Water Quality Criteria:Nitrogen & Phosphorus Pollution

2

Presentation OutlinePresentation OutlineI. Key “Take Home” Messages

II. History of the Nutrient Criteria Program

III. Approaches for Nutrient Criteria Development

IV. CA Nutrient Numeric Endpoint Framework

V. CA NNE Regulatory Status

VI. Klamath River NNE Case Study

VII. Stream and Wetlands Policy – Protecting Physical Integrity

3

Key Take Home Messages

Nutrient related impairments are Nutrient related impairments are pervasive;pervasive;Numeric Nutrient Criteria provide Numeric Nutrient Criteria provide quantifiable targets for incorporation into quantifiable targets for incorporation into NPDES Permits and TMDLs;NPDES Permits and TMDLs;Nutrients are not inherently toxic, therefore Nutrients are not inherently toxic, therefore are are ““uniqueunique”” as pollutants, and require a as pollutants, and require a unique approach;unique approach;

4

Key MessagesNutrients, which are necessary for aquatic life, generally don’t cause impairment, it’s the secondary impacts (e.g., low DO) that cause concern.“Excess” concentrations of nutrients vary by waterbody type, climate, geologic areas, and other local risk cofactors (e.g., degraded riparian).Therefore, Nutrient Criteria cannot be developed as a single number for the Nation due to variability in background conditions and the role of other risk co-factors which affect nutrient processing within ecosystems.

5

Key Messages Nutrients have a complex and nonlinear relationship to Beneficial Uses that is influenced by other risk cofactors!

6

Key MessagesNutrient related impacts are many and varied:

Algal blooms (scum); Low dissolved oxygen; Extreme pH conditions; Fish disease & fish kills; “Weeds” affecting boating and swimming;Taste/odor; and Additional relationships include: pathogens (e.g. microcystin), methyl mercury, arsenate, and trihalomethanes.

7

History of Nutrient CriteriaNutrients (Nitrogen and Phosphorus) were consistently one of the top pollutants on the CWA Section 303(D) Lists to Congress Reports beginning in the early 1990’s.The “Nutrient Criteria Program” was initiated in 1995.1998 – The “National Strategy for the Development of Nutrient Criteria” identified need for numeric targets to measure effectiveness of watershed management programs

8

Initial EPA Nutrient MissionInitial EPA Nutrient MissionPrincipal Goal: Develop Nutrient Criteria across the nation in 3 years.Criteria needed to address nutrient pollution, not natural enrichment.Primary Parameters: Total P, Total N, Chlorophyll-a and some measure of water clarity (e.g., Secchi disk depth, turbidity) Types: Numeric criteria, or narrative with numeric translator

9

Primary ConceptsTailor criteria by nutrient ecoregion and waterbody typeIdentify minimally impacted conditions (reference)Address causal and response variablesUtilize local expertise, as in Regional Technical Advisory Groups (RTAGs), or other locally available experts

10

Initial ApproachEPA drew upon the experience of the already successful Biocriteria Program, and used their ecoregional, frequency distribution approach – which was evaluated as “scientifically defensible” by EPA’s Science Advisory Board

EPA calculated “estimated reference conditions” using a frequency distribution of ecoregional data – and recommended they be used as starting points for states to develop their own criteria, using this, or other scientifically defensible methods.

11

Ecoregional Classification

12

CA Level IVEcoregionsEcoregions

01 Coast Range04 Cascades05 Sierra Nevada06 Southern & Central CA

Chaparral & Oak Woodlands

07 Central CA Valley08 So. CA Mountains09 Eastern Cascades

Slopes & Foothills13 Central Basin & Range14 Mojave Basin & Range78 Klamath Mountains80 Northern Basin & Range81 Sonoran Basin & Range

13

Distributional ApproachThe 25th or 75th percentiles were an estimate of

reference conditions – protective of all uses.

Nutrient Variable Distributions

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Concentration

Prob

abili

ty All (pmf)

Ref (pmf)

All (cdf)

Ref (cdf)

14

Distribution Approach CritiqueThis approach automatically delineates 75% of your waterbodies as impaired;Many also argued that it was not directly linked to the protection of designated uses, and was therefore potentially over-protective;Some argued that this approach would generate criteria that harm designated uses, such as recreational or commercial fishing.

15

Shift in PolicyEPA Responded in 2001 with a policy of “flexibility”, encouraging states to use different approaches.

Many states adopted a “stressor-response”approach, where they began extensive field studies to identify the algal (diatom and periphyton) responses to N and P. Some states also began looking for responses in macroinvertebrates (or stream insects).

EPA has established a technical support center (N-STEPS) to assist states with the extensive technical challenges involved in these stressor-response approaches.

16

Range of Technical ApproachesRange of Technical ApproachesStressor Response Approach:

Biomonitoring: algae, macroinvertebrates, and fish;Statistical analysis, indices, regression analysis, etc.;Dynamic Models;Scientific Literature; and Multiple Lines of Evidence – Weight of Evidence

17

CA Nutrient Numeric EndpointsCA Nutrient Numeric Endpoints

Regional Technical Advisory Group initiated in 1999 to collaboratively develop nutrient criteria – all Regional Boards participated

Studies undertaken to evaluate alternative options

Existing approach adopted by Regional Boards and other participating agencies -- still under development but basic framework is in place.

18

CA Nutrient Numeric EndpointsCA Nutrient Numeric EndpointsDecision framework includes:

Risk Based Approach: targets for response variables / secondary indicators – benthic algal biomass, DO, pH

Beneficial Use Risk Categories: (BURCs) BURC 1 – Presumptive Unimpaired; BURC 2 – Potentially Impaired; BURC 3 – Presumptive Impaired

Spreadsheet tools: convert response variable limits (secondary indicator targets) to initial site-specific nutrient concentration goals.

19

CA Nutrient Numeric EndpointsCA Nutrient Numeric Endpoints

Category I: Category I: Presumptively Presumptively UnimpairedUnimpaired

Category II: Category II: Potentially ImpairedPotentially Impaired

Category III: Category III: Presumptively Presumptively ImpairedImpaired

20

Example 303(d) ScreeningBURC Boundaries

BA1025202510II / III

BA51010105I / IIPlanktonicAlgal Biomassin Lakes andReservoirs

(as μg/L Chl-a)summer

mean

B150150CC200150II / III

B100100CC150100I / IIBenthic AlgalBiomass

in streams (mg chl-a/m2)

Maximum

MIGR SPWN MUNREC-2 REC-1 WARM COLD

BENEFICIAL USE BURC

BOUNDARYRESPONSEVARIABLE

BA1025202510II / III

BA51010105I / IIPlanktonicAlgal Biomassin Lakes andReservoirs

(as μg/L Chl-a)summer

mean

B150150CC200150II / III

B100100CC150100I / IIBenthic AlgalBiomass

in streams (mg chl-a/m2)

Maximum

MIGR SPWN MUNREC-2 REC-1 WARM COLD

BENEFICIAL USE BURC

BOUNDARYRESPONSEVARIABLE

A = No direct linkageB= More research needed to quantify linkageC= Addressed by existing Aquatic Life Criteria

21

CA Nutrient Numeric EndpointsCA Nutrient Numeric EndpointsRegulatory Status

Estuarine Framework in Development

Possible adoption options:Narrative Nutrient Objectives with Nutrient Numeric Endpoint Framework adopted as implementation option.

Narrative Nutrient Objectives with default Beneficial Use Risk Category Boundaries and NNE Framework as implementation option.

Other?

22

CA Nutrient Numeric EndpointsCA Nutrient Numeric EndpointsNext Steps

Peer Review of five case studiesSeveral TMDLs are being developed using the CA NNEBiomonitoring capabilities are being developed to expand lines of evidenceDevelop regional ranges for Beneficial Use Risk CategoriesGet EPA to check the Yes column!

23

Klamath River NNE Case StudyKlamath River NNE Case Study

Klamath River Entering Pacific Ocean

Upper Klamath Lake Hanks Marsh

24

Klamath CA Klamath CA NNE NNE

Case StudyCase StudyBasin: 12,680 sqr. MilesRiver ~250 milesFive damsPopulation 114,0002/3 Federal land ownershipSeveral Federally recognized TribesTMDL listed tributaries

25

Klamath River Impairments

California

DO

Temperature

Nutrients

Sediment *

OregonDO

Chlorophyll a

Temperature

pH

Ammonia

26

Klamath River Fish KillsKlamath River Fish Kills

27

Klamath River Klamath River –– NNE Conceptual ModelNNE Conceptual Model

28

Klamath River Klamath River –– NutrientsNutrients

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Stateli

ne

Abov

e Iro

n Gate

Belo

w Iron G

ate

Abov

e Shas

ta A

bove S

cott

Seiad Vall

ey

Abov

e Salm

on O

rlean

s

Abov

e Trin

ity

Belo

w Trinity

Turwer

Estuary

Tota

l Pho

spho

rous

(mg

/ L)

Sum

mer

Ave

rage

"Natural"

Existing - Monitored 96-07

29

Klamath River Klamath River -- NutrientsNutrients

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

Stateli

ne

Abov

e Iro

n Gate

Belo

w Iron G

ate A

bove S

hasta

Abov

e Sco

tt Seia

d Vall

ey A

bove S

almon

Orle

ans

Abov

e Trin

ity B

elow Trin

ity Tu

rwer

Estuar

y

Tota

l Nitr

ogen

(mg

/ L)

Sum

mer

Ave

rage

"Natural"

Existing - Monitored 96-07

30

Klamath River Klamath River -- PeriphytonPeriphyton

0100200300400500600700800900

100011001200

Below Iro

n Gate

Further

Below Ir

on G

ateAbo

ve Sco

ttSeia

d Valley

Above

Salmon

Below Salm

on (Orle

ans)

Above

Trinity

(Weit

chpec

)

Below Tr

inity (M

artin

s)

Turwer

Chl

orop

hyll-

a m

g/m

²

MeanMaximumBackground Target Value: 150

31

Klamath River Klamath River –– Diurnal DO & pHDiurnal DO & pHSeiad Valley – Typical Summer Diurnal Pattern

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

8/20/02 8/22/02 8/24/02 8/26/02

Diu

rnal

DO

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

Diu

rnal

pH

DOpHpH Objective

DO Objective

32

Klamath River Klamath River -- DODO

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

At Iron G

ate

Above

Shasta

River

Above

Scott R

iver

At Seia

d Valley

At Orle

ans

Above

Trinity

At Weit

chep

ec

Below W

eitch

pec

At / ab

ove Tur

wer% Measurements < 85%saturation at medianbarometric pressure

n=4498

n=5533

n=4457

n=4713

n=5535n=4533 n=5400

n=3529

n=5543

Year: 2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

At Iron G

ate

Above Shas

ta Rive

r

Above Sco

tt Rive

r

At Seia

d Valley

At Orle

ans

Above Trin

ityAt W

eitch

epec

Below W

eitch

pec

At / ab

ove Turw

er

% Measurements < 8 mg / Ln=4498

n=4533

n=5400n=3529

n=5543

n=4713n=4457n=5533

n=5535

Year: 2005

Frequent violation of both existing and proposed DO Water Quality Objectives during summer months.

33

Klamath River – Fish disease

Life cycle of the parasite Ceratomyxa shasta:The parasite is the primary fish health issue in the

Klamath River according to USFWS

34

Klamath River – Fish disease

Severity of Severity of CeratomyxosisCeratomyxosis in Klamath River in Klamath River suggests a shift in the host: parasite balance suggests a shift in the host: parasite balance towards towards C. C. shastashasta

HostsSalmon & Polychaetes

EnvironmentParasite

(pathogen)

Negative impactNegative impact

HostsSalmon & Polychaetes

EnvironmentParasite

(pathogen)

Negative impactNegative impact

Disease

Positive impact

35

Klamath River (reservoirs) Klamath River (reservoirs) Chlorophyll aChlorophyll a

Klamath River Reservoirs

020406080

100120140160180200

Iron GateNear Dam

Iron GateUpper Half

Copco NearDam

Copco UpperHalf

Chl

orop

hyll

a (u

g/L)

MeanMaximum

602 uG/L

Target 10uG/L

36

Klamath River Klamath River –– BlueBlue--green algaegreen algaeMicrocystin Toxin Maximums-Iron Gate and

Copco Reservoirs, 2006

110

1001000

10000

100000

IRJW

7/2

7/20

06

IRJW

8/7

/200

6

IRJW

8/2

3/20

06

IRC

C 8

/23/

2006

IRCC

8/7

/200

6

IR01

7/2

7/20

06

IR01

8/2

4/20

06

IR01

8/8

/200

6

CRM

C 8

/7/2

006

CRM

C 8

/23/

2006

CR

CC 8

/8/2

006

CRC

C 8

/23/

2006

CRC

C 7

/27/

2006

CRC

C 7

/13/

2006

CR01

7/2

7/20

06

CR0

1 8

/8/2

006

CR01

8/2

4/20

06

Date and Location

Mic

rocy

stin

Con

cent

ratio

n(lo

garit

hmic

in

ppb)

Moderate Probability of Adverse Health Effects (20 ppb)

37

CA NNE Targets for Reservoirs

Proposed BURC II/III Boundary:10 µg/L summer average chlorophyll a

Potential additional target: Reduced predicted cyanobacterial fraction of biomass to < 50% using regression equations relating BGI “blue green index” to TN and TP (see Downing et al., 2001)

38

BATHTUB Scoping Tool Predicts BATHTUB Scoping Tool Predicts Observed TN, TP, Chlorophyll Observed TN, TP, Chlorophyll aa

Total N

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Copco 02 Copco 05 Iron Gate 02 Iron Gate 05

mg/

L observedpredicted

Total P

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Copco 02 Copco 05 Iron Gate 02 Iron Gate 05

mg/

L observedpredicted

Chlorophyll a

0

5

10

15

20

25

Copco 02 Copco 05 Iron Gate 02 Iron Gate 05

µg/L observed

predicted

39

Tool Predicts TN and TP Loads that Tool Predicts TN and TP Loads that Achieve TargetAchieve Target

N and P Loads That Meet the Chl-a Target

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000

P Load (kg)

N L

oad

(kg)

Allow able N-P to Meet Target Observed N-P

40

Reductions to Meet Chl-a Target in Reservoirs

Reduce TP by 80 to 92%; or Reduce TN by by 53 to 67%.

Reductions very similar to reductions needed to achieve DO targets using CE-QUAL-W2 model

Average cyanobacterial fraction of algal biomass predicted to be reduced to about 50%

41

Klamath NNE Periphyton BiomassKlamath NNE Periphyton BiomassTarget Analysis below Iron GateTarget Analysis below Iron Gate

Predicted and Observed Maximum Chlorophyll a (mg /m2)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

KR18952(below Iron

Gate)

KR17608(above

Shasta)

KR14261(aboveScott)

KR12858(SeiadValley)

KRWE(aboveTrinity)

KRTC(belowTrinity)

KRTG(Turwar)

Ben

thic

Chl

orop

hyll

a (m

g/m

2 ) Standard QUAL2K

Revised QUAL2K

Revised QUAL2K with AccrualAdjustmentDodds 2002

Observed Maximum

Observed Average

Note: Predicted maxima are spatial averages for reach. Observed data are point measurements. Data for 2004 sampling is shown.

42

Preliminary NNE Nutrient GoalsTN and TP Goals (mg/L) for Target of 150 mg/m2 Maximum Benthic Chlorophyll a

Station Revised QUAL2KRevised QUAL2K

with Accrual Adjustment

Dodds 2002

Below Iron Gate 0.18 / 0.025 0.18 / 0.025 0.34 / 0.047Above Shasta River 0.23 / 0.032 0.23 / 0.032 0.30 / 0.042Above Scott River 0.23 / 0.032 0.28 / 0.039 0.33 / 0.046@ Seiad Valley 0.38 / 0.053 0.44 / 0.061 0.38 / 0.053Above Trinity River 0.24 / 0.033 0.28 / 0.039 0.50 / 0.069Below Trinity River 0.24 / 0.033 0.41 / 0.057 0.49 / 0.068@ Turwar 0.24 / 0.033 0.51 / 0.071 0.53 / 0.074

43

Estimated Reductions from 2005-2007 Levels to achieve 150 mg/m2

Station Percent Reduction TN / TP Current TN / TP Goal

Below Iron Gate 83% (N) 1.08 / 0.14 0.18 / 0.025Above Shasta

River 78% (N) 1.05 / 0.14 0.23 / 0.032Above Scott

River 70% (N) 0.94 / 0.16 0.28 / 0.039

@ Seiad Valley 21% (N) 0.56 / 0.091 0.44 / 0.061Above Trinity

River 30% (P) 0.24 / 0.056 0.28 / 0.039Below Trinity

River - 0.21 / 0.050 0.41 / 0.057

@ Turwar - 0.23 / 0.041 0.51 / 0.071

44

Klamath River NNE ConclusionsThe following nutrient risk co-factors impact Water impact Water

Quality / Beneficial Use Support and will need to be Quality / Beneficial Use Support and will need to be addressed in any recovery plan: addressed in any recovery plan:

Reduced wetland area and function in upper basinRiver hydrologic regimeImpoundmentsTemperature Riparian shadingExcess Sediment Stream channel degradation

45

For Further Information

http://http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/http://n-steps.tetratech-ffx.com/

Archived WebcastsElements of a criteria planRepository of nutrient information materials9000+ Article BibliographyNews from EPA and States