Salt in Dutchess Co. Waters
18
Salt in Dutchess Co. Waters Stuart Findlay Vicky Kelly Where are we now? Compared to what? Where are we headed? Should we be worried?
description
Salt in Dutchess Co. Waters. Where are we now? Compared to what? Where are we headed? Should we be worried?. Stuart Findlay Vicky Kelly. Acknowledgements. Fishkill Creek Watershed Comm. (R. Oestrike) Environmental Management Council (D. Burns, C. Klocker) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Salt in Dutchess Co. Waters
Salt in Dutchess Co. Waters Stuart Findlay
Vicky Kelly
Where are we now?
Compared to what?
Where are we headed?
Should we be worried?
Acknowledgements• Fishkill Creek Watershed Comm. (R. Oestrike)
• Environmental Management Council (D. Burns, C. Klocker)
• Hudson River NERR (W.C. Nieder, S. Ciparis)
• Town of Clinton CAC (N. Coller)
• Vassar College (K. Menking et al.)
• Syracuse U. (D. Siegel, L. Jin)
• WRI – Cornell; COE - Syracuse
Some Chloride Reference Points• Background - ~ 10 mg/L or less [Catskill Reservoirs]• Sublethal – 50-100 mg/L Subtle yet Significant
– Biotic Indices– Microbial processes– Associations
• EPA Chronic – 230 mg/L• Drinking Water Std – 250 mg/L• EPA Acute – 860 mg/L• Lethal - 1000 or higher
SIMPLER
• REFERENCE <10 mg/L
• ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ~ 100 mg/L
• LETHAL > 1000 mg/L
DUTCHESS COUNTY WATERS80 mg/L (+/- 79 SD)
Mullaney et al., USGS
DC
Ten Mile10-40
Crum Elbow15-50
Casperkill100-300
Chloride(mg/L)
Wappinger10-45
Fishkill10-100
WAPPINGER CREEK JULY 2006
20
30
40
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Downstream Increases
DISTANCE FROM MOUTH (km)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Chlo
ride (
mg/L
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
FISHKILL CREEKSummer 2005
Popul
atio
n
Residential Land Cover and Chloride (M. Essery)
Subwatersheds in the Fishklill Basin
High concentrations
in summer
0
20
40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
MONTH
CH
LOR
IDE
(mg/
L)
East Branch Wappinger Creek, Millbrook
No decline in summer concentrations
Long-term increases in concentration
East Branch of the Wappinger Creek
Kelly et al. ES&T 2008
Cl (mg/)
0
10
20
30
40
50
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Saw Kill Creek
HRNERR
• Low-density residential
• Yearly mean Cl-
concentrations have doubled since 1991 (20 to 40 mg/L)
• Similar Cl- concentrations throughout year
Year
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Chl
orid
e (m
g/L)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
All Patterns Suggest a Reservoir
• Soil Sorption or Groundwater?
STREAM
• Road salt biggest source – others?
SOIL CORES HOLD Cl LONGER THAN WATER
Kincaid and Findlay, 2009
Groundwater ?
05
1015202530354045
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 More
Chloride (mg/L)
% o
f Sam
ples
WELL
SURF
Fig. 4: Frequency distribution of chloride concentrations in surface and well samples from Dutchess County.
A few wells have Cl > surface water concentration – Could support high baseflow concentrations
Private drinking-water wellsNon-random but widely distributed
CHLORIDE IS NOT ALONE
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
CL (mg/L)
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
NO
3 (
mg/L
)
D. Burns - EMC
Should we be Worried?
• At the brink, trends are not encouraging
• Groundwater concentrations must be increasing
• What else is coming along?
Scope for Action
• Reduced Salt is in Everyone’s Interest
• Widespread Problem, Lots of Mental Horsepower
• Solutions may Require Capital
What do we Need to Know?Today’s Program
• Environmental Effects – Not Huge Yet but Close?
• Human Health Effects
• Cost – Direct (Salt is cheap, labor is not, use is high)– Indirect (Corrosion, contamination
• Solution?
