1.
USEPA Experimental
Stream Facility: Nutrient
management for water
quality protection
research
1
*The data, expressed ideas and opinions herein are those
of the author and do not reflect the official positions or
policies of the USEPA.

2.
The East Fork of the Little Miami River Watershed (EFLMR)
2
UEFW
LEFW
Harsha
Lake
Experimental
Stream Facility

3.
EPA’s Experimental Stream Facility (ESF)
3

4.
Experimental Stream Facility Research Goals
Ø Combine stream biotic structure and function measurements without compromising
one for the other
Ø Quantify boundary conditions of experiments routinely for gauging relevancy and
realism to lend confidence in the application of results
Ø Couple single-species toxicity assays with community-level responses so that studies
serve as a better bridge between lab and field
Ø Conduct water quality standard/aquatic life criteria (“targets”) validation studies to
support our Program Offices, Regions, and State partners
Advantages
§ Test effects on biological communities – at multiple levels of organization
§ Test temporal response dynamics (repeated sampling of same mesocosm unit)
§ Tighter control of realistic hydraulics and hydrology. Perhaps the best in the world
§ Open flow through system that provides continuous source of new propagules
4

5.
Non-point Rainfall/Runoff
NPDES Discharge Point
Final WW
Effluent
Receiving
Water
Simulate microhabitat of
downstream pool, riffle/run
segment
Stream Mesocosm Simulation Horizon
Ø Field dosing scenarios mimicked:
Continuous vs. episodic |
Point vs. Non-Point
5

6.
Bridging Lab and Field Ecotoxicology
6

7.
Recent ESF tests are validating stream bioassessment in the EFLMR
7
Biological Attainment Map for the East Fork
Watershed from Ohio EPA 2012 Survey
52% of sites non ( ) or
partial ( ) attainment;
full attaining sites
mostly along mainstem
• Under the Clean Water Act the State needs to
implement a restoration plan for impaired streams

8.
8
EFLMR Watershed Monitoring Sites 2008 - 2020

9.
9
Harsha Lake (aka East Fork Lake) Monitoring
BUO

10.
• 20 reservoirs
• All for flood control, but also recreation,
fish and wildlife, water quality, and 11
for drinking water supply
• Monitoring since 1988
10
Trends in Nearby Reservoirs: Data analysis of U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers monitoring program
1 C.J. Brown Lake
2 W.H. Harsha Lake
3 Caesar Creek Lake
4 Barren River Lake
5 Cagles Mill Lake
6 C.M. Harden Lake
7 Salamonie Lake
8 West Fork Lake
9 Taylorsville Lake
10 Green River Lake
11 J.E. Roush Lake
12 Rough River Lake
13 Nolin Lake
14 Monroe Lake
15 Patoka Lake
16 Brookville Lake
17 Mississinewa Lake
18 Carr Creek Lake
19 Cave Run Lake
20 Buckhorn Lake
Urban
Agricultural
Forested

11.
11
Maximum densities of cyanobacteria have been increasing in the 20 reservoirs
More reservoirs experiencing conditions with moderate to high risk
to human health
HL
• Greater cyanobacteria cell densities when
watersheds have less forest cover. Forested
systems in blue
Moderate Risk; 20K -100K Cells/ml
High Risk; >100K Cells/ml
• Harsha Lake >100,000 cells per
milliliter since 2008
smucker.nathan@epa.gov

12.
Changing Conditions at Harsha Lake and Other Reservoirs –
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen
12
Surface temperatures
Deep water temperatures
Deep water dissolved oxygen
18.2à20.7 C
+1.2 decade
24.2à26.1 C
+0.92 decade
6.1à4.1 mg/l
-0.95 decade
2.8à1.4 mg/l
-0.67 decade
Pre-2006 hypoxia
Post-2006 hypoxia
Mean of all reservoirs that stratify
• Surface waters are warming; cyanobacteria like it hot
• Duration of hypoxia is increasing
smucker.nathan@epa.gov

13.
Nutrients in Harsha Lake and most significant predictors
13
Phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations in Harsha Lake
have been increasing over the last two decades
Results of General Additive Modeling – Stratified
Reservoirs
(Log
cyanobacteria
cell densities)
smucker.nathan@epa.gov

14.
Seeking Solutions for HABs – EPA Research and Development
14
• 4 Research and Development Tracks:
– Early warning and assessment
– Drinking water treatment engineering
– Cyanotoxin eco and human toxicology
– Long-term nutrient management
Cyanobacteria Assessment Network (CyAN app)
WQ monitoring buoy near DWTP intake on
Harsha Lake
5
10
15
20
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
2015
PhycoRAWDailyMean
Daily Mean Cyanobacteria Indicator Values
epa.gov/water-research/CyANapp
https://www.exowater.com

15.
Trading Feasibility Workflow and UEFW
Monitoring/Modeling Product
• Final product delivered:
• Nietch et al. Informing market-based policy decision
making: Developing a trading feasibility work flow for
watershed nutrient management. Submitted November,
2019.
15
• Heberling et al. 2018. Exploring nontraditional participation as
an approach to make water quality trading markets more
effective. JAWRA, 54(3):586-593.

16.
Set Strategic Monitoring Sites
Critical Components
1. At least one large scale WQ2 ‘super’ gauge.
2. Multiple small-scale sites strategically located
to characterize unique land use/soil type
combinations
3. Point Sources and proximal downstream
conditions
4. HUC12-scale sites used to determine nutrient
reduction requirements and track progress at
intermediate spatial scales.
Secondary Considerations
1. In-stream attenuation sites
2. Edge-of-field evaluation site
3. BMP performance measurement sites
4. Critical Areas (e.g. beaches and DWTP intakes)
16
Upper East Fork Watershed
Monitoring Sites
Equals a 12 site minimum for 800 km2 system with 12 HUC12s; or ~ 1 per HUC 12 in the UEFW

17.
The East Fork Watershed Cooperative – Established
stakeholder workgroup since 2009
17
Local Farmers
Federal Partners
State Partners
Local Partners
EFWCoop meets with Senator Rob Portman
8/21/2014

18.
Setting Defensible Targets
18
TP ppb
(Ref = 55)
(Target=60)
TN ppb
(Ref= 433)
(Target=700)
Nutrient Targets set for the Water Quality Trading
Research – obtained from weekly monitoring
TP ppb
Targets =
75, 150, 300
TN ppb
Targets =
525, 850
Results from diatom metabarcoding. Possible targets based on all
responses from TITAN, Boosted Regression, and Gradient Forest
statistical methods

19.
19
Watershed Modeling – One model approach –
calibrated and evaluated at multiple spatial
scales
• Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) –
Semi-distributed, physically based, capable
of simulating a diversity of crop types and
management options and operations
• SWAT- Calibration and Uncertainty
Program (CUP) for uncertainty analysis
• Use model parametric uncertainty to
obtain distributions for agBMP reduction
efficiencies
Baseline
w/agBMP
P Runoff Map for
Priority HUC12
• Used to set nutrient reduction
requirements
• Must have high spatial
resolution for agBMP placement
and to study trading scenarios
• Simulates watershed-scale BMP
effectiveness scenarios for cost
comparisons and progress tracking

20.
20
Nutrient Source Distribution and Reduction Requirements
Point Source/
Location
Existing Mean
Effluent TP
(mg/l)
Compliance
Mean
Effluent TP
(mg/l)
Annual TP
Reduction
Required
(kg/yr)
Annual
TP Load
(kg/yr)
Existing Mean
Effluent TN
(mg/l)
Compliance
Mean Effluent
TN (mg/l)
Annual TN
Reduction
Required
(kg/yr)
Annual TN
Load (kg/yr)
SnowHill 2.315 0.162 9.6 10.30 12.37 7.42 20.25 51
NewVienna 4.719 0.057 706 715 14.31 0.86 1946 2070
Lynchburg 2.503 0.080 577 596 12.59 2.27 2674 3261
RollingAcres 2.311 0.092 25 26 12.01 2.88 104 137
Fayetteville 1.934 0.464 167 220 10.81 10.81 0 1218
Williamsburg 1.130 0.904 92 460 11.01 11.01 0 4910
HollyTowne 2.303 0.334 120 140 22.63 4.87 1069 1362
ForestCreek 2.305 0.092 60 62 24.80 2.67 595 666
LocustRidge 2.329 0.140 12 13 11.21 6.50 25 60
WWTP Total 1768 2242 6433 13735
Watershed 0.234 0.039 93645 112150 3.379 0.405 983128 1117191
% of Total 1.9% 0.7%
TP
% contribution of
~100,000 kg.yr-1
TN
% contribution of
~1,000,000 kg.yr-1
Point
Sources &
Watershed
Load
Reduction
Required

21.
Waste Water Plant Upgrades vs. Agricultural Best Management
Practices (agBMPs) Costs
21
• agBMPs scenarios modeled:
– Residue Management, Cover Crops, Filter Strips,
Wetlands, Grassed Waterways, Reduced Fertilizer
Application and Septic Repair
– Septic Repair >> WWTP upgrade >> agBMPs
Unit Cost of Nutrient Removal

22.
Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) Upgrades vs. Cover Crop Costs
22
• To reduce 1% of phosphorus source from
WWTPs:
• $5.4 million to upgrade plants or $425K
for cover crops over only 7900 acres
• Or, for the same cost to upgrade WWTPs,
cover crops could be used on all of the row
crop fields (104,000 acres) if median
removal efficiency is realized
• However, if we account for uncertainty in
cover crop effectiveness, then the TP
problem cannot be fixed with cover crops
alone

23.
Watershed Action Planning
23
• $3.5 – $8.0Mil annually to fix TP assuming 5th centile removal
efficiency, or $250K – $600K per HUC12
• Would account for 46% to 100% of the TN problem pending
efficiency
For context
• The DWTP spends ca. $650K yr-1 for granular activated carbon
to keep drinking water safe
• agBMP cost would be 20% of annual row crop revenue, which
is $30 million
• Outdoor recreation adds $2 million to local economy
• Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) have obligated
$2.75 million in EQIP funds for nutrient reduction projects
• Including 17,000 acres in cover crops – growing from ~ 100
acres over the last 10 yrs
• State is spending ca. $85 million on the Maumee River
Watershed, or ~ $250K per HUC12
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
TP
Cover Crops
Filter Strips
Wetlands
Grassed Waterways
43K
acres
2600
acres
5thCentile TP
1000
acres

24.
24
Constructed Wetlands for Nutrient Management – Options and
Implementation
How much water has to move through the 1040
acres of wetlands at watershed scale? = 150 MGD!
Wetland
(3.7
acres)
• Subbasin 72 is 1172 acres
with 366 acres of row crop
• 31% of flow passes through
3.66 acres of wetland
• 0.54 MGD!
Wetland Modeling in SWAT,
contextual example
For context, the WWTP
in Williamsburg, OH
treats 0.1 MGD.
• Getting 1000 acres of wetlands on the ground AND moving the
required amount of water through them is going to be very tricky
Consider:
- Headwater Wetlands
- Passive floodplain Wetlands
- Pump and treat Wetlands

25.
25
• Built in 2014
• Before/After
monitoring
• 100% runoff
through detention
basin
• 26% through
vegetated bed (i.e.,
wetland)
LEARN LESSONS FROM AWARD-WINNING CORNWELL HEADWATER NUTRIENT
REMOVAL PROJECT
%TSS Load
Removed
%TN Load
Removed
%TKN
Load
Removed
%NO3
Load
Removed
%NH4
Load
Removed
%TP Load
Removed
%DRP
Load
Removed
51.7 30.8 28.8 34.5 2.6 30.1 32.7
Observed system
removal over 3 yrs
Watershed Loading
%TN
Removed
%TP
Removed
0.060 0.22
Project Cost $26K

26.
Passive floodplain and/or pump and treat options
Example: Great Miami River “Bankfull Wetland”/Restored
Floodplain Upstream of Troy, OH
Peak Shaving & Flood Control Benefits
Sustainable Streams In partnership with USFW & Miami County
Park District, Winter 2019
RiverFlow2D – 4 min; 5990 cfs
River crests, Basin
still filling, shaving
peak discharge
26
Banklick Creek Regional Wetlands Project
Construction of 6 ac of wetland to help improve WQ
Pump station (0.5 to 8.9cfs) constructed to direct a portion
of the polluted creek water into the wetlands. Water
released back into the creek downstream.
Project Cost $2.5 million
Project Cost $60K to $80K

27.
Use abandoned drinking water reservoir site to maximize nutrient
removal at minimal cost
• 7 acres (2.75 ha) with average depth of 2ft = 13.6 acre feet or ~16,800 m3
• Median discharge over all years when above 4.1 ft is 2880 cfs, min 1520, max
13000, avg 3770.
27
Year
Events above
4.1ft
Days at 3770
cfs
TN (kg) TNO2-3(kg) TNH4(kg) TUREA (kg) TP (kg) TRP (kg) TOC (kg) % Diverted
Wetland
Residence
Time (d)
2013 19 36 1,601 600 108 104 424 186 5,988 0.1 1.821
2014 11 25 1,112 417 75 72 295 129 4,158 0.2 0.911
2015 14 37 1,645 617 111 107 436 191 6,154 0.5 0.364
2016 14 26 1,156 433 78 75 306 134 4,325 1 0.182
2017 21 34 1,512 567 102 99 401 176 5,655 3 0.061
2018 26 52 2,312 867 156 151 613 269 8,649 5 0.036
2019 27 53 2,357 883 159 154 625 274 8,816 10 0.018
1,671 626 113 109 443 194 6,249
0.16 0.14 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.16% removed of Total Annual Load
Ave
NA NA 365 10,745 7,237 351 285 1,939 1,406 35,392 1.110
1.03 1.58 0.56 0.48 0.75 1.13 0.93% removed of Total Annual Load
Estimated removal based on percentage of flow diverted and assuming 100% efficiency
Estimated removal based pump and treat at 4mgd and assuming 100% efficiency,
Projected Costs: $140K excavation; $30K pumping 1st yr; $8K pump O&M annual