MSD Water Quality Monitoring and Modeling · 2018. 12. 12. · • Overview of Monitoring and Modeling • Water Quality Modeling ... The data collected in these assessments are used

METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI

MSD Water Quality Monitoring and Modeling

It’s all about clean water!December 12, 2018


AGENDA

• Welcome• Regulatory Context• Overview of Monitoring and Modeling• Water Quality Modeling• Water Quality Monitoring• Platform for Integrating Water Quality Data• Use of Data• Wrap-up• Conclusion


Regulatory Context: Monitoring and Modeling

Legal provisions for waste disposal to waterwayssafeguarding waterways so they are

healthy and safe to use

NPDES PermitsFindings and OrdersConsent Decrees

SamplingBioassessmentModeling


Building blocks

• Collection system modeling– Identify and map assets with all their attributes into a pipe network – Conduct extensive and ongoing flow monitoring to calibrate and validate

the system wide hydraulic model– Rain radar refinements to gain wet weather inputs.

• Real-time Monitoring adds tremendous value– Connect the sensors to the cloud, calibrate and validate to become

“believable” / actionable

• Real-time Controls are now possible– System-wide storage and treatment decisions


Building blocks

• Watershed Operations– Wet weather assets – RTC HRT DUC– SCADA (remote monitoring and control) operations– SMART SEWER overflow management

• Overflow reduction decisions in real-time– Where capacity is available Doing that– Hold here to avoid overflow there Building that– Hold back the most polluted wet weather overflows Modeling that– Restrict overflows in sensitive or low flow streams Monitoring that


Biolologal sampling historyNPDES Required

Biological SamplingHistory 1996-2018

and beyond 2011-2014Level 3

BioassessmentBaseline Study

1996-2011 chemical and limited macroinvertebrates

Future NPDES Permits

Modified NPDES Permit


Hierarchy of needs


Strengths of Modeling and Monitoring

8


ROI

MSD Water Quality Modeling


Background – What is a Model?• Mathematical description of real world processes• Models attempt to simulate cause-and-effect relationships

– If …. Then ….

• Commonly used in water quality and elsewhere– Space travel – Weather forecasting

12

Understanding Water Quality Modeling: Bank Account Analogy

Paycheck ($$ In) Expenses ($$ Out)Balance?

Interest and Fees(+/- $$)

Other income sources ($$ In)

If I have given income, expenses, interest rates and fees, then what will my balance be? How do I need to adjust income or expenses

to meet a goal for my balance?

13

Conceptual Water Quality Model

Upstream Sources (WQ In)

Downstream Transport (WQ Out)In-Stream

Concentration

Fate processes(+/-)

Other Pollutant Sources (WQ In)

How do I need to adjust pollutant sources or downstream transport to meet a goal for my

in-stream concentration?

Benefits of Modeling

Models provide a means of synthesizing available system data and knowledge in a given problem domain

Collection system

WWTP operation

Storm-water

Stream WQ

Upstream sources

Septic systems

Watershed land cover

Watershed land use

Watershed soils

Watershed topography

Stream Flows

Health Dept

Local jurisdictions

EPA

Hamilton County

Ohio EPA

Watershed groups

Stream Biota and Habitat

MSDGC

Rainfall, met data

How WQ Models Provide Value to MSDGC Planning tool

Watershed planning/Watershed studies Project selection Watershed operations/Inform real time control

decisions Regulatory support

Post wet weather plan implementation Stormwaterrule 2407 demonstrations

Watershed/built environment system synthesis High risk to public health areas Integration of lots of different types of information

Forecasting river conditions Recreation conditions

Communicate with public and stakeholders– Dashboards– Publications

Effort to Develop a Water Quality Model• Factors

– Model complexity – area to be covered, spatial detail, number of sources to include– Pollutants to include – bacteria, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, solids, toxics– Available data – “the elephant”

• Steps – All require data– Construct– Calibrate– Validate

• Cost Range: – Model alone: $100,000 - $1,000,000, range based on factors above– Model and data: $250,000 - $2,000,000

MSD’s Water Quality Models

MSD’s Investment in Water Quality ModelsRiver System/ Watershed River Model Watershed

ModelConfiguration WQ Parameters Calibrated/

Validated?

Ohio River EFDC n/a 2-D laterally E. coli Yes

Little Miami River EFDC n/a 2-D laterally TBD (E. coli) No

Duck Creek EFDC TBD 1-D TBD (E. coli) No

Mill Creek EFDC/A2EM SWMM (coarse scale)

1-D E. coli Partial

Upper Mill Creek (SSO-700 Watershed)

EFDC/A2EM SWMM (fine scale)

1-D, with tribs E. coli, solids, nutrients, DO, BOD, metals, chloride

Yes

Muddy Creek EFDC/A2EM SWMM 2-D E. coli, solids, nutrients, DO, BOD, chloride

In progress

Rapid Run EFDC/A2EM SWMM 2-D E. coli, solids, nutrients, DO, BOD, chloride

In progress

Great Miami River (MCD) EFDC/A2EM HSPF 1-D Nutrients, DO Yes

Integrating Models with Monitoring Programs

Why do wet weather sampling?

Dry Weather Wet Weather

Would you expect water quality to be similar under these two conditions?

Wet weather vs. dry weather in-stream sampling suggests need for both types of data

Mill Creek Muddy Creek Rapid Run

Upstream (East Crescentville Rd.)

Downstream (Galbraith Rd.)

Upstream (Beechcreek Ln.)

Downstream (Hillside Rd.)

Upstream (Rapid Run Rd.)

Downstream (Bender Rd.)

Integrating Water Quality Sensors Into Monitoring Program• Potential Value

– Increased data density – data every 15 – 60 minutes

– Extended monitoring – deploy for multiple months

– Near real-time accessibility to the data via the cloud

– Reduce sampling labor costs– Can address site accessibility

challenges

Water Quality Sensor Deployment

Water Quality Sensors: Challenges from Muddy Creek Deployment• Maintenance needs

– More frequent than estimated – Needed after every storm– Vandalism

• Installation orientation– Vertical better than slanted

• Dynamic stream conditions– Mobile stream bed– Out of water during low flow

• Calibration

Assessment of Sensor WQ Data (on-going) RESULTS ARE PRELIMINARY

Conventional in situ parameters compare reasonably well to second sonde’s data

New parameters, like TSS, are more difficult. Turbidity may be better predictor of lab TSS than TSS sensor. We need to better address challenges in next deployment.

Wrap-up: We want these models to help you!

• Fill gaps in space and time that do not have water quality data• Track impact of specific sources

– Separate the impact of MSD sources from non-MSD sources• Evaluate benefits of controls before investing in them

– Identify point of diminishing returns for MSD investments• Provide technical foundation for regulatory agency negotiations• Address localized areas of interest to public and other stakeholders

“All models are wrong, some are useful” (George Box, statistician, 1919 - 2013)

Example: Filling gaps in space and time

• Insert example from SSO-700 IWAP calibration figures

Mill Creek at Galbraith Road – SSO 700 IWAP WQ Model Calibration

Example: Tracking impact of specific sources

Example: Identify point of diminishing return on investment

If CSOs meet WQ at 8 OF/year, what is gained by reducing further to 4 OF/year, given the expense to ratepayers?

Example: Support Regulatory Agency Negotiations

2030 SD1 Integrated Plan(No SSO, CSO at 17 OF/yr,

Watershed Controls)

2030 Traditional Plan(No SSO, CSO at 4 OF/yr)

2030 Baseline(No Control)

?

Example: Forecasting improvements to WQ

What will happen to WQ in the 2017-2021 period?

Opportunities to Improve Operations?• How would planning or

operational decisions change based on in-stream water quality modeling?

• Example: Not all CSOs are created equal. Some have a higher fraction of sanitary sewage in their discharge while others discharge a large volume that is predominantly stormwater. Load-wise, they may be similar but in-stream impacts may be quite different.

• Other creative ideas…? Estimated

Conclusions• Water quality models

– Are planning tools that allow MSD to simulate the presumptive effects of alternative strategies, resulting in selection of the most cost-effective, highest benefit solutions.

– Align well with MSD’s Hierarch of Needs• How can we make water quality models work for you?


Midwest Biodiversity InstituteColumbus, OH

www.midwestbiodiversityinst.org

MSD Water Quality Monitoring



What is a Bioassessment?

Bioassessment – a systematic assessment of the aquatic resource using biological indicators AND chemical/physical indicators in a supporting role.

Tiered Aquatic Life Uses (TALUs) – a hierarchy of aquatic life uses in Ohio.

Biocriteria – data-based numerical benchmarks for determining attainment of aquatic life uses in the Ohio WQS.


Biological Criteria

• Biological criteria are based on aquatic community characteristics that are measured both structurally and functionally. These criteria are used to evaluate the attainment of aquatic life uses. The data collected in these assessments are used to characterize aquatic life impairment and to help diagnose the cause of this impairment.

• The principal biological evaluation tools used by Ohio EPA are the Index of Biotic integrity (IBI), the Modified Index of Well-Being (MIWB) and the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI). These three indices are based on species richness, trophic composition, diversity, presence of pollution-tolerant individuals or species, abundance of biomass, and the presence of diseased or abnormal organisms. The IBI and the MIWB apply to fish; the ICI applies to macroinvertebrates. Ohio EPA uses the results of sampling reference sites to set minimum criteria index scores for use designations in water quality standards.

• Provisions addressing biological criteria are in paragraph (C) of rule 3745-1-07 of the OAC.• https://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/wqs/index#123033408-numeric-criteria

https://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/rules/01-07.pdf

https://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/rules/01-07.pdf


Fish, Macroinvertebrates, Sondes, Chemical samples, Habitat


Instream Bioassessment Provides:

1. Assignment/Affirmation the appropriate & attainable aquatic life use tier (criteria-based) – what can the stream attain?

2. Determine the aquatic life status of a waterbody – is it impaired or attaining?

3. Determine changes over time – trend assessment.


Primary HeadwaterHabitat

Warmwater HabitatExceptional WarmwaterHabitat

Modified WarmwaterHabitat

Mill Creek downstream Spring Grove Ave. (MC07)

Taylor Creek between I-74 & Harrison Ave. (GM 81)

Unnamed Trib. to Taylor Cr. at 5310 Haft Rd. (GM106)

Whitewater R. adj. Kilby Rd. (GM 42)

Bioassessment Objective 1: Set the appropriate and attainable

aquatic life use tier (ALU)

This determines which biological and chemical criteria apply to a waterbody

(Clean Water Act)


Taylor Creek between I-74 & Harrison Ave. (GM 81)

Unnamed Trib. to Taylor Cr. at 5310 Haft Rd. (GM106)

Warmwater Habitat

Primary Headwater

Habitat

Whitewater R. adj. Kilby Rd. (GM 42)

Exceptional Warmwater

Habitat

Modified Warmwater

Habitat

Mill Creek downstream Spring Grove Ave. (MC07)


CSO/SSOs are not the only source of

impairments –present day causes

have shifted to non-pollutants that are

fundamental to attainment and

attainability of WQS.

Major Causes Associated with Aquatic Life Impairments in

MSDGC Service AreaBioassessment Objective 2: Determine aquatic life status and causes/sources of impairments

Knowledge of impaired (or attaining) waters is needed to develop & prioritize management actions


Overflows are not the only source of impairments – habitat modification, hydro-modification, road salt, household systems, etc.

Habitat/Sediment/FlowNutrientsOrganic Enrichment/D.O./NH3Urban PollutantsChlorides

23.3%

45.7%

15.5%

10.6%4.9%

Aquatic Life Use Attainment Impairments


Where we want to be by

20??

Mill CreekBioassessment Objective 3: Determine trends over time

Trends reveal the effectiveness of strategies, controls & BMPs


Lower Mill Creek Mainstem – designated Modified WarmwaterHabitat Aquatic Life Use (affirmed in 2011)

Upper Mill Creek Mainstem – designated Warmwater Habitat Aquatic Life Use (affirmed in 2011)

Does Mill Creek meet or fail Water Quality Standards?

2016 Mill Creek Bioassessment: First MSD Level 3 revisit


AAV = Area of Attainment Value;Meets WQS and

by how much

ADV = Area of Degradation Value;

Fails WQS and by how much

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

51015202530

19922016

INVE

RTE

BR

ATE

CO

MM

UN

ITY

IND

EX (I

CI)

RIVER MILE

WWH Biocriteria(ICI = 30)

E. Fk. Mill Cr. SSO 700 Multiple CSOs (60+)

W. Fk. Mill Cr.

AAV

ADV

ADV =∑ [(aIBIa + aIBIb) – (pIBIa + pIBIb)] *(RMa – RMb), for a= 1 to n


Modified Warmwater Habitat


by how much


Fails WQS andby how much



by how much



Warm Water Habitat


Upper Mill Creek Warm Water Habitat2016 Status – Partial Attainment of Aquatic Life,

macroinvertebrates – full; fish are limiting.

The 2016 results show a consistent positive trend compared to prior years (1992, 1997, 2011, 2013).

Lower Mill Creek Modified Warmwater Habitat2016 Status – Full Attainment of Aquatic Life, macroinvertebrates and fish reach attainment


Does Little Miami River meet of fail Water Quality Standards?

2017 Little Miami River Bioassessment: Second MSD Level 3 revisit

Little Miami River Mainstem – designated Exceptional Warmwater Habitat Aquatic Life Use (c. 1983)

Duck Creek – multiple designations:Limited Resource Water;

Modified Warmwater Habitat;Warm Water Habitat

Tributaries -Warm Water Habitat

Primary Headwater Habitat**functional description



by how much



Exceptional Warmwater Habitat



by how much



Limited Resource,

Modified or Warmwater

Habitat


Duck Creek Limit Resource Water, Warm Water2017 Status – Partial Attainment of Aquatic Life

both fish and macroinvertebrates improved

Little Miami River Exceptional Warmwater Habitat2017 Status – Full Attainment of Aquatic Life both fish and macroinvertebrates improved from 2012

The trend since 2007 has been inconsistent suggesting unaddressed impairments remain.


Table 26. Summary of biological and habitat trends at station RR02 (RM 1.2) in Rapid Run between 1991 and 2014.

Year IBI Species ICIQual. EPT

Taxa QHEI1991 12* 2 P* 4 36.52014 24 6 F 7 56.5

Rapid Run 1991 (Limited Resource Water) Rapid Run 2014 (still LRW in 2018?)

Muddy Creek / Rapid Run 2014 & 2018

2018 watershed study report due June 30, 2019


0

50

100

150

200

250

30019

92

1997

2002

2011

201 3

2016

Mill Creek

Tota

l Chl

orid

e (m

g/L)

Year

MWH IPS Threshold

WWH IPS Threshold

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2002 2011 2013 2016

Mill Creek

E. c

oli (

MPN

)

Year

90-day GeoMean (126 MPN)

STV (410 MPV)

SecondaryContact(1030 MPN)

Critical part of bioassessment. Supports diagnosis of biological

impairments. Bacteria (E. coli) – Recreational

Use assessment and key indicator of sewage pollution. Lower counts through 2016 is

consistent with biological results.

MSD Chemical WQ Data

Chloride levels have increased. Exceed biological thresholds. Parallels national trends – levels

increasing ≈1 mg/L per year. Important role in forecasting.


• Lower Mill Creek – Full ALU attainment – SUCCESS! continuing to improve

• Upper Mill Creek – Partial ALU attainment – Macroinvertebrates leading indicator

• Little Miami – Inconsistent ALU trends – key impacts come from upriver

• Duck Creek– Partial ALU attainment – headed in the right direction

• Muddy Creek– Too soon to know – winter season data analysis

Recap of Bioassessment Findings


How Bioassessment Provides Value

• Only way to demonstrate attainment of WQ Standards• Provides scientific basis for regulatory discussions• Identifies limiting factors to achieving WQ Standards• Documents changes in WQ over time• Supports data-driven decision-making• Credible source for providing stakeholder information


Case Example: POTW and Rate Payer Outcomes From Robust Bioassessment in NE Illinois

Elmhurst WWTPElmhurst, IL

Bioassessment monitoring demonstrated tighter POTW controls and associated costs would not be effective for

Water Quality or Aquatic Life Use Attainment needs; spending and management actions instead directed to ‘green’ Non-Point Source efforts and restoration of ALU

impairments; bioassessment work was central to regulatory acceptance and reduced ratepayer impact.


Case Example: POTW and Rate Payer Outcomes From Robust Bioassessment in NE Illinois

Bioassessment monitoring was central to regulatory acceptance allowing investment in ‘green’ Non-Point Source restoration to improve

Aquatic Life Use and achieve reduced ratepayer impact.

This temporary bypass channel diverted flow during the stream restoration; it will be removed.


MSD Water Quality Data


MSD Water Quality Discussion



Mill Creek CSO Rainbow April 29, 1994Kings Run – Main Stem – Bloody Run – Ross Run

2018

1% se

cond

ary

trea

tmen

t

Mill

Cre

ek R

esto

ratio

n Be

gins

1% O

hio

Rive

r com

mun

ities

ha

ve a

ny tr

eatm

ent

1948WPCA

1972CWA

1994RUMCRP

99%

seco

ndar

y tr

eatm

ent

99%

prim

ary

trea

tmen

t

Mill

Cre

ek R

esto

ratio

n Ce

lebr

ated


How can you use the data?