NRDA in KANSAS. Outline. Smoots Creek. Examining an Ammonia Release Response and Resulting NRD Action

Transcription

1 NRDA in KANSAS Examining an Ammonia Release Response and Resulting NRD Action Outline Incident and response NRD claim and outcomes Monitoring and Recovery Benefits to WSU Smoots Creek Drains 159 mi 2 Typical south-central KS prairie stream Reference stream for water quality monitoring Special Aquatic Life Support 1

2 INCIDENT AND RESPONSE Ammonia release October 27, 2004, Kingman County, KS Reporting contractor reported to NRC release of 20 gal 4,858 barrels (204,000 gal) Incident Figure from NTSB Pipeline Accident Brief Vapor cloud formed About ½ mi wide and 1½ mi long Moved generally NW toward Smoots Creek Entered water in trib and Smoots Ck Affected vegetation and thus migratory birds 2

3 Smoots Creek 3

4 Fish kill noted Oct 28 Sparging started on night of Oct 28 Monitoring water chemistry on Smoots Creek Response Upstream Oct 29 ph = 7.9, ammonia = 0.21 mg/l Downstream Oct 29: ph = 8.4, ammonia = 7.0 mg/l Acute aquatic life criterion for ammonia = 3.88 NH 3 =

5 Consent order December 13, 2004 Environmental characterization and cleanup plan approved final stage of emergency cleanup 3,500 yd 3 of nitrogen-rich soil excavated and land applied KDHE approved a long term monitoring plan and installation of additional monitoring wells The site will continue to be monitored for geochemical parameters Fish kill 13 mi Smoots Creek and trib. KDWP fish kill survey Nov 2 Estimated 21,448 dead fish NTSB Findings Probable cause of rupture was gouge in pipe Several gouges in pipe created by heavy equipment Created metal fatigue cracking leading to rupture Photo from NTSB Pipeline Accident Brief 5

6 NRD CLAIMS AND OUTCOMES O Natural Resource Damage Assessment A process by which Natural Resource Trustees determine the extent of injury to trust resources caused by release Trustees assess damages for injuries Recover damages through a negotiated settlement or litigation Restore resources and the services provided by those resources with the recovered damages Kansas NRD Framework Department of the Interior FWS NPS BLM BR Other Federal MOA Kansas KDHE KDWP 6

7 Regulations (DOI) Four step process Pre-assessment Assessment planning Damages assessment Post-assessment Pre-assessment Injury Determination: Injury: a measurable adverse change in the chemical or physical quality or the viability of a natural resource resulting either directly or indirectly from exposure to a discharge of oil or release of a hazardous substance 7

8 Home Heating Oil Spill Malformed Flycatcher North Oiled Cape, King Rhode Eiders, Island M/V Citris Oil Spill, Alaska Oiled Sea Otter, Alaska Bird Killed Through Release of Contaminants, Ottawa River, Ohio Oiled Loon, Alaska Malformed Cormorant E.g., injuries to surface waters have occurred if concentrations of a hazardous substance: Exceed drinking water standards, or Exceed water quality criteria, or Is sufficient to cause injury to biological resources E.g., injuries to biological resources have occurred if the concentration of a hazardous substance is sufficient to cause: Death or disease Behavioral abnormalities Cancer Genetic mutations Physiological or reproductive malfunction Physical deformities Exceedance of USFDA action and tolerance levels Fish consumption advisories 8

9 Did Injury Occur? Release of hazardous substance? Anhydrous ammonia Affected natural resources? Surface water & aquatic organisms Pathway? Air & surface water Kansas trustees substantiate injury to natural resources under CERCLA and CWA Assessment Planning 9

10 Type A assessment Type B assessment Information recorded during response Demonstrate D t t injury result of release KDWP fish kill survey Estimated 21,448 dead fish Damages Assessment Damage Determination: Develop a Restoration and Compensation Determination Plan Reasonable number of alternatives Select the most appropriate alternative Calculate the costs of the Plan Public Review Reasonable Costs of Assessment 10

11 The cost of restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, and/or acquisition of the equivalent of the injured natural resources and the services provided. May also include the compensable value i.e., the value of lost public use and enjoyment of the injured resources, until the attainment of the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, etc. to baseline conditions. Restoration Goals To return injured resources to the condition in which they would have been, had the release not occurred To replace lost resource services pending the return to baseline conditions To monitor restoration success and assure resources are brought to back to baseline How Much Restoration? Habitat Equivalency Analysis Used to scale compensatory restoration Assume 1:1 ratio of services per unit of compensatory restoration to baseline services per unit injured 11

12 HEA Input 13 miles of Smoots Creek and tributary 5 years until natural recovery Injury decreasing by 20% each year HEA Output 145 acres of riparian corridor to compensate for injury to natural resources Compensatory Restoration Trustees select appropriate compensation for injured resources Limited restocking Protect surface water habitat via riparian corridor, or Riparian corridor and adjacent native prairie 12

13 Post-Assessment Recover the Damages Settlement Court Action Compliance with the Regulations entitles Trustees to a Presumption of Correctness Implement Restoration Total damages $451, acre tract Riparian corridor along Smoots Creek bordered by native prairie Restocking $25,000 Settlement 157 acres to Wichita State University Conservation easement between WSU and KDHE placed on the propertyp WSU to manage tract according to easement Maximize benefits to native terrestrial and aquatic species Property 13

14 Restoration Actions Riparian corridor management Remove undesirable tree species Increase emergent aquatic vegetation ti = darter habitat Prairie management Optimize floristic quality condition Maintained by burning, mowing, haying, etc. MONITORING & RECOVERY Question Do the control and impact sites on Smoot s Creek have similar biotic communities over the 4 years post release? 14

15 Site 5 Site 4 Site 3 Site 2 Site 1 Sites sampled prior to release in LARB-99 Location upstream of Site 5 sampled in PBLA-03 Location upstream of Site 5 sampled in 2003 Stream dominated by shiners/minnows, with some darters and centrarchids. Arkansas darter bigmouth buffalo black bullhead black crappie bluegill bluntnose minnow brook silverside bullhead minnow central stoneroller channel catfish common carp emerald shiner fathead minnow flathead catfish freshwater drum gizzard shad golden shiner green sunfish largemouth bass longear sunfish longnose gar northern plains killifish orangespotted sunfish orangethroat darter pealip redhorse quillback red shiner river carpsucker sand shiner saugeye silver chub slenderhead darter smallmouth buffalo suckermouth minnow walleye warmouth western mosquitofish white crappie Site 5 Control Year 1 Year 2 Arkansas darter bigmouth buffalo black bullhead black crappie bluegill bluntnose minnow brook silverside bullhead minnow central stoneroller channel catfish common carp emerald shiner fathead minnow flathead catfish freshwater drum gizzard shad golden shiner green sunfish largemouth bass longear sunfish longnose gar northern plains killifish orangespotted sunfish orangethroat darter pealip redhorse quillback red shiner river carpsucker sand shiner saugeye silver chub slenderhead darter smallmouth buffalo suckermouth minnow walleye warmouth western mosquitofish white crappie Year 3 Year 4 15

16 Site 3 (within impact area) Year 1 Year 2 Arkansas darter bigmouth buffalo black bullhead black crappie bluegill bluntnose minnow brook silverside bullhead minnow central stoneroller channel catfish common carp emerald shiner fathead minnow flathead catfish freshwater drum gizzard shad golden shiner green sunfish largemouth bass longear sunfish longnose gar northern plains killifish orangespotted sunfish orangethroat darter pealip redhorse quillback red shiner river carpsucker sand shiner saugeye silver chub slenderhead darter smallmouth buffalo suckermouth minnow walleye warmouth western mosquitofish white crappie Year 3 Year 4 Site 1 (farthest downstream) Year 1 Year 2 Arkansas darter bigmouth buffalo black bullhead black crappie bluegill bluntnose minnow brook silverside bullhead minnow central stoneroller channel catfish common carp emerald shiner fathead minnow flathead catfish freshwater drum gizzard shad golden shiner green sunfish largemouth bass longear sunfish longnose gar northern plains killifish orangespotted sunfish orangethroat darter pealip redhorse quillback red shiner river carpsucker sand shiner saugeye silver chub slenderhead darter smallmouth buffalo suckermouth minnow walleye warmouth western mosquitofish white crappie Year 3 Year 4 Site 5 Site 4 Site 3 Arkansas darter bluegill bluntnose minnow bullhead minnow central stoneroller fathead minnow green sunfish northern plains killifish red shiner sand shiner suckermouth minnow western mosquitofish Site 2 Site 1 Fish communities Prior to Impact 16

17 1,587 2,068 3,426 Arkansas darter bluegill bluntnose minnow bullhead minnow central stoneroller fathead minnow green sunfish northern plains killifish red shiner sand shiner suckermouth minnow western mosquitofish Fish communities in Year 1 (2004) 2, ,284 1,028 1,946 Arkansas darter bluegill bluntnose minnow bullhead minnow central stoneroller fathead minnow green sunfish northern plains killifish red shiner sand shiner suckermouth minnow western mosquitofish Fish communities in Year 4 (2008) 3,183 1,562 No significant differences among sites and years in repeated measures ANOVA 100 IBI 35 p = p = # Fish IBI Score Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 # of Fish Species Present Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 10 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year MBI 200 p = p = # Darters MBI Score Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 # of Ark Darters Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 17

18 IBI IBI Impact Control Linear (Control) Linear (Impact) y = x R 2 = y = x R 2 = y = x R 2 = MBI y = x R 2 = Impact Control Linear (Control) Linear (Impact) # of Species y = x Impact R 2 = Control 180 Linear (Control) Linear (Impact) y = x R 2 = MBI (Water quality index) Linear regression trends IBI to MBI IBI and MBI strongly correlated at control site IBI to # species IBI responds to # species positively at control site # darters to MBI Darters strongly related to MBI at control site # of Ark Darters Captured BENEFITS TO WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY 157 acres available Landowner wanted property used for educational pruposes Leads trustees to WSU Property donated to WSU 18

19 WSU Biology Department Goals Accomplished Through Field Sites Research Teaching Outreach Manage to maximize benefits to native terrestrial and aquatic species WSU Biology Researchers Who use its Field Sites Dr. Don Distler Aquatic ecology, Ichthyology Dr. Greg Houseman Plant community ecology Dr. Mary Liz Jameson Insect systematist Dr. Chris Rogers Avian behavioral ecology Dr. Leland Russell Plant-animal interactions WSU Ninnescah Experimental Tract Photos by Rosemary Wright 19

20 Plant Community Experiments biomass (g/m2) Ambient Species Pool Enhanced Species Pool Standing Unfertilized Fertilized Ambient Species Pool Enhanced Species Pool Enhanced species pools increased production to levels found in fertilized cool season grassland plots Bird Studies Two Study Species at Ninnescah Experimental Tract Black-capped Chickadee Dark-eyed Junco 20