Ef coop meetingpres_01192012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
447
On Slideshare
299
From Embeds
148
Number of Embeds
4

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 148

http://www.oeq.net 129
http://oeq.net 11
http://localhost 5
http://edit.oeq.net 3

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. EAST FORK WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND MODELING COOPERATIVE (EFWCOOP): JANUARY 19 2012 MEETING.1. January 20, 2011
  • 2. 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
  • 3. 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
  • 4. 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.
  • 5. 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
  • 6. EFWCoop Monitoring Sites and Point Sources
  • 7. A flavor for the Nutrient DataBase 450 2500 400 350 2000 Nitrate-Nitrie (ppb) 300 1500 250TP (ppb) 200 1000 150 100 500 50 0 0 EFG EFB DAM EFK EFC EFG EFB DAM EFK EFC
  • 8. 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 Discharge, T, DO, sp.cond., pH, of small tributaries, < DOC, TOC, N-NH3, NO2-NO3, 5 mi2 TKN, P-TP, Ortho-P, E.coli, TSS, atrazine, simazine, alachlor
  • 9. Characterization of Monitoring SitesSite General Land UsePOPLR2.1 Park land, Low dens. residential, AgricultureSTEFLMR Low dens. residential, AgricultureBARNS1.9 Agriculture, Low dens. residential,EFRM9.1 WWTP, ResidentialEFRM15.6 Low density residential, East Fork LakeEFRM34.8 WWTP, Agriculture, Low dens. residentialEFRM70.1 WWTP, Agriculture, Low dens. residentialEFRM75.3 Agriculture, Low dens. residentialDODSN1.4 Agriculture, EWH
  • 10. 1.7 1.6 Avg. Nutrient Conc. NO2NO3 10000 Avg. Nutrient Loads 1.5 May- Aug. May - Aug. NO2NO3 (ppm) 1.4 TKN 1.3 PTOT 1000 TKN (ppm) 1.2 1.1 WWH NO3-criteria PTOT 1.0 kg/day 0.9mg/L 100 0.8 0.7 0.6 EWH NO0-criteria 0.5 0.4 10 0.3 0.2 EWH TP- 0.1 criteria 0.0 1 1400 Avg. Bacteria 45 Avg. Suspended Solids May- Aug. 40 May- Aug. 1200 E. coli SS 35 1000 30 800mg/L mg/L 25 600 20 400 15 10 200 30 day avg. criteria = 126 (#/100mL) 5 0 0
  • 11. 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
  • 12. 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
  • 13. 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
  • 14. Controlled DBP Formation Tests 90 ppb CFE 2.5 UFC example 80 2 y = 0.0077x 2 + 0.592x - 2.5576 70 R² = 0.9961 60 chlorine residual (ppm) 1.5 Cl3 50 BrCl2 Br2Cl 40 1 Br3 30 THM4(ppb) 0.5 Series2 20 Poly. (Series2) 10 0 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 0 Kinetics Example chlorine dose (ppm) 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 Chlorine dose rxn Temp Final final TOT-rxn pH (20) FAC dose FAC Cl THMsalways 8 always 20 6 diff measured measured measured
  • 15. Mikes constant temp THM reactionsMore DOC = more Cl2 demand24 Poor relationship with Cl2 demand 24 5.0 4.5 120.0 and THMs 4.0 100.024 hour Cl2 demand 3.5 3.0 80.0 2.5 THMs 60.0 2.0 1.5 y = 2.5519x - 4.2233 40.0 1.0 R² = 0.8025 y = 7.5476x + 45.724 0.5 20.0 R² = 0.1109 0.0 0.0 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 DOC Cl2demand24 120.0 Some trend with DOC and THMs 100.0 80.0 THMs 60.0 40.0 y = 45.871x - 67.129 R² = 0.5856 20.0 0.0 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 DOC
  • 16. UEFW SWAT MODELINGUPDATE AND WQT CASESTUDY – LARGE SCALEMODELING
  • 17. 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
  • 18. PRECIPITATION EVENT CENTROIDSDERIVED 90 EFK precipitation (event total, mm) 80 CWL 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
  • 19. 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.
  • 20. 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.
  • 21. Septic Comparison
  • 22. Septic Comparison
  • 23. The Septic System Model in SWAT
  • 24. CIG effort Update-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
  • 25. 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 13570 CWL Spring 14 422 146 3647 788 348 186 12285 12985 CWL Summer 10 306 184 2063 824 86 45 16400 17150 CWL Winter 2 228 128 2780 213 34 96 15420 14280
  • 26. Brown County Cover Crop Sheds added to AgBMP experimental effort – Melody Dragoo
  • 27. 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).
  • 28. 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?
  • 29. CE-QUAL-W2 Modeling Update Submitted by Jeff last time, no new info. Inflow discrepancy issue unresolved
  • 30. 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
  • 31. 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;
  • 32. January Samplingof GHG andnutrients at the lake
  • 33. 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
  • 34. 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.
  • 35. MONITORING PROGRAM ISSUESANY NEW ONES?
  • 36. 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