New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Steve Gladding, Brian Duffy, Ron Entringer, Jay
BloomfieldNYSDEC
Watershed Modeling:Steve Pacenka, Casey Garland, Peter
Vermeulen, Tammo SteenhuisCornell University
NYC Watershed/Tifft Science & Technical SymposiumSeptember
19, 2013Numeric Endpoints and Adaptive Management:New Yorks First
Stream Nutrient TMDL1OutlineApplying Nutrient CriteriaField
StudyResultsApplicationImplementation
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation2Nutrient
Criteria50% 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.New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation3Applicable Water
Quality StandardNone in amounts that will resultin growths of
algae, weeds andslimes that will impair the watersfor their best
usages (6 NYCRR Part 703.2)
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation4Applicable Water Quality StandardNone 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?
EndpointApplicationNew York State Department of Environmental
Conservation5Field StudyIdentifying an endpointUpper Black
Creek
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation7Upper
Black Creek
46 sq. mi.27 mi. main stemBigelow Creek TributaryLand Cover70%
Agriculture20% Forest/Wetland10% DevelopedNew York State Department
of Environmental Conservation8Biomonitoring 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)New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation9Biological Assessment Profile (BAP)
5 IndicesHilsenhoffs Biotic IndexTolerance to organic
pollutionEPT Richness (mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies)Higher EPT
usually indicates good water qualityPercent model
affinitySimilarity to a model non-impacted communitySpecies
richnessMore species usually indicates good water qualityNutrient
Biotic Index for PhosphorusBiological impact from nutrient
enrichmentAveraged together = BAP ScoreRange: 0 (terrible) 10
(pristine)New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation10Use ImpairmentUpper Black Creek303(d) listed in
2004Aquatic life usePhosphorus from agriculture, municipalBigelow
Creek303(d) listed in 2004Aquatic life usePhosphorus from
agricultureNoneSlightModerateSevereBAP5 ScoreNew York State
Department of Environmental Conservation11
Conceptual ModelNo direct toxicity effects of nutrientsPaul, M.
J. and L. Zheng (2007). Development of Nutrient Endpoints for the
Northern Piedmont Ecoregion of Pennsylvania: TMDL Application.New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation12Data
Collection
ChemistryDO, T, pH, Cond.TP, SRPNitrogen seriesHabitat
AssessmentCanopy coverGrain size analysisRiparian bufferDepth,
VelocityMacroinvertebrates6 replicates per siteNew York State
Department of Environmental Conservation13ResultsPhosphorus
ConcentrationsNew York State Department of Environmental
Conservation15Macroinvertebrate Survey
WWTPWWTPBlack CreekBigelowL. TonawandaNew York State Department
of Environmental Conservation16Statistical AnalysisBAP Score = 5.68
- 16.64TP + 0.0895TRW - 3.43FFRStarted 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)New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation17ApplicationCornell
Watershed ModelModel Schematic
TMDLTotal P LoadTotal P ConcentrationFine grained sediment in
the riffle zoneRiparian Buffer Width
Channel Regression ModelNew York State Department of
Environmental Conservation19Load Duration Interval50th percentile
flowTMDL LoadCurrent LoadNew York State Department of Environmental
Conservation20Phosphorus reductions at site BLAK-082012
ConditionsTotal PhosphorusTP = 0.093 mg/LTotal Riparian Width TRW =
18 mFraction Fines in RiffleFFR = 0.30BAP = 4.21To achieve BAP
Score = 5BAP = 5.68 16.64TP + 0.0895TRW 3.43FFR
Reduction targetTP = 0.046 mg/L50% reductionNew York State
Department of Environmental Conservation21Applying Phosphorus
TargetsWhat When - HowNew York State Department of Environmental
Conservation22Applying Phosphorus Targets
Where
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation23Applicable Water Quality StandardNone 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 averageWhere is it applied?Critical
locations at confluences and below point sources
EndpointApplicationNew York State Department of Environmental
Conservation24ImplementationRestoration of stream corridorHigher
allowable phosphorus concentrationsLess reduction from
point/non-point sourcesStill attains aquatic life best use25Stream
Restoration ApproachFFR = 0.30Total Phosphorus (mg/L)Total Riparian
Width
(m)0.040.050.060.070.080.090.093185.14.94.84.64.44.24.2205.35.14.94.84.64.44.4255.75.65.45.25.14.94.8306.26.05.85.75.55.35.3BAP
Score = 5.68 - 16.64TP + 0.0895TRW - 3.43FFRNew York State
Department of Environmental Conservation26FFR = 0.30Total
Phosphorus (mg/L)Total Riparian Width
(m)0.040.050.060.070.080.090.093185.14.94.84.64.44.24.2205.35.14.94.84.64.44.4255.75.65.45.25.14.94.8306.26.05.85.75.55.35.3Stream
Restoration ApproachBAP Score = 5.68 - 16.64TP + 0.0895TRW -
3.43FFRNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation27FFR
= 0.30Total Phosphorus (mg/L)Total Riparian Width
(m)0.040.050.060.070.080.090.093185.14.94.84.64.44.24.2205.35.14.94.84.64.44.4255.75.65.45.25.14.94.8306.26.05.85.75.55.35.3Stream
Restoration ApproachBAP Score = 5.68 - 16.64TP + 0.0895TRW -
3.43FFRNew York State Department of Environmental
Conservation28Stream Restoration ApproachFFR = 0.25Total Phosphorus
(mg/L)Total Riparian Width
(m)0.040.050.060.070.080.090.093185.35.14.94.84.64.44.2205.45.35.14.94.84.64.6255.95.75.65.45.25.15.0306.36.26.05.85.75.55.5BAP
Score = 5.68 - 16.64TP + 0.0895TRW - 3.43FFRRiparian buffers can
affect all three parametersNew York State Department of
Environmental Conservation29Adaptive ImplementationPhased
implementation for point source WLALong compliance schedules for
point sourceSupport for the stream restoration approachTrees for
tribs grantContinued assessment of aquatic lifePotential TMDL
revisions if aquatic life use is supportedNew York State Department
of Environmental Conservation30Parting thoughtsFeasibility of
stream buffersCan municipalities directly establish?Farmers
reluctant to take land out of productionEPA reasonable
assuranceSmall streams have small dischargesPhosphorus limits on
WWTP