Water Quality Analysis of the Golden Tract West Wetland Mitigation at New Brittany

Kelli R Braightmeyer and Bruce B SmithDepartment of Biological Science, York College of Pennsylvania

IntroductionWetlands perform valuable functions:

•Water quality improvement, wildlife habitat, water storage, sediment removal from water, dissolution of hydrologic energy, nutrient cycling, recreational use (Hoeltje and Cole 2007)

•Mitigation•The construction, improvement, repair or conservation of wetlands (Environmental Protection Agency 1995)

•Water Quality Index•A score given to a body of water based on the assessment of 9 selected parameters, weighted in relation to guideline standards and relative importance•Useful in comparison of bodies of water

•No Net Loss and the Clean Water Act, Section 404•Policies that provide guidelines for mitigation•Mandate that replacement wetlands must be replaced in a 1:1 ratio for function and area (Cole and Shafer 2002)

•Mitigation at New Brittany •Wetland was destroyed during housing development construction in 2001. LSC Design performed the mitigation, which achieved permit conditions set by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and PA Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) regulations. •The source of water to the wetland system is storm water runoff drains located in the streets of the housing development.

•Relevant research•Structural similarities between created wetland and natural wetland does not indicate functional replacement.

HypothesisH1: As water flows through the wetland, from site 2 to site 4, the Water Quality Index (WQI) will improve.

H2: The WQI of the perennial stream will not decrease after the addition of water from the wetland.

ResultsSites

Discussion•All sites fall within the guidelines of “good” water

quality, WQI scores between 70 and 90.

•The lentic water of Site 2 allows for sediments to settle and allows for pollutants to be removed from the water by macrophytic vegetation in Site 3.

•High turbidity and total phosphates are seen in sites 2 and 3, caused by the vegetation and stormwater.

• Improvements in DO and BOD levels are seen from Site 2 to Site 3, indicating removal of debris and pollutants.

•Sites 1 and 4 show greater water clarity, as measured by turbidity, and lower BOD, indicating more oxygen is available for aerobic organisms.

•High levels of Nitrates in sites 1 and 4 indicate point source pollution from agricultural or law fertilizers.

•Hypothesis 1 is supported. The poorest WQI Score is seen at Site 2, the best WQI Score is seen at Site 4.

•Hypothesis 2 is supported. The WQI Score at Site 4 is 84.47, slightly higher than at Site 1, 83.24.

1

23

4

Arial Image of New Brittany Mitigation Site: 2003

METHODS• This study was conducted from October, 2008—March, 2010.

• Data was collected October, 2009.• Using the Vernier LabQuest and associated probes, the

following variables were tested for:• ΔT, pH, Turbidity, Total Solids, DO, 5-Day BOD, Total

Phosphates, and Nitrates• Membrane Filtration was used to test for the presence of fecal

coliforms.

Arial Image of New Brittany Mitigation Site: 2008

Literature Cited Cole, C.A., Shafer, D. 2002. Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in

Pennsylvania, USA, 1986-1999. Environmental Management. 30,4,508-515.• Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Federal guidance for the establishment, useand operation of mitigation banks. 60:228: 58605-58614. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/mitbankn.html• Hoeltje, S.M. Cole, C.A. 2006. Losing function through wetland mitigation in central Pennsylvania, USA. Environmental Management. 39:385-402.

AcknowledgmentsI would like to thank Mr. Thomas Stich for providing me with the mitigation site, maps, and images, and for his assistance throughout this study. Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Bruce Smith for his guidance and mentorship throughout this process. Lastly, I would like to thank Ms. Katrina Grau for her help with data collection.

Table 1. Scores for parameters tested at Site 1.

Test Results Unit Q-ValueWeighting

Factor SubtotalΔT 0.00 °C 93.00 0.11 10.23pH 6.83 pH unit 83.50 0.11 9.19Turbidity 1.10 NTU 94.50 0.08 7.56Total Solids 189.00 mg/L 87.05 0.07 5.11DO 78.39 % sat 85.89 0.17 14.6BOD 0.90 mg/L 95.20 0.11 10.47Total Phosphates 0.08 mg/L PO4-P 72.80 0.10 7.28Nitrates 5.20 mg/L NO3-N 32.80 0.10 3.28Fecal Coliforms 0.40 CFU/100mL 97.00 0.16 15.52

Score 83.24WQI Rating Good

Table 2. Scores for parameters tested at Site 2.

Test Results Unit Q-ValueWeighting

Factor SubtotalΔT 0.00 °C 93.00 0.11 10.23pH 6.76 pH unit 82.50 0.11 9.08Turbidity 97.00 NTU 18.70 0.08 1.50Total Solids 182.00 mg/L 74.00 0.07 5.18DO 46.72 % sat 38.02 0.17 6.46BOD 1.80 mg/L 84.00 0.11 9.24Total Phosphates 0.32 mg/L PO4-P 40.10 0.10 4.01Nitrates 0.30 mg/L NO3-N 93.60 0.10 9.36Fecal Coliforms 0.80 CFU/100mL 97.00 0.16 15.52

Score 70.58WQI Rating Good

Table 3. Scores for parameters tested at Site 3.

Test Result Unit Q-ValueWeighting

Factor SubtotalΔT 0.00 °C 93.00 0.11 10.23pH 6.82 pH unit 86.80 0.11 8.55Turbidity 40.30 NTU 45.00 0.08 3.60Total Solids 181.0 mg/L 74.20 0.07 5.19DO 73.27 % sat 79.57 0.17 13.52BOD 1.00 mg/L 95.00 0.11 10.45Total Phosphates 0.25 mg/L PO4-P 45.10 0.10 4.51Nitrates 0.50 mg/L NO3-N 90.00 0.10 9.00Fecal Coliforms 0.20 CFU/100mL 97.00 0.16 15.52

Score 80.57WQI Rating Good

Table 4. Scores for parameters tested at Site 4.

Test Result Unit Q-ValueWeighting

Factor SubtotalΔT 0.00 °C 93.00 0.11 10.23pH 7.30 pH unit 92.00 0.11 10.12Turbidity 0.20 NTU 96.40 0.08 7.71Total Solids 91.00 mg/L 85.00 0.07 5.95DO 78.22 % sat 85.73 0.17 14.57BOD 0.80 mg/L 95.80 0.11 10.54Total Phosphates 0.099 mg/L PO4-P 63.70 0.10 6.37Nitrates 4.90 mg/L NO3-N 34.60 0.10 3.46Fecal Coliforms 0.20 CFU/100mL 97.00 0.16 15.52

Score 84.47

WQI Rating Good

In Situ TestsΔT, pH, DO

Laboratory TestsTurbidity, Total Solids, BOD,

Total Phosphates, Nitrates, Fecal Coliforms

Water samples collected

Site 3Site 2 Site 4Site 1

WQI Score Calculated

Kruskal-Wallis H-Test Performed