Appendix 12. Pollutant Load Estimates and Reductions

Similar documents
URBAN BUILD-OUT AND STORMWATER BMP ANALYSIS IN THE PAW PAW RIVER WATERSHED

Lake Wallenpaupack Watershed Assessment Project

Implementing Watershed Protection and Management Strategies in Hickory Creek

Hickory Creek 319 grant project City of Denton

Hydrology 101. Impacts of the Urban Environment. Nokomis Knolls Pond Summer June 2008

Cost Efficiency and Other

Catchment Scale Stormwater Volume and Pollutant Loading Analyses. Guidance for Municipal Stormwater Program Assessment and Prioritization

Skogman Fannie Elms Florence Lakes Chain Stormwater Retrofit Analysis

Clean Water Optimization Tool Case Study: Kent County

Municipal Stormwater Management Planning

Effectiveness of Non-Structural Measures in Watershed Restoration

Stormwater BMP Maintenance

Appendix F: Modeled Benefits for New Wet Weather Structural BMPs

Chapter 2: Conditions in the Spring Lake Watershed related to Stormwater Pollution

Modeling Sediment and Nutrient Loads Input to Great Lakes and Effects of Agricultural Conservation Practices on Water Quality

Modeling the Urban Stormwater (and the rest of the watershed) Katherine Antos, Coordinator Water Quality Team U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office

Upper Eastern Shore WIP Workshop November 21, 2014

Introduction. Definitions of Land Use Terms Used in Spreadsheets. Tar-Pamlico Stormwater Rule 15A NCAC 2B.0258 Last Modified 3/20/2017

What is SWAT? SWAT GI-LID Module

Clean Water Optimization Tool Case Study: Queen Anne s County

Nutrient Management in. A presentation to the West Metro Water Alliance

Monitoring Stormwater Best Management Practices: Why Is It Important and What To Monitor

GUIDELINES FOR STORMWATER BACTERIA REDUCTIONS THROUGH BMP IMPLEMENTATION NY/NJ HARBOR TMDL DEVELOPMENT

Implementation of Priority CRP Conservation Practices and Estimated Nutrient Load Reductions

Bernie Engel Larry Theller Youn Shik Park Purdue University GLRI Project Corps of Engineers 516(e) Program. May 17-18, 2011

WDNR - Using Snap-Plus to Quantify Phosphorus Trading Credits ( )

Pinellas County Stormwater Management Manual Training Workshop SMALL COMMERCIAL AREA CASE STUDY

SWMM5 LID Control for Green Infrastructure Modeling

STORMWATER NUTRIENT REDUCTION Using Riparian Buffers and Upland Urban Forest Systems. August 29, 2017 StormCon 2017, Bellevue, WA

Opti-Tool: A BMP Optimization Tool for Stormwater Management in EPA Region 1

A Nutrient Mass Balance of the Watershed Research and Education Center: Where, When and How Much?

15A NCAC 02B.0281 FALLS WATER SUPPLY NUTRIENT STRATEGY: STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE AND FEDERAL ENTITIES The following is the stormwater

Presented by Jane Clary, CPESC Wright Water Engineers, Inc. For Mountain States Chapter, IECA Dec. 2011

Little River Watershed Conservation Practice Assessment with SWAT. D.D. Bosch, J. Cho, G. Vellidis, R. Lowrance, T. Strickland

Chesapeake Bay Maryland Phase I WIP Strategy Key Concepts: Septics and Stormwater June 13 th, 2011

February 17, 2012 MIDS Work Group Meeting

Project Priority List scoring worksheet - stormwater Guidance document

ORDINANCE # 854. Stormwater Management / Operation and Maintenance Requirements

Wisconsin Wastewater Operators Association. Protecting Our Water Resources: The Future Bill Hafs - NEW Water 10/2014

Choosing BMPs and Monitoring Them. James Houle and Tim Puls, UNH Stormwater Center

APPENDIX I WATER QUALITY FACTORS FOR FEE CREDIT CALCULATIONS

The Use of WinSLAMM in the Selection, Design and Placement of Stormwater BMPs. Stephen J. Souza, Ph.D. Jacob E. Helminiak, P.E. Princeton Hydro, LLC

BMPTRAINS MODEL: A TRAINING WORKSHOP B Y : M AR T Y W AN I E L I S T A, H AR V E Y H AR P E R AN D M I K E H AR D I N.

EVALUATING LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO TRADITIONAL URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

CASE STUDIES: BMPTRAINS MODEL

L-THIA Online and LID in a watershed investigation

Blue Lake Stormwater Retrofit Analysis

Maryland Phase II WIP Strategies. MONTGOMERY Agriculture - Annual Practices

01719; PH (978) ; FAX (978) ; PH (503) ; FAX (503) ;

Comparing Treatment and Siting Criteria for Stormwater BMPs near Drinking Water Supply Areas

4. Ponds and infiltration BMPs can achieve 60 to 100% removal efficiencies for sediment.

APPENDIX B: POLLUTANT LOADING ANALYSIS. Appendix B: Pollutant Loading Analysis

Managing Water Quality in the face of Climate Change Uncertainty:

PA Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) TMDL Plan

Municipal Stormwater Management Plan Prepared For The Borough of Cape May Point By Van Note-Harvey Associates VNH File No.

Maine Stormwater Conference (Portland, ME, 2015)

Use of SWAT for Urban Water Management Projects in Texas

Appendix X: Non-Point Source Pollution

Modeling the Impacts of Agricultural Conservation Strategies on Water Quality in the Des Moines Watershed

In order to develop these comprehensive watershed retrofit plans, six key tasks were undertaken, each of which is described further below:

WELCOME. Eastern Subwatersheds Stormwater Management Retrofit Study. Online Information Session

Bronx River Pollutant Loading Model Summary

WATERSHEDS. City Council Workshop August 21, 2018

Offsite BMP Program for Sediment Reduction. February 2017

Michael Winchell, Raghavan Srinivasan, Tammara Estes, Susan Alexander 2005 International SWAT Conference, Zurich Switzerland 7/15/05

New Practices for Nutrient Reduction: STRIPs and Saturated Buffers. Matthew Helmers and Tom Isenhart Iowa State University

Sustaining Our Water Resources Public Health. April 27, 2011

Section 6: Stormwater Improvements

Simple Method for Estimating Phosphorus Export

Meeting the Chesapeake Bay TMDL

Shifting Tides: Florida's Changing Water Quality Regulations

APPENDIX A. Nutrient Trading Criteria Specific for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

How Climate Change Impacts Urban Runoff and Water Quality Design

Primer introduction to watershed management Plan Process highlight the major steps of plan development Project types look at some examples of common

Water Resources Element Appendix

Memorandum. MIDS Work Group Barr Engineering Company

TMDL and Stormwater Regulations & Policy: Recent Developments and their Implications for MS4 Permit Holders

Comfort Lake-Forest Lake Watershed District Six Lakes Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan

CHAPTER 7: guidance. categories: Pollutant Removal. Jordan Lake watershed) Cisterns. Bioretention Areas. Green Roofs. Dry. Proprietary Devices

Modeling the Effects of Agricultural Conservation Practices on Water Quality in the Pacific Northwest Basin

Watershed master planning, City of Griffin, Georgia, USA

CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL ACTION PLAN ( MS4 General Permit)

Modeling Nutrient and Sediment Losses from Cropland D. J. Mulla Dept. Soil, Water, & Climate University of Minnesota

Urban Stormwater Management Achieving Compliance Goals

Project Name: Add a unique name that appropriately identifies the submission

BUREAU OF CLEAN WATER

CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL PHASE III WIP NORTHERN VIRGINIA OPENING STAKEHOLDER MEETING AUGUST 17, 2018 NORMAND GOULET NVRC

DRAFT Green Lake Subwatershed Retrofit Analysis For Areas Draining Directly to the Lake. Prepared by: Isanti Soil and Water Conservation District

Permeable Pavement: A New Chapter

BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT of RUNOFF. Sarah A. White, Ph.D. 27 July 2017

POLLUTANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR TYPICAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN FLORIDA

Isle of Wight County Chesapeake Bay TMDL Action Plan. May 2015

Water Quality Impacts of Agricultural BMPs in a Suburban Watershed in New Jersey

The Role of Decision Support Systems in Sustainable Management of Water Resources

What Does It All Mean? CWA? Sara Esposito, P.E. DNREC Division of Watershed Stewardship

Presented by: Andrew Craig DNR Nonpoint Source Planning Coordinator Nov 2016 National NPS Conference Boston, MA

Aquaculture Effluents and the Environment. CS Tucker, Mississippi State University

Memorandum. wq-ws4-13g. Cindy Potz (Yellow Medicine River Watershed District) and Mike Weckwerth (MPCA) Date: March 11, 2015

User s Manual for the BMPTRAINS Model

Lower Boise River Implementation Plan Total Phosphorus

Transcription:

Appendix 12. Pollutant Load Estimates and Reductions A pollutant loading is a quantifiable amount of pollution that is being delivered to a water body. Pollutant load reductions can be calculated based on the ability of an installed BMP to reduce the targeted pollutant. For this plan, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was utilized to estimate pollutant-loading reductions for sediment and nutrients with the installation of agricultural BMPs (such as no-till, filter strips, cover crops, fertilizer reduction and a combination of filter strips and no-till). An empirical model utilizing the Long-term Hydrologic Impact Assessment model (L-THIA) was utilized to estimate load reductions in high priority urban areas for sediment and nutrients with the installation of urban stormwater BMPs (such as wet retention ponds, dry detention ponds, vegetated swales, rain gardens and constructed wetlands). Below is a summary of the results of these two modeling efforts. The full reports can be found online at: www.swmpc.org/downloads/pprw_swat_report.pdf www.swmpc.org/downloads/pprw_buildout_report.pdf. SWAT Modeling The US EPA supports the use of water quality models to satisfy the load quantification requirements in the development of a watershed management plan (US EPA, 2005). In part, the US EPA developed BASINS (Better Assessment Science Integrating point and Nonpoint Sources), a multipurpose analytical tool that integrates environmental databases and water quality models in a geographic information systems (GIS) framework. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), one of the models included in BASINS 3.1, was selected for this study due to its ability to simulate agricultural best management practices. Further, SWAT was chosen to build on existing efforts and to be consistent with the St. Joseph River Watershed Management Plan, which also utilized SWAT. SWAT modeling was utilized to estimate the pollutant loads of total nitrogen, total phosphorus and sediment in 36 sub-basins of the PPRW. SWAT was also used to predict load reductions under selected agricultural best management practices (BMP) scenarios in selected sub-basins. The baseline average annual pollutant loadings were calculated for year 1997-2004 (excluding 2000 because of missing precipitation data) for 36 sub basins. The results for the pollutant loading are shown in the following figures. 65

Sediment Load (tons/acre) 66

Total Phosphorus Load (lbs/acre) 67

Total Nitrogen Load (lbs/acre) Model results indicate that the highest loading subwatersheds have a large proportion of silty clay loam soils, with a slow infiltration rate and higher runoff potential (hydrologic soil group C). These subwatersheds also have a higher proportion of agricultural land use, in particular row crops. See figures below. 68

Proportion of hydrologic soil groups (A-C) in highest loading subwatersheds compared to the watershed average. Proportion of land use in highest loading subwatersheds compared to the watershed average. 69

Agricultural Sub-basins Modeled in BMP Scenarios 70

The loading reductions from the implementation of agricultural best management practices were calculated as a percent reduction at the mouth of the Paw Paw River. The following table shows the loading reductions for agricultural practices being applied to 25%, 50% and 75% of the selected agricultural area respectively. Percent Pollutant Loading Reduction for Selected Agricultural BMPs In conclusion, the SWAT modeling was coarsely calibrated for the Paw Paw River watershed given the limited availability of monitoring data. The model was used to simulate baseline-loading conditions for TP, TN, and sediments and analyzed the impact of five agricultural best management practices on water quality. Among the four individual agricultural BMPs simulated, no-till emerged as the most cost-efficient BMP at all implementation rates due to its low per acre implementation cost ($3.23/ac/yr). Large-scale implementation for this BMP would bring significant water quality benefits. Filter strips may represent the most expensive BMP to install but they provide the largest sediment and nutrient load reductions, and are second to no-till 71

when considering cost-effectiveness. A small-scale implementation of filter strips would represent the best option given increasing cost with diminishing returns at higher application rates. This result suggests that preservation of existing stream buffers should be a high priority for the watershed. The combined BMP scenario (no-till and filter strips) provided the largest load reductions in all scenarios. However, it was shown that effectiveness gains will be diminished when more than one BMP is implemented on top of one another. Finally, it must be noted that filter strip and no-till BMPs (as modeled in the combination scenario) will not consistently improve water quality under all streamflow conditions as they do not have an impact on sediment loads under high flows, and they have minimal benefit on TP and TN loads under low flow conditions. This study summarizes the impact of agricultural BMPs on pollutant and sediment loads at the mouth of the watershed. However, BMP load reductions could also be quantified for specific subwatersheds to identify the potential for local water quality improvement provided local monitoring data were available to support robust calibration. Build-out Modeling A simple empirical approach, similar to the one used in the St Joseph Watershed Management Plan was used to calculate nonpoint source pollutant loads and estimate the impact of stormwater BMPs. Pollutant loads and runoff volumes were calculated using average runoff depth values produced by the Long-term Hydrologic Impact Assessment model (L-THIA), and available pollutant event mean concentration values. Hypothetical build-out scenarios were based on local future land use plans to estimate the impact of urban development on water quality and quantity. The impact and costeffectiveness of five common stormwater best management practices were also modeled to support land use planning in the Paw Paw River Watershed. The report is available online at www.swmpc.org/downloads/pprw_buildout_report.pdf. Below is a summary of the findings. Pollutant loadings for sediment, total phosphorous, total nitrogen and runoff volume were calculated for current conditions and build-out scenarios. The following figures show the sediment, total phosphorous, total nitrogen and runoff volume for each of the seventeen 14-digit HUC subwatersheds at baseline conditions. 72

Total Suspended Solids loading (lbs/acre/year) 73

Total Phosphorus loading (lbs/acre/year) 74

Total nitrogen loading (lbs/acre/year) 75

Runoff volume (acre-feet/year) To calculate pollutant-loading reductions, best management practices were applied to the highest priority urban areas in the watershed defined as follows: Ox Creek Area: corresponds to subwatershed 270090 (Benton Harbor/St Joseph). Paw Paw Lake Area (includes the townships of Coloma and Watervliet and the Cities of Watervliet and Coloma) The village of Paw Paw and Antwerp Township. The following tables from the final report show the pollutant load reductions for total phosphorus and total suspended solids with the installation of five different BMPs in the high priority urban areas. The tables also show the costs to implement these BMPs in relation to the amount of pollutants reduced. 76

77

78

Among the five urban BMPs examined (wet retention ponds, dry detention ponds, vegetated swales, rain gardens, and constructed wetlands), wet retention ponds and constructed wetlands provide the greatest load reductions for TP and TSS while vegetative swales are the most cost-effective (lowest per pound cost of load reduction). Cautions should be taken, however, in interpreting these results due to the uncertainties in design parameters of vegetative swales and rain gardens. Other considerations should be evaluated, including limitations of vegetated swales and rain gardens for runoff flow reduction, and the feasibility of installing the required acreage in residential or high-density urban areas. The modeling results clearly indicate that urban land uses (in particular transportation) contribute disproportionately high loads of TP, TN and TSS when compared to the fraction of the area they occupy. In fact, urban areas contribute greater than 50% of TP load in all three subwatersheds modeled for BMPs, but only occupy between 9 to 26% of the total acreage. Specifically in the St Joseph/Benton Harbor subwatershed (the most urban of the three), transportation uses account for 66% of the TP load and only 12% of the acreage. It is clear that treatment of urban stormwater runoff is crucial for reducing TP and TSS loadings in these urbanized subwatersheds. Overall the model shows, under the current land use urban stormwater runoff is the largest source of nutrient and sediment loads in urban subwatersheds. In addition, the analysis of a hypothetical 25% build-out scenario showed that urban subwatersheds would experience the greatest increase in pollutant loads and runoff volume. Therefore, it is important to control this source of loading if water quality in the Paw Paw River Watershed is to be maintained or improved. 79