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 Primary
Objectives
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
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 watershed
draining to a National Scenic
River and then the Ohio River
Agriculture
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
11. 11
3-day deployment,
10 Not all data collected
during same time
9
period
Dissolved 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
period
Dissolved 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, membrane
phycocyanin (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
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
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.
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
26. Brown County Cover Crop Sheds
added to AgBMP experimental
effort – Melody Dragoo
27. Remote Sensing Pilot Study
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).
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 turnover
Low DO Duration Hypothesis
No new developments
31. 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;
33. FALL AND WINTER SAMPLING RESULTS- GHG
CH4 Emission Variations Across
FLUXES 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 stream
Sampling shows that just after fall CO2 Emission Variations Across
turnover, GHG fluxes were very high 600
the Lake
and detected at all points on the lake.
μg CO2-N m-2 h-1
500
October
400
In the winter, GHG fluxes were still
December
300
200
detected 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.
39. 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.
*The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of
the primary author and do not reflect official EPA position
or policy.
January 19,
2011
