inflation rate, and a 6-percent discount rate. The costs are annualized over 20 years, using a 6-percent bond rate.


Wetland Acres

Construction Present Value

Annual O&M

Present Value

5-Year Dredging Present Value

Annualized Cost

1 $53,151 $12,836 $4,356 $5,994

5 $258,121 $39,957 $4,043 $26,340

15 $565,496 $104,785 $4,565 $58,836


Wetland Acres


Annual O&M

Present Value


Annualized Cost

1 $155,930 $30,637 $307,182 $43,047

5 $264,052 $53,935 $326,934 $56,227

97


Wetland Acres


Annual O&M

Present Value


Annualized Cost

1 $262,415 $53,295 $576,198 $77,761

10 $780,831 $115,910 $635,115 $133,554


Wetland Acres


Annual O&M

Present Value


Annualized Cost

1 $1,067,976 $146,664 $2,182,405 $296,170

5 $1,352,097 $175,787 $2,187,422 $323,917

15 $1,729,998 $241,721 $2,264,423 $369,326 Table 30. Summary results of a life-cycle cost assessment of restored wetlands

The annualized costs can then be divided by the nutrient and sediment reductions associated with the wetland treatment. These reduction values are also provided by the STELLA model output. However, pollution reductions generated by wetlands must be adjusted by the proper trade ratio to ensure environmental protection goals are met. The following section presents the unit costs of pollution reductions and also includes the unit costs discounted by a 2:1 and a 3:1 trade ratio.

Trade Ratio Discounts

A trade ratio must be applied to pollution reductions generated by wetlands to ensure environmental protection goals are met. Trade ratios adjust reduction estimations for uncertainty, the location of discharges, pollutant equivalency, or other factors. These ratios, combined with conservative assumptions, help ensure that WQT creates an equal or greater pollutant reduction compared to reductions using conventional treatment methods. Using the preliminary trade ratios developed in the supply section above, a trade ratio of 2:1 and 3:1 are used to demonstrate WQT offset costs.

98

Table 31 below indicates annual nitrogen teduction unit costs with no Trade Ratio, a 2:1 Trade Ratio, and a 3:1 Trade Ratio.


Wetland Acres

Treatment Reduction Costs TN

($/lb)

Reduction Cost TN @ 2:1 Trade Ratio

($/lb)


($/lb)

1 $4.25 $8.50 $12.75

5 $4.33 $8.66 $12.99

15 $4.82 $9.64 $14.46


Wetland Acres


($/lb)


($/lb)

Reduction Cost TN @ 3:1 Trade

Ratio ($/lb)

1 $26.77 $53.54 $80.31

5 $9.94 $19.88 $29.82


Wetland Acres


($/lb)


($/lb)


Ratio ($/lb)

1 $85 $170 $255

10 $12.96 $25.92 $38.88


Wetland Acres


($/lb)


($/lb)


Ratio ($/lb)

1 $377 $754 $1,131

5 $54 $109 $163

15 $20.70 $41.40 $62.10 Table 31. Annual nitrogen reduction unit costs

99

Table 32, below, indicates growing season nitrogen reduction unit costs with no Trade Ratio, a 2:1 Trade Ratio, and a 3:1 Trade Ratio


Wetland Acres


($/lb)


($/lb)


($/lb)

1 $5.59 $11.18 $16.77

5 $5.99 $11.98 $17.97

15 $6.63 $13.26 $19.89


Wetland Acres


($/lb)


($/lb)


Ratio ($/lb)

1 $53 $106 $159

5 $38 $76 $114


Wetland Acres


($/lb)


($/lb)


Ratio ($/lb)

1 $230 $460 $690

10 $38.98 $77.96 $116.94


Wetland Acres


($/lb)


($/lb)


Ratio ($/lb)

1 $1,152 $2,304 $3,456

5 $179 $358 $537

15 $74 $148 $222 Tables 32. Growing season nitrogen reduction unit costs

100

Table 33, below, indicates annual phosphorus reduction unit costs with no Trade Ratio, a 2:1 Trade Ratio, and a 3:1 Trade Ratio.


Wetland Acres

Treatment Reduction Costs TP

($/lb)

Reduction Cost TP @ 2:1 Trade Ratio

($/lb)

Reduction Cost TP @ 3:1 Trade

Ratio ($/lb)

1 $666 $1,332 $1,998

5 $585 $1,170 $1,755

15 $348 $696 $1,044


Wetland Acres


($/lb)


($/lb)


Ratio ($/lb)

1 $225 $450 $675

5 $60 $120 $180


Wetland Acres


($/lb)


($/lb)


Ratio ($/lb)

1 $688 $1,376 $2,064

10 $66 $132 $198


Wetland Acres


($/lb)


($/lb)


Ratio ($/lb)

1 $3,846 $7,692 $11,538

5 $367 $734 $1,101

15 $100 $200 $300 Table 33. Annual phosphorus reduction unit costs

101

Table 34, below, indicates growing season phosphorus reduction unit costs with no Trade Ratio, a 2:1 Trade Ratio, and a 3:1 Trade Ratio


Wetland Acres


($/lb)


($/lb)


Ratio ($/lb)

1 $2,997 $5,994 $8,991

5 $5,268 $10,536 $15,804

15 $1,337 $2,674 $4,011


Wetland Acres


($/lb)


($/lb)


Ratio ($/lb)

1 $545 $1,090 $1,635

5 $274 $548 $822


Wetland Acres


($/lb)


($/lb)


Ratio ($/lb)

1 $2,880 $5,760 $8,640

10 $268 $536 $804


Wetland Acres


($/lb)


($/lb)


Ratio ($/lb)

1 $29,617 $59,234 $88,851

5 $2,063 $4,126 $6,189

15 $509 $1,018 $1,527 Table 34. Growing season phosphorus reduction unit costs

102

Table 35, below, indicates annual sediment reduction unit costs with no Trade Ratio, a 2:1 Trade Ratio, and a 3:1 Trade Ratio


Wetland Acres

Treatment Reduction Costs

Sed ($/ton)

Reduction Cost Sed @ 2:1 Trade Ratio

($/ton)


($/ton)

1 $29.82 $59.64 $89.46

5 $106 $212 $318

15 $206 $412 $618


Wetland Acres


Sed ($/ton)


($/ton)


($/ton)

1 $4.40 $8.80 $13.20

5 $5.30 $10.60 $15.90


Wetland Acres


Sed ($/ton)


($/ton)


($/ton)

1 $4.27 $8.54 $12.81

10 $6.58 $13.16 $19.74


Wetland Acres


Sed ($/ton)


($/ton)


($/ton)

1 $4.31 $8.62 $12.93

5 $4.67 $9.34 $14.01

15 $5.10 $10.20 $15.30 Table 35. Annual sediment reduction unit costs

103

Table 36, below, indicates growing season sediment reduction unit costs with no Trade Ratio, a 2:1 Trade Ratio, and a 3:1 Trade Ratio


Wetland Acres


Sed ($/ton)


($/ton)


($/ton)

1 $108 $216 $324

5 $382 $764 $1,146

15 $735 $1,470 $2,205


Wetland Acres


Sed ($/ton)


($/ton)

Reduction Cost Sed @ 3:1 Trade

Ratio ($/ton)

1 $11.76 $23.52 $35.28

5 $14.33 $28.66 $42.99


Wetland Acres


Sed ($/ton)


($/ton)


Ratio ($/ton)

1 $10.06 $20.12 $30.18

10 $15.45 $30.90 $46.35


Wetland Acres


Sed ($/ton)


($/ton)


Ratio ($/ton)

1 $10.17 $20.34 $30.51

5 $11.03 $22.06 $33.09

15 $12.04 $24.08 $36.12 Table 36. Growing season sediment reduction unit costs

Cost Variability Dependence on Trade Ratio

The trade ratio that is ultimately selected for a WQT will influence the cost-effectiveness of the trading program. A higher trade ratio will provide more conservative environmental protection but will also increase the cost of pollution reduction credits. This trade-off should be managed such that environmental protection goals are met but trading is not made unnecessarily cost-prohibitive. The unit cost for wetland credit generation presented in the previous section varies by watershed. In addition, the level of watershed understanding and resulting trade ratio that addresses the introduced level

104

of uncertainty, as well as policy and equivalency factors, affects whether a trading program will have willing buyers. Additional watershed understanding would reduce the uncertainty and therefore a WQT program could use a trade ratio of 2:1 instead of 3:1. This would increase the number of entities that would find trading cost-effective. Therefore, there is substantial advantage associated with developing a pilot project to further investigate the actual performances. In addition, vetting the program process with local entities is highly recommended to determine the level of watershed understanding necessary to achieve a reduction in the trade ratio. For some settings and some pollutant parameters, a multiple BMP approach is necessary. For example, Watershed 37, Subwatershed 6 had a high level sediment loading that required a very large forebay. This subwatershed might be better served by a “treatment train” of BMPs. Additional BMPs would be implemented in the watershed to reduce sediment loading prior to wetland treatment. Even then using wetland generated credits in a WQT program might not provide a cost advantage unless the wetland was leveraging its capitalization cost with other funding sources. In any setting, wetlands that are constructed for wetland banking purposes have already sold all of the environmental functions and values and cannot sell nutrient or sediment credits in a WQT program.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The following tables (Tables 37-48) compare the costs per pound of nutrient removal achieved by wetlands and STP technology upgrades. Four subwatershed were selected from the three study basins and modeled in SWAT. This provided a range of variable influent loading and related wetland implementation cost assumptions. In the tables below, the subwatershed-specific cost data is applied to STPs in all three study basins in order to reflect the cost comparisons associated with differing watershed conditions and wetland site selection. Selection of a wetland site typically considers at least the following three salient points: 1) the potential for pollutant treatment reductions, 2) the current land owner’s cooperation regarding land use or land sale, and 3) the potential for groundwater impacts on neighboring lands. Other considerations might also exist, such as critical habitat for endangered species and/or wildlife refuges. The tables highlight the cost-effective comparisons in green when the comparison of trade ratio or ratios to the STP costs allow for cost-effective trading. The 2:1 trade ratio comparison values are highlighted in red when only that trade ratio allows for a cost-effective transaction and the 3:1 trade ratio does not provide an economic incentive. Note that in many settings the maximum-cost treatment facility might discover an economic advantage when using WQT. This underscores the benefits from using site-specific data for STP evaluation. The resources available for this study did not provide for that level of data gathering.

105

Cost Comparison between Wetlands and STP upgrades for Annual Wetland Credit Reductions Performance Level: 10 mg/L TN 2:1

Trade Ratio

3:1 Trade Ratio

STP <0.2 MGD STP 0.2-1 MGD STP >1 MGD

Min Max Median Min Max Median Min Max Median Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (1 acre) $8.50 $12.75 $15.80 $79 $52 $2.12 $66 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87 Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (5 acres) $8.66 $12.99 $15.80 $79 $52 $2.12 $66 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (1 acre) $53.54 $80 $15.80 $79 $52 $2.12 $66 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (5 acres) $19.88 $29.82 $15.80 $79 $52 $2.12 $66 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (1 acre) $170 $255 $15.80 $79 $52 $2.12 $66 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (10 acres) $25.92 $38.88 $15.80 $79 $52 $2.12 $66 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (1 acre) $754 $1,131 $15.80 $79 $52 $2.12 $66 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (5 acres) $109 $163 $15.80 $79 $52 $2.12 $66 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87

Table 37. Cost comparison for annual wetland credit reductions, performance level 10mg/L TN

Cost Comparison between Wetlands and STP upgrades for Growing Season Wetland Credit ReductionsPerformance Level: 10 mg/L TN 2:1

Trade Ratio

3:1 Trade Ratio


Min Max Median Min Max Median Min Max Median Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (1 acre) $11.18 $16.77 $15.80 $79 $52 $2.12 $66 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87 Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (5 acres) $11.98 $17.97 $15.80 $79 $52 $2.12 $66 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (1 acre) $106 $159 $15.80 $79 $52 $2.12 $66 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (5 acres) $76 $114 $15.80 $79 $52 $2.12 $66 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (1 acre) $460 $690 $15.80 $79 $52 $2.12 $66 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (10 acres) $78 $117 $15.80 $79 $52 $2.12 $66 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (1 acre) $2,304 $3,456 $15.80 $79 $52 $2.12 $66 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (5 acres) $358 $537 $15.80 $79 $52 $2.12 $66 $27.08 $1.44 $33.82 $3.87

Table 38. Cost comparison for growing season wetland credit reductions, performance level 10mg/L TN

106


Trade Ratio

3:1 Trade Ratio


Min Max Median Min Max Median Min Max Median Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (1 acre) $8.50 $12.75 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41 Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (5 acres) $8.66 $12.99 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (1 acre) $54 $80 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (5 acres) $19.88 $29.82 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (1 acre) $170 $255 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (10 acres) $25.92 $38.88 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (1 acre) $754 $1,131 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (5 acres) $109 $163 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41

Table 39. Cost comparison for annual wetland credit reductions, performance level 5 mg/L TN


Trade Ratio 3:1

Trade Ratio STP <0.2 MGD STP 0.2-1 MGD STP >1 MGD

Min Max Median Min Max Median Min Max Median Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (1 acre) $11.18 $16.77 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41 Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (5 acres) $11.98 $17.97 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (1 acre) $106 $159 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (5 acres) $76 $114 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (1 acre) $460 $690 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (10 acres) $78 $117 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (1 acre) $2,304 $3,456 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (5 acres) $358 $537 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $2.47 $32.40 $7.41

Table 40. Cost comparison for growing season wetland credit reductions, performance level 5mg/L TN

107


Trade Ratio

3:1 Trade Ratio


Min Max Median Min Max Median Min Max Median Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (1 acre) $8.50 $12.75 N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90 Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (5 acres) $8.66 $12.99 N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (1 acre) $54 $80 N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (5 acres) $19.88 $29.82 N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (1 acre) $170 $255 N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (10 acres) $25.92 $38.88 N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (1 acre) $754 $1,131 N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (5 acres) $109 $163 N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90

Table 41. Cost comparison for annual wetland credit reductions, performance level 3mg/L TN


Trade Ratio 3:1


Min Max Median Min Max Median Min Max Median Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (1 acre) $11.18 $16.77 N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90 Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (5 acres) $11.98 $17.97 N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (1 acre) $106 $159 N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (5 acres) $76 $114 N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (1 acre) $460 $690 N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (10 acres) $78 $117 N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (1 acre) $2,304 $3,456 N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (5 acres) $358 $537 N/A N/A N/A $1.37 $25.75 $4.76 $1.00 $10.05 $3.90

Table 42. Cost comparison for growing season wetland credit reductions, performance level 3 mg/L TN

108

Cost Comparison between Wetlands and STP upgrades for Annual Wetland Credit Reductions Performance Level: 1 mg/L TP 2:1

Trade Ratio

3:1 Trade Ratio


Min Max Median Min Max Median Min Max Median Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (1 acre) $1,332 $1,998 $130 $446 $183 $3.85 $161 $77 $5.95 $169 $34.88 Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (15 acres) $696 $1,044 $130 $446 $183 $3.85 $161 $77 $5.95 $169 $34.88 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (1 acre) $450 $675 $130 $446 $183 $3.85 $161 $77 $5.95 $169 $34.88 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (5 acres) $120 $180 $130 $446 $183 $3.85 $161 $77 $5.95 $169 $34.88 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (1 acre) $1,376 $2,064 $130 $446 $183 $3.85 $161 $77 $5.95 $169 $34.88 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (10 acres) $132 $198 $130 $446 $183 $3.85 $161 $77 $5.95 $169 $34.88 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (1 acre) $7,692 $11,538 $130 $446 $183 $3.85 $161 $77 $5.95 $169 $34.88 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (15 acres) $200 $300 $130 $446 $183 $3.85 $161 $77 $5.95 $169 $34.88

Table 43. Cost comparison for annual wetland credit reductions, performance level 1 mg/L TP

Cost Comparison between Wetlands and STP upgrades for Growing Season Wetland Credit ReductionsPerformance Level: 1 mg/L TP 2:1

Trade Ratio

3:1 Trade Ratio


Min Max Median Min Max Median Min Max Median Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (1 acre) $5,994 $8,991 $130 $446 $183 $3.85 $161 $77 $5.95 $169 $34.88 Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (15 acres) $2,674 $4,011 $130 $446 $183 $3.85 $161 $77 $5.95 $169 $34.88 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (1 acre) $1,090 $1,635 $130 $446 $183 $3.85 $161 $77 $5.95 $169 $34.88 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (5 acres) $548 $822 $130 $446 $183 $3.85 $161 $77 $5.95 $169 $34.88 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (1 acre) $5,760 $8,640 $130 $446 $183 $3.85 $161 $77 $5.95 $169 $34.88 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (10 acres) $536 $804 $130 $446 $183 $3.85 $161 $77 $5.95 $169 $34.88 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (1 acre) $59,234 $88,851 $130 $446 $183 $3.85 $161 $77 $5.95 $169 $34.88 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (15 acres) $1,018 $1,527 $130 $446 $183 $3.85 $161 $77 $5.95 $169 $34.88

Table 44. Cost comparison for growing season wetland credit reductions, performance level 1 mg/L TP

109

Cost Comparison between Wetlands and STP upgrades for Annual Wetland Credit Reductions Performance Level: 0.5 mg/L TP 2:1

Trade Ratio

3:1 Trade Ratio


Min Max Median Min Max Median Min Max Median Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (1 acre) $1,332 $1,998 N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58 $31.58 Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (15 acres) $696 $1,044 N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58 $31.58 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (1 acre) $450 $675 N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58 $31.58 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (5 acres) $120 $180 N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58 $31.58 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (1 acre) $1,376 $2,064 N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58 $31.58 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (10 acres) $132 $198 N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58 $31.58 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (1 acre) $7,692 $11,538 N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58 $31.58 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (15 acres) $200 $300 N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58 $31.58

Table 45. Cost comparison for annual wetland credit reductions, performance level 0.5 mg/L TP

Cost Comparison between Wetlands and STP upgrades for Growing Season Wetland Credit ReductionsPerformance Level: 0.5 mg/L TP 2:1

Trade Ratio 3:1


Min Max Median Min Max Median Min Max Median Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (1 acre) $5,994 $8,991 N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58 $31.58 Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (15 acres) $2,674 $4,011 N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58 $31.58 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (1 acre) $1,090 $1,635 N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58 $31.58 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (5 acres) $548 $822 N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58 $31.58 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (1 acre) $5,760 $8,640 N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58 $31.58 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (10 acres) $536 $804 N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58 $31.58 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (1 acre) $59,234 $88,851 N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58 $31.58 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (15 acres) $1,018 $1,527 N/A N/A N/A $3.62 $7.62 $7.55 $2.23 $58 $31.58

Table 46. Cost comparison for growing season wetland credit reductions, performance level 0.5 mg/L TP

110

Cost Comparison between Wetlands and STP upgrades for Annual Wetland Credit Reductions Performance Level: 0.3 mg/L TP 2:1

Trade Ratio

3:1 Trade Ratio


Min Max Median Min Max Median Min Max Median Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (1 acre) $1,332 $1,998 $140 $256 $198 $13.28 $256 $76 $8.50 $179 $31.18 Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (15 acres) $696 $1,044 $140 $256 $198 $13.28 $256 $76 $8.50 $179 $31.18 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (1 acre) $450 $675 $140 $256 $198 $13.28 $256 $76 $8.50 $179 $31.18 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (5 acres) $120 $180 $140 $256 $198 $13.28 $256 $76 $8.50 $179 $31.18 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (1 acre) $1,376 $2,064 $140 $256 $198 $13.28 $256 $76 $8.50 $179 $31.18 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (10 acres) $132 $198 $140 $256 $198 $13.28 $256 $76 $8.50 $179 $31.18 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (1 acre) $7,692 $11,538 $140 $256 $198 $13.28 $256 $76 $8.50 $179 $31.18 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (15 acres) $200 $300 $140 $256 $198 $13.28 $256 $76 $8.50 $179 $31.18

Table 47. Cost comparison for annual wetlands credit reductions, performance level 0.3 mg/L TP

Cost Comparison between Wetlands and STP upgrades for Growing Season Wetland Credit ReductionsPerformance Level: 0.3 mg/L TP 2:1

Trade Ratio

3:1 Trade Ratio


Min Max Median Min Max Median Min Max Median Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (1 acre) $5,994 $8,991 $139.79 $256 $198 $13.28 $256 $76 $8.50 $179 $31.18 Watershed 1 Subbasin 36 (15 acres) $2,674 $4,011 $139.79 $256 $198 $13.28 $256 $76 $8.50 $179 $31.18 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (1 acre) $1,090 $1,635 $139.79 $256 $198 $13.28 $256 $76 $8.50 $179 $31.18 Watershed 2 Subbasin 49 (5 acres) $548 $822 $139.79 $256 $198 $13.28 $256 $76 $8.50 $179 $31.18 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (1 acre) $5,760 $8,640 $139.79 $256 $198 $13.28 $256 $76 $8.50 $179 $31.18 Watershed 33 Subbasin 8 (10 acres) $536 $804 $139.79 $256 $198 $13.28 $256 $76 $8.50 $179 $31.18 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (1 acre) $59,234 $88,851 $139.79 $256 $198 $13.28 $256 $76 $8.50 $179 $31.18 Watershed 37 Subbasin 6 (15 acres) $1,018 $1,527.00 $139.79 $256 $198 $13.28 $256 $76 $8.50 $179 $31.18

Table 48. Cost comparison for growing season wetlands credit reductions, performance level 0.3 mg/L TP

111

The tables above indicate that in many cases wetland credit generation would provide some level of economic benefit. However, it is clear that TP reductions are less cost-effective when using wetland treatment based on the assumptions applied in the STELLA model. These assumptions are conservative in nature. For instance, the sediment-attached phosphorus removed in the forebay is not quantified. This could reflect a substantial load reduction given the estimated sediment removal rates in a few of the modeled subbasins. These tables indicate that careful consideration of the actual STP upgrade costs will be necessary when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of WQT using wetland-generated credits. However, funding of the total wetland implementation costs through WQT does not necessarily have to be the goal. For example, if the wetland implementation is leveraged using another funding source or multiple sources, then WQT transactions are integrated with other watershed management programs. However, wetland banking could not provide the other funding source because that market sells all environmental functions and values. The other funding sources could be from environmental organizations like TNC or the use of public programs when appropriate. The following tables summarize the unit cost savings between wetlands and STP upgrades when wetland reduction unit costs are at least 25% less than STP upgrade costs. Tables are only included when wetland reductions are cost-effective in at least one of the watersheds. For example, wetland-generated credits were not cost effective for nutrient effluent limits of 5 mg/L TN or 3 mg/L TN. It should be noted that cost data for STP upgrades achieving effluent limits of 5 mg/L TN was not available for plant sizes less than 1 MGD. In addition, cost data for STP upgrades achieving 3 mg/L TN was not available for plant sizes less than 0.2 MGD. Cost data for STP upgrades achieving 0.5 m/L TP was not available for plant sizes less than 0.2 MGD. Unit cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions Performance Level:

10 mg/L TN STP <0.2

MGD STP 0.2-1 MGD STP >1 MGD

2:1 3:1 2:1 3:1 2:1 3:1Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 (1 acre) $43.00 $38.75 $18.58 $14.33 $0.00 $0.00Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 (5 acres) $42.84 $38.51 $18.42 $14.09 $0.00 $0.00Watershed 2 Subwatershed 49 (1 acre) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Watershed 2 Subwatershed 49 (5 acres) $31.62 $21.68 $7.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Watershed 33 Subwatershed 8 (1 acre) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Watershed 33 Subwatershed 8 (10 acres) $25.58 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Watershed 37 Subwatershed 6 (1 acre) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Watershed 37 Subwatershed 6 (5 acres) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Table 49. Unit cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions, performance level 10 mg/L TN

112

Unit cost savings for growing season wetland credit reductions Performance Level:

10 mg/L TN STP <0.2

MGD STP 0.2-1 MGD STP >1 MGD


Table 50. Unit cost savings for growing season wetland credit reductions, performance level 10 mg/L TN

Unit cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions Performance Level:

1 mg/L TP STP <0.2

MGDSTP 0.2-1

MGD STP >1 MGD


Table 51. Unit cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions, performance level 1 mg/L TP

113

Unit cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions Performance Level:

0.3 mg/L TP STP <0.2

MGDSTP 0.2-1

MGD STP >1 MGD

2:1 3:1 2:1 3:1 2:1 3:1

Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 (1 acre) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 (5 acres) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00




Table 52. Unit cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions, performance level 0.3 mg/L TP The following tables summarize the total cost savings associated with wetland nutrient reductions being used by STPs to meet nutrient limits in each 8-digit HUC watershed. The total cost calculations are based on the median estimated loading reduction in each size category and the number of plants within the 8-digit HUC watershed at that size category (based on available permit information). Calculations assume 25% STP participation.

Total cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions in the Lower Hatchie basin, assuming 25% STP participation Performance Level: 10 mg/L TN STP <0.2 MGD STP 0.2-1 MGD 2:1 3:1 2:1 3:1 Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 (1 acre) $25,542.00 $23,017.50 $122,730.19 $94,656.82 Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 (5 acres) $25,446.96 $22,874.94 $121,673.31 $93,071.50 Watershed 2 Subwatershed 49 (1 acre) -- -- -- --Watershed 2 Subwatershed 49 (5 acres) $18,782.28 $12,877.92 $47,559.60 --Watershed 33 Subwatershed 8 (1 acre) -- -- -- --Watershed 33 Subwatershed 8 (10 acres) $15,194.52 -- -- --

Table 53. Total cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions in the Lower Hatchie basin, performance level 10 mg/L TN

114

Total cost savings for growing season wetland credit reductions in the Lower Hatchie basin, assuming 25% STP participationPerformance Level: 10 mg/L TN STP <0.2 MGD STP 0.2-1 MGD 2:1 3:1 2:1 3:1 Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 (1 acre) $23,950.08 $20,629.62 $105,027.45 $68,102.71 Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 (5 acres) $23,474.88 $19,916.82 $99,743.05 $60,176.11

Table 54. Total cost savings for growing season wetland credit reductions in the Lower Hatchie basin,

performance level 10 mg/L TN

Total cost savings for annual wetlands credit reductions in the Loosahatchie basin, assuming 25% STP participation Performance Level: 10 mg/L TN STP <0.2 MGD STP 0.2-1 MGD 2:1 3:1 2:1 3:1 Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 (1 acre) $41,215.50 $37,141.88 $211,654.07 $163,240.20Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 (5 acres) $41,062.14 $36,911.84 $209,831.43 $160,506.24Watershed 2 Subwatershed 49 (1 acre) -- -- -- -- Watershed 2 Subwatershed 49 (5 acres) $30,307.77 $20,780.28 $82,018.80 -- Watershed 33 Subwatershed 8 (1 acre) -- -- -- -- Watershed 33 Subwatershed 8 (10 acres) $24,518.43 -- -- --

Table 55. Total cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions in the Loosahatchie basin, performance level 10 mg/L TN

Total cost savings for growing season wetland credit reductions in the Loosahatchie basin, assuming 25% STP participation Performance Level: 10 mg/L TN STP <0.2 MGD STP 0.2-1 MGD 2:1 3:1 2:1 3:1 Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 (1 acre) $38,646.72 $33,288.71 $181,124.85 $117,446.37Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 (5 acres) $37,879.92 $32,138.51 $172,011.65 $103,776.57

Table 56. Total cost savings for growing season wetlans credit reductions in the Loosahatchie basin, performance level 10 mg/L TN

115

Total cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions in the Wolf basin, assuming 25% STP participationPerformance Level: 10 mg/L TN STP <0.2 MGD 2:1 3:1Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 (1 acre) $32,733.75 $29,498.44 Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 (5 acres) $32,611.95 $29,315.74 Watershed 2 Subwatershed 49 (1 acre) -- --Watershed 2 Subwatershed 49 (5 acres) $24,070.73 $16,503.90 Watershed 33 Subwatershed 8 (1 acre) -- --Watershed 33 Subwatershed 8 (10 acres) $19,472.78 --

Table 57. Total cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions in the Wolf basin, performance level 10 mg/L TN

Total cost savings for growing season wetland credit reductions in the Wolf basin, assuming 25% STP participation Performance Level: 10 mg/L TN STP <0.2 MGD 2:1 3:1Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 (1 acre) $30,693.60 $26,438.21 Watershed 1 Subwatershed 36 (5 acres) $30,084.60 $25,524.71

Table 58. Total cost savings for growing season wetland credit reductions in the Wolf basin, performance level 10 mg/L TN

Total cost savings for annual wetland reductions in the Lower Hatchie basin, assuming 25% STP participation Performance Level: 1 mg/L TP STP <0.2 MGD 2:1Watershed 2 Subwatershed 49 (5 acres) $14,634.36 Watershed 33 Subwatershed 8 (10 acres) $11,977.98

Table 59. Total cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions in the Lower Hatchie basin, performance level 1 mg/L TP

116

Total cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions in the Loosahatchie, assuming 25% STP participation Performance Level: 1 mg/L TP STP <0.2 MGD 2:1Watershed 2 Subwatershed 49 (5 acres) $32,364.45 Watershed 33 Subwatershed 8 (10 acres) $26,154.45

Table 60. Total cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions in the Loosahatchie basin, performance level 1 mg/L TP

Total cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions in the Wolf basin, assuming 25% STP participation Performance Level: 1 mg/L TP STP <0.2 MGD

2:1Watershed 2 Subwatershed 49 (5 acres) $13,321.02 Watershed 33 Subwatershed 8 (10 acres) $10,765.02

Table 61. Total cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions in the Wolf basin, performance level 1 mg/L TP

Total cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions in the Lower Hatchie basin, assuming 25% STP participation Performance Level: 0.3 mg/L TP STP <0.2 MGD 2:1Watershed 2 Subwatershed 49 (5 acres) $18,268.38 Watershed 33 Subwatershed 8 (10 acres) $15,658.59

Table 62. Total cost savings for annual wetlandscredit reductions in the Lower Hatchie basin, performance level 0.3 mg/L TP

117

Total cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions in the Loosahatchie, assuming 25% STP participation Performance Level: 0.3 mg/L TP STP <0.2 MGD 2:1Watershed 2 Subwatershed 49 (5 acres) $40,401.23 Watershed 33 Subwatershed 8 (10 acres) $34,191.23

Table 63. Total cost savings for annual wetlandscredit reductions in the Loosahatchie basin, performance level 0.3 mg/L TP

Total cost savings for annual wetlands credit reductions in the Wolf basin, assuming 25% STP participation Performance Level: 0.3 mg/L TP STP <0.2 MGD

2:1Watershed 2 Subwatershed 49 (5 acres) $16,628.91 Watershed 33 Subwatershed 8 (10 acres) $14,072.91

Table 64. Total cost savings for annual wetland credit reductions in the Wolf basin, performance level 0.3 mg/L TP

Summary of Findings

This section outlines the findings of the WQT feasibility study for pollutant suitability, market supply and demand, and economic feasibility. Finally, this section briefly describes recommendations based on the assessment conducted for this report. Pollutant suitability The pollutant parameters assessed were sediment, total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP). All three pollutants were determined to be relatively persistent in the rivers and streams within the study area, as well as downstream to the Gulf of Mexico. Sediment is a commonly discharged parameter from both NPDES-permitted stormwater sites as well as nonpoint source sites that do not fall under the NPDES permit program. TN and TP are common pollutant parameters discharged from both point and nonpoint sources. All of the assess pollutant parameters are considered suitable by the EPA for WQT. However, ammonia, which is a component of TN, can be toxic to aquatic life and therefore NPDES effluent limits for ammonia are not eligible for WQT programs. Ammonia can be traded as part of the TN constituent as long as ammonia concentrations remain below toxicity standards. This feasibility study found that all three pollutant parameters were suitable for a WQT in western Tennessee, if adequate bioavailability and location factors were applied as part of the trade ratio. Within the study area, trading of certain pollutant parameters was found to be more suitable than others when the

118

credits are generated by restored wetlands. For example, phosphorus reductions by wetlands do occur in proper design settings, but typically wetlands are less effective at removing phosphorus than nitrogen. Phosphorus credit generation would improve if a series of upland BMPs were implemented in front of the wetland. Sediment loading also was found to be an issue in this study area. Sediment loading projections for certain subwatersheds were found to be very high. In these subwatersheds, the use of a large sediment forebay and/or upland BMPs would be necessary to address this higher sediment loading. Market supply and demand Overall, this feasibility assessment determined that wetland credit generation for sediment and total nitrogen offsets is technically feasible. It should be noted that substantial variability in nutrient and sediment concentrations exists among the small subwatersheds within the Loosahatchie, Lower Hatchie, and Wolf basins. Wetland design should consider optimizing the treatment performance levels based on site-specific conditions. In addition, wetland site selection should consider factors beyond the scope of this evaluation, including existing landowner willingness, groundwater impacts to neighboring lands, level of channel incision, and upland topography. The SWAT model and STELLA model setups, used to quantify WQT credit supply, were limited based on the data available and financial resources allocated to the project. Hence, these limitations carried over into the conclusion of this report. The primary drivers generating credit demand in western Tennessee would be nutrient criteria promulgated by TDEC, nutrient and sediment TMDLs and far-field protection goals for the Gulf of Mexico. The TDEC proposed method for establishing numeric nutrient NPDES permit effluent limits in TMDL settings is a unique proposal compared to other strategies throughout the United States. However, WQT could work within this strategy. The determination of waste load allocations and load allocations for STPs located in higher-density, more populated watersheds will provide the higher trading demand. In addition to STPs, MS4s also are potential credit buyers. Stormwater NPDES programs could use wetland-generated nutrient and sediment credits if the permittee is willing to accept quantified limits in permit. Such quantification is necessary for WQT to establish baselines and offset credit requirements. Stormwater NPDES programs could use surrogate parameters for WQT when an adequate causal linkage is made between sediment or nutrients and the surrogate (e.g., flow to bank erosion, or bank erosion to sediment impairments). One complication does arise from the TDEC nutrient river and stream water quality criteria development process. TDEC currently is considering 30-day permit averaging periods. This restriction, if left in place, would eliminate the ability for trading using wetland-generated credits. During drought conditions, adequate supply would be severely hampered from many nonpoint source BMPs. Economic Feasibility This assessment found that wetland credit generation to offset NPDES STP and stormwater discharges is viable for TN parameters in certain settings. In more limited cases, wetland credit generation can be cost-effective to offset NPDES STP discharges of TP. Minimizing stormwater retrofit costs would benefit from the use of WQT when the appropriate setting exists. Income from WQT could be used to leverage wetland implementation programs that exist for other purposes (except for wetland banking – this program sells all environmental functions and values). The economic feasibility of wetland-generated crediting could be improved with better:

Watershed understanding

Site-selection criteria

Upland treatment trains of sediment reduction BMPs (in certain settings)

119

This study used STP upgrade and stormwater BMP retrofit average costs. In individual cases, the site-specific costs are necessary to better inform decision makers before participating in WQT. However, one conclusion tends to be generally applicable – small STP facility $/unit costs typically are higher than the $/unit costs of large facilities due to economies of scale. The use of BNR technology is not always available or suitable to STP representatives. BNR cost and/or performance might be a limiting factor where:

o Lower staff resources are available to adjust the treatment process o Large variability exists in influent flow, organic loading, and/or temperatures o Industrial inhibitors exist in sufficient influent concentrations o Existing technology is not readily suitable for upgrades using existing tankage (e.g.,

treatment lagoons and fixed film biological systems) o Landlocked footprints

Recommendations NPDES permit effluent compliance averaging periods should be evaluated and, if appropriate, extended from 30-day averaging periods to growing season averages or annual averages. Once nutrient criteria are in place, WQT programs should consider the following measure to prevent water quality violations:

o Selecting settings where local nutrient impairments do not exist (for downstream WQT programs)

o Requiring upstream credit generation and the use of adequate trade ratio components o Establishing a minimum STP treatment performance levels prior to allowing WQT

offsets based on the STP and stream loading characteristics (e.g., mixing zones and dilution capability)

The project team recommends considering a pilot WQT project to further evaluate the potential for trading in the study area. This would provide specific demonstrations of the wetland capabilities, costs, and ancillary benefits.

120

Appendix A The following is additional background information for narrative sections in this report.

Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia

The watersheds included in the study area all drain to the Mississippi River, which empties into the Gulf of Mexico. Nutrient loading is considered the primary cause of hypoxia in the Gulf. The resulting “dead zone” has caused detrimental impacts on the natural ecosystems, as well as economic activities that rely on the Gulf. Hypoxic4 and anoxic conditions have likely existed in the Gulf of Mexico for millennia (Rabalais et al., 2002). However, a growing area of hypoxic waters has been growing off the coast of Texas and Louisiana (Goolsby et. al. 2001; Rabalais et al., 2001; Rabalais et. al, 2002; Rebalais et al., 2002; Ribaudo et al., 2005; Scavia et al., 2003). The hypoxic zone was first identified by fishermen in the early 1970’s and has been monitored since (Rebalais, Turner, and Scavia, 2002). Hypoxic conditions are known to affect fisheries in myriad ways including:

Reducing light penetration; Increasing algal populations; Changing trophic interactions; The absence of motile fish and crustaceans; Increasing mortality of organisms; Changing motile organism’s migration patterns; Changing life cycles; Food web imbalances; and Increasing some types of predation (Rabalais et al., 2002; Rabalais et al., 2001).

When waters become hypoxic is unclear. No definition or limit has been set (Tyson and Pearson, 1991), however most researchers have described the condition as dissolved oxygen levels less than 2.0 mg/l (ppm) which is the level at which commercial fishing bottom trawls no longer find shrimp (Renaud, 1986). Generally hypoxic conditions can be found below the saltier and denser waters of the pycnocline5 or in shallower water near coasts and shores. The Mississippi River is the third largest river basin in the world (Goolsby et. al, 2001). And the Mississippi-Atchafalaya Rivers form the largest watershed in the U.S., draining approximately 41% of the continental U.S., including more than 30 states (Rabalais et al., 2001). Land use within the watershed basin varies, including undeveloped land (roughly 40% in woodlands, wetlands, and nonpasture grasslands) and developed land (roughly 60% in urban, suburban, and agricultural).

4 Hypoxia, low oxygen, and anoxic (no oxygen) are considered symptoms of eutrophication (Nixon, 1995). Eutrophication is probably a natural process, however high levels of eutrophication are directly attributed to development (Rabalais et al., 2002; Nixon 1995). 5 Pycnocline is the strata of water within the water column with the greatest density gradient. Upper layers of the ocean are mixed by currents, winds, temperature, and salinity, the pycnocline separates the lower stable layers of the ocean from the more dynamic upper layers. The pycnocline also inhibits vertical mixing between layers affecting nutrient transport.

121

The basin is home to nearly 70 million people and is among the most fertile agricultural land in the world (Goolsby, 2001). Agricultural production (commercially fertilized and/or manure fertilized) within the Mississippi watershed increased steadily beginning in the 1870s. Other sources of pollutants including atmospheric deposition and septic treatment systems are also found within the basin (Ribaudo et al., 2005). Historical estimates of pollutants discharged by the Mississippi, particularly nitrogen (N) by Goolsby et al. (2001) and Rabalais et al. (2002) indicate a tenfold increase in N from 1900 to 1996, with the greatest increases occurring from 1950 through 1996. Conversion of wetlands to drained agricultural fields has been a primary source of N within the watershed (Ribaudo et al., 2005). Much of the N from agriculture fields comes from overland runoff, surface drainage and drain tile discharges. Nitrate forms of N are soluble and easily mobilized. Drain tiles allow for direct discharge of nitrate N to waterways with little screening or buffering that might sometimes occur overland. However, during the Team’s aerial reconnaissance of the study area, very few tile drain systems were noted. Most of the pollutants within the study area appear to result from overland stormwater flow or septic treatment system discharges. Nitrogen is not the only nutrient that impacts the Gulf. Increased phosphorus (P) and organic material are also noted (Dunn, 1996; Bennett et al., 2001; Rabalais et al., 2002). Phosphorus is a leading contributor to detrimental algal blooms. While much of the hypoxic zone discussion has historically focused on the effects of N, likely P has played an equally destructive role. The Mississippi River also is a dirt-moving machine. Estimates of sediment loads range from 190 – 230 x 106 tons annually (Horowitz et al., 2000). Turner and Rabalais (2003) note that much of that nutrient-laden sediment, particularly in the lower portions of the Mississippi, originate from the agro-industrial practices common in row crop production today. The Mississippi and the Atchafalaya account for 96% of the annual fresh water discharge into the Gulf of Mexico (Rabalais et al., 2002). Fresh water discharged by the Mississippi River is warmer and less dense and sits above the saltier, cooler waters of the Gulf. The nutrient-rich waters of the Mississippi, in the upper strata of the water column, produce phytoplankton and algal blooms. Organic material from the Mississippi and dead phytoplankton drop out of the warmer upper strata, though the pycnocline, to the substrata of the water column where bacteria consume the oxygen at rates faster than it is deposited, resulting in oxygen depletion.

Wetlands

Once plentiful in most of the U.S., more than 80%6 of our wetlands have been lost to agricultural and land development conversions. Rabalais et al. (2002) and others (Zedler, 2003, Wolternade, 2000, Turner and Rabalais, 2003) indicate that wetland loss is among the largest impacts affecting the nutrient loading into streams, rivers, the MRB and ultimately the Gulf of Mexico. Much of the focus has been on the role that wetlands played in controlling nitrogen but wetlands have been found to be adept at controlling phosphorus (Richardson, 1985) as well as sediment (Turner and Rabalais, 2003). Historically wetlands managed precipitation by holding it in surface depressional areas and basins. In addition, in many locations, the wetlands would feed water into shallow aquifers where a percentage of the infiltrated water could Watershed underlying deep aquifers. Wetlands contributed to larger landscape-scale ecosystems tuned to consistently available high

6 Hey and Philippi (1995) estimate the wetland loss in the MRB at 10 million ha. Historically 12.5 million ha (nearly 40%) of the MRB was wetland.

122

quality water. Today, river and stream base flow is depleted where ditches and tiles sweep the former contributions away and instead directly discharge in flashy events to water ways. . Tiling, which began with John Johnston, in Ithaca New York (USDA 1938), is often ubiquitous with agricultural production. Today, water is quickly exported as a waste product, depleting surface and ground water stocks. This reduces or eliminates the potential for recharging ground water and surface water bodies, including lakes, wetlands and rivers. The rapid passage of runoff waters, either through surface conveyance or tiles, can transfer pollutants to rivers and streams in larger volumes and concentrations. This overall change has decreased the availability of surface and ground water resources for controlling and cleaning water. Tiling, for example moves nitrates which are readily soluable and easily mobilized directly from the soil into natural water ways with little or no soil/vegetation treatment or capture. In the absence or conversion of wetlands to agricultural production fields not only has the nutrient and sediment capture capability been lost but additional nutrients have been added to increase production yields (Turner and Rabalais, 2003). Unfortunately, the impacts of over fertilization appear to cause pollution problems even after farming practices have ceased. Turner and Rabalais (2003) note that former agricultural fields in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the portions of the former Soviet Union (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) left fallow were so over fertilized that decades after fertilizing and farming had ceased nitrogen and phosphorus leaching from the soil was nearly identical to concentrations found during the periods of heavy fertilization (1950-1960). Resorting wetlands is key to regaining control of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution problems. Biotic and abiotic conditions found in wetlands contribute to the capture or conversion of pollutants. Jones (1976) and colleagues found that where wetlands (or marshes) comprised approximately 15% of the total land use of Iowa watersheds meaningful impacts on nitrogen concentrations could be observed. Mitsch et al. (2001) suggest wetland restoration is required for the control of excessive nutrient loads, particularly N. Zedler (2003) believes policies which support the conversion of unproductive agricultural land is critical to increasing wetland restoration throughout the Midwest. And that wetlands are key to controlling in-stream nutrients from urban and agricultural practices (Zedler, 2003), but notes that treatment of agricultural nutrients can be difficult because of bounce conditions associated with agricultural practices and runoff.

Stormwater Impacts on Nutrient Trading

In 1987, Congress passed amendments to the Clean Water Act that expanded the focus of the Act to address additional sources of water quality impairment, including stormwater. These amendments, enacted as Clean Water Act section 402(p), directed the EPA to regulate stormwater discharges into surface waters under the existing NPDES program. The new section of the statute specifies that MS4 NPDES permits “shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable...and such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants.” (33 U.S.C. §1342(p)(3)(B)(iii). In response to the amendments, the EPA developed a stormwater program and implemented the associated regulations in two phases. Phase I rules were issued in 1990 and required NPDES permits for MS4s serving populations of more than 100,000. This phase also required permits for stormwater from industrial sites and construction sites of five acres or larger. Phase I applied to about 1,000 MS4s, primarily city and county governments (Gentile, et al. 2003). Phase II rules were issued in 1999 and

123

expanded the NPDES permit requirements to small MS4s and construction sites between one and five acres. The inclusion of stormwater discharges under the NPDES program – particularly Phase II –increased the number of permits issued by the EPA. The EPA estimates there are more than half a million stormwater permitted entities. In comparison, the NPDES program regulates about 100,000 non-stormwater permittees. To handle the increased permit volume, the permitting agencies rely heavily on general permits for industrial, construction, and Phase II MS4s. The regulations required MS4s to develop stormwater management plans (SWMPs) that document stormwater control measures (SCMs). Control measures are most commonly BMPs and include both structural and non-structural practices. The use of BMPs to meet MS4 permit requirements can make determining compliance difficult where direct quantification of reductions is not available. In some instances, the permits utilize ambiguous language such that a wide range of activities could be considered compliant (Gentile, et al. 2003). Recent guidance memoranda issued by the EPA suggested including “measurable goals” for each BMP in Phase II MS4 permits. Regulatory agencies granted substantial discretion to the permitted entities to develop and implement stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) and SCMs. The amount of discretion and a lack of resources to review of SWPPPs and SCMs and conduct compliance inspections resulted in poor accountability and unclear effectiveness in water quality improvements (NRC 2009). In addition, stormwater can be difficult to address because of the multi-faceted impacts and interactions among the various stressors compounding the effects.

TMDL History

In 2002, the EPA issued a memo that provided guidance for including MS4s as pollutant sources contributing to TMDLs. The memo represented a shift in EPA policy whereby NPDES-permitted MS4s discharging into waters with TMDLs would have to adjust their discharges to comply with the WLA of the TMDL. MS4s not subject to NPDES permits would be included in the LA portion of the TMDL. The EPA guidance memo recognized the difficulty in assigning numeric goals to stormwater discharges given the variability in stormwater discharges and difficulty characterizing the discharges in terms of actual or projected loadings. The 2002 memo stated that effluent limits in MS4 NPDES permits could be expressed as BMPs. In addition, the memo stated available data might not be sufficient to determine WLAs for each specific outfall. As such, WLAs could be assigned that include all NPDES stormwater discharges or, if possible, assigned based on source category of stormwater. The memo also stated that MS4 NPDES permits must require monitoring and recommended the use of mechanisms to evaluate BMP performance. In 2010, the EPA issued a second memo that updated their 2002 guidance incorporating stormwater into TMDL WLAs. This new guidance stated that NPDES stormwater permits should include numeric WQBELs when feasible. The 2010 memo stated experience with WLAs for stormwater had increased the technical capacity to monitor stormwater and water quality impacts. As such, the EPA considered it reasonable to expect numeric limits to be included in additional NPDES permits. The memo stated BMPs could still be used to express WQBELs for MS4 discharges, but the permit should include objective and measurable elements that can be enforced. The memo also said surrogates for pollutant parameters could be used to establish stormwater WLAs. BMP monitoring should also be included in the NPDES permit to determine adequate performance. The 2010 EPA memo received reaction and pushback from stakeholders. On March 30, 2011, the EPA issued a letter to Susan Gilson at the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies in response to her January 2011 letter. Ms. Gilson had stated in her letter that the 2010 EPA

124

memo contained substantive changes to permit requirements and therefore the agency needed to follow the proper procedural protocol for changing regulations. The EPA response stated the regulations had not changed and had always allowed for numeric limitations in MS4 permits. In addition, the 2010 memo was considered guidance and was not itself legally binding. In her letter, Ms. Gilson also expressed concern with the use of surrogate parameters. The EPA responded that a demonstrated linkage would be required and surrogates are supported under the CWA, which does not specify the method that must be used for the TMDL. It is the understanding of the project team that the EPA continues to work with stakeholders on this issue. However, the memo remains posted on the EPA website.

Description of Hydrologic Soil Groups

Group A is composed of the most permeable soil types and have the lowest runoff potential. These soils consist of mainly deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. Group A soils have a high rate of water transmission.

Group B soils have moderate infiltration rates and are moderately deep, moderately well drained, or well drained with fine texture to moderately coarse texture (silt and sand). Transmission rate for these soils is moderate.

Group C soils exhibit slow infiltration rates because of a fine texture soil layer comprised of silt and clay that impedes downward movement of water. Transmission rate is slow for Group C soils.

Group D soils have the slowest infiltration rate (high runoff potential). These soils are typically clays and exhibit very slow rates of transmission.

Dual hydrologic groups (A/D, B/D, or C/D) are classified differently. The first letter is for artificially drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only soils that are rated D in their natural condition are assigned to dual classes.

Discussion of Legal Basis of Water Quality Trading

Trading programs operate within existing federal Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act) authority and related state authority. WQT is not specifically mentioned in either the CWA or Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). However, the EPA has endorsed WQT markets as an option for meeting water quality compliance goals. Some states and local entities have implemented various rules, regulations, or other systems for incorporating WQT into water quality programs. Trading also can occur through third-party purchases, such as a non-profit organization, with the goal of protecting water resources. The CWA was enacted to restore and preserve the quality of U.S. waters. This statute grants authority to the EPA to develop pollution control programs that address the purposes of the Act, as defined in sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c). Section 303 of the CWA requires states to identify the designated uses of water bodies, determine water quality standards necessary to meet those uses, and implement plans to achieve those standards (40 CFR 131). This process also should take into account downstream water quality standards (40 CFR 131.10(b)). The EPA must review and approve or disapprove all water quality standards proposed by state agencies (40 CFR 131.5). States may adopt standards that are more stringent than required under the CWA, but the minimum CWA requirements must be met (40 CFR 131.4). The EPA also provides financial incentives and conducts educational programs as part of efforts to improve water quality. Water quality goals are achieved, in part, through implementation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The development and implementation of this program was mandated by Section 402 of the CWA. In all but a few cases, states are fully or partially authorized to implement this program. Under the NPDES program, regulated entities must obtain a permit prior to discharging into waters of the U.S. Permits contain source-specific technology-based (TBELs) and/or

125

water-quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs). In general, WQBELs are included when TBELs are not sufficient to meet water quality standards. NPDES permits also include monitoring and reporting requirements. NPDES permit effluent limits must be designed to achieve water quality standards established under CWA Section 303. As stipulated in 40 CFR 122.44(d), NPDES permit limits “must control all pollutants or pollutant parameters ... which the Director determines are or may be discharged at a level which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any State water quality standard, including State narrative criteria for water quality” 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(i). A second program to achieve water quality goals was created by section 303(d) of the CWA. Under this program, states must identify impaired water bodies for which effluent limitations required by section 301 are not sufficiently stringent for that water body to achieve the established water quality standard. States must rank these water bodies in terms of priority and establish the maximum pollutant loading that would allow the water body to attain the water quality standard. These total maximum daily load (TMDL) calculations and lists of impaired waters must periodically be submitted to the EPA for approval (CWA §303(d)(2)). Approved lists and TMDLs must be included in state plans to achieve the purposes of the CWA (CWA §303(e). Federal regulations also require all states to establish antidegradation policies to protect existing uses and prevent further impairment. Reduced water quality is allowed where water quality exceeds levels necessary to provide designated uses and additional discharges are “necessary to accommodate important economic or social development” (40 CFR 131.12(a)(2)). Tennessee’s antidegradation regulation generally follows the federal language. In such cases where degradation is not allowed or policies place limits on new impacts, WQT is a potential option for reducing the loss of water quality from new or increased discharge associated with development. The EPA addressed antidegradation in its WQT policy statement, issued in 2003. In that document, the agency stated it does not believe trading will reduce water quality. As such the “EPA recommends that state or tribal antidegradation policies include provisions for trading to occur without requiring antidegradation review for high quality waters.” Although WQT is not specifically mentioned in federal statute, the EPA has endorsed trading markets as a means of achieving water quality goals. The EPA’s 2003 policy statement on WQT describes the circumstances under which the agency would allow trading. The EPA also created a WQT toolkit designed to assist regulators and policymakers with implementing trading programs. As a result, trading markets can be evaluated as a potential compliance tool and can be implemented when trading is economical and consistent with management goals. All requirements included in an NPDES permit must be honored, and WQT is only an option for new effluent limits and pollutants that meet certain conditions. For example, trading is not allowed for pollutants that are acutely toxic or bioaccumulative. States with designated NPDES permitting authority can develop their own rules or regulations for trading programs, although formal legislation is not necessary to implement WQT markets. Individual state approaches vary in terms of the structure provided for WQT programs. Some states, such as Connecticut, have implemented trading legislation while others, such as Idaho, have issued guidance documents and provided tools for establishing markets. Other states allow trading without specific guidelines or rules. Establishing clear program guidelines provides structure and certainty to stakeholders and program participants. A well-defined system can be critical for building a viable trading market. Tennessee could adapt and implement WQT through the state’s NPDES permit program. As discussed above, WQT is endorsed by the EPA for complying with pollutant discharge regulations. Tennessee therefore can incorporate trading into existing water quality programs without establishing specific trading rules. As potential models for its own implementation, Tennessee can look to the multiple WQT programs that currently exist throughout the United States. These programs vary in their design, complexity, and stage of implementation. A directory of existing programs is available through the

126

Environmental Trading Network (ETN). The EPA also maintains a website on WQT that provides guidance and descriptions of existing programs.

127

Appendix B

The STELLA Model

The following describes the design of the custom model used for N, P, and sediment removal by wetlands. STELLA is a commercially available modeling platform for the preparation of custom models.

Software Description

STELLA is a commercial software package, published by ISEE Systems, Inc., that allows the user to model complex dynamic systems processes through mathematical relationships. The software has a graphical user interface that can accept variable user input and display model output via numerical readouts, tables, and graphs. Within the STELLA platform, variables are input as stocks, flows or converters. Interactions between these inputs are defined by connectors. The model quantifies the accumulation of phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment removed by the treatment elements in model stocks, the inflows of these constituents from watershed runoff and their outflows from the wetland as flows, and the equations defining the removal process as a series of converters with connectors (see below).

Stock Flow Converter Connector

Figure 39. – STELLA Model Input Variables

Model Description

The model is run for a specified time period as an integrated simulation, with the model analyst defining the analysis period, the time unit (hours, days, weeks or years) and the time step for which each integration calculation takes place (Dt). This model was prepared using a daily time step for a three-year time period (1,095 days), and a time step of 0.25 days (6 hours), combined with the Euler Equation for Integration. The model uses the daily stormwater, nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment runoff values from the SWAT model output as watershed input into the model via a data import from an intermediary EXCEL spreadsheet.

128

Model Elements

The basic model parts include a treatment component which quantifies the removal of the inflow of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment, using wetland and forebay treatment elements as a total time period removal and an average annual removal; a cost component which calculates the construction and maintenance costs for the two treatment elements; and a cost comparison component which calculates the average annual and growing season costs of constituent removal on a $/pound (or ton) basis.

Treatment Processes

Nitrogen – Nitrogen removal is modeled using a first-order rate reduction equation: Nitrogen Mass Removed = Nitrogen Inflow -Water Outflow gradation published as part of the P-8 stormwater treatment model. Sediment is assumed to fall out of suspension at the following rates:

40% at a settling velocity above 15 feet per hour; 20% at a settling velocity between 1.5 and 15 feet per hour; 20% at a settling velocity between 0.3 and 1.5 feet per hour; and 20% at a settling velocity slower than 0.3 feet per hour.

The percentage of settled sediment was estimated by comparing the particle settling rate with the hydraulic loading rate (or 100 percent if the settling rate is greater than the hydraulic loading rate).

129

Figure 40. – Mass Balance Model for Sediment Treatment

130

Wetland/Forebay Elements—Size and Costing

Size

The intent of the model is to allow the analyst flexibility in optimizing the wetland element to either: 1) optimize the system to provide the lowest annual cost per pound of nitrogen and/or phosphorus

removal, or to 2) optimize the system to provide nitrogen/phosphorus removal to meet a market driven price point

(see trading credit discussions elsewhere in the report). To do this, the model is set up to allow the analyst to input specific wetland characteristics including the wetland area and a design hydraulic loading rate (which is controlled by the wetland outlet structure hydraulic characteristics). The average annual weight of nitrogen and phosphorus removed is provided as a screen output to assist the analyst in his effort. The model hydraulics and water storage are predicated on a one-foot depth being used for active water storage fluctuation as part of the treatment process within the wetland. Additionally, since the wetland may require over-excavation to match the inflowing channel depth, provision is made in the model for additional excavation to make the match. The analyst should input as the wetland depth of excavation for hydraulic conditions, the sum of the 1-foot treatment process depth and the additional depth required for lowering the wetland to match the inflow channel. Sediment removal is controlled by the characteristics of the sediment forebay. The model allows the analyst to vary the area of this forebay to optimize its design, while providing a screen output of the 5-year sediment depth accumulation for the size of forebay selected. The sediment depth is calculated as the accumulated sediment volume/forebay area, with the volume being calculated as the weight of sediment (tons) x 2000 lbs./tn/(sediment specific gravity of 2.65x 62.4 lbs. water/cubic foot).

Figure 41. – Sediment Removal Model

Cost Elements

Construction and maintenance costs are calculated based on the user input of wetland and forebay areas,

131

the user input wetland depth and the volume of sediment required to be trapped based on watershed sediment generation values. The model analyst can select an annual rate of return to convert the construction costs and maintenance costs into annual amortized costs for trading credit valuation. The unit construction cost and annual maintenance costs were based on the project team’s recent cost experience for wetland systems utilizing the team’s experience as a nationwide constructor of design/build wetland systems. Costing typically includes the annual maintenance of the systems in addition to the initial construction. Wetland construction costs were calculated assuming 2012 construction costs of $3.50 per cubic yard of excavation for a wetland having a depth of 1 foot for water storage and additional excavation depth of up to 4 feet, dependent on the inflow channel incision depth. To promote the growth of vegetation in the excavated wetland, an additional 1-foot depth of excavation and topsoil replacement was included in the wetland cost with a unit construction cost of $4.50 per cubic yard. Additional construction costs included wetland planting, initial management and soil preparation costs of $1,230 per acre, $5,000 for outlet control system piping and structures and $300 per acre for erosion control. Maintenance costs were calculated based on a cost of $200 per acre for normal maintenance and $2.25 per ton of accumulated sediment removal. The following excerpt from the model shows how the cost calculations were made. Note that the forebay excavation costs require the model to be run to quantify the average five-year sediment accumulation for which the forebay must be constructed.

132

Figure 42– Cost Opinion Calculations

133

Model Outputs

The output from the model is shown as time-distributed graphical data, time-distributed tabular data and end-of-run tabular data. The data shown in pink exemplifies the end-of-run tabular data.

Figure 43 – Model Outputs The graphical and tabular boxes (when left-clicked after the model is running) will show the time-distributed data, and the running cursor along the graph will show the individual time values to appear under the variable name.

134

Figure 44 – Graphical Removal Values

Figure 45 – Tabular Removal Values

135

Appendix C Appendix C contains research information foundational to this report.

Data Sources

Table 65. Compiled Data Layers

136

References Cited

Barr Engineering Company (2004). Detailed Assessment of Phosphorus Sources to Minnesota Watersheds. Supporting Technical Memorandum: Assessment of Bioavailable Fractions of Phosphorus and Annual Phosphorus Discharge for Each Major Basin. Memo available online at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid-3987.

Bennett, E.M., Carpenter, S.R., Caraco, N.F. 2001. Human impacts on erodable phosphorus and eutrophication: A global perspective. BioScience. 51, 227-234. Berman, T., and S. Chava. (1999). Algal growth on organic compounds as nitrogen sources. J. of Plankton Research21 (8): 1423-1437. Breen, P.F. 1990. A mass balance method for assessing the potential of artificial wetlands for wastewater treatment. Water Research. 24(6), 689-697. Bushaw, K.L., Zepp, R.G., Tarr, M.A., Schultz-Jander, D., Bourbonniere, R.A., Hodson, R.E., Miller, W.L., Bronk, D.A., Moran, M.A., (1996). Photochemical release of biologically available nitrogen from aquatic dissolved organic matter. Nature 381, 404-407 (30 May 1996); doi:10.1038/381404a0 Center for Watershed Protection 2007, Manual 3, Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices Version 1.0 CH2M HILL. (2010). Statewide Nutrient Removal Cost Impact Study. Prepared for the Utah Division of Water Quality. Chandran, K., (2010) Methylotrophic microbial ecology and kinetics. WERF Opportunistic Research Project. WERF presentation 2010. Colorado Water Quality Control Division. (2010). Technologies, Performance and Costs for Wastewater Nutrient Removal. Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC) (2011). Wabash River Watershed Water Quality Trading Feasibility Study, Final Report prepared for USEPA Targeted Watershed Grant WS-00E71501-0. Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC) (2006). Getting Paid for Stewardship: An Agricultural Community Water Quality Trading Guide. West Lafayette, IN, July 2006. Crumpton, W.G., Isenhart, T.M., Fisher, S.W. 1993. Fate of non-point source nitrate loads in freshwater wetlands: Results from experimental wetland mesocosms. In: Moshiri, G.A. (Ed.). Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc./Lewis Publishers. 283-291. Dagg, M., and G.A. Breed. (2003). Biological effects of Mississippi River nitrogen on the northern Gulf of Mexico – a review and synthesis. Journal of Marine Systems 43:133-152.

137

Dunn, D.D. 1996. Trends in nutrient inflows to the Gulf of Mexico from streams draining the conterminous United States. United States Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investment Report. 96-4113. Austin, TX: US Geol. Surv., 60. EPA. (2000). Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion IX, Southeastern Temperate Forested Plans and Hills. EPA 822-B-00-019. EPA. (2001). Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion X, Texas-Louisiana Coastal and Mississippi Alluvial Plains. EPA-822-B-01-016. EPA. (2000). Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual, Rivers and Streams. EPA-822-B-00-002. Foess, G. W., Steinbrecher, P., Williams, K., & Garrett, G. S. (1998). Cost and Performance Evaluation of BNR Processes. Florida Water Resources Journal. Gentile, L., Tinger, J., Kosco, J., Ganter, W., & Collins, J. (2003). Storm Water Phase I MS4 Permitting: Writing More Effective, Measurable Permits. Urban Stormwater: Enhancing Programs at the Local Level (pp. 134-141). Chicago: EPA. GHAP (2008) Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and Improving Water Quality in the Mississippi River Basin. Mississippi River Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force Goolsby, D.A., Battaglin, W.A., Aulenbach, B.T., Hooper, R.P. 2001. Nitrogen input to the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Environmental Quality. 3, 329-336. Hey, D.L, Philippi N.S. 1995. Flood reduction through wetland restoration: the Upper Mississippi River Basin as a case history. Restoration Ecology. 3, 4-17. Horowitz, A. J., Elrick, K.A., Smith, J.J. 2001. Annual suspended sediment and trace element fluxes in the Mississippi, Columbia, Colorado, and Rio Grande drainage basins. Hydrological Processes. 15, 1169-1207. Johnson, R.R., Oslund, F.T., and D.H. Hertel. 2008. The past, present, and future of prairie potholes in the United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 63(3), 84A-87A. Jones, J.R., Borofka, B.P., Bachmann, R.W. 1976. Factors affecting nutrient loads in some Iowa streams. Water Research. 10, 117-122. Kadlec, R. H., Wallace, S. D. 2009. Treatment Wetlands. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc./Taylor & Grancis Group. 1016 pages. Kadlec, R. H., Knight, R.L. 1996. Treatment Wetlands. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc./Lewis Publishers. 893 pages.

138

Klopatek, J.M. 1978. Nutrient Dynamics of Freshwater Riverine Marshes and the Role of Emergent Macrophytes. In: Good. Whigham & Simpson. 195-217. Maestre and Pitt, (2005). The National Stormwater Quality Database, Version 1.1: A Compilation and Analysis of NPDES Stormwater Monitoring Information, Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, Maryland. Mann, C. C. 2006. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus. Vintage Books, Random House, Inc.: New York. Metcalf & Eddy | AECOM. (2008, November). Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy Compliance Cost Study. Retrieved July 29, 2011, from Legislative Budget and Finance Committee: http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/reports/2008/25.PDF Miami Conservancy District (MCD) (2005). Great Miami River Watershed Water Quality Credit Trading Program Operations Manual. Accessed May 29, 2012 at: http://www.miamiconservancy.org/water/documents/TradingProgramOperationManualFeb8b2005secondversion.pdf (And related credit calculators on the Ohio DNR web site. Accessed May 29, 2012 at: http://www.ohiodnr.com/soilandwater/programs/agpollutionabate/default/tabid/8856/Default.aspx) Mitsch, W.J., Day Jr., J.W., Gilliam, K.W. et al. 2001. Reducing nitrogen loading to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River Basin: Strategies to counter a persistent ecological problem. BioScience. 51, 373-388. Moss, B. 1988. Ecology of Freshwater. Blackball Scientific Publishers: London. MPCA (1997). MN0031917 Rahr Malting Company NPDES permit Nixon, S. W. 1995. Coastal marine eutrophication: A definition, social causes, and future concerns. Ophelia. 144, 199-219. NRC. (2009). Urban Stormwater Management in the United States. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. NRDC v. EPA, 2:12-cv-00677 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana 2012). Pehlivanoglu, E., Sedlak, D.L. (2004). Bioavailability of wastewater-derived organic nitrogen to the alga Selanastrum Capricornutum. Water Research38: 3189-3196 Rabalais, N., Turner, R.E., Wiseman Jr., W. 2001. Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Environmental Quality. 3, 320-329. Rabalais, N.N., Turner, R.E., Scavia, D. 2002. Beyond science into policy: Gulf of Mexico

139

hypoxia and the Mississippi River. BioScience. 52(2), 129-142. Rabalais, N., Turner, R.E., Wiseman Jr., W. 2002. Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia, A.K.A. “The Dead Zone”. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 33, 235-263. Ribaudo, M.O., Heimlich, R., Peters, M. 2005. Nitrogen sources and Gulf hypoxia: Potential for environmental credit trading. Ecological Economics. 52, 159-168. Richardson, C.J. 1985. Mechanisms controlling phosphorus retention capacity in freshwater wetlands. Science. 228(4706), 1424-1427. Scavia, D., Rabalais, N.N., Turner, R.E., Justić, D., Wiseman Jr., W.J. 2003. Predicting the response of Gulf of Mexico hypoxia to variations in Mississippi River nitrogen load. Limnology and Oceanography. 48 (3), 951-956. Swindell, C.E., Jackson, J.A. 1990. Constructed Wetlands Design and Operation to Maximize Nutrient Removal Capabilities. In: Cooper, P. F., Findlater, B. C. (Eds.), Constructed Wetlands in Water Pollution Control. Pergamon, New York. TDEC. (2001, August). Development of Regionally-Based Interpretations of Tennessee's Narrative Nutrient Criterion. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://www.tn.gov/environment/wpc/publications/pdf/nutrient_final.pdf TDEC. (2007). Tennessee's Plan for Nutrient Criteria Development. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://www.tn.gov/environment/wpc/publications/pdf/NutrientCriteriaWorkplanRev.pdf Tetra Tech, Inc. (2010). Performance Work Statement Tetra Tech EP-C-08-004. Retrieved July 22, 2011, from http://www.publiclandscouncil.org/CMDocs/PublicLandsCouncil/NCBA%20Environmental%20Newsletter/tetra%20tech%20contract.pdf Thut, N.R. 1989. Utilisation of Artificial Marshes for Treatment of Pulp Mill Effluents. In: Hammer. 239-251. Tyson, R.V., Pearson, T.H. (Eds.), 1991. Modern and Ancient Continental Shelf Anoxia. Geological Society Special Publication 58. London: Geological Society. 1-24. [USDA] US Department of Agriculture. 1938. Soils and Men. Yearbook of Agriculture, 1938. Washington (DC): USDA. USEPA (2004) Memo from J. Hanlon to J. Capacasa. Annual Permit Limits for Nitrogen and Phosphorus for Permits Designed to Protect Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries from Excess Nutrient Loading under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. March 3, 2004. USEPA (2003) Water Quality Trading Policy Statement, Office of Water, January 13, 2003.

140

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2010. Phosphorus Rule Revisions. Accessed July 6, 2011at: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/wqs/phosphorus/index.htm Zedler, J. 2003. Wetland at your service: Reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 1(2), 65-72.

141

Literature Review

INSERT PDF

Wetlands and Water Quality Trading:Review of Current Science and Economic Practices with Selected Case Studies

SCIENCEGround Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division, Ada, Oklahoma 74820National Risk Management Research LaboratoryOffice of Research and Development

EPA/600/R-06/155 | July 2007 | www.epa.gov/ada

EPA/600/R-06/155July 2007

Wetlands and Water Quality Trading:Review of Current Science and Economic

Practices With Selected Case Studies

Shane Cherry, Erika M. Britney, Lori S. Siegel, Michael J. Muscari, & Ronda L. StrauchPrepared by Shaw Environmental Inc.

EPA Contract No. 68-C-03-097Shaw Environmental Inc.

Cincinnati, Ohio 45212-2025

Timothy J. Canfield, Technical MonitorU.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development

National Risk Management LaboratoryAda, Oklahoma 74820

Mary Sue McNeil, Project OfficerGround Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division

National Risk Management Research LaboratoryAda, Oklahoma 74820

National Risk Management Research LaboratoryOffice of Research and DevelopmentU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

111

Appendix A Annotated Bibliography

113

# Title AAA Author Pub. Date Type Publisher Comments

1

Managing the Brisbane River and Moreton Bay: An Integrated Research/Management Program to Reduce Im-pacts on an Australian Estuary.

Abal, E.G., W.C. Dennison, and P.F. Greenfield

2001 PaperWater Sci Technol. 2001;43(9):57-70. PMID: 11419140

This report describes results of an interdisciplinary study of Moreton Bay to examine the link between sewage and diffuse loading with environmental degradation. The study includes examination of runoff and deposition of fine-grained sediments, sewage-derived nutrient enrichment, blooms of a marine cyano-bacterium, and seagrass loss. The study framework illustrates a unique integrated approach to water quality management whereby scientific research, community participation and the strategy development were done in parallel with each other. This collaborative effort resulted in a water quality management strategy which focuses on the integration of socioeconomic and ecological values of the waterways.

2Biomass Production and NPK Reten-tion in Macrophytes from Wetlands of the Tingitan Peninsula

Abdeslam Ennabili, Mohammed Ater and Michel Radoux

Sep-98 Aquatic Botany; 62(1): 45-56. Sept. 1, 1998.

3Hydrologic Performance of a Large-Scale Constructed Wetland: The Ever-glades Nutrient Removal Project

Abtew, Wossenu and Tim Bechtel Aug-01

Conference Proceeding Paper Abstract

Wetlands Engineering & River Restoration 2001, Proceedings of the 2001 Wetlands Engineering & River Restoration Confer-ence, August 27-31, 2001, Reno, Nevada. Section 36, Chapter 1 .

This paper summarizes the hydrologic performance, mass bal-ance and treatment efficiency of one of the largest constructed wetlands in the world.

4Ecological Issues Related to N Deposi-tion to Natural Ecosystems: Research Needs

Adams, Mary Beth Jun-03Environment Interna-tional; 29(2-3): 189-199. June 2003.

5 Nutrient Partitioning in a Clay-based Surface Flow Wetland

Adcock, P.W., G. L. Ryan and P. L. Osborne

1995Water Science and Tech-nology; 32(3): 203-209. 1995.

6Hydrologic Regime Controls Soil Phosphorus Fluxes in Restoration and Undisturbed Wetlands

Aldous, Allison, Paul McCormick, Chad Ferguson, Sean Gra-ham, and Chris Craft

Jun-05 Abstract Restoration Ecology; 13(2): 341. June 2005.

Many wetland restoration projects occur on former agricultural soils that have a history of disturbance and fertilization, mak-ing them prone to phosphorus (P) release upon flooding. We conclude that maintaining moist soil is the means to minimize P release from recently flooded wetland soils. Alternatively, pro-longed flooding provides a means of liberating excess labile P from former agricultural soils while minimizing continued organic P mineralization and soil subsidence.

7Framework for Surface Water Quality Management on a River Basin Scale: Case Study of Lake Iseo, Northern Italy

Al-Khudhairy, D. H. A., A. Bettendrof-fer, A. C. Cardoso, A. Pereira, and G. Premazzi

Jul-01 Paper

Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Manage-ment: 6(2): 103-115. July 2001.

8 South Nation Watershed Phosphorus Algorithm Report Phase II Allaway, Chris (B.Sc.) Jan-03 Paper

South Nation Conserva-tion Clean Water Com-mittee

9Proceedings of a Conference on Wet-lands for Wastewater Treatment and Resource Enhancement

Allen, G.H. and R.H. Gearheart 1988 Humbolt Sate University,

Arcata, CA

114115


10Treatment of Domestic Wastewater by Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands in Jordan

Al-Omari, Abbas and Manar Fayyad May-03 Desalination; 155(1): 27-

39. May 30, 2003.

11

South Nation River Conservation Authority: What has 57 years of Wa-tershed Management and Multi-Million Dollar Watershed Plans Taught Us?

American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan www.asabe.org

2004

American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan. www.asabe.org

http://asae.frymulti.com/abstract.asp?aid=16399&t=2

12The Effects of Bird Use on Nutrient Removal in a Constructed Wastewater-Treatment Wetland

Andersen, Douglas C., James J. Sartoris, Joan S. Thullen, and Paul G. Reusch

Sep-02 Abstract Wetlands; 23(2): 423-425. September 2002.

This case study supports the concept that a constructed wetland can be designed both to reduce nutrients in municipal wastewater and to provide habitat for wetland birds.

13Temporal and spatial development of surface soil conditions at two created riverine marshes

Anderson, C.J., W.J. Mitsch, R.W. Nairn

Nov-Dec-05

Journal of Environmental Quality; 34(6): 2072-2081. Nov-Dec 2005.

14

Temporal Export of Nitrogen from a Constructed Wetland: Influence of Hydrology and Senescing Submerged Plants

Ann-Karin Thorén, Catherine Legrand, and Karin S. Tonder-ski

Dec-04Ecological Engineering; 23(4-5): 233-239. Dec 30, 2004.

15 Modelling Nitrogen Removal in Poten-tial Wetlands at the Catchment Scale

Arheimer, Berit and Hans B. Wittgren Jul-02 Ecological Engineering;

19(1): 63-80. July 2002.

16 Oxygen diffusion from the roots of some British bog plants Armstrong, W. 1964 Nature 204:801-802.

2004

17SWRRB: A Basin Scale Simulation Model for Soil and Water Resources Management

Arnold, J.G., J.R. Wil-liams, A.D. Nicks, and N.B. Sammons

1990 Texas A&M Univ. Press. College Station, TX.

18Latitudinal characteristics of below- and above-ground biomass of Typha: a modelling approach

Asaeda, T., D.N. Hai, J. Manatunge, D. Wil-liams, and J. Roberts

Aug-05 Annals of Botany; 96(2): 299-312. Aug 2005.

19 Microbial Ecology: Fundamentals and Application

Atlas, R.M. and R. Bartha 1981 Addison-Wesley, Read-

ing, MA.

20

Denitrification, N20 and C02 fluxes in rice-wheat cropping system as af-fected by crop residues, fertilizer N and legume green manure

Aulakh, M.S., T.S. Khera, J.W. Doran, and K.F. Bronson

Dec-01Biology and Fertility of Soils; 34(6): 375-389. Dec 2001.

21 Update on the Tradable Loads Program in the Grassland Drainage Area Austin, S. Aug-99 Paper

22 Treatment of Wastewater by Natural Systems

Ayaz, Selma Ç. and Lütfi Akça Jan-01

Environment Interna-tional; 26(3): 189-195. January 2001.

23

Denitrification in Constructed Free-water Surface Wetlands: I. Very High Nitrate Removal Rates in a Macrocosm Study

Bachand, Philip A.M. and Alex J. Horne Sep-99

Ecological Engineering; 14(1-2): 9-15. September 1999.

114115


24Denitrification in Constructed Free-water Surface Wetlands: II. Effects of Vegetation and Temperature

Bachand, Philip A.M. and Alex J. Horne Sep-99

Ecological Engineering; 14(1-2): 17-32. Septem-ber 1999.

25 Holding the Line: Tampa Bay’s Coop-erative Approach to Trading

Bacon, E. and H. Greening May-98 Presentation

Watershed ‘98 – Moving from Theory to Implemen-tation. Denver, CO.

26

Nutrients and Zooplankton Composi-tion and Dynamics in Relation to the Hydrological Pattern in a Confined Mediterranean Salt Marsh (NE Iberian Peninsula)

Badosa, Anna, Dani Boix, Sandra Brucet, Rocío López-Flores, and Xavier D. Quin-tana

Feb-06Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science; 66(3-4): 513-522. February 2006.

27

Nitrogen mineralization processes of soils from natural saline-alkalined wetlands, Xianghai National Nature Reserve, China

Bai, J., W. Deng, Q. Wang, H. Chen, C. Zhou

Aug-05Canadian Journal of Soil Science; 85(3): 359-367. Aug 2005.

28 Spatial variability of nitrogen in soils from land/inland water ecotones

Bai, J., W. Deng, Y. Zhu, and Q. Wang 2004

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analy-sis; 35(5-6): 735-749. 2004.

29Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Organic Matter and Total Nitrogen of Marsh Soils in River Marginal Wetlands

Bai, Junhong, Hua Ouyang, Wei Deng, Yanming Zhu, Xuelin Zhang, and Qinggai Wang

Jan-05 Geoderma; 124(1-2): 181-192. Jan 2005.

30Introduction to Nonpoint Source Pollu-tion in the United States and Prospects for Wetland Use

Baker, Lawrence A. Mar-92 Ecological Engineering; 1(1-2): 1-26.March 1992.

31Evaluation of a Small In-Stream Con-structed Wetland in North Carolina’s Coastal Plain

Bass, Kristopher Lucas Jun-05 Master Thesis

Masters Thesis, North Carolina State University, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, Raleigh, North Carolina

32Potential nitrification and denitrification on different surfaces in a constructed treatment wetland

Bastviken, S.K., P.G. Eriksson, I. Mar-tins, J.M. Neto, L. Leonardson, and K. Tonderski

Nov-Dec-03

Journal of Environmental Quality; 32(6): 2414-2420. Nov-Dec 2003.

33GLTN Comments to the EPA on Proposed Changes to the NPDES Program

Batchelor, David J. (Chair) Jan-99 Letter to Com-

ment Clerk

34

Growth of Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin ex. Steudel in Mine Water Treat-ment Wetlands: Effects of Metal and Nutrient Uptake

Batty, Lesley C. and Paul L. Younger Nov-04 Environmental Pollution;

132(1): 85-93. Nov 2004.

116117


35

Stormwater Treatment: Do Constructed Wetlands Yield Improved Pollutant Management Performance Over a Detention Pond System?

Bavor, H.J., C.M. Davies, and K. Sakadevan

2001Water Science Technol-ogy; 44(11-12):565-70. 2001.

36Progress in the Research and Dem-onstration of Everglades Periphyton-based Stormwater Treatment Areas

Bays, J.S., R.L. Knight, L. Wenkert, R. Clarke, and S. Gong

2001Water Science Technol-ogy; 44(11-12):123-30. 2001.

37 Theoretical Consideration of Methane Emission from Sediments Bazhin, N.M. Jan-03 Chemosphere; 50(2):

191-200. Jan 2003.

This paper discussed a stationary theory of gas emission from sedimentary (active) layers of wetlands, which takes into ac-count methane generation in a sedimentary layer and its depth dependence, and the solubility and the mobility of methane molecules set by the methane diffusion coefficient. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12653291&dopt=Abstract

38

Incentives For Environmental Improve-ment: An Assessment Of Selected Innovative Programs In The States And Europe

Beardsley, Daniel P. Aug-96 Report Global Environmental Management Initiative http://www.gemi.org/IDE_003.pdf

39

Feasibility of Using Ornamental Plants (Zantedeschia aethiopica) in Sub-surface Flow Treatment Wetlands to Remove Nitrogen, Chemical Oxygen Demand and Nonylphenol Ethoxylate Surfactants: A Laboratory-Scale Study

Belmont, Marco A. and Chris D. Metcalfe Dec-03

Ecological Engineering; 21(4-5): 233-247. Dec 31, 2003.

40Treatment of Domestic Wastewater in a Pilot-scale Natural Treatment System in Central Mexico

Belmont, Marco A., Eliseo Cantellano, Steve Thompson, Mark Williamson, Abel Sánchez, and Chris D. Metcalfe


41 Updates to Stormwater BMP Efficien-cies

Bennett, Bradley and Rich Gannon Sep-04 Memo

Memorandum to Local Programs, Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rules, NC Division of Water Quality

Memo notifying the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Programs of new nutrient removal efficiencies for Stormwater BMPs.

42 Rainfall-runoff Modeling: The Primer Beven, K.J. 2001 John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Chichester, London

43Quantification of oxygen release by bulrush (Scirpus validus) roots in a constructed treatment wetland

Bezbaruah, A.N. and T.C. Zhang Feb-05

Biotechnology and Bioen-gineering; 89(3): 308-318. Feb 2005.

44

pH, redox, and oxygen microprofiles in rhizosphere of bulrush (Scirpus validus) in a constructed wetland treating mu-nicipal wastewater

Bezbaruah, A.N.and T.C. Zhang Oct-04

Biotechnology and Bio-engineering; 88(1): 60-70. Oct. 5, 2004.

116117


45 Hydrological Simulation Program – FORTRAN Version 12 User’s Manual

Bicknell, B.R., J.C. Imhoff, J.L. Kittle, Jr., T.H. Jobes, and A.S. Donigian, Jr.

2001

National Exposure Re-search Laboratory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Athens, GA.

46N storage and cycling in vegetation of a forested wetland: implications for watershed in processing

Bischoff, J.M., P. Bukaveckas, M.J. Mitchell, and T. Hurd

May-01Water, Air, and Soil Pol-lution; 128(1-2): 97-114. May 2001.

47Evaluation of Past and Potential Phos-phorus Uptake at the Orlando Easterly Wetland

Black, Courtney A. and William R. Wise Dec-03


48

The effects of varied hydraulic and nutrient loading rates on water quality and hydrologic distributions in a natural forested treatment wetland

Blahnik, T. and J. Day, Jr. Mar-00

Wetlands : the journal of the Society of the Wetlands Scientists. Mar 2000. v. 20 (1) p. 48-61.

49Nitrogen as a Regulatory Factor of Methane Oxidation in Soils and Sedi-ments

Bodelier, Paul L. E. and Hendrikus J. Laanbroek

Mar-04FEMS Microbiology Ecol-ogy; 47(3): 265-277. Mar 15, 2004.

This paper summarises and balances the data on the regula-tory role of nitrogen in the consumption of methane by soils and sediments with the intent of stimulating the scientific community to embark on experiments to close the existing gap in knowl-edge regarding the role of nitrogen in methan oxidation in soils and sediments. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1016/S0168-6496(03)00304-0

50

Hydraulic tracer study in a free-water surface flow constructed wetland sys-tem treating sugar factory wastewater in Western Kenya

Bojcevska, H. 2005

IFM/Department of Biology, University of Linköping, Linköping, Sweden.

http://www.ifm.liu.se/~inuita/researchproposal_tracerstudy.doc

51Pollutant Removal Capability of a Con-structed Melaleuca Wetland Receiving Primary Settled Sewage

Bolton, Keith G.E. and Margaret Gre-enway

Mar-99Water Science and Tech-nology; 39(6): 199-206. March 1999.

52Metabolism of Compounds with Nitro-functions by Klebsiella pnuemoniae Isolated from a Regional Wetland

Boopathy, Ramaraj and Earl Melancon Dec-04

International Biodeteriora-tion & Biodegradation; 54(4): 269-275. Dec 2004.

53Controlled drainage and wetlands to reduce agricultural pollution: a lysimet-ric study

Borin, M., G. Bonaiti, and L. Giardini

Jul-Aug-01

Journal of environmental quality. July/Aug 2001. v. 30 (4) p. 1330-1340.

54 The biogeochemistry of nitrogen in freshwater wetlands

Bowden, W.B. 1987 Biogeochemistry 4:313-348.

55

Nutrient Removal from Effluents by an Artificial Wetland: Influence of Rhizosphere Aeration and Preferential Flow Studied Using Bromide and Dye Tracers

Bowmer, Kathleen H. May-87Water Research, Volume 21, Issue 5, May 1987, Pages 591-599

56 Salinity & Nutrient Trading in Australia Brady, Katy 3/16-18/2004 Presentation

New South Wales Environment Protection Authority, Australia

http://www.inece.org/emissions/brady.pdf

118119


57Factors Affecting Nitrogen Retention in Small Constructed Wetlands Treating Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution

Braskerud, B.C. Jan-02Ecological Engineering; 18(3): 351-370. January 2002.

58The impact of hydraulic load and aggregation on sedimentation of soil particles in small constructed wetlands

Braskerud, B.C., H. Lundekvam, and T. Krogstad

Nov-Dec-00

Journal of environmental quality. Nov/Dec 2000. v. 29 (6) p. 2013-2020.

59Restoration of Lake Borrevannet - Self-purification of Nutrients and Suspended Matter through Natural Reed-belts

Bratli, J.L., A. Skiple and M. Mjelde 1999

Water Science and Tech-nology, Volume 40, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 325-332

60A Mass Balance Method for Assessing the Potential of Artificial Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment

Breen, Peter F. Jun-90Water Research, Volume 24, Issue 6, June 1990, Pages 689-697

61

Water Quality Trading and Offset Initia-tives in the U.S.: A Comprehensive Survey*

Breetz, Hanna L. and Karen Fisher-Vanden, Laura Garzon, Han-nah Jacobs, Kailin Kroetz, Rebecca Terry

Aug-04 Paperhttp://www.dartmouth.edu/~kfv/waterqualitytrad-ingdatabase.pdf

*This research was supported by the US Environmental Protec-tion Agency and the Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College. Corresponding author: 6182 Steele Hall, Hanover, NH 03755; phone: 603-646-0213; email: [email protected] Summarizes waterquality trading and offset initiatives in the U.S., including state-wide programs and recent proposals. The document provides background information on each program and provides specific information on each program for the following categories: trade structure (determination of credit, trading ratios and other mechanisms to deal with uncertainty, liabilities/penalties for non-complinace, approval process, ex post-verification/auditing, machanisms for trade identifica-tion and communication, market structure and types of trades allowed); outcomes (types and volumes of trades that have occured, adminiatrative costs, transaction costs, cost savings, program goals achieved, program obstacles, MPS inolvement and incentives to engage in trading, and other); and program/in-formation references.

62A comparison of nutrient availability indices along an ombrotophic-minero-trophic gradient in Minnesota wetlands

Bridgham, S.D., K. Updegraff, and J. Pastor

Jan-Feb-01

Soil Science Society of America journal. Jan/Feb 2001. v. 65 (1) p. 259-269.

63 Application of Wastewater to Wetlands Brinson, M.M. and F.R. Westall 1983 Report

Rept. #5, Water Research Inst., Univ. of North Caro-lina, Raleigh, NC

64 Nutrient Assimilative Capacity of an Alluvial Floodplain Swamp

Brinson, M.M., H.D. Bradshaw, and E.S. Kane

Dec-84

Journal of Applied Ecolo-gy Vol. 21, No. 3, p 1041-1057, December, 1984. 9 Fig, 2 Tab, 45 Ref. OWRT project B-114-NC.

The capacity of the swamp for nutrient removal was highest for nitrate, intermediate for ammonium, and lowest for phosphate. Annual drydown of sediments would be required for sustained ammonium removal in swamps with prolonged flooding, as in this case. It appears that swamps of this type could be man-aged for inorganic nitrogen removal from sewage effluent, but their usefulness for tertiary treatment of phosphate is limited by the capacity of sediments for phosphorus storage.

65

Gas Exchange through the Soil-at-mosphere Interphase and through Dead Culms of Phragmites australis in a Constructed Reed Bed Receiving Domestic Sewage

Brix, H. Feb-90Water Research, Volume 24, Issue 2, February 1990, Pages 259-266

118119


66Treatment of Wastewater in the Rhi-zosphere of Wetland PlantsùThe Root Zone Method

Brix, H. 1987 Water Sci Technol., 19:107-118

67Root-zone acidity and nitrogen source affects Typha latifolia L. growth and up-take kinetics of ammonium and nitrate

Brix, H., K. Dyhr-Jen-sen, and B. Lorenzen Dec-02

Journal of experimental botany. Dec 2002. v. 53 (379) p. 2441-2450.

68

The Use of Vertical Flow Constructed Wetlands for On-site Treatment of Domestic Wastewater: New Danish Guidelines

Brix, Hans and Car-los A. Arias Dec-05

Ecological Engineering; 25( 5):491-500.Dec. 1, 2005.

69 Denitrification in a Natural Wetland Receiving Secondary Treated Effluent

Brodrick, Stephanie J., Peter Cullen and W. Maher

Apr-98Water Research, Volume 22, Issue 4, April 1988, Pages 431-439

70

Watershed Permitting in North Carolina: NPDES Permit NCC000001 Became Effective Jan 1, 2003, Neuse River Compliance Association

Brookhart, Morris 2003 Powerpoint

Presented at the National Forum on Water Quality Trading, Chicago, IL, July 22-23, 2003. Retrieved Dec. 12, 2005 from www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/brookhart.ppt

71 Watershed Permitting to Increase Ef-ficiency and Facilitate Trading Brookhart, Morris Jul-03 PowerPoint 2003 National Forum on Water Quality Trading

72Evaluating Constructed Wetlands Through Comparisons with Natural Wetlands

Brown, M.T. 1991EPA/600\3-91-058. EPA Environmental Research Lab., Corvallis, OR

73 A Simulation Model of Hydrology and Nutrient Dynamics in Wetlands Brown, Mark T. 1988

Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol-ume 12, Issue 4, 1988, Pages 221-237

74Nutrient Removal and Plant Biomass in a Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland in Brisbane, Australia

Browning, K. and M. Greenway 2003 Water Science Technol-

ogy. 2003;48(5): 183-9.

75Spatial variability of soil properties in created, restored, and paired natural wetlands

Bruland, G.L. and C.J. Richardson

Jan-Feb-05

Soil Science Society of America journal. 2005 Jan-Feb, v. 69, no. 1, p. 273-284.

76 Treatment of Potato Processing Waste-water with Engineered Natural Systems

Burgoon, Peter S., Robert H. Kadlec and Mike Henderson

1999Water Science and Tech-nology, Volume 40, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 211-215

77Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal by Wetland Mesocosms Subjected to Dif-ferent Hydroperiods

Busnardo, Max J., Richard M. Gersberg, René Langis, The-resa L. Sinicrope and Joy B. Zedler

Dec-92

Ecological Engineer-ing, Volume 1, Issue 4, December 1992, Pages 287-307

120121


78Riparian Alder Fens - Source or Sink for Nutrients and Dissolved Organic Carbon? - 2. Major Sources and Sinks

Busse, Lilian B. and Günter Gunkel May-02

Limnologica - Ecology and Management of In-land Waters; 32(1): 44-53. May 2002.

79 The Nitrogen Abatement Cost in Wetlands Byström, Olof Sep-98

Ecological Economics, Volume 26, Issue 3, 1 September 1998, Pages 321-331

80 Economic Criteria for Using Wetlands as Nitrogen Sinks Under Uncertainty

Byström, Olof, Hans Andersson, and Ing-Marie Gren

Oct-00Ecological Economics, Volume 35, Issue 1, Octo-ber 2000, Pages 35-45

81

Defining the Mercury Problem in the Northern Reaches of San Francisco Bay and Designing Appropriate Regu-latory Approaches

California Environ-mental Protection Agency, San Fran-cisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board

Jun-98 Draft Staff Report

California Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board

82Pollutant Removal from Municipal Sew-age Lagoon Effluents with a Free-sur-face Wetland

Cameron, Kimberly, Chandra Madramoot-oo, Anna Crolla, and Christopher Kinsley

Jul-03 Water Research; 37(12): 2803-2813. July 2003.

83 Proposed BMPs to be Applied in Trad-ing Demonstration

Carter, David L. (Ph.D., CPAgSSc) Feb-02 BMP Proposal

84Stream Assessment and Constructed Stormwater Wetland Research in the North Creek Watershed

Carter, Melanie Dawn Mar-05 Ph.D. Disser-tation

North Carolina State University, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, URN: etd-03142005-103836

Based on stormwater runoff concerns, two constructed stormwater wetlands (0.3 ac) were designed and installed on the North Creek floodplain. The purpose of this study was to measure stormwater treatment of sediment and nutrients during initial stabilization (three months). Suspended sediment was generated in both wetlands (W1 and W2) during the first two weeks. Total suspended sediment loads were reduced in W2 but not in W1 by the end of the study. Nutrients (TKN, NH4, NO3, TP) were all reduced in W1 throughout the study. Am-monium and total phosphorus were generated in W2 throughout the study. Differences between the two wetlands were due to several variables, including the larger sediment and nutrient concentrations entering W2. Polyacrylamide (PAM) was applied to W1 only (15 lb/ac) during hydromulching after construction. The influence of PAM was not clear, however, due to the numer-ous different variables between the two wetlands. http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-03142005-103836/

85 Mechanisms of nutrient attenuation in a subsurface flow riparian wetland

Casey, R.E., M.D. Taylor, S.J. Klaine

Sep-Oct-01

Journal of environmental quality. Sept/Oct 2001. v. 30 (5) p. 1732-1737.

86Effects of static vs. tidal hydrology on pollutant transformation in wetland sediments

Catallo, W.J. and T. Junk

Nov-Dec-03

Journal of environmental quality. 2003 Nov-Dec, v. 32, no. 6, p. 2421-2427.

120121


87

Developing an Effluent Trading Pro-gram to Address Nutrient Pollution in the Providence and Seekonk Rivers Master’s Thesis

Caton, Patricia-Ann May-02Center for Environmental Studies Brown University

http://envstudies.brown.edu/Thesis/2002/caton/ includes multiple case studies at the following link: http://envstudies.brown.edu/Thesis/2002/caton/FRAMES/Case%20Study%20Frame.htm

88 Effects of sediment deposition on fine root dynamics in riparian forests.

Cavalcanti, G.G., B.G. Lockaby

May-Jun-05

Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2005 May-June, v. 69, no. 3, p. 729-737.

89The Humber Catchment and Its Coastal Area: From UK to European Perspectives

Cave, R.R., L. Ledoux, K. Turner, T. Jickells, J.E. Andrews, and H. Davies

Oct-03 PaperSci Total Environ. 2003 Oct 1;314-316:31-52. Re-view. PMID: 14499525

This paper provides an overview of the current environmental and socio-economic state of the Humber catchment and coastal zone, and broadly examines how socio-economic drivers affect the fluxes of nutrients and contaminants to the coastal zone, using the driver-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) ap-proach.

90The Practice of Watershed Protection: Techniques for Protecting and Restor-ing Urban Watersheds

Center for Watershed Protection 2000 Center for Watershed

Protection

Compilation by the Center for Watershed Protection of 150 articles on all aspects of watershed protection and represents a broad interdisciplinary approach to restoring and maintain-ing watershed health. Indexed for easy reference, this massive volume is an invaluable reference for anyone interested in the whys and hows of watershed protection practices. http://www.cwp.org/PublicationStore/practice.htm

91

The Performance of a Multi-stage Sys-tem of Constructed Wetlands for Urban Wastewater Treatment in a Semiarid Region of SE Spain

Cerezo, R. Gómez, M.L. Suárez, and M.R. Vidal-Abarca

Feb-01Ecological Engineering; 16(4): 501-517. February 1, 2001.

92Sewage effluent discharge and geothermal input in a natural wetland, Tongariro Delta, New Zealand

Chague-Goff, C., M.R. Rosen, and P. Eser Jan-99

Ecological Engineering, Volume 12, Number 1, January 1999, pp. 149-170(22).

93 The Use of Wetlands for Water Pollu-tion Control

Chan, E., T.A. Bunsz-tynsky, N. Hantzsche, and Y.J. Litwin

1981

EPA-600/S2-82-086. EPA Municipal Environmental Research Lab., Cincin-nati, OH

94Water Quality Impacts of Climate and Land Use Changes in Southeastern Pennsylvania

Chang, Heejun May-04 PaperThe Professional Geogra-pher, Volume 56, Issue 2, Page 240-257, May 2004

95Removal of Endocrine Disruptors by Tertiary Treatments and Constructed Wetlands in Subtropical Australia

Chapman, H. 2003 Water Science Technol-ogy. 2003;47(9): 151-6.

96Syntrophic-methanogenic associations along a nutrient gradient in the Florida Everglades

Chauhan, A., A. Ogram, and K.R. Reddy

Jun-04

Applied and environ-mental microbiology. 2004 June, v. 70, no.6, p. 3475-3484.

122123


97Chesapeake Bay Program Nutrient Trading Fundamental Principles and Guidelines

Chesapeake Bay Program Mar-01 Report Chesapeake Bay Pro-

gram

This document presents fundamental principles and guidelines for nutrient trading in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. This document is not a regulation. Rather, it is intended to be used on a voluntary basis as a guide for those Bay jurisdictions that choose to establish nutrient trading programs. The document is based on the Negotiation Team’s comprehensive consideration of numerous other trading programs and approaches, substan-tial research, and corresponding lengthy negotiations.

98Nutrient Trading in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Public Workshop Pro-ceedings (361 KB)

Chesapeake Bay Program Apr-01 Report Chesapeake Bay Pro-

gram

The Chesapeake Bay Program completed a document de-lineating nutrient trading guidelines entitled Nutrient Trading Fundamental Principles and Guidelines - Draft and made this document available to the public for review on September 8, 2000. A series of public meetings were held during the months of September and October in a variety of locations around the Chesapeake Bay watershed for the purpose of providing the public with an explanation of the meaning and purpose of the trading guidelines, and to give the public a chance to comment on them. This document is a compilation of the public meeting proceedings prepared for each of the 16 public meetings.

99Nutrient Trading to Maintain the Nutrient Cap in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (128 KB)

Chesapeake Bay Program Dec-98 Report Chesapeake Bay Pro-

gram

This is the workshop proceedings held on December 14, 1998. Its purpose, as delineated on the agenda (see Appendix I) was to initiate a process to develop nutrient trading policies and guidelines to achieve and maintain the Nutrient Cap in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

100 Nutrient Trading for the Chesapeake Bay (109 KB)


gram

This paper addresses the need for nutrient trading in the Chesapeake Bay, the process to develop baywide guidelines, and activities taken elsewhere in the Bay region.

101Nutrient Trading in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Public Comments Summary (286 KB)


gram

Following the release of the Nutrient Trading Fundamental Principles and Guidelines - Draft, sixteen public meetings were collectively held throughout the watershed in each of the signatory jurisdictions. All jurisdictions received numerous public comments during the meetings as well as written comments during the review period. This document is a summary of the comments (both during the public meetings as well as those written) received by the jurisdictions.

102Endorsement of the Nutrient Trading Fundamental Principles and Guide-lines (555 KB)

Chesapeake Bay Program Mar-01 Executive

Council ActionChesapeake Bay Pro-gram

103 Watershed Risk Analysis Model for TVA’s Holston River Basin

Chew, C. W., J. Herr, R. A. Goldstein, F. J. Sagona, K. E. Rylant, and G. E. Hausers

Jul-96 Paper

Water, Air, & Soil Pollution (Histori-cal Archive), Springer Science+Business Media B.V., Formerly Kluwer Academic Publishers B.V. ISSN: 0049-6979 (Paper) 1573-2932 (Online), Volume 90, Numbers 1-2 Pages: 65 - 70

122123


104Seasonal changes of shoot nitrogen concentrations and 15N/14N ratios in common reed in a constructed wetland

Choi, W.J., S.X. Chang, H.M. Ro 2005

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2005, v. 36, no. 19-20, p. 2719-2731.

105 Nutrient Trading Advocated to Improve Water Quality Christen, K. Feb-02 Paper

Environ Sci Technol. 2002 Feb 1;36(3):53A-54A. PMID: 11871571

No abstract available.

106 Dissolved organic nitrogen in contrast-ing agricultural ecosystems

Christou, M., E.J. Av-ramides, J.P. Roberts, D.L. Jones

Aug-05Soil Biology & Biochem-istry. 2005 Aug., v. 37, no. 8, p. 1560-1563.

107 Dimensionless Volatilization Rate for Two Pesticides in a Lake

Ciaravino, Giulio and Carlo Gualtieri Dec-01 Paper

Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Manage-ment, Volume 6, Issue 4, Page 297-303, Dec 2001

108

Chemical Characteristics of Soils and Pore Waters of Three Wetland Sites Dominated by Phragmites australis: Relation to Vegetation Composition and Reed Performance

Cikova, Hana, Libor Pechar, t pán Husák, Jan Kv t, Václav Bauer, Jana Radová, and Keith Edwards

Apr-01 Aquatic Botany; 69(2-4): 235-249. April 2001.

109

Role of Macrophyte Typha latifolia in a Constructed Wetland for Wastewa-ter Treatment and Assessment of Its Potential as a Biomass Fuel

Ciria, M.P., M.L. So-lano, and P. Soriano Dec-05 Biosystems Engineering;

92(4): 535-544. Dec 2005.

110

Role of macrophyte Typha latifolia in a constructed wetland for wastewater treatment and assessment of its poten-tial as a biomass fuel

Ciria, M.P., M.L. So-lano, P. Soriano Dec-05

Biosystems Engineering. 2005 Dec., v. 92, no. 4, p. 535-544.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15375110

111Nitrogen Pools and Soil Characteristics of a Temperate Estuarine Wetland in Eastern Australia

Clarke, P.J. Dec-85Aquatic Botany, Volume 23, Issue 3, December 1985, Pages 275-290

112 Water quality changes from riparian buffer restoration in Connecticut

Clausen, J.C., K. Guillard, C.M. Sig-mund, and K.M. Dors

Nov-Dec-00


113

Thermal Load Credit Trading Plan at Rock Creek and Durham wastewater treatment facilities, OR, Clean Water Services

Clean Water Services Oct-03Temperature Management Plan

Clean Water Services

114Ammonium Oxidation Coupled to Dissimilatory Reduction of Iron Under Anaerobic Conditions in Wetland Soils

Clément, Jean-Chris-tophe, Junu Shrestha, Joan G. Ehrenfeld, and Peter R. Jaffé

Dec-05Soil Biology and Bio-chemistry; 37(12): 2323-2328. Dec 2005.

124125


115

Search for the Northwest Passage: The Assignation of NSP (non-point source pollution) Rights in Nutrient Trading Programs

Collentine, D. 2002 PaperWater Sci Technol; 45(9):227-34. 2002. PMID: 12079107

Paper from the Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala that analyzes the lack of success in nutrient trading programs. Tradable permit solutions are based on an assumption that the assignation of quantifi-able rights to both point and nonpoint sources, based on some predetermined ambient water quality measure, is possible. The conclusion here is that there are significant features particular to NSP that hinder the introduction of rights and significantly decrease the utility of tradable permit solutions.

116 Including Non-point Sources in a Water Quality Trading Permit Program Collentine, D. 2005 Paper

Water Sci Technol; 51(3-4):47-53. 2005. PMID: 15850173

A paper that analyzes the problems with Transferable Dis-charge Permit (TDP) systems and describes a composite market system that may solve some of the common problems. Problems with TDP systems are transaction costs and in the case of non-point sources (NPS), undefined property rights. The composite market design specifically includes agricultural NPS dischargers and addresses both property rights and transaction cost problems.

117Setting Permit Prices in a Transferable Discharge Permit (TDP) System for Water Quality Management

Collentine, D. 2005

Paper prepared for presentation at the 99th seminar of the EAAE (European Association of Agricultural Economists), Copenhagen, Denmark August 24-27, 2005

http://www.eaae2005.dk/CONTRIBUTED_PAPERS/S11_250_Collentine.pdf

118 Including Non-point Sources in a Water Quality Trading Permit Collentine, Dennis 2003 Diffuse Pollution Confer-

ence, Dublin 2003

This paper proposes an innovative design for a Transferable Discharge Permit (TDP) system, a composite market system. The composite market design is a proposal for a TDF system, which specifically includes agricultural non-point source (NPS) dischargers and addresses both property rights and transaction cost problems.

119Economic Modelling of Best Manage-ment Practices (BMPs) at the Farm Level

Collentine, Dennis 2002

In Steenvoorden, J.(ed.), Agricultural Effects on Ground and Surface Waters. IAHS Publication no. 273, 17-22.

http://www.envtn.org/docs/EMM_WHITE_PAPERApril04.pdf

120

Restoration of Wetlands from Aban-doned Rice Fields for Nutrient Re-moval, and Biological Community and Landscape Diversity

Comín, Francisco A. , José A. Romero, Oli-ver Hernández, and Margarita Menéndez

Jun-01 PaperRestoration Ecology, Volume 9, Issue 2, Page 201-208, Jun 2001

A number of experimental freshwater wetlands with different ages since they were abandoned as rice fields, were used to analyze the prospects of multipurpose wetland restoration for such degraded areas. Nitrogen and phosphorus removal rate of the wetlands was determined monthly during the flooding season to estimate their efficiency as filters to remove nutrients from agricultural sewage. Both the temporal dynamics and changes in the spatial pattern of land use cover during the last 20 years were determined from aerial photographs and field analysis. All the wetlands appeared to be very efficient in the removal of nitrogen and phosphorus exported from rice fields.

121Nitrogen Removal and Cycling in Restored Wetlands Used as Filters of Nutrients for Agricultural Runoff

Comín, Francisco A., Jose A. Romero, Valeria Astorga and Carmen García


124125


122Comparison of Created and Natural Freshwater Emergent Wetlands in Con-necticut (USA)

Confer, S.R. and W.A. Niering 1992 Wetlands Ecology & Man-

agement. 2(3):143-156

123

Watershed Economic Incentives Through Phosphorous Trading and Wa-ter Quality, Innovations in Watershed Stewardship

Conservation Authori-ties of Ontario Jun-05 Conservation Authorities

of Ontario

124Reducing Diffuse Pollution through Implementation of Agricultural Best Management Practices: A Case Study

Cook, M.G., P.G. Hunt, K.C. Stone and J.H. Canterberry

1996

Water Science and Technology, Volume 33, Issues 4-5, 1996, Pages 191-196

125The Use of a Constructed Wetland for the Amelioration of Elevated Nutrient Concentrations in Shallow Groundwater

Cook, Michael J. and Robert O. Evans 2001

Paper number 012102, 2001 ASAE Annual Meet-ing . @2001

126 Anthropogenic landscapes and soils due to constructed vernal pools

Cook, T.D. and K. Whitney 2002 Soil Survey Horizons. Fall

2002. v. 43 (3) p. 83-89.

127 Use of Constructed Wetland to Protect Bathing Water Quality

Coombes, C. and P. J. Collett 1995


128 Constructed Wetlands in Water Pollu-tion Control

Cooper, P.F. and B.C. Findlater 1990

IAWPRC. Pergamon Press, Inc., Maxwell House, NY

129 Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act

Copeland, Claudia (Resources, Science, and Industry Division)

Apr-05 BriefingCRS Issue Brief for Congress Order Code IB89102

http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/05apr/IB89102.pdf

130 Stormwater Permits: Status of EPA’s Regulatory Program

Copeland, Claudia (Specialist in Re-sources and Environ-mental Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division)

Feb-05 Briefing CRS Report for Congress 97-290 ENR http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/05Feb/97-290.pdf

131 Response of biogeochemical indicators to a drawdown and subsequent reflood

Corstanje, R. and K.R. Reedy

Nov-Dec-04


132

Introduction: Assessing Non-point Source Pollution in the Vadose Zone with Advanced Information Technolo-gies

Corwin, D.L., K. Loague, and T.R. Ellsworth

1999

pg. 1-20. In D.L. Corwin, K. Loague, and T.R. Ells-worth (ed.). Assessment of non-point source pol-lution in the vadose zone. AGU. Washing ton, D.C.

133

Removal of Municipal Solid Waste COD and NH4-N by Phyto-reduction: A Laboratory-scale Comparison of Terrestrial and Aquatic Species at Dif-ferent Organic Loads

Cossu, Raffaell, Ketil Haarstad, M. Cristina Lavagnolo, and Paolo Littarru

Feb-01Ecological Engineering; 16(4): 459-470. February 1, 2001.

126127


134

Preliminary Investigation of an Inte-grated Aquaculture-wetland Ecosystem Using Tertiary-treated Municipal Waste-water in Los Angeles County, California

Costa-Pierce, Barry A. Jul-98

Ecological Engineering, Volume 10, Issue 4, July 1998, Pages 341-354

135 Nutrient Removal from Eutrophic Lake Water by Wetland Filtration

Coveney, M.F., D.L. Stites, E.F. Lowe, L.E. Battoe, and R. Conrow

Aug-02 Ecological Engineering; 19(2): 141-159. Aug 2002.

136 Rehabilitation of Freshwater Fisheries: Tales of the Unexpected?

Cowx, I. G., M. van Zyll de Jong Jun-04 Paper

Fisheries Management and Ecology, Volume 11, Issue 3-4, Page 243-249, Jun 2004

137Forms and amounts of soil nitrogen and phosphorus across a longleaf pine-depressional wetland landscape

Craft, C.B. and C. Chiang

Sep-Oct-02

Soil Science Society of America journal. Sept/Oct 2002. v. 66 (5) p. 1713-1721.

138 Removal of metals in constructed wetlands

Crites, R.W., R.C. Watson, and C.R. Willams

1995

In: Proceedings of WEFTEC 1995, Miami, FL. Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VI.

139

Comparative Changes in Water Quality and Role of Pond Soil After Applica-tion of Different Levels of Organic and Inorganic Inputs

Das, Pratap Chandra, Subanna Ayyappan, and Joykrushna Jena

Jun-05 PaperAquaculture Research, Volume 36, Issue 8, Page 785-798, Jun 2005

Changes in water parameters were studied in a yard experiment for 7 weeks after application of cow dung, poultry manure, feed mixture and inorganic fertilizers. To study the role of soil in the mineralization process, each treatment was divided into two groups - one with and the other without soil substrate. Higher degree of changes in water parameters was observed at higher input levels. Both organic amendment and inorganic fertilization caused significant reduction (P<0.05) in dissolved oxygen and increase in free CO2, dissolved organic matter, total ammo-nia, nitrite, nitrate and phosphorus contents of water. Organic inputs significantly decreased (P<0.05) water pH and increased total alkalinity and hardness. In contrast, inorganic fertilization caused a significant increase in pH; alkalinity and hardness increased significantly in the presence of soil, but reduced in its absence. In organic input, presence of soil substrate caused significantly lower value of pH, dissolved oxygen, dissolved or-ganic matter and phosphate-phosphorus and significantly higher free CO2, alkalinity, hardness, ammonia, nitrite and nitrate contents, compared with those in the absence of soil, revealing enhanced microbial mineralization in the presence of soil.

140The influence of organic carbon on nitrogen transformations in five wetland soils

Davidsson, T.E. and M. Stahl

May-Jun-00

Soil Science Society of America journal. May/June 2000. v. 64 (3) p. 1129-1136.

141

Temporally Dependent C, N, and P Dynamics Associated with the Decay of Rhizophora mangle L. Leaf Litter in Oligotrophic Mangrove Wetlands of the Southern Everglades

Davis, Stephen E., III, Carlos Corronado-Molina, Daniel L. Childers, and John W. Day, Jr.

Mar-03 Aquatic Botany; 75(3): 199-215. March 2003.

126127


142The Use of Wetlands in the Mississippi Delta for Wastewater Assimilation: A Review

Day, J.W., Jr., Jae-Young Ko, J. Ryb-czyk, D. Sabins, R. Bean, G. Berthelot, C. Brantley, L. Cardoch and W. Conner, et al.

2004Ocean & Coastal Man-agement; 47(11-12): 671-691. 2004.

143 Nutrient fluxes at the river basin scale. I: the PolFlow model De Wit, M. 2001 Hydrological Processes

15:743-759.

144 Nutrient fluxes in the Rhine and Elbe basins De Wit, M. 1999 PhD thesis

Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Utrecht Uni-versity, Netherlands Geo-graphical Studies:259. The Netherlands.

145 Nutrient Fluxes in the Po Basin de Wit, M. and G. Bendoricchio 2001 Paper

Sci Total Environ. 2001 Jun 12;273(1-3):147-61. PMID: 11419598

146Removing Muck With Markets: A Case Study on Pollutant Trading for Cleaner Water

DeAlessi, M. Aug-03 Policy Brief Reason Foundations http://rppi.org/pb24.pdf

147 Nitrogen Cycling in Wetlands DeBusk, W.F. 1999

University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Science, Gainesville, FL.

148 Nonpoint Source Pollution Reductions-Estimating a Tradable Commodity Dedrick, Allen Jul-03 PowerPoint 2003 National Forum on Water Quality Trading

149

Benefits to Downstream Flood Attenu-ation and Water Quality As a Result of Constructed Wetlands in Agricultural Landscapes

DeLaney, T.A. 1995 American Farmland Trust http://www.aftresearch.org/researchresource/caepubs/delaney.html (January 2006).

150

A Screening of the Capacity of Louisi-ana Freshwater Wetlands to Process Nitrate in Diverted Mississippi River Water

DeLaune, R.D., A. Jugsujinda, J.L.West, C.B. Johnson, and M. Kongchum

Nov-05Ecological Engineering; 25(4): 315-321. Nov 1, 2005.

151The Banking Experience: Environmen-tal Performance Standards & Credit Release

Denisoff, Craig Wildlands, Inc.

7/11-12/2005 Presentation Audio Recording

152The Banking Experience: Environmen-tal Performance Standards & Credit Release

Denisoff, Craig Wildlands, Inc.

7/11-12/2005 Presentation PowerPoint Presentation

Presented at National Forum on Synergies Between Water Quality Trading and Wetland Mitigation Banking. Describes framework for establishing banks, including outlines of perfor-mance standards, credit release, and monitoring. Draws on information from existing mitigation banks in CA. - http://www2.eli.org/research/wqt_main.htm

153 Economic Instruments for Water Pol-lution

Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

Sep-99 ReportDepartment for Environ-ment, Food & Rural Affairs

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/econinst2/in-dex.htm

128129


154 Water Pollution Discharges: Economic Instruments

Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

Jan-98 ReportDepartment for Environ-ment, Food & Rural Affairs

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/econinst1/in-dex.htm Note: Annex 3 International experience (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/econinst1/eiwp09.htm)

155Nitrate dynamics in relation to lithology and hydrologic flow path in a river riparian zone

Devito, K.J., D. Fitzgerald, A.R. Hill, and R. Aravena

Jul-Aug-00


156

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation-based Treatment Wetlands for Removing Phosphorus from Agricultural Runoff: Response to Hydraulic and Nutrient Loading

Dierberg, F.E., T.A. DeBusk, S.D. Jack-son, M.J. Chimney, and K. Pietro

Mar-02 Water Resources. 2005 Mar;36(6): 1409-22.

157 Geographic Distribution of Endangered Species in the United States

Dobson, A.P., J.P. Rodrigues, W.M. Roberts, and D.S. Wilcove

1997 Science, 275: 550-555

158

Economic Analysis as a Basis for Large-Scale Nitrogen Control Deci-sions: Reducing Nitrogen Loads to the Gulf of Mexico.

Doering O.C., M. Ribaudo, F. Diaz-Her-melo, R. Heimlich, F. Hitzhusen, C. How-ard, R. Kazmierczak, J. Lee, L. Libby, W. Milon, M. Peters, and A. Prato

Oct-01 Paper

ScientificWorldJournal. 2001 Oct 23;1 Suppl 2:968-75. PMID: 12805894 [PubMed - in-dexed for MEDLINE]

Economic analysis can be a guide to determining the level of actions taken to reduce nitrogen (N) losses and reduce envi-ronmental risk in a cost-effective manner while also allowing consideration of relative costs of controls to various groups. The biophysical science of N control, especially from nonpoint sources such as agriculture, is not certain. Widespread precise data do not exist for a river basin (or often even for a water-shed) that couples management practices and other actions to reduce nonpoint N losses with specific delivery from the basin. The causal relationships are clouded by other factors influenc-ing N flows, such as weather, temperature, and soil charac-teristics. Even when the science is certain, economic analysis has its own sets of uncertainties and simplifying economic assumptions. The economic analysis of the National Hypoxia Assessment provides an example of economic analysis based on less than complete scientific information that can still provide guidance to policy makers about the economic consequences of alternative approaches. One critical value to policy makers comes from bounding the economic magnitude of the conse-quences of alternative actions. Another value is the identification of impacts outside the sphere of initial concerns. Such analysis can successfully assess relative impacts of different degrees of control of N losses within the basin as well as outside the basin. It can demonstrate the extent to which costs of control of any one action increase with the intensity of application of control.

159 Great Lakes Commission Point-Coun-terpoint on USEPA’s Trading Policy

Donahue, Michael J.(Ph.D.)

Mar-Apr 2003

Advisor, Great Lakes Trading Network, March/April 2003Volume 16, No.2

160HSPFParm: An Interactive Database for HSPF Model Parameters, Version 1.0

Donigian, A.S., Jr., J.C. Imhoff, and J.L. Kittle, Jr.

1999EPA-823-R-99-004. U.S. EPA, Washington DC 38pp.

128129


161

Modelling Nitrogen Transformations in Freshwater Wetlands: Estimating Nitro-gen Retention and Removal in Natural Wetlands in Relation to their Hydrology and Nutrient Loadings

Dørge, Jesper Sep-94Ecological Modelling, Vol-umes 75-76, September 1994, Pages 409-420

162

Pollution Diffuse et Gestion du Milieu Agricole: Transferts Compares de Phosphore et d’Azote dans un Petit Bassin Versant Agricole: Non-Point Pollution and Management of Agricul-tural Areas: Phosphorus and Nitrogen Transfer in an Agricultural Watershed

Dorioz, J.M. and A. Ferhi Feb-94

Water Research, Volume 28, Issue 2, February 1994, Pages 395-410

163Phosphorus saturation potential: a parameter for estimating the longevity of constructed wetland systems

Drizo, A., Y. Co-meau, C. Forget, R.P. Chapuis

Nov-02Environmental Science & Technology. Nov 1, 2002. v. 36 (21) p. 4642-4648.

164Evaluation of Total Nitrogen Pollution Reduction Strategies in a River Basin: A Case Study

Drolc, A., J.Z. Kon-dan, and M. Cotman 2001 Paper

Water Sci Technol. 2001;44(6):55-62. PMID: 11700664

In this paper, the methodology of the material flow analysis is presented and applied to develop a nitrogen balance in a river basin and to evaluate different scenarios for total nitrogen pollution reduction. Application of the methodology is illustrated by means of a case study on the Krka river, Slovenia. Different scenarios are considered: the present level of sewerage and treatment capacities, different stages of wastewater treatment and management of agricultural activities on land. The results show that beside effluents from wastewater treatment plants, agriculture contributes significantly to the total annual nitrogen load. Therefore, in order to protect river water quality and drink-ing water supply, strategies to manage agricultural nitrogen will be needed in addition to reduction of point sources by means of wastewater collection and implementation of nutrient removal technology.

165 Phosphorus retention and sorption by constructed wetland soils in southeast Ireland

Dunne, E.J., N. Culle-ton, G. O’Donovan, R. Harrington, K. Daly

Nov-05Water Research. 2005 Nov., v. 39, issue 18, p. 4355-4362.

166

The Three Rivers Project--Water Quality Monitoring and Management Systems in the Boyne, Liffey and Suir Catchments in Ireland

Earle, J.R. 2003 PaperWater Sci Technol. 2003;47(7-8):217-25. PMID: 12793683

167 Phosphorus Trade Credits for Non-Point Source Projects

Earles, T. Andrew, Wayne F. Lorenz, and Wilbur L. Koger

2005

World Water Congress 2005 Impacts of Global Climate Change World Water and Envi-ronmental Resources Congress 2005 Raymond Walton - Editor, May 15–19, 2005, An-chorage, Alaska, USA

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=ASCECP000173040792000214000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes Available for purchase

168 Design methdology of free water sur-face constructed wetlands

Economopoulou, M.A. and V.A. Tsihrintzis Dec-04

Water Resources Man-agement. 2004 Dec., v. 18, no. 6, p. 541-565.

http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0920-4741/contents

130131


169

DUFLOW, a microcomputer pack-age for simulation of one-dimentional unsteady flow and water quality in open channel systems

EDS. 1998 Leidchendam, The Neth-erlands.

170Effective Enforcement and Compli-ance in the EU ETS: A View from the Financial Sector

Edwards, Rupert 3/16-18/2004 Presentation Climate Change Capital http://www.inece.org/emissions/edwards.pdf

171 Performance of Constructed Wetland System for Public Water Supply

Elias, J.M., E. Salati Filho, and E. Salati 2001

Water Science Technol-ogy. 2001;44(11-12):579-84.

172The Impact of a Riparian Wetland on Streamwater Quality in a Recently Af-forested Upland Catchment

Emmett, B.A., J.A. Hudson, P.A. Coward and B. Reynolds

Nov-94

Journal of Hydrology, Volume 162, Issues 3-4, November 1994, Pages 337-353

173 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control: Breaking the Regulatory Stalemate

Environmental De-fense

Environmental Trading Network

174

Background Information on Water Quality Trading and Wetland Mitigation Banking by the Environmental Law Institute

Environmental Law Institute Web page Environmental Law

Institute

175 Water Quality Trading Nonpoint Credit Bank Model

Environmental Trad-ing Network 2003 Paper

National Association of Conservation Districts

http://www.envtn.org/docs/TradingBankModelPaper.doc CREDIT SALE REVENUE SCENARIOS: http://www.envtn.org/docs/TradingBankModel-CreditScenarios.doc

176

Great Lakes Protection Fund - Final Report Market-Based Approach to Ecosystem Improvement - Grant #609

Environmental Trad-ing Network

Environmental Trading Network http://www.envtn.org/docs/finalGLPFreport.pdf

177Fertile Ground: Nutrient Trading’s Potential to Cost-effectively Improve Water Quality.

Environmental Trad-ing Network 2000 Paper World Resources Insti-

tute, Washington, DC.

Background information for the National Forum on Synergies Between Water Quality Trading and Wetland Mitigation Banking - http://www2.eli.org/research/wqt_main.htm

178 2002 Cost for Connecticut Nitrogen Trades

Environmental Trad-ing Network

Ac-cessed Jan. 31, 2006

Attachment Environmental Trading Network

179 Stormwater Trading ArticlesEPA National Risk Management Re-search Laboratory

ArticlesEPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory

180 Using Tradable Credits to Control Excess Stormwater Runoff

EPA National Risk Management Re-search Laboratory

ReportEPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory

181

Prevention of Mosquito Production at an Aquaculture Wastewater Reclama-tion Plant in San Diego, California using an innovative sprinkler system

Epibare, R., E. Hei-dig, and D.W. Gibson 1993

In: Bulletin of the Society for Vector Ecology 18(1):40-44.

130131


182 Concept Paper for a Nutrient Trading Policy, Revision 5

Eskin, R. and V. Kearney Aug-97 Paper Maryland Department of

the Environment

183 Ecological Engineering for Wastewater Treatment

Etnier, C. and B. Guterstam 1991 Bokskogen, Gothenburg,

Sweden

184 Cypress Swamps Ewel and Odum 1985University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL. 1985.

185The Potential for Nutrient Trading in Minnesota: The Case of the Minnesota River Valley

Faeth, P. Feb-98 Draft Report World Resources Institute

186 Market-Based Incentive and Water Quality Faeth, P. 1999 Paper World Resources Institute http://www.igc.org/wri/incentives/faeth.html

187The Use of Water Quality Trading and Wetland Restoration to Address Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico

Faeth, Paul World Resources Institute


188 Nutrient Runoff Creates Dead Zone Faeth, Paul and G. Tracy Mehan, III Jan-05 Paper

WRI Features, Vol. 3, No. 1. World Resources Insti-tute, Washington, DC.


189 A Climate and Environmental Strategy for U.S. Agriculture

Faeth, Paul and Greenhalgh, Suzie Nov-00 Paper

WRI Issue Brief, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.


190Stable Isotope Dynamics of Nitrogen Sewage Effluent Uptake in a Semi-arid Wetland

Fair, Jeanne M. and Jeffrey M. Heikoop Oct-05

Environmental Pollu-tion, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 4 October 2005

191Pollution Trading to Offset New Pol-lutant Loadings--A Case Study in the Minnesota River Basin

Fang, F. and K.W. Easter Jul-03 presentation

American Agricultural Economics Associa-tion Annual Meeting in Montreal, Canada, July 27-30, 2003

This paper provides a detailed overview of two water pollution trading projects in Minnesota and tries to answer the question: have these two projects been cost-effective and environmentally beneficial? Specific objectives of this paper include: (1) to pro-vide an in-depth examination of the two point-nonpoint source trading projects, (2) to conduct cost effectiveness analysis of the nonpoint source loading reduction practices used in the two projects for trading, (3) to evaluate the role of scientific un-certainty played in these two projects, and (4) to look for other social benefits that such offsetting pollution trading efforts can offer to a watershed.

192Preliminary Analysis of Water Qual-ity Trading Opportunities in the Great Miami River Watershed, Ohio

Fang, F., M. S. Kieser, D. L. Hall, N. C. Ott, and S. C. Hippensteel

un-known Paper

American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan www.asabe.org

http://asae.frymulti.com/abstract.asp?aid=18044&t=2

193Point-Nonpoint Source Water Quality Trading: A Case Study in the Minnesota River Basin

Fang, Feng (Andrew), K. William Easter, and Patrick L. Brezonik

2005 Journal Article

Journal of the Ameri-can Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 41(3):645-658.

132133


194 Physical and chemical characteristics of freshwater wetland soils

Faulkner, S.P. and C.J. Richardson 1989

In: Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment – Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.

195 Wetlands: the lifeblood of wildlife Feierabend, J.S. 1989

In: D.A. Hammer (ed.) Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment, Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural. Lewis Pub-lishers, Chelsea, MI.

196Seasonal and Storm Event Nutrient Removal by a Created Wetland in an Agricultural Watershed

Fink, Daniel F. and William J. Mitsch Dec-04


197 Wetland nutrient removal: a review of the evidence

Fisher, J. and M.C. Acreman Aug-04

Hydrology and earth sys-tem sciences. 2004 Aug., v. 8, no. 4, p. 673-685.

http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/hess/published_papers.html

198 Phosphorus flux from wetland soils af-fected by long-term nutrient loading

Fisher, M.M. and K.R. Reddy

Jan-Feb-01

Journal of environmental quality. Jan/Feb 2001. v. 30 (1) p. 261-271.

199Capped and Non-capped Emissions Trading: Applying Lessons from Water Quality Trading

Fisher-Vanden, K. and H. Jacobs, C. Schary

2002 Working paper

200 The potential role of ponds as buffer zones

Fleischer, S; Joels-son, A; Stibe, L

Quest Environmental, PO BOX 45, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL5 5LJ (UK). pp. 140-146. 1997.

Governmental programmes and international agreements to counteract eutrophication have largely not attained agreed goals (e. g. reduction by half of the anthropogenic nitrogen load on Swedish coastal waters, to be carried out between 1985 and 1995). To attain the agreed goal of a 50 percent reduction of the nitrogen transport in streams, decreased agricultural leaching must be combined with extensive pond and wetland construc-tion.

201

Balancing Wildlife Needs and Nitrate Removal in Constructed Wetlands: The Case of the Irvine Ranch Water District’s San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctu-ary

Fleming-Singer, Maia S. and Alexander J. Horne

Nov-05

Ecological Engineer-ing, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 28 November 2005

202

Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection Agency

Fletcher, Susan (Coordinator Specialist in Environ-mental Policy Resources, Science and Industry Division)

Mar-05 Briefing CRS Report for Congress http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/05mar/RL30798.pdf

203Nitrate removal in a riparian wetland of the Appalachian Valley and ridge physiographic province

Flite, O.P. III., R.D. Shannon, R.R. Schnabel, and R.R. Parizek

Jan-Feb-01

Journal of environmental quality. Jan/Feb 2001. v. 30 (1) p. 254-261.

132133


204Nitrogen Removal from Domestic Wastewater Using the Marshland Up-welling System

Fontenot, Jeremy, Dorin Boldor, and Kelly A. Rusch

Jan-06

Ecological Engineer-ing, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 6 January 2006

205 Point-Nonpoint Pollutant Trading Study Fordiani, R. Jun-96 Presentation Water Environment Fed-eration and U.S. EPA

Published in Proceedings of Watersheds ‘96. http://www.epa.gov/owowwtr1/watershed/Proceed/fordiani.html

206 Basinlink Fox-Wolf Basin 2000 2000 Newsletter Vol. 2, No.3.

207 Watershed-Based Trading & The Law: Wisconsin’s Experience Fox-Wolf Basin 2000 2000 Report http://www.fwb2k.org/research/legalrpt/tradelaw.htm

208

A Test of Four Plant Species to Reduce Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus from Soil Leachate in Subsurface Wet-land Microcosms

Fraser, Lauchlan H., Spring M. Carty and David Steer

Sep-04Bioresource Technology; 94(2): 185-192. Sept 2004.

209Nitrate Removal by Denitrification in Al-luvial Ground Water: Role of a Former Channel

Fustec, E., A. Mari-otti, X. Grillo and J. Sajus

Mar-91

Journal of Hydrology, Volume 123, Issues 3-4, March 1991, Pages 337-354

210Detritus Processing and Mineral Cy-cling in Seagrass (Zostera) Litter in an Oregon Salt Marsh

Gallagher, John L., Harold V. Kibby and Katherine W. Skirvin

Oct-84Aquatic Botany, Volume 20, Issues 1-2, October 1984, Pages 97-108

211Design and Construction of Demon-stration/Research Wetlands for Treat-ment of Dairy Farm Wastewater

Gamroth, M.J. and J.A. Moore Apr-93

EPA/600/R-93/105. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR

212The Making of a Regulatory Crisis: Restructuring New York City’s Water Supply

Gandy, Matthew Sep-97 Paper

Transactions of the Institute of British Ge-ographers, Volume 22, Issue 3, Page 338-358, Sep 1997

213

Ecosystem Structure, Nutrient Dynam-ics, and Hydrologic Relationships in Tree Islands of the Southern Ever-glades, Florida, USA

Gann, Tiffany, G.Childers, Daniel L. Troxler, and Damon N. Rondeau

Aug-05Forest Ecology and Man-agement; 214(1-3):11-27. Aug 2005.

214Telephone Interview with Rich Gan-non, North Carolina Division of Water Quality

Gannon, Rich 09-Dec-05

215

WQC Item no. 3 EMC Item no. 03-38 Request for Approval of Local Nitrogen Strategies Tar-Pamlico Agriculture Rule: A Report to the NC Environmental Management Commission from the Tar-Pamlico Basin Oversight Committee

Gannon, Rich October 8 - 9, 2003

North Carolina Division of Water Quality

Report to the N.C. Environmental Management Comission (EMC) from the the Basin Oversight Committee (BOC) on the progress of the Nitrogen Reduction Program and to obtain EMC approval of fourteen local strategies for achieving the Agricul-ture rule’s basinwide nitrogen goal of a 30% reduction in loading from baseline 1991 levels by 2006. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/EMCRpt-LocStrtgs10-03prn.pdf

216Nutient Enrichment of Wetland Veg-etation and Sediments in Subtropical Pastures

Gathumbi, S.M., P.J. Bohlen, and D.A. Graetz

2005Soil Science Society of America Journal; 69: 539-548. 2005.

134135


217

The use of mangrove wetland as a biofilter to treat shrimp pond effluents: preliminary results of an experiment on the Caribbean coast of Colombia

Gautier, D., J. Ama-dor, and F. Newmark Oct-01

Aquaculture research. Oct 2001. v. 32 (10) p. 787-799.

218

The Use of Free Surface Constructed Wetland as an Alternative Process Treatment Train to Meet Unrestricted Water Reclamation Standards

Gearheart, R.A. 1999


219 Suitability of a Treatment Wetland for Dairy Wastewaters

Geary, P.M. and J.A. Moore 1999


220

Horizontal Subsurface Flow Systems in the German Speaking Countries: Summary of Long-term Scientific and Practical Experiences; Recommenda-tions

Geller, Gunther 1997Water Science and Tech-nology, Volume 35, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 157-166

221

Nitrogen Transformations in a Wetland Receiving Lagoon Effluent: Sequen-tial Model and Implications for Water Reuse

Gerke, Sara, Law-rence A. Baker, and Ying Xu

Nov-01Water Research; 35(16): 3857-3866. November 2001.

222 Nitrogen Removal in Artificial WetlandsGersberg, R.M., B.V. Elkins and C.R. Gold-man

1983Water Research, Volume 17, Issue 9, 1983, Pages 1009-1014

223 Role of Aquatic Plants in Wastewater Treatment by Artificial Wetlands

Gersberg, R.M., B.V. Elkins, S.R. Lyon and C.R. Goldman

Mar-86Water Research, Volume 20, Issue 3, March 1986, Pages 363-368

224 The Removal of Heavy Metals by Artifi-cial Wetlands

Gersberg, R.M., S.R. Lyon, B.Y. Elkins, and C.R. Goldman

1984EPA-600/D-84-258. Robt. S. Kerr Env. Research Lab., Ada, OK

225

Mass Loss, Fungal Colonisation and Nutrient Dynamics of Phragmites aus-tralis Leaves During Senescence and Early Aerial Decay

Gessner, Mark O. Apr-01 Aquatic Botany; 69(2-4): 325-339. April 2001.

226 Environmental Flows and Water Quality Objectives for the River Murray

Gippel, C., T. Jacobs, and T. McLeod 2002 Paper

Water Sci Technol. 2002;45(11):251-60. MID: 12171360 [PubMed - in-dexed for MEDLINE]

This paper considers a plan for managing flows in the River Murray to provide environmental benefits. Described are four key aspects of the process being undertaken to determine the objectives, and design the flow options that will meet those objectives: establishment of an appropriate technical, advisory and administrative framework; establishing clear evidence for regulation impacts; undergoing assessment of environmental flow needs; and filling knowledge gaps.

227A Comparison of Rain-related Phos-phorus and Nitrogen Loading from Ur-ban, Wetland, and Agricultural Sources

Glandon, R.P., F.C. Payne, C.D. McNabb and T.R. Batterson

1981Water Research, Volume 15, Issue 7, 1981, Pages 881-887

134135


228 Ecological Considerations in Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters

Godfrey, P.J., E.R. Kaynor, S. Pelczarski and J. Benforado (eds)

1985 Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY

229 Surmounting the Engineering Chal-lenges of Everglades Restoration Goforth, G.F. 2001


230

Symbiont Nitrogenase, Alder Growth, and Soil Nitrate Response to Phospho-rus Addition in Alder (Alnus incana ssp. rugosa) Wetlands of the Adirondack Mountains, New York State, USA

Gökkaya, Kemal, Todd M. Hurd, and Dudley J. Raynal

Jan-06Environmental and Ex-perimental Botany; 55(1-2): 97-109. Jan 2006.

231 Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Pro-cesses and Management Potential

Good, R.E., D.F. Whigham, and R.L. Simpson (eds)

1978 Academic Press, New York, NY

232 The Origins and Practice of Emissions Trading

Gorman, H.S. and B.D. Solomon 2002 Paper Journal of Policy History,

2002

233Modelling drainage practice impacts on the quantity and quality of stream flows for an agricultural watershed in Ohio

Gowda, P.H., A.D. Ward, D.A. White, D.B. Baker, and T.J. Logan

1998

In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposia of the ASAE, Orlando, FL.

234Rule Enforcing Selenium Load Alloca-tion and Establishing a Tradable Loads Program for Water Year 1999

Grassland Basin Drainage Steering Committee

Jan-99 Draft rule Grassland Basin Drain-age Steering Committee

235The Nutrient Assimilative Capacity of Maerl as a Substrate in Constructed Wetland Systems for Waste Treatment

Gray, Shalla, John Kinross, Paul Read, and Angus Marland

Jun-00 Water Research: 34(8): 2183-2190. June 2000.

236 Second Semi-Annual Report to the Great Lakes Protection Fund

Great Lakes Trading Network Dec-98 Report Great Lakes Trading

Network http://www.deq.state.mi.us/swq/trading/htm/GLTNrept2.htm

237 2nd Semi-Annual Report Great Lakes Trading Network Dec-98 Report Great Lakes Trading

Network Includes a summary of trading programs in the Appendices

238 Categorization of Issues Great Lakes Trading Network

Great Lakes Trading Network

239 List of Issues Encountered Great Lakes Trading Network

Great Lakes Trading Network

240

Differences in wetland plant commu-nity establishment with additions of nitrate-N and invasive species (Phalaris arundinaceae and Typha xglauca)

Green, E.K. and S.M. Galatowitsch Feb-01

Canadian journal of bota-ny = Journal canadien de botanique Feb 2001. v. 79 (2) p. 170-178.

241Constructed Wetlands for River Recla-mation: Experimental Design, Start-up and Preliminary Results

Green, Michal, Iris Safray and Moshe Agami

Feb-96

Bioresource Technol-ogy, Volume 55, Issue 2, February 1996, Pages 157-162

136137


242 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater

Greenberg, A.E., L.S. Clescer, and A.D. Eaton, eds.

199218th ed. American Public Health Association. Water Environment Federation.

243A Potential Integrated Water Quality Strategy for the Mississippi River Basin and the Gulf of Mexico

Greenhalgh S, and P. Faeth Nov-01 paper

Scientific World Journal; 1(2):976-83. Nov 22, 2001.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12805841&dopt=Citation

244Awakening the Dead Zone: An Invest-ment for Agriculture, Water Quality, and Climate Change

Greenhalgh, Suzie and Amanda Sauer Feb-03 Paper

WRI Issue Brief, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.


245

Suitability of Macrophytes for Nutri-ent Removal from Surface Flow Constructed Wetlands Receiving Secondary Treated Sewage Effluent in Queensland, Australia

Greenway, M. Water Sci Technol. 2003;48(2):121-8.

246

The Role of Constructed Wetlands in Secondary Effluent Treatment and Water Reuse in Subtropical and Arid Australia

Greenway, Margaret Dec-05Ecological Engineering; 25(5): 501-509. Dec. 1, 2005.

247Nutrient Content of Wetland Plants in Constructed Wetlands Receiving Mu-nicipal Effluent in Tropical Australia

Greenway, Margaret 1997Water Science and Tech-nology, Volume 35, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 135-142

248Constructed Wetlands in Queensland: Performance Efficiency and Nutrient Bioaccumulation

Greenway, Margaret and Anne Woolley 1999

Ecological Engineering, Volume 12, Issues 1-2, January 1999, Pages 39-55

249

Indigenous Sediment Microbial Activ-ity in Response to Nutrient Enrich-ment and Plant Growth Following a Controlled Oil Spill on a Freshwater Wetland

Greer, C.W., N. Fortin, R. Roy, L.G. Whyte, and K. Lee

Apr-03 Bioremediation Journal; 7(1): 69-80. Apr 15, 2003.

250 Wetland Functions and Values: The State of Our Understanding

Greeson, P.E., J.R. Clark and J.E. Clark (eds)

1979 Amer. Water Resources Assoc., Minneapolis, MN

251Cost-effective Nutrient Reductions to Coupled Heterogeneous Marine Water Basins: An Application to the Baltic Sea

Gren, I-M, and F. Wulff Dec-04 Paper

Regional Environmental Change, ISSN: 1436-3798 (Paper) 1436-378X (Online), Issue: Volume 4, Number 4, pg 159-168

In this paper, the role of nutrient transports between marine ba-sins is investigated for cost-effective solutions to predetermined marine basin targets. The interdependent advective nutrient transports as well as retentions among the seven major marine basins of the Baltic Sea are described by input-output analysis. This is in contrast to prior economic studies of transbound-ary water pollution that include only direct transport between the basins. The analytical results show that the difference in impacts between transport specifications depends mainly on the openness of the basins, that is, their transports with other basins. The application on Baltic Sea shows significant differ-ences in costs and policy design between the nutrient transport specifications. The reason is that the Sea is characterized by long water and nutrient residence times, so relatively large parts of nutrients are transported among basins.

136137


252The Advantages of a Constructed Reed Bed Based Strategy for Small Sewage Treatment Works

Griffin, P. and C. Pamplin 1998


253Advanced Nitrogen Removal by Rotat-ing Biological Contactors, Recycle and Constructed Wetlands

Griffin, P., P. Jennings and E. Bowman 1999


254Hydraulic characteristics of a sub-surface flow constructed wetland for winery effluent treatment

Grismer, M.E., M. Tausendschoen, and H.L. Shepherd

Jul-Aug-01

Water Environment Fed-eration. July/Aug 2001. v. 73 (4) p. 466-477.

255 Nutrient Removal Processes in Fresh-water Submersed Macrophyte Systems Gumbricht, Thomas Mar-93

Ecological Engineering, Volume 2, Issue 1, March 1993, Pages 1-30

256 High nitrogen : phosphorus ratios reduce nutrient retention and second-year growth of wetland sedges

Gusewell, S. May-05New Phytologist. 2005 May, v. 166, no. 2, p. 537-550.

257 Variation in Nitrogen and Phosphorus Concentrations of Wetland Plants

Güsewell, Sabine and Willem Koerselman 2002

Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics; 5(1): 37-61. 2002.

258

Techniques of Water-resources Investi-gations of the United States Geological Survey: Laboratory Theory and Meth-ods for Sediment Analysis

Guy, H.P. May-05 U. S. Government Print-ing Office. Washington, DC

259Bank Review and Certification Require-ments: A Third Party Auditor Perspec-tive

Habicht, Hank Global Environment & Technology Founda-tion

Jul-11-12-05 Presentation PowerPoint Presentation

260Nitrogen mineralization in marsh mead-ows in relation to soil organic matter content and watertable level

Hacin, J., J. Cop, and I. Mahne Oct-01

Journal of Plant Nutri-tion and Soil Science = Zeitschrift für Pflanzen-ernährung und Boden-kunde. Oct 2001. v. 164 (5) p. 503-509.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=10008342

261Carbon Source Utilization Profiles as a Method to Identify Sources of Faecal Pollution in Water

Hagedorn, C., J.B. Crozier, K.A. Mentz, A.M. Booth, A.K. Graves, N.J. Nelson, and R.B. Reneau, Jr.

May-03 Paper

Journal of Applied Microbiology, Volume 94, Issue 5, Page 792-799, May 2003

262Where Did All the Markets Go? An Analysis of EPA’s Emissions Trading Program

Hahn, R.W. and G.L. Hester 1989a Journal Article Yale Journal on Regula-

tion, 6, 109-153

263 Marketable Permits: Lessons for Theory and Practice

Hahn, R.W. and G.L. Hester 1989b Article Ecology Law Quarterly,

16, 361-406.

264 Tar-Pamlico River Basin Program in North Carolina Hall and Howett 1994 Paper

138139


265

Guide to Establishing a Point/Nonpoint Source Reduction Trading System for Basinwide Water Quality Management: The Tar-Pamlico River Basin Experi-ence.

Hall, J. and C. Howett, Kilpatrick & Cody

Jul-95 Paper

North Carolina Depart-ment of Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmen-tal Management, Water Quality Section EPA-904-95-900.

266Background: The History and Status of Wetland Mitigation Banking and Water Quality Trading

Hall, Lynda U.S. EPA 7/11-12/2005 Presentation Audio Recording

Presented at National Forum on Synergies Between Water Quality Trading and Wetland Mitigation Banking - http://www2.eli.org/research/wqt_main.htm


Hall, Lynda U.S. EPA 7/11-12/2005 Presentation PowerPoint Presentation


268Control of Denitrification in a Septage-treating Artificial Wetland: The Dual Role of Particulate Organic Carbon

Hamersley, M. Robert and Brian L. Howes Oct-02 Water Research; 36(17):

4415-4427. Oct 2002.

269Nitrogen Balance and Cycling in an Ecologically Engineered Septage Treat-ment System

Hamersley, M. Rob-ert, Brian L. Howes, David S. White, Susan Johnke, Dale Young, Susan B. Peterson, and John M. Teal

Oct-01Ecological Engineering; 18(1): 61-75. October 2001.

270 Creating Freshwater Wetlands Hammer, D.A. 1992 Lewis Publishers, Inc. Boca Raton, FL.

271Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment - Municipal, Industrial & Agricultural

Hammer, D.A. (ed) 1989 Lewis Publ., Chelsea, MI

272 Design Principles for Wetland Treat-ment Systems

Hammer, D.E. and R.H. Kadlec 1983

EPA- 600/S2-83-026. EPA Municipal Environmental Research Lab, Cincin-nati, OH

273

The Potential For Water Quality Trad-ing To Help Implement The Cheat Watershed Acid Mine Drainage Total Maximum Daily Load In West Virginia

Hansen, E., M. Christ, J. Fletcher, J.T. Petty, P. Ziemkiewicz, and R.S. Herd

Apr-04 Report Friends of the Cheat http://www.cheat.org/ http://downstreamstrategies.com/CheatReport.zip

274 Exploring Trading to Reduce Impacts from Acid Mine Drainage Hansen, Evan Jul-03 PowerPoint 2003 National Forum on Water Quality Trading

275 Methylmercury formation in a wetland mesocosm amended with sulfate

Harmon, S.M., J.K.King, J.B. Glad-den, G.T. Chandler, and L.A. Newman

Jan-04Environmental Science & Technology. 2004 Jan. 15, v. 38, no. 2, p. 650-656.

276Treatment at Different Depths and Vertical Mixing Within a 1-m Deep Hori-zontal Subsurface-flow Wetland

Headley, Thomas R., Eamon Herity, and Leigh Davison

Dec-05Ecological Engineering; 25(5): 567-582. Dec. 2005.

138139


277

The Role of Marsh Plants in the Transport of Nutrients as Shown by a Quantitative Model for the Freshwater Section of the Elbe Estuary

Heckman, Charles W. 1986 Aquatic Botany, Volume 25, 1986, Pages 139-151

278Agricultural Resources and Environ-mental Indicators, 2003, Agriculture Handbook No. (AH722)

Heimlich, Ralph Feb-03 Report

Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. February, 2003.

This report identifies trends in land, water, and biological resources and commercial input use, reports on the condi-tion of natural resources used in the agricultural sector, and describes and assesses public policies that affect conserva-tion and environmental quality in agriculture. Combining data and information, this report examines the complex connections among farming practices, conservation, and the environment, which are increasingly important components in U.S. agriculture and farm policy. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/arei/ah722/dbgen.htm

279

Fate of Physical, Chemical, and Microbial Contaminants in Domestic Wastewater Following Treatment by Small Constructed Wetlands

Hench, Keith R., Gary K. Bissonnette, Alan J. Sexstone, Jerry G. Coleman, Keith Garbutt, and Jeffrey G. Skousen

Feb-03

The Science of The Total Environment, Volume 301, Issues 1-3, 1 Janu-ary 2003, Pages 13-21

280

Treatment of Primary-Settled Urban Sewage in Pilot-Scale Vertical Flow Wetland Filters: Comparison of Four Emergent Macrophyte Species Over a 12 Month Period

Heritage, Alan, Pino Pistillo, K. P. Sharma and I. R. Lantzke


281 Nutrient Farming and Traditional Re-moval: An Economic Comparison

Hey, D., J. Kostel, A. Hurter, R. Kadlec 2005

Water Environmental Research Foundation doc#03-WSO-6C0

http://www.wetlands-initiative.org/images/03WSM6COweb.pdf

282Nitrogen Farming: Using Wetlands to Remove Nitrogen From Our Nation’s Waters

Hey, Donald The Wetlands Initiative May-02 Report The Wetlands Initiative,

Chicago, IL.

Summary Report of Four Workshops. Background information for the National Forum on Synergies Between Water Quality Trading and Wetland Mitigation Banking - http://www2.eli.org/re-search/wqt_main.htm

283Stimulating Creation of a Point/Non-Point Source Trading System on a Watershed Scale

Hey, Donald The Wetlands Initiative


284 Nitrogen Farming: Harvesting a Differ-ent Crop

Hey, Donald L. (Ph.D.) Mar-02

Restoration Ecology: The Journal of the Society for Ecological Restoration, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2002

Introduces the concept of “nutrient farming” , which would create wetlands for their water quality improvement function in order to create nutrient trading credits. The paper describes a potential market for credits due to wetland losses and nitrogen fertilizer use in the Mississippi River Basin. A cost comparison between waste water plants and potential “nutrient farms” is provided. http://www.wetlands-initiative.org/images/pdfs_pubs/vol4n01.pdf

285 Water Quality Improvement by Four Experimental Wetlands

Hey, Donald L., Ann L. Kenimer and Kirk R. Barrett

Dec-94


140141


286 Nutrient Farming: The Business of Environmental Management

Hey, Donald L., Laura S. Urban, and Jill A. Kostel

Apr-05 Paper

Ecological Engineering: The Journal of Ecosys-tem Restoration, Vol. 24, No. 4 (April 5, 2005), pp 279-287.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com. http://www.wetlands-initiative.org/images/pdfs_pubs/EcoEng-Proof.pdf

287Nutrient Farming: The Business of Environmental Management - Execu-tive Summary

Hey, Donald L., Laura S. Urban, and Jill A. Kostel

Apr-05 Summary http://www.wetlands-initiative.org/images/pdfs_pubs/nfarm.busi-ness-envimgmt.pdf

288

Removal Efficiency of Three Cold-cli-mate Constructed Wetlands Treating Domestic Wastewater: Effects of Tem-perature, Seasons, Loading Rates and Input Concentrations

Hlum, Trond M. and Per Stlnacke 1999


http://www.wetlands-initiative.org/images/pdfs_pubs/harvesting.diff.crop.pdf

289The use of microbial tracers to monitor seasonal variations in effluent retention in a constructed wetland

Hodgson, C.J., J. Perkins, and J.C. Labadz


290Nitrogen removal from waste treatment pond or activated sludge plant effluents with free-surface wetlands

Home, Alexander J. 1995Water Science and Tech-nology, Volume 31, Issue 12, 1995, Pages 341-351

291 The Ecology and Management of Wet-lands (2 vols.) Hook, D.D. et. al. 1988

Croom Held, Ltd., London/Timber Press, Portland, OR

292Differences in Social and Public Risk Perceptions and Conflicting Impacts on Point/Nonpoint Trading Ratios

Horan, R.D. Nov-01 PaperAmerican Journal of Agri-cultural Economics; 83(4): 934. Nov 2001.

Most research on point–nonpoint trading focuses on the choice of trading ratio (the rate point source controls trade for nonpoint controls), although the first-best ratio is jointly determined with the optimal number of permits. In practice, program managers often do not have control over the number of permits—only the trading ratio. The trading ratio in this case can only be second-best. We derive the second-best trading ratio and, using a numerical example of trading in the Susquehanna River Basin, we find the values are in line with current ratios, but for different reasons than those that are normally provided. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/0002-9092.00220?cookieSet=1

293Policy Objectives and Economic Incentives for Controlling Agricultural Sources of Nnonpoint Pollution

Horan, R.D. and M.O. Ribaudo 1999 Journal Article

Journal of the American Water Resources Asso-ciation, 35(5), 1023-1035.

294 Point-nonpoint Nutrient Trading in the Susquehanna River Basin

Horan, R.D., J.S. Shortle, and D.G. Abler

2002 Water Resources Re-search, 38(5), 1-13.

140141


295Differences in Social and Public Risk Perceptions and Conflicting Impacts on Point/Nonpoint Trading Ratios

Horan, Richard D. Nov-01

American Journal of Agri-cultural Economics Volume 83 Issue 4 Page 934 - November 2001 doi:10.1111/0002-9092.00220

If stochastic nonpoint pollution loads create socially costly risk, then an economically optimal point/nonpoint trading ratio the rate point source controls trade for nonpoint controls is adjusted downward (a risk reward for nonpoint controls), encouraging more nonpoint controls. However, in actual trading programs, ratios are adjusted upward in response to nonpoint uncertain-ties (a risk premium for nonpoint controls). This contradiction is explained using a public choice model in which regulators focus on encouraging abatement instead of reducing damages. The result is a divergence of public and social risk perceptions, and a trading market that encourages economically suboptimal nonpoint controls.

296 When Two Wrongs Make a Right: Sec-ond-Best Point/Nonpoint Trading Ratios

Horan, Richard D. and James S. Shortle May-05 Paper

American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 87 Issue 2 Page 340 -

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00726.x

297Field Examination on Reed Growth, Harvest and Regeneration for Nutrient Removal

Hosoi, Y., Y. Kido, M. Miki and M. Sumida 1998



Hough, Palmer U.S. EPA



299 Water Quality Study Feedstuffs Howie, Michael Jun-04 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1470/is_200406/ai_n6534686

300Nitrogen Removal in Constructed Wetlands Employed to Treat Domestic Wastewater

Huang, J., R.B. Reneau, Jr., and C. Hagedorn

Jun-00Water Research; 34(9): 2582-2588. June 15, 2000.

301

Effect of design parameters in hori-zontal flow constructed wetland on the behaviour of volatile fatty acids and volatile alkylsulfides

Huang, Y., L. Ortiz, P. Aguirre, J. Garcia, R. Mujeriego, J.M. Bayona

May-05 Chemosphere. 2005 May, v. 59, issue 6, p. 769-777.

302

Assessment of Environmental and Economic Benefits Associated with Streambank Stabilization and Phosphorus Retention

Hubbard, Lisa C., David S. Biedenharn, and Steven L. Ashby

May-03 ERDC WQTN-AM-14

Techincal notes provide the results of a creek enhancement project in Mass. A summary of bank stabilization treatments and the conditions of the banks at Year 9 are provided. Erosion estimates are made using aerial photo interpretation. Total P and biologically available P are sampled in the bed, bank, and top of bank. Cost of bank stabilization and cost for total P removal are estimated. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/wqtnam14.pdf

303 Use of floating vegetation to remove nutrients from swine lagoon wastewater

Hubbard, R.K., G.J. Gascho, G.L. Newton

Nov-Dec-04

Transactions of the ASAE. 2004 Nov-Dec, v. 47, no. 6, p. 1963-1972.

304

Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal from Plant Nursery Runoff in Vegetated and Unvegetated Subsurface Flow Wetlands

Huett, D.O., S.G. Morris, G. Smith, and N. Hunt

Sept-05 Water Resources, 39(14): 3259-72. Sept 2005.

142143


305 Constructed Treatment Wetland System Description and Performance Humboldt University 2000 Humboldt University http://firehole.humboldt.edu/wetland/twdb.html (January 2006).

306Denitrification potential and carbon quality of four aquatic plants in wetland microcosms

Hume, N.P., M.S. Fleming, and A.J. Horne

Sep-Oct-02

Soil Science Society of America journal. Sept/Oct 2002. v. 66 (5) p. 1706-1712.

307 State of the Art for Animal Wastewater Treatment in Constructed Wetlands

Hunt, P.G. and M.E. Poach 2001 Water Science Technolo-

gy. 2001;44(11-12):19-25.

308Denitrification in a coastal plain riparian zone contiguous to a heavily loaded swine wastewater spray field

Hunt, P.G., T.A. Ma-theny, and K.C. Stone

Nov-Dec-04


309 Designing Stormwater Wetlands for Small Watersheds

Hunt, William F. and Barbara A. Doll Apr-00

North Carolina Coop-erative Extension, North Carolina State University

http://www.neuse.ncsu.edu/SWwetlands.pdf

310Nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic carbon removal in simulated wetland treatment systems

Hunter, R.G., D.L. Combs, D.B. George Oct-01

Archives of environmen-tal contamination and toxicology. Oct 2001. v. 41 (3) p. 274-281.

311 Perchlorate is Not a Common Contami-nant of Fertilizers Hunter, W. J. Nov-01 Paper

Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, Volume 187, Issue 3, Page 203-206, Nov 2001

The present study developed methods for improving the HPLC analysis of perchlorate and used these methods to survey 15 US fertilizers for perchlorate. The study found no perchlorate in any of the fertilizers investigated.

312Nitrogen sources in Adirondack wetlands dominated by nitrogen-fixing shrubs.

Hurd, T.M., K. Gok-kaya, B.D. Kiernan, D.J. Raynal

Mar-05

Wetlands : the journal of the Society of the Wetland Scientists. 2005 Mar., v. 25, no. 1, p. 192-199.

313 Modeling of nitrogen sequestration in coastal marsh soils.

Hussein, A.H. and M.C. Rabenhorst

Jan-Feb-02

Soil Science Society of America journal. Jan/Feb 2002. v. 66 (1) p. 324-330.

314

Open-air Treatment of Wastewater from Land-Based Marine Fish Farms in Ex-tensive and Intensive Systems: Current Technology and Future Perspectives

Hussenot, Jérôme, Sébastien Lefebvre and Nicolas Brossard

Jul-Aug-98

Aquatic Living Resourc-es, Volume 11, Issue 4, July-August 1998, Pages 297-304

315

Methane Emission Rates from an Om-brotrophic Mire Show Marked Season-ality which is Independent of Nitrogen Supply and Soil Temperature

Hutchin, P.R., M.C. Press, J.A. Lee and T.W. Ashenden

Sep-96

Atmospheric Environ-ment, Volume 30, Issue 17, September 1996, Pages 3011-3015

This paper reports methane fluxes measured in an area of om-brotrophic mire at the Migneint in North Wales when nitrogen, in the form of ammonium and/or nitrate, was applied to plots on the mire surface. These applications of nitrogen had no effect on the methane emission rates at any date, with the exception of the measurement from November 1994. No correlation was found between methane flux and either soil temperature or water table. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH3-3Y45YRC-R&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1996&_alid=375242647&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6055&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0ada691875c6f090e70e18e5bae684fe

142143


316 Technology Assessment of Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment

Hyde, H.C., R.S. Ross and F.C. Dem-gen

1984

EPA 600/2-84-154. EPA Municipal Environmental Research Lab., Cincin-nati, OH

317

Proceedings of Wetlands Downunder, An International Specialist Conference on Wetlands Systems in Water Pollu-tion Control

IAWQ/AWWA 1992

Int’l. Assoc. of Water Quality/Australian Water & Wastewater Assoc., Univ. of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

318Characterization of microbial communi-ties and composition in constructed dairy wetland wastewater effluent

Ibekwe, A.M., C.M. Grieve, S.R. Lyon Sep-03

Applied and Environ-mental Microbiology. 2003 Sept., v. 69, no.9, p. 5060-5069.

3191st Annual Status Report: Lower Boise River Effluent Trading Demonstration Project

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality May-01 Report Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality

3202nd Annual Status Report: Lower Boise River Effluent Trading Demonstration Project

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Jun-02 Report Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality

321Surface Water: Lower Boise River Sub-basin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

Ac-cessed Web-site Idaho Department of

Environmental Qualityhttp://www.deq.state.id.us/water/data_reports/surface_water/tm-dls/boise_river_lower/boise_river_lower.cfm

322 Surface Water: TMDL Implementation Plans



Environmental Qualityhttp://www.deq.state.id.us/water/data_reports/surface_water/tm-dls/implementation_plans.cfm

323Surface Water: Snake River - Hells Canyon Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads



Environmental Qualityhttp://www.deq.state.id.us/water/data_reports/surface_water/tm-dls/snake_river_hells_canyon/snake_river_hells_canyon.cfm

324Best Management Practice (BMP) List for the Lower Boise River Pollution Trading Program

Idaho Soil Conserva-tion Commission May-02 BMP List

PaperIdaho Soil Conservation Commission

Selected nonpoint source BMPs used to offset a point source’s discharge in the Lower Boise River are described in this paper. The procedure for generating credits, as well as other trading program requirements, are described as well. Evaluation and measurment requirements for BMP monitoring are discussed. This document will be updated periodically and new BMPs added to the list of those currently eligible for trading.

325 Pretreatment Market System Develop-ment

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Undated Discussion

PaperIllinois Environmental Protection Agency

326 Market-Based Trading of Categorical Pretreatment Limits

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Aug-96 Paper Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

327 Market-Based Approaches to Reduce Water Pollution: A Pre-Feasibility Study

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Water and Environmental Policy Office

Nov-95 Report

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Water and En-vironmental Policy Office

144145


328Discussion Paper: Conference on Com-pliance and Enforcement for Emissions Trading Schemes

INECE-Environment Agency (England and Wales), Worcester College, Oxford, England

3/16-18/2004 Presentation

INECE-Environment Agency (England and Wales), Worcester Col-lege, Oxford, England

329Periphyton tissue chemistry and nitro-genase activity in a nutrient impacted Everglades ecosystem

Inglett, P.W., K.R. Reddy, and P.V. Mc-Cormick

2004 Biogeochemsitry 67:213-233

330 Hydrochemistry and Hydrology of For-est Riparian Wetlands

Jacks, G. and A.C. Norrström Jul-04

Forest Ecology and Management; 196(2-3): 187-197. Jul 26, 2004.

331 The Tar-Pamlico River Basin Nutrient Trading Program Jacobcon, E.M., et al. Apr-94 Paper

Applied Resource Economics and Policy, Department of Agricultur-al & Resource Econom-ics, North Carolina State University.

http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/program/extension/arep/tarpam.html

332 The Tar-Pamlico River Basin Nutrient Trading Program

Jacobson, E.M., L.E. Danielson, and D.L. Hoag

1994

Applied Resource Economics and Policy Group, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics

333Phosphorus adsorption characteristics of a constructed wetland soil receiving dairy farm wastewater

Jamieson, T.S., R. Gordon, A. Madani Feb-02

Canadian Journal of Soil Science. Feb 2002. v. 82 (1) p. 97-104.

334Design and Performance of Experimen-tal Constructed Wetlands Treating Coke Plant Effluents

Jardinier, N., G. Blake, A. Mauchamp, and G. Merlin

2001Water Science Technol-ogy. 2001;44(11-12): 485-91.

335 Lessons Learned from the Neuse River Basin Education Program

Jennings, Greg, PhD. and Deanna Osmond, PhD. (NC State University)

Sep-05 Presentation13th National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Workshop

http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/nmp_conf/presentations.html

336The Potential of Natural Ecosystem Self-purifying Measures for Controlling Nutrient Inputs

Jenssen, Petter D., Trond Mæhlum, Roger Roseth, Bent Braskerud, Nina Syversen, Arnor Njøs and Tore Krogstad

1994Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 29, Issues 6-12, 1994, Pages 420-425

337

Evaluation of vegetation management strategies for controlling mosquitoes in a southern California constructed wetland

Jiannino, J.A. and W.E. Walton Mar-04

Journal of the American Mosquito Control Asso-ciation. 2004 Mar., v. 20, no. 1, p. 18-26.

338Removal of N, P, BOD5, and coliform in pilot-scale constructed wetland systems

Jin, G., T. Kelley, M. Freeman, M. Cal-lahan

2002International Journal of Phytoremediation. 2002. v. 4 (2) p. 127-141.

339Microcosm Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment with Different Hydraulic Loading Rates and Macrophytes

Jin, S.R., Y.F. Lin, T.W. Wang, and D.Y. Lee 2002

Journal of Environmental Quality. 2002 Mar-Apr;31(2): 690-6.

144145


340 Nutrient Removal from Polluted River Water by Using Constructed Wetlands

Jing, S.R., Y.F. Lin, D.Y. Lee, and T.W. Wang

Jan-01 Bioresources Technology. 2001Jan;76(2):131-5.

341

Methane emissions from a constructed wetland treating wastewater--seasonal and spatial distribution and depen-dence on edaphic factors

Johansson, A.E., A.M. Gustavsson, M.G. Oquist, B.H. Svensson


In this paper the authors discuss the results of a study to deter-mine the flux of methane from a constructed wetland over two growth seasons on a pilot scale wetland constructed to reduce nutrient levels in secondary treated wastewater. The emissions for the spring to autumn period averaged 141 mg CH4 m−2 d−1 (S.D.=187), ranging from consumption of 375 mg CH4 m−2 d−1 to emissions of 1739 mg CH4 m−2 d−1. The spatial and temporal variations were large, but could be accounted for by measured environmental factors. Among these factors, sedi-ment and water temperatures were significant in all cases and independent of the scale of analysis (r2 up to 0.88). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V73-4D5JSHK-2&_coverDate=11%2F01%2F2004&_alid=375244849&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5831&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e5a42ee72c10f538ba0cfa882f815c75

342Metamodelling Phosphorus Best Man-agement Practices for Policy Use: A Frontier Approach

Johansson, R., P.H. Gowda, D.J. Mulla, and B.J. Dalzell

2004 Paper Agricultural Economics, 2004 - ideas.repec.org

This article presents a modelling system for synthesising het-erogeneous productivity and nutrient loading potentials inherent in agricultural cropland for policy use. Phosphorus abatement cost functions for cropland farmers in a southeastern Minnesota watershed are metamodelled using frontier analysis. These functions are used to evaluate policies aimed at reducing non-point phosphorus discharges into the Minnesota River. Results indicate an efficiently targeted policy to reduce phosphorus discharge by 40% would cost US$ $167,700 or $844 per farm.

343 Watershed Nutrient Trading Under Asymmetric Information Johansson, R.C. 2002 Paper Agricultural and Resource

Economics Review, 2002.

This article presents a modelling system for synthesising het-erogeneous productivity and nutrient loading potentials inherent in agricultural cropland for policy use. Phosphorus abatement cost functions for cropland farmers in a southeastern Minnesota watershed are metamodelled using frontier analysis. These functions are used to evaluate policies aimed at reducing non-point phosphorus discharges into the Minnesota River. Results indicate an efficiently targeted policy to reduce phosphorus discharge by 40% would cost US$ $167,700 or $844 per farm.

344Reducing Hypoxia in Long Island Sound: The Connecticut Nitrogen Exchange

Johnson, Gary Jul-03 PowerPoint 2003 National Forum on Water Quality Trading

345Sediment and nutrient retention by freshwater wetlands: effects on surface water quality

Johnston, C.A. 1991Critical Review in Environmental Control 12:491-565

346The cumulative effect of wetlands on stream water quality and quantity: a landscape approach

Johnston, C.A., N.E. Detenbeck, and G.J. Niemi

1990 Biogeochemistry 10:105-141.

146147


347 Nutrient dynamics in relation to geo-morphology of riverine wetlands

Johnston, C.A., S.D. Bridgham, and J.P. Schubauer-Berigan

Mar-Apr-01

Soil Science Society of America journal. Mar/Apr 2001. v. 65 (2) p. 557-577.

348Establishing a Framework for Nutrient Trading in Maryland – A Utility Perspec-tive

Jones, C. and E. Bacon May-98 Presentation

Watershed ‘98 – Moving from Theory to Implemen-tation. Denver, CO. May 5, 1998.

349Trading Opportunities and Challenges for the Wastewater Management Com-munity

Jones, Cyrus Jul-03 PowerPoint 2003 National Forum on Water Quality Trading

350

Legal and Financial Liability – Issues in Mitigation Banking and Water Qual-ity Trading: A Water Quality Trading Perspective

Jones, Cyrus Washington Subur-ban Sanitary Com-mission

7/11-12/2005 Presentation Audio Recording http://www2.eli.org/research/wqt_forum.htm

351

Legal and Financial Liability – Issues in Mitigation Banking and Water Qual-ity Trading: A Water Quality Trading Perspective

Jones, Cyrus Washington Subur-ban Sanitary Com-mission


Presented at National Forum on Synergies Between Water Quality Trading and Wetland Mitigation Banking. Describes some of the challenges involved with implementing waste water trading programs in light of the Clean Water Act. http://www2.eli.org/research/wqt_forum.htm

352Nutrient and Sediment Removal by a Restored Wetland Receiving Agricul-tural Runoff

Jordan, T.E., D.F. Whigham, K.H. Hofmockel, and M.A. Pittek

2003Journal of Environmental Quality. 2003 Jul-Aug;32(4):1534-47.

353Nutrient Chemistry and Hydrology of Interstitial Water in Brackish Tidal Marshes of Chesapeake Bay

Jordan, Thomas E. and David L. Correll Jul-85

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Volume 21, Issue 1, July 1985, Pages 45-55

354Nutrient Flux in the Rhode River: Tidal Exchange of Nutrients by Brackish Marshes

Jordan, Thomas E., David L. Correll and Dennis F. Whigham

Dec-83

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Volume 17, Issue 6, December 1983, Pages 651-667

355 The Dead Zones: Oxygen-Starved Coastal Waters Joyce, S. Mar-00 Paper

Environ Health Perspect. 2000 Mar;108(3):A120-5. PMID: 10706539

356 Domestic Wastewater Treatment through Constructed Wetland in India

Juwarkar, A.S., B. Oke, A. Juwarkar and S. M. Patnaik


357 The inadequacy of first-order treatment wetland models Kadlec, R. H. 2000 Ecological Engineering

15:105-119.

358 Phosphorus Removal in Emergent Free Surface Wetlands Kadlec, R.H. 2005

Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part A (2005) 40(6-7): 1293-306. 2005.

359Wetlands and Water Quality IN: Wet-lands Functions and Values; The State of Our Understanding

Kadlec, R.H. and J.A. Kadlec 1979 American Water Resourc-

es Assoc., Bethesda, MD

146147


360 Temperature Effects in Treatment Wetlands

Kadlec, R.H. and K.R. Reddy

Sep-Oct 2001

Water Environment Research. 2001 Sep-Oct;73(5):543-57.

361 Wetlands Treatment Database

Kadlec, R.H., R.L. Knight., S.C. Reed, and R.W. Rubles (eds.).

1994EPA/600/C-94/200. Office of Research and Devel-opment, Cincinnati, OH.

362Deterministic and Stochastic Aspects of Constructed Wetland Performance and Design

Kadlec, Robert H. 1997Water Science and Tech-nology, Volume 35, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 149-156

363 Overview: Surface Flow Constructed Wetlands Kadlec, Robert H. 1995


364 Modeling Nutrient Behavior in WetlandsKadlec, Robert H. and David E. Ham-mer

Jan-88Ecological Modelling, Vol-ume 40, Issue 1, January 1988, Pages 37-66

365 Treatment Wetlands Kadlec, Robert H. and Robert L. Knight 1996 CRC Press 893 pgs.

366Nitrogen Spiraling in Subsurface-flow Constructed Wetlands: Implications for Treatment Response

Kadlec, Robert H., Chris C. Tanner, Vera M. Hally, and Max M. Gibbs

Nov-05 Ecological Engineering; 25(4): 365-381. Nov 2005.

367 Integrated Natural Systems for Treating Potato Processing Wastewater

Kadlec, Robert H., Peter S. Burgoon and Michael E. Hender-son


368 Wetland Use and Impact on Lake Victoria, Kenya Region Kairu, J. K. Jul-01 Paper

Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Manage-ment, Volume 6, Issue 2, Page 117-125, Jul 2001

This article reports on a study of wetland use and impact on Lake Victoria conducted in March and April 1995. A field survey and interviews were used to study wetland use and their impact on Lake Victoria. This article identifies management issues and establishes a broad vision for the future. It also addresses the need to balance the competing demands for wetland use and development with the need to conserve a healthy and func-tional Lake Victoria. Investment proposals are made that would minimize destruction of the wetlands and negative impacts on the lake. General recommendations for planning and manage-ment issues, as well as suggestions of specific research needs that should form the basis of action and investment initiatives, are given.

369Nitrogen Removal from a Riverine Wetland: A Field Survey and Simulation Study of Phragmites japonica

Kang, Sinkyu, Kang, Hojeong Walton, Dongwook Ko, and Dowon Lee

Mar-02Ecological Engineering; 18(4): 467-475. March 1, 2002.

370Wastewater Treatment by Tropical Plants in Vertical-flow Constructed Wetlands

Kantawanichkul, S., S. Pilaila, W. Tanapiyawanich, W. Tikampornpittaya, and S. Kamkrua


148149


371Pollutant Sources Investigation and Remedial Strategies Development for the Kaoping River Basin, Taiwan

Kao, C.M., F.C. Wu, K.F. Chen, T. F. Lin, Y.E. Yen, and P.C. Chiang

2003 PaperWater Sci Technol. 2003;48(7):97-103. PMID: 14653639

372 Water Quality Management in the Kaoping River Watershed, Taiwan

Kao, C.M., K.F. Chen, Y.L. Liao, and C.W. Chen

2003 PaperWater Sci Technol. 2003;47(7-8):209-16. PMID: 12793682

373An Information-theoretical Analysis of Budget-constrained Nonpoint Source Pollution Control

Kaplan, J.D., R.E. Howitt, Y.H. Farzin 2003 Paper

Journal of Environmental Economics and Manage-ment, 2003

This paper analyzes budget-constrained, nonpoint source (NPS) pollution control with costly information acquisition and learning, applied to the sediment load management program for Redwood Creek, which flows through Redwood National Park in northwestern California. We simulate dynamic bud-get-constrained management with information acquisition and learning, and compare the results with those from the current policy. The analysis shows that when information acquisition in-creases overall abatement effectiveness the fiscally constrained manager can reallocate resources from abatement effort to information acquisition, resulting in lower sediment generation than would otherwise exist. In addition, with learning about pol-lution generation occurring over time the manager may switch from a high intensity of data collection to a lower intensity to further reduce sediment generation. Also, as sediment control proceeds at upstream sources, at some time in the future the marginal reduction in sediment for a given expenditure will equalize across the sources such that uniform abatement effort may occur across all sources.

374 Constructed wetland technology and mosquito populations in Arizona

Karpiscak, M.M., K.J. Kingsley, R.D. Wass, F.A. Amalfi, J. Friel, A.M. Stewart, J. Ta-bor, and J. Zauderer

Mar-04Journal of Arid Environ-ments. 2004 Mar., v. 56, no. 4, p. 681-707.

375Multi-Species Plant Systems for Wastewater Quality Improvements and Habitat Enhancement

Karpiscak, Martin M., Charles P. Gerba, Pa-mela M. Watt, Kennith E. Foster and Jeanne A. Falabi

1996

Water Science and Tech-nology, Volume 33, Issues 10-11, 1996, Pages 231-236

376Management of Dairy Waste in the Sonoran Desert Using Constructed Wetland Technology

Karpiscak, Martin M., Robert J. Freitas, Charles P. Gerba, Luis R. Sanchez and Eylon Shamir


377Performance of a sub-surface flow con-structed wetland in polishing pre-treat-ed wastewater--a tropical case study

Kaseva, M.E. Feb-04Water Research. 2004 Feb., v. 38, no. 3, p. 681-687.

378 The Dillon Bubble Kashmaniam et. al. 1986

148149


379

Incentive Analysis for Clean Water Act Reauthorization: Point Source/Nonpoint Source Trading for Nutrient Discharge Reductions-Cherry Creek

Kashmanian, Richard and Mahesh Podar Apogee Research, Inc.

1992 Paper

(Besthesda, MD: Apogee Research, Inc., 1992), 24-26. Office of Policy, Planning, and Evalua-tion, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency http://yosemite.epa.

This report examines effluent trading as one option to achieve water quality objectives at least cost. While several options are discussed, the paper focuses principally on trading schemes in which regulated point sources are allowed to avoid upgrading their pollution control technology to meet water quality-based effluent limits if they pay for equivalent (or greater) reductions in nonpoint source pollution within their watersheds. The report identifies several conditions that appear necessary for an efficient and effective point/nonpoint source trading program. Reviews of three trading experiences to date--Cherry Creek and Dillon Reservoir in Colorado, Tar-Pimlico River Basin in North Carolina--indicate that the absence of one or more of these necessary conditions result in the delay of trading or will necessitate a shift in focus of the trading program to facilitate continued pollutant load reductions. The report also discusses the economic benefits and costs, the nationwide potential, and Clean Water Act implications of effluent trading.

380 Contract-Based Trading Programs in Environmental Regulation

Keeler, A.G. Con-temporary Economic Policy

Apr-04 Draft paper

http://aae.agecon.uga.edu/~akeeler/Keeler_home/Working%20papers/Con-tract-based%20trading.pdf

381Nitrogen and Bacterial Removal in Constructed Wetlands Treating Domes-tic Waste Water

Keffala, C. and A. Ghrabi Nov-05 Desalination; 185(1-3):

383-389. Nov 2005.

382

Adult Chloropidae (Diptera) associated with constructed treatment wetlands modified by three vegetation manage-ment techniques

Keiper, J.B., M. Stanczak, W.E. Walton

Sep-Oct-03

Entomological News. 2003 Sept-Oct, v. 114, no. 4, p. 205-210.

383 Economic and Environmental Benefits of Nutrient Trading Programs

Keiser, M.S. and Feng Fang undated Paper

Environmental Trading Network and Keiser As-sociates

http://www.envtn.org/docs/Japan_paper.pdf

384In situ ground water denitrification in stratified, permeable soils underlying riparian wetlands

Kellogg, D.Q., A.J.Gold, P.M. Groff-man, K. Addy, M.H. Stolt, G. Blazejewski

Mar-Apr-05

Journal of environmental quality. 2005 Mar-Apr, v. 34, no. 2, p. 524-533.

385Indicators of nitrate in wetland surface and soil-waters: interactions of vegeta-tion and environmental factors

Kennedy, M.P. and K.J. Murphy Aug-04

Hydrology and earth sys-tem sciences. 2004 Aug., v. 8, no. 4, p. 663-672.

http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/hess/published_papers.html

150151


386 Trend Analysis of Nutrient Loading in the Tar-Pamlico Basin Kennedy, Todd May-23-

03 Memo

Memorandum to Michelle Woolfolf, NC Division of Water Quality Planning Branch

This analysis evaluates the trends in nutrient loading in the Tar-Pamlico Basin from 1991 to 2002 using the Seasonal Ken-dall test, which tends to perform better than other parametric methods for data sets that are commonly non-normal, vary sea-sonally, and contain outliers and censored values. The results indicate significant, negative trends in flow-adjusted concentra-tions for both TP and TN. Over the selected study period of 1991-2002, the estimated decrease in TP and TN concentration over the 12 years are 0.046 mg/L and 0.203 mg/L, respectively. This represents a reduction of in TP and TN through 2002 of 33% and 18%, respectively. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/TrendGrimesland91-02prn.pdf

387 Treatment of Domestic and Agricultural Wastewater by Reed Bed Systems

Kern, Jürgen and Christine Idler Jan-99


388 Market-based Approaches and Trading-Conditions and Examples

Kerns, W. and K. Stephenson Paper http://www.epa.gov/owowwtr1/watershed/Proceed/kerns.html

389 Nine Case Studies, Appendices A-IKerr, Robert L., Ste-ven J. Anderson, and John Jaksch

Jun-00 Case StudyKerr, Greiner, Anderson & April, and Battelle Pacific Northwest Division

390Cross Cutting Analysis of Trading Pro-grams: Case Studies in Air, Water and Wetland Mitigation Trading Systems

Kerr, Robert L., Steven J. Anderson, John Jaksch (Kerr, Greiner, Anderson & April and Battelle Pacific Northwest Division)

Jun-00

Learning from Innova-tions in Environmental Protection, Research Paper Number 6

391

Abundance of Alnus incana ssp. rugosa in Adirondack Mountain Shrub Wet-lands and Its Influence on Inorganic Nitrogen

Kiernan, B.D., T.M. Hurd, and D. J. Raynal

Jun-03Environmental Pollution; 123(3): 347-354. June 2003.

392 Ecosystem Multiple Markets Kieser & Associates Apr-04 Draft white paper

Environmental Trading Network http://www.envtn.org/docs/EMM_WHITE_PAPERApril04.pdf

393Preliminary Economic Analysis of Wa-ter Quality Trading Opportunities in the Great Miami River Watershed, Ohio

Kieser & Associates Jul-04 Report Kieser & Associates Prepared for the Miami Conservancy District, Dayton, Ohio

394

ETN Paper and Presentation Pre-sented at the Workshop on Urban Renaissance and Watershed Manage-ment, Japan

Kieser, Mark and “An-drew” Feng Fang Feb-04 Paper Kieser & Associates

395 Water Quality Trading in the United States: An Overview

Kieser, Mark S. and “Andrew” Feng Fang

Ac-cessed Web-site The Katoomba Group’s

Ecosystem Marketplace

http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/article.news.php?component_id=3954&component_version_id=5625&language_id=12

396Economic and Environmental Benefits of Water Quality Trading- An Overview of U.S. Trading Programs

Kieser, Mark S. and “Andrew” Feng Fang

The Environmental Trad-ing Network and Kieser & Associates

http://www.envtn.org/docs/Japan_paper.pdf [email protected]

150151


397

Point/non-point Source Water Quality Trading for Phosphorus in the Kalama-zoo River Watershed: A Demonstration Project

Kieser, Mark S. and David J. Batchelor 1998

published in the pro-ceedings for the Water Environment Research Foundation Conference Workshop #115: Water-shed-based effluent trad-ing demonstration proj-ects: Results achieved and lessons learned.

398 The Challenges of Point/Non-Point Source Trading

King, Dennis Univer-sity of Maryland



399 The Challenges of Point/Non-Point Source Trading

King, Dennis Univer-sity of Maryland


400 Crunch Time for Water Quality Trading King, Dennis M. and Peter J. Kuch 2005 Paper Choices. 20(1): 71-75.


401Will Nutrient Credit Trading Ever Work? An Assessment of Supply and Demand Problems and Institutional Obstacles

King, Dennis M. and Peter J. Kuch 2003 Paper

Environmental Law Reporter, 33 ELR 10352. Environmental Law Insti-tute, Washington, DC.


402Science, Technology, and the Changing Character of Public Policy in Nonpoint Source Pollution

King, J.L. and D.L. Corwin

pg 309-322. In D.L. Cor-win, K. Loague, and T.R. Ellsworth (ed.). Assess-ment of non-point source pollution in the vadose zone. AGU. Washington, D.C.

403The Potential for Nitrification and Nitrate Uptake in the Rhizosphere of Wetland Plants: A Modelling Study

Kirk, G.J.D. and H.J. Kronzucker Sep-05

Annals of botany. 2005 Sep., v. 96, no. 4, p. 639-646.

http://aob.oupjournals.org/

404

Seasonal Fluctuations in the Mineral Nitrogen Content of an Undrained Wet-land Peat Soil Following Differing Rates of Fertiliser Nitrogen Application

Kirkham, F.W. and R.J. Wilkins

Jan-15-93

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 43, Issue 1, 15 January 1993, Pages 11-29

405Constructed Treatment Wetland: A Study of Eight Plant Species Under Saline Conditions

Klomjeck, P. and S. Nitisoravut Feb-05 Chemosphere, 58(5):

583-93. Feb 2005

406Nutrient dynamics of freshwater river-ine marshes and the role of emergent macrophytes

Klopatek, J. M. 1978

In: Freshwater Wetlands: Ecological Processes and Management Potential. R.E. Good, D.F. Whigham, and R.L. Simpson, eds. Academic Press, New York, NY.

152153


407Ancillary benefits and potential problems with the use of wetlands for nonpoint source pollution control

Knight, R.L. 1992 Ecological Engineering 1:97-113.

408 Constructed Wetlands for Livestock Wastewater Management

Knight, Robert L., Victor W. E. Payne, Jr., Robert E. Borer, Ronald A. Clarke, Jr., and John H. Pries

Jun-00Ecological Engineering; 15(1-2): 41-55. June 2000.

409CREAMS: A Field Scale Model for Chemicals, Runoff and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems

Knisel, W.G. 1980 USDA Conservation Re-search Rept. No. 26.

410Personal Communication with Scott Koberg, Idaho Association of Soil Con-servation Districts

Koberg, Scott 31-Jan-06

411

Nutrient, Metal, and Pesticide Removal During Storm and Nonstorm Events by a Constructed Wetland on an Urban Golf Course

Kohler, E.A., V.L. Poole, Z.J. Reicher, and R.F. Turco


412Role of Plant Uptake on Nitrogen Removal in Constructed Wetlands Located in the Tropics

Koottatep, Tham-marat and Chongrak Polprasert


413

Comparison of the Treatment Perfor-mances of Blast Furnace Slag-based and Gravel-based Vertical Flow Wet-lands Operated Identically for Domestic Wastewater Treatment in Turkey

Korkusuz, E. Asuman, Meryem Bekliolu and Göksel N. Demirer

Feb-05Ecological Engineering; 24(3): 185-198. Feb 20, 2005.

414Effectiveness of constructed wetlands in reducing nitrogen and phosphorus export from agricultural tile drainage

Kovacic, D.A., M.B. David, L.E. Gentry, K.M. Starks, and R.A. Cooke

Jul-Aug-00


415Assessing Denitrification Rate Limit-ing Factors in a Constructed Wetland Receiving Landfill Leachate

Kozub, D.D. and S.K. Liehr 1999


416 The Role of Tradable Permits in Water Pollution Control

Kraemer, R.A., E. Kampa, and E. Interwies

Undated 2003+ Report

Ecologic, Institute for In-ternational and European Environmental Policy

This paper explores the use of market-based incentives such as tradable permits to improve water quality in Chile. http://www.iadb.org/sds/inwap/publications/Tradable_Permits_in_Water_Pol-lution_Control.pdf

417Analysis of Phosphorus Control Costs and Effectiveness for Point and Non-point Sources in the Fox-Wolf Basin

Kramer, J., Resource Strategies, Inc. Jul-99 Paper Fox-Wolf Basin 2000

152153


418Analysis of Phosphorus Control Costs and Effectiveness for Point and Non-point Sources in the Fox-Wolf Basin

Kramer, Joseph M. Resource Strategies, Inc.

Jul-99 Report Fox-Wolf Basin 2000

A report of a study of the P control costs for non-point (agricul-tural operations) and point source (municipal treatment plants) in the Fox-Wolf Basin, Wisconsin. Cost estimates made by MTP managers. For non-point source, current P loads are estimated, BMPs are described, and cost estimates are made for P load reductions. Trading zones recommended because of non-uniform mixing of P in water bodies. Favorable conditions for successful trading program include: wide variation in point source control costs, large number of point sources, availabil-ity of low cost non-point source reductions. http://www.rs-inc.com/FWB2K_Final_Report.pdf

419Using a wetland bioreactor to remedi-ate ground water contaminated with nitrate (mg/L) and perchlorate (m/L)

Krauter, P.W. 2001International Journal of Phytoremediation. 2001. v. 3 (4) p. 415-433.

420 Cost-Effective NOx Control in the East-ern United States

Krupnick, A., V. Mc-Connell, M. Cannon, T. Stoessell, and M. Batz

2000 Discussion Paper Resources for the Future

421

Annual Cycle of Nitrogen Removal by a Pilot-scale Subsurface Horizontal Flow in a Constructed Wetland Under Moderate Climate

Kuschk, P., A. Wießner, U. Kappel-meyer, E. Weißbrodt, M. Kästner, and U. Stottmeister

Oct-03 Water Research; 37(17): 4236-4242. Oct 2003.

422 Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science

Kusler, J.A. and M.E. Kentula (eds) 1990 Island Press, Washington,

DC

423

A Comparative Study of Cyperus papyrus and Miscanthidium violaceum-based Constructed Wetlands for Waste-water Treatment in a Tropical Climate

Kyambadde, Joseph, Frank Kansiime, Lena Gumaelius, and Gun-nel Dalhammar

Jan-04 Water Research; 38(2): 475-485. Jan 2004.

424Two Strategies for Advanced Nitrogen Elimination in Vertical Flow Constructed Wetlands

Laber, Johannes, Reinhard Perfler and Raimund Haberl


425 Application of Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in Hungary

Lakatos, Gyula, Magdolna K. Kiss, Marianna Kiss and Péter Juhász


426Applying Lessons Learned from Wetlands Mitigation Banking to Water Quality Trading

Landry, Mark, Antje Siems, Gerald Stedge, and Leonard Shabman

Feb-05 White paper Abt Associates Inc., Bethesda, MD.


427Potential Nitrate Removal from a River Diversion into a Mississippi Delta For-ested Wetland

Lane, Robert R., Hassan S. Mashriqui, G. Paul Kemp, John W. Day, Jason N. Day, and Anna Hamilton

Jul-03 Ecological Engineering; 20(3): 237-249. July 2003.

154155


428

Changes in Stoichiometric Si, N and P Ratios of Mississippi River Water Diverted Through Coastal Wetlands to the Gulf of Mexico

Lane, Robert R., John W. Day, Dubravko Justic, Enrique Reyes, Brian Marx, Jason N. Day and Emily Hyfield

May-04Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science; 60(1): 1-10. May 2004.

429

The 1994 Experimental Opening of the Bonnet Carre Spillway to Divert Missis-sippi River Water into Lake Pontchar-train, Louisiana

Lane, Robert R., John W., Day, Jr., G. Paul Kemp, and Den-nis K. Demcheck

Aug-01Ecological Engineering; 17(4): 411-422. August 2001.

430

The Role of Plant Uptake on the Re-moval of Organic Matter and Nutrients in Subsurface Flow Constructed Wet-lands: A Simulation Study

Langergraber, G. 2005Water Science and Tech-nology, 51(9): 213-23. 2005

431Stormwater Quantity and Quality in a Multiple Pond-wetland System: Flem-ingsbergsviken Case Study

Larm, Thomas Jun-00Ecological Engineering; 15(1-2): 57-75. June 2000.

432Quantification of Biofilms in a Sub-Sur-face Flow Wetland and Their Role in Nutrient Removal

Larsen, E. and M. Greenway 2004

Water Science Technol-ogy. 2004; 49(11-12): 115-22.

433 An Introduction to Water Quality Trad-ing

Leatherman, J., C. Smith, and J. Peter-son

Aug-04 Paper Department of Agricul-tural Economics

Prepared for Agricultural Economics’ “Risk and Profit” Confer-ence http://www.agmanager.info/events/risk_profit/2004/Leatherman-Peterson.pdf

434

Surface Water Nutrient Concentrations and Litter Decomposition Rates in Wetlands Impacted by Agriculture and Mining Activities

Lee, A.A. and P.A. Bukaveckas Dec-02 Aquatic Botany; 74(4):

273-285. Dec 2002.

435Performance of Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland Taking Pretreated Swine Effluent Under Heavy Loads

Lee, C.Y., C.C. Lee, F.Y. Lee, S.K. Tseng, and C.J. Liao

Apr-04 Bioresources Technology. 2004 Apr;92(2): 173-9.

436 Effects of marshes on water quality Lee, G.F., E. Bentley, and R. Amundson 1975

In: Coupling of Land and Water Systems. A.D. Hasler, Ed., Springer-Ver-lag, New York, NY.

437 Chapter 5: The Pesticide Submodel Leonard, R.A. and R.D. Wauchope 1980

p. 88-112. In W.G. Knisel (ed.). CREAMS: A field-scale model for chemi-cals, runoff and erosion from agricultural manage-ment systems. USDA Conservation Research Rept. No. 26.

438 Basis for the Protection and Manage-ment of Tropical Lakes Lewis, William M. Jr Mar-00 Paper

Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Manage-ment, Volume 5, Issue 1, Page 35-48, Mar 2000

154155


439 Ocean Pollution from Land-based Sources: East China Sea, China Li, D. and D. Daler Feb-04 Paper

Ambio. 2004 Feb;33(1-2):107-13. PMID: 15083656

This paper describes the role that steady water discharge from the Yangtze River has on alleviating impacts from pollution in the East China Sea and that large-scale water transfer and dam constructions in the Yangtze River basin will change this process. The main challenge to restoring ecosystem balance is to integrate socioeconomic and environmental decision making in order to promote sustainable development.

440 Spatial Modeling on the Nutrient Reten-tion of an Estuary Wetland

Li, Xiuzhen, Duning Xiao, Rob H. Jong-man, W. Bert Harms, and Arnold K. Bregt

Sep-03Ecological Modelling; 167(1-2): 33-46. Sept 1, 2003.

441

Roles of Substrate Microorganisms and Urease Activities in Wastewater Purification in a Constructed Wetland System

Liang, Wei, Zhen-bin Wu, Shui-ping Cheng, Qiao-hong Zhou and Hong-ying Hu


442

Comparison of Nutrient Removal Ability Between Cyperus alternifolius and Vetiveria zizanioides in Constructed Wetlands

Liao, X., S. Luo, Y. Wu, and Z. Wang Jan-05

Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao, 16(1): 156-60. Jan 2005.

443 Phosphorus removal in a wetland con-structed on former arable land

Liikanen, A., M. Puustinen, J. Koski-aho, T. Vaisanen, P. Martikainen, and H. Hartikainen

May-Jun-04

Journal of environmental quality. 2004 May-June, v. 33, no. 3, p. 1124-1132.

444

Temporal and Seasonal Changes in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Constructed Wetland Purifying Peat Mining Runoff Waters

Liikanen, Anu, Jari T. Huttunen, Satu Maaria Karjalainen, Kaisa Heikkinen, Tero S. Väisänen, Hannu Nykänen, and Pertti J. Martikainen

Dec-05

Ecological Engineer-ing, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 15 December 2005

445The Effect of Heavy Metals on Nitrogen and Oxygen Demand Removal in Con-structed Wetlands

Lim, P.E., M.G. Tay, K.Y. Mak, and N. Mohamed

Jan-03The Science of The Total Environment; 301(1-3): 13-21. Jan 1, 2003.

446

Oxygen Demand, Nitrogen and Copper Removal by Free-water-surface and Subsurface-flow Constructed Wetlands Under Tropical Conditions

Lim, P.E., T.F. Wong, and D.V. Lim May-01

Environment Interna-tional; 26(5-6): 425-431. May 2001.

447

Removal of solids and oxygen demand from aquaculture wastewater with a constructed wetland system in the tart-up phase

Lin, Y.F., S.R. Jing, D.Y. Lee, T.W. Wang

Mar-Apr-04

Water Environment Fed-eration. Mar/Apr 2002. v. 74 (2) p. 136-141.

448

Performance of a constructed wetland treating intensive shrimp aquaculture wastewater under high hydraulic load-ing rate

Lin, Y.F., S.R. Jing, D.Y. Lee, Y.F. Chang, Y.M. Chen, K.C. Shih

Apr-05Environmental Pollution. 2005 Apr., v. 134, no. 3, p. 411-421.

156157


449The Potential Use of Constructed Wet-lands in a Recirculating Aquaculture System for Shrimp Culture

Lin, Ying-Feng, Shuh-Ren Jing, and Der-Yuan Lee

May-03Environmental Pollution; 123(1): 107-113. May 2003.

450Nutrient Removal from Aquaculture Wastewater Using a Constructed Wet-lands System

Lin, Ying-Feng, Shuh-Ren Jing, Der-Yuan Lee, and Tze-Wen Wang

Jun-02 Aquaculture; 209(1-4): 169-184. June 28, 2002.

451

Effects of Macrophytes and External Carbon Sources on Nitrate Removal from Groundwater in Constructed Wetlands

Lin, Ying-Feng, Shuh-Ren Jing, Tze-Wen Wang, and Der-Yuan Lee

Oct-02Environmental Pollution; 119(3): 413-420. Oct 2002.

452

Air/water Exchange of Mercury in the Everglades II: Measuring and Model-ing Evasion of Mercury from Surface Waters in the Everglades Nutrient Removal Project

Lindberg, S.E. and H. Zhang

2-Oct-00

Science of the Total Environment. 2000 Oct 2;259(1-3):135-43.

453Stimulation of microbial sulphate reduc-tion in a constructed wetland: microbio-logical and geochemical analysis

Lloyd, J.R., D.A. Klessa, D.L. Parry, P. Buck, N.L. Brown

Apr-04Water Research. 2004 Apr., v. 38, no. 7, p. 1822-1830.

454

Influence of Harvesting on Biogeo-chemical Exchange in Sheetflow and Soil Processes in a Eutrophic Flood-plain Forest

Lockaby, B.G., R.G. Clawson, K. Flynn, R. Rummer, S. Mead-ows, B. Stokes and J. Stanturf

Feb-97

Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 90, Issues 2-3, February 1997, Pages 187-194

455Telephone Interview with Bill Lord, Neuse River Eduction Team, North Carolina State University 12/9/2005

Lord, Bill

456Dissolved organic carbon and methane emissions from a rice paddy fertilized with ammonium and nitrate

Lu, Y., R. Wassa-mann, H.U. Neue, and C. Huang

Nov-Dec-00


The effect of nitrogen fertilizers on methane (CH4) production and emission in wetland rice (Oryza sativa L.) is not clearly un-derstood. Greenhouse pot and laboratory incubation were con-ducted to determine whether the effect of N type (NH4)-N and NO3-N) and rate (30 and 120 kg N ha super(-1)) were related to the availability of carbon for CH4 production in flooded rice soils. The inhibitory effect of NO3-N seemed not fully accountable for the prolonged reduction in CH4 production and emission in the fields. The root zone DOC that is enriched by plant-borne C appears to be a main source for CH4 production and the lower DOC concentrations with NO3-N application are accountable for the low CH4 emissions. http://www.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=0516433EN&q=Dissolved+organic+carbon+and+methane+emissions+from+a+rice+paddy+fertilized+with+ammonium+and+nitrate&uid=1025630&setcookie=yes

457Early development of vascular vegeta-tion of constructed wetlands in north-west Ohio receiving agricultural waters

Luckeydoo, L.M., N.R. Fausey, L.C. Brown, and C.B. Davis

Jan-02Agriculture, ecosystems & environment. Jan 2002. v. 88 (1) p. 89-94.

156157


458Nutrient Removal Efficiency and Re-source Economics of Vertical Flow and Horizontal Flow Constructed Wetlands

Luederitz, Volker, Elke Eckert, Martina Lange-Weber, An-dreas Lange, and Richard M. Gersberg

Dec-01Ecological Engineering; 18(2): 157-171. Decem-ber 2001.

459Estimating Denitrification in a Large Constructed Wetland Using Stable Nitrogen Isotope Ratios

Lund, L.J., A.J. Horne, and A.E. Wil-liams

Sep-99Ecological Engineering; 14(1-2): 67-76. Septem-ber 1999.

460

Efficacy of a Subsurface-flow Wetland Using the Estuarine Sedge Juncus kraussii to Treat Effluent from Inland Saline Aquaculture

Lymbery, Alan J., Robert G. Doupé, Thomas Bennett, and Mark R. Starcevich

Jan-06 Aquacultural Engineering; 34(1): 1-7. Jan 2006.

461Reducing Phosphorus Loads in Idaho’s Lower Boise River: The Role of Trading from a State Perspective

Mabe, David Jul-03 PowerPoint 2003 National Forum on Water Quality Trading

462Importance of Compliance and En-forcement in International Emissions Trading Schemes

Mace, M. J. (Pro-gramme Director)

3/16-18/2004 Presentation

Foundation for Interna-tional Law and Develop-ment

http://www.inece.org/emissions/mace.pdf

463 Cold-Climate Constructed WetlandsMæhlum, T., P.D. Jenssen and W. S. Warner


464

The Use of Constructed Wetlands for the Treatment of Run-off and Drainage Waters: The UK and Ukraine Experi-ence

Magmedov, Vy-acheslav G., Michael A. Zakharchenko, Ludmila I. Yakovleva and Margaret E. Ince

1996


465mpacts of sedimentation and nitrogen enrichment on wetland plant commu-nity development

Mahaney, W.M., D.H. Wardrop, R.P. Brooks 2004 Plant Ecology. 2004, v.

175, no. 2, p. 227-243. http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/1385-0237/contents

466Nitrogen and phosphorus flux rates from sediments in a southeastern US river estuary

Malecki, L.M., J.R. White and K.R. Reddy

2004 Journal of Environmental Quality

467Point/non-point Source Trading of Pol-lution Abatement: Choosing the Right Trading Ratio

Malick, A., D. Letson, and S.R. Crutchfield

American J. of Ag. Econ. 7:959-967.

468 Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in Estonia

Mander, Ulo and Tonu Mauring 1997


469Nutrient Dynamics of Riparian Eco-tones: A Case Study from the Porijõgi River Catchment, Estonia

Mander, Ülo, Valdo Kuusemets and Mari Ivask

Feb-95

Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 31, Is-sues 1-3, February 1995, Pages 333-348

470Application of Constructed Wetlands for Domestic Wastewater Treatment in an Arid Climate

Mandi, L., K. Bouhoum and N. Ouazzani


158159


471Application of a Horizontal Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland on Treat-ment of Dairy Parlor Wastewater

Mantovi, Paolo, Marta Marmiroli, Elena Maestri, Simona Tagliavini, Sergio Piccinini, and Nelson Marmiroli

Jun-03 Bioresource Technology; 88(2): 85-94. June 2003.

472Pollutant Monitoring of Effluent Credit Trading Programs For Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control

March, D.J. Nov-00 Masters Thesis

Virginia Polytechnic and State University

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-02142001-091021/unrestricted/FinalFinalThesisVersion0202.PDF

473The Role of the Submergent Macro-phyte Triglochin huegelii in Domestic Greywater Treatment

Mars, Ross, Kuruvilla Mathew and Goen Ho Jan-99


474 Final Report: Results of Water-Based Trading Simulations Marshall, C. Sep-99 Report Philip Services, Incorpo-

rated

475 Results of Water-Based Trading Simu-lations

Marshall, Chuck QEP Philip Services Sep-99 Report EPA

476Estimating Erosion in a Riverine Water-shed: Bayou Liberty-Tchefuncta River in Louisiana

Martin, A., J.T. Gunt-er, and J.L. Regens 2003 Paper

Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2003;10(4):245-50. PMID: 12943008

This study uses spatial analysis techniques and a numerical modeling approach to predict areas with the greatest sheet ero-sion potential given different soils disturbance scenarios.

477The Use of Extended Aeration and In-series Surface-flow Wetlands for Landfill Leachate Treatment

Martin, Craig D. and Keith D. Johnson Jun-05


478 Interaction and Spatial Distribution of Wetland Nitrogen Processes

Martin, Jay F. and K. R. Reddy Dec-97

Ecological Modelling, Volume 105, Issue 1, 14 December 1997, Pages 1-21

479Fate of 15N-nitrate in Unplanted, Planted and Harvested Riparian Wet-land Soil Microcosms

Matheson, F.E., M. L.Nguyen, A.B. Cooper, T.P. Burt, and D.C. Bull

Oct-02 Ecological Engineering; 19(4): 249-264. Oct 2002.

480Periodic draining reduces mosquito emergence from free-water surface constructed wetlands

Mayhew, C.R., D.R. Raman, R.R. Ger-hardt, R.T. Burns, and M.S. Younger

Mar-Apr-04

Transactions of the ASAE. 2004 Mar-Apr, v. 47, no. 2, p. 567-573.

481

Producing native and ornamental wetland plants in constructed wetlands designed to reduce pollution from agricultural runoff

Maynard, B.K.

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) research proj-ects. Northeast Region. 2001, SARE PROJECT LNE98-100

482

Effect of HRT on Nitrogen Removal in a Coupled HRP and Unplanted Subsur-face Flow Gravel Bed Constructed Wetland

Mayo, A.W. and J. Mutamba 2004

Ecological Engineer-ing, Volume 21, Issues 4-5, 31 December 2003, Pages 233-247

158159


483Nitrogen Transformation in Horizontal Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands I: Model Development

Mayo, A.W. and T. Bigambo 2005

Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C; 30(11-16): 658-667. 2005.

484Nitrogen Transformation in Horizontal Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands II: Effect of Biofilm



485

Modelling Nitrogen Removal in a Coupled HRP and Unplanted Hori-zontal Flow Subsurface Gravel Bed Constructed Wetland



486

Comparative treatment of dye-rich wastewater in engineered wetland systems (EWSs) vegetated with differ-ent plants

Mbuligwe, S.E. Jan-Feb-05

Water Research. 2005 Jan-Feb, v. 39, issue 2-3 p. 271-280

487Habitat Quality Assessment of Two Wetland Treatment Systems in the Arid West--Pilot Study

McAllister, L.S. Jul-92 Pilot Study Report


488Habitat Quality Assessment of Two Wetland Treatment Systems in Missis-sippi--A Pilot Study

McAllister, L.S. Nov-92 Pilot Study Report


489Habitat Quality Assessment of Two Wetland Treatment Systems in Florida--A Pilot Study

McAllister, L.S. Nov-93EPA/600/R-93/222. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR

490Modelling Biofilm Nitrogen Transforma-tions in Constructed Wetland Meso-cosms with Fluctuating Water Levels

McBride, Graham B. and Chris C. Tanner Sep-99


491Cost Effectiveness and Targeting of Agricultural BMPs for the Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Trading Program

McCarthy, M., R. Dodd, J.P. Tippett, and D. Harding

1996 ProceedingsWatersheds ‘96. Water Environment Federation and U.S. EPA.

This paper discusses some of the technical work that supports the Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Trading Program implementation. In order to help the Program participants set a reasonable cost for trading nitrogen or phosphorus between point and nonpoint sources and understand how cost effective different best man-agement practices (BMPs) are, the authors developed cost-effectiveness estimates (expressed as $/kilogram of nutrient load reduced) for cost-shared agricultural BMPs in the Basin. The data represent BMPs that were implemented from 1985 to 1994. http://www.epa.gov/owowwtr1/watershed/Proceed/mccarthy.html

492 Nutrient Trading: Experiences and Lessons McCatty, T. Aug-99 Case Study Massachusetts Institute

of Technology

493 A Guide to Hydrologic Analysis Using SCS Methods McCuen, R.H. 1982 Printice-Hall, Inc. Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ.

494 Multiple Credit Types for a Single Project Site

McElwaine, Andrew Pennsylvania Envi-ronmental Council


160161


495

Estimating Inorganic and Organic Ni-trogen Transformation Rates in a Model of a Constructed Wetland Purification System for Dilute Farm Effluents

McGechan, M.B., S.E. Moir, G. Sym, and K. Castle

May-05 Biosystems Engineering; 91(1): 61-75. May 2005.

496Modelling oxygen transport in a reed-bed-constructed wetland purification system for dilute effluents

McGechan, M.B., S.E. Moir, I.P.J. Smit, and K. Castle

Jun-05Biosystems Engineering. 2005 June, v. 91, no. 2, p. 191-200.


497Watershed-based Pollution Trading Development and Current Trading Programs

McGinnis, S. L. Feb-01 Paper

Springer-Verlag GmbH, ISSN: 1433-6618 (Paper) 1434-0852 (Online), DOI: 10.1007/s100220000018, Volume 2, Number 3, Pages: 161 - 170

This paper describes the diversity of existing pollution trading programs and the flexibility that exists in trading programs to manage nearly any site-specific watershed pollution problem. Although the use of watershed-based pollution trading is rela-tively unproven, observation of the existing trading programs indicates that trading has the potential to improve water quality in heavily impaired watersheds. http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp

498

Relating Net Nitrogen Input in the Mississippi River Basin to Nitrate Flux in the Lower Mississippi River: A Com-parison of Approaches

McIsaac, G.F., M.B. David, G.Z. Gertner, and D.A. Goolsby

Sept-Oct/ 2002

PaperJ Environ Qual. 2002 Sep-Oct;31(5):1610-22. PMID: 12371178

The objective of this study was to compare recently published approaches for relating terrestrial N inputs to the Mississippi River basin (MRB) with measured nitrate flux in the lower Mis-sissippi River. Nitrogen inputs to and outputs from the MRB (1951 to 1996) were estimated from state-level annual agri-cultural production statistics and NOy (inorganic oxides of N) deposition estimates for 20 states that comprise 90% of the MRB. Modeling was used to analyze the data.

499

Soil Organic Matter and Nitrogen Cycling in Response to Harvesting, Mechanical Site Preparation, and Fertilization in a Wetland with a Mineral Substrate

McLaughlin, James W., Margaret R. Gale, Martin F. Jurgensen, and Carl C. Trettin

Apr-00Forest Ecology and Man-agement; 129(1-3): 7-23. April 17, 2000.

500 Stakeholders’ View of Watershed-Based Trading McNew, Todd Jul-03 PowerPoint 2003 National Forum on Water Quality Trading

501The Use of Water Quality Trading and Wetland Restoration to Address Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico

Mehan, G. Tracy III, Cadmus Group



502Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) develop-ment within microhabitats of an Iowa wetland

Mercer, D.R., S.L. Sheeley, E.J. Brown Jul-05

Journal of Medical Ento-mology. 2005 July, v. 42, no. 4, p. 685-693.

503Water and Mass Budgets of a Verti-cal-flow Constructed Wetland used for Wastewater Treatment

Meuleman, Arthur F. M., Richard Van Logtestijn, Gerard B.J. Rijs, and Jos T. A. Verhoeven

Mar-03 Ecological Engineering; 20(1): 31-44. March 2003.

504

Nutrients in salmon hatchery wastewa-ter and its removal through the use of a wetland constructed to treat off-line settling pond effluent

Michael, J.H., Jr. Oct-03Aquaculture. 2003 Oct. 31, v. 226, no. 1-4, p. 213-225.

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/issn/00448486

160161


505 Introduction to Market-Based Programs

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Wa-ter Quality Division

Web site

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Quality Division

http://www.deq.state.mi.us/swq/trading/htm/intro.htm

506 Market-Based Program Feasibility


Web site


http://www.deq.state.mi.us/swq/trading/htm/kzo.htm

507 Saginaw Basin Modeling


Modeling


http://www.deq.state.mi.us/swq/trading/htm/wrimod.htm

508Water Quality Trading Workgroup Discussion Document. Part XXX. Water Quality Trading - Draft #20


Sep-99 Discussion


http://www.deq.state.mi.us/swq/trading/htm/Rule20.htm

509 Rahr Malting Company “Trading” Permit Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Mar-97 Fact sheet Minnesota Pollution Con-

trol Agency http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/pubs/rahrtrad.pdf

510

Watershed-Based Permitting Case Study: Final Permit Rahr Malting Company National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and State Disposal System Permit No. MN0031917

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Jan-97 Case Study Minnesota Pollution Con-

trol Agency (MPCA)

511A Framework for Trading Phosphorus Credits in the Lake Allatoona Water-shed

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2003 Project plan

River Basin Center Insti-tute of Ecology, University of Georgia

512The Use of Wetlands for Water Pollu-tion Control in Australia: An Ecological Perspective

Mitchell, D.S., A.J. Chick and G.W. Raisin


513

Nitrogen Biogeochemistry in the Adirondack Mountains of New York: Hardwood Ecosystems and Associated Surface Waters

Mitchell, Myron J., Charles T. Driscoll, Shreeram Inamdar, Greg G. McGee, Monday O. Mbila, and Dudley J. Raynal

Jun-03Environmental Pollution; 123(3): 355-364. June 2003.

162163


514

Landscape design and the role of created, restored, and natural riparian wetlands in controlling nonpoint source pollution

Mitsch, W.J. 1992Ecological Engineering [ECOL. ENG.]. Vol. 1, no. 1-2, pp. 27-47. 1992.

General design principles of wetland construction for nonpoint source (NPS) water pollution control emphasize self-design and minimum maintenance systems, with an emphasis on function over form and biological form over rigid designs. These wetlands can be located as instream wetlands or as floodplain ripar-ian wetlands, can be located as several wetlands in upstream reaches or fewer in downstream reaches of a watershed, and can be designed as terraced wetlands in steep terrain. Case studies of a natural riparian wetland in southern Illinois, an in-stream wetland in a downstream location in a northern Ohio wa-tershed, and several constructed riparian wetlands in northeast-ern Illinois demonstrate a wide range of sediment and phospho-rus retention, with greater efficiencies generally present in the constructed wetlands (63-96% retention of phosphorus) than in natural wetlands (4-10% retention of phosphorus). By itself, this could be misleading since the natural wetlands have much higher loading rates and actually retain an amount of nutrients comparable to constructed wetlands (1-4 g P/ super(2)/year).

515 GLOBAL WETLANDS: OLD WORLD AND NEW Mitsch, W.J. (ed.) 1994

Hardbound, ISBN: 0-444-81478-7, 992 pages, publication date: 1994

516

Wetlands and Lakes as Nitrogen Traps : Kessler, E. and M. Jansson, eds. 1994. Special Issue of Ambio 23:319-386. Royal Swedish Academy of Sci-ences, Stockholm.

Mitsch, William J. Oct-95Ecological Engineering, Volume 5, Issue 1, Octo-ber 1995, Pages 123-125

517 Wetlands 3rd Edition Mitsch, William J. and James G. Gosselink

21-Jul-00

John Wiley and Sons 936 pgs.

518 Nitrate-nitrogen Retention in Wetlands in the Mississippi River Basin

Mitsch, William J., John W. Day, Li Zhang, and Robert R. Lane

Apr-05Ecological Engineering; 24(4): 267-278. Apr 5, 2005.

519Creating Riverine Wetlands: Ecological Succession, Nutrient Retention, and Pulsing Effects

Mitsch, William J., Li Zhang, Christopher J. Anderson, Anne E. Altor, and Maria E. Hernández

Dec-05Ecological Engineering; 25(5)1/19/2006 510-527. Dec. 1, 2005.

520 Water Quality Trading in the United States

Morgan, Cynthia and Ann Wolverton Jun-05 Working Paper

Working Paper # 05-07. U.S. EPA, National Center for Environmental Eco-nomics


521 Biogeochemical Considerations for Water Quality Trading in Canada Morin, Anne 2005 Policy Research Initiative

Working Paper, Ottawa.

522

The Design and Performance of Averti-cal Flow Reed Bed for the Treatment of High Ammonia, Low Suspended Solids Organic Effluents

Morris, Michael and Robert Herbert 1997


162163


523Off-set Banking–A way Ahead for Controlling Non-point Source Pollution in Urban Areas

Morrison, M. 2003 PaperSchool of Marketing and Management, Charles Sturt University

524Off-set Banking: A Way Ahead for Controlling Non-point Source Pollution in Urban Areas in Georgia

Morrison, Mark D. Jun-02 Working Paper Draft

Georgia Water Planning and Policy Center

http://www.h2opolicycenter.org/pdf_documents/water_working-papers/2002_004.pdf

525 Constructed Wetland for Water Quality Improvement Moshiri, G.A. 1993 CRC Press, Boca Raton,

FL. 1993.

526

Modelling Nutrient Fluxes from Diffuse and Point Emissions to River Loads: The Estonian Part of the Transbound-ary Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Drainage Basin (Russia/Estonia/Latvia)

Mourad, D. and M. van der Perk 2004 Paper

Water Sci Technol. 2004;49(3):21-8. PMID: 15053095

527 Do wetlands behave like shallow lakes in terms of phosphorus dynamics? Moustafa, M.Z. Feb-00

Journal of the American Water Resources Asso-ciation / Feb 2000. v. 36 (1) p. 43-54.

http://www.awra.org/jawra/index.html

528The Response of a Freshwater Wet-land to Long-term “Low Level” Nutrient Loads - Marsh Efficiency

Moustafa, M.Z., M.J. Chimney, T.D. Fontaine, G. Shih and S. Davis

Sep-96

Ecological Engineer-ing, Volume 7, Issue 1, September 1996, Pages 15-33

529Validation Approaches for Field-, Basin-, and Regional-scale Water Quality Models

Mulla, D.J. and T.M. Addiscott 1999

In D.L. Corwin and T.R. Ellsworth (ed.). Assess-ment of non-point source pollution in the vadose zone. American Geoph-syical Union. Washington, D.C. pp. 63-78.

530

Effect of NH4+/NO3? Availability on Nitrate Reductase Activity and Nitrogen Accumulation in Wetland Helophytes Phragmites australis and Glyceria maxima

Munzarova, Edita, Bent Lorenzen, Hans Brix, Lenka Vojtiskova, and Olga Votrubova

Jan-06Environmental and Ex-perimental Botany; 55(1-2): 49-60. Jan 2006.

531 Information on Water Quality Param-eters Murphy, S. 2005

USGS Water Quality Monitoring, BASIN Proj-ect, City of Boulder, CO

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/data/BACT/info/ (January 2006).

532Simulation of Pollution Buffering Ca-pacity of Wetlands Fringing the Lake Victoria

Mwanuzi, F., H. Aalderink, and L. Mdamo

Apr-03Environmental Interna-tional. 2003 Apr; 29(1): 95-103.

533 Soil development in phosphate-mined created wetlands of Florida, USA

Nair, V.D., D.A. Graetz, K.R. Reddy, and O.G. Olila

Jun-01

Wetlands : the Journal of the Society of the Wetlands Scientists. June 2001. v. 21 (2) p. 232-239.

534

Report of the Conservation Innova-tions Task Force (CITF), Dec. 2003, Appendix III - Water Quality Trading - Nonpoint Credit Bank

National Associa-tion of Conservation Districts

Dec-03 Report National Association of Conservation Districts http://www.nacdnet.org/resources/CITF/app3.htm

164165


535Treatment of Freshwater Fish Farm Ef-fluent Using Constructed Wetlands: The Role of Plants and Substrate

Naylor, S., J. Brls-son, M.A. Labelle, A. Drizo, and Y. Comeau

2003 Water Science Technol-ogy. 2003; 48(5): 215-22.

536 Soil and Water Assessment Tool User’s Manual

Neitsch, S.L., J.G. Arnold, J.R. Kiniry, and J.R. Williams

2001 OnlineAvailable at http://www.brc.tamus.edu/swat/swat-2000doc.html.

537Market and Bargaining Approaches to Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Problems

Netusil, N.R. and John B. Braden 1993 Journal Article Water Science and Tech-

nology, 28(3-5), 35-45.

538 Watershed Based Permitting Case Study: Final Permit

Neuse River Compli-ance Association 2002 Case Study US Environmental Protec-

tion Agency http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/wq_casestudy_factsht11.pdf

539 Wetland Project Teaches Students How To Protect Our Water Supply

Neuse River Eduction Team

winter 2004 Case study

Neuse River Eduction Team, North Carolina State University website. Viewed on 12/05/2005

http://www.neuse.ncsu.edu/neuse_letters/winter2004/story2.htm

540 Neuse Education Team Impacts: Agri-cultural Impacts 2: Novel Nursery

Neuse River Eduction Team undated Case study

Neuse River Eduction Team, North Carolina State University website. Viewed on 12/05/2005

http://www.neuse.ncsu.edu/impact2b.pdf

541 Guidance for Phosphorus Offset Pilot Programs

New York City De-partment of Environ-mental Protection, Bureau of Water Supply Quality and Protection

Mar-97 Guidance Doc

New York City Depart-ment of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Supply Quality and Protection

542Seasonal Performance of a Wetland Constructed to Process Dairy Milk-house Wastewater in Connecticut

Newman, Jana Majer, John C. Clausen, and Joseph A. Neafsey

Sep-99Ecological Engineering; 14(1-2): 181-198. Sep-tember 1999.

543 An Environmental Big Stick Newport, Alan Mar-04 Article

National Hog Farmer, PRIMEDIA Busienss Magazines and Media, Inc. 2004

544

The Effects of Stormwater Surface Runoff on Freshwater Wetlands: A Review of the Literature and Annotated Bibliography

Newton, R.B. 1989

Publ. #90-2. The Environ-mental Institute, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA

545

Organic Matter Composition, Micro-bial Biomass and Microbial Activity in Gravel-bed Constructed Wetlands Treating Farm Dairy Wastewaters

Nguyen, Long M. Nov-00Ecological Engineering; 16(2): 199-221. Novem-ber 2000.

546 A Guide to Market-Based Approaches to Water Quality

Nguyen, T., R.T. Woodward, M.D. Mat-lock, and P. Faeth

Oct-04 Paper World Resource Institute

164165


547

Evidence of N2O emission and gas-eous nitrogen losses through nitrifica-tion-denitrification induced by rice plants (Oryza sativa L.)

Ni, W.Z., and Z.L. Zhu Aug-04Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2004 Aug., v. 40, no. 3, p. 211-214.

548Inhibition kinetics of salt-affected wetland for municipal wastewater treat-ment

Nitisoravut, S. and P. Klomjek Nov-05

Water Research. 2005 Nov., v. 39, issue 18, p. 4413-4419.

549

Wetlands and Water Quality: A Re-gional Review of Recent Research in the U.S. on the Role of Freshwater and Saltwater Wetlands as Sources, Sinks, and Transformers of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Heavy Metals

Nixon, S.W. and V. Lee 1986 Abstract

Technical Rept. Y-86-2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS

550

Inactivation of Indicator Micro-organ-isms from Various Sources of Fae-cal Contamination in Seawater and Freshwater

Noble, R.T., I.M. Lee, and K.C. Schiff Mar-04 Paper

Journal of Applied Microbiology, Volume 96, Issue 3, Page 464-472, Mar 2004

551

A Pilot Study of Constructed Wetlands Using Duckweed (Lemna gibba L.) for Treatment of Domestic Primary Effluent in Israel

Noemi Ran, Moshe Agami, and Gideon Oron

May-04 Water Research; 38(9): 2241-2248. May 2004.

552

Report of the Proceedings on the Proposed Neuse River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) Management Strategy

North Carolina De-partment of Environ-ment and Natural Resources

Dec-97 Plan

Environmental Man-agement Commission Meeting December 11, 1997. Printed November 26, 1997

553Phase II of the Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Nitrogen to the Neuse River Estuary, North Carolina

North Carolina De-partment of Environ-ment and Natural Resources

Dec-01

North Carolina Depart-ment of Environment and Natural Resources, Dividion of Water Quality

554 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan

North Carolina De-partment of Environ-ment and Natural Re-sources (NCDENR)

1998 NC Division of Water Quality

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/Neuse/neuse_wq_manage-ment_plan.htm

555

Report of the Proceedings on the Proposed Neuse River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) Management Strategy. Environmental Management Commission Meeting

North Carolina De-partment of Environ-ment, Health and Natural Resources.

Jun-97 Plan Reprinted July 1997.

556Tar-Pamlico River Nutrient Manage-ment Plan for Nonpoint Sources of Pollution

North Carolina Divi-sion of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section

Dec-95 Plan

North Carolina Division of Environmental Manage-ment, Water Quality Section

166167


557Implementation of the Conservation Partnership’s Neuse River Basin Initia-tive

North Carolina Divi-sion of Soil and Water Conservation

Website

North Carolina Divi-sion of Soil and Water Conservation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Website ac-cessed 11/26/2005

http://www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/pages/intitiative.html

558Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (July 1999) North Carolina Divi-

sion of Water Quality 1999 North Carolina Division of Water Quality

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/tarpam_wq_management_plan.htm

559

North Carolina Division of Water Qual-ity Nonpoint Source Management Pro-gram : Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Strategy Website

North Carolina Divi-sion of Water Quality

Date ac-cessed: 12/06/05

Website North Carolina Division of Water Quality http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/tarpam.htm

560

Fiscal Analysis: Nonpoint Source Nutrient Rules Tar-Pamlico River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy

North Carolina Divi-sion of Water Quality

Jul. 1, 1999


561

First Annual Status Report to the Envi-ronmental Management Commission. Tar-Pamlico River Nutrient Manage-ment Plan for Nonpoint Sources

North Carolina Divi-sion of Water Quality, Water Quality Section

Oct-97 ReportNorth Carolina Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section

562

Second Annual Status Report to the Environmental Management Commis-sion. Tar-Pamlico River Nutrient Man-agement Plan for Nonpoint Sources

North Carolina Divi-sion of Water Quality, Water Quality Section

Jul-98 ReportNorth Carolina Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section

563 Point/nonpoint Trading Program for the Green Bay Remedial Action Plan

Northeast Wisconsin Waters For Tomorrow (now called Fox-Wolf Basin 2000)

1994

Northeast Wisconsin Wa-ters For Tomorrow (now called Fox-Wolf Basin 2000)

564 The phosphorus index NRCS 2001NRCS. Agronomy Techni-cal Note 26 (revised). Portland, OR.

565 Evaluation of Phosphorus Retention in a South Florida Treatment Wetland

Nungesser, M.K. and M.J. Chimney 2001


566 Phosphorous Trading in the South Na-tion River Watershed, Ontario, Canada

O’Grady, D. and M.A. Wilson 2002 South Nation Conserva-

tion Authority. http://www.envtn.org/wqt/programs/ontario.PDF.

567 Lessons Learned from Point-Nonpoint Source Trading Case Studies

O’Grady, Dennis South Nation Conser-vation




O’Grady, Dennis South Nation Conser-vation



166167


569 Creating Markets for Nutrients and Other Water Pollutants O’Sullivan, D. 2002 Coast-to-Coast 2002

570Distribution of Nutrients and Heavy Metals in a Constructed Wetland System

Obarska-Pempkow-iak, Hanna and Katar-zyna Klimkowska

Jul-99 Chemosphere; 39(2): 303-312. July 1999.

571Mineral nutrition of three aquatic emergent macrophytes in a managed wetland in Venezuela

Olivares, E., D. Vizcaino, and A. Gamboa

2002 Journal of plant nutrition. 2002. v. 25 (3) p. 475-496.

572 Nonpoint Source-Stream Nutrient Level Relationships: A Nationwide Study Omernik, J.M. 1997

EPA 600/3-79-105. Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Corvallis, OR.

573Reducing Nitrogen from Agriculture at a River Basin Scale: Lessons Learned in the Neuse River Basin

Osmond, Deanna, Bill Lord, and Mitch Woodward (NC State University)



574 Microbial Characteristics of Construct-ed Wetlands

Ottová, Vlasta, Jarmila Balcarová and Jan Vymazal


575

FerryMon: Using Ferries to Monitor and Assess Environmental Conditions and Change in North Carolina’s Albemarle-Pamlico Sound System

Paerl, Hans and Thomas Gallo (Institute of Marine Science, UNC-Cha-pel Hill); Christopher P. Buzzelli (Hollings Marine Lab); Joseph S. Ramus, presenter (Duke University)



576Phytoplankton Photopigments as Indicators of Estuarine and Coastal Eutrophication

Paerl, Hans W. Oct-03 BioScience http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1679/is_200310/ai_n9292643

577 Hydrologic Influence on Stability of Or-ganic Phosphorus in Wetland Detritus

Pant, H.K. and K.R. Reddy

Mar-Apr 2001

Journal of Environmental Quality. 2001 Mar-Apr;30(2):668-74.

168169


578Planted Riparian Buffer Zones in New Zealand: Do They Live Up to Expecta-tions?

Parkyn, Stephanie M., Rob J. Davies-Colley, N. Jane Hal-liday, Kerry J. Costley, and Glenys F. Croker

Dec-03 PaperRestoration Ecology, Volume 11, Issue 4, Page 436-447, Dec 2003

Study that assessed nine riparian buffer zone schemes in New Zealand that had been fenced and planted (age range from 2 to 24 years) and compared them with unbuffered control reaches upstream or nearby. Included in the study were macroinverte-brate community composition and a range of physical and water quality variables within the stream and in the riparian zone. Generally, streams within buffer zones showed rapid improve-ments in visual water clarity and channel stability, but nutrient and fecal contamination responses were variable. Significant changes in macroinvertebrate communities toward “clean water” or native forest communities did not occur at most of the study sites. Improvement in invertebrate communities appeared to be most strongly linked to decreases in water temperature, suggesting that restoration of in-stream communities would only be achieved after canopy closure, with long buffer lengths, and protection of headwater tributaries. Expectations of ripar-ian restoration efforts should be tempered by (1) time scales and (2) spatial arrangement of planted reaches, either within a catchment or with consideration of their proximity to source areas of recolonists.

579Economic and Environmental Impacts of Nutrient Loss Reductions on Dairy and Dairy/poultry Farms

Pease, J. and D.E. Kenyon 1998 Paper Pen State University and

Virginia Tech

Study of potential N and P losses at edge of farm fields and root zones in Virginia. Describes details of existing farm-ing practices. Simulates farm income effects under current practices and 3 possible nutrient management policies; manure incorporation, restrict N application, restrict P application. Esti-mates made by agricultural engineers.

580

Effect of different assemblages of larval foods on Culex quinquefasciatus and Culex tarsalis (Diptera: Culicidae) growth and whole body stoichiometry

Peck, G.W. and W.E. Walton Aug-05

Environmental entomol-ogy. 2005 Aug., v. 34, no. 4, p. 767-774.

http://www.entsoc.org/pubs/periodicals/ee/index.htm

581 The use of design element in wetlands Persson, J. 2005 Nordic Hydrology 36(2):113-120.

582 Hydraulic efficiency of constructed wetlands and ponds

Persson, J., N. L. G. Somes, and T. H. F. Wong

1999 Water Science and Tech-nology 40 (3): 291-300.

583 How Hydrological and Hydraulic Condi-tions Affect Performance of Ponds

Persson, Jesper and Hans B. Wittgren Dec-03


584 The Role of Plants in Ecologically Engi-neered Wastewater Treatment Systems

Peterson, Susan B. and John M. Teal May-96

Ecological Engineer-ing, Volume 6, Issues 1-3, May 1996, Pages 137-148

585Nitrogen and phosphorus transport in soil using simulated waterlogged conditions

Phillips, I.R. 2001

Communications in soil science and plant analy-sis. 2001. v. 32 (5/6) p. 821-842.

168169


586Factors Affecting Nitrogen Loss in Experimental Wetlands with Different Hydrologic Loads

Phipps, Richard G. and William G. Crumpton

Dec-94


587The Interacting Effects of Temperature and Plant Community Type on Nutrient Removal in Wetland Microcosms

Picard, C.R., L.H. Fraser, and D. Steer Jun-05

Bioresources Technol-ogy, 96(9): 1039-47. June 2005.

588

Legal and Financial Liability – Issues in Mitigation Banking and Water Quality Trading: A Wetland Mitigation Banking Perspective

Platt, George I. Wetlandsbank, Inc.

7/11-12/2005 Presentation Audio Recording http://www2.eli.org/research/wqt_forum.htm

589Design Recommendations for Subsur-face Flow Constructed Wetlands for Nitrification and Denitrification

Platzer, Christoph 1999Water Science and Tech-nology, Volume 40, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 257-263

590Improved Nitrogen Treatment by Con-structed Wetlands Receiving Partially Nitrified Liquid Swine Manure

Poach, M. E., P.G. Hunt, M.B. Vanotti, K.C. Stone, T.A. Ma-theny, M.H. Johnson, and E.J. Sadler

May-03Ecological Engineer-ing; 20(2): 183-197. May 2003.

591Swine Wastewater Treatment by Marsh-pond-marsh Constructed Wetlands Under Varying Nitrogen Loads

Poach, M.E., P.G. Hunt, G.B. Reddy, K.C. Stone, M.H. Johnson, and A. Grubbs


592Ammonia volatilization from marsh-pond-marsh constructed wetlands treating swine wastewater

Poach, M.E., P.G. Hunt, G.B. Reddy, K.C. Stone, T.A. Ma-theny, M.H. Johnson, E.J. Sadler

May-Jun-04


593 Water Quality Trading II: Using Trading Ratios to Deal With Uncertainties

Policy Research Initiative, Government of Canada

Sustainable Development Briefing NOTE, Policy Research Initiative, Gov-ernment of Canada

http://policyresearch.gc.ca/doclib/R2_PRI%20SD%20BN_WQII_E.pdf

594Hydrodynamic Behavior and Nutrient Removal Capacity of a Surface-Flow Wetland

Polychronopoulos, Michael and Bronwyn P. Chapman

2001Conference Proceeding Paper Abstract

section 1, chapter 205 World Water Congress 2001, Bridging the Gap: Meeting the World’s Water and Environmental Resources Challenges, World Water and Envi-ronmental Resources Congress 2001

This paper highlights the relationship between the wetland hydraulic characteristics and the overall treatment efficiency of the wetland.

595Watershed Protection: Capturing the Benefits of Nature’s Water Supply Services

Postel, Sandra L., Barton H. Thompson, Jr.

May-05 PaperNatural Resources Fo-rum, Volume 29, Issue 2, Page 98-108, May 2005

170171


596Relationship Between Phosphorus Lev-els in Three Ultisols and Phosphorus Concentrations in Runoff

Pote, D.H., T.C. Dan-iel, D.J. Nichols, A.N. Sharpley, P. A, Moore, Jr., D.M. Miller, and D.R. Edwards

1999 J. Environ. Qual. 28:170-175.

597

The Current Controversy Regarding TMDLs: Contemporary Perspectives “TMDLS And Pollutant Trading”

Powers, Ann 2003 Paper

VERMONT JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Volume Four 2002-2003

http://www.vjel.org/articles/pdf/powers.pdf

598 Soil infiltration and wetland microcosm treatment of liquid swine manure

Prantner, S.R., R.S. Kanwar, J.C. Lorimor, and C.H. Pederson

Jul-01Applied Engineering in Agriculture. July 2001. v. 17 (4) p. 483-488.

599National Spatial Crop Yield Simula-tion Using GIS-based Crop Production Model

Priva, Satya and Ryosuke Shibasaki Jan-01 Abstract

Ecological Modelling; 136(2-3): 113-129. Jan 20, 2001.

http://www.ped.muni.cz/wgeo/staff/svatonova/AGNPS/ELSE-VIER/22.htm

600 Science and the Protection of Endan-gered Species

Pullliam, H.R. and B. Babbitt 1997 Science, 275: 499-500.

601

Phosphorus enrichment affects litter decomposition, immobilization, and soil microbial phosphorus in wetland mesocosms.

Qualls, R.G. and C.J. Richardson

Mar-Apr-00


602Transformation of effluent organic matter during subsurface wetland treat-ment in the Sonoran Desert

Quanrud, D.M., M.M. Karpiscak, K.E. Lan-sey, and R.G. Arnold

Feb-04 Chemosphere. 2004 Feb., v. 54, no. 6, p. 777-788.

603Water Quality Trading: What Can We Learn From 10 Years of Wetland Mitiga-tion Banking?

Raffini, Eric and Mor-gan Robertson Jul- Newsletter

National Wetlands Newsletter; 27(4). Envi-ronmental Law Institute, Washington, DC. Jul-Aug 2005. In Press.

Background information for the National Forum on Synergies Between Water Quality Trading and Wetland Mitigation Banking. Discusses the opportunities presented by using wetlands in water quality trading programs and lessons learned from Wet-land Mitigation Banking that can be applied to development of nutrient trading programs that use wetlands to generate credits. http://www2.eli.org/research/wqt_main.htm

604

The Effectiveness of a Small Construct-ed Wetland in Ameliorating Diffuse Nutrient Loadings from an Australian Rural Catchment

Raisin, G. W., D. S. Mitchell and R. L. Croome

Sep-97

Ecological Engineering, Volume 9, Issues 1-2, September 1997, Pages 19-35

605

Groundwater Influence on the Water Balance and Nutrient Budget of a Small Natural Wetland in Northeastern Victoria, Australia

Raisin, G., J. Bartley and R. Croome Jan-99


606 The Use of Wetlands for the Control of Non-point Source Pollution

Raisin, G.W. and D. S. Mitchell 1995


170171


607Incentive-Based Solutions to Agricul-tural Environmental Problems: Recent Developments in Theory and Practice

Randall, Allen and Michael A. Taylor

Aug. 2000 Paper

Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 32,2(August 2000):221-134, Southern Agricultur-al Economics Association

Incentive-based regulatory instruments have the potential to reduce complinance costs by encouraging efficient resource allocation and innovation in environmental technology. Cost reductions from pollution permit trading often have exceeded expectations, but the devil is in the details: the rules matter. In recent years, IB instruments of many kinds, from permit trading to various informal voluntary agreements, have been introduced in many countries. Point-nonpoint trading programs have been established in th U.S., but recorded trades have been rare. This paper speculates about prospects for performance-based moni-toring of agricultural nonpoint pollution which, we believe, would encourage trading to the benefit of farmers and society. http://ideas.repec.org/a/jaa/jagape/v32y2000i2p221-34.html

608Nitrogen-fixing Azotobacters from Mangrove Habitat and Their Utility as Marine Biofertilizers

Ravikumar, S., K. Kathiresan, S. Thade-dus Maria Ignatiam-mal, M. Babu Selvam, and S. Shanthy

Nov-04

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecol-ogy; 312(1): 5-17. Nov 2004.

609 Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery

Reddy, K.R. and W.H. Smith (eds) 1987 Abstract Magnolia Press, Inc.,

Orlando, FL

610Oxygen transport through aquatic macrophytes: the role in waster water treatment

Reddy, K.R., E.M. D’Angelo, and T.A. DeBusk

1989 Journal of Environmental Quality 19:261-267.

611 Biogeochemistry of Phosphorus in Wetlands

Reddy, K.R., R.G. Wetzel, and R. Kadlec

2004

In Phosphorus: Agricul-ture and the Environ-ment J. T. Sims and A. N. Sharpley (eds), Soil Sci-ence Society of America (In press).

612 Natural Systems for Waste Manage-ment & Treatment

Reed, S.C., E.J. Middlebrooks, and R.W. Crites

1988 Abstract McGraw Hill, New York, NY

613

Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in Cold Climates. IN: Future of Water Re-use, Proceedings of the Water Reuse Symposium III. Vol. 2:962-972.

Reed, S.C., R. Bas-tian, S. Black, and R. Khettry

1984 Abstract AWWA Research Foun-dation, Denver, CO

614Phosphorus retention in small con-structed wetlands treating agricultural drainage water.

Reinhardt, M., R. Gachter, B. Wehrli, B. Muller

Jul-Aug-05

Journal of environmental quality. 2005 July-Aug, v. 34, no. 4, p. 1251-1259.

615Nutrient resorption in wetland mac-rophytes: comparison across several regions of different nutrient status

Rejmankova, E. Aug-05New phytologist. 2005 Aug., v. 167, no. 2 p. 471-482.

172173


616 TMDL Case Study: Tar-Pamlico Basin, North Carolina

Research Traingle Institute and USEPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Water-sheds, Watershed Management Section

undated Case study

Total Maximum Daily Load Program (TMDL), EPA Office of Water Quality. Site viewed on 11/26/05

In recent years, low dissolved oxygen levels, sporadic fish kills, loss of submerged vegetation, and other water quality problems have plagued North Carolina’s Tar-Pamlico basin. The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) responded by developing stricter nitrogen and phosphorus efflu-ent standards for dischargers in the basin. However, discharg-ers were concerned about the high capital costs that might be required to achieve the nutrient reduction goals. Consequently, a coalition of dischargers, working in cooperation with the En-vironmental Defense Fund, the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation, and NCDEM, proposed a nutrient trading framework through which dischargers can pay for the development and implemen-tation of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) to achieve all or part of the total nutrient reduction goals. The EMC approved the program in December 1989, at the time this paper was written, the implementation phase (Phase 1) was currently under way. http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/cs10/cs10.htm

617 Nitrogen Sources and Gulf hypoxia: Po-tential for Environmental Credit Trading

Ribaudo, Marc O., Ralph Heimlich, and Mark Peters

2005 Paper Ecological Economics. 52 (2005) 159-168.


618

Least-cost Management of Nonpoint Source Pollution: Source Reduction Versus Interception Strategies for Con-trolling Nitrogen Loss in the Mississippi Basin

Ribaudo, Marc O., Ralph Heimlich, Roger Claassen, and Mark Peters

May-01Ecological Economics; 37(2): 183-197. May 2001.

619Pollutant Trading in North Carolina’s River Basins: Tar-Pamlico and Neuse River Basins

Rich Gannon (North Carolina Division of Water Quality)

Dec. 7, 2005 PPt

Presentation to the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania IES Seminar

Outlines and contrasts the Tar-Pamilco and Neuse River Basin Nutrient Trading programs.

620

EMC Agenda Item No. 0511: TarPam-lico Nutrient Sensitive Waters Implementa-tion Strategy: Phase III

Rich Gannon (North Carolina Division of Water Quality)

Apr-05 Implementa-tion Strategy


http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/documents/PhIIIAgreementFinal4-05.pdf This document establishes the third phase of a nutrient control Agreement for point source discharges in the TarPamlico River Basin, reaffirms loading goals set in Phase II for all sources in the basin, and proposes timeframes for restoration of nutrient-related estuarine use support.

621Mechanisms Controlling Phosphorous Retention Capacity in Freshwater Wetlands

Richardson, C.J. 1985 Abstract Science; 228:1424-1427.

622 Use of rhodamine water tracer in the marshland upwelling system

Richardson, S.D., C.S. Willson, K.A. Rusch

Sep-04Ground water. 2004 Sept-Oct, v. 42, no. 5, p. 678-688.


Ringhausen, Alley Great Rivers Land Trust




Ringhausen, Alley Great Rivers Land Trust



172173


625Influence of Various Water Quality Sampling Strategies on Load Estimates for Small Streams

Robertson, D.M. and E.D. Roerish 1999 Water Resources Re-

search 35(12):3747-3759.

626 Restored Wetlands as Filters to Re-move Nitrogen

Romero, Jose A., Francisco A. Comín, and Carmen García

Jul-99Chemosphere, Volume 39, Issue 2, July 1999, Pages 323-332

627 Lake Allatoona Phase I Diagnostic-fea-sibility Study Report for 1992-1997 Rose, P. 1999

A.L. Burruss Institute of Public Service. Kennesaw State University. Ken-nesaw, GA.

628

Lower Boise River Effluent Trading Demonstration Project: Summary of Participant Recommendations For a Trading Framework

Ross & Associates Environmental Con-sulting, Ltd.

Sep-00 Report Idaho Division of Environ-mental Quality

http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/data_reports/surface_water/tm-dls/boise_river_lower/boise_river_lower_effluent_report.pdf

629Rainfall Simulation Study on the Ef-fectiveness of Continuous No-till in Virginia

Ross, B.B., P.H. Da-vis, and V.L. Heath Jun-01 Final Report

630 Constructed Wetlands in Flanders: A Performance Analysis

Rousseau, Diederik P. L., Peter A. Vanrol-leghem, and Niels De Pauw


631

Nitrate Removal from Drained and Reflooded Fen Soils Affected by Soil N Transformation Processes and Plant Uptake

Rückauf, Ulrike, Jürgen Augustin, Rolf Russow and Wolf-gang Merbach

Jan-04Soil Biology and Bio-chemistry; 36(1): 77-90. Jan 2004.

632Nutrient Removal in Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for Application in Sensitive Regions

Rustige, H. and C. Platzer 2001


633Nitrate removal in riparian wetlands: interactions between surface flow and soils

Rutherford, J.C. and M.L. Nguyen

May-Jun-04


634Ammonium production in submerged soils and sediments: the role of reduc-ible iron

Sahrawat, K.L. 2004

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analy-sis. 2004, v. 35, no. 3-4, p. 399-411.

635Organic matter and reducible iron control of ammonium production in submerged soils

Sahrawat, K.L. and L.T. Narteh 2001

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analy-sis. 2001. v. 32 (9/10) p. 1543-1550.

636Nutrient Removal Mechanisms in Constructed Wetlands and Sustainable Water Management

Sakadevan, K. and H.J. Bavor 1999


637Impact of Heavy Metals on Denitrifica-tion in Surface Wetland Sediments Receiving Wastewater

Sakadevan, K., Huang Zheng and H.J. Bavor


174175


638Nutrient dynamics and eutrophication patterns in a semi-arid wetland: the effects of fluctuating hydrology

Sanchez-Carrillo, S. and M. Alvarez-Co-belas

Oct-01Water, air, and Soil Pollu-tion Oct 2001. v. 131 (1/4) p. 97-118.

639 Greenhouse-gas-trading Markets Sandor, R., M. Walsh, and R. Marques Aug-02 Paper

Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2002 Aug 15;360(1797):1889-900.

This paper summarizes the extension of new market mecha-nisms for environmental services, explains of the importance of generating price information indicative of the cost of mitigat-ing greenhouse gases (GHGs) and presents the rationale and objectives for pilot GHG-trading markets. It also describes the steps being taken to define and launch pilot carbon markets in North America and Europe and reviews the key issues related to incorporating carbon sequestration into an emissions-trading market.

640The impact of wetland vegetation dry-ing time on abundance of mosquitoes and other invertebrates

Sanford, M.R., J.B. Keiper, W.E. Walton Dec-03

Journal of the American Mosquito Control Asso-ciation. 2003 Dec., v. 19, no. 4, p. 361-366.

641

Effects of inorganic nitrogen enrich-ment on mosquitoes (Diptera: Cu-licidae) and the associated aquatic community in constructed treatment wetlands.

Sanford, M.R., K. Chan, W.E. Walton Sep-05

Journal of medical ento-mology. 2005 Sept., v. 42, no. 5, p. 766-776.

642Shrimp Pond Effluent: Pollution Prob-lems and Treatment by Constructed Wetlands

Sansanayuth, P., A. Phadungchep, S. Ngammontha, S. Ngdngam, P. Sukasem, H. Hoshino and M.S. Ttabucanon


643 Response of an Alaskan Wetland to Nutrient Enrichment Sanville, William Mar-88

Aquatic Botany, Volume 30, Issue 3, March 1988, Pages 231-243

644Investigation of Nitrogen Transforma-tions in a Southern California Con-structed Wastewater Treatment Wetland

Sartoris, James J., Joan S. Thullen, Larry B. Barber, and David E. Salas

Sep-99Ecological Engineering; 14(1-2): 49-65. Septem-ber 1999.

645

Performance of a constructed wetland treating intensive shrimp aquaculture wastewater under high hydraulic load-ing rate

Schaafsma, Jennifer A., Andrew H. Bald-win, and Christopher A. Streb

Sep-99Ecological Engineering; 14(1-2): 199-206. Sep-tember 1999.

646

Biological diversity versus risk for mosquito nuisance and disease transmission in constructed wetlands in southern Sweden

Schafer, M.L., J.O. Lundstrom, M. Pfef-fer, E. Lundkvist, J. Landin

Sep-07Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 2004 Sept., v. 18, no. 3, p. 256-267.

647

A New Approach to Water Quality Trad-ing: Applying Lessons from the Acid Rain Program in the Lower Boise River Watershed

Schary, C. and K. Fischer-Vanden 2004 Environmental Practice 6,

no. 4: 281-295.

174175


648 Nitrogen Renovation by Denitrification in Forest Sewage Irrigation Systems

Schipper, L.A., W.J. Dyck, P.G. Barton and P.D. Hodgkiss

1989Biological Wastes, Vol-ume 29, Issue 3, 1989, Pages 181-187

649Cost Minimization of Nutrient Reduc-tion in Watershed Management Using Linear Programming

Schleich, J. and D. White 1997 Paper

Water Resources Bulletin; 33(1): 135-142. Febru-ary 1997. Paper Number 95127

No abstract available. http://awra.org/~awra/jawra/papers/J95127.html

650

Salt Tracer Experiments in Constructed Wetland Ponds with Emergent Vegeta-tion: Laboratory Study on the Forma-tion of Density Layers and Its Influence on Breakthrough Curve Analysis

Schmid, B.H., M.A. Hengl, and U. Stephan

Apr-04 Water Resources. 2004 Apr;38(8):2095-102

651 Inverse estimation of parameters in a nitrogen model using field data

Schmied, B. and K. Abbaspour, and R. Schulin

Mar-Apr-00

Soil Science Society of America Journal. Mar/Apr 2000. v. 64 (2) p. 533-542.

652Water Quality Characteristics of Veg-etated Groundwater-fed Ditches in a Riparian Peatland

Scholz, Miklas and Michael Trepel Oct-04

Science of The Total Environment; 332(1-3): 109-122. Oct 2004.

653

The Use of Constructed Wetlands to Upgrade Treated Sewage Effluents Before Discharge to Natural Surface Water in Texel Island, The Netherlands: Pilot Study

Schreijer, M., R. Kampf, S. Toet and J. Verhoeven


654Phosphorus Loss in Runoff from Grasslands Related to Soil Test Phos-phorus and Poultry Litter Application

Schroeder, P. 2002 Ph.D. Thesis. University of Georgia. Athens, GA.

655Market Incentives and Nonpoint Sourc-es: An Application of Tradable Credits to Urban Stormwater Management

Schultz, Pati Report USEPA Information sheet

656

Treatment of Rainbow Trout Farm Effluents in Constructed Wetland with Emergent Plants and Subsurface Hori-zontal Water Flow

Schulz, Carsten, Jörg Gelbrecht, and Bernhard Rennert

Mar-03 Aquaculture; 217(1-4): 207-221. Mar 17, 2003.

657

Effectiveness of a constructed wet-land for retention of nonpoint-source pesticide pollution in the lourens river catchment, South Africa

Schulz, R. and S.K.C. Peall Jan-01

Environmental science & technology. Jan 15, 2001. v. 35 (2) p. 422-426.

658Nonpoint Source Pollution, Uniform Control Strategies, and the Neuse River Basin

Schwabe, K.A. 2001 Paper

Review of Agricultural Economics, 2001 - black-well-synergy.com Page 1. Review of Agricultural Economics—Volume 23, Number 2—Pages 352-369

This research investigates various policy options considered by the state of North Carolina for reducing nonpoint source pollution. Focusing on nitrogen runoff from cropping activi-ties, we estimate and compare the control costs and estuarine nutrient loadings under both the initial proposed rules, which were quite uniform, and the more flexible final proposed rules. We then illustrate the magnitude to which the outcomes from models and policies can diverge depending upon the treatment of the application-specific environmental heterogeneity. Such an analysis illustrates the relative importance of certain types of heterogeneity associated with the environment on policy design and real-world outcomes.

176177


659 Case Study: Minnesota - Pollutant Trad-ing at Rahr Malting Co. Senjem, N. 11/5-

7/1997 Case Study Environmental Regulatory Innovations Symposium http://www.pca.state.mn.us/hot/es-mn-r.html

660 Pollutant Trading for Water Quality Improvement. A Policy Evaluation Senjem, N. 1997 Paper

Minnesota Pollution Con-trol Agency, Water Quality Division

661

Suitability of Constructed Wetlands and Waste Stabilisation Ponds in Wastewa-ter Treatment: Nitrogen Transformation and Removal

Senzia, M.A., D.A. Mashauri, and A.W. Mayo

2003


662Phosphorus retention capacity of filter media for estimating the longevity of constructed wetland

Seo, D.C., J.S. Cho, H.J. Lee, J.S. Heo Jun-05

Water Research. 2005 June, v. 39, issue 11, p. 2445-2457.

663 A Summary of U.S. Effluent Trading and Offset Projects

Sessions, S. and M. Leifman. 1999

Prepared for Dr. Mahesh Podar, U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agency, Office of Water

http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/hotlink.htm

664Nutrient Removal from Piggery Effluent Using Vertical Flow Constructed Wet-lands in Southern Brazil

Sezerino, P.H., V. Reginatto, M.A. Santos, K. Kayser, S. Kunst, L.S. Philippi, and H.M. Soares

2003 Water Science Technol-ogy. 2003; 48(2): 129-35.

665 Past, Present, and Future of Wetlands Credit Sales

Shabman, Leonard and Paul Scodari Dec-04

Discussion Paper 04–48 Resources for the Future, Washington DC

Not peer reviewed http://www.rff.org/documents/rff-dp-04-48.pdf

666 Carbon supply and the regulation of enzyme activity in constructed wetlands

Shackle, V.J., C. Freeman, and B. Reynolds

Nov-00Soil Biology & Biochemis-try. Nov 2000. v. 32 (13) p. 1935-1940.

667 Nitrogen accumulation in a constructed wetland for dairy wastewater treatment

Shamir, E., T.L. Thompson, M.M. Kar-piscak, R.J. Freitas, and J. Zauderer

Apr-01

Journal of the American Water Resources As-sociation / Apr 2001. v. 37 (2) p. 315-325.


668Subsurface flow constructed wetland performance at a Pennsylvania camp-ground and conference center

Shannon, R.D., O.P. Flite, III., and M.S. Hunter

Nov-Dec-00


669Determining the Economic Costs of Fish Kills for Recreational Users of the Tar-Pamlico River

Sharratt, Jo Dec-98 ReportDepartment of Eco-nomics, East Carolina University

Results of a survey of recreational river users. The results of the survey are used to make an estimate of the decrease in consumer surplus (monetary value of river recreation) as a result of declining water quality. The report describes the results as being similar to the published results of other studies. http://www.ecu.edu/econ/ecer/sharratt.pdf

670

The Influence of Rainfall on the Inci-dence of Microbial Faecal Indicators and the Dominant Sources of Faecal Pollution in a Florida River

Shehane, S.D., V.J. Harwood, J.E. Whit-lock, and J.B. Rose

May-05 Paper

Journal of Applied Microbiology, Volume 98, Issue 5, Page 1127-1136, May 2005

176177


671Treatment of high-strength winery wastewater using a subsurface-flow constructed wetland

Shepherd, H.L., M.E. Grismer, and G. Tchobanoglous

Jul-Aug-01

Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation. July/Aug 2001. v. 73 (4) p. 394-403.

672 Stability of phosphorus within a wetland soil following ferric chloride treatment to control Eutrophication

Sherwood, L.J. and R.G. Qualls Oct-01

Environmental science & technology. Oct 15, 2001. v. 35(20) p. 4126-4131.

673

Planning to Protect Water Resources and Natural Areas: A Comparison of the Water Basin Management Strate-gies of the Chesapeake Bay and the Netherlands

Shingara, Erica Apr-01 Master’s Project

Department of City and Regional Planning, Uni-versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Both the Chesapeake Bay and the Neatherlands face similar threats and challenges with respect to water quality and man-agement planning. This paper compares management strate-gies used to protect water resources and natural areas in both locations. http://www.planning.unc.edu/carplan/mpshingara.pdf

674

Simulation of nitrogen and phos-phorus leaching in a structured soil using GLEAMS and a new submodel, “PARTLE.”

Shirmohammadi, A., B. Ulen, L. F. Bergstrom, and W. G. Knisel

1998 Transactions of the ASAE, 41(2):353-360.

675

Seasonal Effect on Ammonia Nitrogen Removal by Constructed Wetlands Treating Polluted River Water in South-ern Taiwan

Shuh-Ren Jing and Ying-Feng Lin Jan-04

Environmental Pollution; 127(2): 291-301. Jan 2004.

676An Examination of Key Elements and Conditions for Establishing a Water Quality Trading Bank

Siems, Antje, Jenny Ahlen, and Mark Landry

Mar-05 White paper Abt Associates Inc., Bethesda, MD.


677

Assessing the Efficacy of Dredged Materials from Lake Panasoffkee, Florida: Implication to Environment and Agriculture. Part 1: Soil and Environ-mental Quality Aspect

Sigua, G.C., M.L. Holtkamp, and S.W. Coleman

2004 PaperEnviron Sci Pollut Res Int. 2004;11(5):321-6. PMID: 15506635

Study to quantify the effect of applied lake dredged materials on soil physico-chemical properties (soil quality) at the disposal site. The experimental treatments that were evaluated consisted of different proportions of lake dredged materials at 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%. The study demonstrated that when lake dredged materials were incorporated into existing topsoil they would have the same favorable effects as liming the field.

678Ammonium Removal in Constructed Wetlands with Recirculating Subsurface Flow: Removal Rates and Mechanisms

Sikora, F.J., Zhu Tong, L. L. Behrends, S. L. Steinberg and H. S. Coonrod


679Vegetation is the main factor in nutri-ent retention in a constructed wetland buffer

Silvan, N., H. Va-sander, J. Laine Jan-04

Plant and soil. 2004 Jan., v. 258, no. 1-2, p. 179-187.

http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0032-079X/contents

680Microbial Immobilisation of Added Ni-trogen and Phosphorus in Constructed Wetland Buffer

Silvan, Niko, Harri Vasander, Marjut Karsisto, and Jukka Laine

Oct-03 Applied Soil Ecology; 24(2): 143-149. Oct 2003.

681Nutrient requirements of seven plant species with potential use in shoreline erosion control

Sistani, K.R. and D.A. Mays 2001 Journal of plant nutrition.

2001. v. 24 (3) p. 459-467.

178179


682Ancillary benefits of wetlands con-structed primarily for wastewater treatment

Slather, J.H. 1998

In: D.A. Hammer (ed.) Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment, Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural. Lewis Pub-lishers, Chelsea, MI.

683Constructed Wetlands as Nitrogen Sinks in Southern Sweden: An Empiri-cal Analysis of Cost Determinants

Söderqvist, Tore Aug-02 Ecological Engineering; 19(2): 161-173. Aug 2002.

684Constructed wetlands as a sustainable solution for wastewater treatment in small villages

Solano, M.L., P. So-riano, M.P. Ciria Jan-04

Biosystems engineering. 2004 Jan., v. 87, no. 1, p. 109-118.


685 The Origins, Practice, and Limits of Emissions Trading

Solomon, Barry D. (Barry David) 1995 Paper Journal of Policy History;

14(3):293-320. 2002.

This paper is an examination of how emissions trading pro-grams evolved as an unintended consequence of the Clean Air Act of 1970. Despite some early theoretical work by economists, most precedent-setting decisions were made as regulators, firms, environmental groups, and policy analysts struggled to address practical issues of implementation associated with the Clean Air Act. Today, after almost three decades of practice and theory having refined one another, the ability of program design-ers and policy analysts to anticipate and address the challenges of specific trading applications has significantly improved. However, some early decisions resulted in precedents that have never received the level of deliberation and debate they warrant.

686Seasonal and Annual Performance of a Full-Scale Constructed Wetland Sys-tem for Sewage Treatment in China

Song, Zhiwen, Zhaopei Zheng, Jie Li, Xianfeng Sun, Xiaoyuan Han, Wei Wang, and Min Xu

Jan-06

Ecological Engineer-ing, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 4 January 2006

687 Role of Scirpus lacustris in Bacterial and Nutrient Removal from Wastewater

Soto, F., M. Garcia, E. de Luis and E. Bécares


688

Nutrient Cycling at the Sediment-Water Interface and in Sediments at Chirica-hueto Marsh: A Subtropical Ecosystem Associated with Agricultural Land Uses

Soto-Jimenez, M. F., F. Paez-Osuna, and H. Bojorquez-Leyva

Feb-03 Water Research; 37(4): 719-728. Feb 2003.

689 S-1004: 2003 Annual Meeting

Southern Asso-ciation of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors

2003 MinutesSouthern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors

http://www.lgu.umd.edu/lgu_v2/pages/reportMeet/158_min.doc

690 Soil Phosphorus in Isolated Wetlands of Subtropical Beef Cattle Pastures Sperry, C.M. 2004 Abstract Master’s Thesis, Univer-

sity of Florida. 2004.http://www.archbold-station.org/ABS/publicationsPDF/Sperry-2004-thesis.pdf

691

The Effects of Season and Hydro-logic and Chemical Loading on Nitrate Retention in Constructed Wetlands: A Comparison of Low- and High-Nutrient Riverine Systems

Spieles, Douglas J. and William J. Mitsch Sep-99


178179


692Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from Ponds Constructed for Nitrogen Removal

Stadmark, Johanna and Lars Leonardson Dec-05

Ecological Engineer-ing;25(5):542-551. Dec. 1, 2005.

693 Monitoring and modeling lateral trans-port through a large in situ chamber

Starr, J.L., A.M. Sa-deghi, Y.A. Pachepsky

Nov-Dec-05

Soil Science Society of America journal. 2005 Nov-Dec, v. 69, no. 6, p. 1871-1880.

694 Pollutant Trading GuidanceState of Idaho, De-partment of Environ-mental Quality

Nov-03 DraftState of Idaho, Depart-ment of Environmental Quality

http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/prog_issues/waste_water/pollut-ant_trading/pollutant_trading_guidance_entire.pdf

695 Nonpoint Source Management PlanState of Idaho, Divi-sion of Environmental Quality

Dec-99 Report State of Idaho, Division of Environmental Quality

http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water/data_reports/surface_water/nps/management_plan_entire.pdf

696 Transaction Costs and Tradable Permits Stavins, Robert N. 1995

Journal of Environmental Economics and Manage-ment, 29, 133-148. Resource Economics, 11, 571-585.

697 The Next Generation of Market-Based Environmental Policies

Stavins, Robert N. and Bradley W. Whitehead

Nov-96 Paper

Discussion Paper 97-10 Prepared for Environ-mental Reform: The Next Generation Project, Daniel Esty and Marian Chertow, editors, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-97-10.pdf

698 SCS Runoff Equation Revisited for Variable Source Runoff Areas

Steenhuis, T.S., M. Winchell, I. Rossing, J.A. Zollweg, and M.F. Walter

1995J. of Irrigation and Drain-age Eng. ASCE 121:234-238.

699Does Batch Operation Enhance Oxidation in Subsurface Constructed Wetland?

Stein, O.R., P.B. Hook, J.A. Bieder-man, W.C. Allen, and D.J. Borden

2003 Water Science Technol-ogy. 2003;48(5): 149-56.

700Influence of Nutrient Supply on Growth, Carbohydrate, and Nitrogen Metabolic Relations in Typha angustifolia

Steinbachová-Vojtíšková, Lenka, Edita Tylová, Aleš Soukup, Hana Hana Novická, Olga Votrubová, Helena Lipavská, and Hana Čížková

Aug-05

Environmental and Experimental Botany, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 2 August 2005

701

Toward an Effective Watershed-Based Effluent Allowance Trading System: Identifying the Statutory and Regula-tory Barriers to Implementation

Stephenson, K., L. Shabman, and L.L. Geyer

1999 Paper Environmental Lawyer, Vol. 5, Pp. 775-815, 1999

180181


702Market Based Strategies and Nutrient Trading: What You Need to Know (563 KB)

Stephenson, Kerns and Shabman Nov-95 Report

Department of Agri-cultural and Apprlied Economics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA and Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Department of Conserva-tion and Recreation

Addresses policy tools that can be used to better achieve the dual objectives of improved environmental quality and more flexible, cost-effective environmental policies.

703

Freshwater Wetlands, Urban Storm-water, and Nonpoint Pollution Control: A Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography (2nd Ed.)

Stockdale, E.C. 1991 Bibliography WA Department of Ecol-ogy, Olympia, WA

704 Spatial variability in palustrine wetlandsStolt, M.H., M.H. Genthner, W.L. Dan-iels, and V.A. Groover

Mar-Apr-01


705Comparison of soil and other environ-mental conditions in constructed and adjacent palustrine reference wetlands

Stolt, M.H., M.H. Genthner, W.L. Daniels, V.A. Groover, S. Nagle, and K.C. Haering

Dec-00

Wetlands : the journal of the Society of the Wetlands Scientists. Dec 2000. v. 20 (4) p. 671-683.

706Marsh-Pond-Marsh Constructed Wet-land Design Analysis for Swine Lagoon Wastewater Treatment

Stone, K.C., M.E. Poach, P.G. Hunt, and G.B. Reddy

Oct-04Ecological Engineering; 23(2): 127-133. Oct 1, 2004

707

Assessing TMDL Effectiveness Us-ing Flow-adjusted Concentrations: A Case Study of the Neuse River, North Carolina

Stow, C.A. and M.E. Borsuk

May-15-03 Paper Environ Sci Technol. 2003

May 15;37(10):2043-50

In this paper, the authors propose the use of “flow-adjusted” pollutant concentrations to evaluate the effectiveness of man-agement actions taken to meet approved TMDLs. Pollutant con-centrations are usually highly correlated with streamflow, and flow is strongly weather-dependent. Thus, pollutant loads, which are calculated as pollutant concentration multiplied by stream-flow, have a large weather-dependent variance component. This natural variation can be removed by calculating flow-adjusted concentrations. While such values are not a direct measure of pollutant load, they make it easier to discern changes in stream-water quality. Additionally, they are likely to be a better predic-tor of pollutant concentrations in the receiving waterbody. We demonstrate the use of this technique using long-term nutrient data from the Neuse River in North Carolina. The Neuse River Estuary has suffered many eutrophication symptoms, and a program to reduce nutrient loading has been in place for several years. We show that, in addition to revealing recent reductions in nutrient inputs, annual flow-adjusted riverine nutrient concen-trations show a more pronounced relationship with estuarine nutrient concentrations than do annual nutrient loads. Thus, we suggest that the calculation of flow-adjusted concentrations is a useful technique to aid in assessment of TMDL implementation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12785506&dopt=Abstract

708 The Use of Wetlands for Controlling Stormwater Pollution

Strecker, E.W., J.M. Kersnar, E.D. Driscoll and R.R. Horner

Apr-92 Abstract The Terrene Inst., Wash-ington, DC

180181


709 Aquaculture Sludge Removal and Sta-bilization within Created Wetlands

Summerfelt, Steven T., Paul R. Adler, D. Michael Glenn and Ricarda N. Kretschmann

Jan-99

Aquacultural Engineer-ing, Volume 19, Issue 2, January 1999, Pages 81-92

710

Enhanced Removal of Organic Matter and Ammoniacal-nitrogen in a Column Experiment of Tidal Flow Constructed Wetland System

Sun, Guangzhi, Yaqian Zhao and Stephen Allen

Jan-06Journal of Biotechnology; 115(2): 189-197. Jan 26, 2005.

711

Watershed-scale simulation of sediment and nutrient loads in Georgia Coastal Plain streams using the an-nualized AGNPS model

Suttles, J.B., G. Vel-lidis, D.D. Bosch, R. Lowrance, J.M. Sheri-dan, E.L. Usery

Sep-Oct-03

Transactions of the ASAE. 2003 Sept-Oct, v. 46, no. 5, p. 1325-1335.

712 Natural Wastewater Treatment in Hungary

Szabo, A., A. Oszto-ics, and F. Szilagyi 2001 Water Science Technolo-

gy. 2001;44(11-12):331-8.

713Characterization of oxidation-reduction processes in constructed wetlands for swine wastewater treatment

Szogi, A.A., P.G. Hunt, E.J. Sadler, D.E. Evans

Mar-04Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 2004 Mar., v. 20, no. 2, p.189-200.

714

Seasonal dynamics of nutrients and physico-chemical conditions in a con-structed wetland for swine wastewater treatment

Szögi, A.A., P.G. Hunt, F.J. Humenik, K.C. Stone, J.M. Rice, and .E.J. Sadler

1994 ASAE Paper #94-2602.

715 Water Quality Trading: Nonpoint Credit Bank Model Talbert, Gerald No date Paper National Association of

Conservation Districts.


716Charting the Course: The Comprehen-sive Conservation and Management Plan for Tampa Bay

Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Dec-96 Plan Tampa Bay National

Estuary Program

717 The Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium Action Plan 1995 - 1999

Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consor-tium. Partnership for Progress.

Mar-98 PlanTampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium. Partnership for Progress.

718 Plants as Ecosystem Engineers in Sub-surface-flow Treatment Wetlands Tanner, C.C. 2001 Water Science Technol-

ogy. 2001;44(11-12):9-17.

719Growth and nutrient dynamics of soft-stem bulrush in constructed wetlands treating nutrient-rich wastewaters.

Tanner, C.C. 2001 Wetlands Ecology and Management. 9: 49-73

720

Plants for constructed wetlands –A comparison of the growth and nutrient uptake characteristics of eight emer-gent species

Tanner, C.C. 1996 Ecological Engineering 7: 59-83.

721Linking Pond and Wetland Treatment: Performance of Domestic and Farm Systems in New Zealand

Tanner, C.C. and J.P. Sukias 2003 Water Science Technol-

ogy. 2003;48(2): 331-9.

182183


722Constructed wetlands in New Zealand–Evaluation of an emerging “natural” wastewater treatment technology

Tanner, C.C., J.P.S. Sukias, and C. Dall 2000

Proceedings of Water 2000: Guarding the Global Resource Conference, Auckland, March 19-23.

CD ROM ISBN 1-877134-30-9, New Zealand Water and Wastes Association.

723Relationships between loading rates and pollutant removal during matura-tion of gravel-bed constructed wetlands

Tanner, C.C., J.P.S. Sukias, and M.P. Upsdell

1998 Journal of Environmental Quality 27: 448-458.

724Using Constructed Wetlands to Treat Subsurface Drainage From Intensively Grazed Dairy Pastures in New Zealand

Tanner, C.C., M.L. Nguyen, and J.P. Sukias

2003 Water Science Technol-ogy. 2003;48(5):207-13.

725Nutrient Removal by a Constructed Wetland Treating Subsurface Drainage from Grazed Dairy Pasture

Tanner, C.C., M.L. Nguyen, and J.P.S. Sukias

Jan-05Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment; 105(1-2): 145-162. Jan 2005.

726

Plants for Constructed Wetland Treat-ment Systems - A Comparison of the Growth and Nutrient Uptake of Eight Emergent Species

Tanner, Chris C. Sep-96

Ecological Engineer-ing, Volume 7, Issue 1, September 1996, Pages 59-83

727Effect of Water Level Fluctuation on Nitrogen Removal from Constructed Wetland Mesocosms

Tanner, Chris C., Joachim D’Eugenio, Graham B. McBride, James P. S. Sukias and Keith Thompson

Jan-99


728

Effect of Loading Rate and Planting on Treatment of Dairy Farm Wastewaters in Constructed Wetlands-II. Removal of Nitrogen and Phosphorus

Tanner, Chris C., John S. Clayton and Martin P. Upsdell

Jan-95Water Research, Volume 29, Issue 1, January 1995, Pages 27-34

729Nitrogen Processing Gradients in Subsurface-flow Treatment Wetlands: Influence of Wastewater Characteristics

Tanner, Chris C., Robert H. Kadlec, Max M. Gibbs, James P.S. Sukias, and M. Long Nguyen


730Tradable Discharge Permits System for Water Pollution of the Upper Nanpan River, China

Tao, Wendong, Weimin Yang, and Bo Zhou

May-03 Paper http://www.idrc.org.sg/uploads/user-S/10536118430ACF64.pdf

731Developing Cost-Effective Geographic Targets for Nitrogen Reductions in the Long Island Sound Watershed

Tedesco, M. and P. Stacey Jun-96 Proceedings

Watersheds ‘96. Water Environment Federation and U.S. EPA

. http://www.epa.gov/owowwtr1/watershed/Proceed/tedesco.htm

732

An Evaluation of Pollutant Removal from Secondary Treated Sewage Ef-fluent Using a Constructed Wetland System

Thomas, P.R., P. Glover and T. Kala-roopan


182183


733Denitrification in an estuarine head-water creek within an agricultural watershed

Thompson, S.P., M.F. Piehler, and H.W. Paerl

Nov-Dec-00


734Managing Vegetation in Surface-flow Wastewater-treatment Wetlands for Optimal Treatment Performance

Thullen, Joan S., James J. Sartoris, and S. Mark Nelson

Dec-05 Ecological Engineering; 25(5): 583-593. Dec 2005.

735

Effects of Vegetation Management in Constructed Wetland Treatment Cells on Water Quality and Mosquito Produc-tion

Thullen, Joan S., James J. Sartoris, and William E. Walton


736 Tradable Permit Approaches to Pollu-tion Control Tietenberg, T. 2000

In: Kaplowitz, M.D. (ed.) Property Rights, Econom-ics, and the Environment. JAI Press Inc., Stanford, Connecticut.

737“Introduction.” Pp. xi-xxviii in Emissions Trading Programs. Volume I. Implemen-tation and Evolution

Tietenberg, T. 2001 Aldershot, England: Ash-gate Publishing Limited.

738Constructed Wetlands as Recirculation Filters in Large-scale Shrimp Aquacul-ture

Tilley, David Rogers, Harish Badrinaray-anan, Ronald Rosati, and Jiho Son

Jun-02 Aquacultural Engineering; 26(2): 81-109. June 2002.

739The Utilization of a Freshwater Wetland for Nutrient Removal from Secondarily Treated Wastewater Effluent

Tilton, D.L. and R.H. Kadlec 1979 Abstract Journal of Environmental

Quality; 8:328-334. 1979.

740Cost-Effectiveness of Agricultural BMPs for Nutrient Reduction in the Tar-Pamlico Basin

Tippet, J. and R. Dodd Research Triangle Institute

Jan-95 Paper

North Carolina Depart-ment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources

This paper discusses some of the technical work that supports the Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Trading Program implementation. In order to help the Program participants set a reasonable cost for trading nitrogen or phosphorus between point and nonpoint sources and understand how cost effective different best man-agement practices (BMPs) are, the authors developed cost-effectiveness estimates (expressed as $/kilogram of nutrient load reduced) for cost-shared agricultural BMPs in the Basin. The data represent BMPs that were implemented from 1985 to 1994.

741Cost-Effectiveness of Agricultural BMPs for Nutrient Reduction in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (NC)

Tippett, John P. and Randall C. Dodd Jul-95 Summary of a

Paper

Project Spotlight, NWQEP Noted, The NCSU Water Quality Group Newsletter. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. Num-ber 72, July 1995, ISSN 1062-9149

Evaluates the cost-effectiveness of Agricultural BMPs. The authors did not include the cost-effectiveness of restoring and protecting riparian areas and wetlands in their analysis and indicated additional research is needed on this subject. http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/issues/72.html

184185


742Nitrogen Fixation Associated with Juncus balticus and Other Plants of Oregon Wetlands

Tjepkema, J.D. and H.J. Evans 1976

Soil Biology and Bio-chemistry, Volume 8, Issue 6, 1976, Pages 505-509

743

Nutrient Removal through Autumn Harvest of Phragmites australis and Typha latifolia Shoots in Relation to Nutrient Loading in a Wetland System Used for Polishing Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent

Toet, S., M. Bouw-man, A. Cevaal, and J.T.A. Verhoeven

2005

Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part A (2005) 40(6-7): 1133-1156

744The Functioning of a Wetland System Used for Polishing Effluent from a Sew-age Treatment Plant

Toet, Sylvia, Richard S.P. van Logtestijn, Michiel Schreijer, Ruud Kampf, and Jos T.A. Verhoeven

Jul-05Ecological Engineering; 25(1): 101-124. Jul 20, 2005.

745 Biological Control of Water Pollution Tourbier, J. and R.W. Pierson (eds) 1976 Abstract Univ. of Pennsylvania

Press, Philadelphia, PA

746Quantifying Nitrogen Retention in Sur-face Flow Wetlands for Environmental Planning at the Landscape-scale

Trepel, Michael and Luca Palmeri Aug-02 Ecological Engineering;

19(2): 127-140. Aug 2002.

747Hydrologic characterization of two prior converted wetland restoration sites in eastern North Carolina

Tweedy, K.L. and R.O. Evans

Sep-Oct-01

Transactions of the ASAE. Sept/Oct 2001. v. 44 (5) p. 1135-1142.

748

The Effects of NH4+ and NO3? on Growth, Resource Allocation and Nitrogen Uptake Kinetics of Phragmites australis and Glyceria maxima

Tylova-Munzarova, Edita, Bent Lorenzen, Hans Brix, and Olga Votrubova

Apr-05 Aquatic Botany; 81(4): 326-342. Apr 2005.

749 Natural Wetlands and Urban Stormwa-ter: Potential Impacts and Management U.S. EPA Feb-93 Abstract

EPA843-R-001. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Washington, DC

750Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: A Technol-ogy Assessment

U.S. EPA Jul-93 Abstract EPA832-R-93-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC

751Process Design Manualù Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment

U.S. EPA Sep-88 Abstract

EPA 625/1-88/022. Center for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, OH

752Report on the Use of Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Disposal

U.S. EPA Oct-87 AbstractEPA 430/09-88-005. Of-fice of Municipal Pollution Control, Washington, DC

753Freshwater Wetlands for Wastewater Management Environmental Assess-ment Handbook

U.S. EPA Sep-85 Abstract EPA 904/9-85-135. Re-gion IV, Atlanta, GA

754 The Effects of Wastewater Treatment Facilities on Wetlands in the Midwest U.S. EPA 1983 Abstract EPA 905/3-83-002. Re-

gion V, Chicago, IL

184185


755Constructed Wetlands for Wasterwater Treatment and Wildlife Habitat: 17 Case Studies

U.S. EPA 1993EPA 832-R-93-005. Office of Wastewater Manage-ment, Washington, DC.

756The Ecological Impacts of Wastewater on Wetlands, An Annotated Bibliogra-phy

U.S. EPA/U.S. F&WL Service 1984 Abstract

EPA 905/3-84-002. Region V, Chicago, IL and U.S. F&WL Service, Kear-neysville, WY

757

Preliminary Review for a Geographic and Monitoring Program Project: A Review of Point Source–Nonpoint Source Effluent Trading/Offset Systems in Water Sheds

U.S. Geological Service Jun-05 Open file

report 03-79 U.S. Geological Service http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-079/Wood_OFR03-79.pdf

758 Health Threats Grow from Tons of Manure Unger, H. 2002 Atlanta Journal Constitu-

tion. November 24, 2002.

759 The Phosphorus Index: A Phosphorus Assessment Tool

United States Depart-ment of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

Aug-94 Report

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/nutrient/pindex.html

760Bank Review and Certification Require-ments: A Wetland Mitigation Banking Perspective

Urban, David T. Land and Water Resources, Inc.


761 Constructed wetlands bibliography US Department of Agriculture 2000

Ecological Sciences Division of the Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service and the Water Quality Information Center at the National Agricultural Library

http://www.nal.usda.gov/wqic/Constructed_Wetlands_all/index.html (January 2006).

762Assessing a Neural Network Modeling Approach for Predicting Nutrient Loads in the Mahantango Watershed

US Department of Agriculture: Agri-cultural Research Service

Ac-cessed Web-site

US Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?accn_no=410035

763 Water Quality Training US Environmental Protection Agency Aug-00 fact sheet US Environmental Protec-

tion Agency

A newsletter acknowledging the importance of nutrient trading in meeting reduction goals, the process the nutrient trading negotiation team underwent to reach consensus, and a listing of the recommended fundamental principles and elements of a trading program. http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/trading.htm

764Water Quality Trading Assessment Handbook: EPA Region 10’s Guide to Analyzing Your Watershed

US Environmental Protection Agency Jul-03 EPA 910-B-03-003, 100

pgs

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/OI.NSF/34090d07b77d50bd88256b79006529e8/642397cf31d9997388256d66007d53a7?OpenDocument

765 National Water Quality Trading Assess-ment Handbook

US Environmental Protection Agency Nov-04 Handbook EPA 841-B-04-001 http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/handbook/

766Water Quality Trading Assessment Handbook: EPA Region 10’s Guide to Analyzing Your Watershed

US Environmental Protection Agency Jul-03 Handbook EPA 910-B-03-003, 100

pgs

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/OI.NSF/34090d07b77d50bd88256b79006529e8/642397cf31d9997388256d66007d53a7?OpenDocument

186187


767 National Water Quality Trading Assess-ment Handbook

US Environmental Protection Agency Nov-04 Handbook EPA 841-B-04-001 http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/trading/handbook/

768 Shepherd Creek, OH Case Study US Environmental Protection Agency Web page US Environmental Protec-

tion Agency

769

National Management Measures to Protect and Restore Wetlands and Riparian Areas for the Abatement of Nonpoint Source Pollution

US Environmental Protection Agency Jul-05

EPA 841-B-05-003, US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC. July 2005.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/wetmeasures/

770 Sharing the Load: Effluent Trading for Indirect Dischargers

US Environmental Protection Agency, New Jersey Depart-ment of Environmen-tal Protection, and Passaic Valley Sewer-age Commissioners

May-98 Paper

U.S. EPA, Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation, with New Jersey Depart-ment of Environmental Protection and Passaic Valley Sewerage Com-missioners. EPA-231-R-98-003

771The Twenty Needs Report: How Research Can Improve the TMDL Program

US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water

2002 Report

EPA841-B-02-002, US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington DC (43 pp). 2002.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/20needsreport_8-02.pdf

772 Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs US EPA 2001 Office of Air and Radia-

tion. EPA-425/R-01-001.

773 Better Assessment Science Integrating Non-Point Sources (BASINS) US EPA 2003 US EPA http://www.epa.gov/ostwater/BASINS/index.html.

774 Polluted Runoff (Nonpoint Source Pol-lution): Clean Water Act Section 319 US EPA Oct-05 Website US EPA, Office of Water.

October, 2005.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/cwact.html. Home page for the Clean Water Act Section 319 with links and information on grants, case studies and policy directions.

775 Introduction to the Clean Water Act US EPA Mar-03 WebsiteUS EPA, Watershed Academy Web. March 2003.

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/index.htm. Online tutorial on the Clean Water Act.

776Guiding Principles for constructed Treatment Wetlands: Providing for Wa-ter Quality and Wildlife Habitat

US EPA Oct-00

Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Washington, DC, EPA 843-B-00-003, October 2000.

Introduces guiding principles for planning, sitting, design, con-struction, operation, maintenance and monitoring of constructed treatment wetlands. Provides information on current Agency policies, permits, regulations and resources.

777 Manual: Constructed Wetlands Treat-ment of Municipal Wastewaters US EPA 2000

EPA/625/R-99/010. Office of Research and Devel-opment, Cincinnati, OH.

778Free Water Surface Wetlands for Wasterwater Treatment: A Technology Assessment

US EPA 1999EPA 832-S-99-001. Office of Wastewater Manage-ment, Washington, DC.

186187


779

Section 319 Nonpoint Soucre Program Success Story, North Carolina, Tar-Pamlico Basin Agricultural Manage-ment Strategy

US EPA, Office of Water Quality Jul-05 Case Study

US EPA, Office of Water Quality, EPA 841-F-05-0048

http://www.epa.gov/nps/Success319/state/nc_tar.htm

780Endenton Stormwater Wetland Project: Wetland Systems Reduce Nitrogen Concentrations

US EPA, Office of Water Quality

Ac-cessed

Section 319 Success Stories, Vol. III

781Nutrient Profiles in the Everglades: Examination Along the Eutrophication Gradient

Vaithiyanathan, P. and C.J. Richardson

7-Oct-97

Science of the Total Environment. 1997 Oct 7;205(1):81-95.

782Simulation of the Effects of Nutrient Enrichment on Nutrient and Carbon Dynamics in a River Marginal Wetland

Van der Peijl, M. J., M.M.P. Van Oorschot, and J.T.A. Verhoeven

Oct-00Ecological Modelling; 134(2-3): 169-184. Octo-ber 30, 2000.

783A Model of Carbon, Nitrogen and Phosphorus Dynamics and Their Inter-actions in River Marginal Wetlands

Van der Peijl, M.J. and J.T.A. Verhoeven Jun-99

Ecological Modelling; 118(2-3): 95-130. June 15, 1999.

784

Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cy-cling in river marginal wetlands; model examination of landscape geochemical flows

van der Peijl, M.J. and J.T.A.Verhoeven Jul-00 Biogeochemistry. July

2000. v. 50 (1) p. 45-71.

785Soil nitrogen dynamics in organic and mineral soil calcareous wetlands in eastern New York

Van Hoewyk, D., P.M. Groffman, E. Kiviat, G. Mihocko, and G. Stevens

Nov-Dec-00

Soil Science Society of America journal. Nov/Dec 2000. v. 64 (6) p. 2168-2173.

786Nitrogen Removal in Constructed Wet-lands Treating Nitrified Meat Process-ing Effluent

van Oostrom, A.J. 1995Water Science and Tech-nology, Volume 32, Issue 3, 1995, Pages 137-147

787An Operational Survey of a Natural Lagoon Treatment Plant Combining Macrophytes and Microphytes Basins

Vandevenne, Louis 1995Water Science and Tech-nology, Volume 32, Issue 3, 1995, Pages 79-86

788

Emergent Plant Decomposition and Sedimentation: Response to Sediments Varying in Texture, Phosphorus Content and Frequency of Deposition

Vargo, Sharon M., Robert K. Neely and Stephen M. Kirkwood

Aug-98

Environmental and Experimental Botany, Vol-ume 40, Issue 1, August 1998, Pages 43-58

789 Impact of drying and re-wetting on N, P and K dynamics in a wetland soil

Venterink, H., T.E. Davidsson, K. Kiehl, L. Leonardson

Jun-02 Plant and soil. June 2002. v. 243 (1) p. 119-130. http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0032-079X/contents

790 Nutrient Dynamics in Minerotrophic Peat Mires Verhoeven, J.T.A. 1986 Aquatic Botany, Volume

25, 1986, Pages 117-137

791Evolving Environmental Policies and Asset Values: Nutrient Trading Schemes In The Netherlands

Vukina, T. and A. Wossink

6/25-27/1998

World Congress of Envi-ronmental and Resource Economists, Venice,

no copy or abstract found

792Horizontal Sub-surface Flow and Hy-brid Constructed Wetlands Systems for Wastewater Treatment

Vymazal, Jan Dec-05Ecological Engineering; 25( 5): 478-790. Dec. 1, 2005.

188189


793

The Use of Sub-surface Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in the Czech Republic: 10 Years Experi-ence

Vymazal, Jan Jun-02Ecological Engineering; 18(5): 633-646. June 2002.

794Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in the Czech Republic the First 5 Years Experience

Vymazal, Jan 1996Water Science and Tech-nology, Volume 34, Issue 11, 1996, Pages 159-164

795Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in the Czech Republic: State of the Art

Vymazal, Jan 1995Water Science and Tech-nology, Volume 32, Issue 3, 1995, Pages 357-364

796Nutrient Trading: Harnessing Com-merce as a Tool to Control Water Pollution

Wall, Roland un-known Report Academy of Natural Sci-

ences Web site http://www.acnatsci.org/education/kye/pp/kye7152004.html

797

Vegetation management to stimulate denitrification increases mosquito abundance in multipurpose constructed treatment wetlands

Walton, W.E. and J.A. Jiannino Mar-06

Journal of the American Mosquito Control Asso-ciation. 2005 Mar., v. 21, no. 1, p. 22-27.

798Phosphorus Credit Trading in the Cherry Creek Basin: An Innovative Approach

Water Environment Research Foundation 2000 Paper

Water Environment Re-search Foundation 130 pages. Soft cover.

Comprehensively documents the development and implementa-tion of the Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority’s trading program in Denver, Colorado, while highlighting several other trading programs. By identifying the similarities and differences in program design and linking those key elements to scien-tific, economic, and institutional conditions in the watershed community, this report examines some lessons, guidelines, and patterns emerging from the growing field of trading. Paper available for purchase at: http://www.werf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Research_Profile&Template=/CustomSource/Re-search/PublicationProfile.cfm&id=97-IRM-5a

799Phosphorus Credit Trading in the Kal-amazoo River Basin: Forging Nontradi-tional Partnerships



Describes a program of watershed-based trading intended to reduce phosphorus and sediment loading in selected reaches of the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. Examines the environmental and economic benefits of trading between point and nonpoint sources. Identifies policy issues and technical design elements vital to the design of a statewide water quality trading program.

800Phosphorus Credit Trading in the Fox-Wolf Basin: Exploring Legal, Economic, and Technical Issues



Describes the pursuit of watershed-based trading by Fox-Wolf Basin 2000, a nonprofit watershed alliance in northeastern Wis-consin. Examines the region’s history of water quality problems, analyzes legal and economic issues connected with trades, and describes preliminary work commenced in each basin toward establishment of total maximum daily loads.

801Nitrogen Credit Trading in Maryland: A Market Analysis for Establishing a Statewide Framework



This report explores whether a market for nitrogen credits could help wastewater treatment plants in Maryland achieve cost-ef-fective water quality objectives. The results of this study indicate that, compared with approaches that require all plants to attain equal nitrogen concentrations, trading options could achieve the same environmental objectives while saving millions of dollars. Non-WERF subscribers can order hard copies of this report for $65.00 each plus postage and handling. To order copies, contact David Morroni at 703-684-2470.

188189


802 Nitrogen Credit Trading in the Long Island Sound Watershed



Part of the Water Environment Research Foundation’s ongoing Watershed-Based Trading Demonstration Project, this study tracks a watershed-based trading program in the Long Island Sound in Connecticut, U.S.A. to help other municipalities devel-op and implement trading programs of their own. Nitrogen efflu-ent credit trading offers an equitable and cost-saving approach for major point sources to meet nitrogen reduction requirements and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limits.

803Phosphorus Credit Trading in the Kal-amazoo River Basin: Forging Nontradi-tional Partnerships

Water Environmental Research Foundation 2000

Water Environmental Re-search Foundation. 2000. 282 pages.

Describes a program of watershed-based trading intended to reduce phosphorus and sediment loading in selected reaches of the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. Examines the environmental and economic benefits of trading between point and nonpoint sources. Identifies policy issues and technical design elements vital to the design of a statewide water quality trading program. Published by WERF. 2000. 282 pages. Soft cover https://www.werf.org/acb/showdetl.cfm?st=0&st2=0&st3=0&DID=7&Product_ID=186&DS_ID=3

804

Modelling the Impact of Historical Land Uses on Surface-water Quality Using Groundwater Flow and Solute-transport Models

Wayland, Karen G., David W. Hyndman, David Boutt, Bryan C. Pijanowski, and David T. Long

Sep-02 Paper

Lakes and Reservoirs: Research and Manage-ment, Volume 7, Issue 3, Page 189-199, Sep 2002

805Laboratory assessment of atrazine and fluometuron degradation in soils from a constructed wetland

Weaver, M.A., R.M. Zablotowicz, M.A. Locke

Nov-04 Chemosphere. 2004 Nov., v. 57, issue 8, p. 853-862.

806

In situ removal of dissolved phosphorus in irrigation drainage water by planted floats: preliminary results from growth chamber experiment

Wen, L. and F. Reck-nagel Jun-02

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. June 2002. v. 90 (1) p. 9-15.

807

Fundamental Processes Within Natural and Constructed Wetland Ecosystems: Short-term Versus Long-term Objec-tives

Wetzel, R.G. 2001 Water Science Technol-ogy. 2001;44(11-12):1-8.

808Impacts of Freshwater Wetlands on Water Quality: A Landscape Perspec-tive

Whigham, D.F., C. Chitterling, and B. Palmer

1988 Abstract Environmental Manage-ment 12:663-671

809Nitrification and denitrification rates of everglades wetland soils along a phosphorus-impacted gradient

White, J.R. and K.R. Reddy

Nov-Dec-03


810Influence of selected inorganic electron acceptors on organic nitrogen mineral-ization in Everglades soils


May-Jun-01

Soil Science Society of America journal. May/June 2001. v. 65 (3) p. 941-948.

811Influence of phosphorus loading on organic nitrogen mineralization of everglades soils


Jul-Aug-00

Soil Science Society of America Journal. Jul/Aug 2000. v. 64 (4) p. 1525-1534.

190191


812

Influence of hydrologic regime and vegetation on phosphorus retention in Everglades stormwater treatement area wetlands

White, J.R., K.R. Reddy and M.Z. Moustafa

2004 Report Hydrological Processes, 18, 343-355

813

Enhancement of Nitrogen Removal in Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands Employing a 2-stage Configuration, an Unsaturated Zone, and Recirculation

White, Kevin D. 1995Water Science and Tech-nology, Volume 32, Issue 3, 1995, Pages 59-67

814 Rapid Removal of Nitrate and Sulfate in Freshwater Wetland Sediments

Whitmire, S.L. and S.K. Hamilton Oct-05

Journal of Environmental Quality, 34 (6): 2062-71. Nov-Dec 2005

815Sulphate Reduction and the Removal of Carbon and Ammonia in a Labora-tory-scale Constructed Wetland

Wiessner, A., U. Kap-pelmeyer, P. Kuschk, and M. Kästner

Nov-05 Water Research; 39(19): 4643-4650. Nov 2005.

816Influence of the redox condition dy-namics on the removal efficiency of a laboratory-scale constructed wetland

Wiessner, A., U. Kap-pelmeyer, P. Kuschk, M. and Kästner

Jan-05Water Research. 2005 Jan., v. 39, issue 1, p. 248-256.

817 Denitrification enzyme activity of fringe salt marshes in New England (USA)

Wigand, C., R.A. McKinney, M.M. Chintala, M.A. Charpentier, and P.M. Groffman

May-Jun-04

Journal of Environmental Quality. 2004 May-June, v. 33, no. 3, p. 1144-1151.

818Tissue nutrient signatures predict her-baceous-wetland community responses to nutrient availability

Willby, N.J., I.D. Pul-ford, and T.H. Flowers Dec-01

New phytologist. Dec 2001. v. 152 (3) p. 463-481.

819 Simulating flow in regional wetlands with the modflow wetlands package

Wilsnack, M.M., D.E. Welter, A.M. Montoya, J.I. Restrepo, and J. Obeysekera

Jun-01

Journal of the American Water Resources Asso-ciation / June 2001. v. 37 (3) p. 655-674.


820First Annual Report to the Governor on Wisconsin Pollutant Trading Pilot Studies

Wisconsin Depart-ment of Natural Resources

Sep-98 Report Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

821Second Annual Report to the Governor on Wisconsin Pollutant Trading Pilot Studies

Wisconsin Depart-ment of Natural Resources

Sep-99 Report Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

822

Agricultural Nutrient Inputs to Rivers and Groundwaters in the UK: Policy, Environmental Management and Re-search Needs

Withers, P.J. and El Lord Jan-02 Paper

Sci Total Environ. 2002 Jan 23;282-283:9-24. PMID: 11852908

This paper discusses agricultural nutrient inputs to rivers in the UK through description of resent field research on nutrient loss, the need for integrated management approaches which include both N and P, the vulnerability of land use and adoption of safe management options in relation to landscape characteristics and the sensitivity of the watercourse along its reach. For P, the identification of vulnerable zones represents a step forward to the management of the river basin in smaller definable units, which can provide a focus for safe management practices. This requires a better understanding of the linkages between nutrient sources, transport and impacts and is considered an urgent research priority.

190191


823 Nitrogen Removal from Pretreated Wastewater in Surface Flow Wetlands

Wittgren, Hans B. and Scott Tobiason 1995


824Adaptation of wastewater surface flow wetland formulae for application in constructed stormwater wetlands

Wong, T. H. F. and W. F. Geiger 1997 Ecological Engineering

9:187-202.

825

Preliminary Preview for a Geographic and Monitoring Program Project: A Review of Point Source–Nonpoint Source Effluent Trading/Offset Systems in Watersheds

Wood, Alexander and Richard Bernknopf 2003 Paper

Open-File Report 03-79 2003 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geologi-cal Survey

This is a USGS report that reviews the factors affecting the potential for instituting watershed-based trading to improve water quality. An overview of successful and failed programs is provided, as is a description of an offset feasibility study for mercury TMDLs in the Sacramento watershed. Three case studies are reviewed; Dillon, Tar-Pamlico, Clear Creek. Optimal conditions for water quality trading are listed and described. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-079/Wood_OFR03-79.pdf

826 Market-Based Solutions to Environ-mental Problems Woodward, R.T. Feb-00 Invited paper

Southern Agricultural Economic Association, Annual Meeting

http://agecon2.tamu.edu/people/faculty/woodward-richard/paps/SAEA-MB.pdf

827 Market Structures for U. S. Water Qual-ity Trading

Woodward, R.T. and R.A. Kaiser 2002 Paper Review of Agricultural

Economics, 2002

828 The Structure and Practice of Water Quality Trading Markets

Woodward, R.T., R.A. Kaiser, and A.B. Wicks

2002Journal of the American Water Resources Asso-ciation; 38: 967-979. 2002

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4038/is_200208/ai_n9118352

829Trading Research of Richard T. Woodward, Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M University

Woodward, Richard T. List of Publica-tions

Texas A&M University, Department of Agricul-tural Economics

830

Flax Pond ecosystem study: exchange of phosphorus between as salt marsh and the coastal waters of Long Island Sound

Woodwell, G.M. and D.E. Whitney 1977 Marine Biology 41:1-6.

831

Emergence patterns of Culex mosqui-toes at an experimental constructed treatment wetland in southern Califor-nia

Workman, P.D. and W.E. Walton Jun-00

Journal of the American Mosquito Control Asso-ciation. June 2000. v. 16 (2) p. 124-130.

832Effect of Pond Shape and Vegetation Heterogeneity on Flow and Treatment Performance of Constructed Wetlands

Wörman, Anders and Veronika Kronnäs Jan-06

Journal of Hydrology; 301(1-4): 123-138. Jan 2005.

833 Emissions Trading: An NGO Perspec-tive Worthington, Bryony 3/16-

18/2004 Presentation Senior Campaigner, Friends of the Earth http://www.inece.org/emissions/worthington.pdf

834An Evaluation of Cost and Benefits of Structural Stormwater Best Manage-ment Practices

Wossink, Ada and Bill Hunt Nov-05 Fact Sheet North Carolina Coopera-

tive Extension Servicehttp://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/g/gawossin/stormwa-terBMPFactsheet.pdf

835 The Economics of Structural Stormwa-ter BMPs in North Carolina

Wossink, Ada and Bill Hunt 2003 Paper WRRI Research Report

Number 344 http://www.ag-econ.ncsu.edu/faculty/wossink/outreach.html.

836 Natural Systems for Wastewater Treat-ment; Manual of Practice FD-16 WPCF 1990 Abstract

Water Pollution Control Federation, Alexandria, VA

192193


837Decomposition of Emergent Macro-phyte Roots and Rhizomes in a North-ern Prairie Marsh

Wrubleski, Dale A., Henry R. Murkin, Arnold G. van der Valk and Jeffrey W. Nelson

Sep-97Aquatic Botany, Volume 58, Issue 2, September 1997, Pages 121-134

838 Development of a Constructed Subsur-face-flow Wetland Simulation Model

Wynn, Theresa Maria and Sarah K. Liehr Feb-01

Ecological Engineering; 16(4): 519-536. February 1, 2001.

839Removal Efficiency of the Constructed Wetland Wastewater Treatment System at Bainikeng, Shenzhen

Yang, Yang, Xu Zhencheng, Hu Kangping, Wang Junsan and Wang Guizhi


840Estimating the Effectiveness of Vegetat-ed Floodplains: Wetlands as Nitrate-ni-trite and Orthophosphorus Filters

Yates, P. and J.M. Sheridan May-83

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 9, Issue 3, May 1983, Pages 303-314

841 Non-Point Pollution from China’s Rural Areas and Its Countermeasures

Yin, C.Q., C.F. Yang, B.Q. Shan, G.B. Li, and D.L. Wang

2001 Water Science Technol-ogy. 2001;44(7):123-8.

842The Nutrient Retention by Ecotone Wetlands and their Modification for Baiyangdian Lake Restoration

Yin, Chengqing and Zhiwen Lan 1995


843Plowing New Ground: Using Economic Incentives to Control Water Pollution from Agriculture

Young, T. and C. Congdon 1994 Paper Environmental Defense

Fund

844 Protecting a Wildlife Refuge Through Selenium Reductions Young, Terry Jul-03 PowerPoint 2003 National Forum on Water Quality Trading

845Nitrous oxide and methane emissions from different soil suspensions: effect of soil redox status

Yu, K.W., Z.P. Wang, A. Vermoesen, W.H. Patrick, Jr., and O. van Cleemput

Jul-01Biology and fertility of soils. July 2001. v. 34 (1) p. 25-30.

846 A Framework for Pollutant Trading Dur-ing the TMDL Allocation Phase

Zaidi, A.Z., S.M. deMonsabert, R. El-Farhan, and S. Choudhury

2004 Conference Paper

George Mason University, Fairfax, VA. 2004.

Paper for the American Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual Conference http://mason.gmu.edu/~azaidi/ASAE04.pdf

847Practical Case Studies of Actual Water Pollutant Trading Programs. Market Based Trading for Water & Wetlands

Zander, B. 7/15-16/1996 Case Study U.S. EPA; Denver

848Optimal Trading Between Point and Nonpoint Sources of Phosphorus in the Chatfield Basin, Colorado

Zander, B. and K. Little Jun-96 Proceedings

Watersheds ‘96. Water Environment Federation and U.S. EPA

http://www.epa.gov/owowwtr1/watershed/Proceed/little.html

849

Air/Water Exchange of Mercury in the Everglades I: The Behavior of Dis-solved Gaseous Mercury in the Ever-glades Nutrient Removal Project

Zhang, H. and S.E. Lingberg

2-Oct-00

Science of the Total Environment. 2000 Oct 2;259(1-3):123-33.

192193


850Effects of Plants on Nitrogen/Phospho-rus Removal in Subsurface Construct-ed Wetlands

Zhang, R.S., G.H. Li, Z. Zhou, and X. Zhang

Jul-05 Huan Jing Ke Xue,26(4): 83-6. July 2005

851

Sulfur:Limestone Autotrophic Deni-trification Processes for Treatment of Nitrate-contaminated Water: Batch Experiments

Zhang, Tian C. and David G. Lampe Feb-99 Water Research; 33(3):

599-608. February 1999.

852A water chemistry assessment of wastewater remediation in a natural swamp

Zhang, X., S.E. Feagley, J.W. Day, W.H. Conner, I.D. Hesse, J.M. Rybczyk, and W.H. Hudnall

Nov-Dec-00


853Purification Capacity of a Highly Load-ed Laboratory Scale Tidal Flow Reed Bed System with Effluent Recirculation

Zhao, Y.Q., G. Sun, and S.J. Allen Sep-04

Science of The Total En-vironment; 330(1-3): 1-8. Sept 2004.

854 Nitrogen retention and release in Atlan-tic white cedar wetlands

Zhu, W.X. and J.G. Ehrenfeld

Mar-Apr-00

Journal of environmental quality. Mar/Apr 2000. v. 29 (2) p. 612-620.

855 Exploring Trading to Restore Base Flow in the Charles River Zimmerman, Robert Jul-03 PowerPoint 2003 National Forum on Water Quality Trading

856Aspects of methane flow from sedi-ment through emergent cattail (Typha latifolia) plants

Yavitt, J. B. & Knapp, A. K. Jul-98 Paper

New Phytologist Volume 139 Page 495 - July 1998 doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.1998.00210.x Volume 139 Issue 3

In this paper, the flow of methane is measured in Typha latifolia L. (cattail)-dominated wetlands from microbial production in anoxic sediment into, through, and out of emergent T. latifolia shoots (i.e. plant transport). The purpose was to identify key en-vironmental and plant factors that might affect rates of methane efflux from wetlands to the Earth’s atmosphere. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1469-8137.1998.00210.x

857 Review and assessment of methane emissions from wetlands.

Bartlett, KB and Har-riss, RC 1993 Paper Chemosphere. Vol. 26, no.

1-4, pp. 261-320. 1993

In this report, we review progress on estimating and under-standing both the magnitude of, and controls on, emissions of CH sub(4) from natural wetlands. We also calculate global wet-land CH sub(4) emissions using this extensive flux data base and the wetland areas compiled and published by Matthews and Fung (1987). http://www.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=2883945

194195


858Global carbon exchange and methane emissions from natural wetlands: Ap-plication of a process-based model

Cao, Mingkui; Marshall, Stewart; Gregson, Keith

Jun-96 PaperJournal of Geophysical Research, Volume 101, Issue D9, p. 14399-14414

This study used a methane emission model based on the hypothesis that plant primary production and soil organic matter decomposition act to control the supply of substrate needed by methanogens; the rate of substrate supply and environmental factors, in turn, control the rate of CH4 production, and the balance between CH4 production and methanotrophic oxidation determines the rate of CH4 emission into the atmosphere. The model was used to calculate spatial and seasonal distributions of CH4 emissions at a resolution of 1° latitude×1° longitude. The calculated net primary production (NPP) of wetlands ranged from 45 g C m-2yr-1 for northern bogs to 820 g C m-2yr-1 for tropical swamps. Sensitivity analysis showed that the response of CH4 emission to climate change depends upon the com-bined effects of soil carbon storage, rate of decomposition, soil moisture and activity of methanogens. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1996JGR...10114399C&db_key=PHY&data_type=HTML&format=

859

Economic Linkages Between Coastal Wetlands and Water Quality: A Review of Value Estimates Reported in the Published Literature

Kazmierczak, R.F. 2001 Unpublished Research Paper, 22 p.

860 Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method

Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson 1989 Resources for the Future,

Washington, DC p. 4-5.

861 The economic value of wetland ser-vices: a meta-analysis

Woodward, RT and Wui, Y. 2000 Paper Ecological Economics 37

(2001) p. 257-270.

862Getting paid for stewardship: An agri-cultural community water quality trading guide

Conservation Tech-nology Information Center

2006 Paper Conservation Technology Information Center

863 Nutrient Trading: Improving Water Qual-ity Through Market-Based Incentives

World Resources Institute 2004 Paper

WRI Annual Report 2003. World Resources Institute.

864 Lessons About Effluent Trading from a Single Trade

Woodward, R.T and R.C. Bishop 2003 Journal Article Review of Agricultural

Economics, 2003.

865Lessons Learned from the Trading Pilots: Applications for Wisconsin Water Quality Trading Policy

Kranmer, J. M. and Resource Strategies, Inc.

Jul-03 Paper Resource Strategies, Inc.

866 A Feasibility Analysis of Applying Water quality Trading in Georgia Watersheds

Rowles, K. and Geor-gia Water Planning and Policy Center

Jun-05 Working Paper Georgia Water Planning and Policy Center

867Water Quality Trading in the Lower Delaware River Basin: A Resource for Practitioners

Institute for Environ-mental Studies Mar-06 Report Institute for Environmen-

tal Studies

868 Trading on Water Greenhalgh, S. and P. Faeth 2001 Article Forum for Applied Re-

search and Public Policy

194195


869

Policy Options for Reducing Phospho-rus Loading in Lake Champlain: Final Report to the Lake Champlain Basin Program

Winsten, J.; Green-wood, K.; Hession, C.; Johnstone, S.; Jokela, W.; Klein-man, P.; Meals, D.; Michauld, A.; Parsons, R.; Pease, J.; sharpley, A. and E. Thomas

2004 Report Lake Champlian Basin Program

This report describes the processes and outcomes of the project titled ‘Developing and Assessing Policy Options for Reducing Phosphorus Loading in Lake Champlain.’ The goal of this project was to facilitate the achievement of the long-term P reduction goals set for Lake Champlain through the develop-ment of innovative policy strategies for agricultural land.

870

Economic and Environmental Implica-tions of Phosphorus Control at North Bosque River (Texas) Wastewater Plants

Keplinger, K. Jul-03 Report Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research

871Implementation of the EPA’s Water Quality Trading Policy for Storm Water Management and Smart Growth

Trauth, K.M. and Yee-Sook Shin Dec-05 Journal Article

Journal of Urban Plan-ning and Development, Volume 131, Issue 4, pp. 258-269.

872 The Economics of Total Maximum Daily Loads Keplinger, K. Feb-03 Report Texas Institute for Applied

Environmental Research

873National Forum on Synergies Between Water Quality Trading and Wetland Mitigation Banking

Environmental Law Institute Jan-06 Report Environmental Law

Institute

The National Forum on Synergies Between Water Quality Trading and Wetland Mitigation Banking report summarizes the discussions from the Forum, held July 11-12, 2005, in Washing-ton DC.

874 The Potential for Water Quality Trading in Ohio Sohngen, B. 2005

Ohio Environment Report: Volume 3, Issue 1. OSU Extension Program.

Official BusinessEPA/600/R-06/155July 2007

National Risk Management Research LaboratoryCincinnati, OH 45268

SCIENCE