Water Quality: An Indiana Primer - Sustainable Natural Resources Task Force 3/28/12
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Water Quality: An Indiana Primer - Sustainable Natural Resources Task Force 3/28/12

on

  • 495 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
495
Views on SlideShare
495
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Water Quality: An Indiana Primer - Sustainable Natural Resources Task Force 3/28/12 Water Quality: An Indiana Primer - Sustainable Natural Resources Task Force 3/28/12 Presentation Transcript

  • WATER QUALITY: AN INDIANA PRIMER Jeff FreyIndiana Water Science Center March 28, 2012
  • NATURAL STREAMSReference or unimpacted streams• Diverse instream habitat and extensive riparian buffers – Riffle-run-pool• Low concentrations of: – Nutrients – Pesticides – Other stressor/ contaminants• High dissolved oxygen• Cooler temperatures Water Chemistry and Habitat
  • UNIMPACTED STREAMSReference or unimpacted streams• Diverse biological communities – Sensitive species – More taxa – Stronger and more complex food web• Few unimpacted sites in the region of the Cornbelt we call Indiana Biological Response
  • HOW ARE INDIANA STREAMS? IMPAIRMENT 2008 2010Impaired Streams Rank AGRICULTURAL AND URBAN IMPAIRMENTS 1 E. COLI OIL AND GREASE 930 3 979 5• Clean Water Act PESTICIDES NUTRIENTS AND NUTRIENT RELATED IMPAIRMENTS 1 1 5 78 163 – 303d and 305b list DISSOLVED OXYGEN 6 NUTRIENTS 63 110 9 PHOSPHORUS 50 50• 26 parameters ALGAE TASTE AND ODOR 20 12 20 12 AMMONIA 6 8 – Acute 2 METALS AND MAJOR IONS PCBs (FISH TISSUE) 653 612 – Chronic 4 7 MERCURY (FISH TISSUE) PCBs (WATER) 324 0 355 69• About 3,000 8 DIOXIN (WATER) 4 69 10 MERCURY (WATER) 0 47 FREE CYANIDE 0 27 impaired reaches PH CHLORIDE 9 14 18 16 SULFATE 27 1 TOTAL CYANIDE 15 0 LEAD 4 0 NICKEL 1 0 COPPER 1 0 BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES AND RELATED IMPAIRMENTS 3 IMPAIRED BIOTIC COMMUNITIES 421 570 TEMPERATURE 0 14 SILTATION 3 3 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 42 0
  • HOW DOES INDIANA COMPARE? From Dana Thomas, USEPA
  • IMPAIREDSTREAMS:NUTRIENTS 303d listings
  • WHAT ARE NUTRIENTS?• Elements required for growth in plants and animals• Macronutrients (6): C, H, O, N, P, S• Micronutrients (20): B, F, Na, Mg, Si, Cl, K, Ca, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Se, Mo, Sn, I• Most macro- and micronutrients are generally readily available and rarely limit growth – Exceptions: N, P, and to a lesser extent Si NUTRIENT PRIMER
  • NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUSNitrogen: amino acids (all proteins), nucleic acids (DNA, RNA)Phosphorus: nucleic acids, organelle walls (P- lipids), energy molecules (ADP/ATP/NADP) From Michael Paul, Tetratech A. Acid (Tryptophan) Phospholipid Bilayer DNA NUTRIENT PRIMER
  • NUTRIENT SOURCESAgricultural• Fertilizers• Animal feed lots – Confined – Unconfined• Septic systemsUrban• Waste Water Treatment Plants• Lawn fertilizers• IndustryNatural occurrences
  • IMPACTS OF EXCESS NUTRIENTS Excess Nutrients Aquatic Life Human Health RecreationCommunity Dissolved Taste & Increased Structure Oxygen Odor Treatment Suitability for Toxicity Recreation (Aesthetics) NUTRIENT PRIMER
  • WHERE ARE THENUTRIENT“HOTSPOTS”?Total Nitrogen• Cornbelt states dominate• Indiana has some of the highest ranked From: Roberson and others, 2009
  • WHERE ARE THENUTRIENT“HOTSPOTS”?Total Phosphorus• Cornbelt states dominate BUT…• Indiana less than other states• WHY? From: Roberson and others, 2009
  • HOW DO NUTRIENTS GET INTO STREAMS?• Hydrology – Fast – Slow• Chemistry – Dissolved • Nitrogen – Particulate • Phosphorus NUTRIENT PRIMER
  • How Do Nutrients Get Into Streams? Case Study: Sugar Creek
  • NUTRIENTS CHANGE SEASONALLY Total Nitrogen
  • WHY RELATIONS BETWEEN NUTRIENTSAND ALGAL BIOMASS ARE RARELY FOUND? From Munn and others, 2010 Nutrient Criteria Approaches: Stressor-Response
  • THE LACK OF RELATIONS SUGGESTSBIOLOGICAL RESPONSES ARE NEEDED • Invertebrate • Fish • Algae • States with Diatom IBI’s: KY, MI, MT Nutrient Criteria Approaches: Stressor-Response
  • Daily DO Fluctuations States using: Ohio Minnesota Illinois From Munn and others, in progressNutrient Criteria Approaches: Stressor-Response
  • HOW DO WE KEEP NUTRIENTS OUT OF STREAMS?• Nutrient inputs • Nutrient management plans• Transport of nutrients and sediment • Conservation tillage • Buffers• Transformation of nutrients • Wetlands • Bioreactors • 2-stage ditches BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS)
  • PHOSPHORUS DECREASES AS CROPLAND IN THE RIPARIAN BUFFER INCREASES
  • AS THE AMOUNT OF CROPLAND IN THE RIPARIAN BUFFER INCREASES
  • MODIFIED STREAMS HAVE DECREASEDNATURAL ABILITY TO REMOVE NITROGENDenitrification• Contact time with bacteria• Slower velocity
  • Has Water Quality Improved with the Implementation of Agricultural Management Practices? Case Study: Sugar Creek
  • What are agricultural management practices? Conservation tillage Case Study: Sugar Creek
  • No Till Conservation Tillage Increased Through the 1990’sFrom Evans & others,2000 (CTIC) • Transect data• Randomly selected• Repeated • “Window survey”
  • No Till Conservation Tillage Increased Through the 1990’s FromEvans andothers, 2000 Soybeans Corn 1990 – 2% 1990 – 2% 1998 – 72% 1998 – 5% 2000 – 74% 2000 – 8%
  • Sediment Concentrations over Time 2.00 Log Median Suspended sediment 1.80 1.60 concentrations 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year Case Study: Sugar Creek
  • Sediment Concentrations over Time3,000 500 Discharge (ft3/sec) Suspended Sediment (mg/L) 4502,500 400 3502,000 3001,500 250 2001,000 150 100 500 50 0 0 Case Study: Sugar Creek
  • Sediment Concentrations over Time3,000 500 Discharge (ft3/sec) 450 Suspended Sediment (mg/L)2,500 400 1992-2006: No significant change 3502,000 1992-1999: 30.6% decrease 3001,500 p-value = 0.036 250 2001,000 150 100 500 50 0 0 May-92 May-93 May-94 May-95 May-96 May-97 May-98 May-99 May-00 May-01 May-02 May-03 May-04 May-05 May-06 Case Study: Sugar Creek
  • What are agricultural management practices? Buffer Strips Case Study: Sugar Creek
  • Nitrate Concentrations over Time3,000 14 Discharge Nitrate 122,500 102,000 81,500 61,000 4 500 2 0 0 Case Study: Sugar Creek
  • Nitrate Concentrations over Time Discharge Nitrate3,000 14 122,500 1992-2006: No significant change 102,000 1992-1999: 14.3% decrease 81,500 p-value = 0.363 61,000 4 500 2 0 0 Case Study: Sugar Creek
  • Population in Hancock County Has Rapidly Increased Population in Hancock County 70,000 65,000 60,000 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 1994 2005 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 Case Study: Sugar Creek
  • Population in Hancock County Has Rapidly Increased Hancock County, Indiana 4Annual change in population (%) 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Year Case Study: Sugar Creek
  • BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES CANHELP SHOW LOW NUTRIENT SITES
  • A Conceptual Model: Positive Biological Response to Nutrients Thresholds EutrophicBIOLOGICALRESPONSE High nutrient breakpoint Oligotrophic Low nutrient breakpoint NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS Nutrient Criteria Approaches: Stressor-Response
  • Example of Negative Response to Nutrients 80 Algal response in thePercent Achnanthidium minutissium Glacial North Diatom Ecoregion 70 Breakpoint 60 0.643 mg/L 50 0.05 Confidence Intervals 40 30 20 10 0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Nutrient Criteria Approaches: Stressor-Response
  • BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES CANHELP SHOW LOW NUTRIENT SITES• Low nutrients, high algal biomass (uptake sites) – Stonerollers – Creek chubs• Low nutrients, low algal biomass (oligotrophic) – Longear sunfish – Spotfin shiners
  • WHAT DOES INDIANA CONTRIBUTE DOWNSTREAM? Wabash River Ohio River Major Sub-basins of the Mississippi River
  • Super Gages White River at Hazleton, IN (03374100) http://waterdata.usgs.gov/in/nwis/uv/?site_no=03374100&PARAmeter_cd=00400,00095,00010DischargeSuspended http://www.ipcamhost.net/test_player.jsp?id= 18&path=usgs-insediment
  • Super GagesEagle Creek at Zionsville, IN (03353200) http://waterdata.usgs.gov/in/nwis/uv/?site_no=03353200&PARAmeter_cd=00400,00095,00010 Discharge Nitrate
  • Surrogates Suspended Sediment vs. Turbidity 1,000 R2 = 0.96 n = 13Suspended sedimentconcentration, mg/L 100 Other uses: • Phosphorus 10 • Algal biomass 1 1 10 100 1,000 Turbidity, Formazin nephelometric units White River at Hazleton, IN
  • QA/QC leads to accurate data 180 5 White River at Hazleton, INTurbidity, Formazin nephelometric Peak Turbidity 160 Raw 161 Corrected 140 4.5 140 Final Turbidity Raw 106 Gage height, feet Corrected 76 120 4 100 units 3.5 80 60 3 40 Initial Turbidity Raw 48 2.5 20 Corrected 48 0 2 8/1 8/3 8/5 8/7 8/9 8/11 8/13 8/15 Turbidity, raw data Turbidity, corrected Gage height Monitoring Primer
  • INDIANA WATERMONITORING COUNCIL http://www.inwmc.org/
  • PRIORITY PROJECTS Optimization of: Water-quality networks  Streamgages Indiana Water Monitoring Council
  • REMAINING ISSUES• Is there a sufficient nutrient gradient to identify breakpoints?• Can regional breakpoints be used across multiple states?• Local vs Downstream Impacts: Account for downstream impacts• There can be nutrient impairment even if there is a “good” IBI score Nutrient Criteria Approaches
  • NUTRIENTS CAN BE REWARDINGJeff FreyIndiana Water Science Centerjwfrey@usgs.gov317-290-3333 x151
  • APPROACHES FOR DEVELOPING NUTRIENT CRITERIAMultiple approaches: • Classification • Reference condition • Stressor – response • Mechanistic models • Literature and Best Professional Judgment • Multiple lines of evidence
  • USEPA REQUIREMENTS FOR STATESNumerical criteria • Causal variables –TP –TN • Response variables –Chl a (periphyton and seston) –Transparency/turbidity
  • MULTIPLE LINES OF EVIDENCE Biological Response TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L)Study Location Low High Low HighSmith Nutrient IBI (2007) New York 0.34 1.40 0.018 0.065NEET O/E Midwest 0.58 1.34 0.026 0.100Crain and Caskey (2010) Kentucky wadable -- -- 0.032 --Miltner (2010) Ohio -- -- 0.038 --Heiskary et al (2010) Minnesota (North and Northwest) -- 1.77 0.040Robertson et al (2008) Wisconsin (large rivers – inverts) 0.53 1.99 0.040 0.150Robertson et al (2006) Wisconsin (wadable streams – fish) 0.54 -- 0.055 0.067Frey et al (2011) wadable Glacial North (MN, WI, MI) 0.60 1.20 0.030 0.100NEET EPT richness Midwest, West 0.60 -- 0.052 0.174Wang et al (2007) Wisconsin 0.60 -- -- --Miltner and Rankin (1998) Ohio 0.61 1.65 0.060 0.170Robertson et al (2006) Wisconsin (wadable streams - inverts 0.61 1.11 0.088 0.091Robertson et al (2008) Wisconsin (large rivers) fish 0.63 1.97 0.079 0.139Caskey et al (2010) Indiana wadable 2.40 3.30 0.042 0.129Heiskary et al (2010) Minnesota (south) 1.77 3.60Frey et al (2011) Central and Western Plains (IL, IN, OH) 1.70 3.50 0.075 0.133 Background nutrient concentrations or trophic levelsDodds et al (1998) National, 33rd and 66th percentiles 0.70 1.70 0.025 0.075Robertson et al (2006) Wisconsin (median reference) wadable 0.61 1.10 0.035 --Robertson et al (2008) Wisconsin (median reference) large rivers 0.40 0.70 0.035 --
  • FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION APPROACH 75% 25%Reference All sites sites 23 mg/L 20 mg/L 25 mg/L 0 50 Possible criterion value Nutrient Criteria Approaches: Reference Condition
  • Effects Threshold Approach Ecological attribute Nutrient concentration Nutrient Criteria Approaches: Stressor-Response
  • BIOLOGICAL CONDITION IMPROVES ASAGRICULTURAL INTENSITY INCREASES
  • SIMILAR BREAKPOINTS ACROSS COMMUNITIES 20 Glacial North diatom ecoregion 18 Central and Western Plains diatom ecoregion 16 14 Low nutrient breakpointBiological attribute response 0.60 mg/L 12 10 High nutrient breakpoint 8 1.2 mg/L 6 4 2 0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 Total Nitrogen in mg/L Nutrient Criteria Approaches: Multiple lines of Evidence