Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EAST FORK WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND MODELING COOPERATIVE (EFWCOOP): JANUARY 19 2012 MEETING.
January 20, 2011
1.
ATTENDEES Melody Draggo, Brown County Chuck Lane, USEPA Erich Emery, USACE Jade Young, USACE Matt Heberling, USEPA Lilit Yegahzarian, UC Balaji Ramakrishnan, Shaw Roy Martin, USEPA Tom Yeager, Clermont County Heather Golden, USEPA Eric Waits, USEPA John McManus, Clermont County Chris Nietch, USEPA Eric Heiser, Clermont County Don Brown, USEPA
1. Integration of natural and built systems
2. Coupled modeling and monitoring programs for decision support
3. BMP/GI performance to effectiveness linkages
4. Informational (data) architectures and required cooperation for sustainable total water management
5. Consider scaling and extrapolation within and across systems
6. Defining and modeling drinking water treatability translations
7. Evaluation of Water Quality Trading models
8. TMDL Development Support
Recalling Some of Our Primary Objectives
Discussion Topics
Update on Monitoring Program Planning for 2012 w/ OEPA’s TMDL development effort Update on DBP formation tests Update on UEFW and GRT Modeling Projects Update on Harsha WQ Modeling and Developing
2012 Remote Sensing Pilot Project Update on watershed projects
CC-CIG Tipping Points
Other Issues/Items to discuss.
Agriculture
Large Midwestern watershed draining to a National Scenic River and then the Ohio River
Weekly field site grab sampling continues
Added an additional Site at GRT outlet thanks to Hannah
Picked-up weekly Monitoring at GRSSY0.3 as CC is in winter mode
Added three Brown County Sites
EFWCoop Monitoring Sites and Point Sources
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
TP (p
pb)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Nit
rate
-Nit
rie
(ppb
)
EFG EFB DAM EFK EFC
A flavor for the Nutrient DataBase
EFG EFB DAM EFK EFC
2011 & Proposed 2012 Monitoring
Demonstration Project CIG Monitoring Cover Crop & Ag.
Pond Effectiveness Biweekly, year-round
grabs at 3 sites ~5 Wet weather
events TMDL/HUC 12
biweekly monitoring & D.O. profiles at 9 sites
Biological Monitoring of small tributaries, < 5 mi2
Discharge, T, DO, sp.cond., pH, DOC, TOC, N-NH3, NO2-NO3,
TKN, P-TP, Ortho-P, E.coli, TSS, atrazine, simazine, alachlor
Characterization of Monitoring Sites
Site General Land Use
POPLR2.1 Park land, Low dens. residential, Agriculture
STEFLMR Low dens. residential, Agriculture
BARNS1.9 Agriculture, Low dens. residential,
EFRM9.1 WWTP, Residential
EFRM15.6 Low density residential, East Fork Lake
EFRM34.8 WWTP, Agriculture, Low dens. residential
EFRM70.1 WWTP, Agriculture, Low dens. residential
EFRM75.3 Agriculture, Low dens. residential
DODSN1.4 Agriculture, EWH
1
10
100
1000
10000
kg/d
ay
Avg. Nutrient LoadsMay - Aug. NO2NO3 (ppm)
TKN (ppm)
PTOT
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
mg/
L
Avg. BacteriaMay- Aug.
E. coli
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.11.21.31.41.51.61.7
mg/
LAvg. Nutrient Conc.
May- Aug.NO2NO3
TKN
PTOT
WWH NO3-criteria
EWH NO0-criteria
EWH TP-criteria
30 day avg. criteria = 126 (#/100mL)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
mg/
L
Avg. Suspended SolidsMay- Aug.
SS
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11D
isso
lved
Oxy
gen
(mg/
L)
DODSN1.4EFRM75.3EFRM70.1EFRM60.1EFRM44.1EFRM15.6EFRM9.1
EWH Dissolved Oxygen criteria = 5.0 mg/L
3-day deployment, Not all data collected
during same time period
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Dis
solv
ed O
xyge
n (m
g/L)
Time
BARNS1.9CLOVE5.1POPLR2.1ST13.4BRUSH0.3ST5.7STEFLMR
WWH criteriaMin D.O. = 4.0 mg/L
3-day deployment, Not all data collected
during same time period
Modeling Treatment Processes
Modeling fate and
transport
Reservoir Data -
various depths
Source Water Data -
1_depth
In Plant Data
River and/or Reservoir Ecology Processes
Treatment Plant Processes coagulation, settling, filtration,
chlorination, activated carbon, membrane filtration biogeochemistry, hydrology, ecology
Finished Water Data
chlorophyll a phycocyanin (cyanobact. pigment)
DO pH
ORP turbidity
Conductivity UV absorbance (DOM)
in-situ monitoring continues at the Lake DWTP intake
chlorophyll a phycocyanin (cyano bact. pigment)
algal taxonomy (species level counting) nutrients
pH turbidity/sechi
DOC/TOC, UV absorbance (DOM) fluorescence EEMs (DOM)
DBP (THMs) formation potential
Grab sampling
DBPs -THMs, HAAs UV absorbance (DOM)
fluorescence EEMs (DOM) Chlorine demand, etc.
Grab sampling
Controlled DBP Formation Tests
rxn pHrxn Temp (20) FAC dose
Final FAC
final TOT-Cl THMs
always 8 always 20 6 diff measured measured measured
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5Chlorine dose
ppb CFE
Cl3
BrCl2
Br2Cl
Br3
THM4(ppb)
y = 0.0077x2 + 0.592x - 2.5576R² = 0.9961
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
chlo
rine
resi
dual
(ppm
)
chlorine dose (ppm)
Series2
Poly. (Series2)
UFC example
Kinetics Example
Mike's constant temp THM reactions
y = 2.5519x - 4.2233R² = 0.8025
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6
24 h
our C
l2 d
eman
d
DOC
y = 45.871x - 67.129R² = 0.5856
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4
THM
s
DOC
y = 7.5476x + 45.724R² = 0.1109
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
THM
s
Cl2demand24
More DOC = more Cl2 demand24 Poor relationship with Cl2 demand 24 and THMs
Some trend with DOC and THMs
UEFW SWAT MODELING UPDATE AND WQT CASE STUDY – LARGE SCALE MODELING
Upper EFW SWAT Model
Final Descretization Achieved (shown here) NexRad rain file compiled for watershed. Still Working on a Land Use Layer using hierarchical
ordering rules and ArcGIS zonal statistics function. Almost have septic coverages for areas withoiut GIS
coverage. Next will need to parameterize Starting to address how to parameterize agBMPs,
including Wetlands
PRECIPITATION EVENT CENTROIDS DERIVED
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
prec
ipit
atio
n (e
vent
tota
l, m
m) EFK
CWL
Land Use in SWAT Model • Developed a set of
rules for establishing land use based on the NHD, NLCD, and NASS-CDL.
• Trying to capture temporal changes (crop rotations) in one spatial layer. Have identified approximately 50 rotation patterns.
• Having some problems identifying parcels with septic systems when a septic layer is not available.
Septics in Land Use Layer
The septic rule: if the centroid of a parcel is not classified as water, wetland, or urban, put a septic at the centroid of the parcel.
Using the Clermont County septic layer, we looked at how the rules performed.
Note in the following figure that green parcels are those that are labeled on the county layer as having a septic, red dots are rule based septic locations. The rules are clearly overestimating septics. There are several reasons why the rules are overestimating, but these reasons are not easily addressed by changing the rules (for example, one house sits on two parcels).
Also note that the right side of the map is Brown County.
Septic Comparison
Septic Comparison
The Septic System Model in SWAT
-SOME COVER CROPS PLANTED -PREP FOR BASIN DESIGN -SMALL-SCALE MODELING CONTINUES -GRT SITE ESTABLISHED -BROWN COUNTY 319 CC MONITORING -COVER CROP WORKSHOP SET FOR 3/2/2012
CIG effort Update
GRT Modeling
-Fully Parameterized -Moving into Calibration Phase
id season n mtp mtrp mtn mtno23 mtnh4 mturea mdoc mtoc
CWL Fall 14 451 364 1334 130 47 84 14650 13570CWL Spring 14 422 146 3647 788 348 186 12285 12985CWL Summer 10 306 184 2063 824 86 45 16400 17150CWL Winter 2 228 128 2780 213 34 96 15420 14280
Brown County Cover Crop Sheds added to AgBMP experimental
effort – Melody Dragoo
PURPOSE. Demonstrate the use of remote sensing to estimate water quality parameters in inland reservoirs and lakes to enhance Corps water quality management practices as described in ERDC/EL TR-11-13 (Reif, 2011).
Remote Sensing Pilot Study
Draft SOW Prepared-Objectives
1) examine remote sensing imagery assets and analytical capabilities for interpreting water quality parameters in inland lakes and reservoirs
2) demonstrate and use the best available image types and interpretation techniques for a study area (i.e. Corps reservoir) in the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division Examine and select a lake, reservoir or series of lakes/reservoirs in the
LRD AO (e.g. Harsha Lake) representing a variety of environmental conditions, including water bodies with potential nutrient loading that may be vulnerable to Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and will provide an appropriate study site for development and demonstration of water quality interpretation using remote sensing
Should we consider adding a 2nd site – are there any lakes/reservoirs nearby to Harsha that may have different/worse water quality conditions?
Is Harsha big enough to be covered by MERIS?
CE-QUAL-W2 Modeling
Update Submitted by Jeff last time, no new info. Inflow discrepancy issue unresolved
DO Temperature Recovery Hypothesis.
No new developments
Date Year Days since Avg. temp. Avg. DO11/4/2002 2002 0 14.1 0
11/12/2002 8 13.1 3.211/19/2002 15 11.9 3.911/26/2002 22 10.6 3.9
12/4/2002 30 8.6 5.7
y = -0.1825x + 14.397
y = 0.165x + 0.86550
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 10 20 30 40
DO
or T
emp
Days since turnover
Avg. temp.
Avg. DO
Linear (Avg. temp.)
Linear (Avg. DO)
Low DO Duration Hypothesis No new developments
Low DO Duration Hypothesis
No new developments
data testDO4; set testDO1; title "MixedModel"; if yr<2001 then delete; if julD < 125 then delete; if julD > 250 then delete; If depth1 < 20 then delete; proc mixed data=testDO4; class yr depth1 julD; model mlnDO= yr julD yr*juld/outp=Mone; random depth1(yr); repeated julD/sub= depth1(yr); lsmeans yr*julD; run; proc print; run;
January Sampling of GHG and nutrients at the lake
FALL AND WINTER SAMPLING RESULTS- GHG FLUXES
Sampling shows that just after fall turnover, GHG fluxes were very high and detected at all points on the lake. In the winter, GHG fluxes were still detected but at overall lower levels.
0.01
0.1
1
10
0 5 10 15 μmol
CH
4 m
in-1
m-2
km from mouth of stream
CH4 Emission Variations Across the Lake 250
Below detection
0
50
100
150
0 5 10 15
μg N
2O-N
m-2
h-1
km from mouth of stream
N2O Emission Variations Across the Lake
October December
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 5 10 15
μg C
O2-
N m
-2 h
-1
km from mouth of stream
CO2 Emission Variations Across the Lake
October December
TIPPING POINT RESEARCH – CHUCK, HEATHER, ERIC, ROY’S WORK
Trying to establish good sites for using
metagenomic approaches to fish population health indicators, Looking for sites to represent significant gradients for ecological tipping point analyses/research.
MONITORING PROGRAM ISSUES ANY NEW ONES?
January 19, 2011
*The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the primary author and do not reflect official EPA position or policy.
Next Meeting Date: January 19th, 2012 (Provided that Hannah can get us a place and
be in attendance,) We’ll focus on 2012 monitoring program adjustments. I’ll try to have 2011 loading estimates compiled, please send me update materials for inclusion in the meeting slidedeck by COB Tuesday before the meeting.
