## DECEMBER 2006 REPORT OF THE ACADEMIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY:

FRESHWATER NUTRIENT CRITERIA FOR RIVERS AND STREAMS

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INST ITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA 20072 This special report is a publication of the Virginia Water Resources Research Center. Funds for the support of this project and public ation are provided in part by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. The conten ts of this publication do not necessarily

reflect the views or policies of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality or the Virginia Water Resources Research Center. The mention of commerc ial products, trade names, or services does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation.

This report is available online. Hard copies may be obtained from the Virginia Water Resources Research Center for a small fee. 210 Cheatham Hall Blacksburg, VA 24061 Phone: (540) 231-5624

Fax: (540) 231-6673 E-mail: water@vt.edu Web address: http://www.vwrrc.vt.edu

Stephen Schoenholtz, Director

Virginia Tech does not discriminate against empl oyees, students, or applicants on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, disability, ag e, veteran status, national origin, religion, or

political affiliation. Anyone with questions th at concern discrimination should contact the Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office.

## December 2006 Report of the Academic Advisory Committee to Virginia Department of Environmental Quality: Freshwater Nutrient Criteria for Rivers and Streams

Prepared by Carl E. Zipper , Department of Crop and soil Envir onmental Sciences, Virginia Tech Gene Yagow , Department of Biol ogical Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech

Jane L. Walker , Virginia Water Resources Rese arch Center, Virginia Tech

Eric. P. Smith , Department of Statistics, Virginia Tech

Leonard A. Shabman , Resources for the Future

Leonard A. Smock , Department of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University

Carl H. Hershner , Center for Coastal Resources Manage ment, Virginia Institute for Marine Science

Tamim Younos , Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Tech

E. Fred Benfield , Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech

Paul A. Bukaveckas , Department of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University Greg C. Garman , Center of Environmental Studies, Department of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University

Howard I. Kator , Department of Environmental & Aquati c Animal Health, Virginia Institute for Marine Science Wu-Seng Lung , Department of Civil Engineer ing, University of Virginia

and Kurt Stephenson , Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech

Virginia Water Resources Research Center 210 Cheatham Hall Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA 24061

January 10, 2007 VWRRC Special Report SR33-2007i 

### Acknowledgements

This report was prepared by the Academic Advi sory Committee to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). This effort is partially funded through the Virginia DEQ. DEQ staff participated in the various meetings and discussions concerning the development of nutrient criteria in Virginia and provided data. Special th anks to Roger Stewart and Jason Hill at DEQ for assembling the databases used in the analysis in Section I.C. Thanks to Carl Hershner and Dan Schatt, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences GI S lab, for conducting analysis of land use within monitoring station watershed area s. We also appreciate the c ontributions of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation in providing Virginia Tribut ary Strategy cap-load data for 2010 used in Section II.A.iiiii 

### Members of the Academic Advisory Committee

Dr. Carl E. Zipper (Committee Chair) Associate Professor Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences Virginia Tech 330 Smyth Hall (0404) Blacksburg, VA 24061 Phone: 540-231-9782 Fax: 540-231-3431 E-mail: czip@vt.edu

Dr. Tamim Younos (Project Leader) Associate Director Virginia Water Resources Research Center Virginia Tech 210 Cheatham Hall (0444) Blacksburg, VA 24061 Phone: 540-231-8039 Fax: 540-231-6673 E-mail: tyounos@vt.edu

Dr. E. Fred Benfield Professor and Associate Dept. Head Department of Biology Virginia Tech 2125 Derring Hall (0406) Blacksburg, VA 24061 Phone: 540-231-5802 Fax: 540-231-9307 E-mail: benfield@vt.edu

Dr. Paul Bukaveckas Associate Professor Department of Biology Center for Environmental Studies Virginia Commonwealth University P.O. Box 842012 Richmond, VA 23284-2012 Phone: 804-828-0168 Fax: 804-828-0503 E-mail: pabukaveckas@vcu.edu Dr. Gregory C. Garman Associate Professor and Director Department of Biology Center for Environmental Studies Virginia Commonwealth University P.O. Box 842012 Richmond, VA 23284-2012 Phone: 804-828–7202 Fax: 804-828-0503 E-mail: gcgarman@vcu.edu

Dr. Carl H. Hershner, Jr. Associate Professor and Director School of Marine Science Center for Coastal Resources Management Virginia Institute of Marine Science P.O. Box 1346 Gloucester Point, VA 23062-1346 Phone: 804-684-7387 Fax: 804-684-7179 E-mail: carl@vims.edu

Dr. Howard I. Kator Associate Professor School of Marine Science Virginia Institute of Marine Science P.O. Box 1346 Gloucester Point, VA 23062-1346 Phone: 804-684-7341 Fax: 804-684-7097 E-mail: kator@vims.edu

Dr. Wu-Seng Lung Professor Department of Civil Engineering University of Virginia P.O. Box 400742 Charlottesville, VA 22904-4742 Phone: 434-924-3722 Fax: 434-982-2951 Email: wl@virginia.eduiv Dr. Leonard A. Shabman Resident Scholar Resources for the Future 1616 P Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-328-5139 E-mail: shabman@rff.org

Dr. Eric P. Smith Professor and Interim Dept. Chair Department of Statistics Virginia Tech 406-A Hutcheson Hall (0439) Blacksburg, VA 24061 Phone: 540-231-7929 Fax: 540-231-3863 E-mail: epsmith@vt.edu

Dr. Leonard A. Smock Professor and Department Chair Department of Biology Virginia Commonwealth University P.O. Box 842012 Richmond, VA 23284-2012 Phone: 804-828-1562 Fax: 804-828-0503 E-mail: lsmock@saturn.vcu.edu

Dr. Kurt Stephenson Associate Professor Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics Virginia Tech 208-B Hutcheson Hall (0401) Blacksburg, VA 24061 Phone: 540-231-5381 Fax: 540-231-7417 E-mail: kurts@vt.edu Ms. Jane L. Walker Research Associate Virginia Water Resources Research Center Virginia Tech 210 Cheatham Hall (0444) Blacksburg, VA 24061 Phone: 540-231-4159 Fax: 540-231-6673 E-mail: janewalk@vt.edu

Dr. Gene Yagow Research Scientist Department of Biological Systems Engineering Virginia Tech 200 Seitz Hall (0303) Blacksburg, VA 24061 Phone: 540-231-2538 Fax: 540-231-3199 E-mail: eyagow@vt.edu

### Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAC: Academic Advisory Committee ALU: aquatic life use CEDS: Comprehensive Environmental Data System CFR: Code of Federal Regulations cfs: cubic feet per second cfs/sq.mi.: cubic feet per second per square mile Chl- a : chlorophyll- a cm/yr: centimeters per year
coseg: county segment CPMI: Coastal Plain Macroinvertebrate Index DEQ: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality DT: detection limit EPA: Environmental Protection Agency FY: fiscal year GWLF: Generalized Watershed Loading Functions H o : null hypothesis ha: hectare HBI: Hilsenhoff Biotic Index HSPF: Hydrological Simulation Program – FORTRAN HUP: Hydrologic Unit Program ID: identification code lbs/yr: pounds per year
μ g/L: micrograms per liter
μ S/cm: micro-Siemens per centimeter MGD: million gallons per day mg/L: milligrams per liter mi 2 : square miles N: nitrogen NAWQA: USGS National Water-Quality Assessment NPS: non-point source NO 2 - : nitrite NO 3 - : nitrate P: phosphorus PO 4 3- : phosphate PS: point source R 2 : coefficient of determination SCI: Stream Condition Index SPARROW: Spatially Referenced Regression on Watersheds TKN: total Kjeldahl nitrogen TMDL: total maximum daily load TN: total nitrogen TP: total phosphorous U.S.: United States USGS: United States Geological Surveyvii 

### Contents

Acknowledgements p. i

Members of the Academic Advisory Committee p. iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations p. v

Contents p. vii

Summary p. 1

Section I. Localized Criteria fo r Wadeable Streams p. 3

A. Review of Other Studies with Re levance to Development of Nutrient Criteria for Wadeable Streams in Virginia. p. 3

B. Analysis of Nutrient Concentr ations in Approved TMDLs in Virginia p. 9

C. Analysis of DEQ Monitoring Data to Develop Nutrient Screening Values p. 11

D. Ambient Monitoring Nutrient Distributions p. 27

Section II. Downstream Loading p. 29

A. Pilot Application of Load-Durat ion Approach to Rappahannock River Basin p. 29

B. Downstream-loading Component of Nutrient Criteria for Freshwater Rivers and Streams: Recommended Approach p. 49

References p. 531 

### Summary

This report reviews activities conducted by the Academic Advisory Committee to the Virginia Department of Environmental Qu ality (DEQ) between Ju ly and December 2006. Activities were conducted for the purpose of developing recommendations for DEQ regarding nutrient criteria for freshwater rivers and streams. In its June 2006 report to DEQ, the AAC reco mmended that DEQ establish nutrient criteria for rivers and streams by addressing indepe ndently the two effects described by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): localiz ed and downstream-loading effects. The current report and activities address nutrient criter ia development within that framework. Section I of this report addresse s the development of screening values for wadeable streams. Reference ( i.e. , characteristics of relatively undisturbed or least disturbed st reams) and effectthreshold concentrations for in-stream nutrients that have been suggested by other studies are reviewed. Reference values for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) tend to vary by U.S. EPA’s Nutrient Ecoregions an d are generally higher in the eas tern portions of the state than in the west. Effect-threshold values derived from other studies tend to vary more widely in part due to the variety of effect endpoints that ha ve been employed in developing these thresholdconcentration estimates. A review of TMDL st udies that have been completed for nutrientimpaired streams revealed few usable reference concentrations because they are generally loadbased studies (and do not report th e streamflow information that could be used to calculate nutrient concentrations). An analysis of DEQ monitoring data found that Stream Condition Index (SCI, an indicator of benthic macroinvertebrate community status) values tend to vary negatively with nutrient concentrations. When using a statewide data set, these data allow the development of statistically significant re gression models of the in-str eam nutrient-SCI relationships. Application of these models yields “critical values” ( i.e. , nutrient values co rresponding with the SCI = 60 impairment threshold) for TN (0.8 mg/L ), total Kjeldahl nitr ogen (TKN) (0.3 mg/L), and TP (0.05 mg/L). However, even after a data-s election process intended to focus analysis on sites where no influence by non-nutrient stressors is evident, the variability of SCI response to nutrients is large; thus, the an alysis did not allow direct deri vation of appropriate screening values. The committee is also conducting analyses to a ddress development of lo calized criteria in wadeable streams; those analyses are not described in this report. Section II of the report addr esses the downstream-loading com ponent of nutrient criteria. A pilot-scale analysis using data from the Ra ppahannock River Basin illustrates a potential approach to developing numeric nutrient criteria to address downstream-loading effects. The committee recommends that the downstream-loa ding component be developed as narrative criteria within an effective water-quality management framework. This framework includes localized criteria with numeric components, cl early defined impairment-designation processes, and water-quality management processes that are effective in addressing and mitigating impairments. The report is presented as a draft, in antic ipation of interactio ns among AAC members, interactions between the AAC and DEQ, and furt her analyses to be conducted in the coming months. A final report for the current fiscal year is due to DEQ in the summer of 2007.23 

### I.A. Review of Other Studies with Re levance to Development of Nutrient Criteria for Wadeable Streams in Virginia
C. E. Zipper and J. L. Walker

This section reviews studies conducted by others with releva nce to the development of nutrient criteria for wadeable st reams in Virginia. Numeric values suggested by other studies that pertain to wadeable streams in Virginia, its ne ighboring states, and the mid-Atlantic region are provided in Table 1. Because the AAC has completed an extensive review of scientific literature on nutrient criteria development (Walker et al. 2006), this review will be brief. Several of the studies summarized below have been revi ewed with greater detail in Walker et al. (2006).

Reference Values Representing “Relatively Undi sturbed” or “Least Disturbed” Conditions

U.S. EPA calculated 25 th -percentile values for water-borne nutrients in rivers and streams from all available data by aggregate nutrient eco regions for the conterminous U.S. (for Virginia’s waters, see U.S. EPA 2000a-c). EPA designated these 25 th percentiles as “reference values,” noting that the 25 th percentiles of “all water bodie s” tend to correspond with the 75 th percentiles of reference water bodies ( i.e. , relatively undisturbed or least di sturbed water bodies of a given type). The AAC (2006) calculated comparable valu es for Virginia using Virginia DEQ ambient (10/99 – 9/05) and probabilistic (2001 – 2004) mon itoring data for the ecoregions in Virginia (Because only a few streams in Aggregate Ecoregion 14 were sampled by the probabilistic monitoring program, the 25 th percentile was not calculated from this data set). The AAC suggested that subregion 63 of Aggregate Ecor egion 14 was a more appropriate reference for Virginia because of its development status.

Smith et al. (2003) used modeling procedures (Spatially Referenced Regression on Watersheds, SPARROW) to estimate by EPA Ag gregate Nutrient Ecoregion the natural background nutrient concentrations in rivers a nd streams. SPARROW is a recognized waterquality monitoring procedure that was devel oped over an extended tim e period by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). SPARROW utilizes US GS in-stream water-quality databases for calibration. Smith et al. (2003) note that the EP A assumption that the 25 th percentiles of “all water bodies” tends to correspond with the 75 th percentiles of referen ce water bodies is supported by very few studies, and that such findings may be influenced by the fact that most reference water bodies occur in relatively small stream s. They expressed their results as the 75 th percentile of predicted natural-background concentrations by ecoregion to allow comparisons to EPA’s calculated 25 th -percentile “reference” valu es. These comparisons were made with and without consideration of recent atmospheric nitrogen deposition. In another study, the researchers followed the U.S. EPA reference approach in proposing nutrient criteria values but developed alternative nutrient regions, called environmental nutrient

zones . The ecoregion subdivisions were base d on differences in many factors ( e.g. , soils, climate, vegetation, geology, and land use). The nutrient z ones were determined from the relations between median TN or median TP and the most statistically significant environmental characteristics (excluding land use). The zones that included data from the New and Big Sandy rivers in Virginia (from the Kanawha-New River Basins NAWQA study) are Environmental Nitrogen Zone-4 (ENZ-4) and Environmental Ph osphorus Zone-2 (EPZ-2). Criteria were4 proposed using the 75 th percentile of data from sites within each zone that represent “reference” conditions, i.e. , sites in watersheds with less than 25 percent agricultura l land use. Proposed criteria values for the zones that included da ta from the New River and Big Sandy River were 0.67 mg/L for TN and 0.05 mg /L for TP (Robertson et al. 2001). Criteria were also suggested based on the 25 th percentile of all the data w ithin a given zone. From the 25 th percentile of all the data for ENZ-4, a TN criterion of 0.51 mg/L could be expected. The 25 th percentile for EPZ-2 would yield a TP criterio n of 0.02 mg/L (Robertson et al. 2001).

Clark et al. (2000) obtained data from 85 sites across th e United States and used those data to estimate concentrations and yields of select ed nutrients in streams draining relatively undeveloped basins. The median values in Table 1 are from sites in Virginia, its neighboring states, and other states within EPA Region 3. Nitr ate-N data were available for 16 sites of this type, whereas other nutrient parameters were on ly available from 7 sites. The data represent mean annual flow-weighted concentr ations for the 1990 – 1995 time periods. The AAC has recommended to Virginia DEQ th at nutrient concentrations in “relatively undisturbed” or least-disturbed streams should not be considered as an appropriate basis for establishing nutrient criteria in the rivers and streams of Virgin ia. Instead, the numeric criteria should be based on a method that adheres closely to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) by protecting the designated uses of the water body. In fact, the CFR defines the term criteria as “elements of State water quality standards, expr essed as constituent concentrations, levels, or narrative statements, representing a quality of water that supports a particular use. When criteria are met, water quality will generally prot ect the designated use” [40 CFR 131.3(b)].

Other Suggested Nutrient Thresholds

A nutrient threshold can be defined as the c oncentration at which an effect, such as eutrophication or biological impair ment, begins to occur. Potentia l threshold values derived from studies conducted within Virginia and the region are incl uded here. Some of the published nitrogen and phosphorus values discussed in this section, however, were not presented in the literature as “threshold values .” For example, Hornberger et al . (1977) recommend not using the values from their study as strict thresholds but rather general indications of the trophic condition. Hornberger et al. (1977) used a subjective ranking of the eutrophic st ate of six river sites, five in Virginia and one in New Hampshire, based on their best pr ofessional judgment, knowledge of the land use, and measurements of nitrates, phosphate s, and chlorophyll- a . They also determined the productivity at each site from continuou s measurements of dissolved oxygen, temperature, and solar radiation and then compared their proposed eutrophic state with the results from the prod uctivity study. They determined that productivity measurements can be used to classify the eutrophic state of ri vers. Based on the production and respiration measurements, Hornberger et al. (1977) classified Baker Rive r in New Hampshire as “clean” (oligotrophic). This river had NO 3 +NO 2 (N) concentrations of 0.1 – 0.2 mg/L and PO 4 (P) concentrations of <0.003 mg/L. From the produc tivity measurements in the Rappahannock River, the water quality was listed as po ssibly eutrophic even t hough the river seemed “unpolluted” from the qualitative impression s of the authors. The range of nutrient concentrations for the Rapphannock River overlappe d with those of the high eutrophic rivers (NO 3 +NO 2 [N] = 0.3 – 0.7 mg/L; PO 4 [P] = 0.003 – 0.05 mg/L). The nutrient concentrations for the four rivers rated eutrophic from the produc tivity measurements (Mechums, South Fork5 Rivanna, Rivanna, and South) rang ed from 0.1 to 1.0 mg/L for NO 3 +NO 2 (N) and <0.003 to 0.30 mg/L for PO 4 (P) (Hornberger et al. 1977).

Ponader et al. (2005) conducted a study of periphytic algae and diatom assemblages in Virginia streams. From the observed changes in the diatom assemblages, the authors suggested threshold limits of 0.5 mg/L for NO 3 -N and 0.05 mg/L for TP to protect against conditions they termed as nutrient impairment. NO 3 -N was used as an indicator of nitrogen status because other nitrogen-concentration variables (TKN, TN ) were not measured successfully. The NO 3 -N threshold was selected because benthic chlorophyll- a levels above 100 mg/m 2 occurred at NO 3 -N levels above 0.5 mg/L, alt hough several sites with NO 3 -N levels above 0.5 mg/L did not exceed benthic chlorophyll- a levels of 100 mg/m 2 . The TP threshold identification was based on the finding that several diatom species indices correctly assigned samples to the TP concentration categories 0.01 – 0.05 mg/L and 0.05 – 0.10 mg/L.

Stevenson et al. (2006) studied the correspondence of va rious algal biomass indicators with nutrient concentrations in 102 Michigan a nd northwestern Kentucky streams. High algal biomasses were rare in both areas if TP was < 0.03 mg/L and TN was <1 mg/L, and they recommended these levels as potential “targets to prevent a high probability of nuisance accrual of Cladophora.” They also recommended that, to protect streams with na turally low levels of productivity and algal biomass, “ nutrient concentrations should probably be constrained” to 0.4 mg/L TN and 0.01 mg/L TP. The lead author of this study is assisting the st ate of Kentucky in its development of nutrient criteria. Laboratory and field studies by Lemly (2000) and Lemly and King (2000) demonstrated a direct linkage between bacterial growth on be nthic macroinvertebrates and macroinvertebrate mortality. Lemly and King (2000) studied two th ird-order, low flowi ng, cypress-gum wetland streams in the Cape Fear basin in North Carolina . The stream they classified as unenriched had macroinvertebrate orders that were free of bact erial growth, mean TN concentrations between 0.715 – 1.97 mg/L, and mean TP concentrations below 0.200 mg/L (0.054 – 0.198 mg/L). The stream in the study that was classified as enri ched, based primarily on land use (hog farms were present in the watershed), had macroinvertebrate orders that were co lonized by bacteria, and generally had higher nutrient concentrations (mean TN = 1.93 – 3.89 mg/L; mean TP = 0.169 – 0.620 mg/L) (Lemly and King 2000). A Technical Advisory Committee recommended to Virginia DEQ in 1987 that the range of 0.1 – 0.2 mg/L for TP in flowing waters should be considered as appropriate for screening purposes (IEN 1987). The committee report provides little background on the reasoning applied by the group in recommending these limits, other than the likelihood that variations in natural background levels of TP in streams made a rang e of concentrations ap propriate instead of designating a single threshold conc entration. The group agreed that no standard for nitrogen in flowing waters was necessary.6 Table 1. Reference values for nutrient concentrati ons and other potential threshold values in Virginia and regional waters repor ted in other studies. All values are expressed as total nitrogen and total phosphorous unless otherwise noted. Study N (mg/L) P (mg/L) Source

Relatively Undisturbe d / Least Disturbed Reference Values:

Ecoregion 11 25 th percentile of Virginia ambient monitoring data 0.38 ≤ 0.01 AAC 2006

25 th percentile of Virginia probabilistic monitoring data 0.265 ≤ 0.01 AAC 2006

25 th percentile of available monitoring data (regional) 0.31 0.01 U.S. EPA 2000a 75 th percentile of SPARROW-modeled background 0.29 ±0.09 0.02 ±0.01 Smith et al. 2003

Ecoregion 9 25 th percentile of Virginia ambient monitoring data 0.45 0.025 AAC 2006

25 th percentile of Virginia probabilistic monitoring data 0.35 0.02 AAC 2006

25 th percentile of available monitoring data (regional) 0.69 0.037 U.S. EPA 2000b 75 th percentile of SPARROW-modeled background 0.28 ±0.08 0.05 ±0.02 Smith et al. 2003

Ecoregion 14 25 th percentile of Virginia ambient monitoring data 0.92 0.054 AAC 2006

25 th percentile of available monitoring data (regional) 0.71 0.031 U.S. EPA 2000c 25 th percentile of available monitoring data (regional, subregion 63) 0.87 0.0525 U.S. EPA 2000c 75 th percentile of SPARROW-modeled background 0.76 ±0.30 0.02 ±0.005 Smith et al. 2003

Statewide and Regional 75 th percentile of environmental nutrient zones containing Virginia watersheds with less than 25% agricultural land use 0.67 0.05 Robertson et al. 2001

25 th percentile of all data in environmental nutrient zones containi ng Virginia streams 0.51 0.02 Robertson et al. 20017 Median values from “u ndeveloped, relatively undisturbed” stream basi ns in mid-Atlantic U.S. 0.384 <0.03 Clark et al. 2000

Medians, undeveloped (as oxidized N, phosphate P) 0.176 <0.008 Clark et al. 2000

Other Suggested Nutrient Thresholds

Corresponding nutrient conditions for Baker River (NH) rated oligotrophic based on productivity measurements 0.1 – 0.2 <0.003 Hornberger et al. 1977

Corresponding nutrient conditions for Rappahannock River ( VA) rated possibly eutrophic based on productivity measurements 0.3 – 0.7 0.003 – 0.05 Hornberger et al. 1977

Corresponding nutrient conditions for Virginia rivers rated eutrophic based on productivity measurements 0.1 – 1.0 <0.003 – 0.30 Hornberger et al. 1977

Virginia: Change in diatom assemblages 0.05 Virginia: Periphytic algae >100 mg/m 2 (as nitrate N) 0.5 Ponader et al. 2005

Kentucky and Michigan: Prevent a high probability of nuisance Cladophora 1.0 0.03

Kentucky and Michigan: Protect stream communities where low levels of in-stream productivity are natural conditions 0.4 0.01 Stevenson et al. 2006

North Carolina: “Unenriched” stream with benthic macroinvertebrates free of bacteria < 1.97 < 0.198 Lemly and King 2000 North Carolina: “Enric hed” stream with benthic macroinvertebrates colonized by bacteria > 1.93 > 0.169 Lemly and King 2000

Current Virginia “screening va lues” n/a 0.1 – 0.2 IEN 198789 

### I.B. Analysis of Nutrient Concentrat ions in Approved TMDLs in Virginia
G. Yagow

As of November 21, 2006, twelve TMDLs with a nutrient component had been approved in Virginia. Nine stream segments have approve d TMDLs for phosphorus, and three segments have approved TMDLs for nitrates (DEQ 2006a). A su mmary of these TMDLs is given in Table 2.

Table 2. Nutrient TMDLs approved in Virginia. Stream Contractor HUP Model Reference Watershed

South Run Louis Berger A19R GWLF Popes Head Creek Cooks Creek Tetra Tech B25R, B26R GWLF Hays Creek? Mill Creek Tetra Tech B27R GWLF Hays Creek Pleasant Run Tetra Tech B29R GWLF Hays Creek Muddy Creek Tetra Tech B22R GWLF Hays Creek UT to Chickahominy GMU, Tetra Tech G05R Reckhow

Spring Branch NR RC&D, MapTech K32R Eutromod NF Blackwater Tetra Tech L08R Big Chestnut Creek Muddy Creek UVA B42 HSPF Dry River B41, B43 HSPF North River not modeled

Stream TMDL Annual Flow Average TP Endpoints TMDL In-stream N

(lbs P/yr) (cm/yr) (mg/ L) (lbs N/yr) (mg/L) South Run 1,124 0.053 - 0.070 Cooks Creek 9,367 Mill Creek 6,001 Pleasant Run 3,910 Muddy Creek 6,088 UT to Chickahominy 432.69

Spring Branch 427.10 0.0481* NF Blackwater 6,960 Muddy Creek not given 10 Dry River not given 10 North River * Simulated by the EUTROMOD model in Bryant Pond as corresp onding to the eutrophication threshold in Carlson's Trophic State Index.

All of the nitrate TMDLs were developed fo r exceedences of the nitrate drinking water standard (10 mg/L NO 3 -N). These TMDLs used the nitrate standard as the TMDL target, and the TMDL was written in terms of con centrations rather than loads.10 All of the phosphorus TMDLs were based on stressor analyses for identified benthic impairments and used the reference watershed a pproach for setting the TMDL endpoints. All of the phosphorus TMDLs were defined in terms of annual loads. Only two of these TMDLs included information in their onlin e reports related to in-stream concentration equivalents, as shown in Table 2. Although it would be possible to calculate mean annual concentr ations if mean annual flows were available for the various TMDLs, this info rmation was not presented in any of the reports except for South Run, and to some extent in th e Spring Branch TMDL. In the South Run TMDL, mean annual flows and mean annual concentra tions were presented for various allocation scenarios and compared with mean annual concen trations based on Tribut ary Strategy cap loads as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Comparison of South Run TMDL average annual total phosphorus concentrations for various allocation scenarios w ith Tributary Strategy mean an nual target concentrations. Tributary Strategy* Nonpoint Source 1 Point Source Average Annual Simulated TP Shenandoah River Rappahannock River Scenario

(mg/L) (cfs) (mg/L) (MGD 2 ) (mg/L) Min Mean Max Min Mean Max 1 0.053 9.58 1.59 0.072 0.070 2 0.053 9.58 0.3 0.247 0.062 3 0.053 9.58 - - 0.053 0.054 0.126 0.219 0.055 0.122 0.27

1 Based on GWLF simulation results for South Run
2 million gallons per day * Source: DEQ 2005

The simulated annual average TP concentratio ns for South Run, the minimum mean annual concentrations for meeting Tribut ary Strategy cap loads, and the concentration in Spring Branch that corresponded with a Trophic Status Index of 60, all fall within a narrow band from 0.048 to 0.070 mg/L.11 

### I.C. Analysis of DEQ Monitoring Data to Develop Nutrient Screening Values
C. E. Zipper and E. P. Smith

Summary

This section describes an anal ysis of Virginia DEQ monitoring data conducted for the purpose of developing nutrient screening values . DEQ provided a data set that included both biological monitoring (benthic macroinvertebra tes) and water-quality monitoring data for identical locations and similar times. Those data were screened for the pu rpose of identifying and removing observations for which the data record contains evidence of potential effects on the aquatic community by non-nutrient stressors. The da ta were then analyzed with the goal of defining relationships between in-stream nutrient concentrations and the Stream Condition Index (SCI), an indicator of the benthi c community status. The analysis yielded statistically significant relationships between SCI and l og-transformed nutrien t variables (TKN, TN, and TP, expressed as mg/L concentrations). These relationships indicate that “critical values” (nutrient concentrations that correspond with the SCI = 60 impairment threshold) for TKN, TN, and TP are 0.3, 0.8, and 0.05 mg/L respectively. These levels are similar to the nutrient thresholds identified by prior studies (Section I.A. of this report) and TP impairment thresholds estimated by the few TMDL studies that cited concentratio ns (Section I.B.). However, SCI responses to nutrient concentrations are highly variable, as indicated by the wide prediction intervals occurring within the SCI-predict ion models. Therefore, we cons ider this analysis to be inconclusive as a basis for reco mmending in-stream nutrient concentr ations that may be used as screening values.

Introduction

The screening-value approach differs from othe r methods for defining wa ter-quality criteria because nutrients differ from traditional stressors in a fundamental manner. Whereas traditional stressors generally exert toxic in fluences that directly degrade the system, low-level inputs of nutrients serve to increase the pr oductivity of the system. At hi gher levels (over enrichment), nutrients may become a stress to the syst em. Furthermore, variations among physical characteristics of river-and-stream systems aff ect the responses of those systems to nutrient enrichment. As a result, biotic responses to nutri ent enrichment at specific concentration levels are highly variable among ri ver and stream systems. The screening value approach recommended to pr otect localized uses in wadeable streams in Virginia was described more fully in the June 2006 AAC report to DEQ. The process is summarized in Figure 1. The screening value appr oach is applied with the intention of limiting assessment errors despite the inherent variabilit y of responses to nutrients by aquatic systems. Type I errors occur when water quality assessments list the stream as impaired, but the stream supports its designated uses. Type II errors occur when the water quality a ssessment fails to list the stream as impaired even though the stream do es not support its designa ted uses (Figure 2).12 

## Is N or P concentration > screening value? No

Not Impaired Does visual as sessment reveal algal growth sufficient to indicate potential nutrient impairment?

Is diurnal DO va riation sufficient to indicate nutr ient impairment?

Does macroinvertebrate community indicate impairment? Impaired. Do TMDL No

No Yes Yes

Yes

For exceptional resources ( e.g., nutrient-sensitive T&E species): Anti-degradation approach. 

## Is N or P concentration > screening value? No

Not Impaired Does visual as sessment reveal algal growth sufficient to indicate potential nutrient impairment?

Is diurnal DO va riation sufficient to indicate nutr ient impairment?

Does macroinvertebrate community indicate impairment? Impaired. Do TMDL No

No Yes Yes

Yes

For exceptional resources ( e.g., nutrient-sensitive T&E species): Anti-degradation approach.
Figure 1. The screening process recommended by the Academic Advisory Committee to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality fo r implementation as the localized component of nutrient criteria in wade able streams (AAC 2006).



### Type I

Error

Type II Error Correct Decision

Correct Decision 

### Ho: Stream Supports Designated Use

TRUE FALSE



### Waterquality

assessment lists stream as

impaired NO (Accept Ho) YES (Reject

Ho)

Figure 2. A representation of the Type I and Type II error concepts as they apply to water quality assessments.13 A secondary goal of using the screening value approach is to efficiently utilize DEQ’s resources while meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act. A screening-value exceedance does not necessarily result in an impairment design ation. Instead, the response to a screening-value exceedance is additional stream monitoring. The purpose of the additional monitoring is to provide a more definitive assessment. Theref ore the screening value can be established conservatively so as to limit Type II errors de spite the nutrient-response variability of stream communities. Type I errors (and the consequent resource expenditures for TMDL studies of streams where the designated use has not been im paired) can also be lim ited by this approach.

Application of the screening- value approach, however, does re quire an evaluation of tradeoffs: Setting the screening value very conservatively, so as reduce the Type II error, probably increases the number of non-impaired sites caugh t by the screen. For each of these sites, DEQ must expend resources to make the correct assessment decision (limit Type I errors). Thus, the screening value approach embodies a trade-o ff between error limitation and water-monitoring resource expenditures. In this analysis, we evaluate potential screening valu es within the above conceptual framework.

Methods

A data set for use in this analysis was prep ared by DEQ and provided to the AAC in late November 2006. As a first step in data preparat ion, DEQ personnel accessed the Ecological Data Application System (EDAS) database (1989 to present) to identify al l records of benthic macroinvertebrate community assessment in Virginia streams that were conducted at a level sufficient to calculate a str eam condition index (SCI) value (Burton and Gerritson 2003). All water-quality records associated with the biol ogical monitoring location were accessed and used to create two data files: (1 ) all records within the three months preceding and one month following each biological monitoring observation , and (2) all water-quality monitoring records for locations where biological monitoring obs ervations had been recorded since 1989. DEQ probabilistic, routine am bient, and special study biological monitoring observations were included. The biological monito ring records contained a calculated SCI value and various benthic macroinvertebrate and ha bitat metrics. The water-quality monitoring records contained site-measured parameters such as conductivity, pH, and dissolved oxygen. Laboratory measured nutrient parameters and other asso ciated water-quality constituents such as non-filterable residue (total suspended solids) were also included.

Nutrient Variables

Various analytical procedures have been used to estimate in-stream nutrients. The nutrient parameters in the data set, therefore, were an alyzed and in some cases adjusted to produce a consistent water-quality data set suitable for subsequent analysis. When total nitrogen (TN) was not measured directly but constituent components were measured, TN was calculated as the sum of the constituents. Where nitrite-N was reported as ≤ 0.05 mg/L, a proxy value for nitrite-N was estimated based on the corresponding nitrate-N value (the majority of nitrite-N values ≤ 0.05 mg/L were assigned as ≤ 0.01 mg/L). Where total Kjeldahl N (TKN) or oxidized N was not measur ed directly but could be calculated from measured values of TN and the corresponding TN component, those values were calculated and14 used in the analysis. The majority of TKN valu es were reported at 0.1 mg /L precision; those few values reported at 0.01 precision and >0.07 mg/L were rounded to 0.1 mg/L. When TKN was reported as ≤ 0.1 mg/L, that value was rounded to 0.05 mg/L for use in the analyses. Because TP was analyzed only to the 0.1 mg/L level of precision prior to July 1999, all data prior to July 1999 were deleted. Additionally, TP observations made after June 1999 that were reported as ≤ 0.1 mg/L (14 of 1286 TP observations) were deleted. The correspondence of measured ortho-P with measured TP values was evaluated to determine the feasibility of using measured ortho-P to estimate missing TP values ; that possibility was rejected. The ortho-P variable was determined as unsuitable for use in subsequent analyses because of a high number of observations reported as ≤ 0.05 mg/L during the 2003 – 2004 period.

Data Record Screening and Selection

Data were screened to identify and eliminat e biological monitoring observations potentially influenced by non-nutrient stressors. Any monitori ng location described or coded as being below a point-source discharge was removed from the database. DEQ “reference filters” ( i.e., criteria used by DEQ biologists in loca ting biological monitoring refere nces) were applied (Table 4, DEQ 2006b). Any location demonstrating a consistent pattern of failing to satisfy the reference filtering screens for reasons othe r than TN, TP, and dissolved oxygen (DO) were eliminated from subsequent analyses. The “% Urban” compositi on of watershed areas was determined for pre2005 probabilistic monitoring locations using land -use data compiled by the DEQ probabilistic monitoring group. Additionally, land-use data asse mbled by the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences GIS lab in late 2005 was applied to DEQ monitoring stations to identify urban land-use percentages. For those monitoring locations repr esented in both DEQ and VIMS databases, the urban land-use percentages were in close agreement. Each biological monitoring observation was pair ed with a single water-quality observation. For most probabilistic samples, only one wate r-quality monitoring observation was available during the 3 months prior to or 1 month following the biological monitoring event. For locations where more than one water-quality measurement was available, criteria used to select the waterquality monitoring observation included (a) ava ilability and completeness of water-quality nutrient measurements, (b) temporal proximit y, and (c) measured total suspended solids concentrations that indicated a non-stormflow sampling event.15 Table 4. DEQ reference-filter standards for use in Mountain and Piedmont ecoregions. % Urban <5% Total Nitrogen* < 1.5 mg/L Total Phosphorus* < 0.05 mg/L Specific Conductance < 250 uS/cm Dissolved O 2 * > 6 mg/L pH < 6 or > 9 Habitat Scores: Total >140** Channel Alteration >11 Epifaunal Substrate/Cover >11 Riparian Vegetative Zone >11 Embeddedness*** >11 * Not applied in current study ** Interpreted as >10 per habitat element quantified. At most sites, fewer than 14 habitat variables had been evaluated. *** Mountains only

Observations within the Coastal Plain physi ographic region (EPA Level III ecoregions 63 and 65 – see Figure 3) were scrutinized, recogniz ing that the SCI has been validated only for Virginia’s mountain and piedmont regions. Fiftee n “Coastal Plain” observations were found to occur within the post-screening data. These observations were in cluded because (a) recorded SCI values were highly correlated (R 2 = 0.76) with the Coastal Pl ain Macroinvertebrate Index (CPMI) values used by DEQ for Coastal Plain assessments; (b) assessment decisions for 14 of the 15 sites would be identical using either the SCI or the CPMI value, and the 15 th Coastal Plain site was located very close to the Piedmont boundary; and (c) inclus ion of the Coastal Plain sites improved the statistical relationships be tween water-quality nutrients and SCI.

Figure 3. EPA Nutrient Ecoregions (9, 11, and 14) and Level III Ecoregions in Virginia.16 Correspondence of SCI Values to Water-Quality Nutrient Levels

Data analysis was initiated by evaluating the pr obability of detecting biological impairments at various water-quality nutrient levels usi ng the scale in Table 5 (DEQ 2006b). Stressed and severely-stressed categories were considered to be impaired.

Table 5: Virginia Stream Condition Index (SCI) scor es and associated aquatic life use (ALU) tiers and assessment listings

. SCI Score ALU ALU Tiers Assessment <42 Severe Stress Impaired >42

– <60 Stress Impaired >60

– <73 Good Not Impaired >73 Excellent Not Impaired

A series of statistical models we re constructed and analyzed in an effort to predict SCI scores based on in-stream nutrient and chlorophyll- a measurements.

Results

A total of 262 biological monito ring observations at 181 locations were selected as suitable for use in the subsequent analysis (Table 6). Distributions of nutrient and chlorophyll- a waterquality values were non-normally distributed (ske wed) (Figure 4), as is commonly observed in water-quality studies. Therefore, log-transformed values were used in the development of the predictive models. Nutrient concentrations in the analyzed data set were highest in Ecor egion 14 and lowest in Ecoregion 11 (Table 7), as e xpected based on prior analyses (AAC 2006). TKN, TN, TP, and chlorophyll- a levels varied among the tiers of aquatic life use in Ecoregion 9, where the greatest number of SCI observations were located. In general, higher nutrient and chlorophyll- a values tended to occur in association with lower aquati c life use tiers in Ecoreg ion 9 (Table 7). This pattern was not present in Ecoregion 11. Instea d, nutrient levels in Ecoregion 11 tended to decline with increasing benthic macroinvertebrate community stress (as indicated by declining SCI scores). Few benthic-impaired sites, howev er, were located in Ecoregion 11. Only 4 SCI observations, all indicating severely stressed communities, were located in Ecoregion 14. Histograms representing the per centages of benthic macroinvert ebrate observations within various aquatic life use tiers for various nutrient-c oncentration ranges, statewide, are displayed in Figure 5. Stressed and severely stressed communities are assessed by DEQ as impaired. These histograms show generally increasing levels of stress with increasing nu trient and chlorophyll- a values, although with varying consistency. This pattern is least eviden t for oxidized N (N as NO 2 - +NO 3 - ) and is highly evident for TKN and TP.17 Table 6. Characteristics of biological and associ ated water-quality monitoring observations selected for analysis. Mean and median units: NO 2 +NO 3 , total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total nitrogen, and total phosphor us = mg/L; chlorophyll- a = μ g/L.

- - - Ecoregion - - - State 11 9 14 Observations 80 178 4 262 Locations 55 122 4 181

Count SCI 80 178 4 262 NO 2 + NO 3 77 156 4 237 TKN 70 147 4 221 Total Nitrogen 73 162 4 239 Total Phosphorus 79 171 4 254 Chlorophyll- a 44 103 3 150

Mean SCI 71.60 61.50 34.78 64.18 NO 2 + NO 3 0.23 0.31 1.53 0.31 TKN 0.12 0.36 0.68 0.29 Total Nitrogen 0.34 0.65 2.11 0.58 Total Phosphorus 0.017 0.047 0.110 0.04 Chlorophyll- a 0.95 1.94 2.11 1.65

Median SCI 74.30 64.18 33.43 67.78 NO 2 + NO 3 0.12 0.17 1.44 0.16 TKN 0.10 0.30 0.65 0.20 Total Nitrogen 0.27 0.46 2.14 0.42 Total Phosphorus 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.03 Chlorophyll- a 0.50 1.14 1.99 0.8918 0.01

0.1 1 10

1 61 121 181 Observations ranked by increasing concentrationConcentration (mg/L) Oxidized N
TKN Total N



### 0.01

0.1 1

1 66 131 196 Observations ranked by increasing concentrationConcentration (mg/L)

Total P



### 0.1 1 10 100

1 39 77 115 Observations ranked by increasing concentrationConcentration (ug/L) Cholorophyll a

Figure 4. Distributions of selected variables within the data set used for analysis; because distributions are skewed, variab les are plotted on log scales.19 Table 7. Mean nutrient and chlorophyll- a values (mg/L), stream condition index (SCI) values, and SCI observation counts by ecore gion and aquatic life use tier. - - - - - - - - Aquatic Life Use Tier - - - - - - - - - Excellent Good Stress Severe Stress All

NO 2 +NO 3 Eco 11 0.17 0.33 0.16 0.05 0.23

Eco 9 0.31 0.30 0.32 0.36 0.31 Eco 14 1.53 1.53 All 0.23 0.31 0.30 0.56 0.31

TKN Eco 11 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.05 0.12

Eco 9 0.22 0.28 0.38 0.80 0.36 Eco 14 0.68 0.68 All 0.16 0.23 0.36 0.74 0.29

TN Eco 11 0.30 0.44 0.20 0.10 0.34

Eco 9 0.55 0.60 0.62 1.06 0.65 Eco 14 2.11 2.11 All 0.40 0.56 0.58 1.22 0.58

TP Eco 11 0.017 0.017 0.018 0.010 0.017

Eco 9 0.036 0.039 0.055 0.084 0.047 Eco 14 0.110 0.110 All 0.024 0.033 0.051 0.085 0.039

Chl- a Eco 11 1.01 0.92 0.88 0.50 0.95

Eco 9 1.08 1.26 3.06 2.59 1.94 Eco 14 2.11 2.11 All 1.04 1.16 2.75 2.39 1.65

SCI Eco 11 77.77 67.43 54.96 41.12 71.60

Eco 9 76.49 67.24 52.57 35.37 61.50 Eco 14 34.78 34.78 All 77.25 67.30 52.82 35.52 64.18

Count Eco 11 42 31 6 1 80

Eco 9 29 81 51 17 178 Eco 14 4 4 All 71 112 57 22 26220 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

.01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07-.08 .09-.12 >0.12 Total P (mg/L)% of Observations

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

<0.5 (DT) 0.51-0.79 '0.8-1.19 1.2-1.99 >2 Chlorophyll-a (ug/L)% of Observations

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

<0.5 (DT) 0.51-0.79 '0.8-1.19 1.2-1.99 >2

Chlorophyll-a (ug/L)% of Observations 

# Excellent Good

Severe Stress Stress

Figure 5. Histograms representing percentages of bent hic macroinvertebrate observations within various aquatic life use tiers occu rring within different nutrient categories. Stressed and severely

stressed communities are defined as impaired. Histograms for nitrogen water-quality variables are displayed on the following page.21 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

<0.1 >1.0 0.1- 0.19 0.2- 0.29 0.3- 0.39 0.4- 0.49 0.5- 0.59 0.6- 0.79 0.8- 0.99

NO2-NO3 N (mg/L)% of Observations

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

<=0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6-0.7 0.8 & Above TKN (mg/L% of Observations

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

<0.2 0.2-0.29 0.3-0.39 0.4-0.49 0.5-0.59 0.6-0.79 0.8-0.99 >1.0
Total N (mg/L)% of Observations22 Several models were developed to test the dependence of SCI on in-stream nutrients using log-transformed nutrient concentrations as inde pendent variables (Table 8). Of the nutrient variables determined as suitable for model deve lopment, TKN showed the strongest relationship with SCI (highest R 2 ) whereas oxidized N showed the weak est relationship. TP demonstrated a stronger monovariate relationship with SCI than did TN. A multivariate model combining TKN with TP demonstrated a slightly higher R 2 (0.24) than did a monova riate model using only TKN (R 2 = 0.23). Because the oxidized nitrogen showed such a weak relationship with SCI (R 2
≤ 0.01), it was not considered further.

Table 8. Stream Condition Index (SCI) prediction models evaluated. Independent Variable Functional Form Adjusted R 2 Critical Value*

Oxidized N SCI = 61.4 - 1.38 * Ln(NO2+NO3) 0.008 TKN SCI = 51.4 - 7.70 * Ln(TKN) 0.233 0.3 TN SCI = 58.9 - 6.21 * Ln(TN) 0.127 0.8 TP SCI = 39.6 - 6.85* Ln(TP) 0.177 0.05 Chlorophyll- a SCI = 62.4 - 7.34 * Ln(Chl- a ) 0.134 TKN and TP SCI = 45.0 - 6.00 * Ln( TKN) -2.53 * Ln(TP) 0.241 n/a * mg/L value where SCI = 60

Using the monovariate models, “cr itical values” for TKN, TN, and TP were determined as the concentrations corresponding wi th SCI = 60. This SCI value was selected for defining critical nutrient values because it is us ed in stream assessments to differentiate impaired from nonimpaired stream systems. The resulting critical valu es identified for TN and TP (Table 8) were at levels higher than common reference values for ecoregions 9 and 11 (Table 1, Section I.A.), which comprise most of the state’s land area. Th e 60% confidence interval (which represents a 20% risk of generating a Type II error, or a 20% probability that the screening value would fail to capture an impaired site) fa iled to encompass SCI = 60 for T KN and TP concentrations above common reference values (Table 1, Section I.A.; Figure 6). The bivariate prediction model (utilizing TKN and TP) was also unable to define higherthan-reference-value TKN and TP combinations that would be capable of predicting SCI > 60 with acceptable precision (Figure 7).23 

### 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 

### TP (mg/L)Predicted SCI 

### predIBI

lower95
upper95

lower90
upper90

lower80
upper80

lower60
upper60

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 TKN (mg/L)Predicted SCI 

### predIBI

lower95

upper95

lower90

upper90

lower80

upper80

lower60

upper60

Figure 6. Stream Condition Index (SCI) dependence on TP and TKN represented by monovariate prediction models (solid line), with 95%, 90%, 80%, and 60% prediction intervals (dashed lines).24 

### 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 TKN (mg/L)Lower 80% Confidence Interval -Predicted SCI 

### TP=.01 TP=.03 TP=.05 TP=.07

40 45 50 55 60 65 70

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 TKN (mg/L)Lower 60% Confidence Interval -Predicted SCI 

### TP=.01 TP=.02 TP=.03 TP=.05 TP=.07

Figure 7. Lower boundaries of the 80% (above) a nd 60% (below) Stream Condition Index (SCI)-prediction intervals for various (TKN, TP) co mbinations contained within the data set, as per the bivariate (TKN, TP) SCI prediction model.25 Discussion

The indication that TKN is a better predictor of SCI than TN is consistent with the observation that TKN measurements from unfiltere d samples (such as those which are utilized by DEQ monitoring) include planktonic algae biomass N. It appears reasonable to expect that planktonic algae levels would be higher in nutrient-impaired st reams than in other streams. The nitrogen critical values of 0.8 mg/L for TN and 0.3 mg/L for TKN are consistent with the threshold value identified by Ponader et al. (2005) for periphytic algae > 100 mg/m 2 (0.5 mg/L nitrate N). These critical values are comparab le to nutrient threshol ds identified in other studies (Section I.A.). The critical value for TP (0.05 mg/L) is id entical to the TP value identified by Ponader et al. (2005) as a threshold for change in algal species composition in Virginia waters. The TP critical value is also comparab le to in-stream P concentrations for the two nutrient TMDL studies that included TMDL restor ation target concentrations (Section I.B.). The nutrient-SCI relationships embodied by the SCI prediction models are consistent with expectations and with the assump tion that underlie the analysis: In all statewide relationships analyzed, high water-quality nutrient concentrati ons are related negatively to measured SCI values. These relationships, however, are high ly variable, as evidenced by their low R 2 values and wide prediction intervals. Resu lts indicate that the use of the critical values in Table 8 as screening values would be likel y result in numerous Type II erro rs (waters with a SCI < 60 but not identified as possibly nutrient impaired by the TKN, TN, and TP screening values). Thus, if the screening values are to be defined with the goal of limiting Type II errors, defining screening values as nutrient concentrations lower than the critical values would be warranted. However, the data variance embodied by the models creates pred iction intervals that ar e sufficiently wide to render them unusable as a basis for recomme nding statistically valid screening values. It is possible that the nutrient concentration-SC I variance may, in reality, be less than that indicated by the data set. Part of the variance could have o ccurred due to influences by nonnutrient stressors that were not successfully identified by the data screening procedure. Some low SCI scores (including SCI values < 60 that indicate impairment) we re found to be present at very low nutrient levels. In fact, for both TN and TP , approximately 10% of the monitoring locations within the lowest concen tration category (Figure 5) were a ssociated with SCI < 60. We checked the presumption that such impairments may be non-nutrient related by sear ching the data set for all observations where low SCI values were associ ated with low TN and TP concentrations. Of the six observations found to be in the lowest quartile for TN, TP , and SCI, five also exhibited high Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HB I) scores (highest quartile), i ndicating a community with a high level of tolerance to organic and nutrient pollution. Unfortunately, most of these observations were taken from probabilistic monitoring samples so we have no way to check whether the low nutrient values recorded by the single water-quality monitoring observation represented are characteristic of the nutrient concentrations that are generally experienced at these locations.

What Are Appropriate Screening Values?

It is possible that the data set used for th e analysis reflects bot h nutrient and non-nutrient stressor effects. Although an effort was made to discard all SCI obs ervations affected by nonnutrient stressors prior to data analysis, there is no guarantee that this goal was achieved. The possibility that the data set includes both nutrient and non-nutrie nt stressor effects must be considered given that analysis re sults include apparent benthic im pairments (SCI values < 60) at26 locations with nutrient concentratio ns that are quite low relative to effect-based thresholds cited in Section I.A. Considering only the analysis that was descri bed above, one interpretation could be that screening values could be defined as equivalent to reference values characteristic of “relatively undisturbed” or “least disturbed” waters because there appears to be some opportunity for Type II error regardless of the screening value sele cted. However, we would not argue for this interpretation, given the possibility that some of the low-nutrient concentration impairments (SCI values < 60) considered in the above analysis may have occurred in response to non-nutrient
stressors. Therefore, we consider this analysis to be inconclusive as a ba sis for recommending instream nutrient concentrations that may be used as screening values.27 

### I.D. Ambient Monitoring Nutrient Distributions
C. E. Zipper

One task described by the AAC’s FY07 work pr ogram is to estimate the implications of a recommended screening hierarchy on additional monitoring that mi ght be required as a result of implementing that screening hierarchy. A lthough we are not recommending a specific screening mechanism at this time, we believe it is useful to cons ider the potential DEQ monitoring-resource requirements as if screen ing values were to be implemented. As a general example, the resources re quired to conduct a visual a ssessment would be far less than those required to conduct a benthi c macroinvertebrate assessment.

The data included in Figure 8 are intended to se rve as a first step in a consideration of the monitoring-resource requirements. These data are only a first step because the DEQ resources required by a screening-value exceedance will be influenced by how the screening process proceeds (See Figure 1, Section I.C.). Thes e data were generated from analysis of the database assembled and analyzed in the cour se of completing the AAC FY06 work program. The database underlying this analysis was comprised of all DEQ ambient chemical monitoring observations collect ed over the October 1999 – September 2005 time periods, as provided by DEQ to the AAC. When total nitrogen (TN) values were not measured directly, they were calculated from measured values as described previously (Section I.C.). The few TP concentrations for samples co llected after June 1999 that were recorded as less than or equal to 0.10 mg/L were removed from the databa se prior to analysis. Al l values recorded as being less than or equal to a detection limit have been analyzed as if they were equal to the detection limit value. An annual median was calc ulated for a monitoring site and included in Figure 8 only if 5 or more observations were recorded at that site during that year.28 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% PercentileTKN (mg/L) Annual Median
Individual Observations

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

PercentileTN (mg/L) Annual Median

Individual Observations

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18

0.2

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

PercentileTP (mg/L) Annual Median
Individual Observations

Figure 8. Percentile distributions of Virginia DEQ monitoring data: Individual observations (10/99 – 9/05), and annual medians (all mon itoring stations with 5 or more monitoring observations per year), 2000 – 2004.29 

### II.A. Pilot Application of Lo ad-Duration Approach to Rappahannock River Basin
G. Yagow

Task

Develop a pilot application of the load-duration approach at four or five locations within a smaller basin, possibly the Rappaha nnock, to identify more specifically the issues that might be involved with flow estimation at DEQ sites without flow measurements and their translation into load thresholds for rela ted 2010 cap-load allocations.

Summary

This section reports on an exploratory study to develop procedures for, create examples of, and identify other issues relate d to the use of load-duration curves as the basis for a possible flow-variable nutrient criteria. Along the way, a s impler approach, referred to as the cap-load method, evolved as a component of, and an alte rnative to, the more complex load-duration approach. Both approaches could be developed to set numeric nutrient criteria by major river basin and could be used in protecting the uses of do wnstream receiving waters.

The cap-load approach is based on the point source (PS) and non-point source (NPS) cap loads assigned to county segments upstream of each monitoring station (determined from the Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy cap loads for the Rappahannock example). This approach is based on annual averages with numeric criteria developed from the annual cap loads and average daily flows estimated at the monitoring sites.

The load-duration approach is similar to the cap-load approach but requires more in-depth analysis. This approach recogni zes that PS contributions are not dependent on surface runoff and NPS load contributions may not in crease linearly with increases in runoff and streamflow. This approach uses target cap loads and flow fre quency curves (which represent the relationship between the daily streamflow and the percent days the given flow is exceeded) to produce loadduration curves. Loads estimated for each water sample (based on the nutrient concentration and daily flow) could be compared to the load-duration curve for the pa rticular flow to determine if the criterion is exceeded.

Introduction

There are three types of data that must be meas ured or estimated as the basis for setting, and assessing compliance with a load-based nutrient criterion: (1) an allowable nutrient load to quantify the target load; (2) flow associated w ith the monitoring data, and (3) monitored nutrient concentrations. Each of these three parameters must be evaluated at the desired assessment points and aggregated over some time period. Fo r this study, the following data sources were used for these three data types: Tributary Stra tegy cap loads, daily USGS flow data, and DEQ nutrient monitoring data. The boundary of th e study area was the Chesapeake Bay model30 segment 5230, which is essentially hydrologic unit 02080103 and a small portion downstream, as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Chesapeake Bay Phase 4.3 Model Segment 5230 and related county segments.

Cap-Load Data

Virginia Tributary Strategy cap-load data for 2010 were obtained as annual amounts from an Excel spreadsheet provided by the Virginia De partment of Conservation and Recreation. Cap loads represent the maximum allowable average annual load needed to achieve water quality goals in the Chesapeake Bay (downstream loading criteria) and are a function of the upstream watershed area. Because the entire Chesapeake Ba y portion of Virginia has been assigned N and P cap loads, estimates of maximum annual load were relatively easy to estimate at any point within this area. Cap loads have both nonpoint so urce (NPS) and point sour ce (PS) components. Model segment 5230 contains part of 10 counties or cities, each part of which is known as a county segment or “coseg” under the Chesapeake Ba y Tributary Strategies program in Virginia (see Figure 9). Within each coseg, separate allocations were made for nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) by NPS and by PS, as shown in Table 9.31 Table 9. Model 5230 coseg cap-load allocations for total nitrogen and total phosphorus. TN Cap Load (lbs/yr) TP Cap Load (lbs/yr) County Coseg ID PS NPS PS NPS Albemarle 230051003 0 5,009 0 710 Culpeper 230051047 68,162 570,781 34,405 84,260 Fauquier 230051061 40,177 444,563 14,203 68,279 Fredericksburg 230051630 0 757 0 120 Greene 230051079 0 81,024 0 13,465 Madison 230051113 0 492,795 0 84,769 Orange 230051137 35,526 264,254 13,839 38,982 Rappahannock 230051157 0 326,545 0 54,454 Spotsylvania 230051177 0 52,903 0 5,591 Stafford 230051179 0 45,354 0 4,940

Daily Flow Data

Daily flow data were obtained from selected USGS flow stations with at least 30-years of record, as shown in Table 10. A 30-year span wa s chosen as a reasonable basis for calculating long-term average daily flow since many statisti cs are based on 30-year weather normals. Daily streamflow data were download ed for USGS stations from http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/va/nwis/

.

Table 10. Selected USGS daily flow stations in Model Segment 5230.

Station ID Stream Name Drainage Area (mi 2 ) 1975-2004 Unit-Area Flow (cfs/mi 2 ) Period of Record 01662000 Rappahannock River nr. Warrenton 194.98 0.99 1942 - 1986 01663500 Hazel River at Rixeyville 285.68 1.30 1942 - 2004* 01664000 Rappahannock River nr. Warrenton 619.58 1.20 1942 - 2004 01665500 Rapidan River nr. Ruckersville 114.65 1.40 1942 - 2004** 01666500 Robinson River nr. Locust Dale 179.00 1.35 1943 - 2004 01667500 Rapidan River nr. Culpeper 466.62 1.29 1930 - 2004 01668000 Rappahannock River nr. Fredericksburg 1,341.23 1.35 1907 - 2004 * Data missing between 10/92 and 10/02, and after 09/04.

** Data missing between 07/95 and 07/98.

To facilitate the calculation of average daily flow at the DEQ sites in this river basin, ArcGIS was used to generate watersheds that corres ponded with the ambient monitoring sites within model segment 5230, as shown in Figure 10. Because flow is a function of drainage area, flow estimates for the DEQ sites were calculated by multip lying the unit-area flow (cfs/sq.mi.) at the nearest upstream or downstream USGS flow stati on (Table 10) with the drainage area of the watershed at the DEQ assessment point (Table 11). When two or more USGS flow stations were upstream on separate tributaries from the DEQ assessment point, an area-weighting was performed to calculate the estimated flow at the monitoring station. Ca lculations were not performed on the two DEQ sites without associated flow, as they were on smaller tributaries without clearly representative USGS flow stations.32 Figure 10. Watershed boundaries for Virginia Department of E nvironmental Quality (DEQ) ambient monitoring sites for Model Segment 5230. Also shows nearby U.S. Geologi cal Survey flow stations.

Table 11. DEQ ambient monitoring sites and associated USGS flow stations.

DEQ Site ID Stream Name Drainage Area (mi 2 ) Period of Record No. of Samples USGS Station Calculated Average Daily

Flow (cfs)

HAZ018.29 Hazel River 114.87 1987 - 2005 113 01663500 149.8 LDR000.70 Little Dark Run 109.58 1975 - 2004 214 01666500 148.4 RAP006.53 Rapidan River 674.28 1985 - 2005 193 01667500 868.2 RAP045.08 Rapidan River 237.89 1987 - 2005 173 01665500 334.0 ROB001.90 Robinson River 179.00 1975 - 2005 300 01666500 242.4 RPP113.47 Rappahannock River 1,341.23 1985 - 2004 574 01668000 1,811.1 RPP147.10 Rappahannock River 619.58 1975 - 2005 305 01664000 742.7 THO006.50 Thornton River 138.44 1985 - 2005 135 01663500 180.6

CAE000.25 Carter Run 54.95 2002 - 2005 26 01662000 54.5 GRT001.70 Great Run 25.02 1985 - 2005 114 01662000 24.8 RPP175.51 Rappahannock River 74.03 1987 - 2005 150 01662000 73.5 MTN000.59 Mountain Run 1990 - 2005 01665000 MTN022.45 Mountain Run 1973 - 2005 01665000

DPR001.70 Deep Run 1974 - 2005 MIR004.05 Mine Run 1974 - 2005 DEQ Sites with Associated Flow and Load-Duration Curves

DEQ Sites with Associated Flow Only

DEQ Sites with no Associated Flow33 DEQ Nutrient Data

Monitored nutrient data were obtained for selected DEQ ambient monitoring sites from the following DEQ web site: http://gisweb.deq.virginia.gov/monapp/mon_query_form.cfm

. Available nutrient data were downloaded for each site. Because nutrient an alysis procedures and recorded parameters have changed over time , the following equations were made for the calculation of TN and TP. The numbers repres ent DEQ’s Comprehensive Environmental Data System (CEDS) parameter c odes, as explained below:

TN = ((((613 OR 615) AND (618 OR 620)) OR 630) AND 625) OR 600

TP = 665 OR 70507

where the numbers represent the following CEDS parameter codes: 613 = NO 2 -N Dissolved 615 = NO 2 -N Total 618 = NO 3 -N Dissolved 620 = NO 3 -N Total 630 = NO 3 -N + NO 2 -N Total 625 = Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 600 = Total Nitrogen 665 = Total Phosphorus 70507 = Total Ortho-Phosphorus (only used when no value was recorded for 665).

Cap-Load-Based Nutrient Criteria

At the March 2006 AAC meeting, the Chesapeak e Bay Tributary Strategy cap loads were discussed as a possible basis for setting variable nutri ent criteria by major basin. This section illustrates the use of such a procedure at se lect DEQ sites in the Upper Rappahannock River Basin.

PS cap loads were assigned to individual facili ties and were manually assigned to appropriate watersheds based on facility location. NPS cap load s were distributed to each of the watersheds draining to DEQ ambient monitoring sites on an area-weighted basis as a fraction of each coseg (and their associated NPS cap-load allocation) contained within each watershed. A summary of PS and NPS loads summed for the watershed drai ning to each DEQ ambient site are shown in Table 12.34 Table 12. Cap-load allocations for point sources (PS) and non-point sources (NPS) calculated at DEQ ambient sites.

PS NPS PS NPS CAE000.25 14,206.39 40,177 85,863 14,203 13,187 DPR001.70 6,111.52 0 33,916 0 4,757 GRT001.70 6,465.11 0 39,075 0 6,001 HAZ018.29 29,746.81 0 158,334 0 25,827 LDR000.70 28,369.91 0 167,652 0 28,807 MTN019.75 9,858.88 68,162 56,692 34,405 8,369 RAP006.53 174,515.94 35,526 979,170 13,839 156,348 RAP045.08 61,542.93 35,526 337,754 13,839 55,486 ROB001.90 46,350.26 0 273,212 0 46,337 RPP113.47 412,735.99 143,865 2,283,228 62,447 355,451 RPP147.10 160,350.99 40,177 861,247 14,203 135,752 RPP175.51 19,143.26 0 100,682 0 16,176 THO006.50 35,823.36 0 169,471 0 28,261 Assessment Point Upstream Area (ha) TN Cap Load (lbs/yr) TP Cap Load (lbs/yr)

The potential nutrient criteria derived from the cap-load approach were calculated for individual DEQ ambient monitoring sites from th e annual cap loads in Table 12 and the average daily flows from Table 11. These potential concentr ation criteria (cap-loa d standards) are shown in Table 13. The nutrient data at each DEQ site we re evaluated against these values for the most recent 5-years of data (2000 – 2004), representing a pseudo-assessment period. The number of samples used to calculate TN and TP at each si te for this period, together with a calculated percent exceedences of the cap-loa d criteria are also shown in Ta ble 13. Note that sites with PS components generally have larger allowable nut rient concentrations th an sites without PS components.

Table 13. Summary of average cap-load standard concen trations for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) and percent ex ceedences for 2000 – 2004 data.

TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) No. of TN Samples % TN Exceedences No. of TP Samples % TP Exceedences CAE000.25* 0.33 0.07 26 100.0% 26 100.0% GRT001.70 0.10 0.02 114 22.8% 114 22.8% HAZ018.29 0.54 0.09 5 0.0% 5 0.0% LDR000.70 0.35 0.06 21 95.2% 21 47.6% RAP006.53* 0.87 0.14 189 9.0% 189 1.6% RAP045.08* 1.19 0.21 130 0.8% 130 0.8% ROB001.90 0.57 0.10 29 37.9% 29 13.8% RPP113.47* 0.68 0.12 113 68.1% 0 0.0% RPP147.10* 0.62 0.10 27 29.6% 27 0.0% RPP175.51 0.26 0.04 122 26.4% 149 26.4% THO006.50 0.48 0.08 6 100.0% 6 16.7% * Sites with PS Cap Load components. 2000-2004 Cap Load Standard DEQ Site35 Load-Duration-Based Nutrient Criteria

The load-duration approach is essentially an ex tension of the cap-load approach but requires more in-depth analysis. The constant cap-load crite ria, given in terms of concentrations, assume that nutrient loads increase lin early with increases in daily flow. However, we know that PS contributions are fairly constant over time and are independent of surface runoff, whereas NPS nutrient loads are more dependent on runoff and t hus streamflow. Modeling data for one stream segment presented in last year’s AAC report show ed increasing TP concen trations but decreasing TN concentrations with increasing flow. The load -duration approach permits variable allowable nutrient loads at different flows based on the co mbination of expected PS and NPS contributions in a watershed. Use of these variable target loads at different flows leads to criteria that are flowvariable concentrations. In wa tersheds with no PS contributions , or where a long-term average concentration criterion is preferred, there is no advantage to the load -duration approach.

To illustrate the steps in the load-duration approach, the following example was created for the entire 5230 model segment. Daily str eamflow was downloaded for USGS Station 01668000, loaded into a spreadsheet, and sorted by flow in descending order. A rank was then assigned to each daily flow, and the percentage of the tota l period was calculated for which the flow was exceeded (%DaysFlowExceeded). The flow freque ncy curve was then plotted as daily flow versus %DaysFlowExceeded, as shown in Figure 11.

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

Figure 11. Flow Frequency Curve, USGS 01668000, 1975-2004.36 The average annual nutrient concentrations ( cap-load criteria) were calculated by adding together the point source (PS) and nonpoint source (NPS) average annual load allocations for the entire model segment and dividing by the av erage annual daily flow (USGS station 01668000 was roughly coincident with RPP113.47). The concentr ation criteria for this site were 0.68 mg/L for TN and 0.12 mg/L for TP (Table 13). Daily streamflow was multiplied by the TN concentration criterion to generate th e TN load duration curve in Figure 12.

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Nitrogen Load (lbs/day) Flow TN-constant

Figure 12. TN Load-Duration Cu rve, Model Segment 5230.

Average daily flow on the collection date of each DEQ ambient sample was obtained from the USGS flow data and adjusted to the area of the watershed draining to the DEQ site. To calculate the sample-day loads, the average daily flow for the collection date was multiplied by the sample concentration. Sample-day loads were then plotted against the load-duration curve (Figure 13). Sample-day loads that lie above th e TN load-duration curve are then assessed as exceeding the criteria. Percent ex ceedence was calculated both for th e entire period of monitored nutrient data at this site a nd for the most recent 5-year (pseudo-assessment) period, 2000-2004, shown in parentheses in Figure 13.37 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Nitrogen Load (lbs/day) Flow TN-constant All Samples 2000-2004 Samples

TN Constant % Exceedence = 70.5% (68.1%)

Figure 13. TN Monitoring Data Compared w ith TN Load-Duration Curve.

In the example above, the load curve is based on a constant concentration criterion derived from the average annual cap load and average annual daily flow. Two additional alternative methods were investigated to de velop variable numeri c nutrient criteria. Po int sources typically have a permitted daily average load, which means that under varying flow conditions, there is a variable pollutant concentration that will achieve the permitted daily load. Theoretically, in order to achieve an average annual target pollutant load , as flow increases from some average baseline, the allowable pollutant concentratio n must decrease in order not to exceed a constant target load. Therefore, an option was considered to look at declining concentration cr iteria with increasing flow.

NPS pollutant loads are primarily driven by runoff. Their polluta nt contribution is typically minimal during baseflow and higher during larger flows. It should be anticipated, therefore, that pollutant concentrations from NPS loads, wher e they dominate, will be higher during runoff events. In order to meet a constant target pollutant load under these circumstances, lower allowable concentrations would be needed dur ing baseflow. Therefore a second alternative option was considered to look at increasing concentration cr iteria with increasing flow.

The following two sets of flow-variable curves were developed for nitrogen (TN) assuming constant PS inputs, and either an increasing (V ariable) or decreasing (Declining) contribution from NPS as flow increased. Because phosphorus (T P) loads from NPS typically increase with increases in flow, only the increas ing curve was developed for TP.38 • Variable : Increasing NPS load with increasing flow

• Allowable Daily Load = PS + (NPS * (1- %Days Flow Exceeded)) 2

• Declining : Decreasing NPS load with increasing flow

Allowable Daily Load = PS + (NPS * 2 * %Days Flow Exceeded)

The resulting variable daily load s were then divided by a daily flow that corresponded with a certain expected long-term return frequency to form two potential variable-flow nutrient concentration criteria. The Vari able and Declining standard cu rves are shown along with the Constant standard curve for TN in Figure 14. Only the Variable and Cons tant criteria are shown for TP in Figure 15, as explained earlier. Sample -day loads were then compared against each potential criterion. The percent exceedence calcul ated for the period of record (Figure 14 and Figure 15) and the most recent 5-years of da ta (Figure 14, in parentheses) are included.

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Nitrogen Load (lbs/day) Flow TN-variable TN-constant TN-declining All Samples 2000-2004 Samples

TN Variable % Exceedence = 50.1% (46.9%) TN Constant % Exceedence = 70.5% (68.1%) TN Declining % Exceedence = 60.2% (53.1%)

Figure 14. Three alternative TN Load -Duration Curves, RPP113.47.39 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Phosphorus Load (lbs/day) Flow TP-variable TP-constant All Samples

TP Variable % Exceedence = 37.9% (0%) TP Constant % Exceedence = 37.9% (0%)

Figure 15. Two alternative TP Load-Duration Curves, RPP113.47.

The previous example illustrates the simple st case, where flow, cap load, and ambient nutrient monitoring data are all available at the same assessment point. Where flow and cap loads were evaluated at points not co rresponding with the DEQ site, th e assignment of values were similar to the approaches ( e.g ., area-weighting) used in developing the cap-load criteria. Following the procedures used in the previous example for DEQ site RPP113.47, load-duration curves for TN and TP were constructed for an additional seven DEQ ambient monitoring sites in this basin that contained suffi cient data (Figures 16-29).

Also located in the pilot study area were th ree DEQ sites associated with USGS Station 01662000 and two DEQ sites that could have been associated with USGS Station 01665000 (an oversight in the indirect evolution of this analysis). Both of thes e USGS stations had the requisite 30 years of data for constructing a flow fre quency curve. However, since the gauges were discontinued in 1986 and 1999, respectively, there wa s no concurrent flow data for calculating sample-day loads from recent samples. Although th ese stations could not be evaluated with loadduration criteria, they did have sufficien t data for evaluating cap-load criteria.

Conclusions

Both the cap-load and load -duration approaches coul d produce upstream nutrient concentration criteria where a nnual allowable loads are exceeded. Allowabl e cap loads within the Chesapeake Bay drainage can be redistribut ed fairly rationally to watersheds corresponding to any sub-area, such as watersheds corre sponding to DEQ ambient monitoring sites.40 Unit-area flow can be calculated from long-term data at most USGS stations and applied to upstream areas of nearby DEQ sites. One situation where this strategy is not appropriate is where there are intervening tributaries of a certain order (to be determined) between the flow station and monitoring site. Similarly, monitored nutri ent concentrations can be assumed to be representative of, and relatively constant al ong, a given stream reach on any given day unless there are intervening tributaries or major nutrient sources (such as PS discharges; faulty septic systems; livestock access; golf courses or othe r large, manicured green spaces; and non-buffered cropland) that would be expect ed to influence concentratio ns between the monitoring and assessment points.

Distributed annual cap loads and long-term average daily flow can be used to calculate an average nutrient concentration th at could be used as a basis fo r site-specific nutrient criteria. These criterion concentrations would vary from site-to-site, depending on the mixture of allowable PS and NPS loads within the upstrea m drainage. Criteria based on this methodology would also be much simpler than the load-dur ation approach because flow-frequency analyses and load-duration curves would not need to be constructed. Additionally, more USGS flow stations could be used for calculating long-term annual average unit-area flow because this method does not need current data for calculating sample-day loads.

This pilot study, in hindsight, was not properly designed to analyze the potential for using load-duration curves to evaluate flow-variable nutrient criteria. Although six of the 13 DEQ sites in this study had PS components, only two site s had sizeable PS components (equal to 45% or more of the NPS cap load). Unfortunately, neither of the USGS stations associated with these two sites – CAE000.25 and MTN019.75 – had current flow data available. Thus, it was not possible to calculate sample-day loads for comp arison with the load-duration curves, or for comparing the percent exceedences between data sets with dominant PS loads and those with dominant NPS loads. The original thinking was that at sites where PS loads dominated, an excessive number of low-flow exceedences may occur, even though total annual load cap loads would still be met.

From the summary in Table 13, cap-load nutrie nt criteria tended to be larger or more permissive at sites with PS allocations than at the other sites. Because many of the cap-load TP criteria were at or below DEQ’s previous anal ytical minimum detecti on limit and samples below the detection limit were represented in this analysis as having the detection limit value (0.10 mg/L prior to mid-1999), the number of TP exceedences was artificially inflated.41 1 10 100 1,000 10,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Nitrogen Load (lbs/day) Flow TN-variable TN-constant TN-declining All Samples 2000-2004 Samples

TN Variable % Exceedence = 12.5% (0%) TN Constant % Exceedence = 48.2% (0%) TN Declining % Exceedence = 37.5% (40%)

Figure 16. TN Load-Duration Curve for HAZ018.29.

1 10 100 1,000 10,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Phosphorus Load (lbs/day) Flow TP-variable TP-constant All Samples 2000-2004 Samples

TP Variable % Exceedence = 8.9% (0%) TP Constant % Exceedence = 83.9% (0%)

Figure 17. TP Load-Duration Curve for HAZ018.29.42 1 10 100 1,000 10,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Nitrogen Load (lbs/day) Flow TN-variable TN-constant TN-declining All Samples 2000-2004 Samples

TN Variable % Exceedence = 83.6% (85.7%) TN Constant % Exceedence = 87.4% (95.2%) TN Declining % Exceedence = 63.1% (81%)

Figure 18. TN Load-Duration Curve for LDR000.70.

1 10 100 1,000 10,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Phosphorus Load (lbs/day) Flow TP-variable TP-constant All Samples 2000-2004 Samples

TP Variable % Exceedence = 29.4% (4.8%) TP Constant % Exceedence = 80.8% (47.6%)

Figure 19. TP Load-Duration Curve for LDR000.70.43 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Nitrogen Load (lbs/day) Flow TN-variable TN-constant TN-declining All Samples 2000-2004 Samples

TN Variable % Exceedence = 22.8% (5.8%) TN Constant % Exceedence = 48.7% (9%) TN Declining % Exceedence = 37.8% (6.9%)

Figure 20. TN Load-Duration Curve for RAP006.53.

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Phosphorus Load (lbs/day) Flow TP-variable TP-constant All Samples 2000-2004 Samples

TP Variable % Exceedence = 5.7% (1.6%) TP Constant % Exceedence = 5.7% (1.6%)

Figure 21. TP Load-Duration Curve for RAP006.53.44 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Nitrogen Load (lbs/day) Flow TN-variable TN-constant TN-declining All Samples 2000-2004 Samples

TN Variable % Exceedence = 9% (2.3%) TN Constant % Exceedence = 9% (0.8%) TN Declining % Exceedence = 27.6% (6.2%)

Figure 22. TN Load-Duration Curve for RAP045.08.

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Phosphorus Load (lbs/day) Flow TP-variable TP-constant All Samples 2000-2004 Samples

TP Variable % Exceedence = 3.7% (1.5%) TP Constant % Exceedence = 1.5% (0.8%)

Figure 23. TP Load-Duration Curve for RAP045.08.45 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Nitrogen Load (lbs/day) Flow TN-variable TN-constant TN-declining All Samples 2000-2004 Samples

TN Variable % Exceedence = 22% (24.1%) TN Constant % Exceedence = 52.8% (37.9%) TN Declining % Exceedence = 36% (37.9%)

Figure 24. TN Load-Duration Curve for ROB001.90.

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Phosphorus Load (lbs/day) Flow TP-variable TP-constant All Samples 2000-2004 Samples

TP Variable % Exceedence = 19.9% (20.7%) TP Constant % Exceedence = 75.4% (13.8%)

Figure 25. TP Load-Duration Curve for ROB001.90.46 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Nitrogen Load (lbs/day) Flow TN-variable TN-constant TN-declining All Samples 2000-2004 Samples

TN Variable % Exceedence = 15.2% (11.1%) TN Constant % Exceedence = 17.6% (29.6%) TN Declining % Exceedence = 35.9% (29.6%)

Figure 26. TN Load-Duration Curve for RPP147.10.

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Phosphorus Load (lbs/day) Flow TP-variable TP-constant All Samples 2000-2004 Samples

TP Variable % Exceedence = 8.7% (3.7%) TP Constant % Exceedence = 3.1% (0%)

Figure 27. TP Load-Duration Curve for RPP147.10.47 1 10 100 1,000 10,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Nitrogen Load (lbs/day) Flow TN-variable TN-constant TN-declining All Samples 2000-2004 Samples

TN Variable % Exceedence = 27.6% (83.3%) TN Constant % Exceedence = 67.1% (100%) TN Declining % Exceedence = 44.7% (83.3%)

Figure 28. TN Load-Duration Curve for THO006.50.

1 10 100 1,000 10,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Days Flow Exceeded, 1975-2004Daily Streamflow (cfs)

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000Daily Phosphorus Load (lbs/day) Flow TP-variable TP-constant All Samples 2000-2004 Samples

TP Variable % Exceedence = 17.1% (0%) TP Constant % Exceedence = 86.8% (16.7%)

Figure 29. TP Load-Duration Curve for THO006.50.4849 

### II.B. Downstream-Loading Component of Nutrient Criteria for Freshwater Rivers and Streams: Recommended Approach

Background The AAC has recommended that DEQ establish nutrient criteria for rivers and streams by addressing independently the two effects of nutrient over enrichment described by EPA: localized and downstream effects. Such criteria would be comprised of 1) localized components intended to protect design ated uses within any stream segment that is monitored and assessed, and 2) downstream-loading components in tended to be protective of designated uses in water bodies located downstream of any given stream segment. This section describes an appr oach to the downstream-loading co mponent of nutrient criteria for streams and rivers in Virginia.

Recommended Approach

The committee recommends that the downstream- loading component of Virginia’s nutrient criteria be developed as narrativ e criteria. The narrative criteria applied to each stream segment would be comprised of clear statements requirin g that nutrient levels in any given stream segment be protective of designated uses in a ll downstream water bodies that receive waters carried by that stream segment. Should a wate r body located downstream from a given stream segment be found to suffer a nutrient impairment , a water-quality management process would be initiated for the impaired water body. That process would consider all nutrient sources, as well as other stressors, that contribute to the impaire d water body and would take action to mitigate the impairment by addressing any sources f ound to contribute to the impairment.

Rationale There are several reasons for recommending this approach. First, assuming the water quality management processes referenced by the narrative criteria are effective, the narrative criteria would be capable of protecting the downst ream receiving waters from impairment. Second, use of narrative criteria as the downstream-loading co mponent of nutrient criteria would require fewer of DEQ’s resources than would numeric criteria. We make the preceding statement considering that nutri ent criteria implementation require s regulatory development, and the following:

1. Numeric-load limits for downstream receivi ng waters would require allocation of the water bodies’ total allowable load s to individual upstream segments, an activity that is well suited to a comprehensive watershed management process that may include TMDL development. If the numeric downstream-loa ding components of nutrient criteria were established, it would be necessa ry for DEQ to conduct this loading-allocation procedure for all of the state’s receiving water bodies regardless of impairment status. The process would be complicated because most stream segments contribute waters to numerous downstream water bodies.50 2. Numeric downstream-loading components of nutrien t criteria applied to specific stream segments (to protect downstream waters from nutrient impairment) would need to be responsive to other water management activi ties. Thus, some of the numeric downstreamloading components establishe d through an initial round of loading-alloca tion activities (as described in 1 above) w ould likely require subsequent revisions. For example:

• For basins where allowable lo adings have been assigned ( e.g ., Chesapeake Bay tributaries), future developments may cause those allowable loadings to change. For example, the current Tributary Strategy “cap loads” have been allocated and assigned based on assumptions that include application of specific non-point-source Best Management Practices; as time passe s, those assumptions and the resulting allocations may change.

• Implementation of “nutrient trading” in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed may also cause changes in how major Bay tributar y cap loads are allocated among stream segments within tributary basins.

• If a receiving water body is defined as nutrient impaired, the resultant water quality management plan may require an adjustme nt of its nutrient-loading limits as a means of restoring its capabi lity to support its designated uses. Such an adjustment would also affect numeric downstream-lo ading components of contributing stream segments.

3. The AAC has recommended that localized nu trient criteria for wadeable rivers and streams in Virginia be established as a pro cess that includes screen ing values instead of strict numeric criteria. Although we have not recommended ho w localized criteria should be defined for non-wadeable streams, it is possible that we would recommend application of a similar logic. Because screening valu es are not intended for interpretation as thresholds for impairment, localized crit eria established thro ugh a screening-value process would not provide a basis for defi ning numeric downstream-loading components for contributing stream segments.

4. Regulatory development and revision processe s for water quality uses and criteria in specific waters are resource intensive and can consume large amounts of DEQ’s analytical resources and staff time. These proc esses require the same types and levels of technical analysis required for developing and implementing water quality management plans. In contrast to the regulatory development required to define numeric downstreamloading components of nutrient criteria, the use and application of narrative criteria would require water-quality management plans only for stream systems that contain and contribute to impaired stream segments.

We consider a process that achieves the goals of the Clean Water Act and better allocates DEQ’s resources as a superior process. Cons umption of DEQ’s resources through extensive regulatory development can be expected to detrac t from the resources available for water-quality protection activities such as water-quality m onitoring and assessment, and enforcement of standards.51 Conditions and Caveats

We make the recommendation for a narrative downstream-loading component of nutrient criteria with several conditions a nd caveats. As stated above, it is intended for application within a context that also includes:

1. localized criteria that have numeric co mponents and clearly defined impairmentdesignation processes, and

2. water-quality management processes (including TMDLs) that are effective in addressing and mitigating impairments. We suggest that DEQ accept the recommendati on only if DEQ is also willing to accept a logical consequence: implementa tion of the downstream-loading co mponent as narrative criteria, as suggested above, would likely affect Virginia’s TMDL proce ss. We make this statement considering that almost all nut rient problems occur due to nutr ient contributions from both localized and upstream nutrient sources, and that the most nutrient-sensitive regions of many surface water systems are often the furthest downstream. An inherent assumption of this recommendati on is that the water-quality management process referenced by the narrativ e criteria would be effective. The effects of elevated nutrient concentrations in individual water bodies are responsive to water- body characteristics and therefore highly variable among water bodies and difficult to pr edict. We believe that an effective way to enact narrative criteria would be to link them with a flexible and responsive water-quality management framework, such as the adaptive TMDL implementation framework that was recently endorsed by the U.S. EPA. 1 An adaptive implementation approach utilizes new information made available from monitoring activities conducted after initial TMDL implementation to refine further water-quality management actions so as to achieve waterquality management goals. We cite adaptive impl ementation as an example of the flexible and responsive water-quality management process th at we believe would complement a decision by DEQ to rely on a narrative mechanism to define the downstream-loading component of nutrient criteria. Furthermore, we believe that adaptive implementation would enha nce the potential for a narrative criteria mechanism to be effective.

1. See: Memorandum, EPA Assessment and Watershed Protection Division to Regions I-X Water Division Directors. “Clarification Regarding ‘Phased’ Total Maximum Daily Loads.” 2 August 2006.5253 

### References

AAC, Academic Advisory Committ ee to Virginia DEQ. 2006. Repor t of the Academic Advisory Committee to the Virginia Department of E nvironmental Quality: Freshwater Nutrient Criteria for Rivers and Streams. Special Report SR30-2006. Virginia Water Resources Research Center. Blacksburg, Va. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/wqs/doc uments/AAC2006River_StreamNutr_000.pdf (accessed January 3, 2007). Burton, J, and J. Gerritson. 2003. A Stream Conditi on Index for Virginia Non-Coastal Streams. September 2003. Tetra Tech. Owings Mills, Md. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/wa termonitoring/pdf/vastrmcon.pdf (accessed January 3, 2007). Clark, G.M., D. Mueller, and M. Mast. 2000. Nutrie nt concentrations and yields in undeveloped stream basins of the United States. Journa l of the American Water Resource Association 36(4):849-860 (with suppor ting data supplement). DEQ, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2005. Freshwater Nutrient Criteria – Analysis of Downstream Loading Effects. DEQ, Virginia Department of Environmen tal Quality. 2006a. DEQ Search for Approved TMDLs. http://gisweb.deq.virginia.gov/tmdlapp/tmdl_report_search.cfm (accessed January 3, 2007). DEQ, Virginia Department of Environmenta l Quality. 2006b. Using Probabilistic Monitoring Data to Validate the Non-Coastal Virginia St ream Condition Index (Draft). VDEQ Technical Bulletin WQA/2006-001. January 2006. Water Qu ality Monitoring, Biological Monitoring and Water Quality Assessment Programs, Virg inia Department of Environmental Quality. Richmond, Va. http://www.deq.virginia.gov /probmon/pdf/scival.pdf (accessed January 3, 2007). Hornberger, G.M., M.G. Kelly, and B.J. Cos by. 1977. Evaluating eutrophication potential from river community productivity. Wa ter Research 11(1):65-69. IEN, Institute for Environmen tal Negotiation. 1987. Nutrient Standards Control Workshop, May 14-15, 1987, Williamsburg, Virginia, Summary Report. Institute for Environmental Negotiation, Division of Urban & Environm ental Planning, University of Virginia. Charlottesville, Va. http://www.deq.virginia .gov/wqs/pdf/appE.pdf (accessed January 3, 2007). Lemly, A.D. 2000. Using bacterial growth on insect s to assess nutrient impacts in streams. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 63:431-446. Lemly, A.D. and R.S. King. 2000. An insect-bacte ria bioindicator for assessing detrimental nutrient enrichment in wetla nds. Wetlands 20(1):91-100. Ponader, K., C. Flinders, and D. Charles. 2005. The Development of Algae-based Water Quality Monitoring Tools for Virginia Streams. Re port No. 05-09 for the West Central Regional Office, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Patr ick Center for Environmental Research, The Academy of Natural Sciences. Philadelphia, Pa.54 Robertson, D.M., D.A. Saad, A.M. Wieben, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regi on VII, and U.S. Geological Survey. 2001. An Alternative Regionalization Scheme for Defining Nutrient Criteria for Rivers and Streams. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Inve stigations Report 01- 4073. Middleton, Wis. 57
pp. http://wi.water.usgs.gov/pubs/wrir-01-4073/wrir-01-4073.pdf (accessed January 3, 2007). Smith, R.A., R.B. Alexander, and G.E. Schwarz. 2003. Natural background concentrations of nutrients in streams and rivers of the cont erminous United States. Environmental Science & Technology 37:2029-2047. Stevenson, R.J., S.T. Rier, C.M. Riseng, R. E. Schultz, and M. J. Wiley. 2006. Comparing effects of nutrients on algal biomass in streams in tw o regions with different disturbance regimes and with applications for developing nutrient criteria. Hydrobiologia 561:149–165. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency). 2000a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations: Information S upporting The Development Of State And Tribal Nutrient Criteria For Rivers And Streams In Nutrie nt Ecoregion XI. EP A 822-B-00-020. Office of Water—Office of Science and Technology Heal th and Ecological Criteria Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 94 pp. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ nutrient/ecoregion s/rivers/index.html (accessed January 3, 2007). U.S. EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations: Information S upporting The Development Of State And Tribal Nutrient Criteria For Rivers And Streams In Nutrie nt Ecoregion IX. EPA 822-B-00-019. Office of Water—Office of Science and Technology Heal th and Ecological Criteria Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 103 pp. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ nutrient/ecoregion s/rivers/index.html (accessed January 3, 2007). U.S. EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000c. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations: Information S upporting The Development Of State And Tribal Nutrient Criteria For Rivers And Streams In Nutrie nt Ecoregion XIV. EPA 822-B-00-022. Office of Water—Office of Science and Technology Heal th and Ecological Criteria Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 79 pp. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/ nutrient/ecoregion s/rivers/index.html (accessed January 3, 2007). Walker, J., C. Zipper, L. Shabman, T. Younos. 2006. A Literature Review for Use in Nutrient Criteria Development for Freshwater Streams and Rivers in Virgin ia. Special Report SR28- 2006. Virginia Water Resources Research Center. Blacksburg, Va. 101 pages. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/wqs/ documents/LIT_REVU_STRMS.pdf (accessed January 3, 2007).