Steve Gladding Brian Duffy Ron Entringer Jay Bloomfield NYSDEC Watershed Modeling Steve Pacenka Casey Garland Peter Vermeulen Tammo Steenhuis Cornell University NYC Watershed Tifft ID: 766521
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Steve Gladding, Brian Duffy," is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Steve Gladding, Brian Duffy, Ron Entringer, Jay BloomfieldNYSDECWatershed Modeling:Steve Pacenka, Casey Garland, Peter Vermeulen, Tammo SteenhuisCornell University NYC Watershed/Tifft Science & Technical SymposiumSeptember 19, 2013 Numeric Endpoints and Adaptive Management: New York’s First Stream Nutrient TMDL
Outline Applying Nutrient CriteriaField StudyResultsApplicationImplementation
Nutrient Criteria 50% of U.S. streams have elevated nutrient levels*States required to develop TMDLs for impaired watersCan develop site specific criteriaU.S. EPA is pushing states to develop numeric nutrient criteriaFramework for State Nutrient Reductions*Florida: Nutrient criteria imposed by U.S. EPAIllinois: Reasonable potential analysis and nutrient limits for NPDES permits*Stoner, Nancy K. (2011) “Working in partnership with states to address phosphorus and nitrogen pollution through use of a framework for state nutrient reductions. U.S. EPA Memo.
Applicable Water Quality Standard None in amounts that will resultin growths of algae, weeds andslimes that will impair the watersfor their best usages (6 NYCRR Part 703.2)
Applicable Water Quality Standard None in amounts that will result in growths of algae, weeds and slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages (6 NYCRR Part 703.2)303(d) listingPhosphorusTotal? SRP?Use ImpairmentMacroinvertebratesWhat limit is applied?Average concentration? Maximum?When is it applied?Full year? Summer? Other?How is it applied?Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Other? Where is it applied? Where is assessment conducted? Endpoint Application
Field StudyIdentifying an endpoint
Upper Black Creek
Upper Black Creek 46 sq. mi.27 mi. main stemBigelow Creek TributaryLand Cover70% Agriculture20% Forest/Wetland10% Developed
Biomonitoring with macroinvertebrates (Determining Aquatic Life Use Impairment)Less mobile than fishIndicators of overall, integrated water qualitySensitive to environmental impactsPollution, siltation, temperatureDiffering tolerances to pollution5 Metric Biological Assessment Profile (BAP)Scuds(Amphipoda)Mayflies(Ephemeroptera)Mussel, Clams(Mollusca : Pelecypoda )
Biological Assessment Profile (BAP) 5 IndicesHilsenhoff’s Biotic IndexTolerance to organic pollutionEPT Richness (mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies)Higher EPT usually indicates good water qualityPercent model affinity Similarity to a model non-impacted community Species richness More species usually indicates good water quality Nutrient Biotic Index for Phosphorus Biological impact from nutrient enrichment Averaged together = BAP Score Range: 0 (terrible) – 10 (pristine)
Use Impairment Upper Black Creek303(d) listed in 2004Aquatic life usePhosphorus from agriculture, municipalBigelow Creek303(d) listed in 2004Aquatic life usePhosphorus from agriculture None Slight Moderate Severe BAP5 Score
Conceptual Model No direct toxicity effects of nutrientsPaul, M. J. and L. Zheng (2007). Development of Nutrient Endpoints for the Northern Piedmont Ecoregion of Pennsylvania: TMDL Application.
Data Collection ChemistryDO, T, pH, Cond.TP, SRPNitrogen seriesHabitat AssessmentCanopy coverGrain size analysisRiparian bufferDepth, VelocityMacroinvertebrates6 replicates per site
Results
Phosphorus Concentrations
Macroinvertebrate Survey WWTPWWTPBlack CreekBigelowL. Tonawanda
Statistical Analysis BAP Score = 5.68 - 16.64×TP + 0.0895×TRW - 3.43×FFRStarted with 80 variablesReduced to 15 using Spearman rank-order correlationRetained only variables that could be influencedDiscarded headwaters sites (DA < 10 mi2)Best subset regression & multiple regression modelTotal phosphorus (TP)Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP)Total riparian width (TRW)Average riparian closure (ARP)Fraction fines in the riffle (< 16 mm) (FFR)Total suspended solids (TSS)
Application
Cornell Watershed Model Model Schematic TMDL Total P Load Total P Concentration Fine grained sediment in the riffle zone Riparian Buffer Width Channel Regression Model
Load Duration Interval 50th percentile flowTMDL LoadCurrent Load
Phosphorus reductions at site BLAK-08 2012 ConditionsTotal PhosphorusTP = 0.093 mg/LTotal Riparian Width TRW = 18 mFraction Fines in RiffleFFR = 0.30BAP = 4.21To achieve BAP Score = 5BAP = 5.68 – 16.64×TP + 0.0895×TRW – 3.43×FFRReduction targetTP = 0.046 mg/L50% reduction
Applying Phosphorus TargetsWhat – When - How
Applying Phosphorus TargetsWhere
Applicable Water Quality Standard None in amounts that will result in growths of algae, weeds and slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages (6 NYCRR Part 703.2)303(d) listingPhosphorusTotalUse ImpairmentMacroinvertebratesWhat limit is applied?Average concentrationWhen is it appliedGrowing Season/Summer PermitHow is it appliedGrowing season average Where is it applied? Critical locations at confluences and below point sources Endpoint Application
Implementation Restoration of stream corridorHigher allowable phosphorus concentrationsLess reduction from point/non-point sourcesStill attains aquatic life best use
Stream Restoration Approach FFR = 0.30Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Total Riparian Width (m) 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.093 18 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.2 20 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.4 25 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.1 4.9 4.8 30 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.3 BAP Score = 5.68 - 16.64× TP + 0.0895×TRW - 3.43×FFR
FFR = 0.30Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Total Riparian Width (m) 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.093 18 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.2 20 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.4 25 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.1 4.9 4.8 30 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.3 Stream Restoration Approach BAP Score = 5.68 - 16.64×TP + 0.0895× TRW - 3.43×FFR
FFR = 0.30Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Total Riparian Width (m) 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.093 18 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.2 20 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.4 25 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.1 4.9 4.8 30 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.3 Stream Restoration Approach BAP Score = 5.68 - 16.64× TP + 0.0895× TRW - 3.43×FFR
Stream Restoration Approach FFR = 0.25Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Total Riparian Width (m) 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.093 18 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 20 5.4 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.6 25 5.9 5.7 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.0 30 6.3 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.5 BAP Score = 5.68 - 16.64×TP + 0.0895×TRW - 3.43× FFR Riparian buffers can affect all three parameters
Adaptive ImplementationPhased implementation for point source WLA Long compliance schedules for point sourceSupport for the stream restoration approachTrees for tribs grantContinued assessment of aquatic lifePotential TMDL revisions if aquatic life use is supported
Parting thoughtsFeasibility of stream buffers Can municipalities directly establish?Farmers reluctant to take land out of productionEPA reasonable assuranceSmall streams have small dischargesPhosphorus limits on WWTP <0.1 MGDSite specific study
Thank You Contact information:Steve Gladding625 Broadway, 4th Floor, Albany NY 12233-3508smgladdi@gw.dec.state.ny.us518-402-8207
Multiple Regression Analysis Calculated Multiple Regression – BAP ScoreBAP ScoreBAP Score = 5.68 - 16.64×TP + 0.0895×TRW - 3.43×FFR