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