Effects of Nutrient Enrichment on Rivers and Streams Ohio EPA 2006

Mandate to Restore Polluted Waters FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT [As Amended Through P.L. 107–303, November 27, 2002] SEC (a) The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.

Leading Causes of Impairment 2000 Ohio Water Resources Inventory

Effects of Nutrient Enrichment On Streams Increased Algae Growth Wide Swings in Dissolved Oxygen –fish need at least 4.0 mg/l Simplified Biological Communities –fewer types of fish and bugs but more of them –fish kills Habitat a Strong Modifier –Shading, Assimilative Capacity

Habitat Destruction and Nutrient Enrichment Effects on Stream Fish Community Healthy Fishery Degraded Fishery

Good Habitat (Shading, Better Nutrient Processing, More Living Places)

Poor Habitat (Full Sunlight, Boom and Bust Production, Fewer Living Spaces)

Historic Range of Smallmouth Bass Trautman’s Fishes of Ohio

Viable Smallmouth Bass Fisheries

Nutrient Study Sampling Locations 2004 & USGS ‘ Basins

Findings from Nutrient Study 2004 & 2005

D.O. Swings As Related to TP and Canopy

Gross Nutrient Enrichment Stillwater River Time D.O. mg/l 9/12–14/05

Buffers and Habitat Quality Nothing here to filter pollution Bank erosion

Landuse and Nutrient Enrichment

Average Phosphorus Concentrations Around Ohio Little or No Data Background Normal Enriched Polluted

Stream Quality and Density of CAFOs Darke Mercer Auglaize Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Stream Quality

Managing the Landscape to Manage Nutrient Loads Streams need wide buffers –provide shading cooler temperature limit algae growth –filter pollutants allow sediment to drop out vegetation take up nutrients accidents do happen, need margin of safety Good Physical Habitat –increase processing of nutrients –where drainage needed, use natural channel designs Wetlands or Riparian for Tile Drainage –tiles by-pass riparian zone