Paul Szmal: Good morning, it's 837, it's FLX Morning, the Wednesday edition, and we're Zooming with Dr. Adam Effler, Owasco Lake Watershed Management Counsel at OLWMC.org, good morning and welcome back.
Dr. Adam Effler: Good morning, Ted, thank you for having me this morning.
Paul Szmal: Glad you're here once again. And finally, some good news in terms of pollution plans, we've been talking about total maximum daily load. The federal EPA has approved the plan for Cayuga Lake, so what does that mean for the Cayuga Lake Watershed and what might it mean looking forward for Owasco Lake?
Dr. Adam Effler: Sure, the Cayuga Lake TMDL, short for Total Maximum Daily Load, is a clean water plan that was approved by New York State and released on September 9th, earlier this month. As with the Owasco Lake 9-Element Watershed Plan, Cayuga's plan aims to reduce phosphorus by 30% within the watershed. The Cayuga Lake plan considers both regulated and non-regulated sources of phosphorus, and that's common for the TMDL framework. The target for pollution control is to improve the southern portion of Cayuga Lake, which is designated as impaired due to high levels of phosphorus, and the plan estimates that more than 90% of the phosphorus that enters the lake originates from non-point sources, with agricultural land being the greatest source. And point sources, such as wastewater treatment facilities, are estimated to contribute only about 10%.
So the context here with Owasco's plan is that those metrics are very, very similar. We've got an estimated 90% for both water bodies of that limiting nutrient phosphorus coming in from the watersheds based on land use activities, and it's important to bear in mind that since the advent of the Clean Water Act and tackling point sources with upgrades to wastewater treatment facilities and other potential factory discharges to water bodies, that at this point in time, we need to focus our thrusts more specifically on non-point source pollution to curb lake-wide perturbations such as harmful algal blooms.
Paul Szmal: So when you talk about non-point source, does that mean that we know it's there but we can't pinpoint exactly where it's coming from?
Dr. Adam Effler: That's correct. So, you know, non-point source pollution is really watershed-borne pollution that comes from land use activities. And so, of course, they're making it difficult to identify those specific sources. But there's another challenging feature when it comes to addressing non-point source pollution is that because that pollution is based on land use activities, we really need to address human behavioral changes. So I would say there are a couple of levels of complexity there when it comes to addressing watershed-borne or non-point source pollution.
Paul Szmal: That leads into public outreach. What are you doing to let people know about issues like this, about the threats the lake faces, and what aspect do you think the public is undereducated in and you really need to focus on?
Dr. Adam Effler: Right. So, you know, I'm often surprised about the level of misunderstanding around harmful algal blooms and about the variety of partnering organizations that are collaborating to make a difference. So this time of year, and it's been an especially difficult year for harmful algal blooms, we're, of course, observing harmful algal blooms within our finger lakes across the region. And I find that the public response, and understandably so, has been one of outrage and urgency. And there's curiosity about just if anything is being done. And the truth is that we have several organizations that we work with that are addressing those land use changes by implementing what are called best management practices.
So the primary implementation partner that we work with is the Cuyahoga County Soil and Water Conservation District, among other districts that have a footprint within our watershed. And we're working on a variety of projects. And for the districts, they focus on ag specifically, but we're doing some stream restoration projects as well. And we also, as you know, and we've discussed previously, are working on building upon a pledge-based program through our Lake Friendly Living program to get more buy-in from the community to commit to improved land use practices.
Paul Szmal: One of the things I hear a lot about HABs is kind of what's the big deal? You know, who cares if there's a slimy patch on the lake for a couple of weeks? Is that what you hear? And how do you counter that?
Dr. Adam Effler: Well, we hear all sorts of things. You know, cyanobacteria, really the sort of the parent word, if you will, for harmful algal blooms. Of course, not all cyanobacteria, when they produce within the water, within the water column are considered harmful. Well, they've been around since, you know, since life on Earth, essentially. I mean, they're actually a very important organism. They are the number one producer of oxygen, even more so than our forests on Earth. And so, you know, it's a very important organism.
The blooms have become much more apparent because they're blooming at a much higher rate and a greater frequency in recent years than they ever have. And so, yeah, there are some people who say, you know, what's the big deal? This is what we see this time of year. However, I would argue that based on our surveillance programming, even though we know there are some imperfections there and some biases that have to do with such programming, it's grown clear that the frequency of these harmful algal blooms has increased. We know that the blooms have associated cyanotoxins that create a public health concern, certainly for drinking, but also with bathing and recreation. So it is important to take this seriously.
Paul Szmal: So let's talk about your HABS program, what you're doing, how the public can help. And then I learned last time we talked about this statewide HABS map that you can check out.
Dr. Adam Effler: Yeah, that's right. So for the HABS surveillance program, there were 34 HABS reports more than two weeks old, but reported this year, and six reports in the last two weeks. That was as of a couple of days ago. And again, you know, things are changing rapidly here with regards to the observations of these blooms on Awasco, as with the other Finger Lakes. This year, there have been well over 500 confirmed harmful algal blooms observed statewide. And with many of those blooms generated within the Finger Lakes region. And of course, what we know so far, although this is a relatively new phenomenon, and it's still being studied, so that we can better understand, you know, what is leading to the manifestation of these blooms. But climate change, nutrient pollution, and invasive species have been shown to be important drivers of the harmful algal blooms. And that's determined through what's called linear regression and correlation analyses.
But regional advocates and watershed organizations, as well as municipalities, are calling for stricter regulations and enforcement of the nutrient pollution entering the Finger Lakes. And so the state's response, though, has been one more of an offering of funding for the various programming. And of course, those dollars are very important and will be important moving forward. Governor Kathy Hochul has recently committed an investment of $42 million to the newly formed Eastern Finger Lakes Coalition. It's a coalition of soil and water conservation districts with the purpose of enhancement of the Finger Lakes water quality. And the funds are overarchingly intended to help farmers manage stormwater runoff and associated pollution.
Paul Szmal: Is there any place, whether in New York or another state, where they're maybe ahead of us a little bit, and they've been able to limit nutrients? And have they seen any correlation with a resulting drop off in HABS?
Dr. Adam Effler: Okay, so the former, absolutely. There are states that are ahead of us in the game. The response with HABS, it's still too early to tell. But I can give you an example here. So the DEC recently announced an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, is what it's called. And it's to solicit for public input toward their what's called triennial review of water quality standards. So the Clean Water Act at the federal level requires states to perform a formal regulatory review of water quality standards every three years. And that's known as the triennial review. And the public can submit input and feedback in response through November 4th. And of course, I would encourage your listeners to do so.
And I ask that they please consider providing comments to the DEC that reflect on the point that while New York State clean water plans in the Finger Lakes are focused on phosphorus reduction, New York State has failed to create a common standard for this important and limiting nutrient. And so, you know, 20 micrograms per liter of total phosphorus in the open waters of New York State is considered a guidance value. And surely this can be adopted as a standard for total phosphorus, where, for example, Wasco Lake averages around eight or 10 micrograms per liter, right? So we could at least create an upward boundary. But with regards to your initial question there, Minnesota, indeed, has made progress with adopting a numerical water quality criterion for phosphorus. And so we'd like to see New York State catch up in that regard.
Paul Szmal: And of course, it's hugely important that people comment, because if they don't, then the DEC says nobody cares, everybody likes it the way it is.
Dr. Adam Effler: Yeah, you know, I mean, I believe the DEC will, you know. I believe they will do their best to act on behalf of protecting our resources throughout the state. But that's true, Ted. I mean, it is very important that we respond during these public comment periods. You know, the state needs to know that there's a sense of urgency around these issues. And there are local experts and constituents who are really looking out for these features and want to see real change.
Paul Szmal: Learn about these programs and issues we've talked about and learn what you can do to help by taking the Lake Friendly Living Pledge and volunteering at olwmc.org. Dr. Adam Effler, Wasco Lake Watershed Management Council, thanks for the update as always.
Dr. Adam Effler: Many thanks, Ted. Have a great day.
