OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000002QP\tiff\200073G4.tif): Unspecified error
-------
FOREWARD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate administra-
tion of the major Federal programs designed to protect the quality of our
environment.
An important part of the Agency's effort involves the search for information
about environmental problems, management techniques, and new technologies
through which optimum use of the nation's land and water resources can be
assured and the threat pollution poses to the welfare of the American people
can be minimized.
The report contributes to the knowledge essential if the United States
Environmental Protection Agency is to meet the requirements of environmental
laws that it establish and enforce pollution control standards which are
reasonable, cost-effective and provide adequate protection for the American
public.
The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, was established in Region V, Chicago to provide a specific
focus on the water quality concerns of the Great Lakes. GLNPO provides funding
for Great Lakes demonstration grants under Section 108(a) as well as provides
personnel support to the International Joint Commission activities under the
U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Several land use water quality studies have been funded to support the
Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group (PLUARG) under the
Agreement to address specific objectives related to land use pollution to the
Great Lakes. This report describes a methodology for integrating point and
diffuse source control practices and costs in both large and small watersheds.
The conference committee consisted of Ralph G. Christensen, Section 108(a)
Coordinator; Carl D. Wilson, Regional Nonpoint Source Coordinator; Clifford
Risley, Regional Research and Development Representative; Don Urban, USDA -
Soil Conservation Service; and Orville Macomber, Center for Environmental
Research Information.
We hope that the information and data contained herein will help planners
and managers of pollution control agencies make better decisions for
carrying forward their pollution control responsibilities.
Madonna F. McGrath
Director
Great Lakes National Program Office
-------
EPA-905/9-80-009
September 1980
SEMINAR ON WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT TRADE-OFFS
(Point Source vs. Diffuse Source Pollution)
Conference
Held at
Pick Congress Hotel
520 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois
September 16-17, 1980
Conference Assistance
by
Center for Environmental Research Information
-Technology Transfer-
Cincinnati , Ohio
Sponsored & Published
by
Section 108(a) Program
Great Lakes National Program Office
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
536 South Clark Street, Room 932
Chicago, Illinois 60605
U.S. i:«vSr'onrrr-rtn! '";•:•" :-:.'
R,.,. •,-,,,' '-'-..',
'-;>;<>.- ; v • • r _,
•T^fi C ,-\ • - t'v •< , '~ ••-•••> '""" ' ","''{
£,,j:'J <.'..-"'-• I.'- ',,•'-' ,..- I W-^S.
Chicago, iiiinois 606U4 _
-------
Table of Contents page
Call to Order 1
Clifford Risley, JR. R&D Representative, USEPA, Chicago
Welcome 3
John McGuire, Regional Administrator, USEPA, Chicago
Congressional Intent of Clean Water Act and Amendments 7'
Jeff Nedelman, Administrative Assistant to Senator Gaylord Nelson
Water Quality Issues and Conference Overview 13
Madonna F. McGrath, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office
USEPA, Chicago
Section 208 Program
Peter Wise, Director, Water Planning Division, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
(No paper submitted)
Prime Farmland and Water Quality 19
Keith K. Young, Soil Scientist, USDA-SCS, Washington, D.C.
AST/AWT Policy Issues 27
Jeffery J. Gagler, Water Quality Policy Section, USEPA, Chicago
Federal Policy in Floodplain/Wetland Regulation 33
Ronald L. Mustard, Chief, EIS Review, USEPA, Chicago
U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement-Impact on U.S. Policy 37
Kenneth Walker, Secretary, Great Lakes Water Quality Board, IJC
Windsor, Canada (Dan Bondy)
State/EPA Agreements: A State/Federal Partnership 43
David Stringham, Assistant to Regional Administrator, USEPA, Chicago
WQM Plans, Status, Quality, Integration and Implementation 47
William G. Benjey, Chief, Ohio WQM Section, USEPA, Chicago
Water Quality Standards—Integration 53
Michael MacMullen, Chief, Water Policy Section, USEPA, Chicago
Effects of Pollutants on Human Health 55
Leland J. McCabe, Director, Health Effects Research Laboratory
USEPA-Cincinnati
Sources of Pollutants to the Great Lakes 63
W. Ronald Drynan, Senior Engineer, IJC, Windsor, Canada
Tributary Loads and Effects 75
Nelson Thomas, Chief, Large Lakes Research, USEPA, Grosse He, MI
-------
Page
Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater 77
Al Wallace, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho
Costs of Wastewater Treatment 81
James A. Hanlon, Chief, EEB, Water Division, USEPA, Chicago
A Management Technique for Choosing Among Point and Nonpoint Control 87
Strategies
Part 1-Theory and Process Framework
William Sonzogni, Water Resources Specialist, GLBC, Ann Arbor, MI
Recap of Previous Day's Program and Goals for Today 125
Carl D. Wilson, NPS Coordinator, USEPA, Chicago
A Management Technique for Choosing Among Point and Nonpoint Control 129
Strategies
Part 2-A River Basin Case Study
Timothy Monteith, Water Resource Engineer, GLBC, Ann Arbor, MI
BMP Cause and Effect Relationship by Simulation 163
Larry Huggins, Agricultural Engineering, Purdue University
Lafayette, Indiana
Practical Uses of ANSWERS Model in BMP Planning 177
Daniel McCain, District Conservationist, USDA-SCS, Fort Wayne, IN
Water Quality: Sediment and Nutrient Loadings from Cropland 183
Darrell Nelson and Ed Monke, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN
The Variety of On-Site Treatment System Failure 203
Al E. Krause, Environmental Scientist, USEPA, Chicago
Mill Creek Pilot Watershed Study on Pesticide Fate In An Orchard 207
Ecosystem: Development and Presentation of the Experimental Data Base
Matthew Zabik, Pesticides Research Institute, Michigan State University,
Lansing, MI
Livestock Inputs and Effects 225
Frederick Madison, Soil Scientist, University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI
Upstream Point Source Phosphorus Inputs and Effects 227
David Baker, Professor, Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio
Sediment and Phosphorus Transport 241
Stephen Yoksich and John Adams, US Army COE, Buffalo, NY
Bioavailability of Phosphorus Sources to Lakes 279
Terry Logan, Professor, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Water Monitoring Program-Planning for 1981 293
William Sanders, III, Director, S&A Division, USEPA, Chicago
iv
-------
Page
Conservation Tillage Practices to Control Agricultural Pollution 301
John Crumrine, Manager, Honey Creek Watershed Project, Tiffin, Ohio
Nonpoint Source Pollution in Urban Areas 309
James Baumann and John Konrad, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Madison, WI
(NURP) National Urban Runoff Program 323
Douglas A. Ehorn,. Chief, Michigan WQM Section, USEPA, Chicago
High Flow Water Quality Standards 329
Lyman Wible, Chief Planner, SEWRPC, Waukesha, WI
Biological Indices or a Measure of Water Quality 355
James Gammon, Professor, DePauw University, Green Castle, IN
Biotic Impact of Organic and Inorganic Sediments 365
James 0. Bland, Ohio WQM Section, USEPA, Chicago
Conference Summary 377
Clifford Risley, Jr., Regional R&D Rep., USEPA, Chicago
List of Attendees 383
-------
CALL TO ORDER
Clifford Risley, Jr.
Senior Science Advisor
US EPA, Region V
Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. Welcome to the Seminar on Water
Quality Management Trade-offs.
I want to give you a few words of background regarding this seminar. For
many years, Region V of EPA has been very much concerned with the problem
of evaluating and controlling non-point source pollution. We have sponsored
many projects to give us a better understanding of each of the elements in
this problem. This work ultimately led to a discussion among those involved
in non-point source pollution control regarding the need to put it all
together into a process that we could use to evaluate non-point abatement
costs and compare them to conventional treatment or point source costs. We
feel there is a great need for a method of doing this, in as simplified a
manner as possible, for all water quality managers. As an outgrowth of
our discussion of this need, we decided that one of the best ways to pre-
cipitate this kind of product was to put together this seminar. That is
the "why" of this particular seminar.
We have brought together here, today, many of the people who have been
working quite a few years on various parts of the problem; to give you an
idea of the kind of work that has been done; the kind of knowledge that is
available and the sources of this knowledge, so you will know who is who in
these complex studies.
It is now my pleasure to introduce to you, Ms. Madonna McGrath, Director of
the Great Lakes National Program Office, EPA Region V, who will be your
moderator for the first session.
-------
Welcome
by
John McGuire *
Regional Administrator
USEPA, Region V, Chicago
I am happy to welcome you to this seminar which we have entitled
"Seminar on Water Quality Management Trade-offs, Point Source vs.
Diffuse Source Pollution." Our Region V Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office and the EPA Center for
Environmental Research Information have programmed this seminar to
address water quality issues and goalp that hopefully will help us all
to have a better understanding of how to plan and manage a water quality
control program.
The Great Lakes National Program Office, I speak of, became operational,
with headquarters in Chicago, in December 1977. GLNPO's main function
is to conduct surveillance and coordinate research and special studies
in the eight Great Lakes States. GLNPO also provides technical support
and remedial programs for EPA's nonstop fight against all forms of
pollution in the Lakes, the largest freshwater system in the world.
GLNPO coordinates its efforts and cooperates with other Federal agencies,
with State and local governments, and with university research programs.
GLNPO also works closely with these counterparts in Canada, which shares
the boundaries of and concern for the Great Lakes.
The Center for Environmental Research Information, headquartered at
Cincinnati is the Agency's technology transfer specialists. We appreciate
their assistance in preparing this program.
The purpose of this seminar is to discuss a number of water quality
issues and policy issues related to control of both point source and
diffuse source pollution. At present there is no accepted methodology
for integrating point and diffuse source controls and for comparing
the costs associated with them.
* Given by Madonna F. McGrath, Director, Great Lakes National Program
Office, for John McGuire.
-------
The legislative mandate given to the USEPA for protecting our water is
Public Law 92-500, and its amendments. A responsibility to manage both
point source and diffuse sources of pollution are spelled out for us.
In addition to the U.S. mandate we have a responsibility to Canada for
our activities on the Great Lakes. Under a U.S./Canada Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement signed by the two countries in 1978 we share
a common concern for the pollution control of the international boundary
waters that includes all of the Great Lakes and their tributaries.
One of the reference of the Water Quality Agreement was directed by the
International Joint Commission to inventory land-use activities and
their pollution effects on the Great Lakes.
To do that task USEPA, through Region V, funded four major pilot water-
shed studies along with several other studies to prepare information
and remedial recommendations to best reduce and control diffuse source
pollutions to the Lakes. Three major sediment control projects and one
urban drainage project were funded under Section 108(a) to provide data
for use in developing implementation programs in the Great Lakes basin.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 108(d), Lake Erie Waste-
water Management Study, has done extensive study and demonstration in
Lake Erie basin to reduce and or control sediment. Approximately $19
million in addition to Section 208 Areawide Wastewater Management
Planning has been spent on diffuse source study and demonstration
since 1972 in Region V.
In the Great Lakes basin the USEPA has provided $5 billion of the
public funds to support additional State and local government funds
for treatment and control of municipal wastewaters.
The presenters at this seminar will provide you with data and information
that they have personally been involved with. They will be able to
answer most of your questions. We have a great amount of point and
diffuse source water quality data in Region V. Based on the data we
have we are proposing a methodology that will help to evaluate cost
-------
effective trade-offs necessary to achieve a prescribed water quality
goal on a watershed basis. This might tell us that in one watershed
diffuse source control is the most cost effective while in another-
watershed point source control is the most cost effective. The
methodology will also help to evaluate what might be the best mix of
I
point and diffuse source controls that together would be most cost
effective to achieve a water quality goal.
As we proceed through the two days of this| conference I hope you will
take advantage of the expertise and experience of the presenters to
help you with achieving our water quality |goals.
-------
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT OF CLEAN
WATER ACT AND AMENDMENTS
Jeff Nedelman
Administrative Assistant to
Senator Gaylord Nelson
It is always a pleasure to come back to Chicago. I enjoy looking at
Lake Michigan and realizing that it is still a beautiful lake thanks
to the efforts of Region V of EPA. I saw Madonna, several weeks ago,
when Senator Nelson and I were visiting your marvelous lab at Duluth.
We were getting a briefing on Great Lakes water quality issues, research
funding, programs under way, and a discussion of concerns which we both
share. Madonna asked if Senator Nelson would be available to speak to
you today. It was his desire to do so, but with the election only 15 days
away, the press of events has required him to reschedule his time day by
day and he was simply unable to get here today.
The Congressional Intent of the Clean Waters program as it applies to the
Great Lakes is my topic. This is basically the third time I have had an
opportunity to speak about water quality issues. The first time was
several years ago at an International Joint Commission (IJC) meeting in
Windsor, Ontario. I delivered a speech which was euphemistically called
"Americas Great Lakes Programs and the Bureaucratic mess in the U.S."
which got quite a little bit of attention. A year or so ago, Senator
Nelson spoke to the Great Lakes Fisheries Executive Meeting in Miluakee.
His speech was titled
"Progress; albeit slow—New Problems on the Horizon"
He emphasized that progress was being made but much too slowly. He tried
to put this in perspective by taking us back a few years outlining some of
the trade offs that have to be made in contemplating the future.
-------
- 2 -
The 1970's saw an enormous growth of public concern and public activity
regarding the environment. There were a number of catalysts that came
to the fore. For example, Gaylord Nelson happened to be invited to give
an address on Nuclear Power at Berkely right after the campus protests.
Flying back, he picked up a magazine that had a long piece about the
decried confrontations on the campuses about the Viet Nam War. It de-
cried the energy and activity applied to the war and suggested that the
government should apply the same kind of energy and activity to domestic
issues.
The Senator made the logical comparison between the Educational and
Informational Programs on the war and the need for the same level of
effort on the Environment. This led to Earth Day in April of 1970.
From the 70's we see a cry from the public for more legislation to
protect the environment. EPA came along, Earth Day, Strip mine
legislation, Clean Air, SCOPE (Student Council on Protecting the environ-
ment) among many others. When EPA was established in Chicago, I met a
lot of people who were working quietly and diligently to clean up the
environment and who were enormously helpful in supplying good informa-
tion to our office which helped us develop our legislative position.
I think, in all honesty, that in the late 60's and 1970's we were making
suggestions. At the time when the legislation was created in Congress,
we were guessing at the scope of problems, we were guessing at the contri-
butions, we were guessing at the costs. We did not really have any know-
ledge of how long it would take. Nevertheless, we set a goal, we set a
deadline and we began.
t
We set a goal of a quality environment; the fishable, swimmable, water
quality by 1985. It still seems to us to be a reasonable goal. However,
there are new considerations. The 1980's, it seems to me, are like the
1960's.
-------
- 3 -
There is a new vernacular, a new awareness on both sides that clean water
is desirable and attainable. But we have new problems that we didn't know
existed before. The question is not one of whether we shall have clean
water but the question is "How clean is clean?" and "How quickly can we get
there?" The Congressional staff is constantly discussing how much it is
going to cost and where is the money coming from?
In my judgment, the whole movement of the 60's toward a high quality environ-
ment remains today as the concern of the highest priority for the public,
second only to our national security. What we are talking about 10 years
after Earth Day, are still questions affecting the productivity of our
oceans and our lakes. These are of high concern, especially to the hundred
millions of people living around the Great Lakes.
We have seen sone progress but it has been slow. For example, the Reserve
Mining situation where 67,000 tons of carcinogenic material were dumped
yearly into Lake Superior. It took eleven years of court action to stop
the 20 years of dumping. There are many other examples of slow but sure
progress. We have been putting together all the parts of the clean up
process but I am not sure we understand all the parts. The thrust of
EPA's program has been to gain a basic scientific understanding of how
these enormous bodies of water work. Where is the pollution coming from?
What effects does it have? How do we get it out?
What we have been seeing in Congress is, in my view, a lack of sensitivity
to these problems. EPA is just not getting the money that is needed for
Great Lakes. This year EPA spent $18,000,000 in travel and only $2,000,000
on the Great Lakes. We have been going back and forth on this issue for
many years. The Congressional supporters of the Great Lakes keep putting
items into the budget and the budget committee keeps knocking it out.
To members of Congress from the Great Lakes States and the Northeast, this
is recognized as a great problem.
-------
- 4
Basically, we have about ten years If the degradation continues. The Great
Lakes program is being funded very minimally. By comparison, look at the
Sewage treatment plant construction program. It is in the order of three
to four Billions of Dollars. These programs are decided by Congress and
the appropriations made and KPA hms little choice but to do those things
which Congress appropriates the money for.
William Proxmire, Chairman of the Budget Committee proposed taking 2 million
dollars out of Sec. 314 funds to pay for KPA salary increases. We fought
against this and therefore we have bad news for those expecting a pay raise.
I don't think you are going to get it.
Section 108 program lias had no increases for years. The Office of Planning
and Management constantly refers to the billions of dollars in the Sewage
Treatment Plant Construction which goes in part to Milwaukee, Chicago and
Detroit and assumes this takes care of Great Lakes needs. But of course
it can't be used for the Great Lakes Research needs.
The Administration requested of Congress in April that 3.5 Billion dollars
of the Construction money be deferred. We objected because this would hit
Wisconsin very hard; it would hit the Great Lakes very hard. It took four
of five months of discussion and action but the motion to overturn this
appropriation deferment carried unanimously in the Senate budget committee
and it carried unanimously on the floor of the Senate. Despite all the
talk of the necessity to tighten the belts and to batten down the hatches
in federal spending, Gaylord Nelson successfully led the fight to continue
this funding. The support was there in the committee and in the Senate.
You just cannot get this support for 8.6 Billion dollars in these times with-
out the members of Congress and members of the Senate understanding that
there is wide base public support for these programs in their home states.
10
-------
In terms of new problems and trade offs that are facing Congress in the
next year or so, Environmental issues have heen constantly before Congress.
We have had fights over water policy but even more over public works pro-
jects.
Both the Clean Air Act and Amendments to the Water Quality Act come before
Congress next year. From everything that T hear, we can expect 1981 to be
a major test of the nation's resolve to meet the goals that were spelled
out in the Water Quality Act. Congress needs to affix the direction of
the enormous costs that have to be spent to achieve the goals. It needs
to set the new round of time tables for moving ahead.
According to Kl'A estimates 54 Billion dollars will be needed to complete
all secondary treatment plants and advanced waste treatment projects. With
inflation in the construction industry running to more than 50% we are not
making any real headway at all. KPA itself estimates that with a /.ero
inflation rate it would take twenty years to complete all the mandated
projects.
That brings us to the second issue "Can we wait twenty years?" The answer
is "No, we cannot." The city of Milwaukee is an example of many other
cities which have needs beyond the current level of appropriations. How
are we going to get these major cities to move along to meet their man-
dated time tables when the Federal funds come to the states on a much
slower time table? How can the cities come up with sufficient funds on
their own?
The third issue is "Why should Congress increase the appropriations when
about 50% of the plants on line now operate inefficiently?" The means of
achieving proper O&M should he a local responsibility. Congress is faced
with a difficult decision regarding funding of O&M costs.
11
-------
- 6 -
It seems to me that we only have one Great Lakes. They are a national
treasure and a national resource that demand high priority. They must
be viewed as a long term committment. They cannot he reviewed on a year
to year budgetary basis. Where the administration does have discre-
tion, it seems to me, they must exercise that discretion as positive
support for the Great Lakes.
I am optimistic about the future of the Rnvironmeental movement. Part
of the dialog that takes place in Congress daily deals with clean air,
clean water and a safe environment. We can all be thankful for that.
Congress is comprised of many members who, with their staffs, share your
concern about the Great Lakes and who are more aware than most what man
is doing to the environment. Therefore, we have a very heavy responsi-
bility indeed, to make sure that the programs work, that they are run
efficiently, that the public understands the progress we have made and
the problems we face in the future. We must be careful not to be
doomsayers but to be frank about the problems and the difficulites to
be faced and the costs required to solve them.
12
-------
Water Quality Issues and Conference Overview
Presented By
Madonna F. McGrath
Director, Great Lakes National Program Office
Canada and the United States share a vast and valuable resource - the
five Great Lakes, which form the largest freshwater system on earth.
One-fifth of the U.S. population, one-quarter of the U.S. industry, and
more than one-third of Canada's population depend on the Great Lakes
for drinking water, transportation, industrial development, energy
production, fishing and recreation. The water quality of the lakes must
be maintained or those uses will be lost or greatly impaired.
While many governments, states and agencies share the responsibility for
Great Lakes water quality, the prime pollution control efforts in U.S.
waters fall within the scope of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the various programs it administers. The goal of EPA's Great Lakes
program is to restore and enhance water quality in the Great Lakes basin
so that public health, welfare and the environment are protected. To
achieve this goal USEPA established the Great Lakes National Program
Office. The principal function of this Office is to plan, coordinate
and oversee EPA's pollution control programs as they affect waters of
the Great Lakes, acting as a catalyst with the EPA Divisions and the
States in identifying Great Lakes problem^ and recommending solutions
to them.
Since the U.S. and Canada share a common concern regarding pollution of
the lakes the two countries renewed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-
ment in 1978. Historic precedent for both the 1972 and 1978 Agreement is
the U.S. - Canadian Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, which specified that
neither country is to do anything that would harm Great Lakes waters and
threaten the health of citizens of the other country. The implementation
of the U.S. portion of that Agreement is the responsibility of my Office,
which also provides staff services to Region V's Regional Administrator,
John McCuire, in his capacity as Co-Chairman of the International Joint
Commission's Great Lakes Water Quality Board.
13
-------
To accomplish both our national and international goals we conduct water
quality surveillance programs and special investigations and provide both
the public and other offices with scientific reports and policy recommen-
dations. To assure that citizens are involved and well informed in matters
and decisions affecting the Great Lakes our staff prepares brochures,
technical reports and other educational materials. The Great Lakes
National Program Office also serves as a focal point for communication
and cooperation with other groups and agencies involved in Great Lakes
activities, as evidenced by this Conference today.
We greatly appreciate the participation of the many agencies which are
represented by our speakers and guests in the audience.
The new definitive strategy for activities by the Great Lakes National
Program Office calls for concentration of most of our scientific and
technical resources on three key areas:
1. The revision and implementation of Great Lakes monitoring to
emphasize toxic chemical and nutrient surveillance.
2. Special investigations of serious "hot spots" problem areas,
and development of multimedia remedial control programs for
them.
3. Increased State involvement in Great Lakes decision-making
through the State/EPA Agreement process.
To understand why the Great Lakes National Program Office is concentra-
ting of these areas, it is important to understand the problems that
currently plague the Great Lakes.
The most serious threat to the Lakes is the existence of persistent toxic
chemicals in Great Lakes water, fish, wildlife and sediments. These
substances affect all portions of the Great Lakes in varying degree.
Many have the capacity to bioaccumulate; they have been found in the
Lakes' fish and wildlife in alarming concentrations. Fish from Lake
Ontario are heavily contaminated by Mirex. Lake Michigan fish cannot
be sold commercially because of high levels of PCB's. Fish from Lake
St. Clair had high levels of mercury that restricted their use for several
years.
14
-------
Toxic substances reach the aquatic environment through direct discharges
from industries, in runoff from agricultural and urban activities, and
from the atmosphere. While the effect of toxic substances on aquatic
organisms is not well understood, severe adverse health effects on
mammals and birds are well documented. But we need to learn very much more
about how and where these pollutants enter the lakes, how to identify
and locate them in the lakes and their tributaries, and to learn about
effective management programs to remedy their negative impacts.
While toxic chemcial pollution is receiving a great deal of attention,
there still remains the problem of accelerated eutrophication of the lakes
by nutrient enrichment. If not controlled, this enrichment and the result-
ing loss of oxygen can lead to greatly increased costs for treating
drinking water, elimination of high-quality fish species, and loss of
recreational activities through fouling of beaches, elimination of sport
fisheries, and increased algal growths on the hulls of boats and ships
that sail the Lakes.
All of the Great Lakes are affected by this process in varying degree, but
Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and sheltered areas such as Green Bay and Saginaw
Bay are the most severely affected; they have suffered major deterioration
in the quality of their fish stocks. Dissolved oxygen depletion in the
bottom water of the central basin of Lake Erie has a severe impact on
fish reproduction because of fish respiratory problems and changes in
chemistry.
Traditionally phosphate discharges to the lakes have been reduced through
more stringent requirements on direct municipal and industrial dischargers.
But nonpoint sources from rural land runoff, combined sewer overflows,
the atmosphere and urban storm runoff also contribute nutrients and
sediments to these waters. What mix of point and nonpoint source
control measures are needed to slow down the euthrophical processes in
the Lakes?
15
-------
In Region V over the past year we have been a mounmental water quality
planning effort come to fruition with the local, state and federal
approval of nearly all the regional and state 208 Water Quality Management
Plans.
As these plans become more fully developed and more fully utilized, we
will expect to see more integration of the Construction Grants 201
program with the implementation of nonpoint source abatement programs
so that the total water pollution in any area is regulated in the most
cost-effective manner to meet water quality standards. New methodologies
for water quality modeling and distribution of wasteload allocations may
be needed to meet this goal.
Several types of pollutant source reductions - as opposed to structural
measures are often a feature of nonpoint pollution abatement plans.
Reductions may be proposed through implementation of appropriate best
management practices or better housekeeping practices such as storm
sewer cleanups or street sweeping. Nonpoint source abatement may also
involve improved management practices of on-line construction - for example,
modifications of flow control devices to increase storage capabity and
attenuate flow surges in combined sewer systems. What are the options
and alternatives in combining such nonpoint abatement techniques with
sewage treatment plant construction and other structural pollution
abatement technologies?
One source reduction and management method which is appropriate for reduc-
ing phosphate discharge to the Great Lakes is to ban the use of high
phosphate detergents. Currently, all Region V states but Ohio restrict
phosphate detergents, and water quality has shown^ifiprovements where
restrictions have been effectively enforced. Immediate reduction of
phosphorus loads to the Great Lakes may still be realized with an exten-
sion of detergent controls to States which have no such controls and
whose waste treatment programs are not in compliance with phosphorus
effluent limitations.
16
-------
Although the need for further phosphorus control of the Great Lakes is
evident, clear directions of the extent, timing and type of additional
controls needed are not readily apparent. The effectiveness of non-
point source controls, phosphorus bioavailability, and the cost of these
remedial measures can now only be quantified in a very incomplete
fashion. While there are indications that additional tributary load
reductions will be required to meet the International Joint Commission's
1978 target loads, we need to assess the impact of presently recommended
controls for toxics and phosphorus and for point and nonpoint loads,
especially on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, before recommending major new
programs.
Information shared in this conference about multimedia lake inputs,
agricultural demonstration watershed projects, model structures and
evaluations, target loading, phosphorus bioavailability, appropriateness
of institutional control measures - to name a few of the seminar topics
will be used to improve implementation of our present goals and to reduce
uncertainties about development of future goals for the Great Lakes.
Having this information is essential to your and our need to understand
the total Great Lakes ecosystem and the diverse interactions which
occur within its chemical, physical biological and societal components.
As we develop this kind of understanding we can, together, develop
effective management and restoration of the Great Lakes.
17
-------
PRIME FARMLAND AND WATER QUALITY
by
Keith K. Young*
INTRODUCTION
Food production involves a trade-off with water quality. Whenever
the protective cover of vegetation is disturbed and the soil is tilled,
the potential for erosion is increased. Increased erosion not only
lowers productivity but increases sediment in streams and lowers water
quality.
This paper discusses our supply of prime farmland, its effects on water
quality, and our need to preserve and conserve it.
WHAT IS PRIME FARMLAND?
Detailed criteria for prime farmland were published in the Federal
Register on January 31, 1978. Basically, prime farmland is the land that
is best suited to producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops.
It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to
economically produce a sustained high yield of crops when it is treated
and managed using acceptable farming methods. Prime farmland produces
the highest yields with minimal imputs of energy and economic resources,
and farming it results in the least damage to the environment.
Prime farmland can be cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forest land,
or other rural land but not urban and built-up land or water areas. It
must either be used for agricultural production or be available for these
uses. Certain drained wetlands also meet the criteria, but SCS does not
provide technical assistance for draining existing wetlands.
Prime farmland usually has an adequate and dependable supply of
moisture from precipitation or irrigation. In general, it also has
favorable temperature and growing season, acidity and alkalinity, and
salt and sodium content. It has few or no rocks and is permeable to
water and air. Prime farmland is not excessively eroded or saturated
with water for long periods and is not flooded during the growing season.
Slope ranges mainly from 0 to 5 percent.
* Soil Scientist, Soil Technology, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
19
-------
HOW MUCH PRIME FARMLAND DO WE HAVE?
There are about 346 million acres of prime farmland in the United
States excluding Alaska. Most of this land is in the Corn Belt, followed
by the Northern Plains, the Lake States, and the Southern Plains (1).
Figure 1 shows the acreage of prime farmland by state and farm production
region in 1977. The amount of prime farmland in each state varies greatly,
ranging from 38 million acres in Texas to 81,000 acres in Rhode Island.
From 1967 to 1975, about 8 million acres of prime farmland were lost
to other uses at an average rate of 1 million acres per year (3). Of
this 8-million-acre loss, 6.5 million acres were converted to urban and
built-up areas and 1.5 million acres to water areas.
HOW IS IT BEING USED?
Two-thirds of our prime farmland, or 230 million acres, was used for
cultivated crops in 1977 (1). This accounts for more than one-half of
the 413 million acres of cropland in the United States. Of the 166
million acres of prime farmland that were not in cultivated crops in
1977, there were 42 million acres of forest land, 40 million acres of
native pastures and pastureland, 23 million acres of rangeland, and 11
million acres of farmsteads, farm roads, feedlots, and similar lands.
Prime farmland accounts for a large share of cropland in the major
farming regions of the United States. In the Corn Belt, which has 22
percent of the cropland in the country, 74 percent of the cropland is
prime farmland. By contrast, the Mountain Region has 10 percent of the
nation's cropland, only 21 percent of which is prime farmland (1).
Prime farmland produces the largest share of the nation's total crop
production and a large portion of the commodities for export. This land
significantly helps to reduce the foreign trade deficit. In addition,
the use of prime farmland for crops helps to ensure that efficient food,
fiber, forage, and oilseed production will continue with the least damage
to the environment. The loss of prime farmland to other uses means that
more pressure is placed on nonprime lands to meet production demands.
Nonprime land generally are inherently less productive and are more
erodible, droughty, difficult to cultivate, and more damaging to the
environment.
20
-------
LAND USE AND POLLUTION
The following table shows sheet and rill erosion by selected land
uses (1):
Tons per year Tons per acre
Land use (millions) per year
Cropland 1,969 ' 4.8
Pastureland 274 2.4
Native pasture 72 4.1
Rangeland 1,392 3.4
Forest land 437 1.2
Total 4,144 3.1
The erosion amounts represent tons of soil moved from the field—not
tons of sediment. Some of the eroded soil is trapped before it reaches
the stream. A strong relationship exists, however, between soil loss and
sediment delivery. Generally, the greater the erosion, the greater the
amount of sediment delivered to a stream. The table shows that cropland
accounts for nearly one-half of the total annual erosion in the U.S. and
also has the highest average per acre loss.
Rangeland also accounts for large amounts of eroded soil, some of
which reaches streams. Together, cropland and rangeland produce over 80
percent of sheet and rill erosion from agricultural land.
Because relatively larger amounts of chemicals are applied on cropland
than on other agricultural lands, sediment from cropland is more
environmentally destructive than sediment from other agricultural lands.
The PLUARG study (2) discovered that cropland accounts for higher loads
of sediment, total phosphorus, and, total nitrogen than land in all other
uses except urban developments. The study concluded that intensively
farmed fine textured soils near watercourses contribute the major portion
of water pollutants.
PRIME FARMLAND AND POLLUTION
Of all U.S. cropland, that which is prime farmland has the lowest
rate of erosion. By capability class, estimated average annual sheet and
rill erosion on U.S. cropland is as follows:
Capability
class and Erosion
subclass (ton/acre/yr)
I 3.0
He 5.0
Hie 6.9
IVe 8.7
Vie 14.9
Vile 15.4
-------
Most prime farmland is in class I or II. The average annual soil
loss for prime farmland is less than 5 tons per acre—assumed to be an
acceptable level under which soil productivity can be maintained for a
long period of time. Nonprime cropland soils have much higher rates of
erosion--at unacceptable levels that degrade the potential productivity
of the soil. On a per-acre basis, the nonprime farmland soils furnish
the greatest amount of sediment and chemicals to streams.
Despite the benefits of prime farmlands, however, they also produce
pollutants. The prime farmland soils are naturally fertile but respond
well to commercial fertilizer so farmers apply it—along with pesticides--
for optimum crop production. Because of the relative large acreage of
prime farmland under cultivation (two-thirds of the total cropland),
total erosion and sediment from prime farmland are significant. Prime
farmland produces almost half the amount of erosion from all cropland.
Some prime farmland soils are flooded at times — though generally not
during the growing season—arid thereby contribute sediment and other
pollutants to streams.
Prime farmland soils are more likely to have seasonal water tables
closer to the surface than nonprime farmland soils. As a result, leachates
from chemicals applied to prime farmlands are more likely to reach underground
water supplies.
On some prime farmland that is irrigated, another water quality
problem arises from improper irrigation systems and water management. If
more water is applied than the plants can use or the soil can hold, the
excess runs off the surface or percolates through the soil, carrying
large volumes of salts to streams and rivers.
Prime farmland underlain by coal or other valuable mineral deposits
presents another problem that could affect water quality. Surface mining
can cause serious environmental damage unless proper mining and reclamation
techniques are used. Acid materias and rock fragments must be buried and
the soil replaced in such a way as to restore the original soil productivity
and minimize water pollution from sediment and acid runoff.
PRIME FARMLAND POLICY
Preservation
Preservation of prime agricultural land is a federal policy. The National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) set the federal policy "to preserve
important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage
and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity
and variety of individual choice." This policy was restated in a joint
memorandum to agency heads from USDA and the Council on Environmental
Quality. The policy stated that prime agricultural land, including prime
farmland, should not be irreversibly converted to other uses unless other
national interests override the importance of preservation or otherwise
outweigh the environmental benefits of protection.
22
-------
The Department of Agriculture is committed to assisting federal
agencies in the identification of prime farmland. The Soil Conservation
Service has published about 400 prime farmland maps of high priority
counties. The rest are scheduled for publication in the mid-80's. The
prime farmland soils are identified in counties in which soil surveys are
available (about two-thirds of the 3000 counties in the U.S.)
The Department of Agriculture also evaluates draft environmental
impact statements with respect to impacts on prime and other important
farmlands.
Conservation
Conservation of prime farmlands—and all other lands as well--is promoted
through policies of the Department of Agriculture. In general, the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) provides technical assistance to farmers, the
Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) provides cost
sharing, and Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) provides low-cost loans
for implementation of conservation work. The Science and Education
Administration (SEA) provides research, demonstration, and education.
Salinity Control
Salinity control on certain irrigated lands that include some prime
farmland has been mandated by Congress. The Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act of 1979 (P.L. 93-320) authorizes certain activities to reduce
salinity problem in the Colorado River Basin. The first study completed
the 60,000-acre Grand Valley Unit, showed that a locally acceptable
program of improved onfarm irrigation practices could reduce salt loading
of the Colorado River gy 130,000 tons annually.
Prime Farmland Restoration
The Surface Mining Control and Relamation Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-87) set
forth procedures for minimizing environmental degradation. The Department
of Agriculture was given responsibility for reviewing surface mining and
reclamation plans on all prime farmland and for making recommendations to
the state regulatory agency.
23
-------
SUMMARY
With all cropland there is a trade-off—food production for lower
water quality. However, when prime farmland is used for crop production
the detrimental effects on water quality are minimized. The loss of
prime farmland puts more pressure on marginal lands which are less productive,
more credible, and produce more pollutants.
Environmental policy provides emphasis on preservation and conservation.
Much remains to be done, however, to preserve out best cropland from
irreversible conversions, protect its productivity from erosion, and
minimize damage to the environment.
24
-------
References
(1) USDA. 1978. 1977 National Resource Inventories.
(2) Sonzogni, William C. 1980. Environmental Pollution from land runoff.
Environmental Science and Technology 14(2): 148-153.
(3) USDA. 1980. Appraisal review draft, Part I, Soil and Water Resource
Conservation Act (RCA).
25
-------
AST/AWT POLICY ISSUES
by
Jeff Gagler*
With the institution of Public Law 92-500, ambitious water quality goals
were established. These included meeting secondary treatment by 1977 and
"Fishable/Stfimmable" by 1983. In the process of trying to meet these goals
we have become entangled in controversy over advanced waste treatment (AWT)
issues. On March 9, 1979, EPA issued PKM 79-7, to more intensely review
advanced treatment projects in response to a directive issued by the Appro-
priations Conference Committee. Suit was filed against EPA on December 28,
1979, by the State of Illinois. In general, the suit claimed that the review
policy was preventing the State from achieving the goals of the Clean Water
Act. A settlement agreement was signed between Illinois and EPA on April 22,
1980.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Agency's initial review procedure was
successfully challenged by the State of Illinois and has been modified to
screen out low cost technologies form further review, the policy issues
raised from the initial review procedures will not go away by merely changing
those procedures. These and other issues go to the very heart of the National
Water Quality Management Program. The issues are as follows:
A. Water Quality Standards Issues
1. There is a need to have a clear definition for the term "Fishable/
Swimmable" as it applies to water quality for protecting and preserving
the ecology of aquatic communities as they exist in waters across this
country.
* Environmental Scientist, Modeling Coordinator, Policy Section,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V.
27
-------
2. Efforts must be made to provide procedures and guidance for
establishing consistency in classifying our waters and applying
designated uses.
3. A clear and concise guideline must be formulated to determine
"attainability" of the receiving water use.
a. This guidance should require that the test for "attainability"
be applied against the classification and designated uses of stream
segments and not water quality criteria. The water quality criteria
should be based not solely on chemical, but also physical and
biological conditions necessary to support a receiving water use.
4. The "Red Book" presumptive applicability policy for water quality
standards must be clarified. There must be a clear understanding for
accepting and supporting the State's rights to recommend more restrictive
or less restrictive criteria as recommended by the "Red Book" when
justifiable.
5. There is an urgent need to develop simplified procedures for adop-
tions, approval, disapproval, and promulgation of water quality
standards and use designations.
6. We need a policy which ensures consistency in establishing water
quality standards between EPA Regions and States while allowing enough
flexibility for recognizing the uniqueness of water quality requiements
from Region to Region.
B. Wasteload Allocation Issues
1. There is need for simplified procedures for the adopting, approval,
or disapproval of wasteload allocations.
28
-------
2. Clear and concise guidelines need to address water quality modeling
techniques to include:
a. A clear understanding of what water quality models can and
cannot do.
b. How to apply modeling results for conversion to effluent
limitations.
c. Reevaluation of critical low flow as a base line in all cases.
d. Guidelines for defining
1) Conditions under which simplified water quality analysis
techniques can be justified.
2) Requirements of model calibration and verification.
3) Transferability of water quality analysis from one receiving
water to another based on similar characteristics.
e. Methods for taking into account other source contributors
including nonpoint source, combined sewer overflow, and industrial.
These need to be evaluated both seperately and collectively to
determine major source of impact.
f. Methods for determining toxic pollution impacts.
C. General Issues
1. We must address the use of flow maintenance to meet standards.
2. We need a mixing zone policy.
3. We need to relook at the antidegradation policy and possibly revise
it. At the same time we need methods for implementing that policy.
4. We should expand the use designation and classification scheme
to include wetlands
29
-------
5. We need to recognize the difference and values of intermittent
streams and continuous flowing streams and apply policies and guidance
accordingly.
The practical significance of these issues is to avoid individual project
situations such as:
Where a small community served by an existing lagoon several miles up-
y
stream of a lake proposes land application or chemical treatment solely
because the lagoon discharge does not meet an imposed phosphorus limit.
However, there are no studies to document the significance of the point
source discharge versus the nonpoint contribution or to suggest what benefit,
if any, might be achieved by controlling the point source phosphorus con-
tribution.
Then there is the situation where a community is required to have an AWT
process to meet water quality standards when the receiving stream is chan-
nelized or channelization is proposed. Channelization has probably had a
greater adverse impact on that stream ecology than could be offset by any
benefits gained by applying AWT.
Another situation would be where a community would propose the use of a
tertiary sand filter following an existing secondary treatment process to meet
effluent limits of 15/20 EOD/SS. What is lacking is a good evaluation of the
technical capabilities of the existing facility through fine tuning and improved
operations and maintenance.
From an administrative standpoint, economics is the limiting factor for
attaining water quality and the focal point for the AWT controversy. However,
if we at State and Federal levels can logically see the whole picture rather
than just parts and address and make decisions for the issues at hand, we will
30
-------
probably find that there are many more cost effective approaches to meeting
the goals of water quality than we have realized. It is the responsibility
of the State and Federal Agencies to act or we will surely jeopardize the
support of the Public and Congress for meeting the goals and programs of the
Clean Water Act.
31
-------
FEDERAL POLICY ON FLOODPLAIN/WETLAND REGULATION
by
Ron Mustard
Federal Regulation of Wetland or Floodplain use is restricted to specific projects
that fall within the scope of regulatory or financial assistance programs admini-
stered by the various federal agencies. Under these programs, the use of wetlands
or floodplains for development was, in the past, reviewed in the context of poli-
cies adopted by each individual- agency. These policies were, as a rule, derived
independently from one another. In spite of their independent origins, these
policies were, for the most part, similar in that they expressed the concerns then
current in the scientific community. However, there was a wide degree of variance
in the manner in which these policies were applied, and as a consequence, there
was a great deal of confusion about the extent of the Federal Government's Com-
mitment to the concept of Wetland and Floodplain Regulation.
In order to establish a true national policy, and to encourage a more uniform and
active application of that policy, President Carter, on May 24, 1977, issued
executive orders 11988 on Floodplain Management and 11990 on Protection of Wet-
lands .
Executive order 11988 Established, as a Policy, that:
"Each agency shall provide leadership and shall take action to reduce the
rick of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and
welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by
floodplains in carrying out its responsibilities for (1) acquiring, managing, and
disposing of federal lands and facilities; (2) providing federally undertaken,
financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting federal
activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water
33
-------
and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities."
In carrying out this policy, each agency has a responsibility to identify pro-
jects with potential floodplain impacts, consider alternatives that would eli-
minate or minimize any adverse impacts, and to provide opportunities for public
involvement in the process.
As instructed, the water resources council issued guidance on implementation
of the executive order on October 1, 1977. Since then, all other federal agen-
cies have completed, or are in the process of completing, ammendments to their
regulations or operating procedures that will ensure compliance with the executive
order.
In language almost indentical to that used in the Floodplain Executive order,
Executive order 11990Established as a policy that:
"Each agency ahall provide leadership and shall take action to minimize the
destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the
natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agencie's respon-
sibilities..."
The one exemption to the applicability of this policy is to the issuance by
federal agencies of permits, licenses, or allocations to private parties for
activities involving wetlands on non-federal property. However, the programs
affected by this exemption all have strong wetland protection provisions in
their own right, and so, in practice, there is no discontinuity in the federal
response to proposed activities in wetlands.
In carrying out the policy established by executive order 11990, each agency
34
-------
has a responibility to avoid unnecessary construction in wetlands, and to mini-
mize the impact of those activities that are necessary. Each agency must also
provide for early public review of actions affecting wetlands. Most federal
agencies amended their regulations or procedures to ensure compliance with this
executive order concurrently with the amendments undertaken for executive order
11988.
From the viewpoint of the general public, the most significant aspect of this
process is the requirement that federal agencies document the steps that have
been taken to comply with the requirements of the executive orders. When a
proposed action will impact a floodplain or wetland area, the sponsoring agency
must clearly demonstrate that (1) there is no practicable alternative to the
proposed action, and (2) that the proposed action includes all particable mea-
sures to minimize harm to the affected resources. By requiring that agency
compliance with the policies established by the executive orders be specifically
addressed and entered into the public records, interested parties are given ad-
ditional opportunity to review agency actions and to challenge decisions on the
grounds of erroneous application of policy. This ability alone will encourage
federal agencies to•ensure that their decisions are based upon careful con-
sideration of all available information, and are arrived at in a consistant man-
ner.
35
-------
UNITED STATES-CANADA GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT —
IMPACT ON U.S. POLICY
by
Kenneth H. Walker*
The quality of the water in the Great Lakes has been a matter of
concern for many decades. Intermittently since 1912, the Inter-
national Joint Commission has undertaken investigations to determine
the extent of pollution and degradation of this irreplaceable resource,
In 1964, the IJC was formally asked by the Governments of the
United States and Canada, pursuant to the Boundary Waters Treaty of
1909, to investigate Lake Ontario, Lake Erie and the International
Section of the St. Lawrence River to determine the extent of inter-
national pollution, identify the sources, recommend remedial measures,
and estimate probable costs to carry out such programs.
The IJC report on the lower lakes was completed and presented to
the Governments in 1970. It represented a combined effort by experts
drawn from the federal governments of the two countries, the Province
of Ontario, and the eight Great Lakes states — New York,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin. These experts served on the Boards and Committees which
carried out the necessary scientific and field studies to enable them
to advise the Commission on the seriousness of the pollution problems
in the lower lakes.
The Commission's report provided a detailed assessment of the
water quality and made comprehensive recommendations for action by the
Governments of Canada and the United States. One outcome of this
report was the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement which was signed on
April 15, 1972.
In this Agreement, the two countries stated their determination to
restore and enhance the water quality in the Great Lakes System. They
were convinced that the best means to achieve improved water quality
in the System was through the adoption of I common objectives, the
development and implementation of cooperative programs and other
measures, and the assignment of special responsibilities and functions
to the International Joint Commission.
The Agreement is unique in that while recognizing the rights of
each country in the use of the Great Lakes and reaffirming the
obligation not to pollute, it expressed the determination of each
country to restore and enhance the water quality. Water quality
objectives were enumerated. Programs and other measures to achieve
the objectives were identified and were to be completed or in the
*Great Lakes Regional Office, International Joint Commission, Windsor,
Ontario.
37
-------
process of implementation by December 31, 1975. Additional powers and
responsibilities were given to the International Joint Commission,
including: collation, analysis, and dissemination of data relating to
water quality, pollution, water quality objectives, and effectiveness
of programs; tendering advice and recommendations to the Parties and
to state and provincial governments; provision of assistance in
coordination of joint activities and Great Lakes water quality
research; and reporting at least annually to the Governments and to
the state and provincial governments on progress toward the achieve-
ment of the water quality objectives.
The 1972 Agreement set into motion three major activities: (1)
the study of water quality of the Upper Lakes; (2) the study of
pollution from land use activities in the Great Lakes Basin; and (3)
the implementation of remedial measures to mitigate pollution from
point sources. These activities required the interaction of federal,
state, provincial, and non-government officials.
The 1972 Agreement also provided that a comprehensive review of
its operation and effectiveness should be conducted by the Parties
during the fifth year after its coming into force. This review was
carried out and resulted in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of
1978 which was signed by the two countries on November 22, 1978.
The new Agreement reaffirmed the determination of Canada and the
United States to restore and enhance the water quality of the Great
Lakes System. While the new Agreement continued many of the
provisions of the 1972 Agreement, it also provided new directions for
many of the activities, based on experience gained from the former
Agreement.
The impact of the Agreement on policies and programs in the United
States is extensive. This is evident from the commitment made in
Article II of the Agreement which states the purpose as follows:
The purpose of the Parties is to restore and main-
tain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of
the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. In order
to achieve this purpose, the Parties agree to make a
maximum effort to develop programs, practices and tech-
nology necessary for a better understanding of the Great
Lakes Basin Ecosystem and to eliminate or reduce to the
maximum extent practicable the discharge of pollutants
into the Great Lakes System.
Consistent with the provisions of this Agreement, it
is the policy of the Parties that:
(a) The discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts
be prohibited and the discharge of any or all
persistent toxic substances be virtually eliminated;
(b) Financial assistance to construct publicly owned
waste treatment works be provided by a combination
of local, state, provincial, and federal participa-
tion; and
38
-------
(c) Coordinated planning processes and best management
practices be developed and implemented by the
respective jurisdictions to ensure adequate control
of all sources of pollutants.
There is a wide range of programs established by the Agreement,
many requiring action by specific dates. The Agreement establishes
two Boards, a Great Lakes Water Quality Board and a Great Lakes
Science Advisory Board, to assist the Commission in the exercise of
the powers and responsibilities assigned to it under the Agreement.
It also calls for a Great Lakes Regional Office of the International
Joint Commission to provide administrative support and technical
assistance to the two Boards, and to provide a public information
service for the programs, including public hearings, undertaken by the
Commission and the Boards.
The Agreement has an effect on the policies and programs of the
Federal Government as well as those in the states. In addition to a
commitment by the Parties to support the many provisions of the
Agreement, in Article XI, the Parties specifically commit themselves
to seek:
— The appropriation of the funds required to implement the
Agreement;
— The enactment of any additional legislation that may be
necessary to implement the programs and other measures
provided for in Article VI; and
The cooperation of the State and Provincial Governments in
all matters related to the Agreement.
A review of the Agreement indicates that it specifically addresses
such topics as: general and specific water quality objectives; water
quality standards; pollution from municipal and industrial sources;
eutrophication; pollution from agricultural, forestry and other land
use activities; pollution from shipping activities; pollution from
dredging activities; spills of oil and hazardous polluting substances;
hazardous polluting and persistent toxic substances; airborne
contaminants; and vessel wastes.
These provisions impact on U.S. programs involving construction
grants, enforcement, NPDES permits, water quality standards, phos-
phorus control and removal, control of toxics, urban drainage, and
point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
The Water Quality Board and the Science Advisory Board provide
additional opportunities for interrelationships between the United
States and Canada and between the federal, state, and provincial
governments. The Water Quality Board was established as the principal
advisor to the Commission with regard to the exercise of all the
functions, powers and responsibilities assigned to the Commission
under the Agreement, except for those assigned to the Science Advisory
Board. The Board has 18 members, nine from the United States and nine
from Canada. Each of the eight Great Lakes states is represented by a
39
-------
senior official of the state agency with environmental responsibility.
The United States federal government is represented by the Regional
Administrator of EPA Region V who is also the United States Cochairman
of the Board.
This arrangement permits a beneficial exchange of advice on
programs and problems to take place between the Parties, the IJC, the
Board and the states and EPA. Programs which are recommended to the
Commission are frequently implemented by the state members of the
Board even before the recommendation is officially transmitted through
the Parties back to the state agencies.
The Science Advisory Board structure differs radically from that
of the Water Quality Board. Its membership contains federal, state,
and provincial representation, but also draws its membership from
industry, university, and public environmental groups. The Board is
the scientific advisor to the IJC and the Water Quality Board. The
Board has 16 members plus two ex-officio members who represent the
International Association for Great Lakes Research and the Great Lakes
Fishery Commission. The U.S. Cochairman is associated with the U.S.
EPA Water Quality Laboratory at Duluth.
Both of these Boards have supporting committees, work groups, and
task forces which provide additional input into the many Agreement
programs. These organizations result in participation by over 216
people in intermediate and senior professional and administrative
positions who serve a liaison role in impacting Agreement programs as
well as those of the organizations they represent. This involvement
in the Agreement functions represents a tremendous investment of
manpower in both countries and provides for an exchange of ideas and
information among all the jurisdictions and organizations
participating.
Time does not permit an examination of all the programs being
carried out under the Agreement. I would like to explore briefly two
of these programs — the water quality objectives and their impact on
water quality standards, and the significance of the phosphorus
control programs.
Water quality objectives were considered the foundation for
achieving improved water quality in the Great Lakes System in both the
1972 and the 1978 Agreements. The concept of using water quality
objectives as guidelines for preserving or restoring the water quality
in the lakes is one of long standing for the IJC. These objectives
are goals to be maintained and achieved in the boundary waters through
effective pollution control programs in both countries.
Article V (1) in the Agreement states: "Water quality standards
and other regulatory requirements of the Parties shall be consistent
with the achievement of the General and Specific Objectives. The
Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure that water quality
standards and other regulatory requirements of the state and
provincial governments shall similarly be consistent with the
achievement of these Objectives".
40
-------
The 1978 Water Quality Agreement contains 41 specific water
quality objectives. These are constantly being reviewed by the
Aquatic Ecosystem Objectives Committee of the Science Advisory Board.
The Committee is also developing new objectives on many problem
substances.
At the request of the Water Quality Board, the Regional Office
just recently completed a report on "A Review of the Impact of Water
Quality Agreement Objectives on Water Quality Standards". The purpose
of the review was to determine if the Agreement Water Quality
Objectives had been used by the jurisdictions in developing their
water quality standards and if not, why not?
The conclusion of the review was that the Agreement Objectives
have had a decided impact on the water quality standards and
objectives adopted by the jurisdictions.
For example, New York State has established a classification of
Class A-Special for the International Boundary Waters. In Ohio, 70
percent of the values in the water quality standards for 33 parameters
are equal to or more stringent than the Agreement Objectives. In
Pennsylvania for 30 parameters, 63 percent of the state values are
equal to or more stringent than the Agreement Objectives.
Some jurisdiction have related their programs to the Agreement
more than others. In some states, the last revision made to their
standards preceeded the 1978 Agreement and therefore do not reflect
those objectives. The revisions now under consideration will
recognize the Agreement and the objectives to a greater extent.
One of the major programs established by the Agreement is the
control of phosphorus to minimize eutrophication problems and to
prevent degradation resulting from discharges of phosphorus to the
lake system. Annex 3 of the Agreement deals with the control of
phosphorus. Among other provisions, the Annex establishes phosphorus
loads for the base year (1976) and future phosphorus loads. It calls
for the Parties, in cooperation with the State and Provincial
Governments, to confirm the future phosphorus loads and establish load
allocations and compliance schedules within 18 months after the
Agreement is signed. This date was passed last May and the Parties
have not yet established the load allocations as required. However,
extensive discussions are being carried out. between the two countries
on this matter.
Another important requirement in this section on phosphorus
control is that municipal waste treatment plants discharging more than
3,800 cu m/d (1.0 MGD) shall achieve effluent concentrations of 1.0
mg/L total phosphorus maximum for plants in the basins of Lakes
Superior, Michigan and Huron and 0.5 mg/L total phosphorus maximum for
plants in the basins of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie where necessary to
meet the loading allocations or to meet local conditions whichever are
more stringent.
41
-------
The Annex also calls for a reduction of phosphorus in household
detergents to 0.5 percent by weight where necessary to meet the
loading allocations or to meet local conditions whichever are more
stringent. All the Great Lakes states except Ohio, Pennsylvania and
Illinois have now instituted bans on phosphorus in detergents. In
Ohio and Illinois, the Cities of Akron and Chicago, respectively, have
limited the phosphorus in detergents.
The Agreement establishes two additional deadlines which will have
an effect on programs in the U.S. Article VI calls for programs for
municipal sewage treatment facilities to be completed and in operation
no later than December 31, 1982. Programs for the abatement, control
and prevention of pollution from industrial sources are to be
completed and in operation no later than December 31, 1983.
Based on this brief review of some of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement requirements, one can conclude that the Agreement
has had a decided impact on policy and programs in the United States
portion of the Basin and will continue to do so. The Agreement has
been a positive factor in cleaning up the Great Lakes. We have not
yet reached the point where we can sit back and congratulate ourselves
on completing the restoration and enhancement of the water quality in
the Great Lakes System. However, we are making progress and every
effort, including the output from seminars such as the one we are
participating in here, moves us a little further down the road towards
our goal of an improved Great Lakes System.
42
-------
State/EPA Agreements; A State/Federal Partnership
by David Stringham
Getting the EPA Region V Office and its State counterparts to agree on priority
environmental problems and ways to solve them is the objective of our new
planning process—the State/EPA Agreements. The goals of the Agreement planning
process are: (1) to make the Federal and State governments partners in determining
priorities for State and Federal funding assistance and technical assistance;
(2) to bring important environmental problems to the attention of senior management
at both the Federal and State agencies; and (3) to surface environmental problems
that might not be covered by any individual environmental program and that may
demand a creative mixing of funds from a number of programs. In addition, we
expect the Agreements, properly drafted in understandable English, to be an
important vehicle for communicating the direction of EPA and State programs to the
public.
The Agreements influence how environmental problems are addressed because they have
a direct bearing on how EPA and the States allocate millions of dollars to various
aspects of their environmental programs. The major programs included in this year's
State/EPA Agreements cover a range of activities authorized by Federal statutes,
including The Clean Water Act, The Safe Drinking Water Act, The Clean Air Act, The
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and The Toxic Substances Control Act.
For the 1980 fiscal year, our first full year with this process, Agreements have.
been completed in all six Midwest States, Implementation of SEA provisions, while
admittedly mixed, is generally proceeding. Development of the FY 81 Agreements
began late last winter. The process begins with each State and Region V developing
their own list of environmental problems and priorities, air quality, water quality,
and solid and hazardous waste are all considered. And though there are many
different kinds of problems in each, the Agreement process usually identifies
a total of only a dozen or so of the most important issues for special attention.
These issues range from concern over a particular type of pollutant to concern
about a particular stretch of river. The lack of pretreatment for industrial
wastewater or the need for programs to control pollution caused by farming
practices are examples. In addition, the Agreements note significant program
operation problems, such as State/EPA work sharing or delegations oversight, needing
special study.
Once EPA and the States develop lists of these issues independently, they meet to
resolve differences. The next step then is to work out the general solutions for
each issue. The solutions usually relate to improved implementation of EPA and
State environmental protection programs.
In FY 1980 only one State in Region V, Michigan, had a specific Great Lakes issue
in its SEA and received Great Lakes funding to conduct Great Lakes surveillance.
This activity included: nearshore studies on Lake St. Claire, Thunder Bay,
St. Ignace and Cheboygan; Great Lakes loading flow analysis and water intake studies;
and a salmon residue monitoring program.
FY 1981 will see three States (Michigan, Indiana and Ohio) with Great Lakes SEA
issues. An additional State, New York, may also develop a Great Lakes SEA
highlight in connection with a special regulatory assessment and broad scale
intensive survey of the Niagara River in New York. Both the draft Indiana and Ohio
State EPA Agreements focus attention on special problems in nearshore areas of the
Great Lakes—estuaries, harbors and beaches which are seriously degraded due to
combinations of point and nonpoint pollution. These degraded waters, while small
43
-------
in relationship to the total lake system, are a portion of the Great Lakes seen
and used by millions of people. The municipal, industrial and storm runoff
loading concentrated in these areas and some upstream urban industrial areas
impact both local use and the lakes as a whole and are a logical focus for control
efforts.
Industry has been required to expend large amounts of money for waste treatment
in these nearshore areas. Also, large amounts of local, State and Federal funds
have been expended in constructing municipal treatment works, and far more funding
is being planned for both treatment works and control of combined sewer systems.
Additionally, programs for the control of urban storm runoff are being developed
in an attempt to deal with pollutants in urban storm water. These efforts in the
past have been oriented toward conventional pollutant control, but our activity
under the SEA Agreements will also heavily emphasize control of toxic pollutants.
The benefit of these past efforts, in terms of impact on estuary and nearshore
areas, is not well known. Conversely, it frequently is not known what controls
are needed to reach various levels of ambient water quality. These problems exist
elsewhere on river systems but are less critical than in harbor and estuary
localities. Because of the hydrologic complexity of estuaries, the Great Lakes
relatively long retention time, and the intense use for water supply and recreation
associated with these water bodies, information needs for regulatory efforts tend
to be greater in these locations. At the same time, many of these areas have
already received extensive investigation, making considerable regulatory progress
possible.
The focus of our initiative in the Ohio and Indiana SEA's will be in the vicinity
of the Urban/Industrial Gary-Indiana Harbor and the Toledo, Greater Cleveland
and Ashtabula areas. The specific goals of these Urban-Industrial elements of
the Agreements are to control pollution in Lake Michigan and Lake Erie; to protect
and enhance drinking water, recreation, commercial and aesthetic uses of these
waters; and to slow the eutrophication processes in the Great Lakes.
Initial sections in these SEA's summarize these specific goals and spell out
agreement on the priority problems as perceived by the public, the State, and the
Federal government. These initial sections are followed by a so-called "Problem
Solving Approach" (or PSA) that lays out the key steps for attaining the jointly
perceived goals. In both the Ohio and Indiana Great Lakes elements the first
step toward solving the problem is to be a joint State-Federal review of all avail-
able information about the problem area; and this may provide a basis for immediate
implementation of remedial programs. This initial information base, can also serve
as a basis for development of a pollution control strategy which, when combined
with other activities to further define,the extent and nature of the problems, will
provide both the State and the Federal government with the basis for further remedial
program efforts as needed.
Key steps in the supplementary assessment work will be fish flesh and sediment
analysis for toxic contaminants, review of combined sewer overflow studies and
the conditions around major storm sewer outfalls, location and evaluation of
major nonpoint sources of pollution (such as pits, ponds, lagoons and landfills),
and process assessment of relevant industrial dischargers. Other data to be
reviewed will relate to drinking water taste and odor problems, swimming bans
and beach closings, fish consumption warnings, incidents of gross pollution,
recent performance of sewage treatment plants that discharge in these areas, and
major industrial discharger permit compliance.
44
-------
The final steps to address these Urban-Industrial Great Lakes issues focus on
performance of needed regulatory actions. Among the actions expected in this
phase of the joint effort may be the evaluation of existing pretreatment and/or
sewer use ordinances as administered by local sewage treatment plants, designation
of plan of study areas for development of regional sludge management plans,
development of plans to accelerate sewage treatment plant improvements, preparation
of a management plan for any in-place pollutants; development of pretreatment
and permit revisions and identification of necessary enforcement actions.
In response to national priorities and in recognition of the particular environ-
mental needs of the State of Ohio a second Great Lakes highlight element was
negotiated to promote control of phosphorus in Lake Erie, where the natural
ecosystem and the fishery supported by it have been disrupted by accelerated
eutrophication. The discussion of phosphorus* induced problems in the Agreement
provides basis for the detailed objectives which are: (1) that Ohio's industrial
dischargers attain maximum practicable reduction of phosphorus discharges to
Lake Erie; (2) that Ohio's municipal dischargers attain effluent phosphorus limits
of 1 mg/1 for all plants discharging more than one million gallons per day,
(3) that Ohio's detergent phosphate limits be reviewed in the light of Federal
evaluation of OEPA cost-benefit data and any applicable resolutions of the
U.S.-Canada Water Quality Board, and (4) control of agricultural nonpoint source
pollution through implementation of agricultural best management practices.
The problem solving measures for this phosphorus control issue include review of
and high priority attention on municipal and industrial phosphorus dischargers to
assure early compliance and an effective follow-up strategy for permit violators,
development of a method and schedule for periodic updating of the Great Lakes
phosphorus compliance and municipal point source loading reports, and an exchange
of critiques between OEPA and USEPA about OEPA phosphate detergent ban cost-benefit
data. This Agreement includes a commitment from USEPA for financial support for
two agricultural nonpoint source control projects on streams tributary to the
western basin of Lake Erie, and a commitment from OEPA to participate in the
activities of the U.S.-Canada Water Quality Board and the IJC Great Lakes
Phosphorus Management Task Force.
The Michigan EPA Agreement will include two unique Great Lakes issues for the
coming year. The first, named the Multimedia Monitoring Highlight, relates to
the fact that additional data and monitoring needs required for dealing with toxic
and hazardous materials will strain the State monitoring budget.
In an effort to more effectively utilize the limited State resources, the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources and USEPA will coordinate and evaluate monitoring
activities of all media in a selected problem area. The goal of this multimedia
monitoring activity is not only improved monitoring efficiency, the State and
USEPA also hope that the new monitoring initiative will provide a more complete
environmental picture of a selected geographic area, so that a more balanced
response will be available from environmental managers in remedying problems,
and citizens affected by environmental problems might be given a better chance
to appreciate the scope of the problems under consideration by environmental
agencies.
The work elements associated with this highlight include identification of the
geographic area for the study, a review of scheduled monitoring programs in the
area, specification of monitoring or inspection data needed to identify inter-
related air, water and solid waste pollution problems, development of a study
plan, compilation of information from monitoring and study efforts, and identification
45
-------
of air, water and solid waste pollution relationships. Preliminary conclusions
and recommendations will be circulated among State and Federal program managers
and the published report on the outcome of the monitoring study will be available
to the public. A final work element in the PSA calls for development of remedial
measures to correct identified environmental problems.
The second Great Lakes Highlight in the Michigan/EPA Agreement evolved from the
recognition that open waters of the Great Lakes still receive unacceptable
loadings of numerous pollutants and that some nearshore, estuary and bay areas
in the State waters have been degraded with loss of beneficial uses due to intense
loadings and limited dilutions. The Agreement proposes that concentrating efforts
on these nearshore areas offers the opportunity to restore beneficial uses in
these localities and to reduce major Toadings which now enter the Great Lakes.
The goal of the work effort is to develop an integrated management system for
implementing planning, remedial and monitoring programs to protect the Michigan
waters of the Great Lakes.
Key elements in the problem-solving approach are a definition of common water
quality objectives; case study analyses of problem areas which have been success-
fully addressed, as well as those which presently do not meet the agreed upon
objectives; and identification and definition of appropriate monitoring programs.
In all of these State/EPA Agreements specific tasks are assigned to the State
and Federal partners, milestone schedules are established, and funding and
responsible party assignments are settled. The FY 81 SEA documents have
been under review by appropriate State and Federal agency personnel, as well as
the public. Final revisions, of the FY 81 draft documents are underway, and EPA
expects that signing of these final documents by John McGuire, the EPA Regional
Administrator, and the heads of the respective State environmental agencies will
be completed by the first of October, the beginning the next fiscal year.
The purposes and uses of these State/EPA Agreements are ambitious. The Agreements
are intended to be a decision document, a management tool, and a communications
device. Their immediate purposes are to focus the attention of top officials
on integrated program management, to identify high priority environmental issues,
to guide the grants distribution process, to focus attention on tracking progress
toward solving identified problems, and to inform the interested public and
agencies. The implementation of the process will identify opportunities for
useful reform in overall environmental program management. This, in turn, should
result in the faster attainment of our environmental objectives and assure our
goals for protection and improvement of our priceless heritage—The Great Lakes.
46
-------
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS, STATUS,
QUALITY, INTEGRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
by
William G. Benjey*
Good morning. [As mentioned] I am Bill Benjey of the USEPA
Ohio Water Quality Management Section. My purpose today
is to give you an overview of the status and implementation
of water quality management (WQM) plans. I would also like
to discuss the need for emphasis on a balanced approach to
point and nonpoint water pollution abatement. There are 220
WQM planning agencies nationwide and 37 within Region V, of
which 194 nationally, and 33 within the Region, are at least
conditionally approved, including the nonpoint pollution
portions. Rather than regale you with statistics, I will
restrict my observations to my perspective on Region v. The
degree of specificity of WQM plans in identifying and ad-
dressing water quality problems is highly variable. In many
cases point source based problems and recommended solutions
are detailed (or discharge specific) relative to treatment
of nonpoint sources (which are often generalized to the level
of the State or a regional drainage basin comprising one-
quarter to one-third of the State). The focus upon point
sources of water pollution under the water quality manage-
ment program dates from the designation of the original
urban-industrial complex planning areas in 1974 and 1975.
This is not too difficult to understand, given the legal
priority then required for the immediate issuance of NPDES
permits for point source dischargers, and the widespread
public awareness of flagrant and dramatic examples of point
source caused problems. Consequently, much of the emphasis
of the water quality management plans now approved is upon
point sources.
However, as you know, during the past three years the
emphasis has shifted dramatically to nonpoint source pollu-
tion abatement planning and implementation, as reflected in
the fact that section 208 funds can no longer be used for
point source work. The rationale is that much of the
initial point source planning work should be accomplished
(although I will be the first to say much remains to be
done), and that the benefits to be derived from reducing
pollution from diffuse sources have been relatively ignored.
*Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Chicago,
Illinois
47
-------
We have arrived at a point where in general, point
source problems are usually known and addressed with NPDES
permits and/or the section 201 municipal construction
grants programs; while most of the nonpoint problems are
known only in gross terms (for example, estimates of sedi-
ment and phosphorus from the Maumee River to Lake Erie).
There are exceptions to this rule, such as the remaining
need for sound wasteload allocations and for implementation
of industrial pretreatment to control point source effluent
limitations. There are also a limited number of detailed
nonpoint pollution control studies under the National Urban
Runoff Program (NURP) and the testing of agricultural best
management practices (BMPs) in special studies such as Black
Creek in Indiana, Honey Creek in Ohio and the Red Clay
Project in Wisconsin. However, the results are not in from
the NURP projects, 6 of which are in Region V, and the Rural
Clean Water Program (RCWP) and the new Agricultural Conserva-
tion Programs. There are 3 RCWP's in Region V, including
Highland-Silver Lake, Illinois; Lower Manitowoc, Wisconsin;
and Saline Valley, Michigan.
A coordinated and integrated approach to point source
and nonpoint source related aspects of pollution problems
in specific areas is one of the primary features missing
from current WQM plans. We are all aware of the uneven
and variable mix of water quality problems; urban, construc-
tion and agricultrual runoff, feedlots, malfunctioning
septic tanks and package plants, and overloaded and
inadequate municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
facilities. Point sources are more easily addressed, but
in many cases, a water quality problem has multiple causes.
Consequently, focusing only on point sources will not
guarantee attainment of the 1983 goals of the Clean Water
Act, particularly when the parameters accumulate, such as
phosphorus, heavy metals or toxic chemicals. It is at least
highly embarrasing to build an elaborate treatment plant
only to find that you have not significantly helped the
problem. This is one reason for the AST/AWT reviews
discussed earlier by Mr. Chaiken.
The lack of coordinated approaches can be remedied by
taking all present pollution sources into account when
devising geographic priorities for future study and imple-
mentation. Priorities recognize limited resources. By this
time, priorities should also be highly area specific, that
is, to the sub-basin level, and as problem specific as
possible. In priority order, specific, tailored work plans
for additional refinement of problem identification and
implementation can be prepared for the sub-basins. Only in
this manner will we be able to successfully approach the
problems of each area. In any event, it is inefficient to
attempt to implement structural or nonstructural abatement
48
-------
methods across the countryside regardless of the variable
locations and magnitudes of the problems. In most cases
more detailed work is needed to pin down che actual, as
opposed to broadly defined "potential" problems.
The above process ought to be a part of an overall
State strategy for addressing priority water quality
problems. Often, States work upon-strategies which include
a section for point sources, and sections for agricultural
nonpoint and urban nonpoint sources, etc. In addition,
States have classified stream segments as effluent limited
or water quality limited based upon whether or not advanced
treatment of point source discharges is needed to meet water
quality standards. All of these parts of the whole should
be considered when setting forth specific priorities.
Making a joint priority system requires drawing together
planning for programs which operate on vastly different fund-
ing and at different speeds. Obviously the municipal con-
struction grants program has resources to move much more
quickly than nonpoint pollution abatement. Yet, nonpoint
"tradeoffs" are supposed to be considered in construction
grants facilities planning. In order to set overall State
priorities by sub-basins, any known characterization of non-
point pollution problems in a given sub-basin could be made
a part of the "severity of problem" and other factors of the
municipal construction grants priority list prepared by the
States. Alternatively, a separate ranking system could be
established into which the municipal construction grant
priorities feed. Because of the need for cooperation of
various agencies (agricultural, health, etc,), it is advisable
to have their input on the problems with which they are most
familiar.
Region V states have or are developing Statewide agri-
cultural strategies, often around the State sediment control
laws, and groundwater strategies. Groundwater quality, of
course, is affected by surface water pollution. Statewide
problem area priorities are in different stages of develop-
ment, with Wisconsin the most advanced at this time in this
Region. However, they are not yet integrated strategies.
Current prototype nonpoint pollution projects a~*e, of
course, limited in geographic coverage. The question arises;
how can we get effective nonpoint pollution abatement with so
much area, and so little money available? Here again, a State
strategy is important. The immediate reaction is often to
propose additional Federal, State or local funding, or all
of the above, usually as some variety of a cost-sharing program,
such as in Wisconsin and Illinois. This is certainly a valid
approach. However, we all know that the prospects of expanding
limited sources of money from any level of government in the
49
-------
current economic situation is not good. Additional regula-
tions may help In some circumstances. However, they too
often prove unwhieldy as well as locally unwelcome in deal-
ing with nonpoint problems. Most States have a sediment
control law as a basis, in any event. Our next tactic must
be to selectively work upon nonpoint problems in order of
the degree of severity of the water pollution problem to
which they contribute, in accordance also with overall sub-
basin priorities. Even so, it is necessary to pool the
resources of all State, Federal and local agencies, in order
to concentrate upon specific, identified areas with water
quality problems. For example, a water quality management
plan may place a priority order upon sub-basins with water
quality problems largely induced by agricultural runoff. In
this event, USEPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
the State water quality and agricultural agencies should
cooperate in focusing their water quality efforts and funds
upon the sub-basins in priority sequence. Their actions must
be in cooperation with each other and the local landowners
through the designated management agency (often a soil and
water conservation district). If septic tanks are a problem,
a health department may be involved. There will usually be
several actors involved.
The primary intermediate water quality problem objective
which is heard incessantly is implementation, improved water
quality of course being the final objective. Implementation
requires more than just a concerted effort by agencies, as
we all know. In agriculture, landowners and soil and water
districts must see the specific water quality problem and
the benefit of BMPs and cleaner water for themselves. In
addition to demonstrating the general value of soil and
nutrient retention, it is important to demonstrate the
presence of problems and importance of water quality in a
specific area, in order that water quality be made signifi-
cant and tangible to landowners. Cities and counties must
see the importance of clean and abundant water in relation-
ship to their current and future needs in water supply and
recreation. This again ties in with the need to concentrate
on specific, known, high priority problem areas. It is also
increasingly important that the State and areawide water
quality agencies provide necessary data to the designated
management agencies to assist and document implementation
of BMPs and the effects on water quality. This represents
a change in role from the initial days of water quality
planning, when local agencies provided information to State
and areawide agencies to demonstrate perceived problems.
I have mentioned five items which are complementary
approaches to water quality abatement. They are: (1)
following integrated sub-basin priorities, (2) interagency
cooperation, (3) costsharing, (4) regulation and (5) provision
50
-------
of more direct information and assistance to specific imple-
menting agencies. These items should all be parts of State
strategies. The strategies should result in concerted
efforts in selected areas and more .effective and demonstr-
able results in terms of water quality.
51
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
by Michael MacMullen
Water Quality Standards consist of two general parts: (1) biological uses
to be protected, and (2) specification of criteria necessary to attain the
designated use. Standards are enforceable through NPDES permits.
Section 101 of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (P.L. 95-217)
establishes a national water quality goal for accomplishment wherever
attainable (emphasis supplied) of a water quality providing for the pro-
tection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and also providing
for recreation in and on the water by July 1, 1983. It is precisely this
aspect of attainability, however, which has not been dealt with in a sys-
tematic manner up until the present time. Henceforth, water quality standards
activities will be conducted through the focus of prioritized attainability
analyses.U
Under the new focus of attainability analyses, the principal emphasis of the
water quality standards activities will be shifted from the three-year review/
adoption cycle previously utilized, to one year standards program plans
designed to provide the necessary water quality, technologic and socio-
economic data necessary to make sound decisions. In EPA-Region V, the
priorities for acquisition of the necessary attainability information will
be negotiated between the individual States and appropriate Regional Office
staff in consideration of the need to reissue major permits and to make
supportable decisions regarding the level of treatment beyond secondary
which may be needed by municipal sewage treatment facilities. Results of
the negotiations will be confirmed in the State/EPA Agreements.
Pending acquisition of attainability information in accord with the priori-
tized schedule, EPA will not require upgrading of any Water Quality Standard
to the level specified in Section 101. Similarly EPA will not approve of
downgrading actions without the necessary attainability information. NPDES
effluent limitations would be set at levels consistent with operation of
existing treatment facilities or application of categorical effluent limi-
tations, whichever is more restrictive, prior to completion of attainability
analyses for the receiving water in question. Following completion of the
attainability analysis, the NPDES permit limitations will be set at whatever
level is necessary to achieve compliance with the attainable Water Quality
Standard.
53
-------
EFFECTS OF POLLUTANTS ON HUMAN HEALTH
Leland J. McCabe
Health Effects Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
The EPA's two health effects laboratories conduct research to provide
data for standards setting purposes. These data and the results of
other research are used by the Office of Health and Environmental Assess-
ment in Washington to provide risk assessments for the regulatory programs.
In some cases there is a close working relationship between the laboratory
and the regulatory program and information is provided directly on a
continuing basis. In my experience this has been true in the drinking
water program. But interaction between the research laboratories and
the regulatory programs is being enhanced by the Research Committee
structure. The Regional Offices have a more reciprocal method of making
these research needs known in the Research Committees.
The HERL in North Carolina has specialized in air pollution and the
HERL in Ohio on water problems, but not exclusively, and there are smaller
programs on other environmental problems at each laboratory. The majority
of our research in Cincinnati is concerned with drinking water, but I
will review these activities that may be more germane to point vs. diffuse
source pollution.
Bathing Beaches
The Agency has a criteria for recreation water quality in the Red
Book (1) of a mean of 200 fecal coliforms per decaliter. The bases for
the criteria were a series of studies conducted in the early 1950's and
were from data on freshwater with considerable extrapulation. For the
past eight years we have conducted microbiological methods research and
a series of epidemiological studies at saltwater beaches. This illus-
trates that research on health effects does not provide fast answers to
complex problems.
The concept was to develop a relationship between water quality and
illness experienced by swimmers. A decision could then be made on ac-
ceptable risk of illness and from the relationship the necessary water
quality would be determined. A report on these marine studies has been
completed (2) and the figure shows the relationship.
The study design called for measurement of water quality by as many
methods as possible, including currently used methods, and then seeing
which water quality parameter best correlated with illness related to
sewage, fecal pollution. Both pathogens and indicator organisms were
considered and a series of facile methods developed.
For presentation September 16, 1980. Seminar on Water Quality Management
Trade-Offs, Chicago, Illinois
55
-------
The epidemiological protocol developed used a more rigorous defini-
tion of exposure than had been used in past studies; the head had to go
into the water. The study areas were selected to provide a beach with
"barely acceptable" water quality—that is, a beach not posted as
"Swimming Not Allowed", and a beach that was relatively unpolluted. The
beach user population also had to be large enough to provide an adequate
study population. Families were interviewed at the beach on Saturday
and Sunday as to exposure and then called on Monday, 9 to 10 days later
to obtain information on additional midweek swimming and illness ex-
perienced during the week following the exposure trial being studied.
The statistic used was the illness difference between swimmers and non-
swimmers and thus control was achieved over the many other factors that
could affect illness rates. Adjustments were made on the demographic
variables of age, sex, race, and socioeconomic status.
The figure shows the relationship develop for the illness defined
as highly credible gastrointestinal symptoms. That is an illness syn-
drome involving vomiting or diarrhea with a fever or disabling enough
for an individual to remain home, remain in bed or seek medical advice,
or stomachache or nausea accompanied by a fever. Data points from three
areas were combined for this graph; New York City, Lake Pontchartrain,
Louisiana, and Boston Harbor. Some confirmatory information was also
obtained from an Alexandria, Egypt study.
The best indicator to fit the illness data was the Enterococcus
density as measured by a method developed in the study (3). For an
increased illness rate of 1 percent, the Enterococcus density would be
13.6 per decaliter and for 5 percent increased illness, 906 per 100 ml.
A generalization of the data from the New York City beaches would
equate 30 Enterococcus to about 200 fecal coliform with an increased
illness rate of 1.8 percent.
Studies of the freshwater relationship were continued this summer
in Oklahoma and at Lake Erie beaches. We would like to find a beach to
study nonpoint source pollution.
Aerosols
Another problem area we were asked to study was the health effects
of siting of sewage treatment plants. Region 5 asked us to determine if
health effects could be demonstrated in persons living near a sewage
treatment plant so a decision could be made about the necessity of aerosol
suppressive devices at the O'Hare plant. Construction was allowed to
continue if research would provide data for evaluation before the plant
went on line.
Fortunately, we had some research underway on the health of sewer
workers and additional projects were started and completed within the 3
1/2 years provided. A symposium was held at Cincinnati in September
56
-------
1979 where study results were presented and discussed. The report on
the symposium is at the printers (4). We participated in writing the
final environmental impact statement for the O'Hare plant and it started
operation in May of this year.
I am not completely satisfied that we developed adequate methodo-
logies for the studies, but our assessment was that despite the fact
that some microorganisms are emitted by aeration basins of a sewage
treatment plant, there is no detectable increase of disease in persons
exposed to the aerosols. This is true not only with persons living or
going to school near a treatment plant, but also with sewage treatment
plant workers who normally have a higher exposure than the nearby residents.
As we have in the bathing water studies, it is reassuring to have a
dose response relationship that can be then extrapulated back to a no
effect level or acceptable effect level. This was not possible in the
aerosol studies because adequate numbers of new sewage treatment workers,
exposed before immunities had developed, could not be studied and our
serological epidemiological techniques could not focus on the correct
etiological agents.
Toxic Effluents
When the Agency finally got serious about providing the Criteria
Documents in the spring of 1978 our laboratory was given three months to
produce the human health effects portion of 20 of the 65 consent decree
documents. We met our deadline and the criteria were published for
review in the Federal Register (5). The final documents are expected to
be available this month. This illustrates that assessment of current
knowlege on health effects can be made quickly at any time, but may lead
to protracted controversy in the review process.
Our own research, both inhouse and extramural, contributed more
heavily to the chloroform and asbestos documents. The Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Offce in Cincinnati is now in charge of producing
the documents, but members of our laboratory staff have continued to
serve as many of the committees developing the total set of criteria
documents.
Most critical to the Great Lakes will be the toxic pollutants that
have significant bioaccumulation. The methodology has been changed from
that used in the review documents. Previously, the weekly consumption
was assumed to be 18.7 grams of edible aquatic products. This estimated
consumption has been reduced to include only freshwater and coastal
fish/shellfish and many of the bioaccumulation factors have been revised.
In 38 of the review documents the intake from both water and fish was
considered. In 15 (39%) the fish intake dominated, in 22 (58%) the
water intake dominated, and in one case the impact was equal. The final
documents should be reviewed to see where the fish intake dominates or
makes a significant contribution. Because of the Great Lakes fishery
57
-------
resource such toxic pollutants will require the most close surveillance.
There will also be populations where the average fish consumption is
greatly exceeded and their health studies should be evaluated.
In several cases limits could not be set for some of the consent
decree chemicals. The table lists the six chemical for which it was not
possible to set limits because the health effects data base was inadequate.
For 13 other chemicals the limit was set only on organoleptic effects,
taste or odor, and no health effect limit was set. In two additional
cases both a organoleptic and health effects limit was considered for
review. Our laboratory is conducting research to fill the data gaps at
the projected rate of 10 chemicals per year. New chemicals are, of
course, developed at a faster rate but our research on testing metho-
dology should assist in covering this problem by premarket testing under
the Toxic Substances Control Act.
58
-------
References
1. U.S.E.P.A. Quality Criteria for Water, Washington, D. C. (1976).
2. Cabelli, V. J. Health Effects Criteria for Marine Recreational
Water. EPA-600/1-80-031,' September 1980.
3. Levin, M. A. Fischer, J. R. and Cabelli, V. J. Membrane Filter
Technique for Enumeration of Enterococci in Marine Waters. Appl.
Microbiology, 30:66 (1975).
4. Pahren, H. R. and Jakubowski, W. (eds.). Wastewater Aerosols and
Disease. Proceedings of a Symposium, EPA 600/9-80-028, U.S.E.P.A.
Health Effects Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 1980.
5. E.P.A. Water Quality Criteria. Federal Register 40 (52) 15926
(March 15, 1979).
59
-------
3
fD
(0
n
o
fD
3
a.
fD
a.
SB
fD
i-n
o
H-
O
3
0)
fD
i-l
l-tl
fD
O
rt
n
(D
l-l
M-
O
3
SWIMMING ASSOCIATED RATE FOR
GASTROINTESTINAL SYMPTOMS/1000 PERSONS
m
m
H
m
;0
o
o
o
o
o
C-
CO
o
m
z:
CO
H
O
O
o
ro
o
DJ
o
en
o
O
o
o
ro
O
w
T
nj V \ N
X \/\ \
" » C? /. \ N
•< o
s
CD
O
O
! I
CD 31
01 m
o °
5§ 33
rn
o c/>
• w
• 6
li
z m
2 3
m -<
-------
CONSENT DECREE POLLUTANTS
Could not set health limit.
2,4-dimethylphenol
Chlorocresol (Chlorinated Phenols)
Haloethers
Chlorophenyl phenyl ethers
Bromophenyl phenyl ethers
Polychlorinated diphenyl ethers
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Criteria based on organoleptic effects.
Copper 1 mg/1
Zinc 5 mg/1
Acenaphthene 0.02 mg/1
Hexachlorcylopentadiene 1.0 yg/1
Nitrobenzene 0.03 mg/1
Chlorinated Phenols
a) Monochlorophenols
2-chlorophenol 0.3 yg/1
3-chlorophenol 50 yg/1
4-chlorophenol 30 yg/1
b) Dichlorophenols
2,4-dichlorophenol 0.5 yg/1 371 yg/1 H.E.
2,5-dichlorophenol 3.0 yg/1
2,6-dichlorophenol 3.0 yg/1
c) Trichlorophenols
2,4,5-trichlorophenol 10 yg/1
2,4,6-trichlorophenol 100 yg/1
Chlorinated benzenes
Monochlorobenzene 20 yg/1 450 yg/1 H.E.
Trichlorobenzene 13 yg/1
-------
SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS TO THE GREAT LAKES
by
W. Ronald Drynan*
Pollutants are introduced to the Great Lakes principally through
municipal and industrial point source wastewater discharges, atmospheric
deposition, and urban and agricultural land runoff. In the lower Great
Lakes, interlake transfer via the connecting channels can also be a
significant source of contaminants. The relative importance of each
source, in terms of its contribution to the total load of a given
pollutant, varies depending upon the specific lake and pollutant under
consideration.
The point sources being relatively easy to locate, sample, and obtain
flow measurements for are generally more adequately monitored than
nonpoint sources. The diffuse nature of nonpoint sources make them
extremely difficult to monitor and the fact that any pollutant loads
transported to the lakes are influenced by highly variable hydrologic and
atmospheric phenomena make it difficult to estimate annual loadings and
discern changes from year to year.
Pollutants can be generally classified in five groups: oxygen
demanding substances, suspended solids, nutrients, trace metals, and
toxic organic substances. The classical parameters, BOD and suspended
solids, used to measure the strength of domestic sewage, and estimate the
impact of wastewater discharges on dissolved oxygen and sedimentation
problems in estuaries and tributaries, have relatively little
significance in terms of the Great Lakes.
Many of the water quality problems of the Great Lakes have been
associated with eutrophication with phosphorus being implicated as the
major nutrient contributing to eutrophication. Concern of the
deteriorating water quality of the lakes and the need for joint efforts
to restore and enhance them led, in 1972, to the signing of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the United States. A
major focus of the Agreement was on programs to reduce the total loadings
of phosphorus to the lakes. The most complete information on the total
annual loadings of any pollutant to the lakes and their sources is
available for phosphorus.
In the late 1960's point source discharges, particularly municipal
wastewater, were identified as the major sources of phosphorus loadings.
Programs to reduce phosphorus loadings have been directed primarily at
the municipal sources. As these programs, primarily chemical
precipitation of phosphorus at municipal sewage treatment'plants, have
been implemented nonpoint sources have become an increasingly significant
*Senior Engineer, International Joint Commission, Great Lakes
Regional Office, 100 Ouellette Avenue, Windsor, Ontario N9A 6T3
63
-------
proportion of the total residual loads. Table 1 shows the present
phosphorus loadings to each lake from the various sources. Current
analysis indicates that achievement of desirable water quality conditions
in Lakes Erie and Ontario will require further reductions in total
phosphorus loadings which can only be achieved by implementing controls
in both point and nonpoint sources (1).
TABLE 1
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADS TO THE GREAT LAKES
(metric tons per year)
Direct Direct
Lake Municipal Industrial
SUPERIOR
MICHIGAN
HURON
ERIE
ONTARIO
72
1,041
126
6,292
2,093
* Tributary loads
tributaries
Sources -
103
38
38
275
82
Tributary
Total (Diffuse*)
2,455
3,596
2,901
9,960
4,047
minus estimates of point
(2,222)
(1,891)
(2,428)
(8,718)
(3,257)
Atmosphere
1,566
1,682
1,129
774
488
(1976)
Urban Upstream
Direct Load Tot£
16 - 4,212
- 6,35-
16 657 4,86/
44 1,080 18,42!
324 4,769 11,802
source loads discharged upstream to the
Final Reports of Pollution from Land Use
and the Phosphorus Management Strategies
Activities
Task Force
Reference Group(2)
Final Report(1)
In recent years, water quality concerns have shifted to problems
associated with heavy metals, such as lead and mercury, and toxic organic
substances. The methylation of mercury discharged to the lakes and its
subsequent bioaccumulation to levels of concern in fish and the
possibility that discharges of other metals, such as lead, may lead to
similar problems has focussed interest on the sources of these
contaminants. Identification of significant levels of toxic organic
substances, such as PCB, DDT and mirex, in fish and herring gulls has
also created an interest in determining the sources of these contaminants
to the lakes. The information available on sources of these micro
contaminants is very incomplete and any assessment of the relative
importance of possible sources is much more speculative than for
conventional pollutants such as phosphorus.
6'4'
-------
POINT SOURCES
Information on point source dischargers to the Great Lakes is
maintained in an "Inventory of Major Municipal and Industrial Dischargers
in the Great Lakes Basin"(3) and reported annually to the IJC by the
Great Lakes Water Quality Board. An-annual estimate is made of the flow
and total loads of BOD, suspended solids, and total phosphorus discharged
by municipal point sources discharging more than 3,800 cu m/d (1MGD) and
all those discharging directly to the lakes. Most other parameters of
concern are not measured routinely at municipal wastewater treatment
plants and in any case data on these are not routinely reported to the
IJC.
The U.S. EPA is presently funding a survey of some 50 cities in an
effort to evaluate the extent of the 129 priority pollutants in
wastewater entering municipal wastewater treatment plants, their sources,
removal efficiencies, and amounts accumulating in sludges. Preliminary
information indicates nine of the thirteen heavy metals (Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb,
Mn, Hg, M, Ag, and Zn) and six organic pollutants (benzene, chloroform,
methylene chloride, bis (2 ethylexyl) phthalate, tetrachloroethylene, and
toluene) were found in nearly all wastewaters.
Estimates of the amounts of four heavy metals (Pb, Zn, Cu, and Cd)
discharged to the Great Lakes via municipal wastewater, based on the
levels detected in treated effluents and the total flow from treatment
plants(1), are shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2
MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES OF TRACE METALS TO THE GREAT LAKES*
(metric tons per year)
Metal
Zn
Pb
Cu
Cd
Superior
7.9
1.8
1.8
0.5
LAKE
Michigan Huron
103.0
22.9
22.9
6.9
* Based on 1978 reported municipal wastewater
following assumed effluent concentrations in
discharged: Zn - 90 ug/L, Pb - 20 ug/L,
Cd - 5 ug/L.
23.9
5.3
5.3
1.6
discharge(
municipal
Cu - 20
Erie
228.2
50.7
50.7
15.2
3) and the
wastewater
ug/L, and
Ontario
146.3
32.5
32.5
9.8
65
-------
The present criterion for reporting industrial pollutant loading
information, other than total phosphorus, to'the IJC is based on a
determination by each jurisdiction of those parameters which may be of
significance to the Great Lakes. A great deal of self-monitoring and
compliance monitoring by regulatory agencies is carried out for
industrial discharges to satisfy U.S. NPDES and the Ontario Ministry of
the Environment industrial waste control monitoring requirements.
However, these data are not all reported nor analyzed in any
comprehensive manner to obtain total industrial loading of any
pollutants. Reported industrial inputs of the four heavy metals (Zn, Pb,
Cu and Cd) are shown in Table 3 based on the information reported in the
1978 "Inventory of Major Municipal and Industrial Point Source
Dischargers in the Great Lakes Basin"(3).
TABLE 3
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES OF TRACE METALS TO THE GREAT LAKES*
(metric tons per year)
LAKE
Metal Superior Michigan Huron Erie
Zn 10.2 50.0 32.5 148.6
Pb - 0.6 - 38.2
Cu 1.0 9.7 11.0 43.4
Cd - 0.02 - 0.3
* Reported by Great Lakes Water Quality Board in 1978. (3)
Ontario
64.4
7.8
15.5
1.8
An additional point source, for which little or no information is
currently available, is combined sewer overflows. These highly variable
discharges are difficult to sample and obtain flow measurements in order
to make estimates of the total quantities of pollutants they introduce
into the lakes. In some of the major metropolitan areas, such as Detroit
and Cleveland, with combined sewers these discharges may be significant,
particularly in terms of local water quality impacts. Their impact on
total pollutant loadings and whole lake water quality remain to be
determined.
66
-------
NONPOINT SOURCES
Estimates of nonpoint source pollutant loadings to the lakes are
based on measurements of flow and pollutant concentrations in samples
taken at the mouths of major tributaries to the Great Lakes.(4,5,6)
Estimates of annual pollutant loadings transported by tributaries are
difficult to make due to the variability of the flows and pollutant
concentrations throughout the year. Determining the relative
contribution of various land use activities to the pollutant load carried
by the tributaries is complicated by questions of delivery to streams,
transport in streams and effect of the upstream point source discharges.
The most extensive attempt to assess the relative contributions of
urban and agricultural runoff, and streambank erosion, and other land use
activities to the total pollutant loads to the Great Lakes was the IJC's
International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use
Activities (PLUARG). The PLUARG Final Report(2) and the technical report
series(7) provide a great deal of information on types of pollutants and
unit area loads from specific land use activities in specific locations
throughout the basin. Using an Overview Model,(8) PLUARG extrapolated
this information for phosphorus to estimate whole-lake loadings from land
drainage. The overview model is presently being developed by the Great
Lakes Basin Commission to make estimates of other parameters.(9)
Runoff from agricultural land, particularly erosion from row crop
production on fine-textured soils, was identified as a major contributor
of phosphorus to the Great Lakes. Urban and rural runoffs were also
identified as possibly significant contributors of other contaminants.
However, very little data are available upon which to make any estimates
of the amounts of toxic organics or heavy metals which may be transmitted
to the lakes from these sources.
Shoreline erosion is another nonpoint source which potentially
contributes a large amount of pollutants to the lakes. Estimates of the
total sediment and total phosphorus loads from shoreline erosion in each
lake are given in Table A. The whole lake impact of these loadings is
considered to be quite minimal in that the phosphorus and other
pollutants are not considered to be biologically available and are
generally associated with larger particles which settle in nearshore
areas. In any event, shoreline erosion has been occuring in the Great
Lakes since their creation and any efforts by man to control the
phenomenon would not likely result in reductions in pollution of the
lakes commensurate with the expenditure of funds required for any
significant control of shoreline erosion.
67
-------
TABLE
SHORELINE EROSION AS A SOURCE OF
LOADINGS TO THE
(metric tons
Lake
Superior
Michigan
Huron
Erie
Ontario
Notes:
Tributary
(suspended solids)
1,378,260
706,540
1,052,960
6,531,800
1,597,000
Shoreline Erosion
(total sediment)
11,279,000
21,778,000
1,763,000
11,131,000
3,206,000
4
SEDIMENT AND TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
GREAT LAKES
per year)
Total Phosphorus
Shoreline2 Total
Erosion All
3,800 1
3,700
794
10,536 3
1,280
1976
Phosphorus
Other Sourci
4,212
6,357
4,867
18,425
11,803
1. U.S. load only
2. PLUARG reports on U.S. and Canadian shoreline erosion.
3. Canadian estimate for short term used (1972-1973) @ 9512 t/yr -
Canadian long term estimates (1953-1973) @ 5912 t/yr.
ATMOSPHERIC SOURCES
Preliminary work carried out during the Upper Lakes Reference
Group(lO) and PLUARG Studies(ll) indicated that atmospheric inputs may be
a significant source of pollutants to the lakes particularly for toxic
organics and some heavy metals. Work has continued in the difficult task
of measuring dry and wet deposition and estimating annual atmospheric
loads. Recently, contracts funded by the IJC's Great Lakes Science
Advisory Board(12,13) summarized the available information on atmospheric
inputs of organic and inorganic constituents to the lakes. These data
are summarized in Tables 5, 6 and 7 for the nutrients and major elements,
trace metals, and trace organics, respectively. While much of the data
are preliminary in nature, and the sampling methodology and analytical
techniques are still in early stages of development, the data indicate
that the atmospheric pathway is a very significant input for total loads
for parameters such as PCBs and lead, and it may be significant for some
of the other organics, total phosphorus, aluminum, cadmium, copper,
chromium, iron and nickel. For example, available data of loadings of
lead from the various sources, as summarized in Table 8, indicate the
dominance of atmospheric inputs for that parameter.
68
-------
TABLE 5
TOTAL DEPOSITION OF AIRBORNE NUTRIENTS AND MAJOR ELEMENTS TO THE GREAT LAKES
(metric tons per year)
Element
so4
NO 3 /NO 2
Ca
Na
Cl
K
Mg
Si
Superior
205,000
41,000
#
32,800
41,000
24,600
16,400
24,600
Michigan
259,000
46,000
173,000
28,800
t
11,500
28,800
11,500
Total Phosphorus # #
& Estimate not
possible from
available
LAKE
Huron
179,000
41,700
#
17,900
29,800
17,900
11,900
11,900
1,190
data.
Erie
113,000
25,100
50,200
12,600
20,100
12,600
12,600
7,540
754
Ontario
85,300
19,000
28,400
19,000
9,480
3,790
7,580
948
379
TABLE 6
TOTAL DEPOSITION OF AIRBORNE TRACE METALS TO THE GREAT LAKES
(metric tons per year)
Metal
Zn
Pb
Cu
Cd
Ni
Fe
Al
Mn
# Estimate not
Superior
8,210
1,230
821
82
328
8,210
14,000
1,640
possible from
LAKE
Michigan Huron
# #
1,730 596
575 298
58 60
575 89
# 4,770
28,800 #
1,150 #
available data.
Erie
#
754
151
75
75
3,270
#
#
Ontario
948
379
95
28
76
1,520
#
#
69
-------
TOTAL DEPOSITION OF
Compound
TOTAL PCB
TOTAL DDT
a-BHC
y-BHC
DIELDRIN
HCB
p,p' -METHOXYCHLOR
a-ENDOLSULFAN
B-ENDOSULFAN
TOTAL PAH
ANTHRACENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE
BENZ(a) ANTHRACENE
PERYLENE
BENZO(a) PYRENE
DBP
DEHP
TOTAL ORGANIC
CARBON
Superior
9.8
0.58
3.3
15.9
0.54
1.7
8.3
7.9
8.0
163
4.8
4.8
8.3
4.1
4.8
7.9
16
16
2x105
TABLE 7
AIRBORNE TRACE ORGANICS TO THE GREAT LAKES
(metric tons per year)
Michigan
6.9
0.40
2.3
11.2
0.38
1.2
5.9
5.6
5.6
114
3.4
3.4
5.9
2.9
3.3
5.6
11
11
1.4xl05
LAKE
Huron
7.2
0.43
2.4
11.6
0.55
1.2
6.1
5.8
5.8
118
3.5
3.5
6.1
3.0
3.4
5.8
12
12
1.5xl05
Erie Ontario
3.1
0.19
1.1
5.0
0.17
0.53
2.6
2.5
2.5
51
1.5
1.5
2.6
1.3
1.5
2.5
5.0
5.0
.66xl05
2.3
0.14
0.77
3.7
0.13
0.39
1.9
1.8
1.9
38
1.1
1.1
1.9
0.94
1.1
1.8
3.7
3.7
.46xl05
70
-------
TABLE 8
SOURCES OF LOADINGS OF LEAD TO THE GREAT LAKES
(metric tons per year)
Lake
Superior
Michigan
Huron
Erie
Ontario
Municipal
1.8
22.9
5.3
50.7
32.5
Industrial
0
0.6
0
38.2
7.8
Atmospheric
1,230
1,730
596
754
379
Several intermittent potent
Lakes, which are not well docum
the transportation and handling
dredging activities which may r
disposal of dredged materials
operations such as drilling for
OTHER SOURCES
Lai sources of pollutants to the Great
;nted, include spills which occur during
of toxic or hazardous substances,
^distribute pollutants in sediments,
in open waters, and resource recovery
gas in Lake Erie.
SUMMARY
The Great Lakes are subject
variety of sources. In the pas
;d to pollutant loadings from a wide
the major problems were attributed to
municipal and industrial wastewater discharges of conventional
pollutants. Concerns have now
shifted to persistent, toxic substances
that bioaccumulate, and find their way into the lakes via many different
pathways and from as yet unidentified sources. While efforts need to
continue to improve the estimates of total loadings of pollutants of
concern such as phosphorus in order to provide direction for control
programs, it is not practical tc
input/output analysis for all pollutants, and particularly the toxic
organics. It is important that
creating problems in the lakes be identified and efforts to identify
various sources be directed at these. Methodologies are being developed
to enable one to make first-cut
pollutants from various sources.
since trying to monitor everything everywhere is not practical.
attempt complete mass balance
the specific pollutants which are
estimates of the relative inputs of most
These efforts need to be continued
71
-------
Improvements are needed in sampling and monitoring programs for both
the tributary and atmospheric inputs. A coordinated program is required
to identify atmospheric airborne contaminants and provide an adequate
assessment of the loads from this pathway to compare with municipal and
industrial and tributary loadings.
72
-------
REFERENCES
1. Phosphorus Management for the Great Lakes - Final Report of the
Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force to the IJC's Great
Lakes Water Quality Board and Great Lakes Science Advisory
Board. Windsor, Ontario (July 1980)
2. Environmental Management Strategy for the Great Lakes System -
Final Report of the Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference
Group, Windsor, Ontario (July, 1978)
3. Inventory of Major Municipal and Industrial Point Source
Dischargers in the Great Lakes Basin - Great Lakes Water Quality
Board, Windsor, Ontario (July, 1979)
4. Annual Tributary Loadings - Great Lakes Water Quality Board
Annual Report Appendix B, Windsor, Ontario (1975-1979)
5. United States Great Lakes Tributary Loadings - Pollution from
Land Use Activities Reference Group, Windsor, Ontario (January,
1978)
6. Land Use, Water Quality and River-Mouth Loading: A Selective
Overview for Southern Ontario - Pollution from Land Use
Activities Reference Group, Windsor, Ontario (March, 1978)
7. Annotated Bibliography of PLUARG Reports - International
Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use
Activities - Windsor, Ontario (1979)
8. Management Information Base and Overview Modelling - M.G.
Johnson, J.C. Comeau, T.M. Comeau, T.M. Heidtke, and W.C.
Sonzogni - PLUARG Technical Report, Windsor, Ontario - August
1978.
9. U.S. Heavy Metal Loadings to the Great Lcikes: Estimates of Point
and Nonpoint Contributions - T.M. Heidtke, D.J. Scheflow, and
W.C. Sonzogni, Great Lakes Basin Commission, GLEPS Contribution
No. 12, Ann Arbor, Michigan (January 1980).
10. The Waters of Lske Huron and Lake Superior - Report to the
International Joint Commission by the Upper Lakes Reference
Group. 3 Vol. Windsor, Ontario. 1976.
11. Atmospheric Loadings to the Great Lakes - A Technical Note
prepared for the International Reference Group on Pollution of
the Great Lakes from Land Use Activities, IJC Great Lakes
Regional Office, Windsor, Ontario (September, 1977)
12. Assessment of Airborne Inorganic Contaminants in the Great Lakes
- Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, Windsor, Ontario (1980)
13. Assessment of Airborne Organic Contaminants in the Great Lakes -
Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, Windsor, Ontario (1980)
73
-------
TRIBUTARY LOADS AND EFFECTS
Summary of a Speech by Nelson A. Thomas on
"Biological Effects of Chloride and Sulfates on Lake Michigan"
September 16-17, 1980
Chicago, Illinois
Many of the Great Lakes water quality problems can be associated with the poll-
utant inputs from various tributary sources. Since the Great Lakes differ greatly
in their trophic state, the impact of pollutants is highly varied and dependent
upon type. Water quality problems can arise from sediment input; algal nutrient
additions, such as phosphorus; heavy metals; and organic toxins, both industrial,
agricultural. Many of the effects are related to each other because particulate
matter carries much of the pollutant load to the lakes.
Sediment plays a vital role in the ecosystem of the lake. It has both delet-
erious and beneficial impacts. When present in sufficient quantities it blocks
out the light to rooted aquatic plants, inhibits photosynthesis by phytoplank-
ton, burys benthic animals, and covers fish spawning grounds. It may be benef-
icial in the sorption and removal of certain heavy metals and organic toxins.
The sediments of the Great Lakes are the ultimate disposal sites of most of
the persistent, non-conservative pollutants entering the Great Lakes.
It is important to quantify the effects of tributary inputs on the uses made
in the Great Lakes. When determining the load reductions required, estimates
can be made regarding the benefits to be derived from pollution control prog-
ams, when a cause and effect relationship can be established. To do this, it
is important to: 1) know the magnitude of the input, 2) quantify the processes
that reduce the pollutant, and 3) the relationship between pollutant conc-
entration and water use. This approach has been used in the estimating of the
target phosphorus loads cited in the 1978 Water Quality Agreement between
the U.S. and Canada. Phosphorus loadings were related to taste and odor prob-
lems in Saginaw Bay, hypolimnic dissolved oxygen concentrations in Lake Erie,
and the restoration of more desirable phytoplankton and zooplankton populat-
ions in Lake Ontario.
Nelson A. Thomas, Large Lakes Laboratory, USEPA, Grosse He, Michigan
75
-------
-------
LAND TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
by
A. T. Wallace*
The topic suggested by the title, presented within the framework of
this seminar on water quality management trade-offs, provides its author
an interesting challenge. The seminar organizers correctly recognize
that trade-offs may often be required and that decisions relating to
water quality management cannot take place in a vacuum if any meaningful
results are to be expected. Examination of point source control prac-
tices jointly, given a set of realistic objectives and a finite budget,
is a logical, acceptable concept, Quite certainly it will prove to be in
our best professional interests to have the tax-paying public understand
at least the rudiments of this management approach.
Land treatment systems are only one subset of management tools
which, under certain circumstances, can yield substantial water quality
benefits with low capital expense and low O&M and energy commitments.
However, utilization of this technology definitely involves consideration
of trade-offs and often requires considerably more pre-design analysis
than does the employment of conventional technologies. As land treatment
technology frequently transforms a potential point source into a diffuse
source, its discussion at this seminar seems especially apropos. Some
materials pass through the soil, comingling with native groundwater;
some are incorporated in growing plants which may be removed from the
site. In some systems, such as overland flow (OF) or wet lands, contami-
nants may runoff to various collection or discharge points to again be-
come point sources. Proper design and operation limits the percentage of
applied contaminants which subsequently leave the site boundaries. Most
importantly, a substantial mass of potential environmental pollutants are
either permanently immobilized or transformed to less objectionable
materials. I have insufficient time to expound on the technical aspects
of land treatment. Also, there are a number of recent books and manuals
which do an excellent job of this and some of these are listed in the
references (4, 5). It should prove more worthwhile to discuss the topic
philosophically.
THUMBNAIL HISTORY
We are speaking of ancient, rather than modern technology as most of
you are aware. An EPA Water Program Operations Technical Report, "A
History of Land Application as a Treatment Alternative", (1) provides
clear insights into the reasons for the early acceptance, later rejection
and current reemergence of the use of land treatment technology.
The impact of Federal legislation, beginning with PL 92-500 has been
traced and analyzed by Thomas and Reed (2). Their review deals in par-
ticular detail with the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 and subsequent EPA
policy statements which carry a strong message that land treatment
*Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
77
-------
deserves serious consideration within the spectrum of wastewater manage-
ment alternatives. Congress, as you may be aware, "loaded" the CWA with
financial incentives for selecting "alternative" technologies, of which
land treatment is the prominent example. Chief among these are:
1. The federal share of a construction grant may be increased from
75% to 85%.
2. The federal government may participate with full grant funding
in projects which are up to 15% more costly than the most cost-
effective conventional alternative.
3. Projects which fail to meet design criteria are eligible for
100% federal grants for modification or replacement.
4. Land used as part of the treatment system is a grant eligible
item and further, appreciates at a rate of 3% per year. (All
other costs of course are calculated in constant dollars).
Evaluation of land treatment systems as a Best Practicable Waste
Treatment Technology (BPWTT) in accordance with PL 92-500 requires that
the groundwater quality criteria established by the Interim Primary
Drinking Water Standards mandated by the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act,
PL 93-523, be met. In addition, land treatment alternatives must be
fully coordinated with on-going area-wide planning under section 208 of
the Act. An October, 1977 memo from EPA Administrator Costle specified
that section 208 agencies should be involved in the review and develop-
ment of land treatment options.
LAND TREATMENT VS. CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT
COMPARISONS AND TRADE-OFFS
The uniqueness of the design procedure for land application of
wastewater affords an opportunity for far better control of most contami-
nants than does the utilization of conventional technology. In the
design of conventional systems, one usually begins with the permit condi-
tions and assembles, on paper, collections of sub-systems which can meet
these objectives. The costs of qualifying systems are then estimated to
see which meets the cost-effectiveness criteria of section 212(2)c of
PL 92-500. This is the approach suggested in EPA1s own guidance document
(3). Obviously, this approach will produce systems which just meet the
discharge limitations for the permitted parameters. Such systems may
accomplish more or (generally) less removal of other parameters, not
covered by the permit as written, for example the nutrients, nitrogen and
phosphorus.
The design of land treatment systems on the other hand, proceeds by
attempting to identify the land limiting constituent, which may include
the liquid load (4, 5). Under this approach, better than minimal manage-
ment of all other (foreseeable) contaminants is automatically assured.
Of course this apparent advantage is not gained without some compensating
disadvantages. Foremost among these is the sacrifice of the substantial
dilution and dispersion mechanisms normally associated with surface water
discharge. These are no longer available when contaminants reach flowing
groundwaters via percolation. A related disadvantage concerns the impact
78
-------
of a temporary treatment dysfunction (fairly common for conventional
technologies while rare, but possible, for land treatment). Similar
problems may arise upon the arrival of an unusual "slug" of contaminant
which cannot be attenuated to safe levels in passage through the system.
In the case of conventional technology with end-of-pipe discharge, the
impact upon the receiving water, although possibly severe, is usually
temporary and rapid recovery is possible. Water intakes may be closed
if the dangers warrant and ecological upsets are generally mitigated by
natural repopulation from upstream or tributary sources. Planned re-
stocking programs may be called for. In any event, the original water
quality conditions can usually be restored in a fairly short time frame.
Not so in the case of the land based treatment system. The relatively
ineffective dilution and dispersion mechanisms, together with low velo-
cities, permit the groundwater, once polluted, to remain so for a long
while unless natural decay or adsorption mechanisms act to attenuate the
contaminant(s).
Some other important differences are:
1. Land treatment systems can be designed for flows closer to
average daily flow than conventional systems which generally re-
quire consideration of a peaking factor.
2. Provided that the necessary additional land is available, land
treatment systems can be expanded much more easily and rapidly
than most conventional systems (6).
3. Land treatment systems do not necessarily impose any significant
aesthetic change on the receiving location, or require changes
in existing land use. It may, for example, preserve agricultur-
al or timber production, or a unique wildlife habitat. If
technological changes should make all or a part of the system
obsolete in future years, the site should have considerable
salvage value (7).
CONCLUSION
Something worth remembering, and in fact the premise of an entire
treatise on the subject (5) is that almost without regard for either the
source and type of wastewater and the type of soil or site conditions,
there is some safe loading which will control all contaminants and still
not degrade the terrestrial receiver to the extent that any future uses
are irrevocably precluded. It may be of course that this loading is too
low to be economical and thus conventional technology provides a better
solution. However, there have been many realistic exercises in compara-
tive economics performed (5, 8, 9, 10, 11) and these tend to show sub-
stantial economic incentives for land treatment systems under a wide
range of site conditions.
REFERENCES
1. Jewell, W. J. and B. L. Seabrook. June, 1978. A History of Land
Application as a Treatment Alternative. U. S. Env. Prot. Agency
430/9-78. 83 p.
79
-------
2. Thomas, R. E. and S. C. Reed. 1980. EPA Policy on Land Treatment
and the Clean Water Act of 1977. J. Water Pollution Control. 52:
452-459.
3. Van Note, R. H. et_ _al. July, 1975. A Guide to the Selection of
Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems. Office of Water
Programs Operations, U. S. Env. Prot. Agency 430/9-75-002.
4. Loehr, R. C., _et _al. 1979. Land Application of Wastes, Vols. I &
II. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. 739 p.
5. Overcash, M. R. and D. Pal. 1979. Design of Land Treatment Systems
for Industrial Wastes - Theory and Practice. Ann Arbor Science
Pub., Inc. 684 p.
6. Reed, S. C. and T. Buzzell. 1975. Land Treatment of Wastewaters
for Rural Communities in Water Pollution Control in Low Density
Areas. W. J. Jewell and R. Swan (Eds.) University Press of New
England, p. 23-40.
7. McGowan, F. M. 1975. Water and Land Oriented Wastewater Treatment
Systems in Water Pollution Control in Low Density Areas. W. J.
Jewell and R. Swan (Eds.) University Press of New England, p. 3-14.
8. Jewell, W. J. 1979. Personal communication.
9. Reed, S. C. 1980. Personal communication.
10. Gulp, G., Williams, R. and T. Lineck. Oct. 1978. Costs of Land
Application Competitive with Conventional Systems. Water and
Sewage Works 125:49-53.
11. Crites, R. W., Dean, M. J. and H. L. Selznick. Aug., Sept. 1979.
Land Treatment vs. AWT - How Do They Compare? Water and Wastes
Engineering 16:16-19, 51-53.
80
-------
COSTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
by
James A. Hanlon
During the next few minutes this afternoon I would like to share
with you some of the experiences we have gained over the last seven
to eight years here in Region V in the construction grant program re-
garding the subject of the cost for wastewater treatment. As you
might well by now recognize, the seven to eight year time span put us
back generally to the point in time when the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972 was passed by Congress in October of that year.
As we all know it was that statue, public law 92-500, that gave us
the set of water planning programs with which we continue to deal with
today. These include the section 201 facilities planning program under
Step 1 which then subsequently leads to Step 2 design and Step 3 con-
struction projects, the section 208 water quality management program
and the section 303 water quality standard program. These programs re-
sulted in a framework or process which produced literally thousands of
national pollutant discharge elimination system permits requiring speci-
fic levels of treatment for mun icipally owned wastewater treatment fa-
cilities and then, through the process described above, a set of facili-
ties plans recommending treatment solutions to the defined problems.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act also gave us the first com-
prehensive involvement in the cost of wastewater treatment services at
the local level. Section 204(b)(l) of the statue established the re-
quirement for user charges to be developed for all municipal grantees
receiving construction grant funding for wastewater treatment facilities.
Briefly, Section 204 required that each applicant for a waste treatment
construction grant has adopted, or would adopt, a system charges to as-
sure that each recipient of waste treatment services within the applicant's
jurisdiction would pay its proportionate share of the cost of operation
and maintenance (including replacement) of any waste treatment services
provided by the applicant.
Section 204 of the Law represented a recognition by Congress that
the cost for managing waste treatment facilities are in intregal part
of the agency's management of the construction grant program and that
a system for proportionately distributing the cost of waste treatment
services must be established in conjunction with each Step 3 construc-
tion grant. It should also be noted that the user charge requirement
applied to all facilities within the applicant's jurisdiction, not only
the facilities being affected by a given grant project.
81
-------
To put in perspective the numbers of municipalities and the
number of revenue systems that have been approved under the re-
quirements of Section 204, let us briefly look at where the con-
struction grant program has come under Public Law 92-500. To
date congressional appropriations for the construction grant pro-
grams, through fiscal year 1980, total in excess of $31.5 billion
dollars. Correspondingly, actual obligations, in the form of grant
awards to cities, towns and villages across the country presently
total in excess of $25.7 billion dollars. This $25 billion dollars
in obligations represent approximately 18,000 individual grant
awards. It is therefore evident that the cost of waste treatment
services, the construction grant prpgram and user charge systems
have impacted very significant portions of the opoulation within
Region V and nationwide. It is currently estimated that on the
order of $7 billion dollars is currently collected annually in
user charges by local municipal treatment authorities.
Allow me to clarify the definition of user charge systems
for the purposes of our discussion. By definition, user charge
means: the cost for operation, maintenance and replacement of the
treatment facilities. The cost for local debt retirement or the
local share of the capital cost are not included in user charge
numbers which will be discussed due to the complicating factors
of interest rates, methods of bond payback and long term out-
standing bond issues.
Subsequent to the passage of Public Law 92-500 it was ap-
proximately the end of 1974 until the first user charge system
was approved in Region V, that being the first nationwide. Since
that time, approximately 700 municipal revenue systems implementing
the user charge requirement have been approved in Region V. Those
numbers extrapolated to the national level indicates that on the
order of 3000 to 3500 user charge systems have to date been re-
viewed and approved for construction grant projects.
As the program moved through the years of 1975, 1976 and
1977, it became apparent that the process which had been set up
was working very well. Hundred of construction grants were
awarded, dozens of user charge systems developed under those grant
projects were reviewed and approved. It also became apparent,
however, that the cost impacts at the local level of these waste
treatment construction projects were significant. The impact of
these cost considerations was especially large on the very small
communities. It should be noted that of the 18,000 existing
grant awards that I mentioned earlier, approximately 48% of those
grants have been made to communities with populations less than
3500. Another recognition that took place at about the same
time was that the process which had been set up, as described
82
-------
earlier, the process of: water quality standards leading to NPDES
permits leading to facilities plans, leading to central waste treat-
ment facilities with conventional collection systems had become the
order of the day. The potential for these central treatment and col-
lection systems to have significant economic impacts was further com-
pounded by an interest rate which has averaged in the construction in-
dustry, and particularly in the waste treatment construction industry,
approximately 1% per month. In addition the subject facilities are
capital intensive, using large amounts of bricks and mortar and are
also energy intensive in terms of necessary killowatts to power
aeration blowers, pumps etc.
We have maintained a file of the approximately 700 approved user
charge systems in Region V which until recently was in manual form
and which has recently been updated and placed on data file in our
Regional computer. A data file now named "File of Approved Municipal
Revenue System", and nicknamed FOAMRS, is, to the best of our knowledge,
the only data file of approved revenue system information of its kind
in the country. What that file tells us is that the costs for waste-
water treatment vary significantly from community to community. The
largest swings are observed between the larger establish municipalities
and sanitary districts which have constructed and maintained facilities
over the past thirty to forty to fifty years versus the small communities
who are attempting to construct new treatment systems using todays in-
flated construction market
Shown below in table I is a list of municipalities which may be
familiar to many of you. These are the larger and older communities
around the Region. Listed in the table in addition to the location is
the date the revenue system was approved and the annual estimated user
cost per connection of per household. It should be remembered that the
annual user charge given is for operation, maintenance and replacement
and does not include debt retirement which would serve to further in-
crease the total annual charge.
Table I
Date Approved Estimated Annual Cost
Location
Aurora S.D., Illinois
MSD of Greater Chicago, 11
Springfield S.D., 11
City of Indianapolis, IN
Washtenaw Co. /Ann Arbor, MI
Metro Waste Control
Comm Serving Minn/St. Paul,
Northeast Ohio RSD
serving Cleveland, OH
6/79
1/80
12/79
9/77
7/79
MN 9/77
4/76
$44.00
$45.00
$65.00
$47.00
$119.00
$55.00
$59.00
83
-------
The annual charges shown above should appear typical to most of
us here today, and are probably what we expect most people pay for
wastewater treatment services. However, these figures can be contrasted
with those shown below in table II which are at the other extreme of
the cost scale. These are all small communities which have recently
undertaken the construction of a new wastewater treatment system or
major additions to an existing system. As you can see, the projected
annual user cost, per connection, is several times higher than that
being experienced in our larger communities. It should be noted that
the estimated annual charge of $287.00 is equivalent to almost $24.00
per month, a significant charge in almost anyone's budget.
Table II
Estimated Annual Cost Population
Location
Village of Elwood, Illinois
Town of Elnora, Indiana
Town of Freemont, Indiana
Village of Cass City, Michigan
Gross lie Sanitary Drainage
District, Michigan
Village of Butler, Ohio
Village of Rock Creek, Ohio
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
215
216
232
278
278
243
287
783
873
1090
2469
—
1018
800
In response to these spiraling service costs, the Agency first at-
tempted to approach the concern in the form of better publicizing the
anticipated cost of wastewater treatment works projects which were still
in the planning phase. In this direction, Program Requirements Memoran-
dum (PRM) No. 76-3 entitled, "Presentation of Local Government Cost of
Wastewater Treatment Works in Facility Plans" was published in August of
1976. The principal purpose of this document was to ensure that the anti-
cipated costs of the waste treatment alternatives being analyzed in the
facilities plans be estimated and displayed clearly for all interested
parties to note. The four categories of cost presentation required by
the PRM were (a) an estimate of total capital cost, (b) a discussion of
the anticipated method of financing, (c) an estimate of the annual
operation, maintenance and replacement and a estimate of the monthly
charge for debt service retirement.
In addition to the above, a current effort being initiated in the
Region is to use the FOAMRS file to close the loop between the cost pro-
jections being made in facilities plans and the actual approved costs
being identified in the context of approved user charge systems. This
will allow for a level of consistency in the cost estimates which has
not previously existed.
84
-------
In addition to highlighting the cost of the proposed treatment
facilities, the Agency has also moved to investigate the technological
reasons behind these spiraling costs in small communities. One of the
most significant advances in the effort to control cost at the small
community level was the enactment of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977 which included a provision which established the eligibility
of on-site treatment systems. Prior to this time, if it was shown
that the cost effective solution for a given community was to simply
upgrade or improve their existing septic tank based system of treat-
ment, the cost for doing so was entirely a local matter. The Clean
Water Act Amendments of 1977 provided the ability to fund, under the
construction grant program, the upgrading or necessary replacement of
failing septic systems or other on-site treatment methods where it
was shown to be cost effective. This initiative of the Clean Water
Act has been carried out through the detailing of the necessary pro-
cedures to implement on-site system alternatives in PRM 79-8, titled:
"Small Wastewater Systems" published in May of 1979 and subsequently
in a step-by-step guidance document developed here in Region V during
the Spring of this year.
The intent of this effort has been to give on-site treatment
systems every chance of working in order to provide reliable treat-
ment services at a reasonable cost to the local home owner.
In addition to the on-site systems initiative for the smaller
communities, the program has also strongly encouraged systems in the
mid and large size municipalities which focus on energy conservation
and other forms of innovative and alternative technology. A good
example of this is a current project in Muncie, Indiana where some
25 municipal vehicles will be powered by the methane gas produced
in the anarobic digesters at the wastewater treatment facilities.
This, for the most part, summarizes where the Agency and the
construction grant program have come in terms of the issue of costs
for wastewater treatment services. What I would like to do now is
to briefly outline what our current concerns are and where we see
ourselves moving during the years to come.
Currently underway at the National level and at the direction
of Chris Beck, the Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Manage-
ment is what is termed the 1990s study. The purpose of this effort
is to identify where the construction grant program should be in
1990. The format for the effort focuses on five major tasks within
which approximately 60 issue papers will be developed, each outlining
an array -of options being considered.
85
-------
One of the major papers being prepared under the 1990 effort is
one addressing the issue of the financial management of publicly owned
treatment works funded under the construction grant program. The pri-
mary focus of that paper is the long term economic self sufficiency
of publicly owned treatment works including the subject of local re-
sponsibilities relative to reconstruction or recapitalization. Matters
being considered within the analysis include: (a) what should be re-
quired in terms of a thorough financial analysis during Step 1 facili-
ties planning, (b) user charge systems which include reconstruction/
recapitalization recognition, (c) fixed asset and preventive maintenance
management systems developed as a intergral part of construction pro-
jects arid (d) follow-up by State or Federal program representatives
to monitor the financial management of constructed facilities by
grantees. It is expected that the 1990s study will be completed by
the end of this calendar year.
In conclusion, the issues related to the costs of wastewater
treatment have evolved over the last seven to eight years in the
context of the construction grant program and will continue to
undergo further analysis and refinement as we move into the 1980s
and approach 1990.
86
-------
A MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE FOR
CHOOSING AMONG POINT AND NONPOINT CONTROL STRATEGIES
PART 1 - THEORY AND PROCESS FRAMEWORK
by
William C. Sonzogni
Timothy J. Monteith
Thomas M, Heidtke
Rose Ann C. Sullivan
Great Lakes Basin Commission Staff
To be presented at
U.S. EPA, Region V, Seminar on
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT TRADE-OFFS
September 16 and 17, 1980
87
-------
A MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE FOR!
CHOOSING AMONG POINT AND NONPOINT CONTROL STRATEGIES
PART 1 - THEORY AND PROCESS FRAMEWORK
*,-. by , ,
William C. Sonzogni, Timothy J. Mohteith, ^
Thomas M, Heidtke, and Rose Ann C. Sullivan,
Abstract; To assist water quality managers and planners
in formulating cost-effective pollution control
strategies, a methodology was developed for evaluating
alternative point and nonpoint source control within a
drainage area. The methodology — referred to as
WATERSHED — allows the user(s) to estimate loadings
from each major pollutant source and to examine load
reductions and costs associated with control options.
Point and nonpoint source control strategies can then be
ranked on the basis of cost per unit reduction in
pollutant loading to the receiving water. From this
ranking, an optimum mix of programs can be identified
which will achieve a required load reduction at least
cost. Strategies can be staged, that is, they may
consist of several levels of control.
In evaluating loadings and control programs for a given
drainage are.a, WATERSHED considers the hydrologic,
physiographic and demographic characteristics of the
basin, pollutant losses or entrapment during transport
from source to river mouth, as well as the
bioavailability of the pollutant(s) under study. The
approach is flexible and able to accommodate a variety
of techniques for estimating loadings from municipal and
industrial point sources and land runoff. Although
WATERSHED is primarily a data integration and accounting
system (rather than a technique to generate point and
nonpoint loads), some methods for estimating loads are
specifically addressed. Calculating cropland loads
based on potential gross erosion determined from the
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) was found to be
particularly useful, since the effect of control
programs can be evaluated based on changes in the
factors governing the USLE. A case study of how
WATERSHED can be applied to the Sandusky River basin in
northcentral Ohio is presented in a companion paper.
Great Lakes Basin Commission Staff. Water Resources Scientist, Water
Resources Engineers, Regional Planner/Policy Analyst, respectively.
Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
88
-------
INTRODUCTION
Water quality managers and planners are faced with difficult
decisions on how to best reduce point and nonpoint pollutant inputs to
water bodies. Given the economic realities of today (reduced
government spending, inflation and high energy costs), these decisions
must be cost-effective. Decision-makers must, therefore, be careful to
select the combinations of point and nonpoint water quality control
measures which will most efficiently solve their pollution problems.
Recognizing the difficulty in choosing among point and nonpoint
control strategies within any given drainage basin, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (Region V) asked the Great Lakes Basin
Commission staff to assist them in devising a straightforward technique
for choosing among river basin management options. This paper
describes the technique developed. A companion paper will show how the
technique can be applied using a simple worksheet system (Monteith et
al. , 1980). To complete the effort a handbook will be prepared
(summer, 1981) to facilitate application of the technique.
The management technique developed, called "WATERSHED", is
basically an accounting system for assessing and comparing alternative
management strategies to control point and nonpoint (excluding
atmospheric) source pollution inputs to a receiving water. . It provides
a means for evaluating the fraction of the total pollutant input
attributable to any particular source, as well as how cost-effectively
this input can be controlled relative to the input from other sources.
WATERSHED utilizes information on the geophysical and demographic
characteristics of a drainage area, along with the costs of remedial
measures, to generate the least-cost program (or sequence of programs)
for attaining a required level of pollutant load reduction. WATERSHED
is unique in that it integrates a wide range of technical information
on both point and nonpoint pollution control. It attempts to quantify
and practically apply information generated from years of research and
demonstration.
WATERSHED has evolved from several studies, including the Pollution
from Land Use Activities Reference Group (PLUARG) study, the Lake Erie
Wastewater Management Study (LEWMS); the Black Creek (Ohio), Washington
County (Wisconsin), and Red Clay Erosion (Wisconsin) demonstration
projects conducted under Section 108 of Public Law 92-500; a host of
studies conducted under Section 208 of Public Law 92-500; and the
innovative Wisconsin Fund program. The interrelationships among these
studies, as well as details of the1 studies themselves, are summarized
in Sullivan et al. (1980a and b).
Although all of the above studies have contributed to the
development of WATERSHED, its foundation lies in the "overview
modeling" process developed as part of the PLUARG study (Johnson et
al., 1978; Heidtke, 1979; Heidtke et al., 1979). PLUARG was a multT1
million dollar cooperative investigation of nonpoint source pollution
in the Great Lakes basin. In PLUARG, overview modeling was used to
identify the most cost-effective mix of point and nonpoint controls in
89
-------
each of the Great Lakes basin watersheds. The process provided
detailed estimates of pollutant inputs from each major source in each
of the drainage areas or streams discharging to the lakes. Because of
the large number of computations frequently involved in arriving at
these estimates, a computer program was used to simplify the accounting
procedure.
The overview modeling process considers factors such as varying
land use (such as farmland, forest and wetlands) and land form (soil
texture and slope), as well as different types of urban areas. The
modeling process is dynamic, enabling one to take into account changing
conditions such as population growth, urbanization of rural areas, or
the natural removal of pollutants from the water as it moves downstream
to the lake.
The value of the process is fully realized when pollution control
information is introduced into the computations . Alternatives for
reducing phosphorus inputs from each source can then be tested. Then
those measures which produce the greatest pollutant reduction at least
cost can be easily identified.
Although the overview model provides the basis for WATERSHED,
WATERSHED is much more flexible and easier to use. PLUARG's overview
model is basically a research tool, while WATERSHED is designed to be
more user-oriented.
While WATERSHED is applicable to many nonpoint pollutants, it has
been developed with phosphorus and suspended sediment primarily in
mind. Some slight modifications to the approach may be necessary to
accommodate the unique characteristics of other pollutants. For an
example of how the basic approach can be applied to other parameters,
see Heidtke et al., 1980) .
SYNOPSIS OF THE "WATERSHED" PROCESS
The initial step in WATERSHED is division of a river or drainage
basin into sub-basin units. Point and nonpoint sources in these
sub-basins are then identified and their respective pollutant inputs
are estimated. An accounting system is then used to route the inputs
downstream to the receiving water. This accounting can be performed
manually or with the aid of a computer. Transmission losses, which may
occur due to a reservoir or other obstruction, are estimated through
the application of "transmission coefficients" in various stretches of
the tributary. The percent of the pollutant that is likely to reach
the receiving water in a biologically available form can also be
factored in. Remedial measures can be compared in terms of cost per
unit reduction in pollutant input at the receiving water to account for
differences between upstream and downstream sources. This basic
"accounting system" is readily adaptable to large or small watersheds
and can be as general as the user desires.
Techniques for estimating pollutant loads (when these loads are not
already monitored) are based on the most accurate and up-to-date
90
-------
information available. For agricultural land, the Universal Soil Loss
Equation (USLE) is used in evaluating the effect of various management
techniques, such as conservation tillage, on loadings from agricultural
land. This allows load reductions to be related to a series of
established factors that affect soil erosion losses from land.
Widespread use of the USLE in the field has established its validity
and utility for this purpose.
The WATERSHED approach can next be used to choose the best mix of
point and nonpoint management techniques to achieve a certain load
allocation for a receiving water body. Through a cost-effectiveness
ranking scheme, WATERSHED shows the order in which remedial measures
should be implemented to achieve the greatest water quality
improvements at the least cost.
Thus, WATERSHED provides planners and managers with a logical guide
to select among point and nonpoint water quality control programs. It
will be most valuable if used with the assistance of individuals or
agencies familiar with the specific characteristics of the hydrologic
basin under study. WATERSHED'S straightforward accounting should be
applicable to most river basins, but its application should be
customized through the use of local information and expertise whenever
possible.
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT OF THE STUDY AREA
To proceed with the WATERSHED process, a drainage basin is first
divided into a set of sub-basins. Urban areas and point source
discharges within each sub-basin are identified, as well as locations
along the main channel where the point source and diffuse pollutant
loadings are assumed to enter. Physical characteristics of the river
which may cause pollutant transmission losses are then identified. The
resulting framework conceptualizes a drainage basin as a series of
discrete pollutant loadings proceeding in sequence from the headwaters
downstream to the river mouth (see Figure 1). A more detailed
discussion of this layout process follows.
Constructing Sub-Basins
The initial step in establishing sub-basins for a particular study
area is to divide the region into smaller hydrologic units. These may
be defined from Conservation Needs Inventory hydrological maps or from
analysis of any available physiographic maps of the drainage area.
Once the boundaries of individual hydrologic units have been
delineated, each is then further divided into areas with relatively
homogeneous surface soil texture and topography. Information on soil
textures and distrib.utions can generally be obtained from county soil
surveys published by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and
through the assistance of local SCS personnel. The resulting divisions
are referred to as "sub-basins" of the drainage area under study.
If desired, the sub-basins may be further broken down on the basis
of land use intensity (i.e., cropland, pasture, grassland, forest and
91
-------
ro
FIGURE 1
RIVER BASIN AND ITS SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION
Rural
inputs
Urban
inputs
Lake
-------
wetlands). However, this level of refinement is unnecessary for
application of the WATERSHED process.
Components of the Sub-Basins
After establishing sub-basin boundaries, it is necessary to
identify and define critical characteristics of the urban and rural
land contained within each sub-basin. This information is necessary to
accurately assess pollutant loadings and the effect of remedial
measures.
Point Source Discharges: All significant point sources discharging
to surface waters of the sub-basin must be identified. For each point
source, the following data are required:
1) Pollutant load, or
2) Average wastewater flow and average effluent concentration for
the pollutant(s) under study.
For municipal wastewater treatment plants, it is also important to
obtain an estimate of the population served by the facility as well as
data on performance history, type of treatment system in effect
(primary, secondary, or tertiary) and plans for future expansion. All
of these factors are useful in evaluating point source pollutant
loadings and control programs within each sub-basin.
Urban Land: Urban areas within each WATERSHED sub-basin are identified
and separated from the rural land. For each urban area, the following
statistics should be determined:
1) total area
2) area served by combined sewers
3) area served by separate sewers
4) unsewered area.
For small cities it is generally sufficient to only determine the
boundaries of the urban land. However, to ensure an accurate analysis
of pollutant loadings and control measures in larger urban areas (e.g.,
populations exceeding 10,000) , it is desirable to obtain estimates of
combined, separate and unsewered areas. Information on urban areas may
be obtained from the Bureau of the Census, "208" water quality
management plans, or other state, county and local sources. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (1977) has compiled information on
areas served by different types of sewer systems in large cities.
To more accurately describe an urban area, additional information
should be obtained on the degree of industrialization and the amount of
urban development. Industrial activity can significantly affect the
concentration of pollutants in urban runoff, whereas developing land
generally contributes the largest suspended solids loading per unit
area.
Rural Land: After the areas of urban land have been identified for
a given sub-basin, the remaining rural area is broken down into
93
-------
different land use categories (e.g., row crop, mixed farming, pasture,
grassland, forest and wetlands). Because agricultural areas are
generally responsible for the greatest diffuse pollutant load per unit
area of rural land and represent the focus of nonpoint source control
programs on rural land, it is critical that these areas be accurately
identified. Here, again, information on rural land uses may be
obtained from "208" water quality management plans, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Conservation Needs Inventory and its system of Land
Capability Units, or other appropriate sources. Within the Great Lakes
basin, remote sensing techniques have been used to classify hydrologic
areas according to different land covers including forest, wetland,
grassland and agricultural land. This information has been compiled by
Monteith and Jarecki (1978).
Points of Entry and Transmission Coefficients
Once the sub-basin boundaries have been defined and the major
sources of pollutant loadings have been identified and characterized
(i.e., urban and rural runoff and municipal and industrial point source
discharges), locations where these loadings enter the main channel must
be determined (see Figure 1). The WATERSHED methodology assumes that
all point and diffuse pollutant sources within a given sub-basin enter
the main channel at discrete positions referred to as "points of
entry". Loadings from several sub-basins may discharge to the same
point of entry. There is no fixed rule for identifying points of
entry; this particular step requires sound judgment in combination with
knowledge of the pollutant(s) under study and the physical
characteristics of the main river or stream. In general, points of
entry correspond to intersections of feeder streams with the main
channel, or to positions upstream and downstream of river features
which could retain material moving downstream (e.g., a reservoir or a
low-gradient flood plain).
Each river stretch — a section of river between any two points of
entry — has a transmission coefficient associated with it . For any
river stretch, this coefficient represents the fraction of pollutant
which is transmitted from the upstream point of entry to the downstream
point of entry in the river channel. This feature of WATERSHED allows
the user to account for pollutant losses within the river.
CHARACTERIZATION OF POLLUTANT LOADS
Once the hydrologic basin has been characterized geophysically, the
loads of pollution sources must be determined. In many cases the load
emanating from a particular pollution source is not monitored. Below
are different methods of estimating pollutant loads from different
sources. The methods take into account the key factors that have been
identified as affecting loads from various sources and represent
state-of-the-art knowledge in the nonpoint source pollution field. The
methods were specifically developed for estimating phosphorus and
suspended sediment loads, but can be customized for use with other
pollutants.
94
-------
Measured Loads
Whenever possible measured loads, based on properly designed
sampling programs, should be used to determine loads from point or
nonpoint sources. In most cases, however, such information will not be
available, although sampling programs have been established near the
mouths of many large river basins (river mouth loads are particularly
helpful for calibrating results. This will be discussed in a
subsequent section).
Where information from sampling programs is available, loads should
be determined (from flow and concentration measurements) using a
calculation technique that accounts for the importance of high flow
events. An example of one such technique is the ratio estimator
technique (IJC, 1976).
River mouth loads used in WATERSHED should always be adjusted to
historical average flows. A technique for adjusting river mouth loads
to base year conditions is given in Sonzogni et al. (1979).
Point Source Loads
Municipal Point Sources: In most cases, data on municipal point
source effluent loadings will be available for parameters such as
phosphorus and suspended solids. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, state governments and many regional planning agencies maintain
inventories of point sources. While these inventories do not always
contain annual loads for point sources, they usually provide flow and
chemical concentration data which can be used to calculate loads.
If sufficient data are not available to permit calculation of the
annual load from a point source, an estimate can often be made if
certain characteristics of the point source are known. Such estimates
are most readily made for municipal sewage treatment plant point
sources. Municipal point source loads can be estimated from typical
per capita flows and typical concentrations for different degrees of
wastewater treatment reported in Sonzogni et al. (1978) and Heidtke et
al. (1979).
Industrial Point Sources: Industrial point sources, which often
have complex wastewaters and highly specialized treatment technologies,
are difficult to estimate without empirical data. However, industrial
inputs are, in many cases, a small part of the total load of
pollutants. For phosphorus inputs in particular, it has been shown in
the Great Lakes basin that industrial phosphorus inputs are small
relative to loads from other sources and can generally be ignored
(PLUARG, 1978; Heidtke et al. , 1979; Sonzogni et al. , 1980). Further,
it has been found that industrial toxic metal loads to Lake Michigan
currently comprise a very small percentage of the total input of metals
from all sources (Sullivan et al. , 1980). Consequently, the lack of
industrial loading data may not be a severe constraint for many basins.
95
-------
Urban Nonpoint Loads
One approach for estimating loads from urban nonpoint sources if
measurements cannot be made, is to use urban storm runoff models such
as "STORM" (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975) or "LANDRUN" (Novotny
et al., 1979). If a lack of data precludes the use of such models or
if a simpler approach is desired, annual unit area loads (UALs)
(amount of pollutant delivered per unit area of basin) may be used to
estimate loads. Typical UALs for different classes of urban land are
presented in Table 1. Note that the UALs are dependent on (1) the type
of sewerage system in place, and (2) the degree of industrialization.
Table 1 presents UALs of total phosphorus attributable to urban
runoff. These values were used in the Pollution from Land Use
Activities Reference Group (PLUARG) study (PLUARG, 1978; Johnson et
al. , 1980) and were derived from extensive data collected during
several pilot watershed studies within the Great Lakes basin.
As shown in Table 1, the UALs from combined sewer areas are
considerably higher than those from separate and unsewered areas. This
is because total phosphorus loadings from combined sewer overflows are
incorporated into the UAL estimates for these areas. To confirm these
high values, information on combined sewer areas and overflow loadings
within southeast Michigan was examined. According to SEMCOG (1978),
combined sewer overflows discharge approximately 450-600 metric tons of
total phosphorus annually to lakes and streams in southeast Michigan.
The approximate urban area served by combined sewers in this region is
650-800 km . This converts to a UAL ranging from 600-900 kg/km /yr,
and is consistent with the 700-800 kg/km /yr difference between UALs
presented in Table 1 for combined and separate sewered areas.
The effect of industrialization on UALs from urban land is also
noted in Table 1. Because industrial activity is generally accompanied
by accumulations on the land surface of particulate matter from stack
emissions and heavy transportation, UALs of several pollutants tend to
be higher in these areas (Marsalek, 1978).
Developing urban land (construction sites) represents a special
case in that UALs of sediment and sediment-associated pollutants are
generally several times greater than those from other urban areas.
Johnson et al. (1978) reported a value of 225 mt/km of suspended
solids per year for developing land which is 3-5 times greater than the
UAL from separate, combined or unsewered areas. Similarly,
compartively high contributions from developing urban land have been
reported by Chesters et al. (1980) in their extensive study of the
Menomonee basin in metropolitan Milwaukee. Developing urban land
generally comprises a small portion of the total urban area, but can be
important if extensive construction is occuring.
Table 1 gives UALs for urban lands that are typical of the Great
Lakes area. For areas of the country where the annual rainfall is
significantly different from the Great Lakes region, UALs should be
adjusted accordingly.
96
-------
TABLE 1
TOTAL P110SP110RUJ UNIT AREA LOADS
FOR URBAN LAN!)3
i-O
URBAN LAND
a A 9°, TFTTATTOM
Combined Sewered Areas
Separate Sewered Areas
Uasewered Areas
Small Urban Areas (Sewer
system not differentiated)
Urbanizing Land
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS UAL ( kg/km2 /yr)
DEGREE OF INDUSTRIALIZATION
Low
900
125
125
250
2,500
Medium
1,000
250
—
250
2,500
High
1,100
300
—
250
2,500
Adapted from PLUARG (1978).
-------
Rural Runoff Loads
Ideally, runoff loads from each sub-basin should be based on actual
measurements. However, such data are usually unavailable. Further, it
is usually not possible to distinguish the individual contributions of
different sub-basin land uses (e.g., cropland, woodland, grassland,
urban land) from the load measured at the mouth of the sub-basin.
A variety of techniques exist for estimating rural runoff loads
when direct measurements of loads are not available. Various
deterministic mathematical models exist that allow generation of
various runoff parameters (Heidtke, 1979; Heidtke and Sonzogni, 1979).
These models — for example "ANSWERS" (Beasley et al. , 1977) and
"CREAMS" (Knisel, 1980) — are applicable only to very small areas.
Typically the models require detailed data that do not exist for many
basins.
Many of the models that have been developed to date are based on
the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) . The USLE groups factors
influencing erosion under six major terms that can be expressed
numerically. The numerical values for these terms, derived from
several decades of information-gathering and research, have been
established for specific sites throughout the United States . Several
references exist which explain the USLE (e.g., Wischmeier and Smith,
1978) .
Because the USLE is established and widely used, particularly in
the evaluation of rural runoff control strategies, it is desirable to
utilize it in estimating loads. One of the major problems with using
the USLE is that it provides an estimation of potential gross erosion
of sediment rather than sediment yield (or load). Sediment yield is
the amount of sediment that actually reaches the main channel.
Potential gross erosion must be multiplied by a factor, termed the
delivery ratio (DR), to estimate sediment yield.
Unfortunately, no agreed-upon method has been derived to estimate
sediment delivery ratios. Stewart et al. (1975) indicate that the
delivery ratio has been observed to be roughly inversely proportional
to the 0.2 power of the drainage area (in acres). However, such a
relationship, because of its exponential nature, makes little
distinction in delivery ratios for basins over about 40 to 50 acres in
size. Other factors, such as surface soil texture, drainage derisity
and slope may have a more significant effect on the delivery ratio than
area drained.
The surface soil texture may be particularly important to delivery.
In the Great Lakes basin, it has been found that areas with
predominately clay surface soils often have relatively low potential
gross erosion rates but high yields of sediment and associated
pollutants (PLUARG, 1978). Although McElroy et al . (1976) have
attempted to relate soil texture to delivery ratio, the relationship is
not readily usable. Clearly, development of a widely applicable
equation for sediment delivery ratios to allow direct calculation of
sediment yield from potentional gross erosion remains a major research
question.
98
-------
Potential gross erosion, as calculated from the USLE, also does not
provide information on chemical pollution (e.g., phosphorus) from
runoff. The amount of pollutant delivered is often calculated by
multiplying sediment yield by the proportion of chemical contained in
the sediment and then by an enrichment ratio. The enrichment ratio
accounts for the fact that the pollutant yield is often a different
percentage of the sediment yield than the average percent composition
of the pollutant in the sediment. Taking phosphorus as an example, an
enrichment ratio can be used to account for preferential delivery of
clay-sized particles which, because of their physical properties, tend
to have more phosphorus associated with them than larger particles.
In WATERSHED, the conversion of potential gross erosion to the
yield of a chemical pollutant is accomplished by multiplying gross
erosion by a single factor termed the "pollutant delivery ratio". This
operationally defined coefficient groups chemical enrichment, sediment
delivery and other factors into an overall term. Its use is further
explained in the companion case study of the Sandusky River Basin
(Monteith et. al., 1980).
When it is not necessary or desirable to relate pollutant yield to
USLE factors, the yield of a pollutant can be estimated directly from
UALs . This is possible because a UAL is, in fact, an estimate of
pollutant yield, since delivery and enrichment are intrinsic to UALs.
Several procedures for estimating loads or yields of pollutants
from rural land are presented in the following section. These
procedures are based on the concepts discussed above. Cropland and
non-cropland are treated separately.
Rural Non-Cropland: For non-cropland rural areas such as forests,
grasslands and marshland, pollutant yields are best estimated from
UALs such as those shown in Table 2. The area of a particular land use
(or use intensity) is simply multiplied by the appropriate UALs to
estimate the load. The non-cropland UALs in Table 2 are based on
Johnson et. al. (1980) and PLUARG (1978), but should be representative
of most areas of the United States since studies of non-cropland areas
show consistently low land drainage loads. For example, in PLUARG it
was concluded that forested and idle land contribute one to two orders
of magnitude fewer pollutants per unit area than cropland or urban land
(Sonzogni et. al., 1980).
Cropland
As mentioned previously, determining loads from cropland is
especially important, since management of cropland will offer the
greatest potential for pollutant reductions from land runoff in many
areas. Pollutant losses from cropland, especially land in row crops,
also tend to vary from site to site more than losses from other types
of land. This variability has been illustrated statistically by
Reckhow et al. (1980).
One of the principal conclusions from PLUARG was that land use is
not the only variable influencing pollution from land runoff. Other
99
-------
TABLE 2
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS UNIT AREA LOADS
FOR RURAL LAND*'1
LAND USE INTENSITY
Rural Cropland
Cultivated Fields -
row crop (low animal
density)
Cultivated Fields -
mixed farming (medium
animal density)
Rural Non-Cropland
Pasture/Range - dairy
Grassland
Forest
Wetlands
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS UAL (kg/km2/yr)
TYPE OF SOIL
Sand
25
10
5
5
5
—
Coarse
Loam
65
20
5
5
—
—
Medium
Loam
85
30
10
10
—
—
Fine
Loam
105
55
40
15
—
—
Clay
125b
85
60
25
ioc
—
Organic
—
—
—
—
0
o
o
Adapted from PLUARG (1978).
Unit area loads may be higher when soil has an unusually high clay content.
Unit area loads may be higher in certain unique forested areas with clay soils.
-------
factors which often explain the large range in contributions from
single land uses are: land form (characteristics of the land itself,
such as surface soil texture, slope and the chemical characteristics of
the soil), land use intensity, materials usage and meteorology
(Sonzogni et al., 1980). The impact that some of these factors have on
phosphorus losses from cropland can be seen in Table 2 where UALs from
various land uses and soils are presented.
As can be seen from Table 2, surface soil texture was found to be a
particularly important determinant. Some factors, such as materials
usage (e.g., amount and technique of fertilizer application), are not
easily quantified for the general case, so the values in Table 2 must
be tempered with the users' judgment and knowledge of the study area.
It is also possible to adjust the UALs in Table 2 to account for
differences in the slope of the land. The effect of slope on UALs is
shown in a more detailed UAL table in Johnson et al. (1980).
While Table 2 could be used to estimate loads directly, it is often
desirable to relate cropland loads to potential gross erosion
calculated from the USLE (for reasons discussed previously). In order
to establish this relationship, the pollutant delivery ratio must be
estimated for the cropland under consideration. Since an acceptable
technique for directly determining delivery ratios for cropland has not
been established (see previous section), they must be estimated using
erosion and loading data.
Procedures for estimating delivery ratios under two different river
basin data packages follow:
1. Pollutant Yield of Sub-Basin Known (measured)
If the load (yield) of a pollutant from a sub-basin is known
from a monitoring program, the pollutant delivery ratio for a
cropland area is calculated by first subtracting from the
monitored load the total non-cropland contributions (point
sources, urban runoff and rural non-cropland runoff). The
resulting cropland pollutant load is then divided by the
potential gross erosion calculated for cropland area to get a
pollutant delivery ratio. The following equation describes
this process:
cropland total sub-basin total non-cropland ^ '
PDR = L cropland (2)
cropland E cropland
where:
Lcropland ~ p°llutant l°ad (yield) from cropland (mt/yr)
L n , . . = Total pollutant load from sub-basin
total sub-basin .. , f
(mt/yr)
101
-------
L. . , , , = Pollutant load not attributable to
total non-cropland i . /• / \
cropland (mt/yr)
PDR , , = Pollutant Delivery Ratio for cropland
cropland , ,. • , \
(.dimension less;
E 1 , = Potential gross erosion for total cropland area
crop an (mt/yr)
i j, which includes contributions from such
non—cropland
sources as point sources, urban runoff and rural non-cropland,
may be estimated (when not known) from techniques described
earlier.
2. Pollutant Yield of Sub-Basin Not Known
In the majority of cases, loads from sub-basins will not have
been measured. In these situtions several techniques can be
used for estimating delivery ratios.
Perhaps the simplest means of getting a pollutant delivery
ratio is to use the value from a monitored sub-basin with
similar characteristics. If the pollutant delivery ratio can
be calculated for one sub-basin using the procedure described
above, this delivery ratio could be used for other sub-basins
which are expected to behave similarly.
Another straightforward technique is to estimate cropland loads
based on the sub-basin cropland area and an appropriate UAL,
(for example, as given in Table 2). The pollutant delivery
ratio is then calculated from equation 2.
Finally, it is possible to calculate a cropland pollutant
delivery ratio when the load for the entire basin (as opposed
to sub-basin) is known. Such data frequently exist, since
monitoring programs near river mouths are common. In this
case, the total non-cropland load for the entire basin is
subtracted from the total known pollutant load at the mouth to
give the cropland load for the basin. The cropland pollutant
delivery ratio is then calculated by dividing the cropland load
by the cropland total potential gross erosion (mt/yr). These
calculations are analagous to those illustrated in equations 1
and 2 except that they are carried out for the entire basin
rather than a single sub-basin.
The resultant pollutant delivery ratio is thus an average for
the entire basin. This pollutant delivery ratio can be used
for each of the sub-basins, provided the characteristics of the
sub-basins (e.g., soil texture) are similar, and provided
upstream pollutant inputs do not undergo significant
transmission losses before reaching the river mouth.
102
-------
Other Sources of Pollution
Septic Tanks: Private waste disposal systems or septic tanks are
often implicated as a source of pollution in rural or unsewered urban
areas. However, most field investigations have shown that only a small
percentage of the total pollutant input to a river basin comes from
septic tank discharges (Jones and Lee, 1979; Krause and Pilling, 1979).
For phosphorus in particular, septic tank discharges are generally a
very small part of the phosphorus load from all sources, even in basins
with sandy soils.
In order to estimate septic tank inputs of pollutants for a
sub-basin, an annual per capita contribution should be multiplied by
the number of residents in the sub-basin using malfunctioning septic
tanks. If the private waste disposal units are used only seasonally,
an appropriate correction should be made.
A per capita contribution of about 1.5 kg/ha-yr appears to be
typical of most septic tank operations (Reckhow et al., 1980). Where a
detergent ban is in effect, the per capita input may be lowered by 30
to 40 percent. Septic tank inputs are treated as a point source in the
WATERSHED process.
Streambank Erosion: Streambank erosion was extensively studied
during PLUARG, but was found to account for only a small part of the
total sediment load to the Great Lakes. The phosphorus contribution
was found to be even less significant relative to other sources since
Streambank materials tend to be lower in phosphorus than topsoil eroded
from fields. Even the Streambank erosion sediment contribution to the
Cuyahoga River, once thought to be very significant relative to other
sources, has been found to be small according to preliminary results of
a study of Streambank erosion along the river (Urban, 1980). In most
situations, then, Streambank erosion should be ignored as a separate
pollutant source.
Feedlots: Feedlots can be a significant source of pollution in
rural areas and should be assessed in a basin analysis. Various
techniques exist to estimate feedlot contributions, which depend on
factors such as the number and types of animals using the feedlot and
its physical layout. Studies done on contributions of pollutants from
feedlots show that the amounts vary widely (Reckhow et al. , 1980).
When it is suspected that feedlots in a sub-basin may be important but
their contributions are not known, their relative importance can still
be assessed through WATERSHED by considering a range of assumed values.
If, for example, the maximum likely value (such as might be determined
from Reckhow et al., 1980) is found to result in a low or insignificant
pollutant load compared to other sources, the contribution of feedlots
may be neglected. Likewise, if the minimum UAL produces significant
contributions, then feedlots need to be given more attention in a
pollutant control program for the basin. Feedlots should be considered
as point sources in WATERSHED.
Miscellaneous Sources: Additional sources of pollution to a river
basin include landfills and other waste disposal areas, sludge disposal
103
-------
sites, mining operations, chemical storage areas, lagoons, and land
areas used for wastewater application (e.g., spray irrigation sites),
recreational land, and wildlife (e.g., large geese concentrations). In
most cases, loads from these sources are small compared to loads from
land runoff (PLUARG, 1978). In cases where one or more of these
sources are suspected of being significant, an estimate can be made of
their pollution contribution and their relative importance assessed in
the WATERSHED process, since WATERSHED is flexible enough to consider
any sources desired. When an estimate of a load cannot easily be made,
a likely range of loads (maximum and minimum loads) can be estimated
and the importance assessed under either extreme. For example, if the
maximum load expected is low compared to that from other sources, the
source in question can be ignored.
BIOLOGICAL AVAILABILITY
A portion of the load of certain pollutants may be in a chemical
form that does not stimulate biological growth. In the case of
phosphorus, a substantial portion of the total phosphorus load may be
in a form unavailable for biological uptake. Availability is
especially important when comparing the cost-effectiveness of control
alternatives. Otherwise, funds could be wasted on controlling a
pollutant that does not substantially affect water quality.
While information on availability is presently incomplete, enough
information does exist, particularly for phosphorus, to make some
generalizations that can be applied in WATERSHED. Sonzogni et al.
(1980) recently reviewed the existing information on phosphorus
availability. Table 3 is based on their review.
Table 3 shows that the bioavailability of phosphorus in runoff
water is consistently low. In contrast, phosphorus in municipal point
source discharges is largely available, at least compared to other
sources. Based on limited data, the type of sewage treatment or
phosphorus removal practices does not appear to affect the bioavailable
fraction of phosphorus in the effluent.
Because the bioavailability of phosphorus between point and
nonpoint sources seems to differ widely, it is important that it be
considered in certain cost-effectiveness factors. In WATERSHED, the
bioavailable pollutant load from a particular source is estimated by
multiplying the total load from that source by the bioavailable
fraction. Since the bioavailable fraction will almost never be
established for an individual source, the value must be estimated. In
most situations, it is advisable to assume a range of bioavailable
fractions to ascertain the sensitivity of the results to these
different assumptions.
104
-------
TABLE 3
GENERALIZATIONS ON THE AVAILABILITY OF PHOSPHORUS
DERIVED FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES
(Based Mostly on Great Lake Studies)
Form and Source
Particulate P in
River Water
Total P in River Water
Particulate P
in Urban Runoff
Total P in
Rural Runoff
Total P in Municipal
Point Source Discharges
Approx. % Available Phosphorus
40 or less
50-60 or less
50 or less
50 or less
70 or more
105
-------
DOWNSTREAM TRANSMISSION
Once the pollutant inputs have been identified and quantified, the
loadings from all sub-basins must be routed downstream from points of
entry to the receiving water (river mouth). As discussed previously,
each reach of the river (section of river between two points of entry)
has a transmission coefficient (t) associated with it. This
coefficient represents the fraction of pollutant load which is
transmitted between adjacent points of entry. For any given entry
point, the "effective transmission" (T) is defined as the fraction of
the total pollutant load at that point which is delivered to the
downstream receiving water. In other words, "T" is the product of all
downstream transmission coefficients "t".
The concept of transmission is further illustrated in Figure 2. If
the transmission coefficients t, and t~ assume the values 0.5 (50
percent of the pollutant load entering point A is lost by the time it
reaches point B) and 0.8 (20 percent loss), respectively, the effective
transmission of the pollutant load entering at point A (T.) would be
0.4 (T. = 0.5 x 0.8). Thus, if the pollutant load introduced at point
A were 100 mt/yr, only 40 percent, or 40 mt/yr, would reach the
downstream receiving water. At point of entry B the effective
transmission T_ is the same as the transmission coefficient (t_) since
there are no further downstream transmission losses . Thus , the total
load to the receiving water in Figure 2 is 104 mt/yr.
Importantly, if a control program reduced the pollutant load at
point A by 50 mt/yr (50 percent reduction) , the resultant load
delivered to the receiving water would not be reduced by 50 mt/yr. As
the example in Figure 2 illustrates, the annual load at the receiving
water would be reduced by only 20 mt/yr. The new load, as shown in
Figure 2, would be 84 mt/yr. Accordingly, if the effectiveness of a
control is judged by the amount of pollutant reduction achieved at the
receiving water, transmission is a salient consideration.
For some pollutants, including phosphorus, transmission losses are
often small, especially over the long term (PLUARG, 1978; Verhoff et
al . , 1978) . This is particularly true when a large fraction of the
pollutants under consideration are associated with clay-size particles
which are easily suspended and transported. In most cases, only those
tributaries with large impoundments or large flood plains will require
adjustments for transmission.
Summary of Load Calculation Technique
The load at the river mouth (or some point of entry) is expressed
mathematically below.
Pollutant Load at the Lake =
N
2t(L- x BF) , , + (L. x BF) , . ,+ (L. x BF) ,
i cropland i rural non-cropland i urban
ran3
1 1
+ (L. x BF) . ...+ (L. x BF) , ] x T.
i point source i other sources i
(3)
106
-------
FIGURE 2
EXAMPLE OF TRANSMISSION LOSS CALCULATION
Load to River
Points Transmission Effective
of Entry Coefficient (t) Transmission (T)
L = 100 mt/yr
A
= 80 mt/yr
1 VN
^
\
t
V
I
Receiving
Water
t.-O.S
t2 = 0.8
RW
where L
L
.,
B
(LA X V + (LB X TB)
(100 x O.A) + (80 x 0.8) = 104 mt/yr
Total Pollutant Load to Point of Entry A
Total Pollutant Load to Point of Entry B
Total Pollutant Load to Receiving Water
If control strategy reduces the L by 50% (i.e., 50 mt/yr),
then the new load (L_., ) is
RW,
LRW = (50 x 0.4) + (80 x 0.8) = 84 mt/yr
LRW LRW,
104 - 84 = 20 mt/yr
.'. a 50 mt/yr reduction to entry point A produces only
a 20 mt/yr reduction at the receiving water
107
-------
where: L = loads from different sources to a specific point of
entry,
BF = Bioavailability Factor,
T. = Effective transmission from point of entry to mouth,
and
N = number of points of entry.
Note that more than one sub-basin and point source may be
discharging to a single point of entry. For example, the cropland load
to point of entry "i" in equation 3 may be the sum of cropland loads
from several sub-basins.
Calibration
One way in which WATERSHED can be calibrated is by adjusting the
transmission coefficients such that the calculated loads correspond
with monitored loads. This was done successfully in the overview
modeling project (Johnson et al., 1978) discussed earlier. In most
cases (about 75 percent of the time for U.S. waters), transmission
adjustments were not necessary. However, when they were necessary
(mainly for Lake Michigan), an impoundment or lake-like widening of the
river was usually present.
In order to account for year-to-year differences in pollutant loads
from a river basin caused by meteorological or climatic factors, loads
estimated through WATERSHED should be calibrated with historical
average monitored loads whenever possible. Calibration using data for
any single year could be misleading if that year was a high- or low-
flow year.
Sonzogni et al. (1978) have described a technique to adjust loads
for any one year to "average" conditions. The technique is based on a
historical average flow computed from gaging station records.
Pollutant loads are then adjusted to average conditions in proportion
to flow. The technique thus assumes that load is proportional to flow.
This approach is most applicable on a gross scale and may not be
appropriate for a small river basin. However, simply considering the
range in annual flows can provide a qualitative appreciation of the
variability expected in diffuse inputs due to meteorological (and
runoff) conditions. This may often be sufficient for making WATERSHED
management decisions.
In calibrating results, the transmission coefficient is not the
only variable that can be adjusted. The values of a number of
variables used in the process can be changed to more closely align the
calculated load with the monitored load. Even if estimated loads from
WATERSHED cannot be easily calibrated due to a lack of monitoring data,
the results are still useful for assessing the relative importance of
different pollutant inputs and for determining the sensitivity of the
pollutant loads to different variables.
108
-------
CONTROL STRATEGIES
Formulating Strategies
At this point, strategies to reduce pollutant loads can be
developed. Of the different strategies identified for each source,
one should be selected for initial testing. Other strategies may be
evaluated in subsequent WATERSHED analyses. A strategy may be staged;
that is, it may consist of one or more incremental control programs.
Similarily, a control program may consist of one or more specific
remedial measures.
A staged approach, whereby each program builds upon the previous
one, is designed to allow for an incremental control strategy. For
instance, a municipal point source control strategy for phosphorus
might consist of three stages of chemical phosphorus control. Stages
I, II and III might be treatment to the 1 mg/L, 0.5 mg/L and 0.3 mg/L
phosphorus effluent levels, respectively. Stage III could not be
implemented before Stage II, and Stage II could not be implemented
before Stage I. However, it is possible that Stage I and II point
source control programs should be implemented before either a Stage I
cropland or Stage I urban runoff control program.
The flexibility of WATERSHED also permits the user to design a
remedial program that is comprised of several different specific
control measures, only some of which would be used at a specific site.
In combination, the control measures would provide an average level of
pollutant reduction at an average cost. Such a combination of control
measures is likely to be needed for treating runoff in a sub-basin,
since "across-the-board" runoff control programs are more the exception
than the rule. For example, to decrease the pollutant contribution
from a cropland area, several different tillage variations may be used
on individual farms in the area, depending on factors such as the
farmer's preference, type of cropland, and the site-specific
characteristics of the land.
It should be apparent that considerable judgment is required in
formulating strategies on control programs that are tailored to
individual situations. It is important that the water quality manager
be familiar with the control measures selected for each strategy and
know how the controls relate to one another.
Costs and Load Reductions
In estimating the costs of and pollutant load reductions achieved
from various control programs, only general guidelines can be given.
The planner's or manager's judgment and experience is an important part
of the process. Studies being conducted should soon provide more
information on the cost and effectiveness of controls. The authors
intend to provide a more detailed assessment of this topic in future
work. In the meantime, the information given below (predominately on
phosphorus) summarizes much of the current research. The information
will be applied in the companion case study (Monteith et al., 1980).
109
-------
Point Source: Various options for point source phosphorus control
are given in Table 4. As explained in the previous section on
formulating control strategies, som.e of the controls must be
implemented in a hierarchical fashion. The load reduction achieved by
these measures will depend on the phosphorus concentration before
treatment. In the Great Lakes basin, the average phosphorus
concentration in treated municipal wastewater from facilities with no
phosphorus control program is about 4 mg/L P (Sonzogni et al., 1978).
Costs for point source controls are perhaps better defined than
controls for other pollution sources. Although municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment plants use a variety of treatment
processes, most have been used for a number of years and are well
defined economically. Consequently, reasonable cost estimates can be
made for most treatment schemes. Cost data may also be available from
information developed under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972 and from information developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Urban Runoff Controls
Although many measures have been identified for controlling
pollutant loadings from urban runoff (IJC, 1977), the cost and
effectiveness of most have not been quantified. Table 5 does, however,
provide some cost-effectiveness data developed for PLUARG. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency is currently sponsoring the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) which will determine the effectiveness and
costs of various urban control practices. Initial results are expected
within the year, although it may be another three years before the
program is completed. This study is expected to provide an excellent
source of information for use in WATERSHED. Studies done under Section
208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 may also provide
useful information, since they have focused on nonpoint source
pollution during the last few years.
Rural Nonpoint Controls
Most control measures for rural land have focused on cropland, and
these, rather than controls for rural non-cropland areas, are
considered here.
One of the main reasons for relating cropland loads to potential
gross erosion as calculated from the USLE is the available information
on how control measures affect potential gross erosion. In particular,
an extensive literature exists on how control measures such as tillage
practices and crop rotation affect the cover factor (C). Some
information also exists on how measures such as contour plowing and
strip-cropping will affect the practice factor (P) and how terracing
can affect the slope/length factor (SL) .
Table 6 provides data for several cropland control programs
according to some of the recent findings of studies such as the Lake
Erie Wastewater Management Study (Urban et al., 1978), the Black Creek
110
-------
TABLE 4
COSTS OF PHOSPHORUS CONTROL
AT MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
COST
CONTROL PROGRAM ($/cap/yr)
1. Reduction of total phosphorus effluent concentration
from a "no phosphorus treatment" condition ('v- 4 mg/L)
to 1.0 mg/L by chemical treatment3 2.4
2. Reduction of total phosphorus effluent concentration
from 1 mg/L to 0.5 mg/L by chemical treatment" 3.6
3. Reduction of total phosphorus effluent concentration
from 0.5 mg/L to 0.3 mg/L by chemical treatment/filtration 4.0
(2
4. Land treatment by rapid infiltration
5. Land treatment by slow rate irrigation
f\
Estimate derived from Drynan (1978) .
Estimate derived from Heidtke et al. (1979).
Q
Because all other costs assume conventional secondary treatment
facilities in place, comparative costs of land application systems
are not presented here; for further discussion see Heidtke et al. (1980)
-------
TABLE 5
COSTS AND TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD REDUCTIONS
FOR URBAN RUNOFF CONTROL PROGRAMS3
CONTROL
PROGRAM
Streetsweeping plus
Measures to Reduce Flow
Streetsweeping plus
Detention/Sedimentation
of Stormwater and
Combined Sewer Overflows
URBAN DIFFUSE SOURCES
COMBINED
SEWERED
AREAS
% UAL
Reduction
6
30
$/km /yr
7,400
32,100
SEPARATE SEWERED AREAS
HIGH INDUSTRY
% UAL
Reduction
20
40
$/knT/yr
7,400
16,000
MEDIUM INDUSTRY
% UAL
Reduction
25
45
$/km2/yr
7,400
16,000
LOW INDUSTRY
% UAL
Reduction
50
65
$/km2/yr
7,400
16,000
ro
Adapted from Table 11, Johnson et al. (1978).
-------
TABLE 6
COSTS AND LOAD REDUCTIONS
FOR RURAL RUNOFF PHOSPHORUS CONTROL PROGRAMS
CONTROL
PROGRAM
Voluntary Sound
Land Management
Chisel Plowing;
Mulch-Till; Winter
Cover Crops; Crop
Rotations
No-Till; Crop
Rotations
RURAL DIFFUSE SOURCE
CROPLAND
% Reduction
in Potential
o
Gross Erosion
—
50-60
60-90
Pollutant
Reduction
Efficiency
—
.6-. 9
.6-. 9
% Reduct ion in
Total Phos-
phorus Load
0-10
30-55
35-80
$/km2/yr
Minimal
A
65d
3,000e
OTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND
% Reduction in
Total Phos-
phorus Load
0-10
—
—
$/km2/yr
Minimal
—
—
Based on changes in average county "C" factors (crop management factor in the USLE) as given in Urban et al.
(1978). Percent reductions assume all other USLE variables remain fixed.
Estimate of the extent that the phosphorus load is decreased from a given decrease in gross erosion; values
derived from LEWMS Preliminary Feasibility Report (U.S. Army Crops of Engineers, 1979).
These measures (properly incorporating fertilizers into soils; avoiding farming on slopes near streams) may
not affect erosion in cropland areas.
Estimated cost of providing technical assistance and demonstration plots for education in new tillage practices.
Cost estimate derived from U.S. EPA (1979) — a modeling study of the Black Creek watershed in northeastern
Indiana.
-------
Study (Beasley et al., 1977) and the PLUARG study (PLUARG, 1978).
Losses in potential gross erosion are based on changes in the "C"
factor due to tillage or crop rotation practices.
Note that the first control program — "voluntary sound land
management" — does not show an associated reduction in potential gross
erosion. This program includes measures, such as properly
incorporating fertilizer into the soil, which may have little effect on
potential gross erosion.
For the second program in Table 6 (chisel-plowing, mulch-till,
winter cover crops, crop rotations), the cost is based primarily on
technical assistance. Technical assistance as defined here includes
the operation of several demonstration plots to illustrate the
effectiveness of the new practices. Although research continues on
this subject, it is assumed here that this set of measures can be
implemented with no net loss of income to the farmer. The only cost,
therefore, is the technical assistance required to train farmers in new
tillage methods. The Black Creek (Indiana) and Honey Creek (Ohio)
demonstration programs haye shown how important technical assistance is
for these measures to be effective. Technical assistance would likely
only be required for a short time (three to five years), since farmers
would tend to share their experience with other farmers in the area if
it is successful.
In calculating the technical assistance program, it is assumed that
three years of demonstration and intensive assistance would be
sufficient to convince farmers to adopt the proposed measures. It is
also assumed that the technical assistance program would affect about
35,000 ha.
Table 7 further illustrates how costs for technical assistance were
derived. Salary and overhead, demonstration plot costs and equipment
rental costs are all estimated. The total cost is amortized over 25
years at a 10 percent interest rate to give an annual cost of $23,000.
If this cost is converted to a unit area basis, the annual cost is
$0.65/ha ($65/km ) assuming 35,000 acres are actually influenced by the
technical assistance. It is possible, for example, that up to 200,000
ha would be influenced at the above cost. If that were the case, the
cost of technical assistance would be reduced to $0.12/ha.
The above costs were generated for the northwestern Ohio area,
based on preliminary data for this area (Honey Creek Joint Board of
Supervisors, 1980; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979). The
cost estimate is admittedly only a first approximation, and is likely
to be modified when better data become available.
The third program in Table 6 involves the application of more
intensive conservation tillage practices (i.e., no-till where soils
will allow it) . The percent reduction in total phosphorus loading from
cropland runoff — 85 percent — was also indirectly estimated from
changes in "C" factors specified for northwestern Ohio by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (1979). The estimated incremental cost for
implementing Stage II control is $3,000/km /yr (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1979).
114
-------
TABLE 7
ESTIMATION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COSTS
FOR IMPLEMENTING THE MINIMUM TILLAGE
AND CROP ROTATION PROGRAM
- 125 ha of demonstration plots
- 3-year program
- Goal of 35,000 ha.converted to minimum till
- Salary and overhead $ 38,500/yr
- Demonstration Plot Costs $ 25,000/yr
- Equipment rental $ 6,500/yr
TOTAL: $ 70,000/yr
3-year study TOTAL $210,000
10% interest amortized over 25 years $ 23,000/yr
Cost per ha considering only demon-
stration plots $23,000/yr •* 125 ha $ 184/ha-yr
Cost per ha if 35,000 ha converted
to minimum till $23,000/yr -t 35,000
ha $ 0.65/ha
115
-------
Pollutant Reduction Efficiency
A pollutant such as phosphorus may not be reduced to the same
extent as potential gross erosion following implementation of a control
measure. Some control measures could conceivably result in a large
change in potential gross erosion with little change in pollutant load.
To account for this, a new term, the "Pollutant Reduction Efficiency"
(PRE), is introduced in Table 6. The pollutant reduction efficiency is
defined as the extent that a pollutant load (yield) is decreased from a
given decrease in potential gross erosion.
In order to calculate the effect of pollution reduction efficiency
on the load, the following equation is used:
LR = LI - [(E].-ER) x PRE x PDR] (4)
where:
L = reduced pollutant load (due to runoff controls),
LT = initial pollutant load,
E, = initial potential gross erosion,
ER = reduced potential gross erosion,
PRE = pollutant reduction efficiency, and
PDR = pollutant delivery ratio.
The use of equation 4 will be demonstrated in the case study
companion paper.
According to studies of conservation tillage in the Lake Erie
basin, the relationship between potential gross erosion and phosphorus
load as affected by cropland runoff control programs can only be
estimated. However, based on limited information, the decrease in
phosphorus yield from a given decrease in potential gross erosion
appears to be between 60 to 90 percent (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1979). More research will have to be done on this subject in order to
expand the usefulness of the USLE as a water quality management tool.
Control measures may also have varying effects on the bioavailable
fraction of a given pollutant. For example, two measures may cause
identical decreases in the total phosphorus load but different
decreases in the available phosphorus fraction. This could result from
one measure having a greater effect on the soluble phosphorus fraction.
The difference would have to be accounted for in the bioavailability
factor in the WATERSHED process.
Presently, almost no field data exist on how control measures might
affect bioavailability. About the best that can be done is to use
sound judgment, tempered with a knowledge of how the control measure
may effect the chemistry of the pollutant.
116
-------
Substantial new information on the cost-effectiveness of cropland
runoff control measures is expected soon, especially with regard to the
economics of conservation tillage practices. With rising fuel costs,
many farmers may find it desirable to convert to a conservation tillage
system, making the implementation of these systems easier than
originally anticipated. Further, preliminary results from the Lake
Erie Wastewater Management Study's Honey Creek Demonstration Project
(Forester et al., 1977; Forester, 1978; Honey Creek Joint Board of
Supervisors, 1980) show that costs can be reduced and farm productivity
may actually be increased if farmers in that area adopt no-till
farming. The net result could be an increased profit for farmers and a
concomitant reduction in the nonpoint loads from their farm lands .
It should be clear that Tables 4, 5 and 6 are only examples of
programs that can be formulated. Options other than those given here
may be appropriate for a certain location. The tables do illustrate
the type of cost and pollutant reduction information that is necessary
to characterize a control option or program.
Cost Effectiveness
The goal of WATERSHED is to compare the cost-effectiveness (cost
per unit reduction in pollutant load) of reducing pollution from
different point and nonpoint sources in a basin. The option with the
lowest cost per unit reduction in pollutant load is the most
cost-effective.
For comparison purposes, cost-effectiveness is generally best
measured at the receiving water (river mouth). Once the cost-
effectiveness at the receiving water is known for each stage of a
control strategy developed for a particular pollutant source, the
stages of the strategy can be ranked according to their cost-
effectiveness. For example, if a control strategy with three stages of
control were devised for each of ten pollutant sources in a river
basin, a total of 30 different control stages could be ranked.
Note that each staged program of a strategy can consist of either
one control measure or a combination of control measures. For a given
strategy, Stage II can never be ranked higher than Stage I, Stage III
can never be ranked higher than Stages I or II, and so forth, due to
the dependence of a stage on previous stages. However, a Stage II
point source control could be ranked higher than a Stage I cropland
control. In other words, WATERSHED allows for comparing different
stages of point and non-point control strategies.
Accounting Techniques
To simplify tracking all the inputs and load reductions, and to
ultimately rank the cost-effectiveness of different strategies, some
kind of an accounting system is needed. While a computerized
accounting system has been developed, a system of worksheets has
recently been devised which clearly shows how to apply the WATERSHED
process. This approach can be used efficiently with a calculator. A
programmable calculator could simplify the accounting process even
more .
117
-------
The worksheets are straightforward yet flexible, and are somewhat
analogous to an income tax form. Their use is demonstrated in a case
study of the Sandusky River (Ohio) in the companion paper by Monteith
et al. (1980).
Long-Term Value of WATERSHED
A major advantage of the WATERSHED process is that it can
accommodate a large and dynamic data base. As criteria change or new
detailed information becomes available on such factors as effectiveness
of control programs or the costs of remedial programs, WATERSHED may be
used to reevaluate which pollution control programs offer the best
results for the tax dollar. Once the river drainage basin has been
mathematically described and the loads from all the pollutant sources
mathematically defined, the basic information exists to test any
assortment of remedial strategies or to determine the sensitivity of
the results to a modification of a given variable. Thus, the WATERSHED
analysis is a planning tool which will have many applications and will
form the basis for long-term river basin management.
Multiobjective Analysis
Currently, the WATERSHED process considers only one pollutant at a
time. However, it is recognized that control strategies may, in fact,
affect more than one pollutant. For example, removing phosphorus at a
municipal wastewater treatment plant may concurrently reduce discharges
of biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, toxic metals and
viruses. Ideally, a multiobjective analysis should be performed so
that the cost of the total phosphorus control program could be
evaluated against benefits (or costs) other than just those associated
with phosphorus reductions. Simon (1980) has made an initial attempt
at this by modifying the overview modeling approach of PLUARG
(discussed earlier) with a parametric nonlinear optimization technique.
Consequently, he was able to consider the control of several
pollutants. Further, Chapra and Wicke (1980) have made some initial
steps in this direction. The authors intend to address multiobjective
analysis in upcoming work.
Load Allocations
If a load limitation has been imposed on a particular river basin,
WATERSHED can be used to determine the most cost-effective combination
of strategies to achieve the desired pollutant load. However, in very
few cases have pollutant loads been' allocated to river basins . Even in
the Great Lakes basin, where so-called "target loads" have been
suggested for the individual lakes, there has been no attempt to
allocate portions of the lake loads between the U.S. and Canada, let
alone individual river basins.
Although load objectives may not exist for a river basin, the
planner or manager may want to consider what control strategies should
be given priority because they produce high load reductions at low
cost . Such strategies would be implemented to reduce pollution in
general, rather than to achieve a certain allocated load. WATERSHED
can, of course, be a very useful tool for the planner or manager in
this situation.
118
-------
If water quality improvements are to be made in increments,
WATERSHED can, based on its cost-effectiveness ranking, show which
measures should be done first. The planner or manager must rely on
information other than WATERSHED, since control measures will have
benefits and costs other than those considered in WATERSHED. For
example, many nonpoint control measures improve soil conservation as
well as water quality. Consequently, some nonpoint control measures
should perhaps be implemented as a soil conservation measure even
though it has little effect on water quality.
As mentioned above, so-called target loads for phosphorus have been
suggested for the Great Lakes. However, as discussed in Sonzogni et
al. (1979), these loads are best used only as long-term goals. It is
better to make water quality improvements step by step, based on
economic as well as environmental considerations. One rationale for
this approach is that water quality degradation is often reversible, so
that receiving waters often are not irreversibly harmed if all
pollutant inputs are not immediately controlled. This is especially
evident in the way lakes have responded to phosphorus input reductions.
The effects of some toxic substances (for example, DDT) have also been
shown to be reversible (Sonzogni and Swain, 1980). The reversible
nature of water quality degradation is of great significance to
management, particularly when funds for pollution control are limited.
1 19
-------
REFERENCES
Beasley, D.B., Monke, E.J., and L.F. Huggins (1977). "The ANSWERS
Model: A Planning Tool for WATERSHED Research," American Society
of Agricultural Engineers, Paper No. 77-2532, St. Joseph, Mich,
Chapra, S.C., and H.D. Wicke (1980). "Least Cost Optimization to Meet
Phosphorus Objectives in the Lower Great Lakes," Contribution to
the Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study from the Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory (NOAA), Draft.
Chesters, G., Konrad, J.G., and G.V. Simsiman (1980). "Menomonee River
Pilot WATERSHED Study - Summary and Conslusions," Draft Report,
University of Wisconsin Water Resources Center, Madison, Wisconsin,
77 pp.
Drynan, W.R. (1978). "Relative Costs of Achieving Various Levels of
Phosphorus Control at Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants in the
Great Lakes Basin," International Joint Commission, Great Lakes
Regional Office, Windsor, Ontario.
Forester, L.D. (1978). "Economic Impact of Changing Tillage Practices
in the Lake Erie Basin," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo
District, Buffalo, New York.
Forester, L.D., and G.S. Becker (1977). "Economic and Land Management
Analysis in Honey Creek Watershed," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Buffalo District, Buffalo, New York.
Heidtke, T.M. (1979). "Modeling the Great Lakes System: Update of
Existing Models," Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study
Contribution No. 4, Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 79 pp.
Heidtke, T.M., Monteith, T.J., Sullivan, R.A., Scheflow, D.J., Skimin,
W.E., and W.C. Sonzogni (1979). "Future U.S. Phosphorus Loadings
to the Great Lakes: An Integration of Water Quality Management
Planning Information," Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study
Contribution No. 11, Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 71 pp.
Heidtke, T.M., Scheflow, D.J., and W.C. Sonzogni (1980). "U.S. Heavy
Metal Loadings to the Great Lakes: Estimates of Point and Nonpoint
Contributions," Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study
Contribution No. 12, Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 34 p.
Heidtke, T.M., and W.C. Sonzogni (1979). "Modeling the Great Lakes
System: Ongoing and Planned Modeling Activities," Great Lakes
Environmental Planning Study Contribution No. 6, Great Lakes Basin
Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
120
-------
Heidtke, T.M., Sonzogni, W.C. and T.J. Monteith (1979). "Management
Information Base and Overview Modeling: Update of Projected
Loadings to the Great Lakes," Great Lakes Environmental Study
Contribution No. 7, Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 38 p.
Heidtke, T.M., Scheflow, D.J., and W.C. Sonzogni (1980). "Comparative
Cost-Effectiveness of Land Application of U.S. Municipal
Wastewater: Implications for Phosphorus Control in the Great Lakes
Basin," Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study Contribution No.
19, Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 34 p.
Honey Creek Joint Board of Supervisors (1980). "Honey Creek Watershed
Project Tillage Demonstration Results 1979," U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Buffalo District, Buffalo, New York.
International Joint Commission (IJC) (1977). "Evaluation of All
Remedial Measures to Control Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution in
the Great Lakes Basin," Great Lakes Regional Office, Windsor,
Ontario.
International Joint Commission (IJC) (1976). "Great Lakes Water
Quality Board, Appendix B, Surveillance Subcommittee Report," Great
Lakes Regional Office, Windsor, Ontario.
Johnson, M.G., Comeau, J.C., Heidtke, T.M., Sonzogni, W.C., and B.W.
Stahlbaum (1978). "Management Information Base and Overview
Modeling," prepared for the Pollution from Land Use Activities
Reference Group (PLUARG), International Joint Commission, Windsor,
Ontario, 90 pp.
Johnson, M.G., Comeau, J.C., Heidtke, T.M., Sonzogni, W.C., and B.W.
Stahlbaum (1980) . "Modeling Effects of Remedial Programs to Aid
Great Lakes Environmental Management," J. Great Lakes Res., 6 (1),
p.8-21.
Jones, R.A., and G.T. Lee (1979). "Septic Tank Wastewater Disposal
Systems as Phosphorus Sources for Surface Waters," Journal WPCF,
51, 11, p.2764-2775. '
Knisel, W.G., ed. (1980). "CREAMS, A Field-Scale Model for Chemicals,
Runoff and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems," U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Conservation Research Report No 26
640p.
Krause, A. and J.R. Pilling (1979). "Alternative Waste Treatment
Systems for Rural Lake Projects," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region V, Draft.
Marsalek, J. (1978). "Pollution Due to Urban Runoff: Unit Loads and
Abatement Measures," National Water Research Institute, Canada
Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario.
McElroy, A.D., Chin, S.Y., Nebgen, J.W., Aleti, A., and F.W. Bennett
(1976). "Loading Functions for Assessment of Water Pollution from
Nonpoint Sources," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Protection Technology Series Report No. 600/2-76-151,
Washington, D.C.
121
-------
Monteith, T.J., and E.A. Jarecki (1978). "Land Cover Analysis for the
United States Great Lakes Watersheds," Great Lakes Basin
Commission for the International Joint Commission, Windsor,
Ontario.
Monteith, T.J., Sonzogni, W.C., Heidtke, T.M., and R.A.C. Sullivan
(1980) . "WATERSHED - A Management Technique for Choosing Among
Point and Nonpoint Control Strategies. Part 2 - A River Basin Case
Study," Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Novotny, V., Balsiger, D., Cherkauer, D.S., Simsiman, G.V., Chesters,
G., Bannerman, R., and J.G. Konrad (1979). "Simulation of
Pollutant Loadings and Runoff Quality," Menomonee River Pilot
Watershed Study, University of Wisconsin Water Resources Center,
Madison, Wisconsin.
Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group (PLUARG) (1978).
"Environmental Management Strategy for the Great Lakes System,"
International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario, 115 p.
Reckhow, K.H., Beaulac, M.N., and J.T. Simpson (1980). "Modeling
Phosphorus Loading and Lake Response Under Uncertainty: A Manual
and Compilation of Export Coefficients," Draft Report to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Resource
Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 214
P-
SEMCOG (1978). "Regional Evaluation of a Phosphorus Detergent Ban,"
Southwestern Michigan Council of Governments, Detroit, Michigan.
Simon, D.P. (1980). "A Parametric Nonlinear Optimization Approach to
the Water Quality Problems of Southeastern Wisconsin," Draft
Report, University of Wisconsin Water Resources Center, Madison,
Wisconsin.
Sonzogni, W.C., Chapra, S.C., Armstrong, D.E., and T.J. Logan (1980).
"Phosphorus Availability - Significance to Modeling and
Management," in preparation.
Sonzogni, W.C., Jeffs, D.N., Konrad, J.C., Robinson, J.B., Chesters,
G., Coote, D.R., and R.C. Ostry (1980). "Pollution from Land
Runoff," Envir. Sci. and Tech. , _14_(2), p. 148-153.
Sonzogni, W.C., Monteith, T.J., tfach, W.N., and V.G. Hughes (1978).
"United States Great Lakes Tributary Loadings," Great Lakes Basin
Commission for the International Joint Commission, Great Lakes
Regional Office, Windsor, Ontario.
Sonzogni, W.C., Monteith, T.J., and T.M. Heidtke (1979). "Proposed
Great Lakes Phosphorus Target Loads: A Synopsis and Some
Perspectives," Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study
Contribution No. 5, Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, 9p.
122
-------
Sonzogni, W.C., Monteith, T.J., Skimin, W.E., and S.C. Chapra (1979).
"Critical Assessment of U.S. Land Derived Pollutant Loadings to the
Great Lakes," Task D Report, Pollution from Land Use Activities
Reference Group, International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario.
Sonzogni, W.C., and W.R. Swain (1980). "Perspectives on U.S. Great
Lakes Chemical Toxic Substances Research," J. Great Lakes Res., in
press.
Stewart, B.A., Woolhiser, D.A., Wischmeier, W.H., Caro, J.H., and M.H.
Frere (1975). "Control of Water Pollution from Cropland - Volume
1, A Manual for Guideline Development," Agricultural Research
Services Report No. ARS-H-5-1, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Hyattsville, Maryland, lllp.
Sullivan, R.A., Sanders, P.A., and W.C. Sonzogni (I980a). "An Update
of Water Quality Planning Activities in the U.S. Great Lakes Basin
- Review of State and Areawide Agency Five Year Strategies and Work
Programs," Great Lakes Basin Commission for the Great Lakes
National Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Sullivan, R.A., Sanders, P.A., and W.C. Sonzogni (I980b). "Post-PLUARG
Evaluation of Great Lakes Water Quality Management Studies and
Programs," Great Lakes Basin Commission for the Great Lakes
National Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Sullivan, R.A.C., Scheflow, D.J., and W.C. Sonzogni (1980). "The
Relative Significance of U.S. Industrial Heavy Metal Loads to the
Great Lakes," Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study Contribution
No. 16, Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 42p.
Urban, D.R. (1980). Personal Communication, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region V, Chicago, Illinois.
Urban, D.R., Logan, T.J., and J.R. Adams (1978). "Application of the
Universal Soil Loss Equation in the Lake Erie Drainage Basin," U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, Buffalo, New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1977). "Nationwide
Evaluation of Combined Sewer Overflows and Urban Stormwater
Discharges Volume II: Cost Assessment and Impacts," EPA Report No.
600/2-77-064.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1979). "Costs and Water
Quality Impacts of Reducing Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Pollution," Office of Research and Development, Athens, Georgia.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1975). "Urban Stormwater Runoff -
STORM," The Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1979). "Lake Erie Wastewater Management
Study Methodology Report," Buffalo District, Buffalo, New York,
146p.
123
-------
Verhoff, F.H., Melfi, D.A., Yaksich, S.M., and D.B. Baker (1978).
"Phosphorus Transport in Rivers," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Buffalo District, Buffalo, New York.
Wischmeier, W.H., and D.D. Smith (1978). "Predicting Rainfall Erosion
Losses," Agricultural Handbook No. 537, Science and Education
Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
124
-------
RECAP OF PREVIOUS DAY'S PROGRAM
AND
GOALS FOR TODAY
BY
CARL D, WILSON*
I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE AUDIENCE TO REGISTER AND GIVE THEIR ADDRESS
IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE SEMINAR PROCEDURES ON WATER
QUALITY MANAGEMENT TRADE OFFS,
f
I WOULD LIKE TO REPEAT THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS SEMINAR WHICH IS TO
PRESENT A METHODOLOGY TO EVALUATE NONPOINT AND POINT SOURCE POLLUTION
N ORDER TO TREAT THE SOURCE OF THE LOADS IN A COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER,
0 DATE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HAS APPLIED ITS EFFORTS
TO POINT SOURCE POLLUTION ONLY,
WE ORIGINALLY STARTED THE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM IN 1971 BY
DEVELOPING THE BLACK CREEK PROJECT IN ALLEN COUNTY, INDIANA,
"BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES" WERE APPLIED ON A 12,000 ACRE WATERSHED
WHICH WAS PLANTED WITH CORN AND SOYBEANS, WHICH ALSO INCLUDED
EXTENSIVE AUTOMATED WATER SAMPLERS, AFTER DATA WAS COLLECTED WE
INITIATED SEMINARS TO LET THE PUBLIC KNOW OF THE ANALYTICAL RESULTS,
THE SECTION 108 PROGRAM OF THE GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
IS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS,
SEMINARS AND WORKSHOPS,
OUR OBJECTIVE, THEN AS IS NOW, IS TO DEVELOP A METHODOLOGY TO EVALUATE
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AS THEY EFFECT WATER QUALITY, IN OTHER
WORDS GIVE THE CAUSE AND EFFECT IN A QUANTIFIED MANNER,
IN THE PAST THE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM USUALLY OBTAINED THE.
NONPOINT SOURCE LOAD BY SUBSTRACTION, IN OTHER WORDS THEY ADDED UP
POINT SOURCE LOADS COMING OUT OF A PIPE AND SUBSTRACTED THAT NUMBER
FROM THE TOTAL RIVER LOAD TO OBTAIN NONPOINT LOADS, WELL AT THE TIME
THAT WAS SUFFICIENT, BUT WE HAVE ARRIVED AT A POINT WHERE THAT
SYSTEM IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, WHY? WE CANNOT MEET OUR WATER QUALITY
GOALS IN A COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER WITH THIS PROCEDURE, THUS WE MUST
DEVELOP A NEW SYSTEM THAT IS MORE EQUITABLE AND EFFECTIVE,
OF COURSE PUBLIC LAW 92-500 HAD A SECTION CALLED 208 AND UNDER THIS
SECTION OF THE LAW, STATES AND AREAWIDE AGENCIES DEVELOPED 208 PLANS
TO ADDRESS ALL SOURCES OF POLLUTION AND DEVELOP A PLAN THAT CAN BE
IMPLEMENTED TO MEET WATER QUALITY GOALS, PART OF THESE PLANS INCLUDE
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS WHERE EPA HAS PUT BILLIONS
INTO THIS PROGRAM, AND AT THE SAME TIME EPA WAS PUBLISHING DATA
SAYING, IN FACT, WE WOULD NOT MEET OUR WATER QUALITY GOALS UNLESS
WE TREATED NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION, So WHAT IS THE ANSWER? THE
SEMINAR WILL PRESENT A METHODOLOGY TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM, FlRST
A FEW COMMENTS ON MODELING,
*CARL D, WILSON is A NONPOINT SOURCE COORDINATOR FOR REGION V, EPA,
PRESENTATION GIVEN AT THE PICK CONGRESS HOTEL, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
SEPTEMBER 17, 1980, SEMINAR ON WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT TRADE-OFFS,
125
-------
To EVALUATE NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION THE PROBLEM IS APPROACHED
FROM A WATERSHED BASIS, AT THIS POINT I AM ASSUMING THE MODELERS
ARE UTILIZING THE "STANDARD SOIL SURVEY" CONDUCTED BY THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, IF THE MODELERS ARE NOT USING
THIS SOIL SURVEY IN MY OPINION THEIR MODELS ARE TOTALLY USELESS TO
EVALUATE NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION FROM FARM AND RANCH LAND, To
FURTHER SUBSTANTIATE MY POINT ALL TILLAGE SYSTEMS RESEARCH ARE ALSO
BASED ON THE STANDARD SOIL SURVEY, THIS INCLUDES MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
IN GENERAL, THUS., ALL PRACTICES TO CONTROL EROSION AND WATER
QUALITY HAVE TO RELATE TO THE SAME BASE TO MAINTAIN PRODUCTION AND
PROTECT WATER QUALITY,
THERE ARE SEVERAL MODELS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND YOUR SELECTION OF
A MODEL DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF AREA YOU WISH TO INVESTIGATE, THE
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION, THROUGH THEIR PLOARG STUDIES,
UTILIZED A UNIT AREA LOAD APPROACH AND FOR GENERALIZED DATA THIS
SYSTEM CAN GIVE PROGRAM GUIDANCE, BUT TO-BE MORE SPECIFIC AS TO
WHERE THE PROBLEM IS YOU WOULD HAVE TO SELECT A MODEL THAT IS MORE
SITE SPECIFIC SUCH AS THE ANSWERS MODEL,
THUS TO OBTAIN EVEN MORE DETAIL ON A FARM SIZE UNIT THE CREAMS
MODEL WOULD BE YOUR CHOICE,
BUT IN THIS SEMINAR WE WISH TO PRESENT A GENERALIZED METHODOLOGY
THAT CAN BE SOLVED WITH A DESK CALCULATOR AND IT IS CALLED WATERSHED,
YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS METHODOLOGY WILL BE APPRECIATED,
NOW TO BRIEFLY RESTATE WHAT THE SPEAKERS SAID YESTERDAY,
ON WATER QUALITY ISSUES, MADONNA McGRATH OF THE GREAT LAKES NATIONAL
PROGRAM OFFICE GAVE AN OVERVIEW WHICH INCLUDED PHOSPHORUS LOADS TO
THE GREAT LAKES, SHE MADE THE POINT THERE ARE SOME WELL DEVELOPED
METHODOLOGIES AND THE NEED TO BE USED,
JEFF NEDELMAN REPRESENTING SENATOR GAYLORD NELSON'S OFFICE GAVE us
A BACKGROUND ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT AND RESTATED THE IMPORTANCE
OF SETTING GOALS, HE EXPRESSED CONGRESSIONAL CONCERN OVER COSTS AND
SUGGESTED PRIORITIES COULD BE A WAY TO BE MORE COST-EFFECTIVE IN
TREATING POLLUTION, ALSO HE REITERATED THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE PHOSPHATE
DETERGENT BAND, HE ALSO RELATED HOW SLOW OUR SYSTEM IS TO RESPOND TO
CORRECTING POLLUTION PROBLEMS, FROM HIS VIEWPOINT THERE IS A LACK
OF SENSITIVITY IN CONGRESS FOR POLLUTION PROBLEMS, EPA IS NOT GETTING
THE MONEY NEEDED FOR THE GREAT LAKES, EXAMPLE EPA SPENT $13,000,"
ON TRAVEL AND ONLY $2,000,000 ON THE GREAT LAKES, HE ALSO NOTED
EPA ESTIMATES 54 BILLION DOLLARS WILL BE NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE
SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANTS AND ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PROJECTS,
126
-------
ETER WISE FROM EPA HEADQUARTERS WATER PLANNING DIVISION STATED
08 PLANNING HAD DONE A POOR ASSESSMENT OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION,
..E ALSO STATED WE NEED CAUSE AND EFFECT DATA FROM NONPOINT SOURCES,
CONCERNS WERE EXPRESSED ABOUT MODELING, PLANS NEED TO BE UPDATED
TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES, TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN POINT AND NONPOINT ARE
A PROBLEM, SOME THOUGHTS HAVE BEEN SHOULD WE PAY FOR NONPOINT SOURCE
CONTROLS? HOW TO ARRIVE AT TRADE-OFFS IS STILL A PROBLEM WITH THE
AGENCY,
KEITH YOUNG OF THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE GAVE AN EXCELLENT
PRESENTATION ON PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND, FlY COMMENT, WE WILL SEE
THE DAY WHEN A LINE WILL BE DRAWN AROUND PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND
AND THAT WILL BE ITS SOLE USE, AGRICULTURE,
JEFF GAGLER OF THE WATER QUALITY POLICY SECTioN-EPA GAVE AN IN
DEPTH LOOK AT ADVANCED SECONDARY TREATMENT AND ADVANCED WASTE
TREATMENT (AST/AWT), HE POINTED PROBLEMS IN EVALUATION OF POINT
SOURCE VS, NONPOINT, A BACKGROUND ON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS WAS
COVERED, INCLUDING WATER QUALITY GOALS, HE POINTED OUT A NEED FOR
CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES WHICH WOULD ALSO INCLUDE BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS,
CONCLUDED THE WHOLE ECONOMIC PICTURE NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED,
RONALD MUSTARD OF THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COVERED THE
ISSUES CONCERNING WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS, HE GAVE A BRIEF BACKGROUND
ON THE LAW, NOTE AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE IS 15% OF THE WETLAND PROBLEM
ACCORDING TO A RECENT REPORT,
)ON BUNDY OF THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION SPOKE ABOUT THE
:,S,/CANADA GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT AND ITS IMPACT ON U,S,
POLICY, HE RESTATED THE IJC BOARDS MAJOR OBJECTIVE TO RESTORE THE
WATER QUALITY OF THE GREAT LAKES, THERE HAVE BEEN MAJOR REVISIONS
IN THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS,
DAVID STRINGHAM, REGIONAL PROGRAM COORDINATOR FOR REGION V-EPA GAVE
A PRESENTATION ON THE STATE/EPA AGREEMENTS, THIS IS A METHOD TO
WORK WITH THE STATES TO ARRIVE AT PRIORITIES TO SOLVE PROBLEMS,
AND THIS WOULD GIVE GUIDANCE TO FUTURE EPA PROGRAMS,
WILLIAM BENJEY OF THE WATER QUALITY PLANNING BRANCH GAVE AN OVERVIEW
OF WATER QUALITY PLANS, HE POINTED OUT THE PROBLEM OF BUILDING SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANTS AND STILL NOT IMPACTING WATER QUALITY, SUGGESTED
INTEGRATING ALL SOURCES OF POLLUTION BEFORE MOVING FORWARD WITH
TREATMENT, HE STATED NONPOINT SOURCE TRADE-OFFS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE
CONSIDERED IN FACILITY PLANS,
MlKE MACFIULLEN FROM THE WATER QUALITY
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, REAFFIRMED [
NDARDS AND GOALS, HE ALSO STATED [
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS,
'OLICY SECTION OF EPA COVERED
DA'S COMMITMENT TO WATER QUALITY
Y\ WILL PUBLISH STANDARDS ON
127
-------
LELAND ffcCABLE OF EPA's HEALTH EFFECTS LABORATORY GAVE THE RESULTS
FROM SOME CURRENT STUDIES ON EPIDEMIOLOGY RESULTS FROM BEACH STUDIES,
RONALD DRYNAN FROM THE REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT
COMMISSION COVERED SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS TO THE GREAT LAKES,
HE STATED THE GREATEST SOURCE OF TOTALS LOADS COMES FROM NONPOINT
SOURCE POLLUTION, POINT OUT WE NEED TO LOOK AT A MIX BETWEEN
POINT SOURCE AND NONPOINT SOURCE LOADS,
NELSON THOMAS OF USEPA RESEARCH LABORATORY DESCRIBED TRIBUTARY
LOADS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON THE GREAT LAKES, HE STATED THERE IS A
NEED TO HAVE MANAGEMENT TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN POINT SOURCE AND NONPOINT,
GAVE DATA ON LOADS TO THE GREAT LAKES WHICH INCLUDED ATMOSPHERIC
LOADS OF PHOSPHORUS, SPOKE ABOUT THE 11,000 METRIC TON LOAD
ESTABLISHED FOR LAKE ERIE AND WHICH SOURCES WILL HAVE TO BE CONTROLLED
TO REACH THIS AGREED UPON NUMBER, FOOD CHAIN ACCUMULATION PROBLEM
WAS DISCUSSED, PIIREX, TASTE AND ODOR PROBLEMS WERE ELABORATED
ON,
AL WALLACE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY
OF IDAHO SPOKE ABOUT LAND TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER,
JAMES HANLON FROM EPA's ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING BRANCH SPOKE
ON COSTS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT, THERE WAS $31,5 BILLION APPROPRIATED
FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS,
WILLIAM SONZOGNI OF THE GREAT LAKES BASIN COMMISSION PRESENTED A
PROPOSED METHODOLOGY TO INTEGRATE POINT SOURCE AND NONPOINT SOURCE
POLLUTION ASSESSMENT, HY COMMENT ON THIS METHOD OR ONE SIMILAR
WILL BE USED IN THE FUTURE FOR WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT TRADE-OFFS,
128
-------
A MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE FOR
CHOOSING AMONG POINT AND NONPOINT CONTROL STRATEGIES
PART 2 - A RIVER BASIN CASE STUDY
for presentation at
U.S. EPA Region V Seminar on
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT TRADE-OFFS
September 16 and 17, 1980
by
Timothy J. Monteith
William C. Sonzogni
Thomas M. Heidtke
Rose Ann C. Sullivan
Great Lakes Basin Commission Staff
September, 1980
129
-------
A MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE FOR CHOOSING
AMONG POINT AND NONPOINT CONTROL STRATEGIES
PART 2 - A RIVER BASIN CASE STUDY
by
Timothy J. Monteith, William C. Sonzogni,
Thomas M. Heidtke, and Rose Ann C. Sullivan
Abstract; The WATERSHED management technique has been
designed to help water quality managers select the most
cost-effective pollution control program for a drainage
area. WATERSHED has been applied to the Sandusky River
Basin in northern Ohio to demonstrate how it is used and
how to interpret the results. Programs to control total
phosphorus loadings from point and nonpoint sources are
evaluated using eight worksheets to compile the river
basin data and carry out calculations. WATERSHED is
applied in this manner: the river basin physical layout
is conceptualized and all major total phosphorus sources
are identified. Phosphorus loads from point sources,
urban runoff, rural non-cropland runoff and cropland
runoff are calculated for initial conditions and under
different stages of control. Pro'gram costs are
calculated and used to estimate the cost-effectiveness
of each program. The forty programs identified are then
prioritized according to their cost-effectiveness in
reducing the total phosphorus load at the river mouth or
receiving water.
Great Lakes Basin Commission Staff. Water Resources Engineer, Water
Resources Scientist, Water Resources Engineer, and Regional Planner/
Policy Analyst, respectively. Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
130
-------
INTRODUCTION
A companion paper (Sonzogni et al., 1980) discusses the philosophy
and basic components of the WATERSHED process. This paper presents an
application of WATERSHED to the Sandusky River in northern Ohio. The
case study focuses on loadings of and control strategies for total
phosphorus.
This case study is intended to demonstrate how WATERSHED may be
applied to a river basin. It is not intended to serve as a rigorous
analysis of point and nonpoint sources in the Sandusky basin. Some
simplifications of the Sandusky field data have been made in order to
better illustrate the process. If a detailed analysis of the Sandusky
was required, individuals intimately familiar with the Sandusky River
Basin would need to be consulted.
Eight different worksheets have been developed for compiling the
river basin data and making the necessary calculations discussed in
Sonzogni et al. , 1980. These worksheets provide a simple, sequential
procedure for assessing the importance of point and nonpoint sources in
a river basin. The worksheets, in order of their use, are listed
below:
1. Physical Layout
2. Point and Urban Runoff Loads
3. Rural Non-Cropland Loads
4. Cropland Loads
5. Loading Summary
6. Program Costs '
1. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
8. Program Summary
This paper illustrates: (l) how these worksheets are used in an
actual river basin (i.e., the Sandusky River Basin), (2) the results
which are obtained, and (3) how to interpret these results.
EXAMPLE STUDY AREA - SANDUSKY RIVER BASIN
The Sandusky River Basin was selected for this WATERSHED example
because it contains a representative mix of rural and urban land. The
phosphorus load contributed by this basin has also been extensively
studied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in their Lake Erie
Wastewater Management Study (LEWMS) and by the Water Quality Laboratory
at Heidelberg College. Hence, considerable data exist to test the
results of the WATERSHED analysis.
The Sandusky River drains an area of about 400,000 hectares
(980,000 acres) in northcentral Ohio. The Sandusky flows north to Lake
Erie, draining mostly farmland. There are four cities of significant
size (population greater than 6,000) that discharge both municipal
wastewater and stormwater into the Sandusky: Bucyrus, Upper Sandusky,
Tiffin and Fremont. For a detailed description of the Sandusky River-
system, see U.S. Army Corps (1975, 1979b) .
131
-------
PHYSICAL LAYOUT (WORKSHEET 1)
The first step in WATERSHED is to divide the Sandusky basin into
sub-basins. The Sandusky has a well-defined monitoring network which
provides excellent loading records from individual hydrologic areas.
These stations monitor sub-basins that each have relatively homogeneous
soils and land uses. The resulting sub-basins are shown in Figure 1.
The next step is to develop a schematic diagram of the watershed
which delineates the key components along the river channel. Figure 1
and Worksheet 1 show how the Sandusky River Basin was divided for this
example, both physically and schematically.
Points of Entry
As shown on Worksheet 1, six points of entry have been defined for
the Sandusky River Basin (A-F). Each receives a total phosphorus load
from one or more rural sub-basins. The urban runoff and point source
contributions from the cities of Bucyrus, Upper Sandusky, Tiffin and
Fremont are assumed to enter the main channel at points A, B, D and E,
respectively.
The points of entry were selected after inspection of hydrologic
maps and sampling station locations within the drainage area. In this
way the estimated total phosphorus loads to the main channel from all
sources can be compared with field measurements obtained from the
ongoing sampling program. No major reservoirs, lakes or other
significant physical influences were identified along the river system.
If present, however, their locations would have also been considered in
defining the points of entry for this example.
If transmission losses were not to be considered in a given section
of the river channel, the number of points of entry could be reduced.
For example, if it were known that no transmission losses occur between
entry points A and C, rural positions 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 as well as urban
positions 2 and 5 could all be located at entry point C.
Control Strategies
In this case study, programs to reduce initial pollutant loads are
evaluated. For each pollutant source, control programs are grouped
into "stages" of implementation. Any number of stages can be selected
for each pollutant source. For this example, two stages of control
were considered for reducing the total phosphorus load from each major
source (rural runoff, urban runoff and municipal point source
discharges). The stages of control have been formulated as incremental
levels of treatment. Thus, the costs and load reductions presented in
the following worksheets for Stage II control are incremental (in
addition to) the costs and load reductions associated with Stage I
control.
This staged approach to control of total phosphorus loadings allows
for a logical, straightforward examination of the level of treatment
required at each source. Each additional stage represents an
132
-------
Sandusky Riven, Ohio
FIGURE 1
£V"SANDUSKY
Sub-Basin Boundaries
1 )Position Number
(Rural)
2 | Position Number
(Urban)
133
-------
PHYSICAL LAYOUT
SANDUSKY RIVER
LAKE ERIE
WORKSHEET 1
Source
Loss Creek
Bucyrus City
Broken Sword
Upper Sandusky River
Upper Sandusky City
Tymochtee Cr
Middle Sandusky
Honey Creek
Tiffin City
Wolf Cr
Rock Cr
Fremont City
Lower Sandusky
CO
-pi
Posit ion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Point
of Entry
Area
230
8.5
217
325
6.7
593
640
386
17.4
385
464
13.7
730
Surface features
Soils Other
Diagram
Rural
LAKE ERIE
Urban
-------
incremental level of treatment which can only be implemented subsequent
to the previous stage of control. In other words, for any given
loading source, implementation of Stage II control implies that Stage I
control is also implemented. A more detailed discussion of the control
alternatives considered in this example is given below.
POINT SOURCE AND URBAN RUNOFF LOADS (WORKSHEET 2)
The purpose of this worksheet is to compile loading information for
all of the significant urban pollutant sources, including point
sources, stormwater runoff, combined sewer overflows, and other sources
such as construction runoff and runoff from unsewered areas. On this
and all subsequent worksheets, reference is made to column letters and
worksheet numbers. For example, bn refers to column "b" on worksheet
lloll i
Point Sources
Municipal: Within the Sandusky River Basin, four municipal point
sources were found to contribute the majority of the total phosphorus
point source load. The municipalities served by these point sources
are Bucyrus, Upper Sandusky, Tiffin and Fremont. For each of these
plants data were obtained on population served, flow from the treatment
plant, and the total phosphorus concentration in the effluent. Several
small point sources also exist, but since the cumulative load from
these plants is very small, they are not considered in this example.
Various levels of phosphorus control presently exist at the four
Sandusky plants. However, for example purposes it will be assumed that
no phosphorus control has been implemented at these plants. This will
allow for a comparison of several control options among plants.
Initial phosphorus concentrations in the discharge water is thus
assumed to be 4 mg/L P. This value, representative of many treatment
plants without phosphorus control (Drynan, 1978; Sonzogni e_t_ al. ,
1978), is entered in column b« for all four plants. The average daily
flow from each of the municipalities is given in column a. (million
gallons per day). The average annual total phosphorus load in kg/yr
(column c2) is calculated by multiplying flow (mgd) by concentration
(mg/L) and then multiplying this product by a conversion factor
(columns a2 x b2 x 1,382 = c2).
The next step is to enter on Worksheet 2 data which describe the
impact of selected remedial programs on total phosphorus loads from
municipal point sources. Two stages of phosphorus control at each of
the four municipal wastewater treatment facilities included in this
case study are examined:
Stage I Control: chemical precipitation to reduce the total
phosphorus effluent concentration to 1.0
mg/L.
Stage II Control: additional treatment to further reduce the
total phosphorus effluent concentration from
1.0 mg/L to 0.5 mg/L.
135
-------
POINT AND URBAN RUNOFF LOADS
TOTAL P LOADS
WORKSHEET 2
Source
INITIAL CONDITION
Bucyrus City
Upper Sandusky City
Tiffin City
Fremont
TOTAL
STAGE I
Bucyrus City
Upper Sandusky City
Tiffin City
Fremont
TOTAL
STAGE II
Bucyrus City
Upper Sandusky City
Tiffin City
Fremont City
TOTAL
Column ->
Posi-
tion
2
5
9
12
2
5
9
12
2
5
9
12
a2
Flow
mad
2.5
1.5
3.2
5.1
2.5
1.5
3.2
5.1
2.5
1.5
3.2
5.1
b2
C2
Point
Cone.
H1R/L
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Load
kg/vr
13,800
8,300
17,700
28,200
68,000
3,400
2,100
4,400
7.000
16,900
1,728
1,036
2,211
3,524
8,499
d2
e2
Storm
Area i UAL
km2 kk/km2/yr
1.3
0
7.0
1.4
9.7
1.3
7.0
1.4
1.3
7.0
1.4
250
250
250
188
188
188
140
140
140
f2
Load
ke/vr
320
1,800
350
2,500
240
1,300
260
1,800
182
980
196
1,358
82
h2
Combined
Area
km2 k
7.2
6.7
10.4
12.3
36.6
7.2
6.7
10.4
12.3
7.2
6.7
10.4
12.3
UAL
g/km2/yr
900
250
1,000
1,000
846
235
940
940
630
175
700
700
*2
Load
kS/yr
6,500
1,700
10,400
12,300
30,900
6,091
1,574
9,776
11.562
29,003
4,536
1,172
7,280
8,610
21,598
J2
*2
12
Un sewered »
Area
km2 kj
0
0
0
0
UAL
;/km2/yr
Load
ks/yr
x b x 1,382 ->
f2 =
where 1,382 is the conversion factor
(mg/L x rngd x 1,382) = kg/yr.
* Can include construction sites or septic tank areas.
UAL >Unit Area Load
-------
These new effluent concentrations are entered in column b- and used to
calculate a Stage I and Stage II controlled municipal load (column c.,).
The cost of implementing these programs is presented later (Worksheet
6).
Industrial: No industries were identified as discharging
significant levels of phosphorus to the Sandusky River. If industries
were present, they would be entered on Worksheet 2 as point sources.
Control measures may or may not be proposed and evaluated.
Stqrmwater Runoff
For the Sandusky little data were available on the urban area
served by different types of sewer systems (separate, combined or
unsewered). As a result, only approximate values are given in
Worksheet 2 for the area served by all the sewer systems.
The estimated area served by stormwater sewers for each of the four
cities included in this analysis are presented in column d_ (the City
of Upper Sandusky is served by combined sewers only and thus has an
entry of "0" in column d_) . These values are then multiplied by a
total phosphorus unit area load (UAL) (from the companion paper by
Sonzogni et al., 1980) representative of stormwater sewer areas, and
the products are entered as^ an initial condition in column f . The UAL
applied here — 250 kg/km /yr — reflects medium industrial activity
within the urban area. The initial condition values entered in column
f_ represent runoff loadings assuming no remedial measures are in
effect.
The next step is to calculate the reduced loads that result from a
Stage I and Stage II program for controlling stormwater runoff. In
this example the following separate stormwater sewer control programs
are examined:
Stage I Control: streetsweeping at 7-day intervals with
vacuum sweepers.
Stage II Control: Stage I control plus detention and
sedimentation of stormwater runoff.
These and other programs are discussed in the companion paper by
Sonzogni et al. (1980).
Implementing the Stage I program is assumed to result in a 25
percent reduction in the uncontrolled diffuse loading from all separate
sewered areas. Implementation of Stage II programs will realize
another 20 percent total phosphorus load reduction from the initial
stormwater load. These reductions are illustrated in the Stage I and
Stage II UALs and total loads contained in columns e and f_,
respectively.
137
-------
Combined Sewer Overflows
Estimates of diffuse loadings from urban areas served by combined
sewers are obtained in a manner similar to that used for separate
stormwater sewers. The UALs for the initial loading condition
presented in column h are taken from the companion paper and reflect
combined sewer overflows typical of cities in the Great Lakes region.
The following combined sewer overflow control programs are
examined:
Stage I Control: streetsweeping at 7-day intervals with
vacuum sweepers.
Stage II Control: Stage I control plus detention and treatment
of the combined sewer overflow.
The Stage I program results in about a 5 percent reduction in total
phosphorus load, and Stage II will result in an additional 25 percent
reduction in the total phosphorus loading (Johnson et al. , 1978). The
Initial, Stage I, and Stage II UALs are presented in column i~ . These
values reflect medium industrial activity within the combined sewer
area.
If other pollutant sources, such as septic tanks and feedlots (see
the companion paper by Sonzogni et al. , 1980) were to be considered,
they would be included in Worksheet 2. These sources would be treated
as point sources. In many cases, loads would be calculated separately
for these sources and entered directly onto column c_ .
RURAL NON-CROPLAND AREAS (WORKSHEET 3)
The purpose of Worksheet 3 is to calculate loads for rural land
uses within each sub-basin that will not be treated for phosphorus
reductions. For the Sandusky River Basin, two main land uses of this
type were identified: grassland and woodlands. If measured loads are
available, they would be used directly. In the Sandusky, loads had to
be estimated using the appropriate UALs (as given in the companion
paper).
The area of each non-cropland land use (columns a.,, d,. and g~) is
multiplied by the appropriate unit area load (columns b-,, e_ and h,) to
provide an estimate of the annual diffuse total phosphorus load. The
results are presented in columns c^, f~ and i~. These values are
subsequently summed in column j~ to produce a total rural non-cropland
load for each sub-basin. This load represents a part of the total
phosphorus budget but will not be considered for treatment measures.
RURAL CROPLAND AREAS - (WORKSHEET 4)
The primary tool used to estimate pollutant loadings and the effect
of control measures in cropland areas is the Universal Soil Loss
Equation (USLE). The components and the application of this equation
are discussed in detail in the companion paper and in Wischmeier and
138
-------
RURAL NON-CROPLAND AREAS
TOTAL P LOADS
WORKSHEET 3
OJ
Source
Loss Creek
Broken Sword
Upper Sandusky River
Tymochtee
Middle Sandusky
Honey Creek
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Lower Sandusky (Soil I)
Lower Sandusky (Soil 2)
TOTAL
Column >•
'ositlon
1
3
4
6
7
8
10
11
13
13
a3
b3
C3
Grass
Area *
km2
11 .83
3.59
12.81
9 . 04
17.27
3.17
7.57
12.14
10. 00
8.25
95.67
UAL
kg/km /ye
10
10
10
25
10
10
10
10
25
10
Load
kg/yr
118
36
128
226
173
31
76
121
250
82
1 ,241
d3
63
f3
Woodland
Area *
km
25.04
18.17
34.38
47.13
67.96
44.07
22.89
56.47
74.54
-
390.65
UAL
kg/km /yr
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Load
kg/yr
250
180
344
471
680
441
229
565
745
3,905
g3
h3
*3
Other **
Area
km
274.88 Wa
UAL
kg/km /yr
:er, Wetlan
Load
kg/yr
Is
J3
Total Non-
Cropland
Load , ,
kg/yr
368
216
472
697
853
472
305
686
1,077
5,146
c., = a... x b,.
f _ ,1 V f>
f3 " d3 X 63
13 = g3 x 1,3
* Weighted Extrapolation
** Includes septic tank failures
UAL »Unit Area Load
j, =
+ f3 +
-------
RURAL CROPLAND AREAS
UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION/TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD ESTIMATES
WORKSHEET
Source
INITIAL
7
L.OSS Or
Broken Sword
Upper Sandusky
Tymochtee
Middle Sandusky
Honey Cr
Wolf Cr
Rock Cr
Lower Sandusky (Soil 1)
Lower Sandusky (Soil 2)
TOTAL
STAGE I
Loss Cr
Broken Sword
Upper Sandusky
Tymochtee
Middle Sandnsky
Honey Cr
Wolf Cr
Rock Cr
Lower Sandusky (Soil 1)
Lower Sandusky (Soil 2)
TOTAL
STACK II
Loss Cr
Broken Sword
Upper Sandusky
Tymochtee
Middle Sandusky
Honey Cr
Wolf Cr
Rock Cr
Lower Sandnskv (Soil 1)
S lu'-kv (So ' 1 '>)
TOTAL
Column •*
Position
1
3
4
6
1
8
10
11
13
13
1
3
4
6
1
8
10
11
13
13
1
3
4
6
7
8
10
11
13
13
a4
Cropland
Area
Universal Soil Loss Equations Coefficients
Rainfall
d Runoff
(ha) R
__ j
18,984
18,719
27,460
52,840
54,236
34,355
34,311
40,990
24,355
10,000
316,250
125
125
130
138
138
125
125
125
125
125
Soil
Erodibility
K
.35
.38
.42
.32
.38
.35
.29
.34
.32
.28
Topo-
graphic
LS
.402
.424
.426
.357
.381
.338
.256
.427
.410
.434
Cover &
Management
C
.233
.233
.245
.260
.260
.237
.237
.237
.268
.237
.108
.099
.103
.108
.110
.101
.108
.105
.116
.099
.034
.035
.034
.032
.035
.034
.032
.033
.036
.0 13
Support
Practice
P
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
b4
Soil
Loss
(T/ac/yr)
A
4.1
4.7
5.7
4.1
5.2
3.5
2.2
4.3
4.4
3.6
4.2
1.9
2.0
2.4
1.7
2.2
1.5
1.0
1.9
1.9
1.5
1.8
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
CA
Soil
Loss
Cmt/ha/yr)
A
9.3
10.5
12.7
9.2
11.6
7.8
5.0
9.6
9.9
8.1
9.5
4.3
4.5
5.3
3.8
4.9
3.4
2.2
4.2
4.2
3.4
4.0
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.2
1.6
1.1
0.7
] .4
1 .4
1. 1
1 .3
d4
Total
Gross
Erosion
(rot/yr)
176,551
196,544
348,742
486,128
629,138
267,964
171,555
393,504
241,114
81,000
2,992,250
81,269
84,756
146,494
203,721
265,887
117,017
75,938
171,635
102,601
34,468
1,283,786
27,196
27,692
47,388
65,143
86,613
38,678
25,309
56,460
33,572
11 ,278
419,329
e4
Pol-
lutant
}el iverv
Ratio "
.000105
.000105
.000105
f4
Pollutant
Reduction
Eff icienc;
NA
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
] .0
1.0
1 . 0
1 .0
1.0
1,0
1 . 0
i ."b
84
Total P
(mt/yr)
i Y
18.4
20.5
36.6
51.0
66.0
28.0
18.0
41.2
25.2
8.5
313.4
8.5
8.9
15.4
21.4
27.9
12.3
8.0
18.0
10.8
3.6
134.8
2.8
2.9
5.0
6.8
9.1
4.1
2.6
5.9
3.5
1.2
44.0
b^ = RIU.SCP
c. = b, x 2.243
4 4
d, = c, x a,
Cj > PollutnnL delivery ratio - The ratio of pollutant to total gross erosion for Initial Case.
f. > Pollutant reduction cfl icienry - The extent that a pollutant yield i.s decreased from
a Rivon decrease in potential jf,ross erosion.
-------
Smith (1978). In this example, and in most WATERSHED applications, the
USLE will be applied to large areas. Thus, the USLE coefficients
represent averages over relatively large cropland areas. If large-
scale averaging is not appropriate for a particular area (i.e., crop
types differ significantly within portions of a sub-basin), it is
possible to further divide the sub-basin. In this example, the lower
Sandusky sub-basin, position No. 13, is broken into "Soil 1" and "Soil
2" areas because of a differance in the K, LS and C factors. The "Soil
1" area is composed of clay surface material while "Soil 2" is made up
of loam surface material.
Ideally, the water quality manager derives unique values for the
USLE variables which reflect the characteristics of the local study
area. If this cannot be done, some generalized values may be obtained
from the literature (e.g., Wischmeier and Smith, 1978).
Most of the USLE values in this example were derived from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' Lake Erie Wastewater Management Study (LEWMS)
on the Sandusky basin (Baker, 1980; U.S. Army Corps, 1979b; Urban _et
al., 1978). Because these data do not exactly fit the sub-basin
boundaries, some modifications were necessary.
Changes in the "C" factor reflect changes in the cover type and
crop rotation resulting from control program implementation. The "P"
factor is 1.0 for this example, which implies that very little contour
or strip-cropping is used in this basin.
The USLE is applied to each sub-basin to generate a potential gross
erosion rate for sediment (in tons/acre) presented in column b, . This
value is then converted to mt/ha in column c,. Values in c, are then
multiplied by the area (a^) to yield the total potential gross erosion
of sediment in mt/yr (d,). These erosion rates are then summed for the
entire cropland area, yielding a total load of 2,992,250 mt/yr (as
shown in d,).
In this example, a total river basin cropland load is calculated by
subtracting the urban loads and rural non-cropland loads from the
monitored river mouth load. The urban loads consist of the summation
of columns c_, f^ and i_; while the rural non-cropland loads are found
in column j~. In this example, 101,400 kg/yr of total phosphorus are
coming from urban land (before treatment) and another 5,146 kg/yr of
total phosphorus are coming from rural non-cropland. Subtracting these
amounts from the monitored river mouth load of 420,000 kg/yr gives a
rural cropland total phosphorus load of 313,454 kg/yr from the entire
river basin. Note that these loads are average annual loads and not
indicative of any one year.
The cropland total phosphorus load (313.4 mt/yr or 313,454 kg/yr)
and the cumulative potential gross erosion (2,992,250 mt/yr) are used
to estimate the total phosphorus delivery ratio for the entire river
basin. This is accomplished by dividing the total phosphorus load by
the total gross erosion. In this case, a pollutant delivery ratio of
0.000105 was obtained for total phosphorus. This value, entered in
column e^, is multiplied by all of the potential gross erosion values
141
-------
in column d to obtain cropland total phosphorus loads from each of the
sub-basins. These are listed in column g, . A more detailed discussion
of the rationale for calculating the phosphorus load in this way is
given in the companion paper.
The next step is to determine what effect the Stage I and Stage II
control programs have on reducing soil loss and the associated total
phosphorus load. Stage I and Stage II control of total phosphorus
loadings attributable to cropland runoff are defined as follows:
Stage I Control: technical assistance to educate fanners on
the techniques and economic advantages of
adopting conservation tillage practices.
Stage II Control: Stage I control plus application of more
intensive conservation tillage practices
(i.e., no-till where soils will support it).
Both of these programs include crop rotation. A new cover factor ("C")
is then calculated for each of these programs. The Stage I and Stage
II "C" values were derived from the Corps' study (Urban et al., 1978).
"C" values (and thus "A" values) decrease under the new tillage
practices because of increased cover on the cropland (see Worksheet 4).
The phosphorus load reduction caused by a remedial measure may not
necessarily be equivalent to the reduction in gross erosion. To
account for this fact, Worksheet 4 includes column f, , "Pollution
Reduction Efficiency", where the estimated percent reduction in total
phosphorus relative to gross erosion reduction can be entered. This
column only applies to the load reduction analysis.
In this example, the pollutant reduction efficiency has been set at
1.0 (column f,). This is done only to simplify the illustration, since
the pollution reduction efficiency is likely to be less than 1.0 for
the cropland strategies chosen (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1979a).
If the pollution reduction efficiency were to be considered, the
Stage I load (L,.) would be calculated from the following equation:
LT = L. . . , - [(E. . . , - ET) x PRE x PDR]
I initial initial I
where:
Worksheet
Column
LT = Stage I Total Phosphorus Load (mt/yr), g,
L- • • , = Initial Total Phosphorus Load (mt/yr), g,
E- • • ,= Initial Gross Erosion (mt/yr), d,
E.. = Stage I Gross Erosion (mt/yr) , d,
PRE = Pollutant Reduction Efficiency (unitless), and e,
PDR = Pollutant Delivery Ratio (unitless) f,
142
-------
For example, if the Pollutant Reduction Efficiency for Loss Creek
in Worksheet 4 was 0.8 for the Stage I phosphorus load reduction
program, L-, would be calculated as follows:
L. = 18.4 - [(176,551 - 81,269) x 0.8 x 0.000105] = 10.4 mt/yr
By considering pollutant reduction efficiency to be 0.8 as opposed to
1.0, the Stage I load for Loss Creek is increased from 8.5 to 10.4
mt/yr .
LOADING SUMMARY - (WORKSHEET 5)
This sheet is used to summarize information on pollutant loadings
to the river channel with and without control programs in effect.
Column a,, contains the initial "uncontrolled" total phosphorus load
from each of the 21 major sources identified in the Sandusky River
Basin example. Columns b,. and c,- contain the adjusted total phosphorus
loads with Stage I and Stage II control in effect, respectively. All
values in these first three columns are obtained from Worksheets 2, 3,
and 4. Columns d,- and e- reflect the load reductions achieved through
the two stages of control.
Point Sources
It is assumed that municipal wastewater treatment plants are
discharging at a 4.0 mg/L total phosphorus effluent concentration
without phosphorus control programs in place (column a-). Under this
condition, the four major treatment facilities included in this example
— Bucyrus, Upper Sandusky, Tiffin and Fremont — account for a total
phosphorus load to the river channel of 68,000 kg/yr, approximately 15
percent of the total for all sources.
Under a Stage I control program at these municipal point sources
(total phosphorus effluent concentration =1.0 mg/L), the load would be
reduced to 17,000 kg/yr — a decrease of 75 percent. Subsequent
implementation of phosphorus controls to reach a 0.5 mg/L total
phosphorus effluent concentration would reduce the municipal point
source load to 8,500 kg/yr.
Urban Runoff
Assuming no programs in effect to control urban runoff in the four
urban areas identified here, the total phosphorus load entering the
river channel from this source (stormwater and combined sewer overflow)
is estimated at 41,870 kg/yr (about 10 percent of the total load from
all sources). Approximately 75 percent of the load — 30,900 kg/yr —
is associated with combined sewer areas.
Inspection of Worksheet 5 shows that a Stage I control program
(streetsweeping at 7-day intervals) would reduce the urban runoff
contribution by 2,567 kg/yr. Stage II control (streetsweeping plus
detention/treatment of stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows)
would reduce the load by another 7,847 kg/yr.
143
-------
LOADING SUMMARY
TOTAL P
WORKSHEET 5
Source
Loss Creek
Bucyrus - municipal
- storm
- combined
Broken Sword
Upper Sandusky River
Upper Sandusky - municipal
- storm
- combiued
Tymochtee Creek
Middle Sandusky
Honey Creek
Tiffin - municipal
- storm
- combined
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Fremont - municipal
- storm
- combined
Lower Sandusky
TOTAL
Column -»-
Position
1
2
2
2
3
4
5
5
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
10
11
12
12
12
13
35
Initial Load to
River Channel
(kfi/yr)
18,868
13,800
320
6,500
20,816
37,072
8,300
0
1,700
51,697
66,853
28,572
17,700
1,800
10,400
18,305
41,986
28,200
350
12,300
34,877
420,416
b5
V
Load to River Channel
With Controls in Place
(kg/yr)
Stage J
8,868
3,400
240
6,091
9,116
15,872
2,100
—
1,574
22,097
28,753
12,772
4,400
1,300
9,776
8,305
18,686
7,000
260
11,562
15,477
187,649
Stage II
3,165
1,728
182
4,536
3,116
7,272
1,036
—
1,172
7,497
9,953
4,572
2,211
980
7,280
2,905
6,586
3,524
196
8,610
5,777
82,301
d5
65
Load Reductions
(kg/yr)
Stage I
10,000
10,400
80
409
11,700
21,200
6,200
—
126
29,600
38,100
15,800
13,300
500
624
10,000
23,300
21,200
90
738
19,400
232,767
Stage II
5,700
1,672
58
1,555
6,000
8,600
1,064
—
402.
14, 600
18,800
8,200
2,189
320
2,496
5,400
12,100
3,476
64
2,952
9,700
105,348
->- Initial: municipal (c.,), storm (f ) , combined sewer (i_) , rural (j, + 84)-
->• Stage I: municipal (c2>, storm (f „) , combined sewer (!„) , rural (j., + g, ) .
-v Stage II: municipal (c2>, storm (fz>, combined sewer (i2>, rural (J3 + g^).
= ar - b -»• The loading reduction from the initial condition when Stage I is implemented.
= bj - c,. -* The loading reduction from the Stage I condition when Stage II is implemented.
-------
Rural Runoff
Rural runoff represents the major source of total phosphorus loads
to the Sandusky River. Nearly 75 percent of the initial total
phosphorus load to the Sandusky River (column a,-) is attributable to
rural runoff within the nine sub-basins. Of the 319,000 kg/yr entering
the river channel from this source, approximately 98 percent or 313,400
kg/yr (column g,) is derived from cropland areas. As discussed
earlier, in this example only cropland areas are considered for
remedial action. Therefore, the diffuse load from non-cropland —
5,146 kg/yr — is not affected by implementation of Stage I and Stage
II control programs.
Worksheet 5 shows that a Stage I rural runoff control program will
reduce the total phosphorus load to the Sandusky River channel by
179,100 kg/yr. This is more than three times the load reduction
achieved through Stage I control of both urban runoff and point
sources. The Stage II program results in an additional total
phosphorus load reduction of 89,100 kg/yr — over 5 times the reduction
from Stage II control of urban runoff and point sources.
In considering the total load reductions which are achieved through
the control programs included in this case study, Worksheet 5 indicates
that Stage I control at all major sources within the Sandusky River
Basin would result in a 232,767 kg/yr reduction in the total phosphorus
load to the river channel (column d_ total) . This represents a more
than 50 percent decrease in the initial load (column a^ total). Thus,
the total phosphorus input to the Sandusky River under Stage I control
at all sources is 187,649 kg/yr (column be total).
If Stage II programs were in effect at all major sources, an
additional load reduction of 105,348 kg/yr (column e,- total) could be
achieved. This would yield a total phosphorus load of 82,301 kg/yr to
the river channel (column d,. total).
PROGRAM COSTS (WORKSHEET 6)
Worksheet 6 is used to compute the costs of implementing remedial
measures to control pollutant loads from each source. In this case
study, costs are estimated for Stage I and Stage II programs to reduce
total phosphorus loadings from each of the 21 major sources listed on
Worksheet 6.
Cropland Costs
By summing2the rural land area in column a, (Worksheet 6), a total
of 3,163.6 km is obtained. This corresponds to the total area of
cropland contained within the Sandusky River Basin that will be
considered for Stage I and Stage II control.
The estimated cost of implementing a Stage I rural program
contained in column b^ — providing technical assistance to encourage
mulch-till or chisel plowing in cropland areas — is $65/km /yr (see
the companion paper, Sonzogni et al. , 1980, for a discussion of how
145
-------
PROGRAM COSTS
TOTAL P REDUCTIONS
WORKSHEET 6
cr>
Source
LOBS Creek
Bucyrus - municipal
- storm
- combined
Broken Sword Creek
Upper Sandusky River
Upper Sandusky - municipal
- storm
- combined
Tymocbtee Creek
Middle Sandusky
Honey Creek
Tiffin - municipal
- storm
- combined
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Fremont - municipal
- storm
- combined
Lower Sandusky
TOTAL
Column -»-
PosJt_Lon_
1
2
2
2
3
4
5
5
5
6
7
8
9
9 >
9
10
11
32
12
12
13
36
Area Treated
(kin")
189.8
1.3
7.2
187.2
274.6
—
0
6.7
528,4
542.4
343.6
7.0
10.4
343.1
409.9
1.4
12.3
343.6
b6
C6
N on point
Initial to Stage I to
Stage- I Stage II
($/kin /yr)
65
—
7,400
7,400
65
65
—
—
7,400
65
65
65
—
7,400
7,400
65
65
7,400
7,400
65
3,000
—
8,600
24,700
3,000
3 , 000
—
—
24,700
3,000
3,000
3,000
—
8 , 600
24,700
3 , 000
3 , 000
8,600
24,700
3 , 000
d6
6
f6
Point
Units
Served
__
13,500
—
—
—
—
6,250
—
—
—
—
—
26,000
—
—
—
—
19,730
—
—
Initial to Stage I to
Stage I Stage II
($/cap/yr)
2.4
—
—
—
—
2.4
—
—
—
—
—
2.4
—
—
—
—
2.4
—
—
—
3.6
—
—
—
—
3.6
—
—
—
—
—
3.6
—
—
—
—
3.6
—
—
—
86
h6
Total Cost of Program
Initial to Stage I to
Stage I Stage II
(S/yr)
12,337
32,400
9,620
53,280
12,168
17,849
15,000
—
49,580
34,346
35,256
22,334
62,400
51,800
76,960
22,302
26,644
47,352
10,360
91,020
22,334
705,342
569,400
48,600
11,180
177,840
561,600
823,800
22,500
—
165,490
1,585,200
1,627,200
1,030,800
93,600
60,200
256,880
1,029,300
1,229,700
71,028
12,040
303,810
1,030,800
10,710,902
a v a/ cropland, or d or g? or j^, urban land.
b, -> Unit area cost of going from the initial cropland condition to a Stage I cropland program.
c, >• Unit area cost of going from tlie Stage I cropland program to Stage II.
d > Units served (i.e., population served for municipal plants).
6
e, v Unit cost of going from tbe initial point source load to a Stage I load.
f, ->• Unit cost of going from the Stage I point source program to Stage II.
x bfi, or
-------
this value was derived). Multiplying this value by the land to be
treated in each sub-basin in column a, yields a total annual cost for
Stage I control.
The estimated cost of adding a further level of rural control
(Stage II — more intensive tillage practices) is another $3,000/km /yr
(column Cg). Again, applying this figure to the area subject to
treatment results in the incremental annual cost for Stage II control
of cropland runoff (column a, x c& = h&). Thus, if a Stage II program
were implemented on cropland in a sub-basin within the Sandusky River
Basin, the annual cost would be the sum of columns g, and h, for
cropland sub-basins.
Cost of Urban Runoff Control
In this case study, the cost of urban runoff control can vary with
both the stage of treatment and the type of sewer system present. As
shown in column b^, the annual cost per unit area treated through a
Stage I program is the same for all urban land ($7,400). This is
consistent with the assumption that the Stage I program (streetsweeping
at 7-day intervals) is applied in both separate and combined sewer
areas.
If a Stage I program is implemented on all urban land identified in
this example, the resulting total annual cost for control in separate
and combined sewer areas (column g,) is obtained by multiplying each
urban area contained in column a, by the annual unit area cost of Stage
I control in column br.
b
The annual unit area cost of Stage II urban runoff control is
significantly higher for combined sewer areas Uian for separate sewer
areas. Column c, shows a unit cost of $8,600/km /yr for separate sewer
areas and $24,700/km /yr for combined sewer areas. This difference is
due to the fact that Stage II control in the combined sewer areas
includes treatment of combined sewer overflows. The incremental cost
for Stage II control of these urban runoff sources (column h,) is
obtained by multiplying column a, x c,. A total Stage II cost is
calculated by adding the values in column g, to those in h,.
D O
Costs of Point Source Control
The cost of a Stage I program to control phosphorus loads from each
point source (column g^) is obtained by multiplying the population
served at each facility (column d,) by the annual cost per capita
(column e,) . Stage I control at the four treatment plants considered
in this example would cost $2.4/capita/year (Sonzogni et al. , 1980).
This represents the cost of treatment to achieve a 1.0 mg/L total
phosphorus effluent concentration (Stage l).
The incremental cost of Stage II control at all treatment plants
(column hg) is obtained by multiplying the population served in column
dg by the incremental unit cost increase in column f, ($3.6/cap/yr) .
As noted above, a Stage II program is defined as treatment to achieve a
0.5 mg/L total phosphorus effluent concentration.
147
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANNALYSIS (WORKSHEET 7 — MASTER)
The purpose of Worksheet 7, the master worksheet, is to consolidate
the loading and cost information with downstream transmission data so
that a cost-effective analysis can be performed. The previous
worksheets have been designed to help the manager make reasonable
decisions about each portion of the drainage area. Worksheet 7 draws
all those decisions together so that the cost-effectiveness of control
programs can be compared and ranked on a common basis.
As discussed earlier, the value entered in column a., represents the
portion of a pollutant that is transmitted from the point of entry in
the main channel to the receiving water (river mouth). In this example
it is assumed that all pollutants that enter the main channel of the
Sandusky River eventually reach the mouth (Verhoff et al., 1978; Baker,
1980). Thus, a "T" of 1.0 is assumed throughout the main channel.
Transmission coefficients of less than 1.0 at any point along the
channel will have a direct effect on the cost-effectiveness
calculations. This effect will be discussed in a following section on
WATERSHED modifications.
Column b_ provides an opportunity for analyzing the biologically
available or dissolved form of a parameter. In the case of phosphorus,
it may be very important to know the effect that a program will have on
the biologically available fraction, as discussed in the companion
paper. Using this column, various assumptions can be made in regard to
the portion of the .total phosphorus that is biologically available.
For example, municipal wastewater sources could be assumed 100 percent
available, while cropland or rural runoff could be set at 50 percent
(column b_ value of 0.5). Again, to keep this example simple, only the
total form is examined here. Thus column b^ is not applicable (NA) .
Column c-, represents the total load to the main channel (surface
water). This value is taken directly from Worksheet 5, column a,-.
Column d7 represents the calculated load at the river mouth. To
perform this calculation, any losses that occur (or fractions that are
not biologically available if this were applicable) along the channel
must be considered. The load at the mouth is given as the product of
columns a,, b.,, and c-,. For example, the effective transmission at
position 1 is 1.0 (column a_). In this case, column b_ does not apply
(because only the total phosphorus content is considered). The value
of the total load (column c.,) entering the river channel is 18,868
kg/yr. Multiplying a-, by c, yields a river mouth load of 18,868 kg/yr.
In this example, column d7 always equals column c-, because the
effective transmission equals 1.0. By summing all values in d_
(420,416 kg/yr), a total river mouth load is computed.
Load reductions and costs of the programs are used to compute the
cost-effectiveness of the various control programs. If transmission
losses occur (or if biological availability is being studied), the load
reduction must be adjusted to reflect a load reduction at the river
mouth (the point at which the control programs will be evaluated).
Columns d,- and e,- (Worksheet 5) represent the load reductions likely to
148
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
TOTAL P
WORKSHEET 7 -- MASTER
Source
STAGE 1
Loss Creek
Bucyrus - municipal
- storm
- combined
Broken Sword
Upper Sandusky River
Upper Sandusky - municipal
- storm
- combined
Tymochtee Creek
Middle Sandusky
Honey Creek
Tiffin - municipal
- storm
- combined
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Fremont - municipal
-- storm
- combined
Lower Sandusky
TOTAL
Column"*
Position
1
2
2
2
3
4
5
5
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
10
11
12
12
12
13
a7
Effective
Transmission
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
b7
Bio-
Available
Fraction
NA
C7
Total Load
to
Surface Water
(kg/yr)
18,868
13,800
320
6,500
20,816
37,072
8,300
—
1,700
51,697
66,853
28,572
17,700
1,800
10,400
18,305
41,986
28,200
350
12,300
34,877
420,416
d7
Load at
Mouth
(kg/yr)
18,868
13,800
320
6,500
20,816
37,072
8,300
—
1,700
51,697
66,853
28,572
17,700
] ,800
10,400
18,305
41,986
28,200
350
12,300
34,877
420,416
**Subtotal
e7
Load
Reduction
at Mouth
(kg/yr)
STAGE I
10,000
10,400
80
409
11,700
21,200
6,200
—
126
29,600
38,100
15,800
13,300
500
624
10,000
23,300
21,200
90
738
19,400
232,767 **
f7
Cost of
Program
($/yr)
STAGE 1
12,337
32,400
9,620
53,280
12,168
17,849
15,000
—
49,580
34,346
35,256
22,334
62,400
51,800
76,960
22,302
26,644
47,352
10,360
91,020
22,334
705,342
87
Cost
Per Unit
Removed
at Mouth
($/kg)
STAGE I
1.2
3.1
120.2
130.3
1.0
0.8
2.4
—
393.5
1.2
0.9
1.4
4.7
103.6
123.3
2.2
1.1
2.2
115.1
123.3
1.2
h7
Cost-
Effect ive
Rank
7
12
27
33
3
1
11
—
34
5
2
8
13
23
30
10
4
9
26
28
6
a? -> Effective Transmission from Source to River Mouth (usually 1.0).
b7 -t- Portion of parameter that is judged to be biologically available.
c? = a5
d? = a7 x b7 x c? •* Load at the mouth with losses and availability factored in.
e-7 = d5 x a? x b? (Stage I), or = e5 x a? x b? (Stage II).
fy = gft (Stage I), or h& (Stage II).
87 = f7 * e7
h? -> The rank from smallest to largest value in g? (cost-effectiveness): NOTE - A Stage II program must follow a Stage I in the same position.
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
Ul
o
TOTAL p WORKSHEET 7 -- MASTER (conf a.)
Source
STAGE 11
Loss Creek
Bucyrus - municipal
- storm
- combined
Broken Sword
Upper Sandusky River
Upper Sandusky — municipal
- storm
- combined
Tymochtee Creek
Middle Sandusky
Honey Creek
Tiffin - municipal
- storm
- combined
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Fremont - municipal
- storm
- combined
Lower Sandusky
Column -*-
•
To? it ion
]
2
2
2
3
'4
5
5
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
10
11
12
12
12
13
n7
Effect ivp
Transmission
b7
15 lo-
Avall.ible
Fraction
C7
Totjl Load
to
furfaco U.itrr
(ks/yrl
PHASE 1
PHASE II
- d7
Load at
Mouth
(ks/vr)
**Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
TOTAL
67
Load
Reduction
1 at Mouth
(kn/yt) .
STAGE II
5,700
1,672
58
1,555
6,000
8,600
1,064
—
402
14,600
18,800
8,200
2,189
320
2,496
5,400
12,100
3,476
64
2,952
9,700
105,348 **
232,767
105,348
338,115
£7
Cost of
Program
($/yr)
STAGE II
569,400
48,600
11,180
177,840
561,600
-823,800
22,500
165,490
1,585,200
1,627,200
1,030,800
93,600
60,200
256,880
1,029,300
1,229,700
71,028
12,040
303,810
1,030,800
'lO,710,902
87
Cost
Per Unit
Removed
at Mouth
($/kg)
STAGE II
99.9
29.1
192.7
114.4
93.6
95.8
21.1
—
411.7
108.6
86.6
125.7
42.8
188.1
102.9
190.6
101.6
20.4
188.1
102.9
106.3
h7
Cost-
Ef f ect ive
Rank
21
16
38
34
19
20
15
—
40
25
18
32
17
35
31
37
22
14
36
29
24
Effective Transmission from Sourrr t<> Ri"cr Month (u'.n.jlly 1.0).
Portion of parameter that is judged to hc> 1> i o 1 oj; ir.i] 1 y available.
'-/
''•?
.'], x b_ x c ->• Load at Ihc mouth wiLli I tv, •.(•", .ind .wailnhll ity fartored In.
Jr x a x b (Stage I), or = e,. x a? x b? (Stage II).
(fi (Stage I), or hfi (Stage II).
f7 t ,-7
-------
occur at the point of entry if Stage I and then Stage II programs are
implemented. These reductions are adjusted to represent reductions at
the receiving water (river mouth) by multiplying d,- x a-, x b? for Stage
I, and e5 x a7 x b? for Stage II. The results are entered in column
67. Again, because no transmission losses occur in this example (T =
1.0 in column a^), the values in column e7 for Stage I control equal
those in column d,-, while values in column e7 for Stage II control
equal those in column e,.
The costs of the control programs, computed on Worksheet 6, are
entered in column f,. These are the incremental costs of going from
the initial load to a Stage I load (column g,) and then to a Stage II
load (column h,).
o
Column g7 represents the cost per unit of pollutant removed at the
receiving water (river mouth). These values are calculated for each
stage of implementation by dividing column f- by column e7. In other
words, the total cost of the control stage is divided by the total
reduction achieved at the river mouth. This allows all stages of
remedial effort to be compared on the basis of their effectiveness of
total phosphorus load reductions at the receiving water.
The final step on Worksheet 7 is to rank the programs by cost-
effectiveness values. In instances where programs have the same cost-
effectiveness value, the maximum load reduction at the receiving water
is checked (column e?) and the program that removes the most phosphorus
at the mouth is ranked first (the total cost of the program could also
be the secondary consideration).
Column h7 contains the cost-effectiveness ranking. The #1 (most
cost-effective) program is the one that has the smallest .cost-
effectiveness value. As shown on Worksheet?, the #1 program in this
example is Cropland Stage I—providing technical assistance for
converting from conventional tillage practices to minimum or chisel-
plow tillage—in the Upper Sandusky sub-basin (position 4, Stage I) .
The annual cost of this program would be $0.8/kg of phosphorus removed
at the receiving water (column g?) . The load at the mouth would be
reduced by 21,200 kg/yr (column e?).
Note that a Stage II program in column g., cannot precede a Stage I
program (also in column g7) at the same position. This is because all
Stage II costs and load reductions are incremental, i.e., in addition
to Stage I costs and load reductions. For example, the cost-
effectiveness (at the river mouth) of a Stage II program to control
runoff from combined sewered areas in the City of Fremont (position 12)
is $102.9/kg. This is less than the corresponding Stage I program
($123.3/kg). However, the Stage II combined sewer program is ranked
higher (#29) than the Stage I combined sewer program (#28) because the
Stage II cost-effectiveness calculations are based upon the Stage I
program being funded and in place.
151
-------
SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS (WORKSHEET 8)
All of the programs are arranged in their ranked order on Worksheet
8. Worksheet 8 also contains the load reductions (column a.,) for each
program. A summation of the load reductions is given in column bg. In
this example, selecting programs ranked 1 through 10 would reduce the
total phosphorus load at the mouth - by about 200,300 kg/yr. Moving down
the list in column a™, fairly significant load reductions can be
achieved through programs 25. Program 26, it will be noted, reduces
the river month load by only 90 kg/yr.
Columns Cg and dg present the costs for each program and a
summation of costs. The values in column c» are obtained from column
e_. Column dg contains a running summation of column Cg. Selecting
programs 1-17 would accomplish a 240,000 kg/yr (column bft) reduction at
a cost of $600,000/yr (column dg).
It is interesting to note that selection of one more program (#18)
would reduce the river mouth load another 18,800 kg/yr. However, the
additional cost ($1.6 million) is almost three times the total cost for
the first 17 programs. This implies that, after program 17, costs per
unit reduction begin to rise quite sharply.
Using column bft and column dg, a manager can quickly estimate an
approximate cost for any level of load reduction, or determine a
reasonable load reduction for any level of funding within a drainage
area. For example, a 300,000 kg/yr reduction (if items 1-24 are in
place) would cost about $6.5 million per year to operate. On the other
hand, if $9 million per year were available to control pollution, the
first 31 programs could be implemented and about a 320,000 kg/yr
reduction in the total phosphrous load could be achieved.
Many trade-offs can be made by managers in deciding which programs
to implement. Numerous political and sociological factors, not
considered in this example, can influence decision-making. The ranking
does, however, give the manager an excellent perspective on the options
available in the Sandusky River Basin and provides the groundwork for
further analysis.
EXAMPLE MODIFICATION #1 - Transmission Losses Occur
To provide some insight into the effect various assumptions have on
the ranking process, the effect of altering several variables on
Worksheet 7 has been examined. First, it will be assumed that all
values in Worksheet 7 are the same as those presented in the previous
Sandusky River Basin example, with the exception of the effective
transmission from the Loss Creek sub-basin. Modified Worksheet 7,
column a-,, indicates that an effective transmission Of 0.5 should now
be applied to the diffuse loading from Loss Creek.
According to the diagram presented on Worksheet 1, a shift in the
effective transmission to Loss Creek would imply that the transmission
coefficient between entry points A and B has also shifted.
Consequently, to be consistent with the physical representation of the
152
-------
SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS
TOTAL P
WORKSHEET 8
Source
Cropland - Upper Sandusky
Cropland - Middle Sandusky
Cropland - Broken Sword
Cropland - Rock Creek
Cropland - Tymochtee
Cropland - Lower Sandusky
Cropland - Loss Creek
Cropland - Honey Creek
Municipal - Fremont
Cropland - Wolf Creek
Municipal - Upper Sandusky
Municipal - Bucyrus
Municipal - Tiffin
Municipal - Fremont
Municipal — Upper Sandusky
Municipal - Bucyrus
Municipal - Tiffin
Cropland - Middle Sandusky
Cropland - Broken Sword
Cropland - Upper Sandusky
Cropland - Loss Creek
Cropland - Rock Creek
Storm Sewer - Tiffin
Cropland - Lower Sandusky
Cropland - Tymochtee
Storm Sewer - Fremont
Storm Sewer - Bucyrus
Combined Sewer - Fremont
Combined Sewer - Fremont
Combined Sewer - Tiffin
Column ->•
Rank (h,)
f*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Stage
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
II
11
I
I
I
II
I
a8
Load
Reduction
(kg/yr)
21,200
38,100
11,700
23,300
29,600
19,400
10,000
15,800
21,200
10,000
6,200
10,400
13,300
3,476
1,064
1,672
2,189
18,800
6,000
8,600
5,700
12,100
500
9,700
14,600
90
80
738
2,952
624
b8
£ Load
Reduction
(kg/yr)
21,200
59,300
71,000
94,300
123,900
143,300
153,300
169,100
190,300
200,300
206,500
216,900
230,200
233,676
234,740
236,412
238,601
257,401
263,401
272,001
277,701
289,801
290,301
300,001
314,601
314,691
314,771
315,509
318,461
319,085
C8
Cost of
Reduction
($/yr)
17,849
35,256
12,168
26,644
34,346
22,334
12,337
22,334
47,352
22,302
15,000
32,400
62,400
71,028
22,500
48,600
93,600
1,627,200
561,600
823,800
569,400
1,229,700
51,800
1,030,000
1,585,200
10,360
9,620
91,020
303,810
76,960
d8
£ Reduction
Costs
($/yr)
17.C49
53,105
65,273
91,917
126,263
148,597
160,934
183,268
230,620
252,922
267,922
300,322
362,722
433,750
456,250
504,850
598,450
2,225,650
2,787,250
3,611,050
4,180,450
5,410,150
5,461,950
6,491,950
8,077,150
8,087,510
8,097,130
8,188,150
8,491,960
8,568,920
Ul
GO
b8 =
-------
SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS
TOTAL P
WORKSHEET 8
Source
Combined Sewer - Tiffin
Cropland - Honey Creek
Combined Sewer — Bucyrus
Combined Sewer - Bucyrus
Storm Sewer - Tiffin
Storm Sewer - Fremont
Cropland - Wolf Creek
Storm Sewer - Bucyrus
Combined Sewer - Upper Sandusky
Combined Sewer - Upper Sandusky
Column ->-
Rank (hj
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Stage
II
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
I
II
a8
Load
Reduction
(kg/yr)
2,496
8,200
409
1,555
320
64
5,400
58
126
402
b8
£ Load
Reduction
(kg/yr)
321,581
329,781
330,190
331,745
332,065
332,129
337,529
337,587
337,713
338,115
C8
Cost of
Reduction
($/yr)
256,880
1,030,800
53,280
177,840
60,200
12,040
1,029,300
11,180
49,580
165,490
d8
£ Reduction
Costs
($/yr)
8,825,800
9,856,600
9,909,880
10,087,720
10,147,920
10,159,960
11,189,260
11,200,440
11,250,020
11,415,510
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
TOTAL P
MODIFICATION #1
WORKSHEET 7 -- MASTER
Source
STAGE 1
LOB'S Creek
Bucyrus - municipal
- storm
- combined
Broken Sword
Upper Sandusky River
Upper Sandusky - municipal
- storm
- combined
Tymochtee Creek
Middle Sandusky
Honey Creek
Tiffin - municipal
- storm
- combined
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Fremont - municipal
- storm
- combined
Lower Sandusky
TOTAL
Column •*
Position
1
2
2
2
3
4
5
5
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
10
11
12
12
12
13
a7
Effective
Transmission
1 ' o-S
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
b7
Bio-
Available
Fraction
NA
C7
Total Load
to
Surface Water
(kg/yr)
18,868
13,800
320
6,500
20,816
37,072
8,300
—
1,700
51,697
66,853
28,572
17,700
1,800
10,400
18,305
41,986
28,200
350
12,300
34,877
420,416
d7
Load at
Mouth
(kg/vr)
%43+
^1&T$33"
13,800
320
6,500
20,816
37,072
8,300
—
1,700
51,697
66,853
28,572
17,700
1,800
10,400
18,305
41,986
28,200
350
12,300
34,877
&&-&Z
4-10,
3.1
120.2
130.3
1.0
0.8
2.4
—
393.5
1.2
0.9
1.4
4.7
103.6
123.3
2.2
1.1
2.2
115.1
123.3
1.2
h7
Cost-
Ef f ective
Rank
X?" \i
12
27
33
3
1
11
- —
34
5
2
8
13
23
30
10
4
9
26
28
6
cn
01
->• Effective Transmission from Source to River Mouth (usually 1.0).
->• Portion of parameter that is judged to be biologically available.
= a5
= ay x b7 x c7 -* Load at the mouth with losses and availability factored in.
a? = d5 x a? x b? (Stage I), or = e5 x a? x b? (Stage II).
E7 = g6 (Stage I), or hfe (Stage II).
17 - f? * e?
i7 -* The rank from smallest to largest value in g? (cost-effectiveness): NOTE - A Stage II program must follow a Stage I in the same position.
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
TOTAL P
MODIFICATION #1
(cont'd.)
WORKSHEET 7 -- MASTER
STAGE II
Loss Creek
Bucyrus - municipal
- storm
- combined
Broken Sword
Upper Sandusky River
Upper Sandusky — municipal
- storm
- combined
Tymochtee Creek
Middle Sandusky
Honey Creek
Tiffin - municipal
- storm
- combined
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Fremont - municipal
- storm
- combined
Lower Sandusky
Column •*
Position
1
2
2
2
3
'4
5
5
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
10
11
12
12
12
13
a?
Effective
Transmission
b7
Bio-
Available
Fraction
C7
Total Load
to
Surface '.-atc-t
(k?/vr>
PHASE I
PHASE II
d7
Load at
Moutl-
**Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
TOTAL
e7
Load
Reduction
at Mouth
(kR/yr)
STAGE II
_5_<7-eO 2j85(
1,672
58
1,555
6,000
8,600
1,064
402
14,600
18,800
8,200
2,189
320
2,496
5,400
12,100
3,476
64
2,952
9,700
loz,4^?
les-^TS **
0^rT5T-»
-Le5T?gg'— >
3i*rrl5-»
f.
Cost of
Program
($/vr)
STAGE II
1 569,400
48,600
11,180
177,340
561,600
823,800
22,500
165,490
1,585,200
1,627,200
1,030,800
93,600
60,200
256,380
1,029,300
1,229,700
71,028
12,040
303,810
1,030,800
10,710,902
1*7,767
_L°ii!3!_
330,165
S7
Cost
Per Unit
Removed
at Mouth
($/kg)
STAGE II
,9>-9 111.'
29.1
192.7
114.4
93.6
95.8
21.1
—
411.7
108.6
86.6
125.7
42.8
188.1
102.9
190.6
101.6
20.4
188.1
102.9
106.3
h7
Cost-
Ef f ect ive
Rank
^f 33
16
38
34
19
20
15
—
40
25
18
32
17
35
31
37
22
14
36
29
24
en
a^ -». Effective Transmission from Source to River Month (usually 1.0).
b, -». Portion of parameter that is judged to be biologically available.
- a- x b_ x c_
Load at the mouth with losses and availability factored in.
d. y. a? x b, (Stage I), or
x b? (Stage II).
(Stage I), or hfe (Stage II).
f-
The rank from smallest to lart-f-sl vnl
-.t -if f ret iveness) : MOTE - A St,is;e II procram must follow a Staze I in the snme nosition.
-------
Sandusky River Basin adopted in this case study, the total phosphorus
loading from Bucyrus City (position 2) would also be affected by this
modification. However, to simplify the anlaysis, this example only
considers the impact of a change in the effective transmission for one
pollutant source (Loss Creek).
As shown on modified Worksheet 7, the total phosphorus load at the
river mouth attributable to Loss Creek would decrease to approximately
9,400 kg/yr as a result of the aforementioned change in effective
transmission (column d7 = a.- x b7 x c7) . This implies that control of
cropland runoff in Loss Creek would not be as effective in reducing the
load at the river mouth. For example, Stage I control in Loss Creek
would now reduce the river mouth load by only 5,000 kg/yr (column e.-. =
a.-, x b7 x d,) . The Stage I cost-effectiveness in column g, then
changes from ?1.2/kg/yr to $2.4/kg/yr (column g_ = &-. x f_). This
adjusted cost-effectiveness value changes the rank of Stage I control
in Loss Creek from 7 to 12 (column h,).
The change in effective transmission for Loss Creek becomes even
more significant when evaluating the Stage II program. As can be seen
in column e_, the load reduction attributable to Stage II control now
changes from 5,700 Kg/yr to 2,850 Kg/yr. Therefore, the cost-
effectiveness of the program changes from $99.9/Kg to $199.8/Kg (column
e7). Based on this new cost-effectiveness value, Stage II control in
Loss Creek is ranked #38 (column h7).
EXAMPLE MODIFICATION #2 - Changes in Costs
In this modification it is assumed that the annual costs of the
streetsweeping programs within the separate and combined sewer areas of
Tiffin, Ohio (Stage I control) have been raised to $76,800 and
$108,139, respectively. The effect of this change is shown on
Modification #2, Worksheet 7. The cost-effectiveness of Stage I
control within the separate sewered area of Tiffin changes from
$103.6/kg to $153.6/kg, while Stage I control in the combined sewer
area has an adjusted cost-effectiveness value of $173.3/kg (column g_).
As a result, the cost-effectiveness ranking would change from 23 to 35
for the stormwater program, and from 30 to 36 for the combined sewer
overflow program (column h_). This *also has an effect on the Stage II
rankings. Because the Stage II programs follow Stage I, the rank of
the Stage II stormwater program would change from 35 to 38 and the
combined sewer overflow program from 31 to 37.
SUMMARY OF EXAMPLE AND MODIFICATIONS
As is true in most all modeling applications, the accuracy of the
results obtained from WATERSHED are dependent on the accuracy of the
input data base. Small changes in transmission coefficients, cost
assumptions or loading reduction values can have marked impacts on
program evaluations. However, WATERSHED can provide a reasonable
first-cut evaluation of programs using a variety of data bases.
157
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
TOTAL P
MODIFICATION n
WORKSHEET 7 - MASTER
Source
STAGE 1
Loss Creek
Bucyrus - municipal
- storm
- combined
Broken Sword
Upper Sandusky River
Upper Sandusky - municipal
- storm
- combined
Tymochtee Creek
Middle Sandusky
Honey Creek
Tiffin - municipal
- storm
- combined
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Fremont - municipal
- storm
- combined
Lower Sandusky
TOTAL
Column -*•
Position
1
2
2
2
3
4
5
'5
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
10
11
12
12
12
13
a7
Effective
Transmission
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
b7
Bio-
Available
Fraction
NA
C7
Total Load
to
Surface Water
(kg/yr)
18,868
13,800
320
6,500
20,816
37,072
8,300
—
1,700
51,697
66,853
28,572
17,700
1,800
10,400
18,305
41,986
28,200
350
12,300
34.877
420,416
d7
Load at
Mouth
(kg/yr)
18,868
13,800
320
6,500
20,816
37,072
8,300
—
1,700
51,697
66,853
28,572
17,700
1,800
10,400
18,305
41,986
28,200
350
12,300
34.877
420,416
**Subtotal
e7
Loa.l
Reduction
at Mouth
(kg/yr)
STAGE I
10,000
10,400
80
409
11,700
21,200
6,200
—
126
29,600
38,100
15,800
13,300
500
624
10,000
23,300
21,200
90
738
19,400
232,767 **
£7
Cost of
Program
($/yr)
STAGE I
12,337
32,400
9,620
53,280
12,168
17,849
15,000
—
49,580
34,346
35,256
22,334
62,400
51,800
76,960
22,302
26,644
47,352
10,360
91,020
22.334
705,342
§7
Cost
Per Unit
Removed
at Mouth
($/kg)
STAGE I
1.2
3.1
120. Z
130.3
1.0
0.8
2.4
~
393.5
1.2
0.9
1.4
4.7
JJJ3-TS 163,
^2^3 173.
2.2
1.1
2.2
115.1
123.3
1.2
h7
Cost-
Effect ive
Rank
7
12
27
33
3
1
11
•"""
34
5
2
8
13
(f 2-y 35
3 ^ft 36
10
4
9
26
28
6
CO
a, -» Effective Transmission from Source to River Mouth (usually 1.0).
b? •*• Portion of parameter that is judged to be biologically available.
» a7 x b_ x c? •* Load at the mouth with losses and availability factored in.
= d5 x a? x b7 (Stage I), or = 6j x a? x b? (Stage II).
= gfc (Stage I), or hfc (Stage II).
= f? * e?
•* The rank from smallest to largest value in g7 (cost—effect iveness) : NOTE - A Stage II program must follow a Stage I in the same position.
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
TOTAL P
MODIFICATION #2
WORKSHEET 7 ~ MASTER (conf a.)
Source
STAGE II
Loss Creek
Bucyrus - municipal
- storm
- combined
Broken Sword
Upper Sandusky River
Upper Sandusky - municipal
- storm
- combined
Tymochtee Creek
Middle Sandusky
Honey Creek
Tiffin - municipal
- storm
- combined
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Fremont - municipal
- storm
- combined
Lower Sandusky
Column •*
Posit ion
1
2
2
2
3
4
5
5
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
10
11
12
12
12
13
87
Effective
Transmission
b7
SLo-
AvailjbLe
Fraction
i
.
C7
Total Load
to
Surface Uatet
(kg/vrl
PHASE I
PHASE II
d7
Load at
Mouth
fki/vrl
**Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
TOTAL
e7
Load
Reduction
at Mouth
(kR/yr)
STAGE II
5,700
1,672
58
1,555
6,000
8,600
1,064
402
14,600
18,800
8,200
2,189
320
2,496
5,400
12,100
3,476
64
2,952
9.700
105,348 **
232,767
105,348
338,115
f7
Cost of
Program
(S/vr)
STAGE II
569,400
48,600
11,180
177,340
561,600
•823,800
22,500
165,490
1,585,200
1,627,200
1,030,800
93,600
60,200
256,330
1,029,300
1,229,700
71,028
12,040
303,810
1,030,800
10,710,902
g7
Cost
Per Unit
Removed
at Mouth
(S/kg)
STAGE II
, 99.9
29.1
192.7
114.4
93.6
95.8
21.1
—
411.7
108.6
86.6
125.7
42.8
188.1
102.9
190.6
101.6
20.4
188.1
102.9
106.3
h7
Cost-
Effective
Rank
21
16
38
34
19
20
15
—
.40
25
18
32
17
XT 3"S
Jl 37
37
22
14
36
29
24
cn
•* Effective Transmission from Source to River :!outh (usually 1.0).
-»• Portion of parameter that is judged to be biologically available.
= a5
= a? x b? x c? -+ Load at the mouth with losses ^nd -ivailabil ity factored in.
= d x a, x b_ (Stage I), or = e,. x a. x b- (Stage II).
fy = g6 (Stage I), or hfe (Stage II).
S7
h_
The rant, from smallest to lar;'e<=t valur in *• -
-------
There is a great deal of flexibility built into this approach so
that managers may custom-fit WATERSHED to any drainage area. It is
usually desirable to execute WATERSHED several times using different
assumptions or ranges in costs and load reductions associated with
different programs. The value of such a sensitivity anlaysis was
demonstrated in the Sandusky River example, where different results
were obtained under new assumptions involving transmission and costs.
The worksheets can be used to extract more information than
highlighted in this case study. For example, cost information on
Worksheet 6 can be used to compare the total control costs for each
major category (cropland, urban runoff, and point sources). Stage I
programs over the entire basin would cost $200,000/yr for cropland,
$34Q,000/yr for urban land and $160,000/yr for point sources (from
column gfi) . The Stage II programs would cost the amount for Stage I
control plus another $9,500,000/yr for cropland, $990,000/yr for urban
land and $240,000/yr for point sources. This is typical of the type of
data that does not directly assist the WATERSHED process but can help
the managers analyze their plans. This type of information is
available from all worksheets.
Natural variability in the behavior of most river systems makes it
difficult to precisely predict pollutant loads and the effect of
control programs for any single year. However, by compiling an input
information base which best reflects conditions in or typical of the
river basin under study, WATERSHED provides a logical, orderly way to
organize and use river basin data for the purpose of making pollution
control management decisions.
160
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Baker, D.B. (1980). Personal Communication. Data on the Sandusky
River.
Drynan, W.R. (1978). Relative Costs of Achieving Various Levels of
Phosphorus Control at Municipal Wastawater Treatment Plants in the
Great Lakes Basin," International Joint Commission, Great Lakes
Regional Office, Windsor, Ontario.
Honey Creek Joint Board of Supervisors (1980). "Honey Creek Watershed
Project Tillage Demonstration Results 1979," U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Buffalo District, Buffalo, New York.
International Joint Commission (1978) . "Environmental Management
Strategy for the Great Lakes System (PLUARG)," Great Lakes
Regional Office, Windsor, Ontario.
Johnson, M.G., Comeau, J.L., Heidtke, T.M., and W.C. Sonzogni (1978).
"Management Information Base and Overview Modeling," International
Joint Commission, Great Lakes Regional Office, Windsor, Ontario.
Sonzogni, W.C., Monteith, T.J., Bach, W.N., and V.G. Hughes (1978).
"United States Great Lakes Tributary Loadings," Great Lakes Basin
Commission for the International Joint Commission, Great Lakes
Regional Office, Windsor, Ontario.
Sonzogni, W.C., Monteith, T.J., Heidtke, T.M., and R.A.C. Sullivan
(1980). "WATERSHED - A Management Technique Tor Choosing Among
Point and Nonpoint Control Strategies. Part 1 - Teory and Process
Framework," Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Urban, D.R., Logan, T.J., and J.R. Adams (1978). "Application of the
Universal Soil Loss Equation in the Lake Erie Drainage Basin,"
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, Buffalo, New York.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1975). "Preliminary Feasibility Report,
Volume III, Appendix B, Lake Erie Wastewater Management Study,"
Buffalo District, Buffalo, New York.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1979a). "Lake Erie Wastewater Management
Study Methodology Report," Buffalo District, Buffalo, New York.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1979b). "Land Management Alternatives in
the Lake Erie Drainage Basin," Buffalo District, Buffalo, New
York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1979). "Costs and Water Quality
Impacts of Reducing Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution,"
Office of Research and Development, Athens, Georgia.
Verhoff, F.H., Melfi, D.A., Yaksich, S.M., and D.B. Baker (1978).
"Phosphorus Transport in Rivers," U.S. Army CDrps of Engineers,
Buffalo District, Buffalo, New York.
Wischmeier, W.H., and D.D. Smith (1978). "Predicting Rainfall Erosion
Losses," USDA, Agricultural Handbook No. 537, Science and
Education Administration, Washington, D.C.
161
-------
BMP CAUSE AND EB'FECT RELATIONSHIPS BY SIMULATION
by
L.F. Huggins, D.B. Beasley and E.J. Monke
We are currently entering a period in which many questions are
being raised about the effectiveness and the cost efficiency of our
national efforts to improve the quality of our water resources. These
are valid concerns and they cannot be easily answered. The questions
are especially difficult when they deal with non-point source (NPS) pol-
lution. Much of this difficulty stems from fact that it is very hard to
quantify sources of such pollution and to determine cause-effect rela-
tionships between sources and possible treatment methodologies.
Before presenting a technique to evaluate certain classes of agri-
cultural Best Management Practices (BMPs), some general remarks about
the problem of identifying cause-effect relations for NPS pollution are
in order.
BASIC APPROACHES
Two fundamentally different approaches to establishing cause-effect
relationships between NPS pollution and possible control measures are
field monitoring studies and simulation techniques which rely on models.
The relative strengths and weaknesses of these two methodologies are
quite different. Obviously, when both approaches are used concurrently
the strengths of each tend to overcome the other's weaknesses.
Cause-Effect or_ Correlation?
Two or more variables are statistically correlated when the numeri-
cal value or level of one, the independent variable(s), infers a likely
value for the other, the dependent variable. Two variables are related
by cause-effect when there are governing physical laws which require
that a change in level of the independent variable directly causes a
prescribed change in the dependent variable. Variables which are
related by cause-effect considerations will certainly show a high degree
of correlation. However, statistical correlation does not, of itself,
permit one to infer that a cause-effect relationship exists between the
correlated variables.
Statistical correlation will occur because variables are related by
physical cause-effect considerations or because both variables are
influenced by another unconsidered variable(s). To illustrate the
latter situation, consider the statistical correlation shown in Figure
1. Assume a need exists to predict the level of consumption of alcohol
1. Respectively, Professor, Assistant Professor and Professor, Dept. of
Agricultural Engineering, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN.
163
-------
and the only readily available data pertains to average professorial
salaries (to make the illustration more personal, substitute your own
profession as the label for the independent variable, since the correla-
tion can be expected to change very little). Such a correlation is
quite valid and useful for this purpose.
Now consider the situation if this correlation is deemed to be a
cause-effect relationship and a national decision is made to reduce
total alcohol consumption. It would then follow that the appropriate
course of action would be to reduce professorial salaries to attain this
goal. Such action would rightly be considered ludicrous, especially if
it is your profession's salary that is used as the independent correla-
tion variable.
o «»
— Ul
t :
* c
111
V)
z
o
u
-------
of the scientific and informed lay communities believe the only way to
accurately assess impacts of a water quality improvement program is with
a well-designed and well-executed monitoring program. Unfortunately,
this is a false hope as it applies to NFS pollution, particularly on a
watershed scale. While it is certainly possible to precisely determine
the chemical constituents in a water sample, it is another matter to
evaluate the true significance of these constituents and their origin.
A well-designed, comprehensive non-point monitoring program is very
costly and time consuming. Except for irrigated agriculture, non-point
water pollution is generated by rainfall and the resulting runoff. Many
years of record are required to remove confounding influences due to the
many combinations of rainfall intensities and antecedent conditions
which occur.
If scale-up problems of translating plot-scale studies to a real
watersheds are to be avoided, it is necessary to monitor what occurs on
natural, but non-uniform and only partially controlled, watersheds.
However, lack of complete experimental control results in reduced sensi-
tivity to treatments and statistical confounding.
Finally, monitored watershed data are strictly applicable only to
the area being monitored. We do attempt to transfer results to other
"similar" areas, but all too often results are unwisely used under very
dissimilar physiographic and climatic conditions. This occurs because
reliable non-point source pollution data are quite scarce.
For all these reasons, one must conclude that it is not economi-
cally feasible to implement NFS monitoring programs which will yield
general relationships about benefits from individual BMPs installed at
various locations within a watershed. In fact, the monitoring situation
would be quite dismal were it not for modeling.
Monitoring and modeling are inseparably linked. Concurrent model-
ing provides a means of transforming single practice measurements into
watershed scale projections. Unique storm patterns during a relatively
short monitoring interval can be transformed into more nearly average
patterns. On the other hand, concurrent monitoring on a continuous and
comprehensive basis for relatively long time periods is absolutely vital
if modeling authenticity is to be improved. Such storm related monitor-
ing is needed for watersheds in different geographic regions. Monitored
data are the very foundation of model evaluation and development, but
they are in dismally short supply.
Simulation
Simulation is an analysis methodology which uses a mathematical
model, usually implemented in the form of a computer program, to predict
the behavior of a system. The mathematical model is a collection of
equations which are purported to represent the phyical laws governing
the system's behavior.
165
-------
Simulation studies allow cause-effect questions to be asked about
potential pollution control measures because both naturally occurring
and hypothetical situations can be analyzed. Results are available very
quickly and inexpensively. The single, most important disadvantage with
models developed to simulate non-point pollution is that, to varying
degrees, they are all inaccurate.
Inaccurate results are often obtained from models which attempt to
simulate non-point pollution because of the many complex factors and
interactions involved. To build a practical model, a developer is
required to to use relationships which only approximate the true govern-
ing physical laws. Approximations are necessary for two reasons: (1)
inadequate knowledge about controlling physical processes and their
interactions and (2) a desire to reduce data preparation and computer
time costs.
Model Selection
Choosing a model with which to simulate non-point pollution is not
simple. Numerous models exist. This is a direct consequence of the
complexity of the problem and the varying degrees of accuracy which are
thought necessary for different applications. No currently available
model is capable of even crudely approximating the vast range of condi-
tions and physical processes that fall under the broad heading of NFS
pollution.
The "best" model is entirely dependent upon which subset from the
comprehensive list of non-point pollution problems is most appropriate
for a given situation. Primary factors to consider in selecting a model
are: (1) availability and cost (both for data preparation and computer
time), (2) applicability to pollutants of primary interest, and (3) the
accuracy and sensitivity with which proposed treatment measures are
simulated.
Despite shortcomings of models currently available for simulating
non-point source pollution, simulation is the only viable means for
rational planning and evaluation of'cost effective non-point pollution
control programs. Furthermore, while it complicates the user's selec-
tion process, much effort is currently underway to improve the more
promising models.
There are two primary impediments to more rapid progress toward
improving NFS models. First, there is a severe lack of reliable, con-
tinuous monitored data from test watersheds and little evidence of the
public patience required for such studies to be of value. Secondly,
model predictions are considered 'theoretical1 and completely unreli-
able. This latter attitude has resulted from early experiences with
very crude models or current efforts which utilize models that are
grossly inappropriate for a particular application.
166
-------
CASE STUDIES
One particular simulation model designed for application to non-
irrigated, row-crop agriculture is called ANSWERS (Areal, Non-point
Source Watershed Environment Response Simulation) (1). ANSWERS was
developed at Purdue University under the sponsorship of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, coordinated by the Allen County Soil and Water
Conservation District (Black Creek Project) and the Indiana heartland
Coordinating Commission (Model Implementation Project), and in close
cooperation with the Agricultural Research section of the Science and
Education Administration, the Soil Conservation Service and the Agricul-
tural Stabilization and Conservation Service. It simulates the produc-
tion and transport of water, sediment, nutrients and certain chemicals
from moderate-sized watersheds (current experience ranges to 15,000 ha).
Each individual watershed represents a unique combination of topog-
raphy, soils, land use and management. The amount and spatial distribu-
tion of these resources strongly influence the generation of non-point
pollutants. ANSWERS is a "distributed parameter" model, which means
that it directly simulates impacts of the spatial distribution of each
resource. In addition to predicting storm flow rates and chemical con-
centrations at a watershed's outlet, the model also simulates what
occurs at every point within a watershed. This is accomplished by sub-
dividing the watershed into a grid of small (.5-2 ha) uniform "ele-
ments" whose behavior is then individually integrated together by the
model.
Planning Example
As an example of using ANSWERS as a tool for planning BMP systems,
let us consider an actual situation, the Marie Delarme watershed located
in NE Indiana. This watershed is composed of almost 500 ha of predom-
inately (60 percent) poorly drained Blount, Crosby and Hoytville silty
clay loams, with the remainder being moderately permeable Haskins and
Rensselaer silt loams. Element slopes ranging from 1 to 6 percent and
with an average of 1.9 percent. Because of the moderate relief, an ele-
ment size of 2.6 ha (.1 mi. sq.) was chosen as adequate for modeling
purposes. The resulting watershed representation is shown in Figure 2.
In order to rank the effectiveness of alternative control stra-
tegies, some frame of reference or "baseline condition" was required.
To remove effects of particular land use and management practices from
the baseline condition, all tillable land (in this case, the entire
watershed) was assumed to be planted to conventionally tilled corn.
In addition to choosing a land use pattern, a time frame must also
be selected. Average annual conditions are usually used. Since ANSWERS
is an event-based model, simulations are performed on a storm-by-storm
basis. While it is certainly possible to simulate all the storms of a
"typical" year and then sum the results, this is not necessary in most
situations. Many research results have shown that most of the sediment
and associated chemicals are produced by the largest one or two storms
for the year. Monitored data from the Black Creek watershed in NE
167
-------
STRATEGY
MARIE DELARME WATERSHED
ALIEN COUNTY, INDUNA
0 1/4 Mil. 1/2 lilt.
PTO Terrace Area
Chisel Plow Area
Figure 2. Elemental watershed representation.
Indiana also indicate that average annual yields can be approximated,
for that region, by simulating a single 1.5 hr duration, B-distribution
storm which has a recurrence interval of 8 years. This hypothetical
storm was assumed to occur approximately one month after planting with
antecedent soil moisture at field capacity. Simulating these conditions
will approximate average annual yields for sediment and nutrients except
for soluble nitrogen. Because this single storm yields only 10 percent
of the expected annual water yield, annual soluble nitrogen yields was
not accurately predicted by the single storm simplification.
Having decided upon a set of baseline conditions, the next step was
to simulate the response of the Marie Delarme watershed to those condi-
tions. The result of that effort is shown in Figure 3. It shows the
distribution of net sediment transported from each element for the base-
line condition. Note that the values, ranging from a loss in excess of
5000 kg/ha to deposition of more than 1000 kg/ha, represent net tran-
sport from each 2.6 ha element. Local erosion rates would generally be
much higher that the rates of transported sediment. These net transport
rates are predicted by ANSWERS without resorting to a delivery ratio
concept which is very difficult to quantify. Instead, the specified
watershed topography, land use and surface runoff rates determined tran-
sport capacity within the watershed.
Figure 3 gives information important for devising alternative con-
trol strategies. It shows that the highest sediment and associated
nutrient yields occur in the upper third of the watershed and gradually
decrease toward the outlet. While anyone knowledgeable about soil ero-
sion and familiar with the watershed could have predicted this general
trend without a simulation analysis, a distributed type model is
required to quantify actual yields in the manner shown. More impor-
tantly, as the following results demonstrate, such a model can predict
relative impacts of alternative control strategies.
168
-------
MARIE DELARME WATERSHED
ALLEN COUNTY, INDIANA
LEGEND
! YIELD IN EXCESS OF V, TON.'ACRE
I VIELD IN EXCESS OF 1 TON/ACRE
AREAS INSIDE DASHED LINES SHOW
DEPOSITION OF SEDIMENT IN
EXCESS OF '/, TON/ACRE
Figure 3. Net sediment yield distribution for baseline conditions.
Figures 4a through 4d depict four alternative control strategies. While
many other strategies, possibly even more effective than those chosen,
could have been selected, they illustrate the scope of information made
available and the manner in which simulation can be used as an effective
planning tool.
Table 1 summarizes simulation results from all strategies con-
sidered. It illustrates the complicated nature of ranking alternative
programs for NFS pollution control. The position of a particular stra-
tegy is very dependent upon the ranking criteria used. For example,
Strategies 2-5 have been listed in terms of decreasing effectiveness for
reducing sediment yield at the outlet of the watershed. However, the
ranking would be quite different if annual unit cost of achieving a sed-
iment yield reduction is employed. Still different results would be
obtained if nutrient yields or concentration levels in the stream are
chosen. All of these water quality improvement criteria and others are
valid for developing a control program. Generally, several of them
would be given some consideration. It is the ability of a comprehensive
simulation model to provide information on such a wide range of factors
that makes it such an attractive and even essential tool for planning
NFS pollution control.
The ranking of strategies is also influenced by the choice of base-
line conditions, as illustrated in Table 1 by Strategy 6. The only
difference between results for Strategies 5 and 6 is the severity of the
hypothetical storm used to simulate the baseline condition. For Stra-
tegy 6, a storm with 25 percent lower intensities and total volume was
used. This gave a sediment yield of 640 kg/ha for the same land use as
in Strategy 1. When simulation results from Strategy 5 are compared to
that baseline instead of Strategy 1, they show lower absolute reductions
(110 kg/ha vs. 170 kg/ha), but an increased percentage reduction. The
unit cost of reducing sediment yield was also higher when the less
169
-------
STRATEGY *3
MARIE DELARME WATERSHED
ALtEN COUNTY, INDIANA
STRATEGY #2
MARIE DELA3ME WATERSHED
ALLEN COUNTY, INDIANA
PTO Terrace Area
Chisel Plow Area L.
(A)
(B)
STRATEGY *4
MARIE DELARME WATERSHED
ALLEN CQLNTY, iHDIAKA
STRATEGIES *5&6
PTO Terrace Area
Chise! Plow Area
MARIE DELARME WATERSHED
ALLEN COUNTY, INDIANA
PTO Terrace Are.
Chisel Piow Area
(C)
(D)
Figure 4. Location of BMPs for alternative strategies.
170
-------
Table 1. Simulation Results for Alternative Strategies
--4
Area Affected
Strategy*
1.
2.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Baseline
by
PTO
(ha)
0
285
85
91
0
0
BMPs
Chisel
(ha)
0
104
213
272
321
321
Sediment
(kg/ha)
1530
650
1080
1220
1340
520
condition: Fall moldboard
Fro terraces installed
where most
Total Yield at Watershed Outlet
Total
P
(kg/ha)
2.1
.8
1.5
1.6
1.8
.6
plowed, no
Avail.
P
(kg/ha)
.6
.2
.3
.4
.4
.1
BMPs .
of the sediment yielc
Sed.
N
(kg/ha)
13
6
10
11
12
4
3 was in
Sol.
N
(kg/ha)
1.0
.6
.8
.8
.9
.4
excess of 2.;
Sediment
Reduction
(%)
57
29
20
13
19
>5 tonne/hec
Cost**
($/tonne
reduced)
34.70
22.00
35.30
7.50
11.60
'tare. In
5.
6.
addition, those areas with sediment yield in excess of 1.12 tonne/hectare not benefited by ter-
races were chisel plowed.
PTO terraces installed in the upper 1/3 of the watershed only. All areas with sediment yield in
excess of 1.12 tonne/hectare not benefited by terraces were chisel plowed.
PTO terraces installed in the lower 1/3 of the watershed only. All areas with sediment yield in
excess of 1.12 tonne/hectare not benefited by terraces were chisel plowed.
All areas with sediment yield greater than 1.12 tonne/hectare chisel plowed.
Same as Strategy 5 except that a storm with 25% lower intensity and total volume was used. The
"baseline condition" for this storm gave a total sediment yield of 640 kg/ha.
Cost information was based on 1979 construction costs for PTO terrace systems in Allen County,
Indiana. The cost is based on total area benefited (both above and below terraces) . The figure
used in these calculations was $510.80 per hectare benefited. A 10-year life was assumed, which
yielded an annual cost of $51.08 per hectare benefited. The chisel plow was also assumed to have a
10-year life. The average annual cost per hectare, based on the cost of a new plow, was $2.17.
Since the "design storm" used in this example produced approximately the annual sediment yield, the
cost per tonne of reduced yield at the watershed outlet is, essentially, the annual cost. However,
due to simplifying assumptions and unique local conditions, these cost figures should not be con-
sidered to be generally applicable to other planning situations. They were included to demonstrate
the type of analyses which can be performed.
-------
intense baseline storm was used. This again illustrates the complexity
of analyzing NFS pollution and its control.
Evaluation Example
As an example of the use of ANSWERS for interpreting monitored
data, let us consider it use in the Black Creek Project (2,3). This
project was initiated in late 1972 by EPA to evaluate the contribution
of agriculture to pollution of Lake Erie and to determine impacts of
selected BMPs on that pollution. The 4900 ha study watershed, located
in NE Indiana, is composed of relative heavy soils associated with gla-
cial till and an old glacial lake. The land use is almost entirely
agricultural except for a small community of about 500 persons. Its
soils and land use distribution are representative of those in the Mau-
mee Basin.
The Allen County Soil and Water Conservation District, with the
technical assistance of the Soil Conservation Service, developed a
cost-sharing program to encourage installation of appropriate BMPs.
Purdue University and the University of Illinois were responsible for
monitoring the physical/chemical and biological water quality impacts of
installed BMPs. Figure 5 depicts locations at which physical/chemical
monitoring has been conducted for periods ranging from 3 to 6 years. An
even more extensive network of biological monitoring locations was esta-
blished.
N
O Single BMP
• Rainfall
• Runoff
A Water Quality
Figure 5. Black Creek monitoring locations.
The Black Creek project has utilized automated, continuous monitor-
ing of stream water conditions near the outlet and at selected
subwatershed points for about 5 years. Results from these data were
172
-------
given in another presentation at this seminar. This comprehensive data
base has established a reliable indication of water quality conditions
within the watershed. However, it is impossible from such data to
answer the question: "What have been the benefits from individual
classes of BMPs installed during the project?" This is a result of the
many uncontrolled factors which influence levels of NFS pollution and
the diversity of BMPs, crops and annual management changes which occur
on a watershed scale. Such a question can be answered using simulation
analysis because it is possible to hypothetically hold all factors,
especially hydrologic conditions, constant and change only the applied
BMPs.
Figure 6 shows the Black Creek watershed subdivided into three
major subwatersheds of approximately equal size. A deliberate effort
was made to encourage the installation of BMPs within the western
subwatershed. This decision was made to more clearly differentiate BMP
impacts and to demonstrate the magnitude of water quality change which
was feasible. As a result, a pattern of decreasing practice density
occurs as one goes eastward. The initial development of the ANSWERS
model was undertaken as a part of the Black Creek Project as it became
apparent that monitored data alone was inadequate to quantify impacts of
the combinations of installed BMPs.
The BMPs installed within Black Creek were primarily structural in
nature: parallel tile-outlet terraces (PTO), field borders, grass water-
ways and livestock exclusion. Despite the demonstrated water quality
benefits of reduced tillage systems, only limited utilization was
achieved. This was the result of fanner concern about wetness during
the spring on the heavy soils of the area.
The area of land directly affected by installed BMPs ranged from 6
percent in the western subwatershed to less than 2 percent in the
eastern subwatershed. ANSWERS simulations, using patterns of land use
change and BMPs installed between 1975 and 1978 with assumed constant
hydrologic conditions, indicated that BMPs installed within the western
subwatershed would reduce annual sediment yield about 30 percent. The
reduction for the medium density middle subwatershed was about 20 per-
cent, dropping to only about 10 percent for the minimum treatment level
on the eastern subwatershed. Watershed scale impacts from a single
installation are also available, but such results are extremely location
dependent.
One additional result of general interest was determined. When the
installed structural BMPs for the western subwatershed were hypotheti-
cally augmented with chisel plowing in selected critical areas, the pro-
jected reduction of annual sediment yield was increased to 50 percent.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The manner in which a well-adapted simulation model can be utilized
as both a planning and evaluation tool for agricultural non-point source
pollution has been demonstrated with two case studies. Such results are
173
-------
figure 6. Primary i^lack Creek subwa tersheds.
a direct consequence of using a model which is constructed from esta-
blished cause-effect relationships between governing processes and is
designed to analyze impacts of the type of control measures selected.
A simulation model that analyzes cause-effect relationships in a
site specific manner is the only methodology currently available for
rational planning or evaluation of storm-induced non-point source pollu-
tion control. While additional development work will significantly
improve the accuracy and generality of such models, the current state-
of-the-art is adequate to justify using them for many applications.
Improvement of current models is severely hampered by the scarcity of
reliable, continuous monitored data on watershed and individual BMP
behavior.
174
-------
The Marie Delarme case study demonstrated how ANSWERS simulations
could be employed in a planning role to quantify BMP impacts and rank
site specific BMPs. Maximum benefits from simulation accrue when it is
applied at the earliest project planning stages. Furthermore, this
example illustrated how a ranking of alternative control strategies is
dependent upon the user in the selection of a baseline condition, or
unit cost, used and how certain criteria are very dependent upon the
baseline condition that is used.
The Black Creek Study has demonstrated that, even with a very
comprehensive program, it is impossible to quantify benefits from indi-
vidual BMPs by monitoring the outlet of a natural, diverse watershed.
The ANSWERS model did yield a quantitative estimate of BMP benefits. As
anticipated, benefits were estimated to vary with the number and density
of installed BMPs. The annual reduction in sediment yield ranged from
only 10 percent from the eastern third of the watershed to 30 percent
from the western, most densely treated, third. Furthermore, simulation
studies indicated that a reduction of 50 percent is feasible if the
installed structural BMPs had been augmented with chisel plowing in
selected critical areas.
REFERENCES
1. Beasley, D.B. and L.F. Huggins. 1980. ANSWERS User's Manual.
Agric. Eng. Dept. Purdue Univ., 35p.
2. Lake, J. and J. Morrison. 1977. Environmental impact of land use on
water quality: final report of the Black Creek project—summary.
U.S. Envir. Prot. Agency, Region V, Chicago, IL. EPA-905/9-77-007-A.
94 p.
3. Lake, J. and J. Morrison. 1977. Environmental impact of land use on
water quality: final report of the Black Creek project—technical
report. U.S. Envir. Prot. Agency, Region V, Chicago, IL. EPA-
905/9-77-007-B. 274 p.
175
-------
PRACTICAL USES OF THE ANSWERS MODEL IN BMP PLANNING:
AN ALLEN COUNTY EXPERIENCE
by
Daniel McCain*
Other papers in this proceedings discuss the details of the
work done in water quality management and ongoing research of plan-
ning at the national, regional, or state level. The focus of my
presentation will be practical local use of the ANSWERS computer
model that is now setting priorities for conservation work as
related to water quality in Allen County. At this time, we are
past the 5 year EPA funded Black Creek (1972-1977) demonstrational
project and well into our second year of applying ASCS Special
ACP Water Quality money.
To be successful and get conservation on the land to improve
water quality, we've had to involve people—not just agency per-
sonnel, but the people that do the farming. Ultimately, it is
the farmers who carry out national objectives for conservation.
To gain their cooperation, field people have to bring them to-
gether on some mutual basis. In the humid midwest (corn belt),
that mutual interest centers on drainage basins.
In 1969, when I was assigned to work in Allen County, the
emphasis of conservation work in the county—by both the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) and the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS)—was on drainage. More than a decade
later, this emphasis has shifted dramatically. SCS and other
agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture have undergone
considerable change in how their appropriations are used, and
their programs have also changed. In Allen County the difference
has not been due entirely to the earlier Black Creek experience,
but I'm certain that many local changes occurred as a result of
national trends interacting with our staff, the soil and water
conservation district supervisors, and farmers during the 1970's.
We have found ourselves on the "cutting edge" with our local adap-
tion of nationally conceived "non-point source" concerns.
After the work in Black Creek was complete, a search was made
for other problem areas in the county. On a critical area map,
targeted rural watersheds were located that had the worst water
quality problems. The result was a list of 13 small watersheds
(1,000 to 3,000 acres) we call the "Dirty Baker's Dozen." Using
the ANSWERS model and ranking these watersheds according to gross
soil loss per acre, the most important critical areas were pin-
pointed. In 1979 special funds wera applied for and received
through the Agriculture Conservation Program (ACP) for a water qual-
ity project. Most of the $75,000 in ACP funds received in 1979 has
gone into one of the 13 target watersheds, a 1,645-acre area called
the Brunson project. In 1980, two more critical watersheds were
evaluated and the "Dirty Baker's Dozen" was reranked. This year
$100,000 is spread into six (6) of the thirteen (13) watersheds.
*District Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, Ft. Wayne, IN
177
-------
A primary reason for this special ACP funding was an innovative
approach to determine where planning is needed. When a group of people
come to us for what they believe is simple-to-define technical assistance
with drainage, they don't realize that we're going to try our best to
develop their appreciation for water quality improvement, as well as
solve their drainage problems. We are doubly fortunate in that the rela-
tionships that began emerging with Black Creek in 1972 and that exist
among other local decisionmaking.groups reflects a strong commitment to
attack problems head-on.
Groups we are now working with in the Special ACP Project approach
are receptive. The ANSWERS model is a big reason why. Planning with
ANSWERS involves the use of computer drawn maps such as the "erosion
contours" map. This tool points out "hot-spots" or critical erosion
areas identified by location within the watershed. A trained conser-
vationist might wonder why these areas cannot be located through field
work instead of using printouts from a computer model. We can, but
that's not the point. A computer-drawn map of erosion contours in the
watershed gives a focus for meetings with groups of farmers. Talking
with them about the map helps them become more receptive to learning
where and when erosion occurs because of slope and concentrated runoff.
In meetings with the group, we emphasized the proximity of erodible
lands to the drainage outlets. When a conservation planner presents
the group with a few conclusions from this fact, farmers can readily
visualize where erosion is causing water quality problems. The total
sediment yeilds computed by the model represent a net loss of topsoil
through the "month" of the watershed.
A 20- by 40-inch blowup of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)
sliderule calculator has been used before several groups. The calcu-
lator has not intimidated the groups: by using such visual aids, high-
ly technical matters are comprehensible to farmers. Our partnership
with the groups has to be educational—on both sides—to be effective.
Taking the group on a field trip to see opportunities and to recognize
potential benefits also helps.
In conservation planning sessions with the groups we have tried not
to put all cur eggs in one basket, for example, with conservation tillage.
Success with conservation tillage depends on many variables. It was
not possible to persuade many farmers to convert to conservation tillage
during the Black Creek era simply because of these variables. For ex-
ample, climatic variability over a 4-year rotation might bring a wet
spring, a dry spring, an early spring, and a late spring. Climate and
other variables require the farmer to make daily decisions that can
complicate his tillage plans.
Not that I'm negative about conservation tillage—in fact it's the
one practice that can touch every acre—but I've seen what can happen
when a farmer tries it without fully understanding it. It may require
him to adapt his equipment and make other changes. Every spring day
the farmer can face a different set of weather conditions, crop prices,
operating expenses, and other things which he has no control but on
which he must form decisions. Therefore, it is important to offer the
farmer conservation alternatives that won't add to his burden of daily
decisionmaking. Seen positively, however, conservation tillage is not
a burden at all but an investment in wise management that pays off in
savings in fuel, labor, time, water, and soil.
178
-------
Even so, practices such as terraces serve as permanent "reminders"
of conservation on the landscape. These practices can be very compat-
ible with conservation tillage; most important, however, they signal a
"commitment to conservation" and become symbols of the group's progress
in understanding and dealing with erosion and sedimentation. And if na-
ture provides a disastrous spring for tillage, at least part of the con-
servation system will function.
Permanent conservation practices require the farmer to make fewer
decisions, although they won''t necessarily be any easier to make than
decisions about tillalge. For example, if a farmer wants to construct
terraces and waterways and needs financial help, he requests cost-sharing
assistance from the ASCS office. SCS provides an engineering plan and
gives him a cost estimate, and his thoughts come down to a one time "yes
or no" decision. If he decides to go ahead with the practices, a con-
tractor builds them and they become a. permanent facility. The only ques-
tion remaining is whether the farmer will permanently maintain the prac-
tices.
In all, then, there are three ways we can tackle cropland erosion
problems related to water quality. First, we encourage changes in TIL-
LAGE and in planting techniques. Second, we encourage CROP ROTATIONS
that are compatible with the farmer's present tillage system. Or third,
we suggest permanent land treatment practices such as TERRACES, which
reduce slope length and increase temporary storage capacity for runoff.
If the farmer selects any on of these changes—or some combination of
them—improved water quality should be the result.
When we targeted critical areas in the Brunson project we had to
go after the job from the top of the hill down. We didn't want to re-
peat an earlier experience in Black Creek; that is, overselling the
group on what they were already prepared to request—outlet development.
Also, in Black Creek more streambank protection than necessary may have
been installed because of the farmers' concern about highly visible
streambank erosion. Black Creek findings showed that only about 7 per-
cent of the sediment load entering the Maumee River was caused by stream-
bank erosion. However, the farmers noticed streambank erosion more than
they noticed sheet and rill erosion'on sloping cropland.
In planing with the groups and in orienting them to the kinds of
practices needed, ASCS and SCS can provide farmers with cost sharing
and technical help as far down the outlet as necessary to make a pro-
perly functioning project. In the Brunson project, individual terrace
outlets were safely taken down the watershed through tile beside group
grass waterways, and into a protected mutual open outlet. All these
practices helped as part of a protective scheme for the critical areas.
It may also be necessary to study the channel far enough through the
critical areas to find the unstable segments. In Black Creek, we were
most successful with a practice we call "training," that is, putting rock
riprap low on the channel banks in unstable soils and installing a 1%- to
2-foot drop structure to lessen channel grade.
From the top of the watershed down, an opportunity and an obligation
exists to explain technical alternatives to .the farmers. The ANSWERS mo-
del is useful for these explanations because it graphically depicts the
eroding areas. An overlay of the erosion contours map with an ownership
179
-------
map lets the farmer see whether he has an erosion problem that requires
attention. But don't tell him, "Look, you dirty farmer, you're causing
all these water quality problems and you're going to have to do something
to clean them up." Instead, approach the group in a positive way by
showing them the beneficial things that they can do—both as a group and
as individuals—to improve water quality and reduce the sedimentation
on their neighbors' lands donwstream.
In some cases, the approach to land treatment in the Brunson pro-
ject was turned 180 degrees from the previous approach in Black Creek,
where outlets were usually developed first. In the Brunson project, we
started at the top of the watershed by securing commitments from farmers
for cropland treatment. Of the $75,000 allocated for the Dirty Baker's
Dozen in 1979, ASCS approved $60,000 for cost sharing of group parallel
tile outlet (PTO) basin terraces in the Brunson watershed. To make the
terraces work, waterways were constructed and outlets developed to handle
the metered tile flow from the terraces. Most of the job was completed
in 1979. ' A second smaller group—SOUTHWEST BRUNSON—with some of the
same farmers, completed additional terraces and a mutual waterway in the
summer of 1980.
The ANSWERS model could prove even more valuable when used with the
analysis of BMP's on farms and as a group. The hypothetical watershed
(figure 1) and reduction estimates (table 1) illustrate a means of using
the ANSWERS model in planning. Perhaps the time will come when the pub-
lic will buy water quality improvement with "dollars spent for tons saved."
180
-------
Tablf 1 - Effect of BMPs in reducing sediment
GROUP
A
SUB
GROUP
B
SUB
GROUP
C
SUB
GROUP
D
SUB
GROUP
E
INDIVIDUALS
ALL PLUS
SAMUELS
SMITH
FRY
SHARP
JONES
GREEN
GRAY
JOHNSON
JONES
GREEN
GRAY
JOHNSON
CELLS
100
20
17
13
6
14
8
10
12
14
8
10
12
PRIMARY
BMP
APPLICATION
OUTLET
LIVESTOCK
EXCLUS,
NONE
NONE
WATERWAY
TERRACES
TILLAGE
TERRACES
NONE
TERRACES
TILLAGE
TERRACES
NONE
LEVEL (/
INITIALLY
1350
1500
2000
1000
700
1000
1200
900
1200
1000
1200
900
1200
WE/FARM)
WITH BMP'S
675
700
2000
1000
500
400
600
400
1200
400
600
400
1200
%
REDUCTION
50%
53%
0%
0%
28%
60%
50%
55%
0%
60%
50%
55%
0%
181
-------
SCS-223 <»-&«
CONSERVATION PLAN MAP
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
cooperating with
E OUR SOIL * OUR STRENGTH =
Owner _
Operator
County
Conservation District
G£OUP PtoOJCCT Plan No..
Scale
Photo No.,
Stale
Date
Acres
Appioiimote
F/BURE1 - HYPOTHETICAL
182
-------
WATER QUALITY: SEDIMENT AND NUTRIENT LOADINGS FROM CROPLAND
by
ft
D. W. Nelson, D. B. Beasley, S. Amin, and E. J. Monke
Public Law 92-500 passed in 1972 mandated that each state prepare
a water quality management plan which encompasses nonpoint as well as
point sources of pollution. In attempting to prepare strategies and/or
plans for control of nonpoint pollution, most state and federal
planning/regulatory officials became aware that relative little is known
about the amounts of water pollutants originating from agricultural
land or the effectiveness of techniques to control or minimize pollutant
deliveries. Preliminary studies suggested that the most significant
water pollutants originating from cropland are sediment, plant nutrients,
and pesticides (1).
Although a number of small watersheds (<30 ha) at various locations
in the eastern U.S. had been periodically monitored during the past 20
years, no monitoring of a medium size (vLOOO ha) agricultural watershed
had been conducted. Furthermore, the effectiveness of soil conservation
practices known to reduce erosion on small plots had not been evaluated
on a medium size watershed. Therefore, a long term study of the effects
of agricultural activities on water quality was started in 1973 on a
5000 ha watershed in Allen County, Indiana. The project was funded under
the Great Lakes Program, Region V U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and involved coordinated efforts of the Allen County Soil Conservation
District, the Soil Conservation Service, the Agricultural Research
Service, Purdue University, and the University of Illinois. The
objective of the project was to determine if water quality in the water-
shed and in the Maumee River could be improved by implementation of a
wide range of soil conservation practices in the drainage area. For
details of the project consult Lake and Morrison (2).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area
The 5000 ha Black Creek watershed (Figure 1) was selected for study
because it was representative of the soils and land uses prevailing in
the Maumee River drainage basin. Table 1 provides information on the
soils and land use in the watershed. About two-thirds of the area
consists of nearly level lake plain and beach ridge soils, whereas
one-third of the area is gently sloping (3-6%) glacial till soils.
Land use in the watershed is about 60% row crops, 30% small grain and
pasture, and 10% woods, roads, and developed areas. The drainage pattern
in the area consists of one natural stream (Black Creek) running from
*Professor of Agronomy and Assistant Professor, Research Associate, and
Professor of Agricultural Engineering, Purdue University, W. Lafayette,
IN 47907. Indiana Ag. Exp. Sta. Jour. Paper No. .
183
-------
APPROXIMATE SCALE
KILOMETERS
1/2 0 1/2
Figure 1. Map of the Black Creek study area.
184
-------
west to east and discharging into the Maumee River (Figure 1). A
number of constructed drainage ditches intersecting with Black Creek
are used as outlets for surface and tile drains. Most of the lake
plain soils in the watershed are tile drained.
Table 1. Characteristics of the Black Creek watershed and two intensively
studied drainage areas within the watershed.
Characteristic Black Creek Smith-Fry Driesbach
unaracteris cs watershed Drain (Site 2) Drain (Site 6)
Drainage area, ha 4950 942 714
Soils:
Lake Plain & beach ridge 64% 71% 26%
Glacial till 36% 29% 74%
Land use:
Row crops 58% 63% 40%
Small grain & pasture 31% 26% 44%
Woods 6% 8% 4%
Urban, roads, etc. 5% 3% 12%
Number of homes: — 28 143
Monitoring Systems
Grab sampling stations were established at 14 sites within the
watershed and on the Maumee River to provide weekly data on the quality
of water originating from soils and land uses in the drainage area above
the site. Automated sample (PS 69) and flow measuring devices were
installed at three locations (Sites 2, 6, and 12) in the watershed
(Figure 1) to provide continuous flow data and to permit calculation of
loadings on a storm or time period basis. Meteorological conditions in
the watershed were continuously monitored. A complete hydrometeoro-
logical station with automatic data acquisition and remote transmission
capabilities was established at Site 6. The amount of rainfall was
measured at seven other locations in the watershed and rainwater samples
were collected for chemical analysis at two locations.
Temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration of water were
measured _in situ and shortly after collection pH, turbidity, and
alkalinity were measured in grab samples. Water samples taken by grab
or automated methods were frozen soon after collection, transported to
the Water Quality Laboratory at Purdue University and analyzed for sus-
pended solids, NH^-N, NOl-N, soluble organic N, sediment-bound N, soluble
inorganic P (filtered reactive P), soluble organic P, and sediment-bound
P. Pesticides, alkaline earth cations, and heavy metals were measured in
selected samples. Methods used for analysis of all samples were those
prescribed by the American Public Health Association (3) or the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (4).
Data Processing
Loadings of sediment and nutrients were calculated by integration
of flow and concentration data on a storm, monthly, quarterly, or yearly
185
-------
basis. Flow weighted mean concentrations (monthly basis) were
calculated by dividing the monthly load of sediment or nutrient by the
monthly volume of runoff. The average total N and P concentrations in
suspended sediment were calculated by dividing the monthly sediment-
bound N and P loads by the monthly sediment load. The enrichment ratios
for total N and P were calculated by dividing the total N and P
concentrations in sediment by the average total N and P concentrations
in soils present in the drainage area. Linear regression and correla-
tion techniques (5) were used to determine the relationships between
monthly or quarterly runoff volume, sediment losses, nutrient losses,
and nutrient concentrations in sediment.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Reconnaissance sampling within the watershed revealed that no
significant amounts of hexane-soluble pesticides were present in water,
sediment, or fish tissue. Specific pesticides evaluated included
aldrin, dieldrin, DDT and metabolites, atrazine, trifluralin, and
2,4,5-T (2). Analysis of weekly grab samples established that the
dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, alkalinity, and alkaline earth
cations levels exhibited trends which were typical for medium size
agricultural watersheds (6). Heavy metals were present in only trace
concentrations (6).
Sediment and Nutrient Loads
Table 2 provides information on rainfall, runoff, and sediment
lost from the two major drainage areas in the Black Creek Watershed
during the period 1975 to 1978. Precipitation was above normal in 1975,
below normal in 1976, and near normal in 1977 and 1978. Runoff volumes
tended to be highest during years with greatest rainfall, however, the
percentage of precipitation appearing as runoff varied over the years
(26% in 1975, 17% in 1976, 20% in 1977, 26% in 1978, an average of 22%
over 4 years). Sediment discharges from the watershed averaged 895
and 1279 kg/ha for Sites 2 and 6, respectively. However, sediment
losses in 1975 were from 4 to 8 times higher than the average of the
other three years. Sediment losses during 1977 and 1978 were low
(380 to 540 kg/ha) even though rainfall during these years was near
normal. This finding suggests that best management practices implemented
in the watershed during 1975 and 1976 resulted in reduced sediment losses
in subsequent years.
Data on amounts of sediment-bound N and P discharged from the two
drainage areas during 1975 to 1978 is also given in Table 2. The
quantities of sediment-bound nutrients lost from the drainage areas
decreased markedly after 1975, generally in proportion to reductions in
sediment loss. Application of best management practices in the water-
shed was, at least in part, responsible for reductions in amounts of
sediment-bound nutrients observed during the course of the study.
Table 2 also provides data on the amounts of soluble nutrients
discharged from the two drainage areas during a four-year period.
Although the amounts of soluble inorganic P annually discharged from the
186
-------
drainage areas were low (<0.7 kg/ha/year), there is no indication that
the amounts lost decreased with time during the study. In fact, there
was a marked Increase in soluble inorganic P loss during 1978. One
explanation for the increase in soluble P loss at Site 6 during 1978 is
that large volumes of untreated household wastewater was discharged into
the drainage ditches near Harlan during the time an interceptor sewer
was being constructed. Previous studies have shown that septic tank
effluents were a major source of soluble P measured at Site 6 (7). The
amounts of NHt-N, NOo-N, soluble organic N, and soluble organic P dis-
charged from the drainage areas each year were directly related to the
volume of runoff. Losses of soluble organic P were very low (<0.13 kg/
ha/year) except at Site 6 in 1978 where septic tank effluent likely
contributed to the load. Soluble organic N losses were significant
(0.74 to 2.89 kg/ha/year) during all years at each site and the higher
losses measured at Site 6 probably reflect septic tank inputs. Losses
of NH^-N were relatively low (0.58-1.82 kg/ha/year) throughout the period
of study except for Site 6 during 1978. Septic tank effluents likely
were responsible for higher NH^-N losses observed at Site 6 in 1978.
The amounts of NO^-N in drainage water appeared to be related to
amounts of rainfall in the watershed, i.e. losses of NO^-N were highest
in 1975 and 1977, the two years with highest rainfall. Losses of NO^-N
were relatively large (average of 12 and 8 kg N/ha/year for Sites 2 and
6, respectively) and likely reflect the fact that the watershed is tile
drained and that the soils are maintained in a high state of fertility
by applications of manure and inorganic N fertilizers. Although the
amounts of NOo-N discharged from the watershed were substantial, the
annual flow weighted mean NOo-N concentration never exceeded the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standard (10 mg/1).
The data in Table 2 suggest that adoption of best management prac-
tices to control soil erosion has not resulted in a reduction in the
discharge of soluble forms of N and P from the watershed. In fact,
there is an indication that losses of soluble N and P increased slightly
as soil conservation practices were implemented during the study. In
future projects some attention should be given to implementation of
best management practices which minimize the transport in drainage water
of soluble nutrients originating from soils.
The annual discharges of sediment, sediment-bound nutrients, and
soluble N from Site 2 (almost all cropland) were similar to those from
large river basins and some small watersheds (Table 3). However, the
annual sediment losses measured at Site 2 tended to be lower than sedi-
ment losses reported for several small (<33 ha) watersheds planted to
row crops. There is little sediment deposition in small watersheds, but
considerable deposition in the Black Creek area. The soluble inorganic
P loadings measured at Site 2 were similar to those reported from both
river basins and for small watersheds. Soluble N (NH^-N plus NO'o-N)
loadings at Site 2 were higher than those reported for many small water-
sheds. This finding likely results from the NOo-N in tile drainage
water present in the Black Creek watershed, but absent in most of the
small watersheds previously studied.
187
-------
Table 2. Rainfall, runoff, and sediment and nutrient loss occurring
in two drainage areas of the Black Greek watershed during
the period 1975 to 1978.
Parameter
Rainfall, cm
Runoff , cm
Sediment loss, kg/ha
Sediment P
Sediment N
Sol. inorg.
kg/ha
Sol. org. P
NH^-N loss,
NO~-N loss,
Sol. org. N
loss, kg/ha
loss, kg/ha
P loss,
loss, kg/ha
kg /ha
kg/ha
loss, kg/ha
Site
no,
2 &
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
2
6
1975
1976
6 108
29
26
.1
.0
66
12.4
10.1
2126
3735
5.
4.
31
28
0
0
0
0
1
1
19
11
2
2
24
51
.25
.98
.14
.34
.11
.13
.51
.82
.01
.63
.33
.51
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
637
384
.98
.73
.82
.86
.06
.18
.04
.04
.60
.85
.55
.39
.93
.74
Year
1977
96
18.5
19.4
1
1
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
15
12
1
1
435
452
.67
.78
.55
.71
.14
.47
.06
.10
.58
.30
.42
.73
.10
.78
1978
77
18.5
21.3
380
544
0.65
0.79
6.10
6.91
0.21
0.68
0.08
0.35
0.75
3.06
8.27
5.96
1.66
2.89
Ave.
86
19
19
.8
.6
.2
895
1279
2.
1.
11.
10.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
12.
8.
1.
1.
14
95
68
87
14
42
07
16
86
76
06
18
55
98
Average monthly rainfall, runoff, sediment loss, and nutrient loss
values are given in Table 4. Rainfall was reasonably well spread
throughout the year with April, June, and August having the highest
monthly average amounts. Sediment losses were greatest in February,
March, May, and June, whereas sediment losses were very low (<14 kg/ha/
month) from July through November. Sediment N and P losses paralleled
sediment losses in that the highest discharges of sediment-bound nutrients
occurred in May and June and low discharges were observed from July
through November. The highest monthly losses of Nff£-N, soluble organic
N, soluble inorganic P, and soluble organic P were observed in the period
February through April. This finding suggests that snowmelt runoff and
early spring rains were responsible for significant transport of soluble
N and P. Some of the soluble N and P transported likely was leached
from residues from the previous crop present on the soil surface at the
time of snowmelt. Substantial amounts (>1 kg N/ha/month) of NO^-N were
transported out of the Site 2 drainage area during February, March, April,
June, and December. The finding that relatively high losses of NOo-N
occurred during months when sediment loss was not high (April and
December) suggests that a subsurface flow and tile drainage are major
transport means for NO-j-N in the Site 2 subwatershed.
188
-------
Table 3. Annual sediment and nutrient loading from selected agricultural watersheds in the United States.
oo
Watershed
Location
Ohio (Maumee
River Basin)d
Ohio (Portage
River Basin)d
Ohio (Plot lll)d
Mich. (Ave. of
Plots)6
Georgia
(Watershed P2)f
Iowa
(Watershed 2)8
Oklahoma
(Watershed C3)h
N. Carolina
(Watershed 2)1
Ohio (Maumee) ^
Michigan
(Mill Creek) J
Ag Watersheds^
Size
ha
.639 x
111 X
3.2
0.8
1.3
3.3
17.9
1.5
-
-
-
i-rdliU
Use
106 Mixed
10 3 Mixed
Soybeans
Row
Crops
Corn
Corn
Cotton
Corn
Wheat
Pasture
Cropland
Cropland
Cropland
Sediment
950
658
—
12940
6022
9980
3900
80-5100
20-70
400-800
Pollutants
Sed. P Sol. Pa
1.53 0.29
0.84 0.30
1.09 0.13
0.71
—
0.09
5.6 1.1
0.27
0.7-4.3 0.05-0.3
0.1-0.3 0.1-0.3
0.6-0.9 0.3 -0.4
transported
Sed. N Sol. N Reference
13.4 9
13.1 9
12.3 9
25.8 2.8 10
10.3 3.7 11
14.8 1.4 12
9.7 1.9 13
12.08 14
1
4.3-10c 1
16-31° 1
a, Sol. P is soluble inorganic P (filtered reactive phosphate); b, Sol. N is (NH^-N + NOo)-N; c, Sediment-bound
and soluble N combined; d, Average of data from 1975-1976; e., Average of data from 1974-1975; f, Average of data
from 1973-1975; g.,Average of data from 1969-1975; h^Average of data from 1966-1976; i^Average of data from
1968-1972; ^ Average of two years data from 1975-1977.
-------
Table 4. Average monthly rainfall, runoff, and sediment and nutrient
losses from the Site 2 drainage area during 1975-1978.
i, 4-u T, - .c 11 Total Sediment NHt-N NOo-N Sediment Sol. inorg. Sedxment
Month Rainfall .... . . i4.,3 r, i <- T> i <-
runoff lost lost lost N lost P lost P lost
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
3.0
4.7
7.5
10.4
8.0
10.9
5.2
10.9
7.2
4.9
5.7
5.6
1.16
2.66
5.38
3.19
1.64
1.86
0.18
0.13
0.43
0.14
0.40
2.44
30
167
109
80
236
168
8
2
13
1
9
72
0.05
0.18
0.21
0.14
0.11
0.07
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.08
0.94
1.51
2.87
2.34
0.82
1.26
0.14
0.02
0.16
0.02
0.13
1.87
Vo- /Via
Kg/ na
0.33
1.10
1.15
1.49
3.54
2.82
0.07
0.01
0.10
0.01
0.12
0.87
0.004
0.020
0.049
0.019
0.008
0.008
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.002
0.023
0.050
0.317
0.243
0.209
0.522
0.414
0.016
0.004
0.033
0.002
0.039
0.287
Total 84.0 19.8 895 0.88 12.08 11.99 0.140 2.174
Average Monthly Flow Weighted Mean Concentrations
Average monthly flow weighted mean suspended solids and nutrient
concentrations are given in Table 5. Suspended solids and sediment-
bound nutrients concentrations were highest in February, May, and June
and lowest in March, August and October. Fortunately, the poorest water
quality from solids and insoluble nutrient standpoints occurred during
the annual period of highest flows. Soluble organic N concentrations
were reasonably stable over the year varying from 0.56 to 0.95 mg/1.
Highest soluble organic N concentrations were observed in January and
September. Ammonium N concentrations were highest in February and
May and lowest in August and October. Low NH^-N concentrations in late
summer may reflect assimilation by the profuse algae and aquatic weed
growth present in the ditches from August to October. Nitrate N
concentrations were very high (>7.5 mg/1) during January, July, and
December. Relatively low N07-N concentrations (<2 mg/1) were observed
during August and October when tile drains were not running and little
water was present in the ditches. Soluble inorganic P levels exceeded
0.09 mg/1 in March, July, September, and December. Only October had a
flow weighted mean soluble inorganic P concentration less than 0.01 mg/1.
The fact that inorganic P concentrations remained relatively high
throughout the summer is surprising in light of the algae and weed
growth in the stream. One possible explanation is that sediment present
on the stream bed maintained the inorganic P level in solution by
equilibrium processes. Soluble organic P concentrations were relatively
constant over the year, although the highest concentrations (0.08 mg/1)
were measured in August and the lowest level (0.007 mg/1) was observed
in October.
190
-------
Table 5.
Average monthly flow weighted mean sediment and nutrient concentrations in Site 2 drainage water
during 1975-1978.
Month
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
August
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Overall
Suspended
solids
259
628
203
251
1439
903
444
154
302
71
225
295
452
NH+-N
0.43
0.68
0.39
0.44
0.67
0.38
0.56
0.08
0.23
0.07
0.50
0.33
0.44
N03-N
8.10
5.68
5.35
7.34
5.00
6.77
7.78
1.54
3.72
1.43
3.25
7.66
6.11
Sol. org.
N
.
— mg/1
0.95
0.75
0.82
0.72
0.79
0.75
0.56
0.77
0.93
0.71
0.75
0.62
0.76
Sediment
N
2.84
4.14
2.14
4.67
21.59
15.16
3.89
0.77
2.33
0.71
3.00
3.57
6.06
Sol. inorg.
P
0.034
0.075
0.091
0.060
0.049
0.043
0.111
0.080
0.093
0.007
0.050
0.094
0.071
Sol. org.
P
0.034
0.038
0.035
0.041
0.030
0.054
0.056
0.080
0.023
0.007
0.025
0.029
0.036
Sediment
P
0.431
1.192
0.452
0.655
3.183
2.226
0.889
0.308
0.767
0.143
1.925
1.175
1.099
-------
Nutrient Concentrations in Sediment
The average monthly total N and P concentrations in suspended stream
sediments and nutrient enrichment ratios for the Site 2 subwatershed are
given in Table 6. The four-year average total N and total P concentra-
tions in suspended sediment were 1.340 and 0.242%, respectively.
Sediment transported during April and June had the highest (> 1.6%) total
N concentrations, whereas sediment discharged in February and August
had the lowest (< 0.7%) total N contents. Total P concentrations in
sediment did not vary greatly over the course of the year, however,
sediment discharged in November had the highest P content (0.433%)
and sediment transported in January had the lowest (0.167%) concentra-
tion.
Table 6. Average monthly enrichment ratios and total N and P concentra-
tions in suspended sediment in drainage water collected at
Site 2. (All data calculated from average monthly loadings).
===============;===:==========:=:=========:===:======:===========:=:==£============
Nutrients in sediment Nutrient enrichment ratio
Month Total N Total P Total Na Total Pb
Jan. 1.100 0.167 6.6 2.5
Feb. 0.659 0.190 3.9 2.8
Mar. 1.055 0.223 6.3 3.3
Apr. 1.863 0.261 11,1 3.8
May 1.500 0.221 9.0 3.3
June 1.679 0.246 10.0 3.6
July 0.875 0.200 5.2 2.9
Aug. 0.500 0.200 3,0 2.9
Sep. 0.769 0.254 4.6 3.7
Oct. 1.000 0.200 6.0 2.9
Nov. 1.333 0.433 8.0 6.4
Dec. 1.208 0.299 7.2 4.4
Overall 1.340 0,242 8.0 3.6
a Average total N concentration in drainage area soils was 1670 ug/g.
b Average total P concentration in drainage area soils was 680 yg/g.
The four-year average total N and total P enrichment ratios were
8.0 and 3.6, respectively. Highest total N enrichment was observed in
sediment transported in April and June. Sediment discharged in November
had the highest total P enrichment ratio although the ratio did not
vary greatly over the course of the year.
Relationships Between Runoff, Sediment Loss and NutrientLoss
Table 7 provides data on the degree of relationship between runoff,
sediment loss, and nutrient losses from the Site 2 drainage area over
the period 1975 to 1978. Data from both monthly and quarterly periods
were used in the correlation studies. Losses of NH^-N, NOg-N, soluble
192
-------
organic N, and soluble organic P were highly correlated (r = >.79)
with the total volume of runoff when both quarterly and monthly data
was used (Table 7, Figures 2, 3, 4, 5,). Soluble inorganic P losses
were correlated (r2 = .78 for monthly data) with total runoff, however,
losses of sediment and sediment-bound nutrients were not correlated
with total runoff.
Table 7. Relationship between total runoff, sediment loss, and nutrient
losses from the Site 2 drainage area during 1975-1978.
Variable 1
Total runoff
Total runoff
Total runoff
Total runoff
Total runoff
Total runoff
Total runoff
Total runoff
Sediment loss
Sediment loss
Sediment loss
Sediment loss
Sediment loss
Sediment loss
Sediment loss
Sediment loss
Sediment loss
Sediment N loss
Sol. org. N loss
Sediment N loss
Sediment N loss
Sediment P loss
Variable 2
Sediment loss
NH*-N loss
NO^-N loss
Sol. org. N loss
Sediment N loss
Sol. inorg. P loss
Sol. org. P loss
Sediment P loss
NH^-N loss
NCH-N loss
Sol.' org. N loss
Sediment N loss
Sol. inorg. P loss
Sol. org. P loss
Sediment P loss
Total N in sediment
Total P in sediment
Sediment P loss
Sol. org. P loss
NH^-N loss
NO~-N loss
Sol. inorg. P loss
Quarterly
data
- Correlation
0.56
0.89
0.81
0.96
0.44
0.61
0.92
0.49
0.64
0.44
0.50
0.95
0.12
0.67
0.94
0.07
0.00
0.95
0.93
0.52
0.36
0.09
Monthly
data
Coeff., r2 -
0.38
0.79
0.81
0.95
0.31
0.78
0.92
0.33
0.47
0.26
0.31
0.92
0.14
0.38
0.93
0.16
0.00
0.91
0.93
0.37
0.22
0.10
•I
Losses of sediment-bound nutrients were highly correlated (r = >.92)
with sediment loss (Table 7, Figures 6 and 7). However, losses of
NHT-N, NOl-N, soluble organic N, soluble inorganic P, and soluble organic
P were not correlated with sediment loss. Loss of sediment N was highly
correlated (r2 = >.91) with sediment P transport as was soluble organic
193
-------
1.U5
••* • ••- -^^ «
9... 2.
f ^ ^^
LL
U.
O
i 4-6-
2.3.
.0
0 o
0
0
Q
00 °
0 B
°to
On
8)0
0 .15 .3 .45
flMMONJUM N LOSS, KS/Hfl
Figure 2. Relationship between monthly runoff and ammonium
N losses over the period 1975 to 1978.
194
-------
1.U5.
9... 2..
o
U.
U.
O
Z
Of
L9_
4-. 6.
2.3.
O
]ff
Figure 3.
0 1-5 3 4-5
NJTRflTE N LOSS, KG/Hfl
Relationship between monthly runoff and nitrate
N losses over the period 1975 to 1978.
195
-------
U..5.
o
u.
u.
o
ID
Of
9... 2..
o
e
4-6.
o
d
o
2.3.
s
0 -3 .6 .9 1
SOL. ORGflNI'D N LOSS, KG/Hfl
Figure 4. Relationship between monthly runoff and soluble
organic N losses over the period 1975 to 1978.
196
-------
u
u.
U.
O
1.U5
T
a. 2..
6.. 9..
4.6.
2.3.
O
r.
0 .011 .022 .033
SOL. ORGflNJC P LOSS> KG/Hfl
. 044.
Figure 5. Relationship between monthly runoff and soluble
organic P losses over the period 1975 to 1978,
197
-------
1J000
x 800.
CD
$ 600.
o
_)
h-
£ 400.
Q
bJ
CO
200.
p
o
Q
a °
*.o
GU.B
0
0 4. 8 12.
SEDIMENT N LOSS, KG/Hfl
Figure 6.
Relationship between monthly sediment losses and
sediment-bound N losses during the period 1975
to 1978.
198
-------
1000.
CE
N
800.
CO
05
O
600.
UJ
400.
a
UJ
200.
a
0
0 -55 1-1 1-65
SEDIMENT P LOSS, KG/Hfl
Figure 7. Relationship between monthly sediment losses
and sediment-bound P losses during the period
1975 to 1978.
199
-------
N loss with soluble organic P transport. Ammonium N and NOo-N loss
were not correlated with sediment N loss. Soluble inorganic and organic
P losses were not correlated with sediment P transport.
These findings suggest that monthly or annual loadings of NHt-N,
NO~-N, soluble organic N, soluble, inorganic P, and soluble organic P
leaving a watershed can be approximated by multiplying the annual flow
weighted mean concentrations by the volume of runoff during the period.
This procedure predicted the four-year average monthly loadings with
reasonable accuracy. However, when applied to individual year monthly
data significant deviations from observed values were obtained. This
approach may prove useful in models of soluble nutrient transport from
watersheds.
The above findings also indicate that monthly or annual loadings
of sediment-bound N and P leaving a watershed can be estimated by
multiplying the mean total N and P concentrations, respectively, in
sediment by the amount of sediment discharged. This procedure pre-
dicted the average monthly sediment-bound nutrient discharges with
reasonable accuracy. However, when used to calculate monthly losses
of sediment-bound nutrients for individual years significant differences
from measured values were obtained. It is apparent that this approach
will be valid for use in models which predict transport of sediment-
bound nutrients.
REFERENCES
1. International Reference Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land
Use Activities. 1978. Environmental management strategy for the
Great Lakes system. International Joint Commission, Windsor,
Ontario.
2. Lake, J. and J. Morrison. 1977* Environmental impact of land use
on water quality. Final report on the Black Cteek Project (summary).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL. EPA-905/9-78-001.
p. 3-9.
3. American Public Health Association. 1971. Standard Methods for
Examination of Water and Wastewater. 13th ed. Am. Public Health
Assoc., Washington, B.C.
4. U*S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. 16020 07/71.
5. Steel, R.G.D. and J. H. Tortie. 1960. Principles and Procedures
of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York. 482 p.
6. Nelson, D. W. and D. B. Beasley. 1978. Quality of Black Creek
drainage water: Additional parameters. In Environmental impact
of land use on water quality-supplemental comments. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL. EPA-905/9-77-077-D.
p. 36-83.
200
-------
7. Nelson, D. W., E. J. Monke, A. D. Bottcher, and L. E. Sommers.
1979. Sediment and nutrient contributions to the Maumee River
from an agricultural watershed. In R. C. Loehr (ed.). Best
Management Practices for Agriculture and Silviculture. Ann
Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI. p. 491-505.
8. Logan, T. J. and R. C. Stiefel. 1979. Maumee River pilot water-
shed study. Watershed characteristics and pollutant loadings,
Defiance Area, Ohio. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chicago, IL. EPA-905/9-79-005-A. 135 p.
9. Ellis, B. G., A. E. Erickson, and A. R. Wolcott. 1978. Nitrate
and phosphorus runoff losses from small watersheds in Great Lakes
Basin. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.
EPA-600/3-78-028. 84 p.
10. Langdale, G. W., R. A. Leonard, W. G. Fleming, and W. A. Jackson.
1979. Nitrogen and chloride movement in small upland Piedmont
watersheds. II. Nitrogen and chloride transport in runoff.
J. Environ. Qual. 8:57-63.
11. Alberts, E. E., G. E. Schuman, and R. E. Burnell. 1978. Seasonal
runoff losses of nitrogen and phosphorus from Missouri Valley
loess watersheds. J. Environ. Qual. 7:203-208.
12. Menzel, R. G., E. D. Rhoades, A. E. Olness, and S. J. Smith. 1978.
Variability of annual nutrient and sediment discharges in runoff
from Oklahoma cropland and rangeland. J. Environ. Qual. 7:401-406.
13. Kilmer, V. J., J. W. Gilliam, J. F. .utz, R. T. Joyce and C. D.
Eklund. 1974. Nutrient losses from fertilized grassed waterways
in western North Carolina. J. Environ. Qual. 3:214-219.
201
-------
THE VARIETY OF ON-SITE TREATMENT SYSTEM FAILURE
by
A. E. Krause*
OUTLINE
Although there are numerous and very real problems of on-site system failure, its
presumed but unproven presence has been the justification for a wide variety of central-
ized treatment systems, some of doubtful utility. New sensing mechanisms and
a variety of on-site studies have helped to allow a broader and deeper understand-
ing of this phenomenon.
A. Three Caveats
1. The subject involves the limitations of a wide range of systems,
including privies, cesspools, drywells, septic tanks and fields,
and even holding tanks.
2. It is important to distinguish between individual and collective
failure impact. Individual malfunctions can be found in any large
group of systems; They are very different from area-wide health hazards,
such as contamination of an aquifer.
3. A functional failure need not mean the presence of a condition that the
homeowner can clearly identify; in area of porous soils many kinds of
failure may occur without visible evidence.
B. Variety of Failures
1. Surface (Clogging Mat) Failures and Overland Flows.
There failures are usually associated with clogging mat formation. They
may be complicated by tight soils or hydraulic system overload, including
external flooding. They may also be caused or affected by quality of construc-
tion, suffering from soil compression or irregular pipe slopes.
Principal manifestations include surface ponding, system backup, or
overland flows to lakes and streams. Principal impacts include
lake or stream nutrient enrichment, pathogenic contamination,
and other public health problems.
2. Groundwater Failures.
These are most common on soils of medium to high porosity, and are
not usually associated with clogging mat formation. Since the groundwater
effluent plume often moves along the surfa3e of the aquifer, its effects
are greatly complicated by the direction and spe
-------
Manifestations and impacts of groundwater failures include localized lakeshore
enrichment, algal growth (particularly at point of plume entry) and situational
well contamination(where the well may lie in the path of the effluent plume.
3. Special situation or Elective Failures
These include such things as direct tile drainage, straight pipes to streams
and 'midnight pumpout" of holding tanks— failures by design. It also includes
the relatively uncommon contamination of an entire aquifer by excessive on-site
system loading. One of the best-known examples of such a failure is found in
Central Long Island, where high density use of cesspools and drywells*.
has . rendered an entice aquifer unusable due to nitrate contamination.
C. Pollutants and Impacts
1. Nitrogen.
The various forms of effluent nitrogen are soon converted to the form of nitrates.
Nitrates are one of the most significant pollutants in cases of well contamination
causing methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome) in concentrations over 10 mg/1.
Nitrates are of great importance for high density aquifer contamination, as
on Long Island, and are also of marginal significance to lake and stream enrich-
ment. The great bulk of normal effluent nitrogen loading comes from human
liquid wastes. There is little or no nitrogen removal in conventional on-site syst
2. Phosphorus.
Phosphorus has little or no direct public health impact, but is well known as
a major factor in lake and stream enrichment. It can trigger algal growths,
particularly at the entrance point of a groundwater effluent plume. Soil
conditions, particularly alkaline soils high in carbonates, can allow a high
level of pliG^phorus removal. Preliminary evidence suggests this may even occur
under saturated soil conditions.
3. Pathogens.
Bacteria and viruses usually enter bodies of water through overland flow;
bacterial and viral well contamination is often associated with defective
well construction and overland flow. Normally any reasonable amount of
soil will allow a high degree of adsorbition onto the surface of soil
particles.
4. Miscellaneous
BOD and suspended soilds are almost unimportant in relation to on-site treatment
except in cases of direct or overland flows. Suspended solids may of course
play an important role in causing surface failures.
Other pollutant roles remain to be defined; for some lakeshore algae vitamin
B-12 may play as important a role as phosphorus. USEPA Region V (in its
Rural Lakes Generic EIS) has some important studies underway.
D. Failure Sensing Methods
1. Interview and Inspection.
This approach, sometimes quite costly, has been the most common one in the
past. The classic rhodamine dye test can be reliab e for detecti tile field,
straight pipe and some overland flows. The door-to-door interview survey is
relatively cheap, and even when residents are not completely candid, can
produce a useful profile of water consumption and hydraulic loading.
204
-------
2. Aerial Photography.
Color and color/infrared aerial photography can provide a good, quick, and
relatively cheap survey of conventional surface failures of septic systems
and drywells. The photographs should be taken at a height not exceeding
6000 feet, at a time of limited tree cover (early spring or late fall),
about five days after the last rainfall. Under these conditions the
method can be very effective, sometimes even showing the cause of the
failure. It will have a relatively limited value where surface-type
failures are uncommon.
3. Septic Leachate Detector ("Septic Snooper")
This device monitors conductance and ultraviolet fluorescence to detect
the actual entrance point of an effluent plume reaching a stream or lake.
It uses a wand-type probe and pump to vacuum up water from near-shoreline
bottoms for continuous analysis by the instrument, which is normally carried
in a small boat. The leachate detector is very effective if properly used
(wind velocity should not exceed 5 miles per hour), and has detected some
unique situations not accessible through other methods. It has also
made possible evaluations and refinements of conventional lake and stream
models to reflect, actual contributions and loading from on-site treatment
systems. This is because, once the plume entry point is known, spot samples
can be taken from the lake or (using a portable well point) from the
groundwater itself. Miscellaneous uses of the device include quick cheap
screening of of drinking water samples for marginal septic effluent
contaminationB
4. Groundwater Flow Meter.
This device uses small heat pulses to provide a three dimensional readout of
groundwater flow direction and speed, when lowered into the water table.
It does this in about three minutes. In soils with possible rock or other
inclusions, multiple measurements are needed.
It is thus possible to have frequent and very site-specific measurements
of groundwater flow direction. When used in concert with a leachate detector
the flow meter allows tracking of individual effluent plume back to their
sources. On old construction it shows the possible direction from which
well contamination may be coming. One new construction it allows the
treatment system to be placed "downstream" from the well; with a filter field
the long axis can be placed perpendicular to the groundwater flow, minimizing
effluent concentration at any one point.
E. Results
Using the new sensing approaches it is now possible and cost-effective to determine
which of a group of on-site treatment systems may be causing water quality problens,
and if an areawide problem actually exists. On seven sample rural lake environmental
impact statements (copies available on request) it proved possible to cut treatment
costs by an average of two thirds (over a twenty year period) using on-site treatment
where appropriate.
In responding to identified system failures there are literally dozens of alternatives
available, including: on-site repair, mound systems, cluster systems; field dosing;
water conservation and flow reduction, and greywater/blackwater separation. In addition
modular combination of these alternative may useful; this was the case on most of
the seven lake projects and the recent waynesville, Illinois facilities plan (recently
approved for Step 2+ 3 funding ).
205
-------
F. Work in Progress
The Environmental Engineering Branch of tiae USEPA Region V Water Division has several
projects now underway that may help to further understanding of the problems and
appropriate responses to on-site system failure. Among these are:
1. Soil Map Reinterpretation.
Existing U.S. Department of Agriculture soil map interpretations are
being revised. Instead of the simple four-way hazard system for conventional
tanks and filter fields, there will be a flexible rating system for a variety
of on-site treatment approaches, together with an estimate of the mitigative
measures needed (with their approximate cost) to overcome the soil limitation,
This work, which will first be completed for ten northern Indiana counties,
will allow a much more flexible use of the existing SCS soil surveys.
2. Water Conservation.
On several dozen presently failing on-site systems in northern Indiana,
USEPA has contracted with the State of Indiana and Purdue University to insta]
advanced water conservation and flow reduction devices (two-quart flush
toilets, two quart per minute air compressor shower heads, front-loading
washing machines) to monitor the exact effect on such devices on effluent
quality, and to find just how far water conservation can go in rehabilitat-
ing failed systems, especially surface failures.
3. Greywater/Blackwater Separation.
On other failing Indana system, especially those with groundwater contaminatic
problems, the same team will install a new kind of greywater/blackwater separ-
ation. This uses an extremely low volume flush toilet (two quarts to one cuj
per flush) together with a holding tank for the toilet wastes only. The syst«
require pumping at interval of six months to two years and results in at least
an 80 per cent reduction in nitrate loading to groundwater.
4. Generic Rural Lakes Environmental impact Statement.
This document will use the seven rural lake impact statements, among others,
to assess wastewater planning techniques and sensing methods to produce
a cookbook for rural on-site wastewater planning, particularly for rural
lake areas.
For information on this and other work in progress, as well as copies of forthcoming
papers, please write U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Environmental
Engineering Branch (5WEE), 230 South Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
206
-------
MILL CREEK PILOT WATERSHED STUDY ON
PESTICIDE FATE IN AN ORCHARD ECOSYSTEM:
DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENTATION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA BASE
by
M. J. Zabik, J. J. Jenkins
a b
R. Kon, L. Geissel and Erik Goodman
a Pesticide Research Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan.
b Department of Electrical Engineering and Systems Science, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan.
207
-------
INTRODUCTION TO MILL CREEK STUDIES
A study of Mill Creek, a subwatershed of the Grand River basin was
begun in 1974 as part of the Task C Pilot Watershed Studies of PLUARG.
Mill Creek represents a watershed typical of the large fruit growing region
of southwestern lower Michigan. Since fruit orchard farming utilizes some
of the most intensive pesticide application rates of any agricultural prac-
tices in the Great Lakes Basin, it seemed particularly appropriate at the
initiation of these studies to emphasize pesticide transport processes.
Studies of nutrient exports were also included but not emphasized.
The pesticide transport process can be divided into two categories:
(1) pesticide transported in solution, and (2) pesticide adsorbed to par-
ticulate matter and convected along with the sediment load of the stream.
This distinction is necessary if one is to accurately identify the source
of the problem.
The removal and subsequent transport of agricultural non-point source
pollutants are directly related to the rainfall-runoff process. Overland
flow is responsible for the initial movement of pollutants from the land
surface to the stream. Once in the stream, the pollutant may be transpor-
ted considerable distances by the stream flow. In the particular case of
pesticides the quantity transported is related to the solubility and adsorp-
tive characteristics of the pesticide considered. The translocation of
pesticides that are adsorbed to or coated on sediment particles depends on
the many variables influencing the capability of a stream to transport sed-
iment, whereas those that are water soluble will be convected in amounts
that are directly proportional to their concentration level and the stream
discharge.
In view of the above description of the processes responsible for the
transport of pesticides, the major objective of our research effort was to
determine the relative amount of pesticide transported on the suspended
solids and in solution. As a result of such a determination it would then
be possible to ascertain the magnitude and source of this non-point source
problem.
Description of the Study Area
The Mill Creek watershed is located in midwestern lower Michigan. It
includes Cranberry Lake and watershed. Mill Creek originates from Cran-
berry Lake at the Ottawa-Kent County line and flows southeasterly through
Kent County, joining the Grand River at Comstock Park. Three major tribu-
taries enter the creek (Figure 1). Upstream, the land is rolling with
orchards and grain predominating. Proceeding downstream the creek goes from
agricultural to urban development. In general the stream may be described
as a cold water, usually clear creek with a drainage system representative
of a midwestern agricultural and urban creek of moderate size and low relief
gradient.
Initially, sampling of pesticides, sediments, and nutrients were con-
ducted at nine stations established from Cranberry Lake to the creek's
mouth as it enters the Grand River. Comprehensive analyses of some 57
pesticide parameters allowed the identification of problem pesticides and
then concentration of efforts on the transport processes responsible for
movement of these problem pesticides within and from the creek. After the
208
-------
IV)
o
O Recording Rain Gage
& Recording Stream Gage
?
Kilometers
Scale
^
V
Figure 1. Mill Creek Watershed
-------
initial survey of the entire watershed, studies were concentrated on the
agricultural portion of the watershed upstream of station 5 at M-37 (Fig-
ure 1). Downstream of M-37, the watershed becomes urbanized with housing
subdivision, light industry, and a golf course — land uses not indicative
of the problem under investigation.
Land use in the 3058 ha watershed upstream of station 5 (Figure 1) is
almost completely agricultural with about 90% of the area in cultivation
and the other 10% in woodlots or wetlands. About 50% of the watershed is
in corn, 30% in fruit orchards predominated by apples but with some cherries
and other furits, and the remaining 10% in pasture or alfalfa.
Almost 90% of the soils are loams or loamy snads (Table 1) of glacial
origin. In general, the higher elevation soils are almost exclusively
loam with Nester, Marlette, and Capac being the three predominant soil
types. In the areas adjacent to the streams, the soils are almost all
loamy sands predominately of the Spinks, Brady, Oshtemo, and Chelsea series
interspersed with pockets of muck, sandy loam, fine sandy loam and other
alluvial lands (Table 1). Slopes are generally in the 2 to 12% range with
some ridges in the 12-18% range.
Table 1. Major Soils of the 3058 ha Mill Creek Watershed
Soil Area (ha) Percent of Total
Loam
Loamy Sand
Muck
Sandy Loam
Alluvial Land
Fine Sandy Loam
Fine Sand
(Lakes)
2,242
489
153
99
30
6
4
35
73.3
16.0
5.0
3.2
1.0
0.2
0.1
1.1
Locations of major sampling stations are shown in Figure 1. There
were three subwatersheds sampled with automatic (ISCO) sequential storm-
water samplers so that loadings of major pesticides, sediments, and nutri-
ents could be calculated. These three stations include (1) the 889 ha
North Branch water (station 7, Figure 1), (2) the 1146 ha upper Mill Creek
watershed prior to its confluence with North Branch (station 8, Figure 1),
and (3) the entire 3058 ha agricultural portion of Mill Creek upstream of
the urban area (station 5, Figure 1). Precipitation on the watershed was
monitored with three recording rain gauges (Figure 1).
A review of the data from the stream is given in EPA report EPA-905/
9-78-002. A short summary is given in the following tables and graphs.
210
-------
Table 2. Mass Flow of Pesticides from Mill Creek, Michigan, During Three Storm Events
Storm Mean discharge
date (m3/day)
5/06
5/28
6/30
- 5/07/76
- 5/31/76
- 7/02/76
1764
104
65
Adsorbed pesticide
transported (Kg)
DDT DDE Atrazine
0.008
0.001
0.0004
0.005 a
0.025 a
0.00004 a
Dissolved pesticide
transported (Kg) Suspended solids
DDT DDE Atrazine transported (Kg)
0.011
0.003
0.003
0.0008
None
None
0.022
0.047
0.012
10400
1050
600
a Data not yet available
-------
Table 3. Stream Export of Materials by the 3058 ha Mill Creek Watershed Above M-37
ro
ro
Nitrate-N
Nitrite-N
Ammonia-N
Total Kjeldahl N
Molybdate Reactive P
Total P
Chloride
Calcium
Sodium
Suspended Solids
Weighted
mean (mg/1)
1.765
0.025
0.078
0.782
0.076
0.153
11.778
49.676
5.482
11.590
1975-76
Total load
(kg/yr)
20573 ±
288 ±
912 ±
9116 ±
882 ±
1782 ±
137303 ±
579095 ±
63901 ±
135114 ±
5546
285
1023
2295
298
1018
23509
111673
8939
137425
Unit area
load (kg/
ha/yr)
6.729
0.094
0.298
2.981
0.288
0.583
44.900
189.371
20.896
44.184
Weighted
1976-77
Total load
mean (mg/1) (kg/yr)
3.656
0.010
0.020
1.117
0.181
0.313
19.808
51.314
5.984
47.985
11786 ±
31.24 ±
62.95 ±
3602 ±
582 ±
1008 ±
63863 ±
165439 ±
19293 ±
154709 ±
3496
3.58
27.72
1090
250
331
8334
56926
3644
146989
Unit area
load (kg/
ha/yr)
3.854
0.010
0.021
1.178
0.190
0.330
20.884
54.100
6.309
50.592
-------
Table 4. Stream Export of Materials by the 889 ha North Branch Subwatershed of Mill Creek
ro
\
Nitrate-N
Nitrite-N
Ammonia-N
Total Kjeldahl N
Molybdate Reactive P
Total P
Chloride
Calcium
Sodium
Suspended Solids
Weighted
mean (mg/1)
1.191
0.038
0.073
0.696
0.073
0.171
13.585
53.698
6.687
21.490
1975-76
Total load
(kg/yr)
3529 ± 1433
113 ± 137
215 + 229
2063 ± 938
217 ± 99
506 ± 335
40246 ± 13602
159078 ± 42395
19811 ± 5105
63655 ± 23995
Unit area
load (kg/
ha/yr)
3.970
0.127
0.242
2.321
0.244
0.569
45.271
178.940
22.285
71.614
Weighted
mean (mg/1)
0.885
0.010
0.010
0.465
0.050
0.054
30.527
a
a
a
1976-77
Total load
(kg/yr)
568 ± 66
6.38 ± .11
6.61 ± .34
229 ± 52
32.1 ± 12.5
34.5 ± 14.1
19602 ± 1169
a
a
a
Unit area
load (kg/
ha/yr)
0.639
0.007
0.007
0.336
0.036
0.039
22.049
a
a
a
a Insufficient data
-------
Table 5. Stream Export of Materials by the 1146 ha Mill Creek Watershed Above the Confluence with North Branch
Weighted
Nitrate-N
Nitrite-N
Ammonia-N
Total Kjeldahl N
Molybdate reactive P
Total P
Chloride
Calcium
Sodium
Suspended solids
mean
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
9.
42.
3.
16.
(mg/D
511
013
100
798
063
139
875
438
781
388
1975-76
Total load
(kg/yr)
5200 ±
44.2 ±
344 ±
2745 ±
216 ±
478 ±
33986 ±
146055 ±
13012 ±
56399 ±
2836
40.5
416
731
105
238
4377
25920
1605
35775
Unit
load
area
(kg/
ha/yr)
4.
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
29.
127.
11.
49.
358
039
300
395
188
417
656
448
354
214
Weighted
1976-77
Total load
mean (mg/1) (kg/yr)
5.607
0.009
0.013
1.175
0.156
0.248
19.265
44.060
3.807
33.803
4061
6.78
9.26
851
113
179
13954
31913
2757
22484
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
2316
1.74
12.10
301
43
109
2969
15662
1256
73338
Unit area
load (kg/
ha/yr)
3.544
0.006
0.008
0.743
0.099
0.156
12.176
27.847
2.406
21.365
-------
ro
en
Table 6. Pesticide Exports from the 3058 ha Mill Creek Water, 1975-76 Water Year0
Event Flows
Rising
hydrograph (kg)
Descending Non-event
Pesticide hydrograph (kg) hydrograph (kg) flows (kg)
Total Exports
(kg)
Unit area
loads (kg/ha)
DDT
.DDE
ODD
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Guthion
Atrazine
Simaz'ine
DDT
DDE
ODD
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Guthion
Atrazine
Simazine
0.500 ±
0.361 ±
0.029 ±
0.043 ±
0.083 ±
0.079 ±
1.933 ±
0.174 ±
4.859 ±
5.214 ±
0.474 ±
0.526 ±
0.696 ±
0.451 ±
13.807 ±
3.307 ±
.0002
.0001
.00001
. 00001
.00003
. 00003
.0006
.0001
.002
.003
.0002
.0002
.0003
.0002
.005
.001
15.427 ±
13.228 ±
1.063 ±
1.159 ±
2.669 ±
0.688 ±
39.247 ±
2.898 ±
281.440 ±
196.550 ±
17.420 ±
1.570 ±
17.107 ±
6.612 ±
283.030 ±
50.644 ±
.013
.012
.001
.001
.004
.002
.124
.005
.09
.13
.017
.002
.024
.018
.85
.172
Dissolved
Filtered
13
12
1
1
3
Pesticides
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Pesticides
.859 ±
.573 ±
.500 ±
.786 ±
.429 ±
ND
ND
ND
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
300.160
214.340
19.394
3.882
21.232
± 0.09
± 0.13
± 0.017
± 0.002
± 0.024
—
—
—
0
0
0
0
0
.0982
.0701
.0063
.0013
.0069
—
—
a There was 3.6 times more runoff in the 1975-76 Water Year than in the 1976-77 Water Year
b ND indicates no data
-------
Table 7. Pesticide Exports from the 3058 ha Mill Creek Watershed, 1976-77 Water Year'
PO
CT>
Pesticide
DDT
DDE
ODD
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Guthion
Atrazine
Simazine
DDT
DDE
ODD
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Guthion
Atrazine
Simazine
•
Rising
hydrograph (kg)
1.852 ±
2.284 ±
0.097 ±
0.113 ±
0.244 ±
0.007 ±
0.791 ±
0.036 ±
24.136 ±
33.261 ±
1.015 ±
0.945 ±
1.912 ±
0.151 ±
7.152 ±
0.706 ±
.001
.002
.0001
.0001
.0001
.000004
.001
.00002
.020
.028
.001
.001
.001
.0001
.005
.001
"
Decending
hydrograph (kg)
3.430
3.411
0.178
0.156
0.279
0.026
1.230
0.052
58.413
55.811
2.888
1.583
4.418
0.697
10.433
0.752
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
.036
.074
.006
.005
.014
.00002
.095
.004
0.647
1.261
0.102
0.067
0.235
0.447
0.675
0.061
Non-event
flows (kg)
0.433
0.303
0.026
0.129
0.047
0.031
0.563
0.144
3.001
2.732
0.209
0.182
0.377
0.510
5.537
1.486
± 7 . 104
± 1.245
± 0.000
± 0.553
± 0.276
± 0.032
± 12.865
± 4.140
± 5.201
± 10.424
± 1.674
± 1.239
± 2.841
± 2.600
± 42.580
± 22.590
Total Exports
(kg)
5.715 ±
5.998 ±
0.301 ±
0.398 ±
0.570 ±
0.064 ±
2.584 ±
0.232 ±
85.550 ±
91.804 ±
4.112 ±
2.710 ±
6.707 ±
1.358 ±
23.122 ±
2.944 ±
7.104
1.247
0.006
0.553
0.276
0.232
12.865
4.140
5.241
10.580
1.677
1.241
2.851
2.638
42.585
22.590
Unit area
loads (kg/ha)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.00187
.00196
.00010
.00013
.00019
.00002
. 00084
. 00008
.0280
.0300
.0013
.0009
.0022
.0004
.0076
.0010
a There was 3.6 times more runoff in the 1975-76 Water Year than in the 1976-77 Water Year.
-------
Table 8. Flow Weighted Mean Concentrations (yg/£) of Pesticides Exported
from the 3058 ha Mill Creek Watershed
Pesticide
Event Flows
Rising Descending
hydrograph hydrograph
Non-Event
flows
1975-76 Water Year
a
Dissolved pesticides
Filtered pesticides
Dissolved pesticides
Filtered pesticides
DDT
DDE
ODD
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Guthion
Atrizine
Simazine
DDT
DDE
ODD
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Guthion
Atrizine
Simazine
DDT
DDE
ODD
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Guthion
Atrizine
Simazine
DDT
DDE
DDD
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Guthion
Atrizine
Simazine
0.531
0.366
0.052
0.094
0.097
0.112
2.245
0.201
5.
5,
.192
,341
0.799
0.738
0.884
0.535
16.327
3.828
4.166
3.572
0.287
0.313
0.721
0.186
10.598
0.782
75.998
53.075
4.704
0.424
4.619
1.785
76.428
13.676
1976-77 Water Year3
1.201
1.280
0.045
0.093
0.122
0.014
1.198
0.071
1.323
1.232
0.070
0.083
0.113
0.020
0.753
0.027
13.727
15.885
0.640
0.501
1.063
0.351
6.862
0.725
19.831
18.769
1.053
0.585
1.559
0.498
5.624
0.408
ND"
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.940
1.760
0.210
0.250
0.480
ND
ND
ND
0.170
0.119
0.010
0.050
0.018
0.012
0.221
0.056
1.176
1.071
0.082
0.072
0.148
0.200
2.170
0.582
a There was 3.6 times more runoff in the 1975-76 Water Year than in
the 1976-77 Water Year
b ND indicates no data
217
-------
0)
bO
cfl
U <~s
co T3
•H C
P O
>• $1000-
rH CO
J3 •».
4-J CO
0 H
O 0)
500-
J
I
0 N
D
M
M
co
CO
O
4-1 /-s
C CO
0) (-
e o
•H H
0) O
W -H
k
13 4-1
cu m
ci ^^^
cu
&,
CO
300"
250 -
200-
150-
100-
50-
Suspended sediment loss
for October, 1975 to
September, 1976
663 metric tons
1
0
N
D
J
M
M
A
Figure 2. Discharge and Suspended Sediment Loss from
the Mill Creek, Michigan, Watershed
218
-------
4J
§
o
o
o
•H
d
3
O
o
•H
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
oo
o
o
o
CN1
o
o
o
OO
o
o
o
o
o
o
,: J , - ___ J 1 j. _ p_
28.00 32.00 36.00 40.00 44.00 48.00
Particle Diameter (Microns)
52.00
56.00 60.00
10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00
Particle Diameter (Microns)
45.00 50.00
Figure 3. Particle size distribution of particles less than 100 microns in
size transported during low flow periods on October 28, 1976 (flow
= 110 /sec, upper figure) and on November 28, 1976 (flow = 189
/sec, lower figure). These size distributions were determined with
a Coulter Counter, Model A.
219
-------
The work presented in this portion is an effort to characterize the
dynamics and effects of an example compound in the terrestrial environ-
ment, utilizing field and laboratory measurements and the methodology of
systems modeling and simulation. Data collection, model refinement, and
revised experimental design were done in an iterative fashion, yielding
a model which is parameterizable and data which are relevant to the pro-
blem being attacked. Reported here is the field experimental program used
to parameterize the model which describes the distribution, attenuation
and movement of the organophosphate insecticide azinphosmethyl, 0,0-di-
methyl-S-(4-oxo-l5 2, 3 benzotriazin-3(4H)-ylmethyl) phosphorodithioate
(Guthion ). While the laboratory and field work concentrated on the par-
ticular pesticide chosen, the techniques for studying and modeling it are
applicable to a broad range of compounds. The compound is followed (in
the model and in the field) from its spray application through the orchard
soil/vegetation/litter environment and into aquatic systems. A further
goal is to identify and model its impacts on non-target organisms in a
terrestrial ecosystem.
To develop a methodology for modeling the ecosystem effects of
alternative pesticides, a deciduous orchard ecosystem, among the most com-
plex of agroecosystems, was chosen as a challenging example. In part due
to their perennial nature, orchard ecosystems are more similar to natural
ecosystems than are many other agroecosystems. Annual and semiannual crops
are more transient in their behavior, a product of periodic radical changes
in their environment due to cultural practices. In addition, the economic
pressure to produce flawless fruit forces orchard growers to be among the
heaviest users of pesticides in American agriculture. Ecosystems complex-
tiy, coupled with high pesticide use, makes the orchard ecosystem a good
indicator of possible ecological dangers. Additional hazards may be seen
in sloping orchards where pesticides may be carried by runoff, as well as
wind, to other terrestrial and aquatic environments, increasing the chances
of potentially harmful pollution.
The organophosphate insecticide azinphosmethyl was chosen as the
example pesticide to be introduced into the orchard, as it is one of the
most widely used and potentially toxic compounds used in orchards today.
To develop, parameterize and tesJL a model of the fate and impact of
an alternative pesticide in an orchard ecosystem, four broad classes of
information were desired:
1. How is the pesticide initially distributed in the ecosystem;
what is its availability to the ecosystem population?
2. How is the pesticide redistributed; what forces affect this
distribution?
3. How is the pesticide attenuated by its environment (microbial,
chemical, photochemical degradation, volatilization, organism
uptake)?
4. What is the relationship between the pesticide's attenuation and
distribution and its effects on organisms?
It is obvious that the first three questions must be answered before
the last; the model must represent the distribution, movement and attenuation
220
-------
of azinphosmethyl prior to its simulation of organism effects. The data
base required for such a model is quite extensive. It amounts to a mass-
balance of azinphosmethyl in the orchard (and leaving the orchard) with
time. Available data from the literature merely gave initial direction
to the field studies, as a consistent basis for formulating conclusions
that could not be found among the various data reported.
Residue levels of azinphosmethyl with time on various plant surfaces,
in the soil, and in the aquatic environment, were reported by the Chemagro
Division Research Staff (1974). Liang and Lichtenstein (1972) examined
the effects of light, temperature, and pH on the degradation of azin-
phosmethyl in water and on glass surfaces. In a later paper, (1976) they
looked at photbdecomposition of -^C azinphosmethyl in soils and on leaf
surfaces. Schulz et al. (1970) looked at the persistence and degradation
of azinphosmethyl in soils as affected by formulation and mode of appli-
cation. Yaron et al. (1974a) followed azinphosmethyl persistence and
movement within the soil profile under irrigated field conditions. Iwata
et al. (1975) looked at the behavior of azinphosmethyl is dust derived
from several soil types. Heuer et al. (1974) studied the kinetics of
azinphosmethyl degradation in aqueous solutions and on glass beads as
affected by pH and temperature. Yaron (1974b) examined azinphosmethyl
kinetics in the soil environment. Kuhr et al. (1974) examined the dissi-
pation of azinphosmethyl from apple orchard soil when applied as a part of
a routine spray program. Wieneke and Steffens (1974) compared the degra-
dation of l^C azinphosmethyl on glass paltes to the metabolism on bean
leaves, and later studies (Steffens and Wieneke, 1975, 1976) further
examined plant uptake and metabolism. Hall et al. (1975) and Hansen et al.
(1978) followed the degradation of dislogeable azinphosmethyl residues on
apple foilage. McMechan et al. (1972) measured the amount of azinphos-
methyl erosion from apple leaves by rain and overtree irrigation. Thompson
and Brooks (1976) looked at dislodgeable residues of azinphosmethyl and 4
other insecticides on citrus leaves and fruit during wet and dry weather
in Florida. Gunther et al. (1977) discussed the dynamics of both penetrated
and dislodgeable foliar residues on citrus, orchard soil dust residues, and
airborne residues, fiach of these papers supplies information on the
dynamics of azinphosmethyl in one segment of the environment, be it soil,
water, leaf surfaces, etc. To understand ecosystem effects, these pro-
cesses must be considered part of the whole ecosystem and azinphosmethyl
dynamics must be considered for every part at any point in time.
To overcome the gaps and inconsistencies in the literature, an
abandoned apple orchard in the Mill Creek Watershed was converted into an
experimental unit to gather data on the environmental dynamics of azinphos-
methyl under a regime of periodic sprays. The orchard sampling was based
on this whole-ecosystem principle using the literature as a source of
expected values to determine initial sampling procedures.
221
-------
The environmental behavior of pesticides was studied to develop a
methodology for modeling ecosystems effects of alternative pesticides.
Studies were carried out in an apple orchard watershed to gather data on
both initial distribution of azinphosmethyl within the orchard and vertical
movement of the pesticide under the influence of rainfall, as well as the
attenuation of the pesticide in various situations. The orchard was sub-
divided into distinct plots. Each was further subdivided both vertically
and horizontally in order to adequately represent the variations which
affect the behavior and impact of the pesticide in the orchard ecosystem.
Plots were designed such that each was a distinct watershed, allowing run-
off collection from them individually. In addition, losses of azinphos-
methyl to the atmosphere were examined, both during application and on
subsequent days. In 1976 64.9% and in 1977 53.6% of the azinphosmethyl
applied was initially distributed among the various orchard strata. Exam-
ination of residues reaching each stratum showed the majority of the dis-
lodgeable residues are distributed to the trees and grass. Litter and soil
residue levels are roughly 10 times lower than tree leaf residues. Runoff
studies indicate a small contribution to the loss of azinphosmethyl from
the orchard via this route. Analysis of residue data throughout the season
indicates vertical pesticide movement among strata under both rainfall and
no-rainfall conditions. Airborne residues collected at the downwind edge
during spraying were roughly uniform to 6 meters and averaged 55.6 ± 6.9
yg/m3. Levels measured 6 days after application averaged .27 ± .10 yg/m .
The data presented here were used to parameterize a model for pesticide
fate in a orchard ecosystem presented in Goodman et al. (1979). A model
for organism effects parameterized using data from a companion study, con-
ducted concurrently within the same orchard, is also described in Goodman,
et al. (1979).
222
-------
The results show that pesticides (chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides
in particular) are still a significant non-point source of contamination
to Michigan rivers and consequently the bordering Great Lakes. The con-
centrations found are at the part per billion and trillion level but still
are significant in terms of their effect on aquatic organisms due to bio-
magnification. The results of Mill Creek are supported by the fact that
pesticides such as DDT and Dieldrin are found in Great Lake fish and are
responsible for the ban on commercial fishing for Coho salmon, etc.
There does not appear to be any reasonable mechanism for the elimina-
tion of these pesticides from the river and streams short of what has
already been implemented (ban on the use of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesti-
cides) . Prevention of sheet soil errosion would certainly be a measure
that would reduce the amount of pesticides entering the Great Lakes but
would certainly not stop the introduction of all pesticides due to evapor-
ation, drift and other transport processes.
223
-------
LIVESTOCK INPUTS AND EFFECTS
BY
FRED MADISON*
LIVESTOCK POLLUTION LOADS GOING INTO THE GREAT LAKES BECAME A
MAJOR CONCERN OF CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES, THUS FROM THE
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION THROUGH PLUARG, PROGRAMS
WERE SET UP TO INITIATE STUDIES TO ESTIMATE POLLUTION LOADS
TO THE GREAT LAKES,
THE STUDIES COVERED THREE MAJOR SOURCE AREAS:
_AND APPLICATION SYSTEMS
BARNYARD FEEDLOT AREAS
hlASTE STORAGE AREAS
AN EXTENSIVE LITERATURE SEARCH WAS UNDERTAKEN, THUS WE
CONCLUDED PHOSPHORUS LOADINGS TO THE GREAT LAKES:
1, 5% OF THE PHOSPHORUS WAS TREATED ANNUALLY,
2, 10% SPREAD ON FROZEN GROUND FOR RUNOFF TO STREAMS,
3, 2% FROM EXCRETED SOURCES OF SOLIDS AND SEMISOLIDS,
DATA SET IN A SIMPLIFIED MODEL AND THESE CONCLUSIONS WERE
DRAWN:
1, 1 TO 2,5% OF ALL MANURE PHOSPHORUS WAS DELIVERED TO
THE LAKES,
2, 75% OF MANURE PHOSPHORUS FROM BARNYARDS WAS DELIVERED
TQ_STREAMS,
, 2
3, 25% WAS FROM MANURE LAND APPLICATION SOURCES,
LOAD ESTIMATES FROM LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPLIED ON
CROPLAND REVEALED:
1, 6 TO 15% REDUCTION IN PHO'SPHORUS LOADINGS,
2, A 10% REDUCTION IN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS IN THE WATERSHED,
ANIMAL WASTE SOURCES ARE REDUCED:
J
, 27 TO 36% REDUCTION IN ANIMAL WASTE PHOSPHORUS,
, TOTAL WATERSHED PHOSPHORUS WAS REDUCED 9-13%,
*DR, FRED MADISON/ DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON COUNTY NONPOINT SOURCE
POLLUTION PROJECT, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SPEECH TAKEN FROM
A RECORDING AND INTERPRETED BY CARL D, WlLSON,
225
-------
2
COSTS FOR CROPLAND TREATMENT:
1, 30,000 DOLLARS TOTAL COST FOR CROPLAND TREATMENT,
ANIMAL WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES ARE EXPENSIVE:
1, $15,000 TO $20,000 PER UNIT AND CAN RANGE TO $65,000,
ANIMAL WASTE SYSTEMS:
1, STORAGE AND APPLY TO LAND GOOD POLLUTION REDUCTION,
2, WATER QUALITY CONSTRAINTS THAT REQUIRE STORAGE is
THE EXCEPTION NOT THE RULE IN WISCONSIN,
3, RURAL LIVESTOCK SYSTEM WITH WATER DIVERSIONS CAN BE
INSTALLED CHEAP $1500 TO $4000 FOUR YEARS AGO,
QUESTION?
1, ARE WE LOOKING AT THE WRONG PART OF THE PROBLEM?
OTHER STUDIES WERE SET UP IN WISCONSIN ON six BARNYARD SITES,
THE SIZE OF THESE AREAS RANGED FROM 3 TO 5 ACRES,
1, DATA REVEALED LIVESTOCK is A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF
NUTRIENTS (POLLUTION LOADINGS),
ER APPLICATION OF MANURE:
DEDUCES RUNOFF,
DEDUCES NUTRIENT LOSSES,
1FFECT IS SPRING AND ALL THROUGH THE YEAR,
WHITE CLAY LAKE WATERSHED PROJECT SET UP IN WISCONSIN IN 1976,
FIRST UPLAND TREATED WATERSHED PROGRAM, THE PROJECT WAS
FUNDED BY THE CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM SECTION 314 FROM THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
TWO MODELS DEVELOPED:
1, ANIMAL WASTE MODEL,
2, CROPLAND WASTE LOAD MODEL,
CONCLUDED:
1, 66% OF THE TOTAL PHOSPHORUS GETTING INTO THE LAKE CAME
FROM CROPLAND,
2, 34% OF THE TOTAL PHOSPHORUS GETTING INTO THE LAKE CAME
FROM ANIMAL WASTE,
226
-------
UPSTREAM POINT SOURCE PHOSPHORUS INPUTS AND EFFECTS
by
David B. Baker*
One of the goals of water quality management is to obtain the great-
est possible improvement in water quality and general environmental
quality per dollar invested in pollution abatement programs. Although
most water quality management plans include an economic analysis of
alternative solutions to some particular problem, very often the exam-
ination of alternatives operates within a very narrow segment of the
overall interacting set of causes and effects determining water quality.
For example, a facility plan might include the selection of the most cost
effective method of reducing the phosphorus concentrations in an effluent
from 3 mg/1 to 1 mg/1. If this reduction has no effect on water quality
or if comparable expenditures on nonpoint controls or flow augmentation
would have greater water quality benefits, then the examination of alter-
natives has operated within too narrow a framework of options. Certainly
the objectives of this symposium and the concepts incorporated into the
Watershed Model reflect the need to broaden the perspectives within which
alternatives can be evaluated.
Although the concept of integrated point/nonpoint control programs
is clear, the development and implementation of such programs is difficult
because adequate data and necessary understanding is generally not avail-
able. In planning an integrated control program in the Great Lakes, the
relationships outlined in the model illustrated in Figure 1 should be
understood. The quality, quantity, timing and variability of inputs from
both point and nonpoint sources into each area of the aquatic system
should be known. Knowledge of the physical, chemical or biological pro-
cessing of inputs within each area is important. This processing both
affects and is affected by the water quality in the area. The processing
also affects the movement of materials into either temporary or permanent
storage within the system and the output of materials to the next area
downstream. As the number of steps between a particular input and a water
quality effect increases the more tenuous the cause and effect relation-
ships become. This is certainly the case for the relationships between
point source phosphorus inputs to stream systems and open lake water
quality in Lake Erie.
Because of the complexities of the interacting systems illustrated
in Figure 1, current efforts at integrated point/nonpoint control programs
involve the use of a number of simplifying assumptions. Although the use
of such assumptions does allow the development of integrated control pro-
grams, their use may undercut the effectiveness of the programs and pre-
vent the realization of control economies that, given more information and
better understanding, could be achieved.
The management of phosphorus within the Lake Erie Basin is one area
in which opportunities for integrated point/nonpoint source management
exist. Some of the major assumptions upon which such programs are based
*Director, Water Quality Laboratory, Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio.
227
-------
Stream
Networks
Estuaries
Lake Erie
Nearshore
Lake Erie
Open Lake
PS
\
inputs
NFS
outputs
outputs
PS
outputs
PS
outputs
Processing
I
Storage
Figure 1. Areas requiring data and understanding to support the development of effective and economical
integrated point source/nonpoint source control programs in the Lake Erie Basin. Abbreviations:
PS, point sources; NPS, nonpoint sources; W.Q., water quality.
oo
OJ
OJ
-------
include:
1. Upstream (indirect) point source phosphorus inputs
are assumed to have 100% delivery through the river
to the lake unless large lakes or reservoirs are
situated on the river system.
2. The bioavailability of upstream point source phosphorus
is assumed to remain constant during transport to the
lake.
3. Reductions in sediment and particulate phosphorus
yields at river mouths are assumed to be proportional
to the reduction in gross erosion achieved by the
application of best management practices in the water-
shed.
4. No systematic differences in the processing of point
source and nonpoint source-derived phosphorus within
the estuaries and near shore zones of the lake are
assumed to occur even though the mode of delivery of
phosphorus derived from the two sources is very different.
In this paper some of the assumptions regarding the effects of up-
stream point source phosphorus inputs will be examined using data avail-
able in the Sandusky River Basin. The data indicates that most of the
phosphorus entering the river from upstream point sources becomes tied
up within the river bottom sediments. Its eventual delivery to the lake
is in the form of particulate rather than soluble phosphorus. The
delivery ratio of this phosphorus to the lake is probably less than 100%.
Evidence of ambient stream water quality problems associated with point
source phosphorus loading is lacking. The nonpoint source phosphorus
loading component is so large and variable that the effects of further
point source control programs in reducing phosphorus output from the
basin could not be directly measured. The transfer of funds from por-
tions of phosphorus removal programs at upstream municipalities to alternate
uses such as flow augmentation or nonpoint controls should be examined.
Upstream Point Source Phosphorus Inputs in the Sandusky Basin
There are seven municipal sewage treatment plants located in the
Sandusky River Basin upstream from the Tindall Bridge gaging station
near Fremont, Ohio. These plants are identified in Table 1 and their
flows, effluent phosphorus concentrations, loading rates and annual loads
are listed. Three of the plants have flows greater than 1 MGD and con-
sequently are required to meet a 1 mg/1 phosphorus effluent standard.
Of these three plants, Bucyrus has no phosphorus removal program; Upper
Sandusky has a partial phosphorus removal program and Tiffin has a
removal program which meets current requirements. No phosphorus removal
programs are in effect at the other sewage treatment plants. The
locations of these plants are shown in Figure 2 which also includes the
locations of the nutrient and sediment transport stations in the Sandusky
Basin.
The combined effluents of these plants load phosphorus into the
river system at an average rate of 5.3 kg/hr. The annual loading from
229
-------
Figure 2. Location of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants and Sediment and
Nutrient Transport Stations in the Sandusky River Basin
Municipal Sewage
Treatment Plants
Over 1 MGD
0.1 to 1 MGD
Transport
Stations
SL.
SANDUSKY RIVER BASIN
Scale in Miles
i i i i • * •
024 6 8 10
230
-------
the plants is about 45 metric tons per year. The mean annual export of
total phosphorus at the Fremont gaging station is 355 metric tons per
year (Baker, 1980). Assuming that all of the upstream municipally derived
phosphorus is exported from the basin, point sources account for 13 percent
of the total load and nonpoint sources 87 percent.
Table I. Indirect Municipal Point Source Phosphorus Discharges in the
Location
10
Crestline
Bucyrus
Upper Sandusky
Gary
Attica
Bloomville
Tiffin
Total
Flow
M /day (MGD)
2.1 (.55)
7.7 (1.9)
6.4 (1.7)
2.3 (.6)
.87 (.23)
1.1 (.28)
13. (3.5)
33 (8.8)
Total Phos.
mg/1
6a
8.0
2.5
6a
6a
4a
0.9
Loading
Rate
Kg/hr.
.52
2.6
.67
.57
.22
.18
.49
5.3
Annual Load
M Ton/yr.
4.6
22
5.8
5.0
1.9
1.6
4.3
45
a Estimated.
EPA, 1979.
Data from IJC 1979; De Pinto, et al, 1980, and Ohio
Instream Deposition of Phosphorus from Municipal Point Sources
The extent of deposition of municipally derived phosphorus in the
Sandusky Basin can be studied through an analysis of both flux patterns
and concentration patterns. Since the transport stations in the Sandusky
Basin have been operated on a continuous basis for periods from 3 to 5
years, extensive data is available on phosphorus transport rates during
both low and high flows. These data can be arranged in the form of flux
exceedency tables. A summary of the phosphorus flux exceedency table for
the Fremont gaging station is shown in Table 2.
The data in Table 2 are based on the analysis of 2,304 samples
collected between December 26, 1973 and November 30, 1979. These samples
were used to characterize the stream transport for a total period of
32,635 hours (3.73 years) with individual sample characterizing transport
for periods ranging from 3 to 24 hours. During this time a total of
2,097 metric tons of total phosphorus and 393 metric tons of soluble
reactive phosphorus were exported past the station. A computer program
is used to rank all of the samples on the basis of instantaneous flux
from the lowest to the highest value. The program lists the individual
flux, the percent of the total period of time the fluxes were equal to
or less than the listed value and the percent of the total flux accounted
for by the listed value and all smaller flux rates. For example, 70%
of the time the flux rate of total phosphorus was 16.5 kg/hr. or less
and during that time 4.0% of the total observed total phosphorus flux
had been exported.
The weighted average stream flow during the period of observation
was 39 m /sec. This compares with a long term average discharge at the
231
-------
Fremont station of 27 m /sec. Thus the data set is biased toward high
flows.
Table 2. Characteristics
Basin,
Time Weighted
Percentile
( instantaneous
Flux)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
98
100
Tindall
Total
of Phosphorus Export from the Sandusky River
Bridge j_ Fremont, Ohio^ 1974-1979
Phosphorus Soluble Reactive
Flux Rate Cum. % of
Kg/hr.
.74
1.33
2.08
3.06
4.32
7.03
16.5
41.3
137
339
776
2610
Annual Load
.08
.24
.50
.89
1.5
2.3
4.0
8.2
20.
37
61
100
Flux Rate
Kg/hr.
.16
.37
.70
1.13
1.89
3.06
5.44
11.7
33.6
61.2
112
587
Phosphorus
Cum. % of
Annual Load
.07
.27
.70
1.4
2.6
4.6
7.9
14.
32
49
69
100
From Table 2 it is apparent that the combined export of phosphorus
from all sources is less than the point source inputs for more than 50%
of the time. Fifty percent of the time the flux rate of total phosphorus
at the Fremont station was less than 4.32 kg/hr.
It should also be noted that when the flux rate is 4.32 kg/hr. only
about one third of that phosphorus could have come from point source inputs.
Since the flux increases with stream discharge, the median flux should
correspond to the median stream discharge. At the Fremont stream gage
the median discharge rate is 563 X 103 M /day. The combined flow of the
upstream municipal sewage treatment plants is 33 X 10 M /day. Therefore,
530 X 10 M /day or 94% of the median stream flow, is derived from various
components of the basin hydrological cycle. In Sandusky subbasins lacking
point source phosphorus inputs ((Tymochtee Creek, Broken Sword and Wolf,
East), the average phosphorus concentration at the median flow is 0.13 to
0.14 mg/1. Assuming that these are the background concentration char-
acteristics of the Sandusky Basin at median stream flows, the background
phosphorus flux at the Fremont gage would be 2.9 kg/hr. Consequently,
of the 4.3 kg/hr. median flux, only 1.4 kg/hr. could be derived from point
source inputs. This is about 25% of the point source input rate of
5.3 kg/hr. These calculations are summarized in Table 3.
The data presented in Table 2 also show that only 1.5% of the total
observed load had been exported by the cumulative fluxes lower than the
median flux. Applying this figure to the average annual export of
phosphorus at the Fremont gage, suggests that only 5.3 metric tons of
phosphorus would have been exported during the 50% of the time with the
lowest fluxes. Since the loading rate from municipal sources is rather
constant, one half of the annual point source inputs of phosphorus
232
-------
(22.5 metric tons) would have entered the river during this time. Thus
during this time the combined point and nonpoint phosphorus export is
only 24% of the point source phosphorus inputs. Since much of the
phosphorus export during this time is derived from nonpoint sources, it
is evident that the bulk of the point source phosphorus inputs is being
incorporated into the stream sediments.
Table 3. Components of the Median Phosphorus Flux at Tindall Bridge in
Fremont
Median Stream Discharge
Combined STP Discharges
Background Stream Flow
Background Phosphorus Cone.
Background Phosphorus Flux
Median Phosphorus Flux
Point Source Component of Flux
Point Source Input Rate
563 x 103 M3/day
-33 x 103 M3/day
530 x 103 M3/day
0.133 rag/1
2.9 Kg/hr.
4.3 Kg/hr.
1.4 Kg/hr.
5.3 Kg/hr.
The occurrence of instream deposition of phosphorus from municipal
point sources is also apparent from studies of the patterns of phosphorus
concentration along the river. During the summer of 1974, from 32 to 52
samples were collected during nonstorm conditions at each of twenty six
stations along the mainstream of the Sandusky River. The mean concentrations
of total and soluble reactive phosphorus are shown as a function of mile
point (distance from the river mouth) in Figure 3. The effects of inputs
from the Bucyrus, Upper Sandusky and Tiffin sewage treatment plants are
evident. None of the plants had phosphorus removal programs in operation
at that time. The decreases in phosphorus concentration below each town
reflect deposition of phosphorus rather than dilution effects. These data
have been presented and discussed in the Proceedings of the Sandusky River
Basin Symposium (Baker and Kramer, 1975).
Figure 3. Profiles of
mean concentrations of
phosphorus along the
river system during
June through September,
1974. Mileages shown
are the distances from
the mouth of the river.
The three peaks in
phosphorus concentration
are caused by the
effluents of the Bucyrus,
Upper Sandusky and Tiffin
sewage treatment plants.
.so
I.H .
1.00.
* TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
• MTHO PHOSPHORUS
120
100
10 60
RIVER MILES
40
20
233
-------
Export of Upstream Point Source Phosphorus Inputs
Transmission Coefficients; Although it is evident from the above
discussion that much of the upstream point source phosphorus input is
incorporated into the river sediments, it is generally assumed that this
phosphorus is resuspended during high flow periods and subsequently trans-
ported as available phosphorus to Lake Erie (Sonzogni, et al, 1980).
Considerable evidence has been accumulated which documents the signifi-
cance of deposition-resuspension phenomena in the transport of both
sediments and phosphorus through river systems (Verhoff, et al, 1978;
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1979). Although mass balances for in-
dividual storms moving through the Sandusky Basin have been conducted
(Melfi & Verhoff, 1979) the results do not provide information on the
transmission coefficient of point source-derived phosphorus through the
stream system on an annual basis.
One approach to determining the transmission coefficient from up-
stream point source inputs would be to achieve a known reduction in
phosphorus inputs from these sources and compare this with an accompanying
reduction in total river export of phosphorus. This approach does not
work well where point source inputs are small relative to nonpoint inputs
and where nonpoint inputs are extremely variable from year to year. Prom
a study in 1972 (Baker and Kramer, 1973) the mean annual export of total
phosphorus from the Sandusky Basin was estimated to be 445 metric tons.
This estimate was based on a weighted mean concentration from 160 samples
collected during both high and low flows and the mean annual flow for the
period of record. Since that time, phosphorus removal programs have re-
sulted in a decrease in phosphorus loading from point sources of about 40
metric tons per year. During the period from 1975 to 1979, the annual
phosphorus export averaged 420 metric tons per year and ranged from 257.5
to 563.4 metric tons (Table 4). The average deviation from the mean during
this time was 74 metric tons. Should Bucyrus and Upper Sandusky meet the
1 mg/1 effluent standard, an additional reduction in phosphorus inputs from
point sources of 23 metric tons per year would be achieved. The total
reduction program of 63 metric tons per year would still be less than the
average deviation in annual loading observed during the past 5 years. Thus
determining transmission coefficients of point source phosphorus by com-
paring known reductions of phosphorus inputs with observed reductions in
phosphorus outputs is not feasible within the Sandusky Basin.
A second approach to determining transmission coefficients is to
evaluate phosphorus/sediment ratios in basins with and without point
sources. If all of the point source-derived phosphorus is delivered
through the stream system, then subtracting the point source phosphorus
inputs from the total phosphorus output should give nonpoint phosphorus/
sediment ratios characteristic of strictly agricultural watersheds. This
assumes that all of the observed sediment transport is derived from non-
point sources. The data in Table 5 illustrates the application of this
method. The mean annual yields, to which the method has been applied,
were derived from the use of a minimum of three years of record at each
station. A combination of weighted mean concentrations and long term flow
duration tables were used to calculate the mean annual yields of sediments
and total phosphorus (Baker, 1980).
The phosphorus/sediment ratios for the Broken Sword, Tymochtee and
Wolf East watersheds reflect the ratios for agricultural watersheds lacking
234
-------
source inputs. In the case of Bucyrus, the phosphorus sediment ratio
(3.42) is much higher than the adjacent agricultural watershed (Broken
Sword). Assuming 100% transmission of upstream point source inputs,
these inputs are subtracted from the total phosphorus yield to give a
nonpoint phosphorus yield. The resulting nonpoint phosphorus/sediment
ratio (1.28) is much lower than the adjacent agricultural watershed.
It should be noted that agricultural land use dominates all of these
watersheds including those with point source inputs. The low calculated
ratio suggests that not all of the point source inputs are resuspended
and exported from the stream system.
Table 4. Annual variability in sediment and nutrient loading from the
Sandusky River near Fremont, Ohio
Water
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Discharge
109M3
1.030
.772
.629
1.391
1.087
Susp.
Solids
M. tons
(mg/1)
302,200
293
124,000
161
98,800
157
193,500
139
285,500
262
Total
Phosphorus
M. tons
(mg/1)
418.9
.406
398.9
.517
257.5
.409
463.4
.333
563.4
.518
Sol . Reac .
Phosphorus
M. tons
(mg/1)
72.42
.070
49.67
.064
65.76
.104
116.90
.084
112.2
.103
Nitrate
Nitrogen
M. tons
(mg/1)
4709.
4.57
2621
3.39
3135
4.98
4958
3.56
5615
5.16
Table 5. Use of Phosphorus/Sediment Ratios to Analyze Delivery of Upstream
Point Source Phosphorus Inputs
Location
Bucyrus
Upper Sandusky
Broken Sword
Tymochtee
Wolf, East
Component
Total
Point Source
"Nonpoint Source
Total
Point Source
"Nonpoint Source
Mean Annual
Sediment Yield
M.T./yr .
12,400
II
48,600
18,900
30,800
12,900
Mean Annual
Phosphorus Yield
M.T./yr.
42.5
-26.6
15.9
111.9
-32.5
79.4
31.0
62.8
29.8
TP/SS
g/kg
3.42
1.28
2.30
1.63
1.64
2.04
2.31
235
-------
The application of this method at Upper Sandusky gives less clear-
cut results. The calculated nonpoint phosphorus/sediment ratio of 1.63
is lower than two of the agricultural watersheds but is about the same
as the ratio in the Broken Sword Watershed. The relatively low ratios
of point to nonpoint source phosphorus in these watersheds makes this
approach to determining point source transmission characteristics
difficult.
A third approach to evaluating the transmission of upstream point
source phosphorus through the stream system would be to analyze the
delivery of sediment through the system. One of the probable temporary
sinks of phosphorus in the stream systems is through adsorption to sedi-
ments. Some fraction of these sediments will be deposited on flood
plains during the large floods which account for much of the sediment
and phosphorus yields. Point source-derived phosphorus which becomes
adsorded to these sediments could, therefore, be deposited on flood
plains. The accumulation of materials on flood plains represents per-
manent sinks for sediment and phosphorus relative to the time-frames
of water quality management planning. According to soil surveys in the
Sandusky Basin, there are a number of flood plains upon which sediments
are accumulating (Steiger, 1975). Quantification of this accumulation
is lacking and consequently the extent of transmission losses of sedi-
ment and particulate phosphorus through deposition on flood plains cannot
be readily estimated. Impoundments along streams and rivers could also
provide permanent sinks for point source-derived phosphorus that is
adsorbed on sediment particles.
Although it is probable that the transmission of point source-derived
phosphorus through the stream system is less than 100%, quantitative
determinations of transmissions coefficient in large agricultural river
basins is very difficult to attain.
Bioavailability; The instream deposition of phosphorus from upstream
point sources could involve biological uptake by periphyton or rooted
aquatic plants, adsorption to sediment particles or some type of chemical
precipitation reaction. Storm routing methods which show resuspension
of total phosphorus do not show release of soluble reactive phosphorus
back into the water column (Melfi, et al. 1979). That portion of the
deposited phosphorus that is delivered to Lake Erie apparently arrives
as particulate phosphorus. It is probable that during its period of
storage in the stream bed, at least some of the point source-derived phos-
phorus is converted to unavailable or slowly available particulate phos-
phorus. Part of it could be converted into refractory forms by biological
processes while part could undergo chemical transformations. Once in the
lake particulate phosphorus, whether bioavailable or not, is subject to
removal from the water column through sedimentation. This particulate
phosphorus is less available than soluble reactive phosphorus derived
from nonpoint sources and delivered to the lake during storms or soluble
reactive phosphorus delivered to the lake by direct point sources.
By far the highest loading rates of soluble reactive phosphorus to
the lake occur during storm events. In the Sandusky Basin 50% of the
annual export of soluble reactive phosphorus occurs during the 5% of the
time with the highest fluxes. At these times, the orthophosphorus loading
236
-------
rates exceeded 61.2 kg/hr. These rates dwarf not only the upstream point
source inputs, but also the direct point sources in the basin, including
Fremont at 0.85 kg/hr. and Sandusky at 1.5 kg/hr.(IJC/ 1979). The higher
flow velocities during these storm events probably result in a high
delivery of this nonpoint-derived soluble reactive phosphorus through
the esturine and nearshore processing zones to the open lake system.
It is possible that during non-storm conditions, soluble reactive phos-
phorus from direct municipal discharges is processed and deposited in the
esturaries and nearshore zones in a fashion similar to the deposition of
upstream point source phosphorus. Nearshore processing of phosphorus
has been reported by Richards(1979). If esturine and nearshore processing
of direct point sources to the lake is extensive, then a mass balance of
soluble reactive phosphorus to the open lake water could be dominated by
soluble reactive phosphorus derived from nonpoint sources and delivered
to the lake during storm events.
Since upstream point source-derived phosphorus is in a particulate
form when it reaches the lake, it will be less available than phosphorus
entering the lake from direct point sources. Soluble reactive phosphorus
derived from nonpoint sources could be an extremely important component
of the bioavailable phosphorus reaching the open lake system.
Ambient Stream Water Quality Effects
One effect of upstream point source phosphorus control programs is
to lower the phosphorus concentration in the stream system, especially in
the zones immediately downstream from outfalls. The effect of point source
loading on stream phosphorus levels is greatest during periods of low
stream flow. As stream flows increase, the increasing dilution of the
point source effluents decreases the impact of the effluent on stream
concentrations. Water g_uality problems could be associated with the ele-
valted phosphorus concentrations if they result in increased growth of
rooted aquatic plants, periphyton or phytoplankton. If these growths reach
nuisance levels and cause excessive diurnal oxygen fluctuations, then
ambient stream water quality problems could be attributed to the point
source phosphorus inputs.
In the Sandusky Basin rooted aquatic plants are uncommon. Phyto-
plankton chlorophyll levels along the river were not decreased by the
implementation of phosphorus removal programs along the river (unpublished
data, Heidelberg Water Quality Laboratory). Nuisance growth of algae do
develop along the river but these seem to be more related to periods of
low stream flow and stream gradients than to phosphorus levels. Much of
the time turbidity associated with the transport of fine clay probably
limits growth of plant communities. It does not appear that the elevated
phosphorus concentrations from point sources, where and when they occur
in the Sandusky Basin, cause significant water quality problems.
There is a lack of information on the effects of nutrients on plant
growth in stream systems. Responses probably vary considerably from stream
to stream as well as with position in the stream system (Cummins, 1975).
The need for additional studies on this topic for streams in southern
Ontario has been recently cited (Wong, et al. 1979). In the river quality
assessment program conducted for the Williamette River Basin in Oregon, it
was concluded that flow augmentation was a more effective and economical
237
-------
procedure for controlling algae than advanced waste treatment. (Rickert,
et al., 1977).
Discussion
Although the data available in the Sandusky Basin does not currently
provide quantitative values on the transmission coefficient of upstream
point source phosphorus to Lake Erie or its bioavailability upon reaching
the lake, it is clear that its form and mode of delivery to the lake is
quite different than for direct point sources. The bulk of the upstream
point source-derived phosphorus that does reach the lake will be delivered
during storm events at which time it is a small part of the total parti-
culate phosphorus load. The nonpoint component of the particulate phos-
phorus load is so variable that reductions in point source loads cannot be
readily detected.
Because of in-stream processing of upstream point source phosphorus, the
impacts of this phosphorus on lake water quality are likely to be quite
different than for direct discharges to the lake. Consequently, different
requirements for phosphorus removal should be considered for upstream point
sources. This could include careful analyses of the costs for varying
degrees of phosphorus removal at these plants. Consideration of the water
quality benefits that could be achieved through diverting portions of funds
needed to operate phosphorus removal programs to supporting nonpoint source
implementation programs or flow augmentation programs should be considered.
Table 6. Summary of Municipal Point Source Phosphorus Loading to the
Great Lakes, 1978a
Basin
Superior
Michigan
Huron
Erie
Ontario
Total
Detroit
Direct
Kg /day
351
1,353
463
12,165
5,240
19,572 (69%)
7,178
12,394 (59%)
Indirect
Kg /day
291
2,249
693
3,860
1,644
8,737 (31%)
8,737 (41%)
Total
Kg /day
641
3,602
1,156
16,025
6,884
28,308
a Source IJC, July, 1979.
Within the Great Lakes System, indirect point sources account for a
considerable portion of the total point source phosphorus inputs (Table 6).
More information is needed on the open lake impacts of phosphorus derived
from upstream point sources in comparison with the impacts of soluble re-
active phosphorus delivered during storm events. Lacking this information,
the effectiveness of alternative control programs for the lakes cannot be
accurately predicted.
238
-------
REFERENCES
Baker, David B., 1980. Final Report on EPA Grant No. R805436-01-1 in pre-
paration.
Baker, David B. & Kramer, Jack W., 1973. Phosphorus Sources and Transport
in an Agricultural River Basin of Lake Erie. Proc. 16th Conf. Great
Lakes Res., p. 858-871.
Baker, David B. & Kramer, Jack W., 1975. Distribution of Non-Point Sources
of Phosphorus and Sediments in the Sandusky River Basin. Proc. Sandusky
River Basin Symposium, IJC, p. 61-88.
Cummins, Kenneth W., 1975. The Ecology of Running Waters, Theory and
Practice. Proc. Sandusky River Basin Symposium, IJC, p. 277-294.
IJC, 1979. Inventory of Major Municipalities and Industrial Point Source
Dischargers in the Great Lakes Basin. Great Lakes Water Quality Board.
DePinto, Joseph V., et al., 1980. Phosphorus Removal in Lower Great Lakes
Municipal Treatment Plants. Municipal Env. Res. Lab., U.S. EPA,
Cincinnati, 147 p.
Melfi, David A., et al., 1979. "Material Transport in River Systems During
Storm Events by Water Routing," LEWMS Technical Report. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Buffalo, NY, March, 1979.
Ohio EPA, 1979. Initial Water Quality Management Plan, Sandusky River
Basin, Prt. I, II, III.
Richards, R. Peter, 1979. Limnological Surveillance of the Nearshore Zone
of Lake Erie in Central and Eastern Ohio. Pt. I: Chemical Limnology.
Prepared for U.S. EPA, Region V.
Rickert, David A., et al., 1977. Algal Conditions and the Potential for
Future Algal Problems in the Williamette River, Oregon. Geo. Survey
Circular 715-G.
Sonzogni, William C., et al., 1980. Watershed: A Management Technique for
Choosing Among Point and Nonpoint Control Strategies. U.S. EPA Region V
Seminar on Water Quality Management Trade-Offs.
Steiger, Joseph R., 1975. Soil Surveys as a Tool in Studies on Nonpoint
Sources of Stream Sediment. Proc. Sandusky River Basin Symposium, IJC,
p. 89-96.
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. 1979. Lake Erie Wastewater Management Study
Methodology Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo, NY. 146 p.
Verhoff, Frank H., et al., 1978. Phosphorus Transport in Rivers. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo, NY.
Wong, S. L., et al., 1979. An examination of the Effects of Nutrients on
the Water Quality of Shallow Rivers. Hydrobiologia, vol. 63, 3, p. 231-
239.
239
-------
SEDIMENT AND PHOSPHORUS TRANSPORT
BY
STEPHEN M. YAKSICH*
DAVID A. MELFI*
JOHN R. ADAMS*
September 1980
*Lake Erie Wastewater Management Study
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Buffalo District
241
-------
SEDIMENT AND PHOSPHORUS TRANSPORT
INTRODUCTION
The characteristics of sediment and phosphorus transport in a particular
river affect how a river should be monitored and the type of information
which can be obtained. Transport characteristics vary between rivers and
sections of rivers, as well as hourly, daily, seasonally, and annually.
Different types of monitoring programs are needed to measure ambient water
quality and annual loads. Changes in annual loads do not necessarily reflect
changes in the watershed conditions brought about by water quality management
programs. This paper discusses river transport characteristics which are
observed and how they can be used to understand transport mechanisms. It
compares sampling programs required to measure annual loads and examines
variations in annual loads and their effect on success monitoring. It points
out problems with using unit area loads and loading functions to estimate
phosphorus and sediment loads. Finally, it presents a monitoring program to
make reliable annual load estimates and a program for success monitoring.
OBSERVATIONS OF TRANSPORT
CHEMOGRAPH ,OF A FLOW EVENT
Figure la shows the changes in total phosphorus, soluble orthophosphate,
and suspended sediment with changes in flow for an event response river.
Suspended sediment (SS) and total phosphorus (TP) transport in event response
rivers are dominated by runoff events. It can be seen from Figure la that SS
and TP concentrations increase with increasing flow. Soluble orthophosphate
(OP) concentrations are seen to decrease during the flow event. The major
242
-------
, .060-] - 120-1
O
O .050-
iil
I-
< .040
a.
co
X .030
a.
O
X
K .020
O
ui
ffi .010
D
o
<0 ft
100-
Z 80
UI
Z
5
ui 60
CO
o
III
o
z
u
a
CO
3
CO
40
20H
1.2-1
1.0-
CO
3Q8
c
o
X
a.
co 0.6
O
X
a
0.2-
0.0
120-1
100-
co
u.
O
*
o
_l
u.
n
40
20
n—i—i—r
1200 18
TIME STARTING
JUNE 20, 1980
(a) SOUTH BRANCH CATTARAUGUS CREEK NEAR OTTO
• 0.28
ID
O 0.24
2
3 0.20
K
O
(0
O
0.16-
0.12
0.08
O.04
o o.oo
V)
0.28
a.
* 0.24
_j
x
2 0.20
CO*
= 0.16
O
|o.12
O
0-0.08
£ 0.04
I-
o
0.00
0)
Q
I!
o
(0
o
III
a
z
ui
a.
(0
3
CO
70-,
60
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
160-.
140
O
7 120
CO
o 100
O 80
u.
a
60
40
20
20 24 28
i
2
i i i i i i
6 10 14 18 22 26
APRIL 1976 MAY 1976
TIME IN DAYS
(b) GRAND RIVER AT EASTMANVILLE
Figure 1 - Variation in Total Phosphorus, Soluble Orthophosphate, and Suspended
Solids Concentration with Flow for (a) the South Branch of Cattaraugus River near
Cattaraugus, NY, and event response river, and (b) the Grand River at Eastmanville,
MI, a stable response river. Source: Reference (2).
-------
portion of the phosphorus transport is with the sediment that originates from
the runoff. The behavior of SS and TP in an event response river is markedly
different than their behavior in a stable response river whose watershed has
soils of coarse texture and high permeability (1). In these watersheds,
water infiltrates instead of running off, and SS and TP concentrations do not
show large increases with flow as shown in Figure Ib for the Grand River. In
the Grand River, suspended sediment varies from 50 to 160 milligrams per
liter and total phosphorus varies from 0.08 to 0.22 milligrams per liter as
compared to a range of 120 to 1,100 milligrams per liter for suspended
sediment and 0.16 to 0.78 milligrams per liter for total phosphorus in the
South Branch of the Cattaraugus. Soluble orthophosphate concentrations are
similar for both rivers. In the Grand River, approximately one third to one
half the phosphorus transport is in soluble phase.
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS VS. SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS
As seen in Figure la, the SS and TP concentrations rise and fall together.
Figure 2 shows a plot of the instantaneous TP and SS concentrations. Lower
SS concentrations have a higher ratio of TP/SS than high SS concentrations.
The reason for this behavior is that the higher SS concentrations are usually
carried by higher flows which also carry larger particles. Also note that
considerable variation in the TP/SS exists at lower flows. Table 1 shows the
TP/SS ratios measured for Northwest Ohio rivers for the period 1975 to 1979.
The ratios vary between the rivers and between years for each river. In
light of the variation seen, caution should be exercised in picking TP/SS for
use as a surrogate in the estimation of phosphorus loadings from suspended
sediment measurements.
244
-------
ro
-P>
en
2.5
2.0
^ 1.5
•
Q.
CL
I—
O
1.0
0.5
0.0
SRNDUSKY RIVER NEflR FREMONT, OHIO
* **
* + ;
***
* *
;**
;
500
1000
1500
SS. NG/L
2000
2500
3000
Figure 2 - Relationship of Total Phosphorus to Suspended Solids for the Sandusky River near Fremont, OH.
Source: Reference (4).
-------
Table 1 - Phosphorus Sediment Ratios for Northwest Ohio Rivers
for Water Years 1975-1979 (gm/km)
River
Honey Creek at Melmore
Portage River at Woodville
Sandusky River at Fremont
Tymochtee Creek at
Crawford
1975
-
1.84
1.23
1.39
1.15
1.86
1.64
1976
2.11 CD
1.83 (2)
2.45
1.72
3.22
2.81
1.88
1977
3.18
2.08
2.54
1.69
2.82
2.10
2.65
2.03
1978
3.58
2.40
2.77
1.96
2.39
1.78
3.25
2.27
1979
2.04
1.72
-
1.97
1.58
2.14
1.77
Total Phosphorus Load X 1,000/Suspended Solids Load
(2) (Total Phosphorus Load-Orthophosphate Load) X 1,000/Suspended Solids
Source: Reference 3
HYSTERESIS
From Figure la, it can be seen that the TP and SS concentrations peak
before the flow. As a result, the same flow on the rising stage will carry
a higher concentration than the same flow on the falling stage. This effect
is shown in the hysteresis diagram shown in Figure 3 which plots TP concen-
tration and SS concentration versus flow. The arrows begin at the start of
the storm and point to increasing time into the storm. Another way of dis-
playing the concentration differences between the rising and falling stage is
shown in Figure 4 which presents least squares correlations for TP con-
centrations and river flow rate for different days of the storm. It can be
seen that the steepest slope for this correlation line occurs for the first
day of the storm. The second and third days have successively lower slopes.
The scatter of the data points about the correlation line should be noted.
It results from difference in stream chemistry among runoff events of similar
246
-------
.4
e.3l
I
Q.
.2-
500
CLINTON RIVER AT MORAVIAN DRIVE
MT. CLEMENS, MICHIGAN
MARCH 28 - APRIL I, 1977
TP
300
200 E
i
•100
1000
1500
2000 2500
FLOW-CFS
3000
3500
Figure 3 - Hysteresis Diagram for Total Phosphorus and Suspended Solids as a Function of Flow.
-------
IV)
-pi
CO
o
oc
O
o
z
Q.
O
H
1.4
1.2
± 1.0
(0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
.(2)
.(2)
.(2)
1000
2000
3000
4000
FLOW IN CFS
5000
Figure 4 - Total Phosphorus Concentration vs. River Flow Rate with Day of Storm as a Parameter.
The least squares correlations for each day of the storm is indicated. The number in parenthesis
indicates the day of the storm. Source: Reference (5).
-------
size and similarities in stream chemistry among runoff events of different
size.
PATTERNS OF TRANSPORT
Figure 5 shows the patterns of TP concentration versus log flow for
three river stations. Tymochtee Creek at Crawford is an example of an agri-
cultural watershed with no significant point sources. TP concentrations are
low at low stream flow and increase as the flow increases. The high TP con-
centrations at high stream flow reflect the combined effects of TP carried by
the surface runoff which is producing the high flow and of suspended sediment
carrying phosphorus suspended from the stream bottom by the stream current.
The Sandusky River at Upper Sandusky is an example of a sampling station
in an agricultural watershed located a considerable distance downstream of
point sources. The TP concentration shows a slight increase as flow
decreases. At high flows, the TP concentration increases.
The Sandusky River at Bucyrus is an agricultural watershed where the
sampling station is located a short distance downstream from a significant
point sources of phosphorus. The TP concentration and log flow pattern for
this station differs significantly from pure agricultural watersheds. At
Bucyrus, the sampling station is approximately 1/2 mile downstream from the
outfall of the Bucyrus Wastewater Treatment Plant. This plant has not yet
initiated a phosphorus removal program although it has a mean daily flow of
2 million gallons per day. The TP concentration increases greatly as the
streamflow decreases, due to decreasing dilution of the relatively constant
effluent from the Bucyrus Wastewater Treatment Plant. The TP concentration
249
-------
19
A.TYMOCHTEE CREEK
AT CRAWFORD
Y=0.239(x) - 0.502
175 2.OO 225 250 275 300 3.25 3.50 3.75 400 4.25 4.50 475 500 525
LOG FLOW L/SEC
5
u
z
o
B. SANDUSKY RIVER AT
UPPER SANDUSKY
Y=O.OI7(x) + 0.436
2OO 2.25 250 275 300 325 3.5O 3.75 4.00 425 450 4.75 50O 525 5.5O
LOG FLOW L/SEC
• C. SANDUSKY RIVER AT
BUCYRUS
Y=-0.526(x) + 2.40
2OO
250 275
300 325 3.50 3.75
LOG fLOW L/SEC
4 00 4 25
450
4.75 5.0O
Figure 5 - Least Square Equations for Total Phosphorus and Log Flow:
(a) Tymochtee Creek at Crawford, an agricultural river basin.
(b) Sandusky River at Upper Sandusky, an agricultural river basin with
upstream point sources.
(c) Sandusky River at Bucyrus, a station immediately below a point source.
Source: Reference (3).
-------
also increases at high streamflow, but this effect is partially obscured by
the extremely high concentrations under low flow conditions.
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS DEPOSITION
Figure 6 shows the TP concentrations downstream of the Bucyrus Wastewater
Treatment Plant at Kestetter (0.9 km), Denzer (4.25 km), and Caldwell
(6.53 km). Samples were collected every 2 hours for this study (7). The
decrease in TP concentrations downstream is not due to dilution (increase
in flow is insignificant) but deposition and biological processing. The
diurnal variation in the concentrations at all three stations can be seen.
Also noticeable is the displacement in the peaks as they move downstream.
In contrast to the well-defined picture of deposition, diurnal variation
and downstream displacement of the concentration peak obtained from the
2-hour samples shown in Figure 6a is the data shown in Figure 6b. This data
was collected by a grab sampling program at approximately 6-hour intervals.
From this data, downstream deposition between Kestetter and Denzer is not
noticeable. In fact, concentrations seem to be increasing between the
stations. The reason for the large variation in concentrations is not
obvious and the concentration peak is not seen to be moving downstream.
Figure 6 is a good example of how a false understanding of a system can be
obtained from an inadequate sampling program.
A TRANSPORT THEORY
DEPOSITION AND RESUSPENSION
The observations of transport just described can be used with mass and
force balance equations to develop a theory of how phosphorus and suspended
251
-------
CO p cu
030
£ DJ ^
O o co
fD p rt
•• M H
Qj ft)
3 P
£3 fD g
fD h-1
Mi M O
fD Mi
^ x*~N
fD ON tri
3 • C
O <-n O
fD uj v;
I-!
X"~N ^ C
ON 3 cn
N»_ S '^-X ^
,
1 0
3"
P O
P K
rt (D
cn
r\D ro rt
cn J^ ro
™ 0 Z
C CD
H" ^
rt
(D ^O
< W
p g
cn
P a
3 fD
PI . f-j
cn
s^ fD
C74 f-{
^ ^
OQ
h^ t^O
P Ln
cr
JS^1
cn g
g **
fD
cn
T! TOTAL PHOSPHORUS img/l 8» ri
H-
DQ ^
S 01 0 01 0 « 0
^obo ooo ooo
M
I O-
0
0 M
rt _t "~
P
I—1
^ •-
O -t
CO fll ~
13
CT4 l»-
O •*
H
C .
CO "t
O-
0 H «-
3 _
0 . M-
(D * _k
3 m
rt
t-i — ^
P Z O -
a -
1— 1. ,_ —
S ^J l>% __
H- 3B
3 (rt -L
rt
fD Ol~
on N-
P -*
3
P .
C
£ 01 -
pd M J
H- "*
<^
fD
i-i
1 1 1 1
-~
'
^^ —
••••
• —
• —
mmm^^am —
•^ -
m
w
H
H_
s-
9
^•••••••^•••^B -~
• — '
1 ~™
1 —
••• ~~
till
1 1 1 1
•"
•MB —
mmmm —
•••Ml —
«•••••••) —
•«•• —
• -
••«
O
m
_ z -
_ N _
m
— » -
••••••••• ~
••••• —
^^^^^^^^^^•••••i
••^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ _
• -
• —
i i i 1
i i i i
•
•
i
••
••
— o
r-
- ?
!"
••§
•MB
••
••1
1 1 I 1
• g S • g | - g |
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (mg/l •• P)
5
i
01
•
O
1 1
o
•
o
1
m
O
c
a
(0
O
>
r
o
m
-------
sediment are transported in a river. The important characteristics used in
developing the theory are: 1) the peak of the TP concentration usually
leads the flow rate peak of the river at any station; 2) the TP con-
centration declines to its low flow value before the flow returns to its
approximate steady flow range of values; and 3) the peak TP concentration is
not necessarily higher at the downstream stations than at the upstream sta-
tions (8).
Figure 7 shows the results of calculations for different theories which
explain the three characteristics described above. Figure 7a shows the
initial conditions, a chemograph with the TP concentration peak ahead of
the flow peaks. The results in Figure 7b indicate that after 40 miles
downstream with no water or chemical input, the peak of total phosphorus has
moved behind the peak of water flow. This result is in contrast with the
observation that the TP peak is still ahead of the flow peak at downstream
stations. Figures 7c and 7d compare models which would explain the fact that
the observed TP peak does not lag behind the flow peak. Curves TP(1) and
TP(2) assume local inflow with two different TP concentrations and no
resuspension. Curve TP(1) has the TP concentration lagging behind the flow
peak. Curve TP(2), which has the TP peak remaining ahead of the flow peak,
does not have the TP concentration decreasing to its initial value- Both of
these results are in disagreement with the observed facts. Only Figure 7d
which assumes resuspension and deposition proportional to the rate of
change of velocity with time reproduces the field observations. The peak in
TP concentration remained ahead of the flow peak and the total phosphorus
concentration declined with declining flow.
253
-------
1792
i-i n ,--.
(BOO
cn 3 s—
C n
cn fD CL
T) 3 H-
(D
fD
3
cn
H- rt 3 I
O H. n
3 o m !Z
-•«• 3
a.
n>
H-
P.
o
&,
o a>
3
cn
II IB
m
cn
C
UJ
""•J -P*"
Ui O x~-
g g v—'
OQ H-
--» M H-
i-1 ro 3
cn H-
>• rt
H P-
hj |—'03
^—. O h-1
to n _j
--^ 03 O ™
i- 3 H- m
• i-h rt I"
O I—' H-
h-i O O ^
0! 3 3 Z
cn *•
g n -•
DISCHARGE Q IN CFS
-k CO
-J. CO
to ^
S !x! M. "T1
•*-* cn ^^
O rt
Cu g ex.
cn H- O
l—' Sj
O >• cn
—' rt
I-1 H
Com
H- O 03
rt fu g
3" M
II
H rt
>-d O 4^
rt O
II 03
i-1 g
O H-
M 3* TO
oo o cn
•^j cn »
' 71 U
goo
era n
-^ C H-
M cn 3
^
C H- C
H- 3 rt
rt I-h cn
cr !-"••
o
3
-t CO
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION
TP IN MG/L
-------
DISTANCE OF TRAVEL
From the previous discussion, it has been suggested that the transport
of total phosphorus occurs via a mechanism by which the phosphorus is picked
up at one point in the stream and deposited at another. Given that total
phosphorus is transported from one point in the stream to another, the dis-
tance of transport becomes an important issue. This distance of travel could
be measured experimentally for any given reach of stream by employing tracer
particles. However, these distance estimates would be valid for only the
individual stretch and numerous measurements would have to be made for
different stream reaches just to understand one river basin. This same
information can be estimated from the hydrograph and chemograph measured at a
given point in a stream. The technique to be described uses the assumption
that the water is moving as a kinematic wave. Furthermore, the actual
distances calculated are derived from information obtained at one point in
the river and hence the assumption that the whole stretch of river is similar
to the measurement point is implied (9).
The calculational procedure is based upon two data sets; the time
dependency of both flow and total phosphorus concentration, and the flow
versus area curve for a rated point in the stream. From this information,
the average distance traveled by the total phosphorus during a storm event
can be calculated. Figure 8 shows the cumulative probability of travel
distances at various stations in the Sandusky River basin for a storm event.
It can be seen from this figure that 50 percent of the phosphorus from
Bucyrus which was resuspended and measured at Upper Sandusky will move at
least 52 miles, which is the distance to Lake Erie. The rest of this
255
-------
ro
en
en
UPPER
SANDUSKY
^-BUCYRU
^
FREMONT
0
70 90 110 130
DISTANCE OF TRAVEL-MILES
Figure 8 - Cumulative Probability that Total Phosphorus will be Deposited In-stream Before Traveling
the Stated Distance. Sandusky River Basin, 12 July 1974. Source: Reference (9).
-------
material will be deposited before it reaches the lake. Flows at least as
great as the flow event for which these calculations were made occur on the
average of nine times a year.
INSTREAM PROCESSING
The steady state deposition studies (Figure 6) show orthophosphate and
total phosphorus discharged from a sewage treatment plant are rapidly
removed from the water column (7). As this material moves downstream from
the outfall, it is adsorbed to river sediments by clay minerals and/or
micro-organisms. Calculations show that about 75 percent of the total
phosphorus is lost after traveling 16 kilometers during low flow conditions
which occur 35 percent of the time (10). At these periods, Lake Erie or
stations located 16 or more kilometers downstream do not experience increased
phosphorus concentrations resulting from point sources.
The phosphorus deposited in the river bottom sediments during steady
state conditions is resuspended during high flow events. This phenomenon can
be seen in Figure 9 which shows deposition and resuspension of total phos-
phorus and orthophosphate between Bucyrus and Upper Sandusky on the Sandusky
River. Deposition and resuspension were calculated utilizing a dynamic
phosphorus transport model (11). This model routes all upstream inputs
between Bucyrus and Upper Sandusky to Upper Sandusky. If the routed sum is
larger than what was actually measured, deposition is assumed. If what is
measured is larger than the routed sum, resuspension is assumed. It can be
seen from Figure 9 that both total phosphorus and orthophosphate are lost
from the water during low flow. However, during high flow, only total
phosphorus is resuspended. Orthophosphate is neither deposited to nor
257
-------
2.00
1400
ro
en
CO
liiilvS RESUSPENSION
1.20
0.00
0.00
1400
- 1200
8
DEPOSITION
T£ RESUSPENSION
9 10 II 12 13 14 15 789 10 II 12 13 14 15
JULY JULY
Figure 9 - Deposition and Resuspension of (a) Total Phosphorus and (b) Orthophosphate in the Sandusky River
near Upper Sandusky - Storm beginning 7 July 1976. Source: Reference (11).
-------
released from the sediments during high flow. It moves right through the
system. This figure very clearly illustrates the instream processing of
nutrients. Immediately available orthophosphate is converted to potentially
available sediment phosphorus during steady state flow conditions. The
phosphorus is later transported as potentially available sediment phosphorus
during high flow. It also should be noted that during high flow, phosphorus
from point sources is transported directly through the river with no instream
processing.
SAMPLING STRATEGIES FOR FLUX ESTIMATION
It has been shown in the previous sections that SS and TP transport in
an event response river occurs in a river during high flow events by a
process of resuspension and deposition. Knowledge of when the material is
moving can help to determine when to sample.
FIXED INTERVAL SAMPLING
Treuner et al. (12) examined the effect of sampling frequencies on
determination of annual phosphorus load of small to moderate streams
(Wahnbach River in Germany) with low flows and no relationship between total
phosphorus concentration and flow (stable response river). They examined
sampling frequencies of 1 to 29 day intervals between measurements. They
also examined four different averaging methods to determine annual loads.
They concluded that use of continuous flow measurement by means of a level
recorder leads to annual total phosphorus loads two to four times more
accurate than discontinuous flow measurements with a simple measuring weir.
In addition, they concluded that sample frequencies of 14 to 21 days (17 to
259
-------
21 samples) and continuous flow measurements with a level recorder are
required to keep deviations within 20 percent of the reference value
(Figure 10).
In contrast to the above results, Hetling, et al. (13) concluded that a
fixed interval sampling is of little value to obtain annual loads unless
daily or'every other day samples are taken. With sample frequencies of
14 to 21 days (17 to 21 samples) deviations of 700 percent were obtained
for particulate phosphorus and 1,700 percent for suspended sediment for an
event response river (Figure 11). They further concluded that a sampling
strategy based on sampling high flow events was necessary to obtain reliable
annual load for an event response river.
HIGH FLOW SAMPLING
Assuming that high flows must be sampled, the question arises as to
how many samples are required. Figure 12 shows the percent deviation from
the true value for event sampling strategies for four event response rivers
(Maumee, Portage, Sandusky, and Huron). The figure was developed by using
only the data collected during the largest and/or second largest flow events
plus a few low flow samples. The flow interval method (14) was used to make
a flux estimate and from this, a flux calculated from the complete yearly
record was subtracted. The difference was divided by the flux calculated
from the total record.
It can be seen from the figure that for all three parameters all but
two estimates are within a 50 percent deviation, and most of the estimates
are within 20 percent. In most cases, the error estimates overlap the
260
-------
ro
150
UJ
2 m 100
£ 0
< Z
> UJ
UJ CC
°B! 50
H UJ
Z QC
UJ
o m
£ H o
°- s
o
QC
ii
•^H
.—
• v
_ • ^**
^ •
* ^^*^
* • x» *** •
x^-x
*^*^
^ *^
• *^ *
^ ^» "^
j,^^
. ^^
^
"".•"-*— .^ ^
*~^ "**~V-'-. •
"*" ^"".^".~- -• -*-*-*_.
i i i i ~~T"' •"""
10
15
20
25
30 DAYS
SAMPLING INTERVAL
Figure 10 - Wahnbach River, a Stable Response River - Deviations of the annual P loads calculated
from fixed interval sample sets taken from the total data base of daily samples. Total data base
was used to calculate the reference value. Source: Reference (12).
-------
292
--V s; H,
n cu h"
"~' en X
fD
H e a.
O en
rt (H H-
M rt
rt fD
^d o i-i
O O ft)
en cu h->
13
LOADING (kg/day)
D4 o
O C
en
cu
M 3
CU id
rt M
fD fD
rt en
CO [IT4 fD
O fD rt
C en
O (D rt
fD H) CU
•• (D JV
i-( fD
fD 3
•o
^ a
£ i
M o
i-1 c
o
i-i
fD
fD
M
n>
rt
fD n HI pd
Hi (D H; fD
fD o en
• 3 'd
fD CU
o e .
fD fD fD (D
o
rt 3
en
CU O H*
^ rt <
CU fD
C
en &. I
o cu
o
fD
(D
(D D4 H-
p. Jl} (13
en rt
C^ fD H-
(D
a, o
H- HI en
fD
rt H.
O
3
&. O
--v fD
CT4 cn
v—' fU CU
3 3
co x) 3
O M C
M fD CU
C en i—'
CT4 •
-I
m
O
to
•o
o
a
c
w
O
(0
X
•o
LOADING (kg/day)
Ji a MO M <• -4
at o ai 01 e at
PERCENT DEVIATION
FROM AVERAGE OF ALL VALUES
LOADING (kg/day)
fD O
h-3 ft)
o r? a.
i-! fD en
:r rt n
O O ft)
•~d &3 o
P4 M C
O (-•
en CL fu
X) Co rt
P4 rt fD
03 03 O •
rt
fD a4 HI
en o
P fD 3
(0
C
to
•o
ffl
z
o
m
O
(0
O
r
5
(0
O
w
CO
(A
O
r-
<
m
o
o
(0
•o
z
o
a
c
(0
O
>
O
(0
PERCENT DEVIATION
FROM AVERAGE OF ALL VALUES
-4 01 M O M Ol -4
01 o a » o at
PERCENT DEVIATION
FROM AVERAGE OF ALL VALUES
-------
£92
rt | — '
O O
ft)
O CL
ft)
i-1 n
O ft)
C 1 — '
M O
ft) C
rt I— '
fD ft)
rt
rt fD
P" O.
fD
^ h^
fD O
f? 3
i-i &,
fD ft)
P rt
O ft)
fD
CO
< fD
ft) rt
M cn
C
fD Hi
O
i-l
<•""""•» r~t
&) p4
^ ro
cn i— '
C P
co i-i
"d 3Q
(D fD
P cn
Cli rt
fD
p . £3
0
C/3 CL
fD \
d. O
H- i-i
g
fD cn
P fD
rt O
O
/~*. 3
cr a.
W ft)
0 i-i
M OT
C fD
cr1 cn
I—1 rt
fD
fD
O <
!-! fD
rt P
P" rt
O •
nd
P* H
0 p4
CO (D
13
P' rt
p O
ro P
p
P D,
p . 03
rt
^ P
n
P
H CO
O fD
rt
ft) &
| — 1 J13
CO
0
cn
ft>
o.
hrj
H-
(TO
£
I-i
fD
I — i
M
1 O
^^
< H
fD O
* >
-^j ••
fD
w -0
0 X
s 9
fD (/)
prj *J
H- X
ORUS
vers -
3
P
C
g
fD
fD
\f
nd
o
i-i
rt
P
OQ
fD
v«
cn
P
P
o-
CO
a
y N_.
t w
^ O
K |-
S c
o Q)
P r~
i
?a rn
H-
< o
m :!
* 5
cn H
• T
•L
o
ro "°
< X
^2
rt (/)
H' TJ
o -»•
P *
cn Q
0 30
l~tl ^*
rt CO
Cr1
fD
P
P
P
C
P
PERCENT DEVIATION
FROM THE REFERENCE VALUE
01 W O W
O O O O O
*
? M
i* >
09 u Z -»
2 O "O M
3D pv
^ 1
o "^
"" U X «
W -4
> .» m
S^ »M
•o • < o
r » >
m i-
(0 M
^
10
OB
C9
_
*~
_ ^~*
t—
— ^-
1 •—
H
1 1
— 1
™"
_
I 1 I
^
^^•^^^H
*™ ^ 1 • I
—4
«. «4
•— — »
• '
N ' '
PERCENT DEVIATION
FROM THE REFERENCE VALUE
^ ^
(H w O W
o o o o o
^
•^
2 9 9
i >
00 y ^
So JS»
0 m
""S z *
(0 H
> ... m
Z C s N
•o • < o
m r
(A M
^
N>
00
CO
—
—
h-
(
_
_
1 1 1
t ______ t
)-•-»
• 1
* '
i — . — i
h*»^
£^V^»*^
_ 1 • ' ""^
^*
0)
CO
CO
TJ
z
o
m
o
CO
-» m
PERCENT DEVIATION
FROM THE REFERENCE VALU
wow w o w o
oooooooo
z
° w S —
"]O ' M
" r
O m
•"'* 5«
u z at
OB ^
> _» m
Z *J » M
•o • < o
ffl
10
-------
true value. The error estimate is calculated assuming a normal distribution
and a 90 percent confidence coefficient. In contrast to the large variations
obtained from the fixed interval sampling shown in Figure 11, the event
sampling program yields very reliable estimates.
EFFECT OF MISSING HIGH FLOW EVENTS
Suspended sediment and material transported by sediment such as total
phosphorus increase in concentration with increasing flow. If water quality
measurements for these parameters are not made during high flow events,-the
annual load can be significantly underestimated.
Table 2 shows the total phosphorus load which was transported by Lake
Erie tributaries during high flow events. For these event response rivers,
28 to 47 percent of the total phosphorus load was transported in 7 to 10 days
during the year. If samples collected during high flow periods were not
used in the loading calculation, total phosphorus loads can be under-
estimated at 15 to 30 percent.
There are a number of event response rivers which are heavily impacted
by point sources (i.e., Sandusky River below Bucyrus). In these rivers,
total phosphorus concentrations first decrease with increasing flow (due to
dilution of point sources) then increase with increasing flow during a run-
off event. In these river, event sampling is not as important as in other
event response rivers. Another group of rivers in which event sampling is
not as important are stable response rivers. They are primarily fed by
ground water, not runoff, and sediment concentrations do not vary greatly
with changing flow conditions (Figure Ib).
264
-------
Table 2 - Total Phosphorus Transport During High Flows*
River
Maumee
Portage
Sandusky
Huron
Vermilion
Chagrin
Cattaraugus
Percent Load
33
46
41
38
28
32
47
Percent Time
2.7
2.6
3.4
1.9
2.5
2.5
1.9
Percent Loss if
in the Loading
23
29
22
19
17
16
29
Not Included
Calculation
*Statistics for flows greater than 40 percent of the maximum flow for
the period June 1974 to May 1975.
HYDROLOGICAL VARIABILITY
The annual load for any water quality parameter can vary considerably
from year to year and river basin to river basin. The reason for this annual
variation is the type and amount of rainfall which falls on the drainage
basin and the condition of the basin when it rains. Annual changes in basin
condition can result from natural or man-made causes. Basin soil moisture,
infiltration capacity, and surface cover can be affected by climatic factors
such as air temperature, sunshine, and previous rainfall. An example of man-
made induced changes which affect basin conditions are changes in land use
which can destroy cover over large areas, as during timbering operations or
construction activities. Land use changes can also reduce the infiltration
capacity when streets and homes are built. Surface cover and interception
can be affected by changes in cropping patterns and tillage methods. Tillage
265
-------
methods can also change soil structure, thereby affecting the infiltration
capacity and total porosity of a soil.
Moderate changes in the total amount of rainfall can have large changes
*,
in the total runoff from a basin. Not only does total runoff affect pollu-
tant export, but the type of storms and when and how they occur will affect
export. Two inches of rain falling in 1 hour may erode and transport much
more sediment than 2 inches of rain over 24 hours. The same 2 inches per
hour will cause much more erosion when the soil is bare and saturated than
when there is surface cover and low soil moisture.
TIME VARIABILITY WITHIN A RIVER BASIN
An example of annual variation is shown in Figures 13a and b which
show the long-term annual flow and annual suspended sediment record for the
Maumee River at Waterville, Ohio. These flow data were collected with a
recording level gage. The suspended sediment data were collected daily with
additional measurements made during high flows. It can be seen from the
figure that the mean annual flow was 4,886 cfs for the period of record.
The minimum annual flow recorded was 1,996 cfs and the maximum was 8,587
cfs, a 430 percent variation. For suspended sediment, the mean annual load
was 1,140,000 metric tons per year. The minimum load was 260,000 metric tons
per year and the maximum load was 2,106,000 metric tons per year, a variation
of 23 to 185 percent of the mean annual load.
Annual variations in nutrient transport are not as extreme as those in
sediment transport. Table 3 shows the annual and sediment flows and nutrient
and sediment flux for the Sandusky River at Fremont. It can be seen from
266
-------
« £ 3! SUSPENDED SEDIMENT (million metric tont/yr.)
MEAN DAILY FLOW (eft)
ro
cr>
— . f\ «3
in
s.=> -
- CM
3 o 1
2 ° £
O a*
3 °- 0
C
— 3
0 A
— " »
3 *
i?
-i
2 o
3 -*
c <
— 0
in (•
c -»
i/t ^
•0 ~
5 «
Jo
a. X
M
• ^^
a. a
B ""
Is
3
— c
0 Q
O —
°- -K
ow (b) c
calculated
4 »
z.' c
=• £.
o to
3 C
o -o
3 3
= a.
o £
~ Q.
01 C
-"
m
01
Ut
m
Ul
-«4
(X
(O
•>
<~
H 0
-<
m w
>
*«
->J
01
«p
-^
^4
Ol
H
-4
•MB
D i* C
I f
{
~ .
/
\
•^
-^
:<
:^
s
V
1 i
_ rv> ro
> en O
ii i
X
/
/
\
V
)
/
\
\
/
r
i
>
) °
^
> I
^
z
>
z
z
> >
r~
s^ *^
> -
X ^
C
\
3
Ki . ,
o o
o o
o o 5
^ CJ* 0) -J QO (O
o o o o o o
5 o o o o o
o o o o o o
I I
-------
this table that although the flow only varied from 64 to 142 percent of the
5-year average, suspended sediment varied from 49 to 150 percent of the
5-year average. Total phosphorus, which is transported by the suspended
sediment, only varied from 61 to 134 percent of the 5-year average. Ortho-
phosphate, which is not transported with the suspended sediment, only
varied from 60 to 140 percent of its 5-year average.
Table 3 - Nutrient and Sediment Transport for the
Sandusky River at Fremont
Parameter
Flow (106 cubic
meters)
Total Phosphorus
Soluble Ortho
Phosphorus
Suspended
Sediment
1975
1,030
1.05
419 (1)
1.00 (2)
72
0.86
302,000
1.50
1976
772
0.79
399
0.95
50
0.60
124,000
0.62
1977
629
0.64
258
0.61
66
0.79
98,800
0.49
1978
1,390
1.42
463
1.10
117
1.40
194,000
0.97
1979
1,090
1.11
563
1.34
112
1.34
286,000
1.42
5-Yeai
Average
981
420
83
200,800
(1) Metric tons/year
(2) Annual/5-year average
Source: River Laboratory, Heidelberg College. Reference (3)
ANNUAL VS. MEAN ANNUAL LOADS
Calculation of an annual load for a river is a different problem than
calculating a mean load. Annual loads are necessary for mathematical model
calibrations which relate 1 year's input to a lake from a river to the water
quality measured in the lake for that year.
268
-------
However, annual loads are not useful for determining the distribution
between point and nonpoint sources of total phosphorus inputs to a lake. For
example, the nonpoint source load to Lake Erie varied between 40 and 57 per-
cent of the total lake load between 1970 and 1977 (10). Depending upon what
year is chosen, opposite conclusions could be reached: control of diffuse
sources is required to restore the lake or control of diffuse sources is not
required to restore the lake. To make a judgment on the need for diffuse
source control, a mean annual load is needed.
EFFECT OF FLOW VARIATION ON ANNUAL LOAD
With large variations in annual load, the question arises, "How can an
annual load estimate be normalized to a mean load estimate?" One way to
normalize an annual load estimate is to calculate the annual weighted mean
concentration (annual load divided by annual flow) and multiply it by the
mean annual flow. This mean annual load for the Maumee River suspended
sediment data is shown in Figure 13c. It can be seen from the figure that
this estimate of mean annual load varies from 485,000 to 1,668,000 metric
tons per year. This estimate of annual load is more representative of
export from the basin, but still has a variation of 43 to 146 percent of the
mean annual load.
Use of an annual weighted mean concentration to calculate a mean annual
load removes variations in total annual flow from the mean annual load esti-
mate. However, variations in mean annual loads still exist and result from
differences in flow characteristics such as the magnitude, duration,
frequency, and seasonal distribution of high flow events. Therefore, if
269
-------
material export from a basin is to be adequately characterized, these dif-
ferences in annual flow characteristics must be eliminated.
When more than 1 year of concentration data is available, the entire data
set should be used to calculate a flow weight mean concentration which can be
used with mean annual flow to calculate a mean annual load.
VARIABILITY BETWEEN RIVER BASINS
Sediment, nutrient, and chemical export from rivers is often compared on
a unit area basis, i.e., the export measured at a flow gaging station is
divided by the area of the river basin above the station. Often, unit area
loads measured in one river basin are used to estimate flux from unmeasured
watersheds. Table 4 shows the unit area contributions of total phosphorus
from nine rivers which flow into Lake Erie. For the 2 years shown, the
annual unit area loads range from 0.75 to 3.57 kilograms per hectare. This
range of variation is typical of the range of unit area loads which can be
expected from rivers in the same region. Considerable care should be exer-
cised before using unit area loads to calculate fluxes in unmeasured rivers.
The mean annual loads shown in Table 4 do not show as much variation as
the annual loads. They were calculated from the flow and concentration data
collected during 1975 to 1977 and the period of record flow duration tables.
The mean annual total phosphorus loads only vary from 0.79 to 1.65 kilograms
per hectare. If unit area loads must be used, mean annual loads would pro-
vide a better estimate than annual unit area loads.
Also shown in Table 4 is the,unit area diffuse source load. This load
was calculated by subtracting the upstream point sources from the annual
270
-------
load. The diffuse source load varies from -0.45 to 1.06 kilograms per
hectare per year. This range of variability is greater than that shown by
the mean annual load. The negative loads indicate that all of the point
source phosphorus is not being delivered to the measuring station. It is
moving into long-term storage in either the streambed or the flood plain.
In summary, unit area loads are not a reliable source of data to make flux
estimates for unmeasured rivers.
Table 4 - Unit Area Contributions of Total Phosphorus
River
Maumee
Portage
Huron
Sand us ky
Vermilion
Black
Cuyahoga
Chagrin
Cattaraugus
Kilograms as Phosphorus Per Hectare Per Year
(kg/ha/yr)
1975 CD
1.58
1.25
1.20
1.61
1.89
1.89
3.57
1.76
1.31
1977 (!)
1.15
0.99
1.15
0.75
1.03
1.65
1.57
0.98
2.25
Mean Annual (^)
1.12
0.79
0.81
.91
0.71
1.10
1.65
1.00
1.06
Diffuse Source (3)
0.86
-0.16
0.63
0.45
0.48
0.86
-0.45
0.76
1.06
(1) Water year, 1 October to 30 September.
(2) Calculated with the concentration and flow data collected in 1975
to 1977 and the period of record flow duration tables.
(3) The diffuse source load was calculated by subtracting the upstream
point source load from the mean annual load.
Source: Reference (10).
271
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The information described in this paper resulted from an attempt to
answer the question, "How much phosphorus from tributary point sources
reaches the lake?" The answer to the question still is, "We don't know."
Despite the answer being the same, our knowledge of sediment and phosphorus
transport in rivers has increased. Based on the work described in this
paper, the following conclusions can be reached:
1. Two types of rivers exist - event response rivers where SS and TP
concentrations increase with increasing flow, and stable response rivers
where suspended sediment and total phosphorus concentrations do not increase
with increasing flow. The type of river affects how you measure it.
2. In event response rivers, the bulk of the phosphorus is transported
by the sediment. However, the total phosphorus/suspended sediment or
(total-ortho phosphorus)/suspended sediment ratio varies considerably during
an event, between events, annually, and between rivers.
3. Considerable variation in the flow concentration relationship for
a river exists. This variation is caused by differences between the rising
and falling limbs of individual runoff events, differences in stream
chemistry among runoff events of similar size, and similarities in stream
chemistry among runoff events of different sizes.
4. Different patterns of concentration versus flow exist between river
basins with no upstream point sources, point sources immediately upstream,
and point sources considerably upstream.
272
-------
5. Both soluble and partlculate phosphorus which enters a river during
low flow is quickly removed from the water column. During high flow, the
phosphorus is resuspended and subsequently transported as particulate
phosphorus. This conversion from immediately available soluble ortho-
phosphate to potentially available particulate phosphorus represents an
instream processing of soluble orthophosphate from point and nonpoint
sources.
6. Sediment and phosphorus in suspension travels a finite distance.
The probability it will travel a certain distance can be calculated. This
probability will change and vary between events and rivers. However, how
long the material will remain on the bottom before being resuspended cannot
be calculated.
7. High flow events must be sampled on event response rivers to obtain
reliable suspended sediment and total phosphorus flux estimates. If these
events are not sampled, fluxes will be underestimated by 15 to 30 percent.
8. Considerable diurnal variation can exist during low flow at river
stations below point sources. Sample intervals as small as 2 hours may be
required for some studies.
9. Annual orthophosphate, total phosphorus, and suspended sediment
fluxes can vary considerably. A flux measured in any 1 year may not repre-
sent long-term transport for a river basin. A more representative calcula-
tion is a mean annual load.
10. Unit area loads vary between river basins. Caution should be exer-
cised in using unit area loads measured for other watersheds.
273
-------
RECOMMENDED SAMPLING PROGRAM
In order to obtain a reasonable estimate of total loads transported by an
event response river, sampling during high flow events is necessary.
Approximately two to three of the largest events must be sampled for a yearly
estimate, with 15 to 20 grab samples collected over each hydrograph. An
additional 5 to 10 samples should be collected during steady flow periods.
This program should yield a loading estimate with an error estimate of 10 to
20 percent.
Fluxes for stable response rivers can be estimated with fixed interval
sampling programs. The number of samples required will depend upon the
variability of each river and will range from 15 to 45.
The above program will result in annual estimates for tributaries which
are reliable and estimates which can also be used to detect differences in
annual loads. However, this program will likely not be sufficient to detect
progress made in control of diffuse sources. Annual variations in the
frequency and duration of high flow events as well as basin conditions, such
as soil moisture and cover, make any simple evaluation of change in phos-
phorus and sediment loads impossible. If changes in phosphorus loads are
to be measured, continuous records of rainfall, streamflow, water quality,
soil moisture, and cover will be needed, as well as improved methodologies
for relating this information. A few watersheds should be selected for
such studies.
Progress in diffuse source control can best be assessed through moni-
toring the implementation of conservation measures in the agricultural com-
munity and storm water management controls in the urban areas. Intensive
274
-------
monitoring programs to accurately measure river loadings could be carried out
on selected rivers as described above. Implementation of conservation
measures can be used as input to models or tools, such as the Universal
Soil Loss Equation, to estimate progress based on reductions in potential
gross erosion.
275
-------
REFERENCES
(1) Sonzogni, W. C., et al., "United States Great Lakes Tributary Loadings,1
PLUARG Technical Report, Ann Arbor, Michigan, January 1978.
(2) USEPA Region V - STORET Retrieval.
(3) Baker, D. A., Heidelberg College River Laboratory, Tiffin, Ohio.
(4) U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, Lake Erie Wastewater
Management Study, Preliminary Feasibility Report, Buffalo, New York,
1975.
(5) Verhoff, F. H., S. M. Yaksich, and D. A. Melfi, "Phosphorus Transport
in Rivers," Lake Erie Wastewater Management Study Technical Report,
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo, New York, November 1978.
(6) Baker, D. A. and J. W. Kramer, "Patterns of Variability in Stream
Chemistry Data," Lake Erie Wastewater Management Study Technical
Report, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo, New York, March 1979.
(7) Verhoff, F. H. and D. A. Baker, "Moment Analysis for Review Model
Discrimination and Parameter Estimation with Application to
Phosphorus," accepted for publication with Water Research.
(8) Verhoff, F. H. and D. A. Melfi, "Total Phosphorus Transport During
Storm Events," ASCE, Journal of the Environmental Division, October
1978.
(9) Verhoff, F. H., D. A. Melfi, and S. M. Yaksich, "Storm Travel Distance
Calculations for Total Phosphorus and Suspended Materials in Rivers,"
Water Resources Research, Vol. 15, No. 6, December 1979.
(10) U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, "Lake Erie Wastewater
Management Study, Methodology Report," Buffalo, New York, March 1979.
(11) Melfi, D. A. and F. H. Verhoff, "Material Transport in River Systems
During Storm Events by Water Routing," Lake Erie Wastewater Management
Study Technical Report, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo, New
York, March 1979.
(12) Treunert, E., A. Wilhelms, and H. Bernhardt, "Effect of the Sampling
Frequency on the Determination of the Annual Phosphorus Load of Average
Streams," Hydrochem. hyd. geol. Mitt, Vol. I, pp. 175-198, March
1974.
(13) Hetling, L. J., G. A. Carlson, and J. A. Bloomfield, "Estimation of
the Optimal Sampling Interval in Assessing Water Quality of Streams,"
Environmental Modeling and Simulation, EPA 600/9-76-016, pp. 579-582,
July 1976.
276
-------
(14) Verhoff, F. H., S. M. Yaksich, and D. A. Melfi, "River Nutrient and
Chemical Transport Estimation," ASCE, Journal of the Environmental
Engineering Division, June 1980.
277
-------
BIOAVAILABILITY OF PHOSPHORUS
SOURCES TO LAKES
by
Terry J. Logan*
* Associate Professor, Agronomy Department, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
279
-------
The role of phosphorus in accelerated eutrophication of Lake Erie
and other areas in the Great Lakes drainage basin has been recognized
and documented in recent years. Studies by LEWMS and PLUARG have shown
that a major part of the total phosphorus load entering the lakes from
tributary drainage is in the form of particulate P, and lake shoreline
erosion also contributes large amounts of P. While it is readily accepted
that soluble inorganic P in drainage water is available to algae and other
aquatic vegetation, the bioavailability of sediment-bound phosphate is
largely unknown. As a result, one is faced with two extreme scenarios:
a) only the soluble inorganic P is bioavailable or b) all sources of P
including sediment P are available. The first scenario is supported by the
findings in New York where soluble inorganic P was shown to be the dominant
form of stream-transported phosphate in stimulating growth of algae (Porter,
1975). On the other hand, Golterman (1977) found that sediment P in shallow
polder lakes in Holland would maintain highly eutrophic conditions even if
all external P sources were removed. Recent work by Allan and Williams (.1978)
demonstrated the importance of biologically available sediment P in fairly
shallow Canadian prairie lakes.
The importance of sediment as a source of P for algae is governed by
a number of factors. Streams which carry a low sediment load, and/or sedi-
ment of coarse-texture and stream-bank origin will have much of their bio-
logically available P as soluble inorganic P as a consequence of the lower
P content of coarse sediment (Williams et al, 1976 a). Consideration must
also be given to physical lake dynamics. Stream sediments which settle
rapidly into deep lakes will only be positionally available to algae in the
photic zone for short periods as in the central and eastern basins of Lake
Erie, thereby minimizing the significance of sediment P as a source of
biologically available phosphorus. In contrast, we have the situation
where streams carry a high load of fine-grained sediment into shallow lakes,
a situation similar to that in the western basin of Lake Erie. In this in-
stance, factors which serve to increase the importance of sediment P are:
the high percentage of the total phosphorus load as sediment P, the higher
content of P in clay-sized sediment, and the longer period that this suspended
sediment load is positionally available to algae in the photic zone.
Procedures to estimate bioavailability of sediment P from tributary
sources must take into account the conditions under which algae obtain P
from sediment. Algae can derive some P from sediment in the photic zone
for short periods and under aerobic conditions. In addition, available P is
derived from bottom sediments during anoxic regeneration and subsequent lake
inversion, a markedly different chemical environment than exists in the
photic zone. While much of the P regeneration is from decomposed algal
biomass, sediment P is also released under anoxic conditions. As a result
of this dichotomy, bioavailable sediment P will be viewed here in two ways:
a) positionally available, to represent short-term release of P to algae in
surface waters, and b) total potentially available, to represent maximum
P which can be released over time by all mechanisms. Procedures to estimate
sediment P bioavailability will be discussed in the context of this concept.
In this paper, I will discuss the bioassay procedures used to measure
available P, the studies which correlated biological availability with
chemical extraction, estimates of bioavailability of Great Lakes sediments
and waters, and interpretations of these findings for point and nonpoint
source P management.
280
-------
BIOASSAY MEASUREMENT OF AVAILABLE P
Recent bioassays of the availability of sediment P for uptake by
aquatic plants have simply involved culturing algae in a suspension of
river or lake sediments, in which the sediment P is the only possible
phosphorus source and other necessary nutrients are in excess supply.
Following an incubation period either the algal phosphorus content or the
algal biomass (employing a P/biomass conversion factor) is used to esti-
mate the amount of phosphorus that had become available.
Cowen and Lee (1976a) employed the test alga Selenastrum capricornutum
to measure the available P in the particulate P portion of urban runoff
samples collected in Madison, Wisconsin. After 19-22 day incubation of
the Selenastrum in assay flasks containing AAP medium minus P
and runoff particulate P, they compared the cell counts obtained to a
standard curve of 18 day cell counts versus initial orthophosphate con-
centration. In this way they converted cell counts to available P. This
availability was most closely approximated by the NaOH-extractable frac-
tion, while exchangeable P (anion exchange resin extractable) slightly
underestimated the algal available fraction.
Cowen and Lee (1976a, b) applied the same procedure described above
to the assessment of available P in sediment carried by tributaries to
Lake Ontario (Niagara, Genesee, Oswego, and Black Rivers). They found
that 6 percent or less of the particulate P was available based on growth
of Selenastrum. In this case the algal available P was not consistent with
NaOH-extractable P (mean, 17-25% of inorganic particulate P; range, 11-28%) or
resin-extractable P (mean. 17-25%; range 6-31%). The relatively low availa-
bility was, however, consistent with the findings of Logan et al (1979)
on four New York streams and Porter (1975) in Fall Creek, a small New
York watershed emptying into Cayauga Lake.
Sagher et al (1975) determined NaOH-extractable P in Wisconsin lake
sediments before and after algal incubation and found that 0.1 N NaOH
extractablePat wide extraction to sediment ratios (>500:1) was highly
correlated with the P utilized by algae. This agreed with the findings
of Cowen and Lee (1976a, b) who also had a good correlation between NaOH
extractable P and P bioavailability.
Dorich and Nelson (1978) measured availabiltiy of sediment-bound P
in Black Creek by culturing algae for two weeks in synthetic medium with
gamma radiation sterilized sediments as the only P source, and determining
the quantity and chemical extractability of particulate P in the flask
before and after incubation. By performing the same procedure for sedi-
ment-free algae culture (containing 0.2 mg/> as soluble orthophosphate),
the extractability of the algal P was analyzed and the results were used
to correct the values obtained from the sediment-algal system extractions.
From the chemical extraction data, they surmised that most of the algal
available P was from the Al- and Fe-bound inorganic fractions. They used
NH4F followed by NaOH extraction, but I believe that the sum of these two
extractions are approximately equal to a single NaOH extraction and
therefore, their data support the availability of NaOH extractable P found
by Sagher e^ al (1975) and Cowen and Lee (1976a, b).
In a recent study Verhof f et^ _al (1978) attempted to determine the
rate at which an indigenous phytoplankton population could utilize
phosphorus from Lake Erie tributary waters. The procedure involved incubation
281
-------
of the algae with the river sediments and periodic harvest of the bio-
logical solids. A mass balance performed on total phosphorus and total
inorganic solids allowed the calculation of the rate of conversion to
available P. In contrast to studies on lake suspended material and lake
bottom muds, the rate of algal immobilization of available P from the
river sediments was quite low. The conclusion was that a linear avail-
ability rate of between 0.2 - 0.4%P/day could be expected. This slow
rate of release over long time periods suggests that the rate of P release
is more important than the ultimate availability.
CHEMICAL EXTRACTION OF SEDIMENT PHOSPHORUS
The only true measure of algal available phosphorus is a biological
assay which determines the amount of phosphorus that an algal community
can withdraw from the sample. Since bioassays are often tedious and more
variable than chemical methods, however, it would be quite advantageous
to relate the biologically determined available P to some fraction of the
sediment P as measured by chemical extraction.
There is a growing body of research on chemical extraction procedures
to estimate bioavailable sediment P. Much of the early work was done on
soils, with more recent studies on lake and stream sediments. Differences
in these studies can be attributed, in part, to differences in the bio-
ogical and physicochemical characteristics of soils and sediments. A major
treatment of the subject is not intended here. However, several major
differences between soils and sediments are apparent. First, because
of their fluvial transport, sediments are unstructured and generally more
fine-grained than the soils from which they were derived. They tend to
be enriched in organic matter, and this together with their fine-grained
nature results in an enrichment of sediments with phosphate, hydrous
oxides of iron and some aluminum and, in some sediments, with carbonates.
Suspended stream sediments behave much like their soil precursors except
for their P enrichment (Green et_ aL, 1978). Bottom sediments, on the
other hand, in both lakes and streams may be subjected to long periods
of anoxia with subsequent reduction and solubilization of iron (Patrick
and Mahapatra, 1968). Phosphate release from suspended sediments is much
more similar to that from soil than from bottom sediment.s. Discussion
of chemical extraction of sediment P must consider these significant
differences.
Workers at Wisconsin (Chang and Jackson, 1957) began to look at
sequential chemical extraction to characterize soil P. Their original
theory was that phosphorus in soil occurred as discrete chemical forms
which could be selectively removed by sequential chemical extraction. This
theory of .discrete P forms in soil has been questioned by Bache (1963,
1964), Bauwin and Tyner (1957) and others. A more prevalent view today
is that much of the inorganic P in soil is chemisorbed to a number of
reactive surfaces including iron and aluminum oxides and hydrous oxides,
amorphous alumino-silicates and carbonates, or occluded in the matrices
of a number of soil mineral forms.
Major developments in the basic scheme proposed by Chang and Jackson
282
-------
(1957) have been accomplished by Williams and Walker (1969 a and b);
Williams et al (1971 a, b); Allan and Williams (1978) for soils and lake
sediments.
In recent years, Williams (Williams et^ a\^, 1976 a, b; Allan and
Williams, 1978) has simplified the scheme for lake sediments even
further. He proposed two inorganic sediment-P fractions: non-apatite in-
organic phosphorus (NAIF) extracted by citrate-dithionite-bicarbonate (CDB),
and apatite-P extracted by HC1 or H2SO,. Allan and Williams (1978) have
proposed that the NAIP fraction be considered bioavailable, based on
correlation of CDB extraction with the NTA extraction of Golterman (1976)
which was found to estimate sediment P availability of Scenedesmus. Arm-
strong et al (1979) have recently used NaOH with dilute sediment suspensions
to extract NAIP. These procedures and others are summarized in Table 1.
In order to obtain a true assessment of algal availability the method
must make use of the algae themselves as an indicator of the quantity and P
should be defined as that quantity actually taken up by the algae, rather
than the growth response under test conditions. It is therefore recommended
that an assessment methodology actually measure the amount of P incor-
porated into the biomass of the test organism.
On the other hand, a chemical assessment technique is desirable from
the standpoint of relative ease and quickness of obtaining results. These
are very important attributes if one is attempting to evaluate all the
tributary sources to one of the Great Lakes, for example. It is therefore
necessary for future research to place equal emphasis on both chemical and
biological approaches to assessing P availability. Even more important is the
need for future work to attempt to correlate the quantity and the rate of
production of biologically measured available P with the chemical tests. In
other words, every attempt should be made to find an operationally defined
chemical extraction which best estimates algal available phosphorus.
The previous discussion indicates that there are two independent approaches
to measurement of sediment bioavailability:
1. Incubation with algae and correlation of algal uptake with chemical
or resin extraction (Golterman, 1976; Sagher ejt al_, 1975; Cowen and Lee,
1976 a, b; Dorich and Nelson, 1978) which showed that NaOH was a good measure
of algal available sediment P.
2. Chemical extraction (fractionation) of soil and sediment phosphorus
with the underlying assumption that some "forms" of particulate P are more
available to algae than others (Williams e^ _al, 1976b). These assumptions
were based on studies which showed a low availability of apatite phosphate
(Golterman et al, 1969) on the one hand, and others which indicated that,
terrestrial plants (crops) at least, got their "available" P from inorganic
forms associated with iron and aluminum minerals (Robertson et al, 1966).
The concepts developed by these two approaches have been combined or
used singly to determine algal bioavailability of particulate P. They
all assume that non-apatite inorganic P (NAIP) is available over time
and several methods are given for NAIP measurement (Table 1). Cowen and
Lee (1976 b) considered resin extractable P to be short-term available
283
-------
Table 1. Summary of phosphorus forms, their biological availability and methods for their analysis.
Phosphorus Fractions and Forms
Bioavailability
Methods of Analysis
References
ro
oo
Dissolved reactive P (DRP):
H2P04- and HP04=
Dissolved condensed P(DCP):
P-O-P bonds
Dissolved organic P (OOP):
bonds
Inorganic P
Non-Apatite Inorganic P
(NAIP): P adsorbed on
metal hvdrous oxides (Fe, Al)
Fe-and Al-P minerals,
Ca-P (non-apatite)
Apatite
Organic P
Nucleic acids,
phospholipids, inositol
phosphates, others
Condensed P
Dissolved Phosphorus
Directly available Orthophosphate in filtrate*
Converted to DRP through
fairly rapid hydrolysis
Converted to DRP through
biological mineralization;
usually slow except for
"fresh" plant tissue extracts
and huiran and animal wastes
Orthophosphate analysis
following acid hydrolysis
of filtrate*
Difference between total
dissolved P and sum of DRP
and DCP in filtrate*
Standard Methods (1975)
Standard Methods (1975)
Standard Methods (1975)
Particulate Phosphorus
Available through dissolution
or desorption of phosphate
when DRP concentration is low
due to dilution, biological
uptake or chemical
immobilization
Essentially unavailable
because of slow dissolution
of apatites
Converted to DRP through
biological mineralization;
may be rapid for substantial
fraction of fresh plant
tissue or human and animal
wastes; slow for soil and
sediment organic P
Released from plant tissues
at senescence and hydrolyzed
to DRP. Small fraction
compared to organic P
NAIP has been extracted from
particulate material with: NaOH
(dilute sediment suspensions)
citrate-dithronite-bicarbonate
(CDB)
CDB/NaOH (sequential)
NaOH/CDB (sequential)
Anion resin
Aluminum Resin
HC1 extraction following
NAIP extraction
Difference between total
particulate P and inorganic
particulate P
Usually included as organic
P unless hydrolysis is rapid
and would then be extracted
as NAIP
Williams et al_ (1980)
Williams et al (1976a)
Williams et al (1976b)
Logan et aJ_TT980)
Cowen and Lee (1976)
Huettl et al 0979)
Williams et al (1976a)
Sommers et al (1972)
*Dissolved phosphate is defined as that P which is not retained by a 0.45y dia. filter (Standard Methods, 1975).
-------
with NaOH-P available over a long period of time (unspecified). Logan
et a.1 (1979) assumed that NaOH-P (at an extractant/sediment ratio of
50~:T~rather than the wider ratios used by others) represented P that-
could be extracted by algae in the photic zone of lakes under aerobic con-
ditions, while the subsequent CDB extraction reflected P that might become
available under the reducing conditions found in the anoxic hypolimnion of
stratified lakes. These views should be considered when reviewing the bio-
availability data in the next section.
BIOAVAILABILITY OF SEDIMENT PHOSPHORUS
A large part of the research on sediment bioavailability has been
done on Great Lakes Basin soils and sediments and are, therefore, very
pertinent to this discussion.
Sagher et al (1975) used bioassay and NaOH extraction to measure
bioavailability of Wisconsin lake sediments and found that 60 to 95%
of the sediment inorganic P (Pi) of noncalcareous and 60 to 85% of the
Pi of calcareous sediments were available.
Cowen and Lee (1976 a, b) used bioassay with resin and NaOH extrac-
tion to estimate bioavailability of urban storm runoff and tributary
sediments. Resin and NaOH extraction of Madison, Wisconsin urban run-
off sediments gave mean values of 22-27% of total particulate phosphorus
(TPP) and 13-17% TPP, respectively. Similar samples from Genesee River,
N.Y. urban runoff gave mean values of 18-30% of TPP and 11-25% TPP for
NaOH and resin extraction. Cowen and Lee (1976 b) also sampled tribu-
taries to Lake Ontario and found NaOH and resin extractable values of
13-18% TPP and 6-17% TPP for samples taken at the mouth of the Genesee
River. NaOH and resin extraction percentages of TPP were similar for
urban and rural sediments and were somewhat higher for Wisconsin than
New York sediments. Lee et al (1980) have recently proposed that a value
of 20% of TPP is a reasonable estimate of bioavailability of Great Lakes
tributary sediments.
Logan et al (1979) used sequential extraction with NaOH and CDB to
estimate bioavailability of 66 suspended sediment samples from 36 tribu-
taries in the Lake Erie drainage basin. A summary of their data expressed
as percentage of Pi is given in Table 2. Their data showed that New York
tributaries had lower bioavailability than those from Michigan and Ohio,
a finding similar to that of Cowen and Lee (1976 b). They attributed
this difference to greater stream-bank erosion and coarser-grain nature
of the New York samples.
Armstrong et al (1979) used resin and NaOH extraction to estimate
the availability of stream sediments in five tributaries to the Great
Lakes; they also studied recessional shoreline soils. Resin P ranged
from 7-19% of TPP for the tributary samples and NaOH-P was 14-37% of TPP.
Recessional soil samples were 2-10% of TPP and 1-10% of TPP for resin and
NaOH extractions, respectively. Armstrong et al (1979) also extracted
individual particle size fractions and found that there-were slightly
higher values for resin-P and NaOH-P in the clay fraction expressed as percent of TI
Dorich and Nelson (1978) used algal bioassay and NH^F and NaOH sequential
285
-------
Table 2. Percent Unavailability of Sediment-P* as Estimated by Sequential
Chemical Extraction with NaOH and CDB (Logan et al , 1979).
NaOH-P CDB-P (NaOH + CDB)-P
Michigan
Western Ohio
Eastern Ohio
New York
30.0
41.9
32.8
14.0
45.0
35.9
55.8
28.5
75.0
77.8
88.6
42.5
* Expressed as percent of total sediment inorganic phosphorus.
extraction to analyze stream sediments from Black Creek in northeastern
Indiana, an agricultural watershed. They found that about 20% of the TPP
was available with somewhat higher values for the Maumee River at the junc-
tion with Black Creek.
Finally, Thomas (unpublished) reported that samples from Canadian
tributaries to the Great Lakes contained about 20-40% of TPP as NAIP,
which Williams et al (1976 b) consider to be available in the long term.
Considering these data collectively, it would appear that the value
of 20% of TPP proposed by Lee _et^ _§JL(1980) is not unreasonable for Great
Lakes sediments, with a range of 10-50%. Sediments from tributaries
draining into the eastern basin of Lake Erie (Logan et al, 1979) and Lake
Ontario (Cowen and Lee, 1976 b) appear to have lower availabilities than
those from the Corn Belt region.
AVAILABILITY OF OTHER PHOSPHORUS SOURCES
Precipitation Phosphorus
Lee e^t a.1 (1980) reviewed the literature on P in precipitation. There
was only one study (Cowen and Lee, 1976 b) which used bioassay to study
availability of precipitation P, and it showed that ^10% of the total P
in Madison, Wisconsin snow samples were bioavailable. The great majority
of precipitation studies showed that ~50% of the total P is soluble
inorganic P although the values can range from 7-100%. Assuming that
soluble inorganic P is 100% available (an assumption that may not be true,
as discussed in the next section) then about 50% of precipitation phosphate
is available.
Soluble Phosphorus
Several investigators (Rigler 1966, 1968; Lean 1963 a, b; Dorich and
Nelson 1978) have found that soluble inorganic P (SIP) is not 100% available,
while Walton and Lee (1972) found that SIP was essentially all available
using standard bioassay procedures. The problem lies in the analytical
method used to measure SIP. This is usually done by filtering the sample
through 0.45 u pore diameter membrane filters and analyzing the filtrate
as reduced phosphomolybdate. As Lee et al (1980) have pointed out, the
acid molybdate may react with arsenic or colloidal material containing P
and overestimate the true SIP. This is especially of concern with the low
286
-------
SIP concentrations normally found in lakes, but the error is much lower
for the concentrations found in tributaries or wastewater discharges and
these values can probably be considered to be 100% available.
THE IMPACT OF BIOAVAILABILITY OF P SOURCES
ON A MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE GREAT LAKES
The Lake Erie Management Study in their Phase II Methodology Report
(1979) estimated through Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) analysis that
a maximum adoption of conservation tillage practices by basin farmers on
suitable soils could reduce soil loss in the basin by ^ 70%. A recent review
of conservation tillage research studies by Logan (1980) has shown that
conservation tillage is only 90% as effective in reducing total particulate
phosphorus (TPP) loads as in reducing soil loss. That is, if soil loss is
reduced 70% by conservation tillage, TPP will be reduced by 63%. Logan
(1980) also showed that conservation tillage increased or had little effect
on soluble P loads. The Lake Erie Management Study (1979) showed that, if
point source phosphorus discharges to Lake Erie are reduced by achieving a
1.0 mgP/1 effluent standard, this maximum adoption of conservation tillage
would almost achieve the target annual load of 11,000 metric tons of P con-
sidered necessary to eliminate anoxia in the Central Basin of the lake.
Table 3 gives the various sources of P entering the lake before and after
adopting conservation tillage in terms of total P and available P. The point
source loads remaining after reduction to the 1.0 mgP/1 effluent standard
is separated into those loads which are discharged directly into the lake
(e.g. Toledo, Cleveland, etc.) and those which discharge into Lake Erie
Basin tributaries (e.g. Fort Wayne, Defiance, etc.). The direct discharge
effluent P is assumed to be 75% available based on the bioassay work of
DePinto et al (1980), while the tributary point sources are assumed to be
so mixed with the tributary water and sediment that they have the same
availability as rural diffuse loads (Table 3). The rural diffuse load is
assumed to be 80% particulate and 20% soluble as shown by tributary monitoring,
and the soluble load is assumed to be 100% available. The particulate rural
diffuse load is assumed to be 20 and 40% available, a range found by Logan
et al (1979) for Lake Erie tributary suspended sediments. The urban diffuse
loads, the upper lakes loads and the tributary point source loads are all
assumed to be 80% particulate and 20% soluble, with the soluble load 100%
available and the particulate P 30% available (mean of the 20 and 40% values
for rural diffuse particulate P.)
Table 3 shows that conservation tillage would reduce the total P load
to 11,404 metric tons, close to the target load of 11,000 tons, a 26.5%
reduction. In terms of available P, however, the reduction is only 9.7 to
16.6%, depending on the percent availability assumed for particulate P.
The data (Table 3) also show that the residual direct point source load and
the soluble rural diffuse load contribute a major portion of the available P
load before or after adoption of conservation tillage.
Present lake models (Bierman, 1980) do not adequately account for
varying availability of P sources, and therefore, there is no way to deter-
mine an available P target load for Lake Erie or other Great Lakes. However,
it is obvious that response of algae to soluble P must be different than to
287
-------
Table 3. Total and available phosphorus loads (metric tons) to Lake Erie before and after adoption of
conservation tillage practices.
Rural Diffuse
Before
After
Point f
Upper
Lakes3 K Atmospheric c Particulate*"
Direct Tributary3 20% 40%
Total P
1080 2455 617 1119 6610 6610
1080 2455 617 1119 2496 2496
Total Load
Urban*
Soluble Diffuse
20% 40%
1530 1570 15518 15518
1530 1570 11404 (26. 5%) d 11404 (26. 5%)d
Objective = 11,000
ro
Before
After
475
475
1841
1841
272
272
Available P
560 1132 2264 1530 691
560 499 998 1530 691
Objective = ?
6501
7633
5868 (9.7%)d 6367 (16.6%)d
a Assumption: 80% of the total load is particulate and 30% of the particulate load is available; 100% of the
soluble load is assumed to be available.
b Assumption: direct discharge of sewage effluent to the lake is 75% available (DePinto et al, 1980).
c Assumption: short term availability of rural diffuse sediment P is 20% and long term availability is
40% (Logan et al, 1979).
d Percent reduction with conservation tillage.
e Atmospheric P sources are assumed to be 50% available.
f Residual point sources after reduction to 1 mgP/1.
-------
particulate P sources which may settle out of the photic zone before they
can be completely utilized. Phosphorus control strategies for deep lakes
with little sediment resuspension or lake overturn must emphasize soluble
P sources more than for shallower lakes where sediments are continuously
resuspended and lake overturn can bring to the surface P released from
bottom sediments. If the emphasis is to be placed equally on sediment as
well as soluble P sources (e.g. for Western and Central Lake Erie) then
erosion control by conservation tillage merits equal consideration with
point source reduction. If, however, soluble P loads are the most important,
then control of direct point sources should receive the most attention. In
addition, agricultural practices which control soluble P losses would need
to be emphasized. These would include fertilizer management (Oloya and
Logan, 1980) and livestock waste management (Porter, 1975).
Excluded from the phosphorus input list in Table 3 is phosphorus
contributed from shoreline erosion. The total P load from shoreline erosion
is more than half of the entire P load to Lake Erie from all other sources
(Thomas e_t al, 1980), but shoreline sediments have an availability < 5%.
While even a low availability of 5% still gives a large available P load, its
impact is likely to be in the near-shore zone and not in the mid-lake area
for which the target loads were developed.
CONCLUSIONS
Phosphorus exists in soluble and particulate forms, and research has
shown that these forms vary in availability to algae from a low of 5% or
less for subsoil materials (detached and transported during streambank
erosion and lake shoreline erosion) to essentially 100% available for soluble
(dissolved) inorganic P.
Phosphate availability has been determined by algae biassay as well as
chemical extraction techniques, and depending on the method used, may reflect
total availability or short-term availability. While these methods all measure
the capacity of sediment to release P to algae, few studies have investigated
the rate at which sediment-P is made available. A knowledge of P release
kinetics is important in determining the positional availability of P from
sediments which enter lakes and are subjected to varying rates of settling
and resuspension.
Phosphorus management strategies must consider the bioavailability of
the various P sources as well as the positional availability of particulate
P as determined by the sedimentation and resuspension characteristics of the
receiving lake. Deep lakes will respond more to control of soluble P sources
than to sediment-P control, while in shallow lakes, algae may obtain a large
percentage of bioavailable P from sediments, and control of sediment loads by
controlling erosion on basin soils might be more effective.
289
-------
REFERENCES
1. Allan, R.J. and J..D.H. Williams. 1978. Trophic status related to sediment
chemistry of Canadian Prairie Lakes. J. Environ. Qual. 7: 99-106.
2. Armstrong, D.E., J.R. Perry, and D. Flatness. 1979. Availability of pollutants
associated with suspended or settled river sediments, which gain access to
the Great Lakes. Final Report. Wisconsin Water Resources Center, Madison.
3. Bache. B. W. 1963. Aluminum and iron phosphate studies relating to soils:
1. Soil Sci. 14:113-123.
4. Bache, B.W. 1964. Aluminum and iron phosphate studies relating to soils:
2. Soil Sci. 15:110-116.
5. Bauwin, G.R. and E.H. Tyner. 1957. The nature of reductant soluble phosphorus
in soils and soil concretions. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 21:250-257.
6. Bierman, V.J. 1980. A comparison of models developed for phosphorus manage-
ment in the Great Lakes. In Phosphorus Management strategies for Lakes.
R. C. Loehr, C. S. Martin, W. Rast, Eds. Ann Arbor ^cience.
7. Chang, S.C. and M.L. Jackson. 1957. Fractionation of soil phosphorus.
Soil Sci. 84:133-134.
8. Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District. 1979. Lake Erie Management Study
Methodology Report. Buffalo, N.Y. 146 pages.
9. Cowen, W.F. and G.F. Lee. 1976a. Algal nutrient availability and limitation
in Lake Ontario tributary waters. Ecological Research Series. EPA-600/3-76-094a.
10. Cowen, W.F. and G.F. Lee. 1976b. Phosphorus availability in particulate
materials transported by urban runoff. J. WPCF. 48:580-591.
12. Dorich, R.A. and D.W. Nelson. 1978. Algal availability of soluble and sediment
phosphorus in drainage water of the Black Creek watershed. Unpublished report.
Purdue Agric. Exp. Sta.
13. Golterman, H.L. 1976. Sediments as a source of phosphorus for algae growth.
Jin H. L. Golterman (Ed.) Interactions between sediments and freshwater. Proc.
51L-UNESCO Conf. Junk and Pudoc, The Hague, Netherlands.
14. Golterman, H.L. 1977. Forms and sediment associations of nutrients, pesticides
and metals. Nutrients-P. In Proc. Workshop on Fluvial Transport of Sediment-
associated Nutrients and Contaminants. H. Shear, Ed. IJC-PLUARG, Windsor,
Ontario.
15. Golterman, H.L., C.C. Bakels and J. Jakobs-Mogelin. 1969. Availability
of mud phosophates for growth of algae. Verh. Int. Verein. Limnol. 17:467-479.
16. Green, D.B., T.J. Logan and N.E. Smeck. 1978. Phosphate adsorption-
desorption characteristics of suspended sediments in the Maumee River
Basin of Ohio. J. Environ. Qual. 7:208-212.
290
-------
17. Huettl, P.J., R.C. Wendt and R.B. Corey. 1979. Prediction of algal-available
phosphorus in runoff suspensions. J. Environ. Qual. 8:130-132.
18. Lean, D.R.S. 1973a. Phosphorus dynamics in lake water. Science 179: 678-679.
19. Lean, D.R.S. 1973b. Movements of phosphorus between its biologically impor-
tant forms in freshwater. J. Fish Res. Board Can. 30:1525-1536.
20. Lee, G.F., R.A. Jones and W. Rast. 1980. Availability of phosphorus to
phytoplankton and its implications for phosphorus management strategies.
In Phosphorus Mangement Strategies for Lakes. R. C. Loehr, C.S. Martin,
W. Rast. Eds. Ann Arbor Science.
21. Logan, T.J. 1978. Available phosphorus levels in Lake Erie Basin soils.
LEWMS Final Technical Report. Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, Buffalo,
N.Y.
22. Logan, T. J. 1980. The effects of conservation tillage on phosphate trans-
port from agricultural land. Lake Erie Management Study. Technical Report
Series. Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, Buffalo, N.Y.
23. Logan, T.J., T.O. Oloya and S.M. Yaksich. 1979. Phosphate characteristics
and bioavailability of suspended sediments from streams draining into Lake
Erie. J. Great Lakes Res. 5:112-123.
24. Oloya, T. 0. and T. J. Logan. 1980. Phosphate desorption from soils and
sediments with varying levels of extractable phosphate. J. Environ. Qual.
9:526-531.
25. Patrick, W.H. and I.C. Mahapatra. 1978. Transformation and availability
of nitrogen and phosphorus in waterlogged soils. Advan. Agron. 20:323-359.
26. Porter, K.S. 1975. Nitrogen and phosphorus, food production, waste and
the environment. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Mich. 372 pages.
27. Rigler, F.H. 1966. Radiobiological analysis of inorganic phosphorus in
lake water. Tech. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 16:456-470.
28. Rigler, F.H. 1968. Further observations inconsistent with the hypothesis
that the molybdenum blue method measures orthophosphate in late waters . Limnol
Oceanogr. 13:7-13.
29. Robertson, W.K., L.G. Thompson, Jr. and C.E. Button. 1966. Availability and
fractionation of residual P in soils high in aluminum and iron. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Proc. 30:446-451.
30. Sagher, A., R.F. Harris, and D.E. Armstrong. 1975. Availability of sediment
phosphorus to microorganisms. Univ. of Wisconsin Water Res. Cent. Tech.
Report WIG WRC 75-01. Wisconsin.
31. Sommers, L.E., R.F. Harris, J.D.L. Williams, D.E. Armstrong and J.K. Syers.
1970. Determination of total organic phosphorus in lake sediments. Limnol.
Oceanog. 15:301-304.
32. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 13th Ed. 1975.
American Public Health Assoc. Washington, D.C.
291
-------
34. Verhoff, F.H., M. Heffner and W.A. Sack. 1978. Measurement of availability
rate for total phosphorus from river waters. Final Report. LEWMS, Corps of
Engineers, Buffalo, N.Y.
35. Walton, C.P. and G.F. Lee. 1972. A biological evaluation of the molybdenum
blue method for orthophosphate analysis. Tech. Internat. Verein. Limnol.
18:676-684.
36. Williams, J.D.H. J.K. Syers, and T.W. Walker. 1967. Fractionation of
soil inorganic phosphate by a modification of Chang and Jackson's procedure.
Soil Sci. Amer. Proc. 31:736-739.
37. Williams, J.D.H., J.M. Jaquet and R.L. Thomas. 1976a. Forms of phosphorus
in surficial sediments of Lake Erie. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33:413-429.
38. Williams, J.D.H., T.P. Murphy and T. Mayer. 1976b. Rates of accumulation
of phosphorus forms in Lake Erie sediments. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 33:430-439.
39. Williams, J.D.H., J.K. Syers, R.F. Harris, and D.E. Armstrong. 1971a. Frac-
tionation of inorganic phosphate in calcareous lake sediments. Soil Sci. Soc.
Amer. Proc. 35:250-255.
40. Williams J.D.H., J.K. Syers, D.E. Armstrong, and R.F. Harris. 1971b. Charac-
terization of inorganic phosphate in noncalcareous lake sediment. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Proc. 35:556-561.
41. Williams, J.D.H. nad T.W. Walker. 1969a. Fractionation of phosphate in a
maturity sequence of New Zealand basaltic soil profiles: 1. Soil Sci.
107:22-30.
42. Williams, J.D.H. and T.W. Walker. 1969b. Fractionation of phosphate
in a maturity sequence of New Zealand basaltic soil profiles; 2. Soil
Sci. 107:213-219.
292
-------
WATER MONITORING PROGRAM - PLANNING FOR 1981
WILLIAM H. SANDERS III
DIRECTOR S&A DIVISION REGION V
Regardless of the control program we are attempting to implement, the
underlying question is to what extent does a remedial program—be it AWT/
AST treatment facilitis, best management practices for NPDS control, etc.-
the question remains: to what extent does the program correct the problem
by resulting in improved water quality. That is a basic question to ask,
yet a most complex and difficult one to answer. All of the programs you
have heard about and discussed at this seminar are focused upon that
ultimate objective of improving water quality. Yet we have found that
our tools for assessing changes in water quality, particularly in being
able to definitively associate those changes with remedial programs, have
been lacking. It is in order to fill that informational void that the
agency is redefining and refining, our water monitoring programs.
Develoment of the Region V Monitoring Planning for 1981 is based on
recognition of the re-newed emphasis on the human health aspects of water
pollution control. The driving force behind this concern for protection
of health is the awareness of the scope and potential hazard of the
toxic wastes entering the nations's waters through industrial processess,
materials handling and waste disposal. Because of the large number of
sources of all description concentrated in Region V, the problem of
identifying and quantifying the impact of toxic and hazardous wastes is
of particular concern. We have recently begun an assessment of the
adequacy of the existing monitoring networks and programs to provide a
data base for use in identifying problem areas throughout the Region.
293
-------
While the importance of the control of toxic and hazardous wastes cannot
be overemphasized, it is also intended to maintain the capability to
assess water quality for the more traditional pollutants. For this reason,
the assessment of existing monitoring against current needs is best made
with repect to the basic program as described in the "Basic Water Monitoring
Program", U.S. EPA Standing Work Group on Water Monitoring, (EPA 440/9-76-025,
1977).
Given the adequacy of the basic program and the availability of resources,
a re-definition of the Federal and State activities may be necessary
to monitor water quality, particularly to ensure that the Region waters
are free of the more harmful health related pollutants.
2. HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE REVIEW
From the assessments of the state programs, it is obvious that the strategy
envisioned in the Basic Water Monitoring Program has not had complete
acceptance. As a result, the program has had only marginal success in
developing a data base useful for managers in carrying out pollution
control programs. An important element integral to the strategy in the
basic program is the need to enter monitoring data into STORET. The
usefulness of the data is dependent on its availability to users at all
levels. However, the only parameter in STORET in sufficent quantities
for comparative analysis was dissolved oxygen. An even more glaring
omission is the paucity of information related to toxics xvhich is available
for use.
Based on state acceptance in their own programs, most parts of the basic
program are considered viable and should be retained. However, several
parts of the program have had little or no state support.
294
-------
Portions of the ambient monitoring program have received wide acceptance,
primarily because the National Ambient Monitoring Stations are a subset
of existing state ambient networks. These are fixed stations intended to
provide trend information. However each state has a much larger ambient
network designed to gather trend data that is not covered by the basic
network and to provide a measure of the effectiveness of pollution abatement
programs. The latter may not be the best use of fixed station monitoring.
Intensive surveys should be used for multiple purposes rather than to
support a single program. They should be used in identifying or quantifying
problems related to toxics and NPDES permitting, waste load allocation
and stream model development and verification. However, resources are not
available to routinely carry out all of these surveys. This is particularly
true for toxics. Efforts spent on fixed station monitoring competes for
resources'which may be better spent on intensive surveys. The ambient program
will be reviewed jointly with the state agencies, with the intent to
free-up more resources for intensive survey purposes.
The toxic monitoring needs which are surfacing at the present time far
outstrip the toxic portion of the basic program. Recognizing that the
basic program was introduced in 1977, and reflects the known need for
toxics data at that time. That need is minimal when compared to current
needs. Since most of the states have been unable to meet the basic
requirements, the program requires significant restructuring accompanied
by a large shift in resources and initial capital investment, particularly
to develop laboratory capabilities.
By including toxic monitoring in the ambient program as described in the
basic document, trend data will be developed over time. Of more immediate
295
-------
need, toxic monitoring should be made part of intensive surveys conducted
near known or suspectd dischargers in support of the permitting program.
As in the ambient monitoring, fish will be used as the sample medium.
The use of fish is chosen as the best indicator of stream quality since
they are an excellent bio-accumulator of toxic pollutants. The analysis
of fish tissue shall be broad scan and include the parameters listed in
the basic document.
Having discussed several of the issues we found in assessing existing
state monitoring programs, I now move to brief highlights of a strategy
under active consideration for the next five years that will accommondate
non-point sources as well as point sources of pollution.
3. WATER MONITORING STRATEGY
It is the intent in Region V to oversee a water monitoring program which
will provide program managers with a valid data base which is responsive
to their needs. For the next five years, the most pressing concern is
the protection of the public health through control of toxic and hazardous
sources of pollution. This strategy is intended to enhance the data base
for use in the important decisions on identificaiton and control of this
type of pollution. It is also intended that the more traditional
pollutants, those which have potenital adverse impact on public health,
are not to be ignored. As a result, the Basic Water Monitoring Program
provides the basis of this strategy. The components of the water monitoring
program are: ambient monitoring (including toxic monitoring), effluent
monitoring, intensive surveys, biological monitoring, quality assurance
and STORET.
296
-------
AMBIENT WATER MONITORING
The States should fully implement the basic water monitoring network,
including sampling for fish tissue, sediment and water once yearly at
all "core" stations. Where toxics are found in the fish tissue, bottom
sediments should then be analyzed. If toxics are found in the sediment
samples, water column samples should be analyzed for the toxic parameters.
The States should make a thorough evaluation of their own ambient water
monitoring stations to eliminate any duplication or any stations that are
not vital to establishing trend data. All stations in excess of those
needed for trend purposes should be discontinued. The intent of this re-
evaluation is to reduce resource needs in this activity to devote more
time to intensive surveys and toxic monitoring.
All States in Region V must develop full field and laboratory capabilities
for toxic monitoring at all trend stations using fish as the sample medium.
Fish tissue analysis shall be broad scan and include the priority pollut-
ants. This capability will also be used to support the effluent monitoring
(permitting program and intensive survey program).
EFFLUENT MONITORING
The States should concentrate their compliance monitoring efforts on the
re-issuance of permits with special emphasis on the control of toxicants.
Consistent with the basic monitoring program, all major dischargers shall
be inspected annually to determine compliance status. Known toxic sources
shall be first priority for compliance sampling; however, this in no way
relieves the states of their responsibility to evaluate all majors.
297
-------
INTENSIVE SURVEYS
The States should revise their monitoring strategy to reflect higher
priority for the use of intensive surveys in such areas as toxic pollu-
tants, water-quality limited streams and to detertninne treatment levels
to meet water quality standards. To assure that the objectives of the
Section 106 and the basic water monitoring programs are met, more re-
sources and emphasis should be devoted to intensive surveys as a means
of verifying the usefulness of pollution control strategies.
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
The proposed Biological Monitoring Program as described in the basic
document shall be revised so that each state shall be required to imple-
ment biological studies as part of intensive surveys, where such surveys
are conducted near known or suspected toxic sources.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
To assure the validity of the data generated through this water quality
program, the quality assurance policy as established in Region V will be
followed. The first priority in the Region V quality assurance policy
is to establish and implement a plan to define and quantitate the end
product-data quality. This includes all data generated by the Federal
and State/local agencies. To ensure that this policy is carried out,
all State/local agency quality assurance programs must be approved by
the Region V, Quality Assurance Office. To facilitate this documenta-
tion, peer reviews of state plans shall be completed in the other
Region V states. This review shall be coordinated by the Region V
Quality Assurance Office.
298
-------
STORE!
The states should enter all ambient quality assured data into STORET
within 90 days after sample collection and analysis. Additionally, the
states should assess the ambient water quality data in the STORET system
in order to determine ambient water quality conditions and trends. This
assessment should be forwarded to EPA/State program managers in order to
impact toxic source identification, Section 208 planning, wasteload
allocations/intensive surveys and state EPA agreements. To improve STORET
in Region V, use of data management and interpretation tools such as
summaries and trends on a quarterly basis should be made Region policy.
Routine use of these tools will result in an improved data file.
Finally, the intent of this effort will be to provide decision makers
data of known precision and accuracy that will allow for an evaluation
of program effectiveness. That is a tall order, but is key to our ability
to making those critical decisions on which programs to focus upon in
the future.
299
-------
-------
CONSERVATION TILLAGE PRACTICES TO CONTROL AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION
by
J. P. Crumrine and D. U. Wurm*
When shopping around for point and non-point source control mea-
sures, you soon find yourself asking questions as if you were shopping
at a local supermarket. Which product or control measure does the
best job, and what is the cost of each? In other words, how do I get
the most for my money?
While the Honey Creek Watershed Project was not designed specifi-
cally to answer these questions, as a nonpoint source control demon-
stration program, it does provide valuable information regarding the
effectiveness and implementation costs of control practices for a
96000 acre (38000 hectare) agricultural watershed in the Lake Erie
Basin of north central Ohio.
The Honey Creek Proj ect, now in its second year of a 3-year ef-
fort, is managed by local Soil and Water Conservation Districts, but
funded by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers as part of their Lake Erie
Wastewater Management Study (1). Purpose of the Project is to see how
farmers and local agricultural agency personnel respond to the need
for improved water quality and to demonstrate "best management prac-
tices," that would contribute to improved Lake Erie water quality,
particularly conservation tillage. It is through the implementation
of conservation tillage practices (2), coupled with data from previous
Army Corps studies (3) that we may gain insight as to how well the
practices reduce erosion or phosphorus transport and practice costs.
CONSERVATION TILLAGE
First, what is conservation tillage? Soil Conservation Service
in Ohio defines conservation tillage as a "method of working the land
leaving crop residues on the surface to protect the soil from the
erosive forces of wind and rain." (4) For the Honey Creek Project
conservation tillage has been defined as any tillage system that
leaves a minimum of 1000 pounds (454 kilograms) of previous crop res-
idue on the soil surface at planting. The ultimate conservation til-
lage system is "no-till" where virtually all previous crop residue
remains on the surface at planting, normally 4000 to 6000 pounds
(1800 to 2700 kilograms) expressed as corn residue equivalent. Til-
lage systems incorporating a portion of previous crop residue but
having more than 1000 pounds (454 kilograms) on the surface at plant-
ing time are described as "reduced" tillage systems. Table 1 gives a
comparison of tillage systems based on the amount of previous crop
residue left on the soil surface at planting, showing tillage opera-
tions that might typically occur in each.
*Project Manager and Project Conservationist, Honey Creek Watershed
Project, Crawford, Huron, and Seneca Counties, Tiffin, Ohio
301
-------
Table 1. Comparison of Tillage Systems by Amounts of Previous Crop
Residue on Soil Surface at Planting and by Mechanical Op-
erations That Might Typically Occur in Each.
Conservation Tillage
Conventional Tillage Reduced Tillage No-till
Spring fertilize Spring fertilize Spring fertilize
Plow Chisel plow Plant
Disk - 1 Disk Spray - 1
Disk - 2 Plow Spray - 2
Level Spray Combine
Plant Combine
Spray
Cultivate - 1
Cultivate - 2
Combine
0 to 1000 pounds 1000 pounds plus
(454 kg) residue (454 kg) residue
at planting at planting
EROSION, PHOSPHORUS REDUCTIONS
With an idea now of what conservation tillage is, how well do the
various practices work? Do they reduce erosion and phosphorus loss and
if so by how much? For 10-15 acre (4-6 hectare) demonstration plots in
the Honey Creek watershed, on those soils having yield responses to no-
till equal to or greater than conventional tillage either naturally or
with artificial drainage, soil loss estimates using the Universal Soil
Loss Equation showed that reduced tillage systems on the average in
1979 decreased erosion rates from 7.1 to 4.5 T/Ac/Yr (16 to 10 MT/Ha/
Yr) or 40 percent over the conventional fall plow system. On the same
soils, but different fields, no-till decreased erosion rates from 6.9
to 1.4 T/Ac/Yr (16 to 3 MT/Ha/Yr) or 76 percent.
With respect to phosphorus yield reductions, the Lake Erie Waste-
water Study Methodology report (3) assumes that application of conser-
vation tillage practices will be from 60 to 90 percent effective in re-
ducing phosphorus transport relative to reduction of erosion. These
ranges of possible reductions are based on the fact that most phosphor-
us moves attached to the clay fraction of river sediment loads (5) (6) ,
and that while reduced tillage practices may increase the proportion of
clay sized particles in runoff, significant reductions in phosphorus
transport can still occur (7) (8) (9).
For a relative effectiveness then of 75 percent, reduced tillage
systems in the Honey Creek watershed would potentially decrease phos-
phorus transport from a present watershed condition rate of 0.84 Kg/
Ha/Yr to 0.59 Kg/Ha/Yr or by 30 percent. No-till would decrease phos-
phorus transport from 0.84 to 0.36 Kg/Ha/Yr or by 57 percent.
302
-------
Table 2. Average Effectiveness of Conservation Tillage Systems in Re-
ducing Erosion Over Conventional Fall Plow System, T/Ac/Yr
(MT/Ha/Yr), and Phosphorus Transport, Kg/Ha/Yr, for Demon-
stration Plots Within the Honey Creek Watershed.
EROSION REDUCTION
Conventional Conservation Tillage
Fall Plow Reduced Tillage3 No-till
T/Ac/Tr (MI/Ha) T/Ac/Yr (MT/Ha) % reduced T/Ac/Yr (MT/Ha) % reduced
7.1 (16) 4.3 (10) 40
6.9 (16) 1.4 (3) 76
PHOSPHORUS REDUCTION6
Kg/Ha/Yr Kg/Ha/Yr % reduced Kg/Ha/Yr % reduced
0.84 0.59 30 0.36 57
a. Chisel plow, disk field cultivate, etc.
b. At relative effectiveness of 75%.
COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING CONSERVATION TILLAGE IN A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Now that we know what the various tillage "products" will do, how
much do they cost? Actually costs of implementing practices can vary
considerably, from practically nothing to more than $100 per acre ($250
per hectare) depending on current state of the economy, abundance of
farm fuel supplies, past emphasis on tillage programs within a water-
shed, cultural factors and the rate at which adoption is desired.
Costs to encourage implementation can be grouped by increasing costs to
the general public as follows:
1. Information-education programs,
2. Information-education plus technical assistance, and
3. Information-education, technical assistance plus monetary
incentives.
In the Honey Creek watershed the highest cost incentive approach
was used at approximately the following annual costs:
Information-education: $25,000
Technical assistance: $35,000
Landowner payments for tillage demonstration plots: $25,000
and
Special Agricultural Conservation Program cost share
payments: $12,000
In Table 3 calculations relating only landowner payments, either
demonstration or cost share, to acre accomplishment show that applica-
tion rates ranged from a high of $125 per acre ($312 per hectare) for
no-till in 1979 to a low of $24 per acre ($60 per hectare) for reduced
303
-------
tillage in 1980. Note, however, that when acre accomplishments done
without benefit of monetary assistance are included in the calcula-
tions, acre costs are lowered considerably, especially during the sec-
ond year of the Project, 1980, where no-till cost $15 per acre ($37
per hectare) and reduced tillage, $5 per acre ($13 per hectare). In
Honey Creek, benefits like these were due almost entirely to high
quality on-the-farm technical assistance.
Table 3. Payments Made to Landowners for Implementing Conservation
Tillage and Acres (Hectares) Treated by Practice During the
First Two Years of the Honey Creek Watershed Project.
Demonstration $/Ac Special ACP $/Ac Est. Other Summary $/Ac
Project ($/Ha) Project ($/Ha) Acres (Ha) Effort($/Ha)
1979
No-till $ 17500 125 7117 28 - 24617 35
Ac(Ha) 140(56) (312) 253(101) (70) 300(120) 693(277)(89)
Reduced
Tillage $
Ac (Ha)
10000
116(46)
86
(217)
2170
74(30)
29
(72)
No-till $
Ac (Ha)
Reduced
Tillage $
Ac(Ha)
17300
216(86)
2200
28(11)
80
(200)
80
(200)
1980
11589
460(184)
1478
65(25)
300(120)
25
(63) 1300(520)
12170 25
490(196)(62)
28889 15
1976(790X37)
24 - 3678 5
(59) 600(240) 690(276)(13)
Application costs per acre don't really tell the whole story,
though, unless, of course, you are an expert at comparing apples with
oranges. You might be able to compare such fruits in a supermarket,
but not when shopping for point or non-point control practices. You
really need to know how much it costs to keep a ton of soil or kilo-
gram of phosphorus in a field rather than in a lake or stream. Prac-
tice effectiveness data from Table 2 plus incentive payment data from
Table 3 provide one way of determining cost effectiveness of conserva-
tion tillage systems in reducing erosion (dollars/ton) and phosphorus
yield (dollars/kilogram).
COSTS PER TON OF SOIL
In Table 4, calculations using this approach show that costs for
keeping a ton of soil in place ranged from a high of $31 per ton ($34
per metric ton) for reduced tillage demonstration systems^in 1979 to a
low of $5 per ton ($6 per metric ton) for no-till done with ACP cost
share funds in 1979 and 1980. When acre accomplishments done without
benefit of monetary assistance are included in the calculations, costs
are in the $2 to $9 per ton ($2 to $10 per metric ton) range, quite
304
-------
reasonable considering the nutrient value alone of a ton of soil is in
the neighborhood of $8.
Table 4. Cost Effectiveness of Conservation Tillage Systems in Reduc-
ing Erosion, $/T/'(MT), and in Reducing Phosphorus Yield,
$/Hg, During the First Two Years of the Honey Creek Water-
shed Project. Note: 1979 Erosion, Phosphorus Reduction Data
of Table 2 Applied to Both 1979 and 1980 Cost Acreage Data of
Table 3.
Demonstration Special ACP Other Summary
Project Project Acres Effort
$/T($/MT) $/KgP $/T($/MT) $/KgP $/T($/MT) $/KgP $/T($/MT) KgP
No-till
Reduced
Tillage
1979
23 (25) 650 5 (6) 148
31 (34) 833 10 (11) 289
1980
No cost
No cost
6 (7) 185
9 (10) 248
No-till
Reduced
Tillage
15
28
(16)
(31)
422
800
5
9
(6)
(10)
132
237
No
No
cost
cost
3
2
(3) 7
(2) 5
COSTS PER KILOGRAM OF PHOSPHORUS
Calculations for phosphorus show that costs for keeping phosphorus
in place ranged from a high of $833 per kilogram for reduced tillage
demonstration systems in 1979 to a low of $132 per kilogram for no-till
done with ACP cost share funds in 1980. Again, when other acre accom-
plishments are included, costs range from $53 to $248 per kilogram,
substantially less than the initial start up or demonstration costs.
With regard to both soil and phosphorus, respective unit costs
were in each case less during the second year, 1980. Projections over
a 20-year period, assuming acres with conservation tillage to remain
constant though that time, would show significant decreases in unit
costs: $.10 to $.30 per ton of soil and about $3 to $12 per kilogram
of phosphorus based on the summary effort data of Table 4. Annual
costs of about $60,000 for information-education and technical assis-
tance would be reduced similarly.
FARM ECONOMICS OF CONSERVATION TILLAGE
In final analysis, the purchase of any product, be it a box of
soap or a tillage practice, must provide you something in return. In
the case of conservation tillage systems, it must provide the farmer a
means of existence. Economic data for one year only from tillage dem-
onstration work in Honey Creek suggests that conservation tillage
305
-------
farming can keep an operator in business. Compared to an average net
return of $85 per acre ($212 per hectare) for conventional systems,
reduced tillage systems returned $107 per acre ($268 per hectare) while
no-till returned $73 ($182 per hectare). Data gathered in years 2 and
3 of the Project will provide a better understanding of costs and re-
turns to the farmer.
Table 5. Average Per Acre (Hectare) Production Costs, Crop Values and
Net Returns to Farmers from Conventional and Conservation
Tillage Systems, 1979 Honey Creek Demonstration Plot Data.
1979
Number plots
Average costs
Range
$/Ac($/Ha)
Average value
Range
$/Ac($/Ha)
Average return
Range
$/Ac($/Ha)
Conventional
3
192 (480)
127 to 228
(318 to 570)
227 (692)
252 to 307
(630 to 768)
85 (212)
42 to 125
(105 to 312)
Reduced Tillage
12
180 (450)
124 to 228
(310 to 570)
287 (718)
155 to 381
(388 to 952)
107 (268)
-13 to 179
(-32 to 448)
No-till
18
198 (495)
124 to 245
(310 to 612)
271 (678)
166 to 325
(415 to 812)
73 (182)
-36 to 181
(-90 to 452)
SUMMARY
This report attempts to describe what happened during the first
two years of the Honey Creek Watershed Project, a 3-year demonstration
Project within an agricultural portion of the Lake Erie Basin in north-
central Ohio. While the data are by no means definitive, they provide
insight as to the effectiveness and implementation costs of agricultur-
al non-point source controls, particularly when planned as part of a
start up or demonstration program. For such programs the data suggest
that while practice application costs may initially be great, costs
will decrease with time and as spinoff benefits occur.
In turn, implementation cost effectiveness of conservation tillage
systems will increase. In Honey Creek costs decreased as a result of
information-education and technical assistance efforts complementing
incentive payments to landowners. Most effective of these was high
quality on-the-farm technical assistance.
Now when you are shopping around for point or nonpoint source con-
trol practices, attempting to decide how much of which to implement
where, you will have a rough idea of how to get the most from your mon-
ey, at least with respect to conservation tillage practices. But when
you shop, buy only what you need to do the job. Anything else would
discredit the phrase, "best management practices."
306
-------
REFERENCES
1. Cahill, J. H. and R. W. Pierson. 1979. Honey Creek Watershed
Report. Buffalo District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo,
N. Y. 79 pg.
2. Wurm, D. U. and J. P. Crumrine. 1980. Honey Creek Watershed
Project: Tillage Demonstration Results, 1979. Honey Creek Joint
Board of Supervisors, Tiffin, Ohio. 61 pg.
3. Yaksich, S. M. 1979. Lake Erie Wastewater Management Study
Methodology Report. Buffalo District, U. S. Army Corps of En-
gineers, Buffalo, N. Y. 146 pg.
4. Quilliam, R. 1979. Modern Farming with Conservation Tillage.
USDA-SCS, Columbus, Ohio. 12 pg.
5. Logan, T. J. 1978. Summary Pilot Watershed Report Maumee Basin,
Ohio. International Joint Commission Task Group C, Windsor,
Ontario.
6. Spires, A. and M. H. Miller. 1978. Contribution of Phosphorus
from Agricultural Land to Streams by Runoff. International Joint
Commission Task Group C, Windsor, Ontario.
7. Schwab, G. A., E. 0. McLean, A. C. Waldron, R. K. White, and
D. W. Michener. 1971. Quality of Drainage Water from a Heavy
Textured Soil. Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 16, No. 6, St.
Joseph, Michigan.
8. Romkens, M. J. M., D. W. Nelson, and J. V. Mannering. 1973.
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Composition of Surface Runoff as Affected
by Tillage Method. Jr. Environmental Quality, Vol. 2, No. 2.
9. Mannering, J., C. B. Johnson, and D. Nelson. 1977. Simulated
Rainfall Study Results in Environmental Impact of Land Use on
Water Quality. Final Report on the Black Creek Project-Tech-
nical Report, Allen County Soil and Water Conservation District.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois.
307
-------
-------
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION IN URBAN AREAS
by
James Baumann, Andrea Domanik and John Konrad
The passage of the Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act in 1972, P.L. 92-500, set the stage for a major new initiative
in our nation's water quality management program. This law provided
for a comprehensive examination of the two sources of water pollution,
point and nonpoint, and the development of a control strategy to deal
with them.
Prior to that time, almost all water pollution control work was
undertaken piecemeal with the great bulk of the effort being devoted
to point sources of pollution. Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is
associated with pollutants contained in stormwater runoff and groundwater
seepage. This diffuse pollution enters water bodies at an almost
limitless number of places. Because of the difficulty of trying to
deal with sources of this type and an inadequate understanding of the
magnitude of NPS pollution, little effort had been directly devoted to
its control. Indirectly, soil conservation efforts undertaken by
rural agricultural interests have served to reduce the level of water
pollution control associated with farmland erosion, but in urban areas
the effort has been almost nonexistent.
Section 208 of P.L. 92-500 recognized the need to: examine
nonpoint source pollution; measure the impacts in relation to those
resulting from point sources; and develop a comprehensive control
strategy which included best management practices to reduce pollution
from both sources. In rural areas, the soil conservation experience
has provided a basic implementation structure to build upon having
identified control practices most likely to be effective. In urban
areas no such focus has been available; instead, regional and state
agencies were designated under Section 208 to generate the needed
water quality studies and identify the practices and agencies needed
to carry out the NPS water quality control program within urban areas.
The designated planning agencies in Wisconsin have undertaken in
cooperation with state and university staff, a number of urban runoff
investigations to determine the nature and extent of pollution resulting
from urban runoff. The most significant work has been done in the
Milwaukee and Madison Metropolitan areas. Four major studies have
been undertaken in this southeastern corner of the Metropolitan areas.
Four major studies have been undertaken in this southeastern corner of
the state. They are: 1) The Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study,
sponsored by the International Joint Commission in the Milwaukee area,
2) The Washington County Project funded by the Environmental Protection
Agency; 3) The Regional "208" studies undertaken by the Southeast
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) and 4) The Dane
County Regional Planning Commission study for the Madison area. The
first three studies mentioned are interrelated in that they all are
focused on the greater Milwaukee Metropolitan area. Two agencies,
309
-------
SEWRPC and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), played
a role in each of the investigations. Information gathered in one
study was often used in another.
This paper will synthesize the results of these and other studies
with an aim to determine the type and effect of urban nonpoint sources
of pollution in Wisconsin, their characteristics, and the overall
strategy for dealing with these sources of pollution in the context of
a comprehensive water pollution control program for urban and rural,
point and nonpoint sources.
TYPES AND EFFECT OF URBAN NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
Studies clearly indicate that urban nonpoint sources of pollution
can cause serious localized water quality impacts on receiving waters
and may have wider regional impacts. The two major types of NFS
pollutants generated from urban land uses are Q.) nutrients and sediments
and (2) toxic materials. In addition, some concern has been expressed
about bio-chemical oxygen demand (BOD)5 fecal coliform bacteria, and
chlorides.
It is important to recognize that both point and nonpoint sources
contribute to water pollution problems. For example, SEWRPC had
estimated in 1975 that only 19% of the perrenial streams (1,118 miles)
and major lakes (100 lakes over 50 acres surface area), in Southeastern
Wisconsin met the national goal of "fishable and swimmable waters".
If only point sources were treated, by the year 2000, only 30% of the
total stream miles and 18% of the major lakes could be expected to
meet the national goal. The reasons why national goals would not be
achieved are related to the contribution from nonpoint sources.
Conversely, if only NFS controls were implemented, by the year 2000,
61% of the stream miles and 90% of the major lakes could be expected
to meet national weather water quality goals. These figures illustrate
the significance of nonpoint sources of pollution in this region of
Wisconsin.
Perhaps the most immediately recognizable impact of NPS pollution
in Wisconsin is the cultural eutrophication of lakes and streams
resulting from the runoff of sediments and associated nutrients,
especially phosphorus. This influx of excessive amounts of nutrients
tends to accelerate the production of aquatic vegetation. The luxuriant
growth of algae and rooted aquatic species impairs the recreational
potential of these lakes and streams, alters the basic aquatic community
and accelerates the filling of shallow lakes or impoundments. Phosphorus
has probably received more attention that any other single pollutant
in Wisconsin's NPS pollution control program. This is almost entirely
due to its central role in the eutrophication process. Nitrogen is
not identified as the controlling or limiting nutrient for most of the
waters in Wisconsin and therefore has not been studied with same
intensity.
In the Menomonee River Watershed, much of which flows through the
City of Milwaukee, two-thirds of the total phosphorus load is from
310
-------
nonpoint sources. The other one-third is from point source discharges,
most of it in soluble form discharged during nonstorm periods providing
a very significant source of available phosphorus.1 This emphasizes
the need to account for point sources of phosphorus, as well as nonpoint
sources in order to have an effective control program.
Rural nonpoint sources of phosphorus also contribute very significantly
to the water quality problems of Wisconsin, because of the large
amount of farm land in the state. However, a recent study conducted
in Dane County suggests that the average amount of P in the runoff
from an acre of rural land is likely to be only one-half that carried
in the runoff from an acre of urban land.
Sediment is a pollutant of considerable importance not just
because of the nutrients, BOD, and toxics associated with it, but also
because by itself it can cover and destroy and aquatic biological
community, create conditions unsuitable for sensitive aquatic life
such as trout, and may accelerate the filling up of lakes and impoundments.
As will be discussed later, such problems with sediment may be especially
severe near developing urban construction areas if adequate control
measures are not adopted.
One characteristic of sediment as a pollutant which is important
to understand in selecting control measures is sediment size. The
relative surface area of a sediment particle is inversely related to
the particle size. Therefore, the amount of surface area increases
very rapidly as particle size decreases. Surface area also determines
the quantity of pollutants which can be absorbed to these particles.
This effect can be clearly seen in the concentrations of lead in the
clay-sized particles found in suspended and bottom sediments in the
Menomonee River, one of the rivers flowing through Milwaukee. Between
70% and 90% of the total phosphorus and lead is found in the fine,
clay-sized fractions. These small sized particles, easily picked up
and transported by a storm event, are also the most difficult to
capture and control with most management strategies.
Toxics associated with heavy metals, other inorganic elements, or
organic compounds constitute a public health hazard as well as a
threat to the biolgoical communities of both lakes and streams. The
toxics which have received the most attention in the studies have been
lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, zinc, and PCB's.
Aside from lead, the loadings of the toxics listed above appeared to
be very low and their concentrations in surface waters are low as
well. However, even though the concentration and loadings are low
many of these pollutants persist in the environment, they attach
themselves to sediment and accumulate in the bottom materials of the
lakes and streams. Average concentrations of these substances in
bottom sediments range from about 1,000 to 20,000 times the concentrations
measured in flowing water in the Kinnickinnic River in Milwaukee.
These toxics can have an adverse impact on bottom feeders and rooted
aquatics, and during wet weather conditions some of these substances
may be resuspended in association with the sediments. As with all of
the pollutant parameters discussed these toxic substances are not
derived solely from urban runoff, although such runoff is frequently
the major source of these contaminants.
311
-------
The fecal coliform standard in Wisconsin has been shown to be
violated during periods of wet weather in the urban watersheds. This
may or may not indicate the existence of a public health hazard.
Fecal coliform is only an indicator of the possible presence of pathogenic
or disease-carrying pollution. Since much of the fecal matter found
in urban runoff is from nonhuman sources it is not thought to pose as
serious a problem as that associated with domestic sewage.
Chlorides and BOD associated with runoff have not been demonstrated
to present serious water quality problems in Wisconsin. This may be
due to the dilution of these constituents in the large amounts of
stormswater present during runoff periods. Chloride resulting from
winter road salting activity has been shown in Madison's Lake Wingra
to elevate concentrations, but the effect on water quality has not
been determined.
BOD and associated dissolved oxygen problems have been tied
indirectly to the phosphorus contained in urban and rural runoff. As
pointed out previously, this phosphorus fuels the growth of algae and
rooted aquatics; when the organic matter dies and decays it can exert
a significant oxygen demand.
Overall there are significant water quality problems arising from
pollutants contained in urban runoff in Southeastern Wisconsin. The
most prominent of these are those associated with phosphorus. However,
sediments and toxics can present serious problems as well. As developed
areas expand and the required controls on the point sources are implemented,
the overall amount and relative significance or urban nonpoint sources
of pollution can be expected to increase.
CHARACTERISTICS OF URBAN NONPOINT SOURCES
When analyzing the extent and nature of urban nonpoint sources of
pollution it is useful to differentiate between various types of urban
land uses, because of the significant differences in pollutant loadings
from these land uses. Two land-use related factors have been identified
as having a significant affect on the amount of NFS pollution. The
first is the hydraulic factor which measures the amount and duration
of storm related runoff. Many types of urban development increase the
amount of impervious surface and often alter natural drainage patterns.
The general result of this type of development is to increase the
amount of runoff and decrease the runoff period, thus increasing the
intensity and velocity of the runoff event. This results in an increase
in the scouring and transporting capability of the runoff water.
Another important hydraulic consideration affecting water quality
is the impact of the increase in impervious surface (increased runoff)
on the groundwater regime. The decrease in infiltration results in a
lessening of the amount of groundwater derived baseflow available
during low flow periods. These low flow periods are frequently the
most critical periods from a water quality standpoint because the
amount of water available for dilution is at a minimum.
312
-------
The second factor ±s the differing types of pollutants generated
by different land uses. Areas undergoing urban development are generally
associated with disturbed vegetative cover and exposed soils. Such
areas provide a very significant potential source of sediment. Industrial,
commercial, and high density residential developments are generally
associated with heavy transportation traffic and air pollution. The
pollutants generated by cars and trucks, and fallout from air pollution
caused by industrial production are usually deposited in the immediate
vicinity of the source. An accumulation of these and other pollutants
will occur because this type of development also has large amounts (a
high percentage) of impervious surface.
The contaminants are then readily washed by storms into surrounding
(available for transport tol surface waters. Especially important in
this regard are lead and other toxic substances which are associated
with transportation and industrial activity. Table 1 illustrates the
variation in the approximate pollution generation potential for various
urban land uses in the Menomonee River watershed.
Table 1. Pollution Generation Potential for Urban Land Use Categories
In Menomonee River Watershed
Land
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
use category
Industrial
Commercial
High density residential
Medium density residential
Low density residential
Land under development
Parks and recreation
Suspended
solids
kg/ha/yr
5,10Q
3,450
3,650
3,100
650
43,700
460
Total
phosphorus
kg/ha/yr
4.46
1.51
2.77
2.46
1.05
78.7
.81
Lead
kg/ha/yr
6.9
13.2
5.6
4.2
0.48
0.10
0.00
Source: Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study, Summary Report,
by J.G. Konrad, G. Chesters, and K.W. Bauer, May 4, 1978, p.o. 34.
Another indication of the relative seriousness of urban runoff
from heavily built-up impervious urban areas can be seen in the General
Mitchell Field Nonpoint Source Study undertaken in 1976 and 1977 by
the Wisconsin DNR. General Mitchell Field is the primary commerical
airport serving the Milwaukee Metropolitan area. It is located in a
heavily built-up area on the south side of Milwaukee. This study
found that storm water runoff from the airport area is a significant
source of pollution to nearby streams. At times the concentrations of
nutrients, suspended solids, and BOD approximate the levels found in
raw domestic sewage.
Areas with storm sewers also tend to experience greater pollutional
problems that those which lack such urban amenities. This may be
easily explained by the above discussion concerning hydraulic factors
and the types of urban land uses which would be associated with the
presence of storm sewers. Storm sewers decrease the opportunity for
infiltration and creates a very efficient runoff system. Storm sewers
313
-------
are generally associated with medium and high density residential,
commercial, and industrial land uses. Table 1 demonstrates the potential
reduction in pollutants which can be expected in nonsewered areas such
as low density residential neighborhoods. It should be understood
that the absence of storm sewers need not automatically be associated
with a reduction in pollution problems, but rather if the hydraulic
and land use characteristics associated with such a sewer are accounted
for in the development of nonpoint controls then a reduction might be
expected.
The intensity and duration of storm events is considered to have
an important impact on urban pollutant loadings. Early thinking on
this subject speculated that most pollution would be associated with
the initial runoff resulting from a storm event; reduced loadings
would occur as the storm continued since most of the pollution would
be washed off in the "first flush".
The studies in Wisconsin indicate instead that with one exception,
the total mass of pollutants washed from urban land surface, is directly
proportional to the volume of precipitation associated with the
event; pollutant concentration is relatively insensitive to the volume
and duration of the storm event. This may be caused by the more
intensive scour and transport capacities of larger volumes of water
and the large reservoir of pollutants available for transport in the
areas studied.
Snowmelt runoff during thaws in the winter and early spring
provides an exception to these findings. The Mitchell Field study
determined that the greatest seasonal pollutant yield did not occur
during the season generating the largest runoff volume, summer, but
rather during the season with the least runoff volume, winter, for all
constituents, except suspended solids. This can be explained by the
accumulation rates, differences in storm event characteristics and the
presence of frozen pervious surfaces. Investigations of winter and
spring snow melt events are very sparse, and a great deal of work
remains to be done in this area.
In summary, not all urban areas contribute equally to the pollution
problem. Developing urban areas are by far the most significant
sources of sediments and associated phosphorus. The amount of impervious
surface contributes both to the increases in the volume, scouring, and
transport capability of storm water and contributes to the build-up
and availability of pollutants. The amount of impervious surface and
industrial land uses which are associated with this type of impervious
surface are found to be the most significant sources of toxic pollutants
and may also contribute important amounts of sediment and phosphorus.
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
In the development of a management strategy to control urban
nonpoint sources of pollution it is essential that clear-cut water
quality objectives or standards be formulated and that point sources
and rural nonpoint sources of pollution are considered in a comprehensive
314
-------
and integrated fashion. The lack of clearly established and agreed
upon water quality objectives for NFS pollution has been an obstacle
in developing an overall water quality management strategy.
Three aspects of this urban problem are the most difficult to
assess. They are: (1) The absence of an established standard for
phosphorus in either lakes or streams, (2) The lack of guidance in
dealing with acceptable levels of toxics in bottom sediments, and (3)
The inadequacy of the present water quality standards to deal with
high flow periods.
The SEWRPC areawide water quality management planners have taken
major initiatives toward dealing with these problems. They have
employed a complex water quality model (HYDROCOMP) to simulate the
inter-relationships between the various sources of pollution, anticipated
storm events, hydraulic characteristics of the area and water quality
conditions. This model, within various levels of confidence, is then
able to predict the water quality expected when employing alternative
point and nonpoint source control strategies. They have applied a
total phosphorus standard of Q.10 mg/1 for flowing streams and a 0.02
mg/1 concentration in lakes during the spring turnover period. These
are not standards which have been officially adopted by the Wisconsin
DNR, and they have been subject to widespread scrutiny and criticism.
However, it must be pointed out that these are the concentrations
provided in EPA's Water Quality Criteria - 1976, the so-called "red
book", and no one has suggested more appropriate concentration limits.
The water quality model also allows SEWRPC to take a new approach
to the application of water quality standards. This approach considers
the assessment of the proportion of the total time under various
anticipated flow conditions can be expected to exceed specified
concentrations, such as that listed above for phosphorus which do not
directly affect aquatic organisms, but are primarily related to
recreational use. This statistical approach was not employed for
concentrations of toxic materials under the presumption that these
materials should never be present in toxic concentrations in the water
body. SEWRPC did not directly address the control of toxic levels in
the bottom sediments.
In developing a specific control strategy for urban nonpoint sources
it is necessary to consider the character of this type of pollution.
There are four key considerations in this control strategy. (1)
Control of the sediments, especially the clay-sized particles to which
phosphorus and toxic compounds are adsorbed. (2) Concentrate first on
those land uses which provide the most significant sources of pollution,
specifically developing areas and those parts of the city where residential
and industrial urban land uses are densely concentrated. (3) Develop
measures which increase the amount of infiltration and reduce and
attenuate the amount of overland flow. (4) Prevent the pollutants
from being generated in the first place.
Since virtually all significant types and amounts of urban nonpoint
sources of pollution are associated with sediments, the. control of
sediments is an important consideration. In effect, almost all cost-
315
-------
effective control strategies are aimed at either keeping these sediments
in place, removing them from impervious surfaces, or causing them to
be placed in areas where they will not be eroded and carried into
surface waters.
An exception to this general rule of concentrating on sediment
control are actions which prevent .associated pollutants from being
generated at all. This can be seen in the ban on leaded gasoline,
control on industrial air emissions, and limitations on various types
of fertilizer and pesticide use. It is anticipated that the control
on the use of leaded gasoline will take care of most of the problems
currently experienced with lead pollution.
RESIDENTIAL HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
The most promising area for overall control is in developing or
redeveloping urban areas. In the Menomonee River watershed developing
urban areas represented only 2.6% of the total area of the watershed,
but contributed 37% and 48% respectively of the suspended solids and
total phosphorus at the river mouth. Data from the Washington County
Project showed that subdivisions constructed without preventative
measures to reduce soil disturbance contributed significantly to water
quality nonpoint source problems (Washington County Final Report,
November, 1979). In the Washington County Project, sources of sediment
and methods of controlling sedimentation were studied for three phases
of the residential construction process: 1) site selection and plat
planning, 2) plat development of streets and services, and 3) lot by
lot house construction. Housing construction was emphasized because
this phase of development has not been critically evaluated as contributing
to the sediment control problem. Legal mechanisms for regulating
subdivision construction activities at the local level were also
examined.
Site Selection
One of the best methods for minimizing erosion and sedimentation
may be proper environmental planning prior to development. A high
degree of quality may be achieved without increasing development cost;
this is accomplished through proper selection of sites suitable for
development and sensitive plat planning and development. When investigating
potential development sites, physical and natural conditions should be
critically evaluated. Areas with unsuitable soil types, lowlands,
steep slopes and high water tables (to name a few limitations) would
be expensive to develop, requiring extensive filling or grading,
difficult to minimize erosion, and troublesome to maintain. Preparation
of the plat plan should take into account such factors as natural
drainage patterns, existing vegetation and the amount of land disturbance
necessary to develop the plat. An effort should be made by developers
to minimize the degree to which the landscape will be altered particularly
with respect to drainage. When necessary, erosion and sedimentation
controls should be incorporated into the plat plan.
316
-------
Plat Development
Plat development can be viewed as the construction of streets and
services. Numerous publications have been written offering suggestions
for reducing sediment loss during this stage. One common development
practice has been to strip topsoil and vegetation from the entire plat
then proceed with construction. Often the topsoil is stockpiled for
several years while streets and services are being built. A more
environmentally source practice would be to only disturb the area
where construction is currently concentrated or to protect large areas
of exposed soil. If topsoil must be removed, temporary measures to
protect the exposed soil should be taken. Seeding, mulching or other
protective covers would achieve adequate control.
Other innovative measures can be implemented to minimize stormwater
runoff; porous pavement and protective buffers or berms increase
stormwater infiltration. It is critical that all control measures be
incorporated into the plat plan, thus insuring enforcement and
implementation.
Housing Construction
Construction of residential dwellings within a subdivision can
cause large amounts of sediment to be transported through storm sewers
to surface water. The problem is magnified by the simultaneous construction
of several dwellings. Table 1 illustrates monitored sediment yield
during uncontrolled housing and construction (Washington County Project).
Three subdivisions being rapidly developed were monitored during 1977.
No treatments for erosion and sediment controls had been used. The
amount of sediment, measured as suspended solids, leaving the subdivision
through its storm sewer, has been estimated in kilograms per hectare
per year. Differences in site conditions may account for variations
in annual yield. No comparable values are currently available for
treated residential construction activity.
Table 1. Annual Suspended Solid Yield (kg/ha) From Untreated Residential
Construction in 1977
Station
G2
G3
G5
Yield
27,215 kg/ha
17,365 kg/ha
13,148 kg/ha
Building practices common during construction, that were examined
in the Old Farm Annex, might be mitigated without interfering with
construction. The following list, by no means complete, attempts to
highlight damaging activities and conditions:
Exposed and unprotected soil throughout the subdivision
(highly erodible).
Excavated soil, in large mounds, placed near and often in
the streets (rapid erosion and delivery of sediment to storm sewers).
317
-------
Unlimited access to lots by vehicles and heavy equipment
(tracking soil adhered to tires into streets; gullies formed by tire
tracks that channelizes flow).
Pumped water from flooded basements (dewatering) onto exposed
areas (generates and transports sediment to storm sewers).
- Drained rooftop runoff onto unprotected areas (forms gullies,
erodes and transports sediment to storm sewer system).
Many of these activities occur during work performed by subcontractors
who are onsite for a very short time. Cooperation and communication
between builders and subcontractors are essential if mitigating
measures are to be effective.
On-Site Controls
The following list of practices are divided into two categories,
those that do not require additional funds to implement but are suggestions
for timing activities to reduce impact. Other practices do have a
minimal cost but are usually incurred at some point during construction.
It is recommended that many of these measures be implemented early in
the building process so that their benefit will be incurred throughout
the housing construction period (which takes from four to six months).
No Cost Practices: 1. Retain existing trees and shrubs wherever
possible, since vegetation filters, retards and absorbs overland
runoff.
2. Locate excavated basement soil a reasonable distance behind
the curb, such as in the backyard or sideyard area. This will increase
the distance eroded soil must travel to reach the storm sewer system.
3. Remove excess soil from the sites as soon as possible and
rough grade the lot. This will eliminate large soil mounds which are
highly erodible and prepares the lot for temporary cover.
4. If a lot has a soil bank higher than the curb, a trench or
berm should be installed moving the bank several feet behind the curb.
This will reduce the occurrence of gully and rill erosion while
providing some storage and settling area for sediment-laden storm
water.
5. Roughen the soil surface by rototilling areas that are to be
stripped for too short a length of time to allow establishment of
temporary vegetative cover. Roughening will increase the infiltration
of storm water and reduce erosion.
6. Direct flowing water away from steep slopes and other highly
erodible areas by constructing diversion structures such as terraces,
benches, dikes and ditches.
318
-------
Other Practices: 7. Provide for periodical street sweeping
or vacuuming to remove sediment during construction.
8. Stabilize the lot by seeding and mulching or sodding as soon
as possible after exterior construction is completed. This will
minimize erosion as well as make the area more visually pleasant.
9. When not feasible to stabilize the entire lot with vegetation,
cover an area approximately 20-30 feet behind the curb with a protective
material such as filter fabric or mulch and netting. This covering
may be installed before backfilling, provided excavated soil is placed
in the backyard area and the lot has been rough graded. Lateral lines
may be installed by removing the protective covering and then replacing
the cover after filling. This measure will reduce raindrop intensity
while protecting the soil.
10. Apply 1-inch gravel to the driveway area and restrict truck
traffic to this one route. Driveway paving can be installed directly
over the gravel. This measure will eliminate soil from adhering to
tires and being tracked into the street.
11. Install roof downspout extenders and sump pump drainage
tubing to disperse water or to divert it directly to the curb and
stormsewer. Keeping clearwater from running across exposed soil will
prevent gully and rill erosion from these sources.
12. Install straw bales, sand bags, tarps or filter fences along
curbs to reduce the amount of eroded soil reaching the curb gutter or
stormsewer.
Legal Controls Case Study
Many states, counties and incorporated areas have enacted some
type of ordinance that attempts to control subdivision developments.
In Washington County, developers are required to submit preliminary
plat plans to the County Soil and Water Conservation District for
proposed developments within unincorporated areas. This subdivision
ordinance is fairly modest requiring a land suitability test where
lands with greater than 12 percent slope are presumed unsuitable for
development unless developers can provide adequate erosion and sediment
controls. The ordinance also requires stormwater management facilities
be designed to handle the maximum flow potential from a 10-year 24-
hour storm. If development requires substantial land disturbing
activity, practices to minimize erosion and sedimentation are required.
Several towns within the county have adopted the county ordinance.
Washington County's subdivision ordinance does not, however,,address
the lot construction phase of development. It also does not apply to
unplated housing construction (less than five lots). There are limited
provisions for enforcement and penalties. Authorities are not defined
stating who is responsible for monitoring compliance with this ordinance
and insuring implementation of required erosion and sediment control
measures.
319
-------
The Village of Germantown has drafted a land division ordinance
requiring plat review by the Village Engineer and County Soil and
Water Conservation District. Maps of the natural and physical conditions
within the proposed development are required in order to determine
suitability. Soil and water conservation practices are also required
where land disturbing activities are proposed. Developers are required
to minimize the amount of area exposed and must stabilize by revegetating
as soon as practical. In an attempt to control lot construction, the
Village has also developed an ordinance that requires builders to post
a $100 cash bond when applying for a building permit. The bond will
be used to pay for services, if any, incurred by the Village because
of construction activity; any remaining money will be returned to the
builder upon issuance of an occupancy permit. The ordinance also
levies a $200 per day fine on any person, firm or corporation found
guilty of violating the ordinance.
In order to provide for the control of erosive construction
practices, subdivision and building ordinances should be strengthened
to include:
- tracking provisions requiring vehicle traffic to clean
sediment in the street as a result of their tire tracking;
handling requirements for excavated soil so that soil is
placed behind a set back line or tied to an egress line, from the
house front to the curb line;
- placing limits on the amount of time soil can be exposed and
require temporary protection;
- providing for the periodic cleaning of sediment from streets
and gutters during construction;
- limiting alterations in natural drainage patters or provide
for retention of stormwater resulting from channelized drainage ways;
and
requiring that rooftop runoff be diffused onto vegetative
areas and provide for the proper handling of pumped water (from dewatering
or sump pump activity).
By including these provisions into ordinances that control land
disturbing activities, environmental and aesthetic qualities will be
greatly improved.
Experience on the Washington County project has demonstrated that
a three pronged approach is needed to effectively implement a program
for control in these developing and redeveloping areas:
They are:
1. An informational and educational program to explain the need
for erosion and sediment control during construction.
320
-------
2. Standards and design specifications for erosion control
practices written in understandable language.
3. Cooperation between local officials and developers, builders
and subcontractors in setting reasonable and effective regulations.
DEVELOPED URBAN AREAS
The outlook in developed areas is less optimistic. Most of the
available controls are relatively expensive and questionably effective.
Surprisingly, the most effective control measures may be instituted in
parts of the city now served by combined sewers.
Dry weather street flushing can be employed prior to comprehensive
actions to control the combined sewer overflow problems. Such flushing
can transport street contaminants to municipal treatment plants and
dislodge deposits in the sewer. Eventually, in the elimination of
combined sewer overflows some form of storage and treatment can deal
with both point and NFS pollution problems, if properly designed.
SEWRPC is recommending such a method to deal with pollution problems
in the combined sewer areas of Milwaukee.
In the other developed urban areas only very carefully selected
management practices should be recommended for implementation. The
most commonly discussed, street sweeping, does not appear cost-effective
under most conditions, but may be useful if employed for spring clean-
up and during autumn leaf drop periods. Certain housekeeping activities
such as catch basin cleaning and redirecting roof drains to areas
where infiltration will occur may also be useful. The most effective
actions may be those mentioned previously which prevent the generation
of the pollutants. Regulations on the generation of leaded gasoline
and on materials handling as well as air pollution controls are examples
of such action.
CONCLUSIONS
Urban runoff is a major contributor to the water quality problems
being experienced in and near our major cities. The eutrophication of
our valuable lakes, as well as the degradation of the streams can be
traced to urban nonpoint sources of pollution in these areas. As our
metropolitan areas expand and point sources of pollution are brought
under control, the relative importance of urban nonpoint sources will
increase even more. Any water quality management strategy for our
metropolitan areas which ignores or downplays this source of pollution
is destined to be ineffective in the attainment of the national goal
of fishing and swimming water quality.
Stormwater runoff from urban and developing areas have unique
hydrological characteristics which requires special consideration in
order to control nonpoint sources of water pollution. As impervious
ground cover increases the area's hydrology changes so that stormwater
does not infiltrate, but rather the volume of water running off increases.
Therefore, more water is available to transport pollutants through
321
-------
storm sewers and roadside ditches to surface waters. Degradation of
surface waters accelerates as more polluted water enters, ultimately
affecting their recreational and natural amenities. Control strategies
that increase infiltration or retention time within urhan areas should
be investigated.
The urban runoff program will, in all probability not be as
effective or cost-efficient as it should be until comprehensive programs
are developed which examine all sources of pollution and their relationships,
Standards must be developed which deal with high flow periods. The
control of sediments from developing urban areas, special consideration
for nonpoint source pollution in dealing with combined sewer overflows,
and the elimination of pollutants at the sources in other developed
areas seem to provide the most promising means of dealing with pollution
contained in urban runoff.
Stormwater runoff from residential subdivisions that are undergoing
development can generate and transport large amounts of sediment and
associated pollutants (nutrients, metals) to surface waters. Low cost
practices are available to reduce sedimentation during the lot construction
phase of development. Subdivision and building ordinances should be
strengthened to include erosion control practices.
Authors are all members of the Bureau of Water Quality in the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin.
322
-------
NURP
by
Doug Ehorn
Chief, Michigan Water Quality Management
The purpose of this speech is to present you with an up-to-date summary of
progress made under the National Urban Runoff Program. While there are many
attendees in this room who are familiar with the NURP program there are
several new faces and therefore I'll first present a brief historical state-
ment.
HISTORY
Over the past several decades, several studies conducted across our nation
indicated that storm runoff was a major pathway through which pollutants were
carried to receiving waters. Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(PL 92-500) there was an initial way to fund storm water projects in conjunction
with the construction grants program. However, storm control was not regarded
as a critical element which initiated grant action, but oncillary and should be
studied to provide cost-effective solutions to pollution control. And even
then the major of funds were to be spent combined sewer overflow controls or
Abatement. With the later amendments to the Act, there was less emphasis put
on storm water control for a variety of factors; the main factor being that
there was an insufficient data base to support the program.
During the last three years, studies conducted with Section 208 planning funds
have supported the concept that urban runoff appears to be a major pathway of
pollution. Studies were conducted at numerous locations on a nationwide
basis. Even with this expanded data base, Congress did not provide sufficient
funds to expand the program to any great extent. They did provide funds for
323
-------
2
problem assessment and planning, but held back on implementation funds because
the current state of technical knowledge was insufficient to justify large-
scale actions.
The National Urban Runoff Program was initiated to respond to several of the
prominent deficiencies such as: areal accumulation patterns, washoff, transport,
instream behavior of pollutants and effectiveness of control measures. The EPA
hopes that the current studies will provide knowledge concerning the practical
implications of urban runoff pollutants on water quality and aquatic ecosystems.
Several of the goals envisioned when the NURP program was initiated in 1978 was
to gather knowledge that would provide a holoistic approach to the problem and
the state of the art for control technologies that would provide EPA, the States
and local decisionmakers with a rational basis for problem assessment, postula-
tion of controls, and development of local stategies to implement controls that
would show benefits to the receiving waters. To date NURP 30 projects at a cost
of $20,658,000 have been funded with the intent of providing a report to Congress
in 1983 to support further planning and implementation activities. The report
will have to deal with the nature, and extent of runoff problems, cause of the
problem, severity of the problem (based on beneficial uses and W2 standards of
receiving stream) and the opportunities for controlling the problems.
Where are we today?
The EPA has substantially completed the initial phases of the NURP Program at
the present time. A nationwide program was developed and current status of
problems was assessed, projects were selected to provide a "Prototype" base.
Program management and coordination is continuing with headquarters providing
technical assistance to the projects. I might add that even though liaison
324
-------
functions were rough during the initial year of NURP, both Headquarters and the
the Regions have been able to develop a "report" that provide excellent service
to the grantees.
As data from the prototype projects is gathered, reduced to usable form and
provided to the EPA, the process of Program assessment and evaluation will
begin in earnest. The culmination of all these activities is the already men-
tioned report to Congress in 1983. While EPA will not fund any more NURP type
projects during the planning process, we are anxious to supply all relevant
data and control strategies to local planning and implementing agencies at the
earliest possible date.
By the way the report I have with me entitled "Quarterly Progress Report,
National Urban Runoff Program" provides initial data on management aspects of
the NURP program. It does not provide data on control mechanisms, BMPs, pollu-
tant sources or other technology aspects of the program due to early stage of
NURP development.
Of the 30 projects that were targetted for NURP, 10 projects are underway and
yielding data, most of these projects have their planned BMPs in operation.
Ten projects are just beginning. Their work plans are approved and consultant
contracts have been signed. Nine projects do not have fully approved work plans
and one project is in an early stage of planning. I should note that projects
which started late had the most difficulty achieving approval because of the
keen interest and insight provided by EPA's technology consultants who required
ever increasing high standards of performance.
325
-------
The General characteristics of these prototype projects are summarized as
follows:
A. Receiving water type (by major emphasis)
8 projects study small streams
5 projects study lakes
6 projects study rivers
1 project studies oceans
2 projects study groundwater
B. Impacts
9 projects study actual impairment of beneficial use
8 projects study standards violations
4 projects study public concern
Impacted beneficial uses fall into 5 major categories: water supply,
contact recreation, non-contact recreation, fish and wildlife, aesthetics
C. Suspected Problem Pollutants
1 project studies BOD, COD, DO
8 projects study nutrients
1 project studies sediments
7 projects study heavy metals
1 project studies other toxics
7 projects study coliform bacteria
D. Major Best Management Practices
4 projects study street sweeping
4 projects study Detention basins
1 project studies Catch basin cleaning
2 project study wet land treatment
There are other practices being studied at localized site including: swirl
concentrators (which offer great promise), runoff ordinances, sewer alternatives
and filters.
Technological status
The EPA is concerned about the potential threat of urban runoff to the Great
Lakes ecosystem. Currently projects have not progressed far enough to provide
sufficient details that would warrent a generalized status statement. From the
326
-------
early data, this Agency is aware that toxic pollutants in urban runoff may not
have received sufficient attention at this time. One report from the Seattle
study indicated that toxics could be a localized problem, however the data
base was not as good as it might have been. New analytical methods are being
devised to overcome problems. At another location high concentration of
Salmmella were found and in the Final Report for the Castor Valley project
measurable asbestos levels were indicated.
As you can tell the data base is slim at this time. Several projects are being
realigned to provide answers to questions arising from earlier projects or to
take advantage of developing technologies.
My best advise to you is..., Use your head make logical decisions, well thought
out, not under pressure. For instance street sweeping projects may not work
because you don't pick up fine materials that carry pollutants. Then proper
disposal methods timing of sweeping. For Detention basins - longer detention
time to get fines settled out. These are just a few of the logical things that
must be done. I believe that small, well organized projects will probably give
us more pertinent data than the large megabuck projects.
The Future of NUPP
We are just beginning to crawl in certain aspects of urban runoff and its
technology. We are certain that pollutants are reaching receiving waters in
our urban areas. Further quantitative work must be accomplished in the areas
of sources and control of sources. The EPA does have sufficient knowledge
concerning wastewater treatment plans and our data base is growing on combined
sewer overflow control and sludge. However in the area of separate storm water
discharges there is a paucify of data.
327
-------
NURP's future is uncertain at this point. Very preliminary data indicates that
there is no real problem in some areas. Urban runoff may not be a National
problem. In that case, controls and strategies would have to become concentrated
in localized areas.
The pollutant of most concern that has emerged from the early studies is bacteria.
So what? What does that mean in terms of beneficial uses or standards. From a
public health aspect we have found certain discharges to be laced with Salmonella
and animal coliform. These results will have to be followed up on.
There was some early data to indicate that all nonpoint sources were significantly
contributing to degradation of water. These studies are reconfirming that fact on
a localized basis. It appears to me that the upshot of all this is—Nationally we
are going to have to re-look at out water quality standards after sufficient non-
point source data is available from programs similar to the NURP program.
Let me encourage everyone who is interested in pollution control to do their
utmost to make available good data that can contribute to our knowledge of causes,
effects, and solutions to pollution of our National waters.
328
-------
LFW/ib
WIBLE-F
HIGH FLOW WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
By
Lyman F. Wible
INTRODUCTION
This paper discusses high flow water quality standards as they
have been addressed in the areawide water quality management planning
program of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
(SEWRPC). This discussion will include the need for standards, the
analyses and resulting approach taken by SEWRPC, and the more recent
actions taken by SEWRPC, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-
sources (DNR) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
further address the question.
The Southeastern Wisconsin Region includes the seven counties in
and around the Kenosha, Milwaukee, and Racine metropolitan areas. As
the designated areawide water quality management planning agency for
the Region, SEWRPC addressed three generalized questions in preparation
of its Section 208 plan. Here are the questions: first, what are the
historic trends in water quality and in the attainment of the state and
federal water quality standards? Second, what are the existing sources
of water pollution which affect water quality? Third, what are the
future actions which will be necessary in order to achieve and maintain
the water quality standards in the 1,180 miles of continuous stream and
in the 100 major lakes in southeastern Wisconsin through the year 2000?
In this process, the development of meaningful quantitative plans
required the use of analytic tools. Such tools can be applied only in
the framework of explicit quantitative planning standards. Planning
standards provide the basis for comparison of current conditions, the
current trends, and the alternative plans for water quality management.
The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission has always
developed planning standards of this sort in order to serve specific
use objectives. The Section 208 planning process addressed program
objectives for supporting sound land use, supporting the intended water
uses, protecting the natural resource base, developing a cost-effective
plan, and establishing effective and locally acceptable implementing
mechanisms. For each of these program objectives, a series of quanti-
tative planning standards was developed.
At this juncture, a definition must be clarified. Since 1967, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has referred to the intended
use of a stream as a "use designation" or "use classification". The
Regional Planning Commission--in the framework of definitions developed
in comprehensive planning since 196l--refers to these as "water use
Chief Environmental Planner, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission, Waukesha, Wisconsin.
329
-------
objectives," objectives to be achieved by action in various programs.
The objectives include, in various combinations, the maintenance of a
trout fishery and related aquatic life, the maintenance of a salmon
fishery and related aquatic life, the maintenance of a warmwater fish-
ery and related aquatic life, the maintenance of a limited fishery and
related aquatic life, recreational use, limited recreational use, and
the maintenance of minimum water quality conditions for the avoidance
of nuisance or aesthetic offense.
The attainment of these objectives may be measured against speci-
fic standards, as discussed above. Among these standards are what
SEWRPC calls the "water quality standards," which are referred to by
the Wisconsin DNR as "water quality criteria". In this paper I will
utilize the Regional Planning Commission's definitions, which recognize
water use objectives and supporting water quality standards as being
among the set of multiple objectives and supporting standards to be
addressed and evaluated in the development of a meaningful, comprehen-
sive plan for water pollution control. I will address standards for
flowing streams, since the issue of water quality standards definitions
for lakes includes a substantial body of literature and technical work
which could not be addressed properly in these brief comments.
Clearly, the basic water use objective which was sought to be
achieved in the development of the Section 208 plan was the attainment
of water suitable for the maintenance of fish and other aquatic life
and for the support of human recreation in and on the water: in other
words, "fishable and swimmable" water quality conditions. Only upon
the basis of (1) specific findings regarding limitations due to natural
conditions, or due to (2) irrevocable human modification of the water-
shed and drainage system were the nationally identified water use
objectives compromised in the development of the Section 208 plan.
It should also be noted that this approach differs from the use of
water quality standards by state and federal agencies. The U.S. EPA
and the Wisconsin DNR, being regulatory agencies, utilize water quality
standards as the basis for enforcement actions and for compliance moni-
toring for current conditions. This requires that the standards have a
rigid basis in research findings and in field experience. By contrast,
the Regional Planning Commission must anticipate regulations and tech-
nologies into the future, documenting the assumptions used to analyze
conditions and problems which may not yet exist. As a result, more
recent—and sometimes more controversial — study findings must sometimes
be applied. This results from the Commission's need to use water
quality standards as a criterion to measure the relative merits of
alternative future conditions.
A classic example of the need for appropriate quantitative plan-
ning standards, as a basis for plan alternative comparisons, may be
found in the determination of point source and nonpoint source trade-
offs in the Section 208 planning process. Intuitively, the most cost-
effective solution to water quality problems in any given area would
appear to include combinations of point and nonpoint source pollution
controls. However, if as a basis for comparison of alternative plans,
a low-flow-based water quality standard (for example, the seven-day-
average, one-in-ten-year-recurrence interval, low-flow condition) were
used exclusively, then the stream response to point source controls
330
-------
would appear exaggerated. If the average annual pollutant loads to a
surface water system were used exclusively, this measure of effective-
ness may indicate an exaggerated response to nonpoint source controls.
However, a fair comparison of the two types of sources requires a
planning standard or a combination of planning standards expected to be
responsive to both types, in those cases where both are important.
Historically, water quality management efforts at all levels have
been oriented toward the dry weather, low flow problem. Water pollu-
tion problems have generally been considered most apparent when the
stream flows decline significantly during dry weather. By contrast,
the point sources of pollution normally discharge sewage effluent at a
relatively constant rate or at a uniform frequency, and of a relatively
uniform quality; and are relatively less affected by changes in weather
conditions than is the associated stream flow response. These concerns
have also led to consideration of dissolved oxygen as the most critical
water quality indicator. Thus, water quality management programs have
been designed to attempt to control point sources of pollution by
specifying appropriate sewage treatment plant effluent limitations.
The effluent limitations are chosen with the intent to ensure that
in-stream water quality standards are met during all but the very
lowest of stream flow conditions. At higher flows, the dissolved
oxygen standard was considered to have been attained, because of the
dilutional effects of the receiving stream.
Recent water quality monitoring programs have indicated that water
pollution is not exclusively a dry weather, point source-related prob-
lem. As evidenced by the water quality monitoring results documented
in the SEWRPC continuing water quality monitoring program since 1964,
numerous violations of water quality standards have been known to occur
under conditions other than dry weather low-flow conditions, and as a
result of sources other than point sources of pollution. Accordingly,
it was determined in the Section 208 program for southeastern Wisconsin
that the recommended plan must address the surface water quality prob-
lems attendant to high flow-as well as low flow-conditions.
To formulate the applicable water quality standard which would
support the intended water use objectives, an analysis was made of
water quality monitoring data from those streams in the Region that
have relatively clean water and healthy fisheries, and for which the
water use objectives are considered to be met at the present time.
Review of these data indicated that even in such relatively clean
streams, the specified water quality standards are not met all of the
time. Standards violations were found on occasion, but were generally
of such short duration and low intensity that these violations would
not be expected to adversely affect fish and aquatic life and the human
use of the surface waters. Therefore, it was concluded that it would
be impractical to interpret water quality standards on an absolute
basis — that is, as being required to be met 100 percent of the time.
Accordingly, it was determined to assess water quality conditions
against the pertinent water chemistry criteria on a probabilistic
basis, specifying in effect the percent of total time that the water
quality conditions were to be in compliance with the water quality
criteria. This approach was subject to the requirement that point
source pollution abatement measures would continue to be designed to
meet these standards during the seven-day average one-in-ten-year
331
-------
recurrence interval low-flow condition in receiving streams. Thus,
the interpretation would provide for standards to be violated for
extremely low flow conditions and for a specified proportion of time
under relatively high flow conditions. This constitutes a risk assess-
ment procedure, and is reinforced by the recognition that a finite
probability exists—typically in southeastern Wisconsin, on the order
of one-tenth of one percent—that the seven-day, one-in-ten-year recur-
rence interval design would be inadequate as well.
Further analyses were made to determine the percent of time that a
given standard should be allowed to be violated. A 95 percent compli-
ance level was selected as a practical criterion for meeting the water
quality standards for those indicators which directly affect desirable
forms of aquatic life. These included dissolved oxygen, temperature,
un-ionized ammonia nitrogen, and pH. A 90 percent compliance level was
selected as the criterion for those indicators which do not directly
affect desirable forms of aquatic life. These include phosphorus and
fecal coliform organisms. The Commission analyses indicated that if
these compliance levels were met during periods other than extreme low
flow conditions, the duration of violation would be expected to be
relatively short and the intensity would be relatively low. Thus,
desirable forms of aquatic life should not be adversely affected. This
probabilistic approach to the interpretation and application of water
quality standards formed a very important basis for the evaluation of
alternative plans and the selection of a recommended plan, by consider-
ing the effects of nonpoint sources of pollution. It was therefore
recommended that this probabilistic approach to water quality standards
and interpretation be considered by the state for use as a supplement
to the current exemption in State standards for low flow conditions,
flows below the seven day Q10>
This approach has been recommended to the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources for all of the standards supporting the water use
objectives used in the preparation of the Section 208 plan. The recom-
mendation renders it more complex to interpret a field-sampled water
quality violation: is the observed condition a member of an acceptable
and infrequent set of occurrences, or is it representative of a "pol-
luted" condition having an unacceptable frequency of violation. This
procedure will require the Department of Natural Resources to develop
new field techniques, or interpretive methods for the analysis of field
survey data as presently gathered; or to develop a set of assumptions
regarding the probabilities of standards violation associated with what
had been historically recognized as "background" or "natural" condi-
tions, which interfered with achievement of water quality standards by
point source control. It is now apparent that the effects of uncon-
trolled nonpoint sources must be differentiated from the effects of
"natural" limitations of the surface water systems.
The results of the Regional Planning Commission's approach were
checked for reasonableness against other study findings. Such compari-
sons considered the SEWRPC adopted Regional Sanitary Sewerage System
Plan completed in 1972, and within the framework of point source pollu-
tion control; the Department of Natural Resources' wasteload allocation
studies and resulting effluent limits; the "common sense" recommenda-
tions of long-standing soil and water conservation agencies; the recom-
mendations of the Menomonee River Pilot Watershed Study conducted by
332
-------
the International Joint Commission; and the findings of Washington
County Sediment and Erosion Control Study conducted under Section 108
of PL. 92-500. The SEWRPC results were found to be consistent with the
results of these other studies.
The Regional Planning Commission believes that the work which was
conducted as part of its Section 208 program can serve as a point of
departure for analysis and further development of solutions to this
relatively new problem regarding water quality standards for high flow
conditions. The technique utilized by the Commission was practical for
its work programs, since the hydrologic-hydraulic water quality simula-
tion model (Hydrocomp) which was applied, gives results in a proba-
bility distribution of the water quality indicators studied. However,
the Commission staff believes that the probabilistic interpretation of
standards and of in-stream water quality samples may be capable of more
simplified application, by use of nomographs, charts, or figures, if
these tools are properly and rigorously developed. The extension of an
approach to high flow water quality standards is one of the major goals
of the "Phosphorus and High-flow Assessment Study for Water Quality
Standards." This project is currently being conducted by the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources in cooperation with the EPA and SEWRPC. The
project is being undertaken in part as a result of the DNR inclusion of
this matter as a "highlighted issue" in the Wisconsin-EPA Agreement for
fiscal year 1980. The project has initiated studies of the related
aspects of biological field monitoring of aquatic flora and fauna,
biomass estimates, pollutant-mass load analyses, and bioassays. The
project is also evaluating the potential for inclusion of biological
parameters into analytic and simulation models.
The SEWRPC staff believes that with thoughtful consideration, the
effects of nonpoint sources of water pollution can be properly ad-
dressed in the water quality standards and in the related water quality
monitoring and enforcement programs.
333
-------
THE USE OF COMMUNITY PARAMETERS DERIVED
FROM ELECTROFISHING CATCHES OP RIVER FISH
AS INDICATORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
by
J . R. Gammon
Professor of Zoology, Department of Zoology, DePauw University,
Greencastle, Indiana 46135
335
-------
Acknowledgements
The analysis presented in this paper is based upon re-
search supported by Public Service Indiana, Dayton Power and
Light, Eli Lilly Company, and the Office of Water Resources
Research. Field collections involved many students includ-
ing Terry Teppen, Chris Yoder , Doug Meikle, Brandon Kulik,
Jim Thayer, Michael Stroup, Doug Bauer, Robert Gammon, Rick
Wright, and Ernest Roggelin. The system of data storage and
computer analysis was developed by Dr. Carl Singer, Marcile
Dudley, Ann Kohlstaedt, Ron Van Seventer, Art Buis, David Dee,
and Clifford Gammon. Mrs. Betty McKee was extremely helpful
in preparing this report.
336
-------
The Use of Community Parameters
Derived from Electrofishing Catches of
River Fish as Indicators of Water Quality
J . R. Gammon
Introduction
There is a pronounced need for methods of measuring the
effect of various human activities on the aquatic communi-
ties of running water ecosystems. Major impacts which lead
to an elimination of entire species may be interpreted with
little difficulty, but it is unacceptable today to await the
disappearance of entire species from an ecosystem in order
to assess detrimental environmental effects. Nevertheless,
biological investigations too often generate a list of spe-
cies collected which is supposed to reflect the health of the
biological community in itself. Such a list is of value, but
its length is strongly dependent upon the effort devoted to
its construction and basing a judgement of environmental ef-
fects on a comparison of two or more species lists alone is
highly inadvisable.
Other methods of gauging environmental effects on biota
generally include some quantitative measure of the size of
the population, either that of a single group of related or-
ganisms or of a single species of special ecological or com-
mercial importance. For example, Larimore and Smith (1963)
found the effects of organic pollution on fish populations to
be first a reduction in the number of species present, then a
reduction in the total weight or biomass, and finally a re-
duction in the number of individuals. For those working with
fish populations in rivers it has become almost automatic to
structure studies which use some measure of numeric density
as the data base.
Some measure of diversity often is used to characterize
the structure of benthic communities (Wilhm and Dorris 1966,
1968), but is not usually employed in work with fish. In a
study of fish communities in small streams in Pennsylvania,
Denoncourt and Stambaugh (1974) found relatively high species
diversities at several sites receiving moderate to heavy pol-
lution and recommended against using diversity indices with
fish populations. However, Richards (1976) found diversity
indices of value in interpreting faunal changes in the Au
Sable River over a 50 year period.
Bechtel and Copeland (1970) found diversity indices based
on otter trawl tows to be useful indicators of pollution in
Galveston Bay, Texas. McErlean and Mihursky (1969) examined
the application of diversity measures to a variety of fish col-
lection data and subsequently applied them to collections in
337
-------
estuaries to demonstrate seasonal changes and annual trends
(McErlean, et. al. 1973).
Several years of site-intensive studies in the immediate
vicinity of two electrical generating stations located on the
middle Wabash River determined that fish moved around predict-
ably in response to varying thermal conditions and were rarely
killed directly (Gammon 1971, 1973). However, it was not pos-
sible to determine whether the positive and negative behav-
ioral responses reflected long-term changes in the populations
or if the fish communities in the immediate vicinity of the
electrical generating stations differed significantly from
fish communities uninfluenced by thermal inputs. We also
needed to determine how much of the river was being influenced
by the EGSs . Consequently, a study program was initiated
which continued to monitor the fish communities near the two
electrical generating stations, but also included studies of
flanking reaches of the river.
During 1973 and 1974 the fish communities over 100 miles
of the middle Wabash River were examined by repeatedly elec-
trofishing at 24 similar sites, including 4 comparable sites
at each EGS (Teppen and Gammon 1976) . A majority of species
were non-randomly distributed through the 100 miles of river,
some more abundant in the lower river, e.g. shortnose gar and
bowfin near reproductive bayous, and others more abundant in
the upper river, e.g. redhorse which were particularly sensi-
tive to increased temperatures caused by the two EGSs. Other
species populations were found to be either more or less com-
mon near the EGSs than in flanking regions of the river. The
species composition, therefore, shifted considerably in dif-
ferent parts of the river, sometimes in response to natural
factors and sometimes because of man-induced changes in water
guali ty.
We also examined five quantitative measures of community
structure including (1) relative density (no/km), (2) relative
biomass (wt/km), (3) number of species per station, (4) Shan-
non index of diversity based on numbers, and (5) Shannon index
of diversity based on weights. The two Shannon indices were
calculated as follows:
H = - T(ni Ln
^~- 1
\N
Where nj_ = the numbers or weight of individual species
in the sample
N = the total number or weight of fish in the
sample
All of these community parameters exhibited a common general
pattern over the 100 miles of river, but with some interest-
ing anomalies here and there which made interpretation diffi-
cult.
338
-------
In 1975 an additional 100 miles of the upper Wabash
River was included in the sampling program and all of the
data collected during 1973-75 was analyzed for evenness in-
dices associated with the two Shannon diversity indices and
a composite index in addition to the previously mentioned
measures of community structure (Gammon 1976) . The compos-
ite index of well-being (Iwb) was calculated according to
the formula:
3-wb = 0.5 Ln N + 0.5 Ln W + Shannon (no.) + Shannon /wt \
where N = the number captured per km
W = the weight captured per km
Shannon/no^) = Shannon index based on numbers
Shannon(wt^) = Shannon index based on weights
This composite index combines two widely used indices of
diversity and two widely used indices of abundance in approxi-
mately equal quantities to form a single composite value re-
flecting both the diversity and abundance of fish in the col-
lections. It appears to reflect the general "health" of the
fish community and, hence, the water quality somewhat more
satisfactorily than any single community index or indicator
species.
In 1976 a thirty mile segment of the Great Miami River
was investigated by this general method as part of a larger
effort which attempted to measure the relative impact of two
electrical generating stations within a great number of po-
tential impacts (Gammon 1977). In 1977, 130 miles of the
Wabash River were again studied and demonstrated some inter-
esting contrasts to the 1973-75 study. It is the intent of
this paper to examine and evaluate the findings of this com-
munity structure approach as applied to the Wabash and Great
Miami Rivers.
339
-------
The Rivers and Methods
The Great Miami River
The Miami River Valley from Dayton to the Ohio River is
thickly settled and heavily industrialized. The river at
Dayton, Ohio drains 6,508 km2 (2,513 mi 2) of land and has a
flow which averages 2,206 cfs. (Todd 1970). Weston (1967)
has detailed the uses and polluted state of the river.
Seventeen collecting stations were established on the
river and two each on the lower portions of the Mad and Still-
water Rivers (Figure 1). Each station was located on the out-
side of gradual bends in the river and were about 0.33 km long
as measured with a Lietz optical rangefinder. A series of dams
created lentic-like habitats and also blocked upstream move-
ments of fish, including the Steele Dam (River Mile 81.3), Tait
Dam (RM 76.6), Hutchings Dam (RM 63.5), and Chautauqua Dam
(RM 61.6).
Each month from June through September, 1976 fish were
collected from each station using a battery-powered 600 VDC
electrofishing unit. When depth and discharge permitted each
station was electrofished from upstream to downstream by wad-
ing, otherwise a 12' boat containing the electrofishing unit
and two personnel was moved slowly near shore over the measured
di stanc e.
340
-------
Dayton STP
Hutchings
Electrical
Generating
Plant
Tait Electrical
Generating Plant
Moraine STP
CARROLLTON
•W. Carrollton STP
MIAMIBURG
Miamiburg STP
FRANKLIN
Franklin STP
MIDDLETOWN
Figure 1; Location of sampling stations in relation to
sewage treatment effluents and electric
generating stations.
341
-------
The Wabash River
The Wabash River at Terre Haute drains 31,598 km2
(12,200 mi2) and has an average discharge of 10,200 cfs.
(Todd 1970). Although several large flood control reservoirs
have been constructed on tributaries, the Wabash River itself
flows freely in response to changing weather conditions. Tur-
bidity is generally high because of silt during high discharge
and because of high densities of diatoms during summer. Water
quality is influenced importantly by extensive agriculture
throughout the basin, by coal strip mines in the southern part
of the drainage basin, and by discharges from municipalities
and industries (Figure 2).
In 1977 a total of 47 collecting stations were established
throughout 145 miles of river, including 8 stations at the Cay-
uga Electrical Generating Station (EGS) and 6 at the Wabash EGS
(Figure 2). Each sampling station consisted of a 0.5 km sec-
tion of outside bend as measured with a Lietz rangefinder.
Many stations were in the same locations used in 1973, 1974,
and 1975.
The collecting apparatus consisted of a Smith-Root Type VI
electrofisher powered by a 3000 watt generator. Pulse configu-
ration consisted of a triangular wave interrupted into 60 pps
and producing 400-600 VDC at approximately 5 amps. The pulsed
DC current was fed into an electrode system consisting of two
circlets of short stainless-steel anodes extended by booms ap-
proximately 8 feet off the bow of a 16 foot John boat and two
gangs of long woven copper cathodes weighed at the ends and sus-
pended from port and starboard gunwales near the bow.
The basic procedure for collecting was to begin at the up-
stream boundary and slowly electrofish downstream as close to
shore and cover as possible to the end of the station. Sta-
tions were electrofished sequentially from up-river to down-
river until all had been visited, usually within a 4-6 day period
Following each collecting run fish were identified to spe-
cies, weighed, and measured and then returned unharmed to the
river. All data was recorded on magnetic tape and disc and then
analyzed.
342
-------
WHITE
I
TIPPECANOE
WARREN JL/278
MONTGOMERY
VIGO , Figure 2: River mile location
of electrofishing
sampling stations.
SULLIVAN
343
-------
Results - The Great Miami River
A total of 2,545 individuals belonging to 40 species of
fish were collected in 1976 by electrofishing over a total
distance of 27.24 km. The most common species were longear
sunfish, green sunfish, carp, stoneroller, smallmouth bass,
gizzard shad, rock bass, goldfish, golden redhorse, and hog
sucker, which together comprised 76.4% of the numeric catch
(Table 1) .
However, the nature of the fish community changed mark-
edly as the river passes through Dayton, Ohio. The largest
and most diversified fish community was found in the Still-
water River (Figure 3). This community was dominated by hog
suckers, golden redhorse, spotted sucker, smallmouth bass,
rock bass, and longear sunfish.
The upper three stations of the Great Miami River were
also supportive of a large, relatively diverse fish commun-
ity although rock bass were scarce and green sunfish much
more abundant.
The fish community in the lower part of the Mad River
was of a different character than anywhere else and was dom-
inated by stonerollers with a scattering of other species.
Industrial effluents above and in this reach may affect the
biotic composition, as noted previously by Conn (1972) .
The fish communities in the Dayton Pool of the Great
Miami River between the Steele and Tait Dams (RM 81.3 and RM
76.6) were somewhat less diverse and numerous than upriver
stations. This section appeared to be severely stressed
prior to the June sampling period and then improved through-
out the summer despite falling water levels. The community
immediately below the Steele Dam was always more diverse and
numerous than stations further downstream. Gizzard shad,
golden 'Shiner, and largemouth bass were far more common in
this pool than anywhere else. Species which were reduced in
abundance compared to further upstream sections included
smallmouth bass, rock bass, green sunfish, bluegill, golden
redhorse, and spotted sucker. White sucker, carp, and gold-
fish - all of which are pollution tolerant species - increased
in abundance compared to upstream stations.
The pool between Tait and Hutchings Dams (RM 76.6 and
RM 63.5) contained fish communities very similar qualitatively
to those just upstream although much lower in density. How-
ever, in the section of river downstream from the Dayton STP
the fish community consisted primarily of carp, goldfish,
carp/goldfish hybrids, and, in certain areas, white suckers.
Not only was the catch reduced to only about 40 individuals/km
(compared to 150/km in the upper stations, for example) , but
the individuals captured were often small, young fish. At
times it appeared that no fish whatever inhibited some parts
of this pool.
344
-------
Table 1: Number of fish captured by electrofishing in 1976 in several sections of the
Great Miami River and its main tributaries.
CO
-P»
01
Species
Gizzard shad
Grass pickerel
Hog sUcker
White sucker
Golden redhorse
Black redhorse
Silver redhorse
Shorthead redhorse
Spotted sucker
Quillback
Carp
Goldfish
Carp/Goldfish hybrids
Golden shiner
Striped shiner
Spotfin shiner
Silver shiner
Mimic shiner
Emerald shiner
Creek chub
Stoneroller
Bluntnose minnows
Fathead minnow
Suckermouth minnow
Channel catfish
Yellow bullhead
S tonecat
Mad
River
10
-
11
9
1
-
-
-
4
-
10
-
-
1
4
4
7
-
-
-
127
6
-
-
-
-
1
Still-
water
River
4
-
52
2 '
42
x -
2 \
2
19
-
9
-
-
10
2
3
2
-
-
2
6
5
-
-
-
-
1
Above
Dayton
16
-
4
12
29
1
-
1
12
-
9
-
-
33
2
23
1
1
-
-
2
30
5
-
-
1
-
Gree
In
Dayton C
110
-
28
22
29
4
-
4
5
3
24
28
2
47
1
9
8
-
2
2
28
32
2
3
1
-
-
it Miami River
Dayton STP
to
^hautauqua Dam
2
-
3
28
-
-
-
-
-
-
125
69
4
4
-
5
1
-
-
7
6
6
-
-
-
1
-
~~~— •"-":=•-- ~- — =: — — — -~
Chautauque Dam
to
Middletown
1
1
3
2
1
-
-
-
-
-
53
32
2
1
4
24
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
Table 1: continued
01
Species
Smallmouth bass
Largemouth bass
Rock bass
Warmouth
Longear sunfisji
Orangespot sunfish
Green sunfish
Pumpkinseed
Bluegil 1
Black crappie
White crappie
Log perch
Greenside darter
Banded darter
No . collecting
stations
Total distance
electrof i shed -Km
Total no . fish
Mean No . /Km .
No . of species
Mad
River
13
-
9
-
6
-
16
-
-
-
-
-
2
~
2
2.28
241
105.7
18
Still-
water
River
48
3
79
3
154
1
54
-
15
-
-
4
2
•~
2
2 .48
526
212 .1
26
Above
Dayton
54
2
14
-
169
3
118
-
33
2
-
5
-
*~~
3
3 .84
582
151 . 6
26
G:
In
Dayton
41
10
21
3
106
10
63
2
15
-
7
2
4
1
5
7 .08
688
97 .2
35
:eat Miami River
Dayton STP
to
Chautauqua Dam
5
2
3
-
19
1
18
-
5
-
-
-
-
"
6
7.92
314
39 .6
20
Chautauque Dam
to
Middletown
3
-
3
1
28
1
27
-
6
-
—
—
-
3
3.64
194
53.3
19
-------
W. Carrollton
Miamisburg
Goldfish
& Carp
Franklin
Other
Cyprinidae
Other
species
suckers &
redhor s e
\longear,green,
& orangespot
sunfish
Middletown
Figure 3s? Composition of the fish communities of the
Great Miami -River system. The area of each
circle is proportional to the relative den-
sity (no/km) .
347
-------
The fish community in the pool between Hutchings Dam
(RM 63.5) and Chautaugua Dam (RM 61.7) was similar to those
above the former, consisting principally of carp and gold-
fish with a small scattering of other species.
Carp and goldfish continued to dominate the community be-
tween Chautauqua Dam (RM 61.7) and Middletown Dam (RM 55.8),
but longear sunfish, green sunfish and spotfin shiner also be-
come common elements in the catch. In the last collecting
stations in this pool (RM 58.0) there appeared to be a numer-
ous and diverse community which probably indicated a recovery
from the stresses further upstream.
The major sources of pollution appeared to be the waste
treatment effluents from Dayton, Miamisburg, West Carrollton,
and Moraine, the organic particles of which settled out in
pools causing a steady production of bubbles throughout the
summer and early fall. The dissolved oxygen concentrations
fell to lows of 2.0 mg/1 and less each month of the study as
measured by the Miamisburg A water quality monitor of the
Miami Conservancy District at RM 65.75. Numerous other efflu-
ents bearing a variety of industrial wastes to the Great Miami
River and two small electrical generating stations are also
present, but the major problem is of an organic nature.
Such a stressed system where the impacts are large and
clearcut provides a good opportunity to examine the community
structure approach as a tool of evaluation. As would be ex-
pected, the trends exhibited by all of the community indices
reflected the altered fish communities with relatively high
numbers, biomass, and diversities characterizing the communi-
ties upstream from Dayton and lo-w values for the communities
below Dayton (Figures 4,5, and 6). A similar pattern is ex-
hibited by the mean weight of fish (excluding carp and gold-
fish) with means of 60-120 g in upstream stations and 10-30 g
in environmentally degraded sections. The combined local in-
fluence of the Tait EGS and dam causes a brief decrease in bio-
mass and'an increase in the two Shannon diversities.
The composite index of well-being brings together these
elements to regularize the basic pattern which shows, in ad-
dition to the community extremes, a zone of intermediate char-
acter within Dayton (RM 75 to RM 80) and a zone of recovery
below Chautauqua Dam (RM 57 to RM 62) (Figure 7 ). The stan-
dard errors were much smaller both in the upstream zones and
in the recovery area indicating a comparative stability of the
environment in these segments compared to the more unstable,
impacted areas.
348
-------
CO
-p.
to
rt
-i
TO
C
CD
-£»
CD
3
CD P n>
3 P
CD rt 3
p rr c
rt CD 3
CT4
S rt CD
H- O i-{
3 (/)
S C^O
P 3 CD
d. cr n
<• CD H-
>-S CD
P
3 O
PL. O O
M H+i
CO I—1
rt- CD I-h
H- n H-
I— ' rt in
I-1 CD ET
s: P-
P n
rt- H- O
CD 3 )-•
Mean number of Species
collected per trip
H-
CD
Hi CD
o n
<-i CD
rt
H- CD
Total number of
different species
taken in 4 trips
CD
H-
t— '
CD
O
-------
CO
in
o
V) rX
I 1
10
rt
E
o
•H
PQ
250
200
50
0
25
20
15
10
5
0
55
60
65
River Mile
70 75
80
t
Franklin
STP
o Mad R.
X Stillwater R.
t
V,' . C a r r o 1 1 1 o n
iamisburg STP
STP
Hatchings Dam
Dam
t t
I
I
Tait
Dam
Day ton
STP
t
85
S te ele Dam
Chautauqua
Figure 5; Relative density and biomass profile of the fish community of the
Great Miami R. and tributaries. Based on four collections June -
September, 1976 (mean ± 1 S.E.)
90
250
200
150
100
50
0
25
20
15
10
5
0
-------
River Mile
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
GO
cn
c/1
X ,0
•H £
C/l ^
fn 2;
0
•H
Q
CD
CD
•H
^
l
O
cd 4-1
co e»o
•H
CD
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
o Mad R.
x Stillwater R
t
t ^ i * t *
r
I
I Tait Dam
Dayton STP
r
S teele Dam
W. Carrollton
Franklin STP
STP Miamisburg STP
Hutchings Dam
Chautauqua Dam
Figure 6: Shannon-Wiener indices of diversity (numbers and weights) for fish
collections of the Great Miami R. and tributaries. Based on four
collections June - September, 1976. (mean ± I S.E.)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
-------
River Mile
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
GO
cn
ro
CxO
0)
o
X
7
6
5
4
3
o Mad R.
X Stillwater R.
Franklin
STP
11 /.
W. CarrolIton
STP
Miamisburg STP
Hutchings Dam
Chautauaua Dam
t
Tait Dam
Dayton STP
Steele Dam
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 7; Composite Index profile of fish community of the Great Miami R.
and tributaries. Based on four collections June - September,
1976. (mean ± 1 S.E.),
-------
Results - The Wabash River
The analyses of the fish communities in the Wabash River
are based upon 7,120 individuals of 57 species captured dur-
ing the period 1973-75 and 3,795 individuals of 51 species
captured in 1977 (Table 2) .
The character of the fish communities in the Wabash River
also changes fxom place to place. As illustrated by the 1975
data (Figure 8) upriver from Lafayette the community is dom-
inated by redhorse, hog sucker, carpsucker, and carp. The
various species of sportfish, although more common here than
elsewhere, make up a relatively small part of the catch. Down-
stream from Lafayette gizzard shad and carp dominate the catch
while carpsuckers and redhorse diminish in importance. Flat-
head catfish, which have been shown to be stimulated by the
thermal inputs, become common downstream from Cayuga EGS .
The various community parameters generated from electro-
fishing data exhibited patterns which declined from upstream
to downstream, but with a good deal more "noise" than with the
Great Miami River data. Only the composite index is included
here (Figure 9 ), but all of the community parameters exhibited
the same basic pattern (Gammon 1976). Some annual variations
occurred primarily in relation to summer discharge, but gener-
ally regional variations were greater than temporal variations.
The range of IWJD values is less extreme, but of the same
magnitude as those obtained in the Great Miami River study.
High values from 7.0 to 8.0 were found upstream from Lafayette
(RM 310). A general, erratic decline occurred from Lafayette
to Cayuga (RM 250 to RM 310), then a low plateau from Cayuga
to Wabash EGS (RM 215 to RM 250). A brief recovery is indi-
cated in the immediate vicinity of Terre Haute and then another
decline occurred downstream from Terre Haute (RM 185 to RM 200)
Between 1975 and 1977 there appeared to be a rather sig-
nificant improvement downstream from Lafayette. The reach of
river between the two EGSs was found to have the poorest fish
communities during the 1973-75 period with Iwk values around
5.0 - 5.5. In 1977 the Iwj-> values declined even further to
4.0 - 5.0. This decline in the composite index was indicative
of worsened environmental conditions. Immediately following
the last series of collections in mid July 1977 this section of
river developed severe problems with low dissolved oxygen con-
centration (Gammon and Riedy, 1980). Thus, the fish community
showed by its abundance and diversity that unfavorable environ-
mental conditions were present in this segment long before any
stress was detected by chemical means.
353
-------
Table 2: Aggregate electrofishing catch of fish in 145
miles of the Wabash River during 1977.
NAME
Silvery Lamprey
Shlnse. Sturgeon
Paddlef ish
Bowf in
Longnose Gar
Shortnose Gar
Gizzard shad
Skipjack Herring
Goldeye
Mooneye
Yellow Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Flathead Catfish
American Eel
White Perch
White Bass
Freshwater Drum
+Carp
Goldf ish+Carp Hy
Qback Carpsucker
White Sucker
Nrthrn. Hogsucker
Bigmouth Buffalo
Spotted Sucker
Silver Redhorse
Black Redhorse
Golden Redhorse
Shorthd. Redhorse
River Redhorse
N. Riv. Carpsucker
Hifin Carpsucker
Blue Sucker
Smallmth. Buffalo
Black Buffalo
Emerald shiner
Spotfin Shiner
Creek Chub
Silvery Minnow
River Chub
Rockbass
Bluegill
Longear Sunfish
Smallmouth Bass
Largemouth Bass
White Crappie
Black Crappie
Spotted Bass
Redear Sunfish
Greenside Darter
Logperch
Sauger
# CT.
17
9
1
13
52
60
1704
13
37
26
1
39
135
9
2
60
57
586
1
6
2
60
9
1
58
4
118
184
10
205
6
17
20
3
11
19
8
6
1
5
3
105
15
1
12
1
21
1
1
2
50
: = = = = = := = = :
% CT.
0.44
0 .23
0 .02
0 .34
1.37
1.58
44 .90
0 .34
0 .97
0.68
0.02
0 .02
3. 55
0 .23
0 .05
1 .58
1 . 50
15 .44
0 .02
0.15
0 .05
1.58
0 .23
0.02
1.52
0.10
3 . 10
4 .84
0.47
5.40
0 .15
0.44
0 .52
0 .07
0 .29
0 .50
• 0.21
0.15
0 .02
0 .13
0.07
2.76
0 .39
0.02
0.31
0 .02
0. 55
0.02
0 .02
0 .05
1.31
WT . (KG)
0.19
11.57
1.70
16.89
26.30
31 .64
325 .72
1.75
16.59
7 .71
0 .37
23 .73
59.59
4.64
0 .31
10.90
37 .67
1115.24
1 .00
2.16
1.18
17.62
24.27
0.59
56 .47
2.38
89 .09
122.63
22.56
142.52
3.15
35^47
52 .32
8.29
0 .16
0 .15
0 .15
0.11
0.00
0 .84
0.23
4.60
5.46
0 .21
1.70
0 .17'
3 .49
0 .02
0.00
0 .05
35.95
% WT.
0 .00
0 .49
0 .07
0.72
1.13
1.35
13 .99
0 .07
0 .71
0.33
0 .01
1.01
2 . 56
0.19
0.01
0.46
1 .61
47.91
0 .04
0.09
0 .05
0 .75
1 .04
0.02
2.42
0 .10
3 . 82
5 .26
0 .96
6.12
0 .13
1 .52
2. 24
0.35
0 .00
0.00
0 . 00
0.00
0. 00
0.03
0 .01
0.19
0.23
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.15
0.00
0 .00
0 .00
1 .54
354
-------
Andrews
to
Lafayette
Lafayette
to
Big Pine Crk
Cayuga.
K • G • S •
Wabash
E.G.S.
Terre Haute
to
Darwin
Figure
GS=gizzard shad
A=carp
R=redhorse and
hog sucker
C=carpsuckers
F=flathead catfish
S=w.bass,blk.bass,
sauger,walleye,&
centrarchids other
than longear sunfish
O=other species
Composition of the electrofishing catch during 1975
in designated segments of the Wabash River. The area of
the circle is proportional tc the mean No/Km. (Gammon, 1976
355
-------
Pi scussion
The fish communities of the Wabash River and the Great
Miami River are formed from the same species with some excep-
tions. These communities respond to various environmental
stresses by reorganizations in species composition. Where
stress is large, as in the Great Miami River below Dayton,
Ohio, the community composition shifts toward obviously pol-
lution tolerant species of fish. However, where stress is
small and/or diffuse, as in most of the Wabash River and in
the Great Miami River at Dayton, the shift in species compo-
sition, if present at all, is too subtle to detect with assur-
ance. It appears that different indices of community struc-
ture may provide a means of detecting subtle shifts in stressed
communities and that a blend of different indices, as for ex-
ample the composite index, may serve to magnify and clarify the
community response to subtle perturbations.
A composite index may also act as a normalizer, permitting
comparisons of different rivers as well as different sections
of river . In the Great Miami River good sections of stream
yielded catches whose community parameters were 150/km, 20
kg/km, and Shannon indices of 1.5 to 2.0, while poor sections
yielded catches less than 50/km, 5 kg/km, and shannon indices
of 0.8 to 1.2. Fewer, but larger, fish were taken in the
Wabash River, but Shannon diversities tended to be similar to
those from the Great Miami River communities. Table 3 summa-
rizes the community parameters from good and poor sections of
both rivers and an intermediate value for each parameter.
Of special interest is the fact that, although there are
differences in relative density and relative biomass, the com-
posite indices are very similar for good, intermediate, and
poor communities in the two rivers, approximately 7.5 for good
communities, 6.25 for intermediate communities, and 5.0 for
poor communities. Using these values to delineate environmen-
tal conditions of these rivers, values exceeding 7.5 appear to
reflect a good environment, a fair environment is indicated
when values are 6.25 to 7.5, a poor environment from 5.0 to
6.25, and a degraded environment when values fall below 5.0.
Applying this criteria to the composite index profiles
for the two rivers helps clarify and interpret the results of
studies of this kind. The deteriorating environmental condi-
tions in the Wabash River between Cayuga and Wabash EGSs is
indicated by a decline in Iwb values from the poor interval in
1973-75 to the degraded interval in 1977 (Figure 10 ). Using
this criterion for the Great Miami River profile the 15 mile
segment from the Dayton STP to Franklin, Ohio is clearly de-
graded, the lower Mad River and the short portion of main river
in downtown Dayton is poor, and the upper section of river as
well as the Stillwater River would be classified as good
(Figure 11 ).
It may be that this kind of approach may be of value for
other rivers of this kind. Would that there were clean rivers
356
-------
in the midwest which could be used as a comparison for the
majority. In the absence of such desirable waters and taking
the optimistic view that some rivers may become less polluted
and environmentally upgraded, this community structure ap-
proach may be useful in gauging progress toward the desired
goal .
357 ,
-------
Table 3: Community values delineating good, intermediate,
and poor fish communities in the Wabash and Great
Miami Rivers.
Parameter
No/km
Kg/km
Shannon-no .
Shannon-wt .
zwb
Great
Good
150
20
2 .0
1.5
7.5
Miami Rive
Intermed .
100
10
1.6
1.1
6.15
r
Poor
50
5
1.2
0.8
4.76
Good
60
50
1 .8
1.8
7 .60
Wabash Rive
Intermed .
45
35
1.4
1.4
6.48
jr
Poor
30
20
1 .0
1.0
5. 20
358
-------
ese
MEAN COMPOSITE INDEX - I
WB
01 cn
00
40 320 300 280 260 240 220" 200 180
RIVER MILE
Figure 9: The composite index as it reflects environmental conditions
of the Wabash River in 1973-75 and 1977.
\\
\v—
—» e
i
0 , '
Vv^
""«!
M
0 •
<5 CD
->l -vl
OJ ^
-J
Ol
y Degraded
u JL
0^
*0(T
b»°~
Vs'
4
c.
^7^"
^®
i
y
1
<
^^
'O
\
\
0^
^^O
o-'"'
y
~"~— P
•^"ol1
i
o.^
""c
-O"''
*-o
D''
t-r^~~
>v
o
o
:b *
v""-o
I
1
X
<
• i .^T
X
— —
D ^_^-
x^
>
7>
^
pi
H-
H
1
oj
\
V
\
\
o
1
s° ]
J "
cn
o
o
&
i
^-Delphi
^"'Tippecanoe R.
W. Lafayette STP
v-Lafayette STP
Eli Lilly
<- Black Rock
<— Big Pine Crk.
^-Attica STP
<— Olin Corp:
<— Covington STP
^~Big Vermilion R.
^-Cayuga EGS
"^^Inland Container
«— Sugar Crk.
<— Montezuma STP
<~~"Big Raccoon Crk.
<-EII Lilly
<— Clinton STP
^-Wabash EGS
<- Terre Haute STP
*— Honey Crk.
33
rn
o
N
OJ
4^
01
cn
•>!
00
CO
O
—
^ i-fi (Ti ^l QO
-------
CO
cn
o
o
4J
0)
>t
1)
4J
4J
0)
>i
IT)
*W
0)
o u
U
co
w
TJ
tn
3
(I)
o
c
4-
4_
>-
(^
c
3
a
2
0)
0)
C
O
O
Qt O
U
,x
0)
<1J
M
CJ
0)
(1)
coo
O 4J
O M
CJ
CJ
(U
4J
td
p;
4J
O
co
o
w
X
w
(fl
X!
IB
0)
4J
3
rtJ
0)
EH
0)
4J
O -H
4J S
nl
Q
0)
EH
1977
340
240 220 200
River Mile
Figure 10: **«»£ «P««nt.tion of the magnitude and direction of changes
180
-------
River Mile
CO
O-l
pq
c
•H
CD
PQ
i >.
W.Carrollton
STP
Miamisburg STP
Hutchings Dam
Chautauqua Dam
t
t t
Tait Dam Steele Dam
Dayton STP
Figure ll;The composite index as it reflects environmental conditions
of the Great Miami River in 1976.
-------
References
Bechtel, T. J. and B. J. Copeland. 1970. Fish
sity indices as indicators of pollution in
Texas. Cont. Mar. Sci., 15:103-132.
species diver-
Galveston Bay,
Conn, C. C. 1972. Biological survey of the Mad River
Cons. Dist. Report. 21 pp. mimeo.
Miami
Denoncourt, R. F. and J. W. Stambaugh, Jr. 1974. An ichthyo-
faunal survey and discussion of fish species diversity as
an indicator of water quality, Codorus Creek drainage,
York County, Pennsylvania. Proc. Pa. Acad. Sci. 48:71-78.
Gammon, J. R. 1971. The response of fish populations in the
Wabash River to heated effluents. Proc. Third Nat. Symp.
Radioecology, Vol. 1:513-523.
Gammon, J. R. 1973. The effect of thermal inputs on the popu-
lations of fish macroinvertebrates in the Wabash River.
Water Res. Res. Center, Purdue U., Tech. Report No.
32:105 pp.
Gammon, J. R. 1977. The fish community of the Great Miami
River near Dayton, Ohio. Report to Dayton Power and Light
Co., Dayton, Ohio. 52 pp. mimeo.
Gammon, J. R. and J. M. Reidy. 1980. The role of tributaries
during an episode of low dissolved oxygen in the Wabash
River. Warmwater Streams Symposium. In press
McErlean, A. J., S. G. O'Connor, J. A. Mihursky, and C. I.
Gibson. 1973. Abundance, diversity and seasonal patterns
of estuarine fish populations. Est. & Coastal Mar. Sci. I
McErlean, A. J. and J. A. Mihursky. 1969. Species diversity-
species abundance of fish populations: an examination of
various methods. Proc. 22nd Ann. Conf. So. Coast Assoc.
Game & Fish Comm. : 367-372.
Richards, J
the Au
Trans.
S. 1976. Changes in fish species composition in
Sable River, Michigan from the 1920's to 1972.
Am. Fish. Soc . 1Q 5 (.1) : 3 2-40 .
Teppen, T. C. and J. R. Gammon. 1976. Distribution and abun-
dance of fish populations in the middle Wabash River.
Thermal Ecology II (ERDA Symp. Series) CONF - 75-425:
272-283.
Todd, D. K. 1970. The water encyclopedia.
Port Washington, N.Y. 559 pp.
Water Inf. Center,
Wilhm, J. L. and T. C. Dorris. 1966. Species diversity of
benthic macroinvertebrates in a stream receiving domestic
and oil refinery effluents. Am Midi. Nat. 76:427-449.
362
-------
Wilhm, J. L. and T. C. Dorris. 1968. Biological parameters
for water quality criteria. Bioscience 18:477-481.
363
-------
BIOTIC IMPACT OF ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SEDIMENTS
J.K. BLAND
Project Officer
Water Quality Management Branc
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
365
-------
Introduction
For the past two years I have functioned as a 208 program project
officer in the Ohio Water Quality Management Section of United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Prior to that time I was an
environmental educator at the Field Museum of Natural History and
was involved in several years of stream related work. During this
period I have the followed the development of 208 water quality
management initiatives in several cities and states and have had a
continual concern about the infusion of biological objectives into
those programs. From my perspective we seem to be inordinately
concerned about water quality from a chemical standpoint to the
detriment of clearly articulated biological goals and monitoring.
Most resource managers wouldn't think of grading the "quality" of
a prairie by its soil chemistries yet streams are continually "graded"
and managed largely on the basis of in-stream chemistries and waste
load allocations. We don't deny the need for such chemical measurements
but feel that we have been spending a great deal of time gauging
the "baby's bathwater" without looking at how the baby itself is doing.
Furthermore, in-stream chemical standards have too frequently been
developed on a state wide basis without recognition of the biogeo-
graphical distinctions necessary to give resolution to the standard
setting process. In Region V I know of only one State, Illinois
(James Park, Illinois Environmental Proteciton Agency personal
communication), which is developing a biologically based hierarchy
with which to generate stream use-classifications.
Gauging Biological Responses
Institution of a set of management practices is based on the
assumption that the causal events of the system under study are
known, that the major determinants of the system are susceptible
to management, and that the effects of management will not be obscured
by contingencies. If a set of "best management practices"is to
be determined, it is necessary to have specific goals for the response
of the system/watershed being managed. This is difficult because various
schools of biolog'ists have different concepts of what represents biological
integrity in a stream. The stated goal of the Clean Water Act of
fishable, swimable, waters is too broadly stated to be meaningful
in actually judging the performance of a set of best management practices
within a watershed. Several recent monographs published by USEPA
have dealt with the problem of establishing a conceptual framework
for setting management goals for watersheds (cf. "Toward a Classification
for Watershed Management and Stream Protection" C. Warren, 1979,
U.S.E.P.A.-600-79-059; and "Impacts of Sediment and Nutrients on Biota
in Surface Waters of the United States." Farnsworth, et.al,
EPA-600/3-79-105). Currently, such goal setting has de facto reverted
to the states and areawide agencies. What exists, as a consequence,
is a patchwork quilt of management perspectives and a variety of approaches
to the problem of watershed management. In a situation where a scientific
consensus doesn't exist it is perhaps useful that a variety of approaches
does exist. However, without a conceptual framework with which to
judge the effectiveness of these approaches there is no way to assess
their comparitive merits. Restoring the chemcial, physical, and biological
integrity of the nation's waters requires knowledge of the structural
and functional characteristics of natural aquatic ecosystems and the
adoption of a systematic set of biologically based goals.
366
-------
Organic Sediments
Two broad classes of sediments can be distinguished, organic
and inorganic. For the purposes of characterizing in-stream impacts
of organic sediments we will outline the work of Ken Cummins (1975),
and James Karr (1977a, 1977b).
Cummins (1974, 1975) proposed a process-oriented, functional
framework for for analyzing running water environments. The framework
describes stream systems as a continuum beginning with first, second and
third order streams typical of headwater environments through mainstem
streams segments. As part of our slide presentation we will follow
a typical midwestern stream system (Hickory Creek) from a first order
stream reach through its confluence with the Des Plaines River at
which point it represents a fifth order stream. Cummins distinguishes
the various physical, chemical, and biological differences characteristic
of the transition in stream order. A summary of these differences
is given in table No. 1 and diagramed in Fig. No. 1.
Headwaters portions of streams (first, second, and third order reaches)
are dominated by inputs from stream-side vegetation. Energy input
into the system derives from leaf fall, twigs, etc. Levels of sunlight,
especially during the late spring and summer, are greatly reduced by
the overhanging vegetative cover and as a consequence comparitively
little "primary production" in the form of algal communities originates
in this portion of the stream. For the same reason temperature
fluctuations in these reaches are more moderate. Coarse Particulate
Organic Matter (CPOM) which is deposited is processed by a community
of bacteria, fungi and macroinvertebrates adapted to this type of
organic base. Macroinvertebrate communities are dominated by "shredders"
capable of dissecting and processing leaves and twigs (CPOM). The
ratio of photosynthesis to respiration is less than one in these
headwater reaches, indicating that the system has a heterotrophic energy
economy dominated by the import of organic matter from the contiguous
terrestrial communities. As a consequence of the processing of
macroinvertebrate communities CPOM is broken down and fragmented into
finer particles or Fine Particulate Organic Matter (FPOM) which is
subsequently transported downstream. Coarse sediments in the form
of rubble and gravel dominate the bottom surface of the stream. Fish
communities are characterized by headwaters species which are largely
insectivorous. Cummins (1975) has estimated that the biota processes
about 80 percent of the Particulate Organic Matter (POM) and 50 percent
of the Dissolved Organic Matter (DOM) in first through third order
streams.
In mid-reaches of the stream continuum (fourth through sixth order
streams) the basic energy economy of the system shifts. Stream width
increases, overhanging vegetation no longer provides dense shading, and
available light and substrate increase to the degree that substantial
primary production can now take place. The ratio of photosynthesis
to respiration shifts to a value greater that one indicating that the
system is no longer predominately heterotrophic. Upstream import of
both CPOM and FPOM is still taking place with FPOM the dominant variety
of import material. As a consequence a varied assemblage of macro-
invertebrates inhabit these reaches. Grazers, which feed off algal
forms originating in these reaches, are an addition to the invertebrate
fauna, and a variety of "collectors" or filter feeders is common.
Fish populations include insectivores and piscivores (fish eaters).
367
-------
STREAM ORDER
STREAM ORDER
STREAM ORDER
GO
•
00
-------
Figure -i A theoretical diagrammatic representation of certain changes in
structure function in running water ecosystems from headwater
to the mouth (stream order shown at the left). The organisms
pictured are merely possible representatives of the functional
groups shown (A). The decreasing direct influence of the adjacent
terrestrial component of the watershed and increasing importance
of upstream import from the headwaters (B, orders 1-3) to the
mouth is a basic feature of the system. Coupled with this is a
decrease in shredders and an increased dominance of collectors.
The mid-region of the river system is seen as the major region
of primarily production (growth of green plants) and associated
grazer populations (C, orders 4-6). The lower reaches become
more turbid with increased importance of plankton (D, orders 7-12).
The fishes are dominated by invertivores in the headwaters, and
piscivores in the larger sections with planktivores important in
the highest order.
Torn K.Cummins,1975;"The Ecology of Runnin.j WaLors;Theory and Practice",
±-£iLJ:J!£-^^^
369
-------
Table 1. General characteristics of running uaters clustered into three stream order groupings.
Stream
Orders
1-3
4-6
7-12
Size
Small, head-
vater
springs
and streams.
Medium sized
rivers.
Large
rivers.
Ueteroirophy
Autoirophy '
He tero trophic
(P/R<1,
see Table 2).
Autotrophic
(P/R >1,
(see Table 2).
He tero trophic
(P/R <1,
(see Table 2).
Organic Matter
Inputs of
Terrestrial Origin
Of major
importance.
Coarse
particulate
organic matter
(CPOM)
dominant.
Of moderate
importance.
CPOM less
significant,
fine
particulate
organic matter
(FFOM) from
upstream of
greater
importance
Of minor
importance.
F?OM frora
upstream
dominant
'•'rim.iry
Production
Of minor
importance;
some algae
and mosses.
Of major
importance;
algae and
vascular
hydrophytes
Of moderate -to
minor
importance;
primarily
planktonic.
Light
Regime
Heavily
shaded.
Little
shading,
good
light
penetra-
tion.
Little
shading,
poor
light
penetra-
tion due
to
turbidity.
Temperature
Regirce
Lesser daily
tei.iperaturc
fluctuation
(shading and
groundwater
effect).
Greater daily
temperature
fluctuation
(open, less
groundwater
effect) .
Lesser daily
temperature
fluctuation
(moderation
by large
volume)
Document
Sediments
Coarse
Coarse and
fine.
Fine
o
f~~
oo
From K.Cummins,1975;"The Ecology of Running Waters;Theory and Practice",
in Procoodinqa ftho Sandur.k
-------
Further downstream (seventh to twelveth order) the stream energy
economy again shifts and becomes heterotrophic. The stream has become
deeper, it has collected more upstream sediments, it has a higher
nutrient load, and attached algal forms are no longer as common as
they were in the mid-reaches. The increased turbidity reduces light
penetration, the potential for photosynthesis is reduced, and substrate
availability is reduced for bottom attachment of periphyton. Primary
production and photosynthesis take place through free floating algal
forms and a greater diversity of planktonic forms develop. The
macroinvertebrate community is dominated by "collector" organisms.
Fish populations of the large rivers will include a large variety
of planktivores along with other varieties of fish eating and insect
eating species. It will be apparent that regional and seasonal variations
must be superimposed on Cummins archtype.
Potential implications of such a functional-process oriented
framework for stream management become apparent if we consider the
decision to locate a sewage treatment plant outfall pipe. A sewage
treatment plant discharges DOM and FPOM from its outfall pipe. The
impact of such materials for the in-stream energy economy and the
fisheries and macroinvertebrate communities would require not only
a consideration of concentrations of chemical parameters but an estimation
of overall organic loads, a consideration of the position of the outfall
pipe along the stream continuum, and a gauging of the significance of the
sewage treatment plant organic discharge against "normal" or "typical"
in-stream organic loads.
Karr and Dudley (1977a) adopted the major elements of Cummins framework
to analyze point and non-point source impacts to Black Creek, an agricultural
watershed in Northeastern Indiana, which had been targeted as a demonstration
basin for the application of agricultural best management practices.
Their analysis indicated that Black Creek had shifted to an autotrophic
system through considerable portion of its length instead of maintaining
the "normal" heterotrophic energy economy. Ecological factors which
they felt were tied to resource degradation included the following
(modified from Karr and Dudley, 1977a):
1. Large comparitive contributions of FPOM from sewage treatment
plants
2. Large comparitive contributions of simple nutrients from both
point and non-point sources.
3. Loss of stream side vegetation with subsequent increases in
in-stream solar energy, and a reduction in input of CPOM. Algal
populations increase in response to this and item #2.
4. Exageration of temperature and dissolved oxygen values as a
consequence of the loss of stream-side vegetation.
371
-------
5. Ditching, channelization, and drainage manipulations resulting
in the loss of in-stream habitats and substrates.
6. Removal of natural vegetation and the construction of drainage
networks resulting in the alteration of seasonal drainage patterns.
Karr and Dudley (1977a) reemphasized in their study that the
biological integrity of a watershed can only be gauged by a functional/
structural framework which looks at the three major classes of variables
impacting stream systems. These variables include a characterization
of: 1) the energy relationships of the system 2) the water quality of
the system and 3) the character of the habitat. An approach which
looks at only one of these areas will be doomed to failure since the
other factors have the ability to impact the biological integrity
of the system being considered.
Impacts of Inorganic Sediments
Several comprehensive literature reviews on the effects of sediment on
biota have recently been published by the USEPA (cf. "Impacts of Sediment
and Nutrients on Biota in Surface Waters of the United States", Farnsworth
et. al, 1979; and "Effects of Suspended Solids and Sediment on Reproduction
and Early Life of Warmwater Fishes", 1979, Muncy et.al). Sediment per se
has long been recognized as a potential pollutant. Smith (1971) estimated
that "silt" (largely of agricultural origin) was the principal factor involved
in the destruction of Illinois native fisheries. He judged that 2 species
of fish had been decimated and 14 species had undergone range reductions
as a consequence of the impacts of silt. Milton Trautman (1957), the
chronicler of Ohio fisheries history, similarly states, "Studies made since
1925 have proved that since then, if not before, soil suspended in water
has been the most universal pollutant in Ohio, and the one which has most
drastically affected the fish fauna."
Inorganic sediments are generally assigned on the basis of size and
physical method of transport to:
1. Suspended load: particles maintained in the water column by
turbulence and carried with the flow of water; and
2. Bed load: particles resting on the stream bed and pushed or
rolled along by the flow of water.
Suspended loads typically are compromised of silts and clays supplied
by the watershed. Bed load is composed of larger particles including
sand and gravel which are not typically a part of the water column.
Biotic impacts of bed load movement are generally attributable to
abrasion, scour, and burial. Suspended load increases turbidity, and
may interfere with photosynthesis and/or respiration. Impacts of sediment
on biota as described in Farnsworth, et.al, 1979 and Muncy et. al,
are summarized in Table No. 2. Farnsworth, et.al (1977), indicate that
a number of factors interact with sediments to determine the ultimate
impact on a particular ecosystem. Such factors include discharge,
temperature, bottom type, light, nutrients, pesticides, metals, and
dissolved gases. These factors interact confdunding an explicit reading
of the impact of sediments on the biota.
372
-------
TABLE NO. 2 BIOTIC IMPACTS of SEDIMENT as ADAPTED from FARNSW3RTH
et.al. (1979) and MUNCY, et. al. (1979)
TROPHIC LEVEL
IMPACT
PRIMARY PRODUCERS
(Attached algal forms
planktonic algal forms,
and macrophytes)
Increase in turbidity of water column
with subsequent reduction in photosynthetic
activity
Increase in associated nutrient levels
with subsequent increase in algal growth
Siltation of microhabitats and substrates
resulting in a reduction in attached algal
forms.
Scouring and abrasion of microhabitats
resulting in a reduction of attached algal
forms
Impacts on primary producers as a consequence
of associated heavy metals and or toxics
MACROINVERTEBRATES
Avoidance of adverse conditions by migration,
and drift
Increased mortality from sedimentation due
to physiological effects, burials, and physical
destruction.
Reduced rates of reproduction resulting from
physiological effects, changes in suitable
substrates, and loss of early life stages
Modified rates of growth and reproduction
caused by habitat modification and changes
in type and availability of. food.
Modification of natural movements, habitat
exploitation, and migration patterns.
Increased mortality of adults and juveniles
resulting from abrasion an smothering
of gill tissue by fine sediment. This may also
act indirectly in the form of decreased
resistance to stress.
Suppressed development of fish eggs and larvae
Reduced abundance and availability types of food
with subsequent chnages in species composition
and biomass.
FISHERIES
373
-------
Muncy, et.al. (1979) extensively reviewed the literature on the
impacts of sediment on fisheries. Early field studies equated extremely
high suspended sediment concentrations with direct mortality. More
recent studies have indicated that different species and year classes
of fishes are not equally susceptible to various types and levels
of suspended sediments. The authors conclude that the large volume
of studies done to date describe "indirect evidence" of the impacts
of sediment. They propose that substantial controlled laboratory studies
are needed to elaborate and corroborate suspected fisheries impacts.
As with organic sediments the resource manager is faced with problem
of determining what is a "normal" or "allowable" sediment load and
what is an "acceptable" biological response. Existing allowable sediment
yields have been defined by the Soil Conservation Service for various
types of soils, agricultural practices, and topography. Farnsworth, et.al.
(1979) suggest the formulation of regional goals based on biogeographic
or ecological regions. We wish to reiterate the need for adoption of a
systematic set of goals based in a review of functional/structural
biological perspectives.
374
-------
REFERENCES
Cummins, K.W. 1974. "Structure and Function of Stream Ecosystems,"
Bioscience. 24:631-641
Cummins, K., 1975, "The Ecology of Running Waters, Theory and Practice"
in Proceedings of Sandusky River Basin Synposium, Ed. D. Baker et. al.,
Pub. of Int. Joint. Commission p. 277-293
Farnsworth, E. et.al., 1979, Impacts of Sediment and Nutrients on Biota
In Surface Waters of the United States, USEPA pub. EPA-600/3-79-105
Karr, J. and Dudley, D. 1977(a), "Biological Integrity of a Headwater Stream:
Evidence of Degradation, Prospects of Recovery," in Environmental
Impact of Land Use on Water Quality; A Final Report on the Black Creek
Project, Ed. J. Morrison, USEPA pub., EPA-905/9-77-007
Karr, J. and Schlosser, I, 1977(b), Impact of Nearstream Vegetation and
Stream Morphology on Water Quality and Stream Biota, USEPA pub., EPA-
600/3-77-097
Muncy, R. et.al, 1979, Effects of Suspended Solids and Sediment on Reproduction
and Early Life of Warmwater Fishes; A Review, USEPA pub. EPA-600/3-79-042
Smith, P. 1971, Illinois Streams; A Classification Based on Their Fishes
and on Analysis of Factors Responsible for Disappearance of Native Species,
Bio. Notes no. 76, pub. 111. Nat. History Survey, 14p.
Trautman, M. 1957, Fishes of Ohio, Ohio State Univ. Press., Columbus Ohio,
68 3p.
Warren, C., 1979, Ttoward Classification and Rationale for Watershed
Management and Stream Protection, USEPA pub. EPA-600/3-79-059
375
-------
CONFERENCE SUMMARY
Clifford Risley, Jr.
Senior Science Advisor
Surveillance & Analysis Division
US EPA, Region V
Chicago, IL 60605
My closing remarks are to be a summary of the highlights of this seminar.
1 want to apologize to all of the speakers whom we had to cut short. We
knew this would happen. We took a deliberate risk when we planned this
seminar. We knew, when we put it together and when we invited these
speakers; the kinds of work they have been doing; the importance of their
work; and we knew that it was impossible for them to cover their experience
in such a short time. We wanted, though, to expose you to this particular
variety of people so that you would be aware of what they have been working
on and what their experiences have been.
We are going to put out a seminar publication. The complete text of the
seminar papers will be in this publication so that any of the papers which
have struck you as being of particular interest to you will be readily
available to you. This is one way in which you can go a little further
into the work that has been undertaken.
Another way open to you, now that you have been introduced to these people,
will be for you to personally follow up with them concerning those areas
which are benefical to you. This can benefit the work in two ways. You
can go to them for their knowledge and their help and also you can go to
them with your experiences and your inputs to their work.
377
-------
The same opportunity exists to contact those of us who work in the
management areas in EPA and in the state and local regulatory agencies. We
can all benefit from this exchange of ideas. We feel that the greatest
outcome of this seminar is to stimulate such an exchange and find out
who is doing what.
Until recently, the non point source work has been taking a back seat in
EPA. In going back far enough into the fifties and sixties, before the
kind of legislation we have today, those of us who go that far back were
involved in looking at stream water quality; looking at water quality
criteria, ways to improve quality and the costs of cleanup; the very things
we were talking about here today. However, there is no doubt in my mind,
for those of us who had that experience, that we were then greatly con-
cerned about point source pollution. Where we had uncontrolled point
source pollution, our streams were being seriously affected.
The legislation of 1972, the Water Quality Acts, properly, I think, put
the focus on the point source pollution and said: "we have to eliminate
point sources." Congress said, in effect: "we have to require everyone to
go to secondary treatment. We have to eliminate the industrial discharges."
And they set up the mechanism of enforcement powers and grants in order
to do this.
I think the decade of the 70's was, then, the decade of enforcement. In
the seventies we said: "Let us go out and put a stop to all these
discharges." We are pretty well into that process. Now, we are far enough
along that we have discovered that we have other inputs. I don't think we
realized how much of a contribution we got from non point inputs back in
378
-------
the sixties. We learned this during the seventies while many of us were
still working on these problems. At the same time we felt frustrated that
we couldn't do anything about it.
The agency is now taking the view that: "We have done all this point source
pollution work and we still have degraded water quality! Why? The agency
realizes that non point source pollution is there and some controls have
to be made.
We are still moving forward and I am looking forward to the decade of the
eighties, when we look again at water quality with renewed knowledge. We
know, now, many of the things that we have to do to achieve better water
quality. We are going to go back to more monitoring despite the views of
one of the speakers who said "monitoring is not working and what we need
to do is modeling." I think monitoring is important and we are going to
go back to doing more monitoring.
That is not to say that modeling is not important. The fact of the matter
is, that since the publication of PL 92-500, the EPA has not had an adequate
management model to serve as a guideline to the states to evaluate non point
source pollution. We feel that a process is urgently needed to evaluate
non point pollution abatement costs and compare them to conventional point
source abatement costs. You have heard this before. This is what I started
off the Seminar by saying. This is why we had this seminar: to stimulte
the development of another model, if you will, only this model is to be a
desk top model that we could all use to get a handle on the trade offs—the
management trade offs.
379
-------
The emphasis on this seminar has been to this end. We have heard many
good inputs describing what some of these trade offs are. I was pleased
to find that many of the speakers are aware of this and they are
suggesting various trade offs in their area of specialization. I think
the message is there, across the board, in all of our areas of expertise.
Following are some additional points made during the seminar that I feel
are worthy of repeating, for emphasis. Basically what did the seminar say?
Well, it says: "What are we going to emphasize in each basin? In one
basin controlling waste water treatment plants might be the major impact
and maybe that's all we need to control. In another basin, control of point
sources may not be of any great consequence at all, and we have to go back
and look at the impacts of "the cornfield," if you will, and determine the
erosion loss in a certain sector. We have learned that in some of these basins,
you don't have to clean up an entire basin. All you-have to do is find
the critical areas and put your best management practices to work in those
few critical areas. All of this says that we have to integrate point
source and non point source in all kinds of management. It all has to be
integrated. We must all get the big picture and start looking at all
phases of it before we enter into the final decision making.
Don Urban once said to me, that we have been spending 45 years trying to
get the land owners to implement best management practices. We were doing
it on the basis of saving their own land. We didn't get very far with that.
Now we want them to implement best management practices to protect our vital
water resource, and we're not going toLget any place with them again, on
the same basis we have tried to for the last 45 years. That is, to expect
them to do this strictly on a voluntary basis.
380
r
-------
So, I think we have to do things like they did in Black Creek. To find
what it is that makes good sense to the landowners and what the incentives
are to get the landowners involved in this process. It means we have to
obtain some monetary support for them. We must provide a lot of guidance;
a lot of loving and tender care, which was best said by Dan McCain when he
explained the process he went through working with the landowners. He said
that he had to get out there and marry them. He had to live with them every
day and help guide this process. I think that in order to make the whole
process work, when it comes to best management practices, this is what you
are going to find. If you have somebody at the local level who understands
the problem and who is willing to get in there and work like this, then
something can happen. If you have nobody like this at the local level,
I don't think somebody sitting in Chicago, behind the desk, saying this is
a good plan and this is the best model, is going to have any effect at all.
An even less effect will be accomplished from Washington deciding that if
we spend a million dollars on three or four projects, it is going to solve
our problem. No way. We have to get to the local level to get the kind
of program that will work there. This is not to say that we don"t need
the planners and the modelers and the professors. We do. We have to have
this kind of thinking behind it to guide the way.
One of the things that came out in the Seminar is the fact that we have
been tripping over each other models. Everybody comes up with their model
and thinks this is the way to go and the only way to go and I think that it
came very clear to me that there are several models that are very valuable
and they are valuable for different purposes. We should make use of these.
We shouldn't get so involved in one particular approach that we think
we've got the only answer. We can modify what we are doing. If we are
working on a large scale basis, we need one kind of model and if we are
working on a smaller scale basis we need another kind of model. We need
to use the small scale model to get better inputs to use on our larger
model.
381
-------
With all these approaches come criticism of what someone did in the past,
or what they are doing now, or what they didn't do. I know, and you know,
that we all do as much as we can within the resources that we have. I
don't think we should criticize somebody for not having done something more
than they did. I think they have all done the best they could from their own
geographic area, their own particular background and training. All of these
inputs—and I think we heard a great many of them from different sources
today—all of them are valuable to us. I think we should embrace the exper-
tise and the outputs of these experts and make use of them in solving our
own particular problems.
I want to thank all of you who have stayed through to the end. I applaud
you for this.
I want to applaud all the speakers and the moderators for their presentations.
I think they were excellent.
I hope that we have provided you with an update on the need for integrated
planning and consideration of integration and trade offs in your decision
making. We tried to introduce you to some of the Who's Who in the forefront
of Water Quality Management and what they have been doing, and as I said
before, I hope you will follow up on this seminar by contacting these people
and letting them know what you think of what they are doing, and let them
know what you are doing.
Let's work together to try to achieve the goal of clean water tht we have
all been working toward. Thank you all again. This officially closes the
seminar.
382
-------
Attendees for September 16-17 Seminar
Pick Congress Hotel, Chicago, IL
John B. Adams
Director, Environment and Food Regulatory
Affairs
National Milk Producers Federation
30 F. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
John R. Adams
U.S. Army Engineer District
Buffalo, NY 14127
Mark Alderson
U.S.EPA-5WWQ
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
David Beasley
Ag. Eng. Dept.
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, IN 47907
Howard Allen
Project Hydrologists
U.S. Geological Survey
Post Office Box 427
DeKalb, IL 60115
Joan G. Anderson
PCB
309 W. Washington
Chicago, IL 60606
David Baker
Professor
Heidelberg College
Tiffin, Ohio
Joan Balogh
1815 University Avenue
Madison, WI
Dr. Michael J. Barcelona
Head Aquatic Chemistry Section
IINR-State Water Survey Division
Box 232
Urbana, IL 61801
Jim Baumann
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Post Office Box 7921
Madison, WI 53711
John Becker
Environmental Planner
NOCA
1501 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44115
Bob Bellandi
Asst. Proj. Director
Central NY Regional Plan, and Dev. Bd.
700 E. Water Street
Syracuse, NY 13210
William Benjey
USEPA-Region V
Chief, Ohio Water Quality Mgmt. Sectior
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
James Bland
USEPA-Region V
Ohio Water Quality Mgmt. Section
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
383
-------
Lee Cunningham
Administrator Assistant
Illinois Pollution Control Board
309 W. Washington Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Tom Davenport
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
Jon V. DeGroot
Assistant State Conservationist
USDA Soil Conservation Service
316 N. Robert Street, Room 200
St. Paul, MN 55101
Basin Dihu
S&A-CDO, IL/IN Field Inv. Section
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60605
Roderick A. Oorich
Grad Research Assistant
Purdue University, Agry Dept.
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Ron Drynan
Senior Engineer
Great Lakes Regional Office, IJC
Windsor Ontario, Canada
Jacob D. Dumelle
Chairman, IL Pollution Control Bd.
309 W. Washington Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Doug Ehorn
USEPA-5WQM
Chief, Michigan Water Quality Mgmt. Sec,
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Mr. Richard Cahill
Associate Chemist
Illinois State Geological Survey
322 Nat. Res. Bldg.
Urbana, IL 61801
Randolph 0. Cano
Project Officer
USEPA-Region V-5WWQM
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Howard Essig
Illinois EPA
1701 First Avenue
Maywood, IL
Ronald C. Flemal
Professor of Geology
Northern Illinois University
Dept. of Geology
DeKalb, IL 60115
Christopher R. Freeman
Environmental Planner
MACOG
1120 County-City Bldg.
South Bend, IN 46601
Jeffery Gagler
Water Quality Modeler
USEPA-Water Quality Policy Section
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Robert Gallucci
Monroe County Pure Waters
65 Broad Street, Room 100
Rochester, NY 14614
James R. Gammon
Professor of Zoology
DePauw University
Greencastle, IN 46135
384
-------
Albert A. Almy
Department of Public Affairs
Michigan Farm Bureau
Post Office Box 20960
Lansing, MI 48909
Ralph G. Christensen
Ecologist
Great Lakes National Program Office
USEPA-Region V
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60605
Roy Christenson
WDNR
26 Breese
Madison, WI
Mary Cock!an
P.O. Box 68
Maple Park, IL
60151
Evelyn Cooper
Surveillance and Analysis Division
USEPA-Region V
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Terry E. Cox
IL Pollution Control Board
309 W. Washington, Rm. 300
Chicago, IL 60606
John Crumerine
Manager, Honey Creek Watershed Project
Tiffin, OH
Elizabeth Cunningham
Environmental Engineer
CT 208 Program
Post Office Box 1088
Middletown, CT 06457
Jeffery B. Bode
WDNR
Milwaukee S.E., WI 53213
Susan Boldt
USEPA-5WWQM
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Dan Bondy
Great Lakes Regional Office, IJC
Windsor Ontario, Canada
James Bosch
Mgr. Env. Engineering
Land 0 Lakes, Inc.
614 McKinley Place
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Donald E. Brand, P.E.
Project Officer
Balto. Co. Dept. of Health
401 Bosley Ave. - 4th Floor
Townson, MD 21204
Charles Brasher
USEPA-5WWQM
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
James Brentlinger
Fieldman
State Soil & Water Conservation Commit,
Room #7, AGAD Bldg. Purdue Univ.
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Marcia (Marcy) Brooks
Environmental Programs Coordinator
South Central MI Planning Council
70 E. Michigan
Galesburg, MI 49053
385
-------
Bill El man
FUWQPA
Neenah, WI
Wayne El son
USEPA-5WWQM
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Gary Erickson
Regional Fishery Biologist
Illinois Department of Conservation
110 James Road
Spring Grove, IL 60081
Wayne Gorski
USEPA-5WWQM
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Jon T. Grand
WDNR
4049 Cherokee
Madison, WI
John R. Gray
Project Hydrologists
U.S. Geological Survey
Post Office Box 427
DeKalb, IL 60115
Dr. David Gross
Associate Geology
Illinois State Geological Survey
264 Nat. Res. Bldg.
Urbana, IL 61801
Edwin Hammett
Director of Regional Planning
TMACOG
123 Michigan St.
Toledo, OH 43624
Albert Horner
Eng. Qua!. Manager
S. Carolina Dept. Env. Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29210
Linda A. Gawthrop
USEPA-Region V
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Raymond Giese
Project Officer
USEPA
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Irvin G. Goodman
Illinois Pollution Control Board
309 W. Washington, Room 300
Chicago, IL 60606
Thomas M. Heidtke
GLBC
Ann Arbor, MI
Bob Hennigan
Project Director
Central NY Regional Plan. & Dev. Bd,
700 E. Water Street
Syracuse, NY 13210
Henry J. Hess
Chem. Engineer
CDO, S&A Div. USEPA
536 South Clark St. Room 1008
Chicago, IL 60605
Marian Hirt
USEPA-Region V
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
J.S. Horn
717 Birch Road
Lake Bluff, IL 60044
James Hanlon
USEPA-5WEEB
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
386
-------
William J. Horvath
Regional Representative
Nat. Assoc. of Conservation Districts
1052 Main Street
Stevens Point, WI 54481
George Horzepa
Acting Program Manager
NJ Dept. Envir. Prot. Water Resources
P.O. Box CN-029
Trenton, NJ 08625
Larry F. Muggins
Professor
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, IN
Garth Jackson
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
Eileen L. Johnston
Environmental Educator
505 Maple Avenue
Wiltnette, IL 60091
Robert S. Jonas
39 Rockhill Road
Rochester, NY 14618
Don Jos if
WQMP-USEPA-Region V
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Chun-Wei Kao
Research Associate
Michigan State University
Crop and Soil Science Dept.
East Lansing, MI 48824
John A. Kill am
R. 1
Jacksonville, IL 62650
Peggy Harris
USEPA-5GLNP
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60605
Jonathan Harsch
The Christian Science Monitor
100 N. LaSalle St. #600
Chicago, IL 60602
Joe B. Hays
RC&D Coordinator
Hoosier Heartland RC&D
54 Boone Woods
Zionsville, IN 46077
Al Krause
Environmental Scientist
USEPA-5WEEB
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Joe Kruz
Aquatic Biologist
Wisconsin Department Natural Resources
P.O. Box 13248
Milwaukee, WI 53213
Madeline Lewis
USEPA-5WQMB
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Terry Logan
Professor
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
John Lowrey
Soil Conservationist
USDA-SCS
P.O. Box 475
Lisle, IL 60532
Darrell McAllister
IDEQ
Des Moines, Iowa
387
-------
Dale Luecht
USEPA-WD
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Richard W. Lutz
Head Impact Analysis Section
Div. of Planning, IL Dept. Conservat,
601 Stratton Bldg.
Springfield, IL 62706
Noel W. Kohl
Chief, IL/IN Wqm. Section
USEPA-Region V, Water Division
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Ron Kolzow
USEPA-Region V
Chicago, IL 60604
Madonna F. McGrath
Director, Great Lakes National Program
Office
USEPA-5GLNP
536 S. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60605
Donald M. McLeod
VA State Water Control Board
Roanoke, VA 24019
Steven E. Mace
Wisconsin DNR
P.O. Box 13248
Milwaukee, WI 53226
Michael MacMullen
Chief, Water Quality Policy Section
USEPA-Region V
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Bob Kirschner
NIPC
400 W. Madison
Chicago, IL 60606
David Klinedinst
111 Dept. Cons
Springfield, IL
LeLand J. McCabe
Director, Epidemiology Div.
USEPA-HERL
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dan McCain
District Conservationist
USDA-SCS
Fort Wayne, IN
Edward G. Maranda
Twin Cities Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Bldg.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Russell J. Martin
USEPA-Region V
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Bob Martini
Water Quality Analyst
Wisconsin DNR
Box 818
Rhinelander, WI 54501
Gertrude Matuschkovitz
Environmental Protection Specialist
USEPA
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
388
-------
Orville Macomber
Environmental Engineer
USEPA-CERI
11280 Foremark Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45241
Peter G. Meier
Associate Professor
The University of Michigan
2516 SPH 1, 109 Observatory
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Tom Mitchell
Water Resources Planner
USEPA
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
E.J. Monke
Ag. Eng. Dept.
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, IN 47907
Tim Montieth
Water Resource Engineer
GLBC
Ann Arbor, MI
Ron Mustard
Director, Office of Environmental
Review
USEPA-Region V
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Michael T. Phillips
Senior Env. Planner, Water Div.
USEPA
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
John Piccininni
USEPA-Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Fred Madison
Project Director
Washington Co. Project
U. of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin
Larry I. Madsen
Wheatland, ND
Joe Magner
Soil Scientist
MN Pollution Control Agency
1935 W. County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
James L. Magruder
Ground Water Age
Elmhurst, IL
Thomas F. Maher
Environmental Engineer
USEPA-Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
John S. Nagy
Project Officer
USEPA Region V
230 S. Dearborn St. 5WWQ
Chicago, IL 60604
Vladimir Novotny
Associate Professor
Marquette University
1515 W, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Jeffery Nedelman
Administrative Assistant
Senator Gaylord Nelson
Wisconsin
to
389
-------
Nancy Prehler
USEPA-5GLNP
536 S. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60605
Barry O'Flanagen
WDNR
Box 7921
Madison, WI 53207
Bernie Orenstein
USEPA-Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Jame Pendowski
EPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
Mary Ann Rodewald
USEPA-Region V
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Richard Rising
Senior Planner
Monroe County Dept.
39 W. Main Street
Rochester, NY 14614
of Planning
Clifford Risley
Senior Science Advisor
USEPA-Region V
536 S. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60605
J. H. Rolfes
One Wheaton Center, Suite 1901
Wheaton, IL 60187
Angela H. Preston
Water Quality Coordinator
Indiana Heartland Coording Com.
7212 N. Shadeland Ave., #120
Indianapolis, IN 46250
Hoody Price
Seminole County Planning
Courthouse
Sanford, FL 32771
J. Steve Reel
Assistant to Director
South Florida Water Management Dist,
P.O. Box V
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
Don Roberts
USEPA-Region V
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
Phillip D. Peters
Assistant Director
Plans and Programs
Northeastern IL Planning Commission
400 W. Madison Street
Chicago, IL 60606
John Pfender
Water Quality Planner
Madison, WI
Richard Parkin
USEPA-WD WQMB
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Rob Striegl
Project Hydro!ogist
U.S. Geological Survey
P.O. Box 427
DeKalb, IL 60115
390
-------
William H. Sanders III
Director, S&A
USEPA-Region V
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60605
Wesley D. Seitz
Prof, of Univ. of IL
305 Mumford Street
Urbana, IL 61801
Herb Selbrede
National Milk Producers
Rt. 1
Sparta, WI
Pat Sharkey
IL Federal Liason
IL Pollution Control Board
309 W. Washington
Chicago, IL 60606
Gerald Sipple
RR 3, Box 187
Menomonee, WI
William Sonzogni
Water Resources Scientist
Great Lakes Basin Commission
Ann Arbor, MI
Gary Stewart
Govt. Affairs Coordinator
Michigan Manufacturers Assn.
124 E. Kalamazoo Street
Lansing, MI 48933
Randall Wade
WDNR
1220 Rut!edge Street
Madison, WI
A.T. Wallace
CE Dept.
Univ. of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho
David Stringham
Regional Program Coordinator
USEPA-Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Rose Ann Sullivan
GLBC
Ann Arbor, MI
Jeffrey A. Taylor
Water Resources Engineer
VA State Water Control Board
2111 N. Hamilton Street
Richmond, VA 23230
Mike Terstriep
Engineer, IL Water Survey
Box 232
Urbana, IL 61801
Nelson Thomas
USEPA
9311 Groh Road
Grosse He, MI
Lowell Thompson
Metro Council
300 Metro Square Bldg.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Don Urban
Nonpoint Coordinator
EPA-Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60172
Thomas Windau
Environmental Engineer
FC WQPA
1919 American Ct.
Neenah, WI 54956
Peter Wise
Director, Water Quality Planning Div.
USEPA
401 M. Street
Washington, D.C.
391
-------
10
Thomas Warn
Environmental Protection Specialist
USEPA
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
William Wawrzn
State of Wisconsin
Dept. Natural Resources
P.O. Box 13248
Milwaukee, WI 53226
David Wurm
Honey Creek Project
155 E. Perry Street
Tiffen, Ohio
Keith K. Young
Soil Scientist, Soil Technology
Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, D.C. 20013
Bruce Yurdin
Environmental Protection Specialist
IEPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
Mathew Zabik
Professor Pesticides Institute
Michigan State University
Lansing, MI
Greg Zelinka
Madison Metro Sewerage District
Lab Supervisor
104 North 1st Street
Madison, WI 53704
William Withrow
IPCB
309 W. Washington
Chicago, IL
Larry Vend!
Project Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey
P.O. Box 427
DeKalb, IL 60115
Terry L. Wells
Senior Planner
Ohio Dept. Nat'l. Resources of Water
Fountain Square, Bldg. E
Columbus, Ohio 43224~
Douglas G. Whitaker
Assistant General Manager
The Miami Conservancy District
38 E. Monument Avenue
Dayton, OH 45402
Lyman Wible
Chief Environmental Planner
S.E. Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission
Waukesha, WI
Carl D. Wilson
Coordinator Nonpoint Source
USEPA-5GLNP
536 S. Clark Street
-Chicago, IL 60605
392
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-905/9-80-009
I. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
I. RPPORT DATE
"Seminar on Water Quality Management Trade-Offs"
(Point Source vs Diffuse Source Pollution)
September 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Compiled
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
by:
Ralph G.
Cli fford
Christensen and
Risley, Jr.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
536 South Clark Street, Room 932
Chicago, Illinois 60605
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
A42B2A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
536 South Clark Street, Room 932
Chicago, Illinois 60605
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Conference Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
U.S. EPA-GLNP
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Conference Committee-Ralph G. Christensen, U. S. EPA; Carl D. Wilson, U. S. EPA;
Clifford Risley, U. S. EPA; Orville Macomber, U. S. EPA; Donald Urban, U. S. DA-SCS
16. ABSTRACT
This report is a collection of technical papers presented at the "Seminar on
Water Quality Management Trade-Offs" Point Source vs Diffuse Source Pollution
held in Chicago, Illinois September 16-17, 1980 at the Pick Congress Hotel.
Seminar speakers were selected for their expertise in the different areas
of point and diffuse source pollution. Many were principal investigators
of Section 108(a) and Great Lakes Program demonstration project grants. The
seminar pointed out the need for nonpoint source control implementation to
meet 1983 water quality goals.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Water Quality
Sediment
Erosion
Land Use
Land Treatment
Wastewater Treatment
Nutrients
Phosphorus
availability
Pollutant Loadings
Treatment costs
Institutional
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Document is available to the public through
the National Technical Information Service
Sorinafield. Mirainia 22151
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
NA
21.
PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
NA
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
U. S. Government Printing Office. 1981 750-799
393
------- |