Linking Water Quality and Migratory Fish Passage to Economic Contributions of Fisheries and Water Use

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Linking Water Quality and Migratory Fish Passage to Economic Contributions of Fisheries and Water Use"

Brianna Ball
6 years ago
Views:

1 Insert Your Image Here Linking Water Quality and Migratory Fish Passage to Economic Contributions of Fisheries and Water Use

2 Project/Grant Objective 1. Delineate impacts to drinking water quality from the surrounding land uses through a SWAT model & identify priority areas for investments in nutrient reductions (RESPEC/Tetra Tech). 2. Research the health impacts to fisheries & describe via a meta analysis of existing scientific literature the impacts of pollutants/high levels of nutrients on fish health (UNCW). 3. Estimate the economic contribution of commercial and recreational fishing occurring on the Cape Fear River (NCDMF). 4. Create a website describing the project results and directing 4. Create a website describing the project results and directing information and resources at particular stakeholders (TNC).

3 Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) Spatial extent: Deep River & Haw River Lock and Dam #1 Data Used: HUC12 scale 30 m DEM NLCD 2006 SSURGO soils Weather forcing NLDAS 2 Point sources

4 Model Calibration and Validation Hydrology Dil Daily flow at USGS gages Water balance Evapotranspiration Water Quality Monthly regression loads at Cape Fear River Basin Monitoring i Coalition Locations Paired loads Calibration period WY 2006 to WY 2013 Validation period WY 2000 to WY 2005

5 Hydrology Calibration and Validation Water Budget Lautier, 2006 (NC DENR), Hydrologic Framework and Ground Water Conditions in the North Carolina Southern Coastal Plain (adapted from Hardin, Fine, and Spruill, USGS, 2003 and Wilder, 1978)

Hydrology Calibration and Validation Flow Simulated flow generally in good agreement with observed flow.

Modeled Flow (cfs) 6000 4000 2000 Avg Flow (10/1/2006 to 9/30/2013) Line of Equal Value Best-Fit Line y = 0.

9833 Flow (cfs) Avg Monthly Rainfall (in) Avg Observed Flow (10/1/2006 to 9/30/2013) Avg Modeled Flow (Same Period)

6 Hydrology Calibration and Validation Flow Simulated flow generally in good agreement with observed flow. Dil Daily NSE values generally greater than and on the tib tributaries t i and mainstem, respectively. Total volume error less than 10%. Observed Flow Duration (10/1/2006 to 9/30/2013 ) Modeled Flow Duration (10/1/2006 to 9/30/2013 ) 8000 Ave erage Modeled Flow (cfs) Avg Flow (10/1/2006 to 9/30/2013) Line of Equal Value Best-Fit Line y = x R² = Flow (cfs) Avg Monthly Rainfall (in) Avg Observed Flow (10/1/2006 to 9/30/2013) Avg Modeled Flow (Same Period) 8000 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Monthly Rainfall (in) y Average Flow (cfs) Daily Average Observed Flow (cfs) Month % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent of Time that Flow is Equaled or Exceeded

7 Water Quality Calibration and Validation Model performance fair to very good at all locations with the exception of Rockfish Creek.

8 Non Point Sediment and Nutrient Loading Sediment Yield Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen

9 Non Point Sediment and Nutrient Loading By Source 7 broad categories Manured and un manured agricultural and pasture lands Agricultural lands Corn Soybean Winter Wheat Cotton

10 In Stream Sediment and Nutrient Loading

11 Nutrient Loading by Source Categories

12 Alternative Management Scenarios Reforestation The importance of Longleaf Pine Point Sources How big is their contribution? Fertilization & Setting Realistic Expectations no more N and P!! Combining options Controlled drainage and wetland BMPs (revised)

13 Reforestation Scenario Rf Reforest tthe upland areas where longleaf l pine soils exist itin the Turnbull Creek, Harrison Creek, and Rockfish Creek HRUs use the soils from the NCFS to determine locations for reforestation of longleaf pine. Conversion of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) to longleaf pine (Pinus palustris). The model represents the differences between species, including leafarea area development, stomatalconductance conductance, temperature responses, radiation use efficiency, canopy height, root depth, and plant biomass nutrient content.

14 Reforestation Scenario

15 Reforestation Scenario

16 Results of Reforestation Scenario Reduction in nutrient load at local scale. TNand TPloadreduction by 1% and 3%, respectively, at Lock and Dam #1. Scenario Total Nitrogen (TN) Total Phosphorus (TP) Eiti Existing Conditions (Tons/Year) Longleaf (Tons/Year) Percent Reduction 4 43

17 Point Source Scenario Select the largest N and P dischargers into the basin, then: Remove these sources from the model completely and indicate the order of magnitude by which nutrient loads decrease. Reduce these large sources of nutrients by 30% to determine relative contributions of these sources.

18 Point Source Scenario Major point in study area source make up for 12% and 21% of TN and TP loads, respectively, at Lock and Dam #1. NPDES NC Name West Point Place Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Flow TN TP (MGD) (Tons/Year) (Tons/Year) NC DuPont Fayetteville Works NC Cedar Creek Site NC Fort Bragg WWTP NC Cross Creek WWTP NC Raeford WWTP NC Spring Lake WWTP NC Dunn WWTP NC Rockfish Creek WWTP NC Holly Springs WWTP NC Erwin WWTP NC Smithfield Packing Company Inc NC Northeast Brunswick Regional WWTP TOTAL

19 Fertilization Scenario To emphasize the over application of nutrients and to underscore how many nutrients are already in the system Remove all P inputs into the system to show how long until water and soil quality improves Reduce P inputs by 30% Reduce N inputs by 30% Ran the model for multiple decades using repeated weather data to look at long term trends. For N, fertilizer inputs reduced but did not modify the N concentrations in groundwater as those N stores are much more persistent. We also leave atmospheric deposition of N unchanged.

20 Results of 100% Reduction in External TP 42% and 15% reduction in non point and load delivered to Lock and Dam #1, respectively, over a 50 year period. 53% and 18% reduction in non point and load delivered to Lock and Dam #1, respectively, during the last t10 years. 13% reduction in soil phosphorus.

21 Results of 30% Reduction in External TP 13% and 5% reduction in non point and load delivered to Lock and Dam #1, respectively, over a 50 year period. 17% and 6% reduction in non point and loaddelivered to Lock 17% and 6% reduction in non point and load delivered to Lock and Dam #1, respectively, during the last 10 years.

$Results of 30% Reduction in External TN A large fraction (about 18%) of TN$ 4% and 1% reduction in non point and load delivered to Lock and Dam #1,

22 Results of 30% Reduction in External TN A large fraction (about 18%) of TN load from groundwater sources. 4% and 1% reduction in non point and load delivered to Lock and Dam #1, respectively. 26% and 20% reduction in nitrate N non point source loads from manured and un manured lands, respectively.

23 Combining Options Combinethe reforestation scenarios (#1) and the N fertilization scenario (#3b). In other words, show the benefit to nutrient load reductions from both reforesting critical uplands while also decreasing N inputs onto the landscape. Combine the reforestation scenarios (#1) and the P fertilization scenario (#3a). In other words show the benefit to nutrient load reductions from both reforesting critical uplands while also decreasing P inputs onto the landscape.

24 Combining Options Scenario TN TP Existing Conditions (Tons/Year) Longleaf + 30 Percent TP Reduction(Tons/Year) Percent Reduction % and 16% reduction in non point TN and TP loads, respectively, for the entire watershed. Scenario TN TP Existing Conditions (Tons/Year) Longleaf + 30 Percent TN Reduction (Tons/Year) Percent Reduction % and 3% reduction in non point TN and TP loads, respectively.

25 Takeaways Approximately half of nutrients present at L&D #1 originate from Haw River and Deep River. There is no quick fix or real low hanging fruit to mitigate issue of high levels nutrients in the Cape Fear River. SWAT data can be used for many functions. TNC wants this information disseminated & used stakeholders.

26 Literature Review Evaluating water quality in the lower Cape Fear: Effects on the health and survival of migratory fishes. A.D. Goff and S.M. Brander Findings : Anthropogenic addition of nutrients, pesticides, wastewater, heavy metals, and other pollutants are changing aquatic habitats and as a result, impacting fishes in our rivers. Phosphates are not directly toxic to fish, although they do promote algal blooms, but nitrogen in its various forms does have toxic effects on fish (ammonia and nitrite are most toxic, nitrate and ammonium are least toxic). For migratory fish, the persistence of elevated nutrient levels in the main stem of the river may be causing disruptions to chemosensory cues that have historically provided navigation towards established spawning sites. Mi t fi h ldb tti th i t f th di d t f i l Migratory fish could be putting their progeny at a further disadvantage for survival by spawning in an area that is highly contaminated by elevated concentrations of nitrogenous substances.

27 Literature Review MC=microsystin EDCs= endocrine disrupting compound

28 Literature Review Recommendations: Significant gaps in available literature pertaining to toxicity of MCs and ammonia, nitrite and nitrate and their effects on fish health were identified. d Laboratory research and subsequent results combined with field sampling will establish a better understanding di of the impact. The importance of multiple stressor considerations when evaluating issues like eutrophication, persistence of algal blooms, input of persistent pollutants, and climate change, is critical. There is never just one culprit behind an environmental concern.

Utilization of the SWAT Model and Remote Sensing to Demonstrate the Effects of Shrub Encroachment on a Small Watershed

Utilization of the SWAT Model and Remote Sensing to Demonstrate the Effects of Shrub Encroachment on a Small Watershed Jason Afinowicz Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering Texas A&M University