Nutrient Benchmark Development

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Integrated State-Federal Partnership for Aquatic Resource Monitoring in the United States Anthony (Tony) R. Olsen USEPA NHEERL Western Ecology Division.
Advertisements

Approach for Including Nutrient Limitations within NDPDES Permits Dallas Grossman Division of Water Quality
EPA’s Guidance on Nutrient Criteria Development
Lakes of Missouri Volunteer Program University of Missouri-Columbia The Missouri’s Lakes and Reservoirs The Missouri Department of Natural Resources Region.
Water Quality Standards Section Water Permits Division Office of Environmental Services Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality December 2, 2010.
Prioritization Workgroup Summary. Workgroup Topics Nutrient results What is a watershed? What is a TMDL? Prioritization methods Basin framework and management.
Step 1: Valley Segment Classification Our first step will be to assign environmental parameters to stream valley segments using a series of GIS tools developed.
Limnology 101 Dan Obrecht MU Limnology
Evaluation of Volunteer Data – The Lakes of Missouri Volunteer Program Review Daniel V. Obrecht Anthony P. Thorpe John R. Jones Department of Fisheries.
©2010 Elsevier, Inc. Chapter 18 Trophic State and Eutrophication Dodds & Whiles.
New Hampshire Estuaries Project September 30, 2005 Estuarine Nutrient Criteria Presentation to New Hampshire Estuaries Project Technical Advisory Committee.
South Llano River: One of 2011’sTop Ten National Fish Habitat Action Plan named SLR as “water to watch” WHY?? –Conserve freshwater, estuarine, and marine.
Tonnie Cummings National Park Service, Pacific West Region National Tribal Forum on Air Quality May 14, 2014.
Lec 12: Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP’s)
Hydroelectric Relicensing in Vermont Brian Fitzgerald Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.
Summary of Biological Assessment Programs and Biocriteria Development for States, Tribes, Territories, and Interstate Commissions: Streams and Wadeable.
Missouri Nutrient Criteria Plan Mark Osborn October 20, 2005.
Pomme de Terre Lake Water Quality Summary Pomme de Terre Lake Water Quality Summary US Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Resources Section.
Nutrient Benchmark Development Gary Welker, Ph.D. USEPA Region 7 Environmental Services Division.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Watershed Assessment 2015 Strategic Monitoring in the Florida Keys DEAR- Water Quality Assessment Program.
JT Petty: WMAN 445 Lecture Notes Lecture 5.2: STATE POLICY.
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives The Right Science in the Right Places.
The Cahaba River Watershed Nutrient TMDL 2006 National Monitoring Conference San Jose, CA 2006 National Monitoring Conference San Jose, CA Presented by:
Alabama’s Nutrient Criteria Development 2012 Annual Meeting of the SWPBA November 16, 2012.
Florida Numerical Nutrient Criteria Southwest Florida Water Resources Conference Scott I. McClelland Vice President November 20, 2009.
Water Quality Standards, TMDLs and Bioassessment Tom Porta, P.E. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Quality Planning.
Concerns about the Current Approach to Nutrient Criteria.
Developing Nutrient Criteria for Reservoirs: How it May Impact You J. Warren Schlechte and John B. Taylor - Inland Fisheries Patricia L. Radloff – Coastal.
Nutrient Criteria for the plains regions of Missouri.
1 The National Rivers and Streams Survey – An Overview and Results.
Water Quality Short Course April 11, 2007 Lake and Reservoir Dynamics Dan Obrecht – UMC
Central Plains Center for BioAssessment Debbie Baker An overview of our projects. Sept
REGIONAL COORDINATION High Level Indicators Draft “white paper” to recommend a core set indicators that can be shared among all types of monitoring Protocol.
Western Lake Erie Basin Partnership Presented by: Name, Title Your Organization DATE YOU PRESENTED The Meeting you presented at.
National Aquatic Resource Surveys Wadeable Streams Assessment Overview November, 2007.
Response of benthic algae communities to nutrient enrichment in agricultural streams: Implications for establishing nutrient criteria R.W. Black 1, P.W.
HYDROELECTRIC POWER AND FERC. HYDRO 101A ”Water Runs Down Hill”
Reservoir and Lake Nutrient Criteria A Different Approach D.V. Obrecht, J.R. Jones & M.K. Knowlton – MU Limnology.
Adem.alabama.gov ADEM’s Monitoring Summary Reports Alabama – Tombigbee CWP Stakeholders Meeting Montgomery, Alabama 3 February 2010 Lisa Huff – ADEM Field.
Arkansas Water Quality Standards Ryan Benefield Deputy Director.
Setting Standards: The Science of Water Quality Criteria EA Engineering, Science, and Technology ® Presented by: James B. Whitaker Review of Annex 1 of.
Clean Water Act Mrs. Perryman Mrs. Trimble. Clean Water Act “Restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters”
Water Quality Standards History – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERATION OF OKLAHOMA 17th Annual Meeting October 1-3, 2008 Derek Smithee.
REVISIONS TO THE FEDERAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS RULE JILL CSEKITZ, TECHNICAL SPECIALIST TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
Development of Nutrient Water Quality Standards for Rivers and Streams in Ohio Ohio EPA ORSANCO, October 20, 2009 George Elmaraghy, P.E., Chief.
Nutrient Criteria Development Update Emily McArdle Nutrient Criteria Coordinator | Water Quality Standards Group
Nutrient Criteria for Reservoirs – A Review of Missouri’s Proposed Approach Daniel V. Obrecht Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences University of Missouri.
Texas Surface Water Quality Standards Update Joe Martin Water Quality Standards Work Leader Joe Martin Water Quality Standards Work Leader.
Unit Webex Meetings Step 1: Targets, Threats, and Stresses.
Dr. Patrick Doran, The Nature Conservancy in Michigan. Climate Change: Challenges to Biodiversity Conservation. Chris Hoving, Michigan Department of Natural.
Arkansas Dept. of Environmental Quality Regulation No
GREAT BAY and NEW HAMPSHIRE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Module 17: MIXING ZONES A limited area or volume of water where initial dilution of a discharge takes place and where numeric water quality criteria.
U.S. Clean Water Act: Water Quality Standards Overview
Aquatic Ecosystem Overview:
Shirley Birosik Environmental Specialist
Module 24 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria
California’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program Using Multiple Lines of Evidence to Assess Biostimulatory.
Use Attainability Analyses & Criteria Development
Use Attainability Analyses & Criteria Development
Great Salt Lake Water Quality Strategy Update
Public Meeting February 19, 2009
Des Plaines River Watershed Workgroup Midwest Biodiversity Institute
Debra S. Baker and Donald G. Huggins
Lake Erie HABs Workshop
TOWARDS THE GOAL OF SETTING NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR THE DELAWARE ESTUARY
The normal balance of ingredients
Water & Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association March 22, 2017
High Rock Lake TMDL Development
Marco island water quality monitoring
Presentation transcript:

Nutrient Benchmark Development Gary Welker, Ph.D. USEPA Region 7 Environmental Services Division 1

Regional Technical Advisory Group (RTAG) - Region 7 - Iowa Department of Natural Resources Missouri Department of Natural Resources Kansas Department of Health & Environment Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians Iowa State University University of Missouri University of Kansas Kansas State University University of Nebraska Natural Resources Conservation Service US Geological Survey US Environmental Protection Agency Central Plains Center for BioAssessment 11

RTAG Mission Statement The mission of the Region 7 Nutrient Workgroup is to develop scientifically defensible numeric nutrient benchmarks for lakes/reservoirs, streams/rivers and wetlands in the Central Great Plains (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri & Nebraska).

RTAG Ground Rules Nutrient benchmarks are to protect Streams & Rivers and down stream receiving waters against adverse impacts of cultural eutrophication (excess nutrient levels above natural or minimally impaired conditions). Nutrient benchmarks are to be protective of aquatic life - Economics, technology, attainability, social values are not part of the benchmark development process. Benchmarks developed by the RTAG are by group consensus and are developed for the purpose of assisting and providing guidance to States and Tribes in the development of their own nutrient criteria.

Lake & Reservoir Nutrient Values & RTAG Benchmarks Reference Lakes Trisection Method Literature Values RTAG Benchmarks Chl-a (ug/l) 7.4 6.8 8 TP (ug/l) 31.5 35 TN (ug/l) 755 610 650 700

Nutrient Benchmarks: Streams Parameter Literature1 (range) Nutrient Regions4 Reference Streams (median) Tri-section5 25% (percentile) MEANS (all methods) Benchmarks Total nitrogen (mg/L) 0.7 – 1.51 0.15 – 1.102 0.51 – 0.543 0.54 – 2.18 1.08 0.81 0.82 0.964 0.9 Total phosphorus 0.025 – 0.0751 0.023 – 0.0602 0.027 – 0.0433 0.01 – 0.128 0.08 0.07 0.052 0.75 Sestonic chl-a (μg/L) 10 – 301 0.9 – 3.0 3.3 2.8 2.0 6.0 8.0 Benthic chl-a (mg/m2) 20 - 701 NA 24.2 20.3 11.9 25.4 40.0 Dodds WK, Jones JR, Welch EB (1998) Suggested classification of stream trophic state: Distributions of temperate stream types by chlorophyll, total nitrogen, and phosphorus. Water Res. 32, 1455-1462. These values are for streams in the mesotrophic range. Dodds, W.K. and R.M. Oakes 2004. A technique for establishing reference nutrient concentrations across watersheds affected by humans. Limnology and Oceanography Methods 2: 333-341. Dodds, W.K., V.H. Smith, and K. Lohman 2002. Nitrogen and phosphorus relationships to benthic algal biomass in temperate streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and aquatic Sciences 59: 865-874. From EPA 822-B-00-017, -18, -019, -020; EPA 822-B-01-013, -014, -016 Tri-section values are for upper one-third streams in US EPA Region 7 having highest total richness for macroinvertebrates.

USEPA Ambient Water Quality Recommendations for Lakes and Reservoirs (Ecoregions that overlap Region 7) ER IV ER V ER VI ER VII ER IX ER X ER XI RTAG Benchmark Chl-a (ug/l) 3.4 2.3 8.6 2.6 4.9 NA 2.8 8 TP (ug/l) 20 33 37.5 14.8 35 TN (ug/l) 400 560 780 660 360 460 700 ER IV = Great Plains Grass & Shrublands (Sand Hills & Flint Hills) ER V = South Central Cultivated Great Plains (Western KS & NE) ER VI = Corn Belt & Northern Great Plains (IA; Eastern NE; Northeast KS; Northwest MO) ER VII = Glacial Dairy (Northeastern IA) ER IX = SE Temperate Forested Plains & Hills (Northern MO & Eastern KS) ER X = Texas-Louisiana Coastal & Miss. Alluvial Plains (Southeastern Missouri) ER XI = Central & Eastern Forested Uplands (Ozarks)

‘Need to Protect the Use’ Waters in which naturally occurring water quality and habitat conditions allow the maintenance of a wide variety of warm-water biota…

Water Quality Standards Ann Durham Jacobs, Environmental Scientist USEPA, Region 7 Environmental Services Division

Water Quality Standards Implemented under the Federal Clean Water Act A water quality standard for a water body consists of: Designated use(s) Water quality criteria to protect the designated use An antidegradation statement

Designated Uses States must designate beneficial uses that provide: Where attainable, water quality for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreation in an one the water (Short hand: FISHABLE/SWIMMABLE) Consider the use and value of state waters for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation, agriculture and industrial purposes, and navigation Consider the uses of waters in downstream states or tribal boundaries

Use Classification Aquatic life uses sub-divided by: Coldwater/warm water Water body type (natural lakes, reservoirs, high quality streams, etc.,) Biological communities present (highly sensitive species, state or federally-listed species, valuable aquatic species, ecologically rare assemblages) Recreational Uses: Type of exposure to water (full body immersion vs. wading or incidental immersion) Seasonal (apply only when activity is likely to occur

Bottom Line for Nutrient Criteria Need to develop nutrient criteria to protect the designated use and to protect the aquatic community present Need to express the criterion in a way that will make implementation meaningful (concentration, magnitude, frequency) and be able to determine compliance in accordance with monitoring frequency Iowa’s current use classification system for lakes/wetlands has only one category—which may lead to “one-size-fits-all” criteria, which may lead to under or overprotection of the aquatic life present

Website and Contact Information USEPA website: http://epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient N-STEPS website: http://n-steps.tetratech-ffx.com Gary Welker, USEPA Region 7 Nutrient Coordinator welker.gary@epa.gov 913-551-7177 Central Plains Center for BioAssessment Website www.cpcb.ku.edu 8

Kansas Reference Values (Lake & Wetland Monitoring Report. KDHE Kansas Reference Values (Lake & Wetland Monitoring Report. KDHE. January 2001) ER 25/26 ER 27 ER 28 ER 40 ER 47 Statewide RTAG Benchmarks Chl-a (ug/l) 6.5 6.6 5.8 6.7 10.3 8 TP (ug/l) 21 35 16 19 26 TN (ug/l) 474 648 176 407 646 405 700 ER 25/26 = High Plains & SW Tablelands Ecoregion ER 27 = Central Great Plains Ecoregion ER 28 = Flint Hills ER 40 = Central Irregular Plains Ecoregion ER 47 = Western Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion