EAST FORK WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND MODELING COOPERATIVE (EFWCOOP): JANUARY 19 2012 MEETING.1. January 20, 2011
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
Recalling Some of Our PrimaryObjectives1. Integration of natural and built systems2. Coupled modeling and monitoring programs for decision support3. BMP/GI performance to effectiveness linkages4. Informational (data) architectures and required cooperation for sustainable total water management5. Consider scaling and extrapolation within and across systems6. Defining and modeling drinking water treatability translations7. Evaluation of Water Quality Trading models8. TMDL Development Support
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.
Large Midwestern watersheddraining to a National ScenicRiver and then the Ohio River AgricultureWeekly field site grab sampling continuesAdded an additional Site at GRT outlet thanks to HannahPicked-up weekly Monitoring at GRSSY0.3 as CC is in winter modeAdded three Brown County Sites
11 3-day deployment, 10 Not all data collected during same time 9 periodDissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 8 7 6 EWH Dissolved Oxygen criteria = 5.0 mg/L 5 DODSN1.4 4 EFRM75.3 EFRM70.1 3 EFRM60.1 EFRM44.1 2 EFRM15.6 EFRM9.1
3-day deployment, 12 Not all data collected during same time 10 periodDissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 8 6 WWH criteria Min D.O. = 4.0 mg/L 4 BARNS1.9 2 CLOVE5.1 POPLR2.1 ST13.4 0 BRUSH0.3 ST5.7 Time STEFLMR
in-situ monitoring continues at the Lake DWTP intake River and/or Reservoir Treatment Plant Processes chlorophyll a Ecology Processes coagulation, settling, filtration, chlorination, activated carbon, membranephycocyanin (cyanobact. pigment) biogeochemistry, hydrology, ecology filtration DO pH ORP turbidity Conductivity UV absorbance (DOM) In Plant Data Reservoir Modeling Source Modeling Data - Water Finished fate and Treatment Water various Data - transport Processes Data depths 1_depth Grab sampling chlorophyll a phycocyanin (cyano bact. pigment)algal taxonomy (species level counting) Grab sampling nutrients DBPs -THMs, HAAs pH UV absorbance (DOM) turbidity/sechi fluorescence EEMs (DOM) DOC/TOC, UV absorbance (DOM) Chlorine demand, etc. fluorescence EEMs (DOM) DBP (THMs) formation potential
UEFW SWAT MODELINGUPDATE AND WQT CASESTUDY – LARGE SCALEMODELING
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
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.
Brown County Cover Crop Sheds added to AgBMP experimental effort – Melody Dragoo
Remote Sensing Pilot StudyPURPOSE.Demonstrate the use of remote sensing to estimate waterquality parameters in inland reservoirs and lakes toenhance Corps water quality management practices asdescribed in ERDC/EL TR-11-13 (Reif, 2011).
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. Date Year Days since Avg. temp. Avg. DO 11/4/2002 2002 0 14.1 0 11/12/2002 8 13.1 3.2 11/19/2002 15 11.9 3.9 11/26/2002 22 10.6 3.9 12/4/2002 30 8.6 5.7 16 No new developments y = -0.1825x + 14.397 14 12 10 DO or Temp Avg. temp. 8 Avg. DO 6 Linear (Avg. temp.) 4 Linear (Avg. DO) 2 0 y = 0.165x + 0.8655 0 10 20 30 40 Days since turnoverLow DO Duration Hypothesis No new developments
Low DO Duration Hypothesis No new developmentsdata 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; randomdepth1(yr); repeated julD/sub= depth1(yr); lsmeansyr*julD; run;proc print; run;
January Samplingof GHG andnutrients at the lake
FALL AND WINTER SAMPLING RESULTS- GHG CH4 Emission Variations AcrossFLUXES the Lake 250 10 μmol CH4 min-1 m-2 1 0.1 Below detection 0.01 0 5 10 15 km from mouth of stream N2O Emission Variations Across 150 the Lake μg N2O-N m-2 h-1 100 October December 50 0 0 5 10 15 km from mouth of streamSampling shows that just after fall CO2 Emission Variations Acrossturnover, GHG fluxes were very high 600 the Lakeand detected at all points on the lake. μg CO2-N m-2 h-1 500 October 400In the winter, GHG fluxes were still December 300 200detected but at overall lower levels. 100 0 0 5 10 15 km from mouth of stream
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.
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 tohave 2011 loading estimates compiled, please send me updatematerials for inclusion in the meeting slidedeck by COB Tuesdaybefore the meeting. *The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the primary author and do not reflect official EPA position or policy. January 19, 2011