WORK IN PROGRESS Perspectives on Selecting Water Quality Targets and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Perspectives on Selecting Water Quality Targets and Allocations September 27, 2012

HDR Engineering, Inc. David Clark, PE Michael Kasch, PE, PH

Disclaimer: Any opinions, findings, statements, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily ref lect the views of Lower Boise Watershed stakeholders.

WORK IN PROGRESS

DRAFT

 Overview of 303(d) Listing  Monitoring Data

 River Conditions Assessment

 TMDL Targeting

 Cause and Effect Variables

 Models and Modeling

 Total Phosphorus Spreadsheet Model

 Management Scenarios

 Linking Targeting with Management

 Next Steps

DRAFT

DRAFT

 IDAPA 58.01.02 Water Quality Standards

DRAFT

 IDAPA 58.01.02 Water Quality Standards

DRAFT

 303(d) listed as impaired

needing TMDL

DRAFT

 EPA concluded that the Lower Boise River is water quality-

limited for nutrients (October 13, 2009)

 Basis:

 Data on indicators for interpreting narrative criteria

 Primary: phosphorus, nitrogen, periphyton chlorophyll a  Additional: turbidity, dissolved oxygen, pH, macrophytes

 Comparison Criteria:

 Ecoregion criteria of 43 mg/L total phosphorus  Gold Book criteria of 100 mg/L total phosphorus  Reference literature (Welch, Dodds, VNRP, et.al)

 10 to 90 mg/L total phosphorus  3 to 60 mg/L soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP)  100 to 200 mg/m2 chlorophyll a

 DEQ’s listing/delisting rationale for

• ther waterbodies

 However, metrics were applied on a site-specific basis

DRAFT

DRAFT

 Four locations

 # USGS 13203510 BOISE R BL DIVERSION DAM NR

BOISE ID

 # USGS 13206000 BOISE RIVER AT GLENWOOD

BRIDGE NR BOISE ID

 # USGS 13210050 BOISE RIVER NR MIDDLETON ID  # USGS 13213000 BOISE RIVER NR PARMA ID

 Period of Record Data

 Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, N:P Ratio  Suspended Sediment, Orthophosphate, Chlorophyll a

DRAFT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 20 40 60 80 Total Nitrogen (mg/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 20 40 60 80 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum 10 20 30 40 50 60 20 40 60 80 N:P Ratio River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum Limitation 50 100 150 200 250 20 40 60 80 Suspended Sediment (mg/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum

Max 664

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 20 40 60 80 Orthophosphate (mg/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 20 40 60 80 Chlorophyll a (mg/m2) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum

DRAFT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 20 40 60 80 Total Nitrogen (mg/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum 50 100 150 200 250 20 40 60 80 Suspended Sediment (mg/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum

Max 483

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 20 40 60 80 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 20 40 60 80 Orthophosphate (mg/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum 10 20 30 40 50 60 20 40 60 80 N:P Ratio River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum Limitation 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 20 40 60 80 Chlorophyll a (mg/m2) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum

DRAFT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 20 40 60 80 Total Nitrogen (mg/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 20 40 60 80 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum 10 20 30 40 50 60 20 40 60 80 N:P Ratio River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum Limitation 50 100 150 200 250 20 40 60 80 Suspended Sediment (mg/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum

Max 664

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 20 40 60 80 Orthophosphate (mg/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 20 40 60 80 Chlorophyll a (mg/m2) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum

DRAFT

 Median of 2011 Study

data are similar to the long-term dataset at Parma

1 2 3 4 5 6 20 40 60 80 Total Nitrogen (mg/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum AS Median, WY09 AS Median, WY10 AS USGS Max AS USGS Min 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 20 40 60 80 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum AS Median, WY09 AS Median, WY10 AS USGS Max AS USGS Min 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 20 40 60 80 Suspended Sediment (mg/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum Median, WY09 Median, WY10 USGS Max USGS Min 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 20 40 60 80 Orthophosphate (mg/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum Median, WY09 Median, WY10 USGS Max USGS Min

DRAFT

 Map – Glenwood

Glenwood Parma

Hexon and Roswell Rds

Notus Caldwell

Chicago St

Middleton

Lansing Lane

Star

DRAFT

 EPA interpreted the narrative standards for

 Floating, Suspended or Submerged Matter  Excess nutrients

 EPA stated phosphorus levels exceed ecoregional and Gold

Book criteria and therefore constitute a violation of the excess nutrient narrative criterion

 EPA used 100 to 200 mg/m2 periphyton chlorophyll a and

43 to 100 mg/L for total phosphorus

 Narrative standard “…free from excess nutrients that can cause

visible slime growth or other nuisance growths…”

 EPA stated that periphyton appears to be the best measure of

whether excess nutrients are impairing beneficial uses

DRAFT

 Impairment is nuisance algae (EPA)

 Visual inspection and complaints indicate nuisance algae  Comparisons of in-stream data and reference criteria indicate nuisance algae

 Cause(s) of nuisance algae

 Inferred cause is total phosphorus  Evidence: Comparison of in-stream data and reference criteria suggests

nuisance algae

 Argument

 Reduce total phosphorus = reduced nuisance algae

 Connection

 Not established in EPA letter

 Need a site specific analysis to determine the levels of phosphorus in the

particular water body that cause nuisance aquatic growths at levels impairing designated beneficial uses.

DRAFT

Snake River - Hells Canyon TMDL TP 70 mg/L at Parma

Boise River TMDL Target?

• Where?
• Middleton to Parma
• What?
• EPA’s reference criteria
• Other
• When?
• Annual
• Seasonal
• Other

DRAFT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Source Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) River Mile

Core Model August 2000

Total Phosphorus Boise WWTP Lander Boise WWTP West Boise Thurman Drain Fifteen Mile Mouth (includes Meridian WWTP) Star Feeder Long Feeder Watts Creek Mill Slough (includes Star WWTP) Middleton WWTP Willow Creek @ Middleton Mason Creek Mason Drain Hartley (Combined) Caldwell WWTP Indian Creek (includes Nampa WWTP) Conway Gulch @ Notus Dixie Drain Near Wilder Groundwater

 Phosphorus loading spreadsheet does not provide a

prediction of Boise River chlorophyll a response

 Potential cause [phosphorus] not linked to response

[nuisance algae]

 “…relations between chlorophyll-a and other

water-quality parameters at Parma have not been well characterized…” (USGS, 2011)

Boise River chlorophyll a mg/m2 ???

DRAFT

DRAFT

 Spreadsheet of Boise River inputs and diversions  Representing conditions from:

 August 2000 (medium to low flow year)  July 2001 (low flow year)

 Considerations

 Use the Core Models to increase understanding of the

system

 Use the Core Models to investigate potential

implications of EPA’s criteria

DRAFT

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Flow (cfs) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) River Mile

Core Model August 2000

Total Phosphorus Flow 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Flow (cfs) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) River Mile

Core Model July 2001

Total Phosphorus Flow

DRAFT

Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Source Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) River Mile

Core Model August 2000

Total Phosphorus Boise WWTP Lander Boise WWTP West Boise Thurman Drain Fifteen Mile Mouth (includes Meridian WWTP) Star Feeder Long Feeder Watts Creek Mill Slough (includes Star WWTP) Middleton WWTP Willow Creek @ Middleton Mason Creek Mason Drain Hartley (Combined) Caldwell WWTP Indian Creek (includes Nampa WWTP) Conway Gulch @ Notus Dixie Drain Near Wilder Groundwater 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Source Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) River Mile

Core Model July 2001

Total Phosphorus Boise WWTP Lander Boise WWTP West Boise Thurman Drain Fifteen Mile Mouth (includes 5 mile and Meridian) Star Feeder Long Feeder Watts Creek Mill Slough (includes Star WWTP) Middleton WWTP Willow Creek @ Middleton Mason Creek Mason Drain Hartley (Combined) Caldwell WWTP Indian Creek (includes Nampa) Conway Gulch @ Notus Dixie Drain Near Wilder Measured Groundwater

DRAFT

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Source Total Phosphorus (lbs/day) Total Phosphorus (lbs/day) River Mile

Core Model August 2000

Total Phosphorus Boise WWTP Lander Boise WWTP West Boise Thurman Drain Fifteen Mile Mouth (includes Meridian WWTP) Star Feeder Long Feeder Watts Creek Mill Slough (includes Star WWTP) Middleton WWTP Willow Creek @ Middleton Mason Creek Mason Drain Hartley (Combined) Caldwell WWTP Indian Creek (includes Nampa WWTP) Conway Gulch @ Notus Dixie Drain Near Wilder Groundwater 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Source Total Phosphorus (lbs/day) Total Phosphorus (lbs/day) River Mile

Core Model July 2001

Total Phosphorus Boise WWTP Lander Boise WWTP West Boise Thurman Drain Fifteen Mile Mouth (includes 5 mile and Meridian) Star Feeder Long Feeder Watts Creek Mill Slough (includes Star WWTP) Middleton WWTP Willow Creek @ Middleton Mason Creek Mason Drain Hartley (Combined) Caldwell WWTP Indian Creek (includes Nampa) Conway Gulch @ Notus Dixie Drain Near Wilder Measured Groundwater

DRAFT

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Total Phosphorus (lbs/day)

August 2000

Core Model Source Loads to Boise River Estimated Source Load Reaching Parma 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Total Phosphorus (lbs/day)

July 2001

Core Model Source Loads to Boise River Estimated Source Load Reaching Parma

DRAFT

Conceptual Example of Accounting Process River Segment

Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pww Pww Pww Pww Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pww Pww Pww Pww Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pww Pww Pww Pu/s Pu/s Pww Pcreek Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pww Pww Pww Pcreek Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pww Pww Pcreek Pu/s Pu/s Pu/s Pww Pww Pcreek

Inputs and Diversions

 Ecosystem model that is a standalone program  Represents conditions from Jan 1999 through Dec 2001

DRAFT

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Flow (cfs) or Periphyton (mg/m2) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) River Mile

August 2000

Total Phosphorus Periphyton Flow 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Flow (cfs) or Periphyton (mg/m2) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) River Mile

July 2001

Total Phosphorus Periphyton Flow

 EPA Core Model

 Does not provide connection between cause and effect

variables

 AQUATOX Model

 Acceptance?

 Other Models

 Models available that could be applied

DRAFT

DRAFT

 Source Allocations:

 WWTP Treatment Levels

 500 mg/L sustainable BNR w/o effluent filtration  300 mg/L sustainable BNR w/ filtration (not membranes)  70 mg/L sustainable BNR w/ membranes or enhanced filtration

 Equity Basis

 Concentration  Load  Percent reductions

 Other

 River Response:

 Need to perform model simulations

DRAFT

Typical Advanced Treatment Nutrient Removal (BNR), mg/l Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR), mg/l Limits of Treatment Technology, mg/l Reference Criteria, mg/l Boise River Ambient, mg/l Total Phosphorus 4 to 8 4 to 6 1 0.25 to 0.50 0.05 to 0.07 0.043 to 0.100 0.01 to 0.37 Total Nitrogen 25 to 35 20 to 30 10 4 to 6 3 to 4 0.300 to 0.380 0.21 to 3.58 Approximate Cost Range for 10 mgd2 $90 to $120M $130 to $170M $160 to $200M $200 to $250M Parameter Typical Municipal Raw Wastewater, mg/l Secondary Effluent (No Nutrient Removal), mg/l Advanced Wastewater Treatment

1Ignoring Considerations of Variability and Reliability of Wastewater Treatment Performance

2WERF Striking the Balance Between Nutrient Removal in Wastewater Treatment and Sustainability. Costs for new facility.

Total Present Worth Cost includes Operations TP Boise River WWTPs 2 to 5 mg/L

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 N:P Ratio River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum Limitation 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 N:P Ratio (TP 100 ug/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum Limitation 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 N:P Ratio (TP 70 ug/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum Limitation 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 N:P Ratio (TP 43 ug/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum Limitation 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 N:P Ratio River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum Limitation 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 N:P Ratio (TP 100 ug/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum Limitation 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 N:P Ratio (TP 70 ug/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum Limitation 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 N:P Ratio (TP 43 ug/L) River Mile Minimum 25th Median Mean 75th Maximum Limitation

Irrigation Season if River TP 100 µg/L if River TP 70 µg/L if River TP 43 µg/L Non-Irrigation Season if River TP 100 µg/L if River TP 70 µg/L if River TP 43 µg/L

DRAFT

 Phosphorus reductions

 TMDL TP values?

 Sediment reductions

 TMDL TSS targets

 50 mg/L no more

than 60 days

 80 mg/L no more

than 14 days

 Nuisance Algae

Growth Response?

 No simple correlation Glenwood Middleton Parma

DRAFT

y = 771.89x + 40.508 R² = 0.5122 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Chlorophyll a (mg/m2) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) y = -0.7994x + 163.55 R² = 0.0007 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 10 20 Chlorophyll a (mg/m2) Suspended Sediment (mg/L) y = 159.04x + 226.22 R² = 0.0141 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Chlorophyll a (mg/m2) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) y = -30.995x + 429.05 R² = 0.068 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 10 20 Chlorophyll a (mg/m2) Suspended Sediment (mg/L) y = 6522.4x - 1668.6 R² = 0.3914 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Chlorophyll a (mg/m2) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) y = 0.8539x + 46.551 R² = 0.6996 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 100 200 300 Chlorophyll a (mg/m2) Suspended Sediment (mg/L)

 Times Series

DRAFT

• 300

700 1 1/1/1995 12/31/1996 1/1/1999 12/31/2000 1/1/2003 12/31/2004 1/1/2007 12/31/2008 Constitue nt Date

Glenwood

Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Suspended Sediment (mg/L) x10 Chlorophyll a (mg/m2)

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1/1/1995 12/31/1996 1/1/1999 12/31/2000 1/1/2003 12/31/2004 1/1/2007 12/31/2008 Constituent Date

Glenwood

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1/1/1995 12/31/1996 1/1/1999 12/31/2000 1/1/2003 12/31/2004 1/1/2007 12/31/2008 Constituent Date

Middleton

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1/1/1995 12/31/1996 1/1/1999 12/31/2000 1/1/2003 12/31/2004 1/1/2007 12/31/2008 Constituent Date

Parma

DRAFT

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) River Mile July 2001 Core Model SR-HC TMDL @ Parma Middleton to Mouth EPA Criteria Low Middleton to Mouth EPA Criteria High WWTPs 500 ug/L & Other Sources 55 ug/L WWTPs 300 ug/L & Other Sources 64 ug/L WWTPs 70 ug/L & Other Sources 75 ug/L

DRAFT

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) River Mile July 2001 AQUATOX Model SR-HC TMDL @ Parma Middleton to Mouth EPA Criteria Low Middleton to Mouth EPA Criteria High WWTPs 500 ug/L & Other Sources 55 ug/L WWTPs 300 ug/L & Other Sources 64 ug/L WWTPs 70 ug/L & Other Sources 75 ug/L

50 100 150 200 250 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Periphyton (mg/m2) River Mile July 2001 AQUATOX Model Middleton to Mouth EPA Criteria Low Middleton to Mouth EPA Criteria High WWTPs 500 ug/L & Other Sources 55 ug/L WWTPs 300 ug/L & Other Sources 64 ug/L WWTPs 70 ug/L & Other Sources 75 ug/L

 Long term management vision for the Boise River  Select interim target(s) (Fall 2012?)  Select modeling tool(s) (Winter 2013?)  Select management scenarios (Winter 2013?)  Assess compatibility of

 Target to Beneficial Use  Beneficial Use to Understanding of River  Understanding of River to Model Representation  Representation to Management Scenarios  Management Scenarios to Targets

 Iterate until draft TMDL allocations (Fall 2012 through Fall 2013)

Basis

• f

Impair ment Set Target Select Model TMDL

Re-Open NPDES Permit

Imple ment BMPs

Reassess Impairm ent

DRAFT

 What is it that we are trying to accomplish? (Target)



Phosphorus concentration?



Algae density?



Macrophyte index?



Habitat?



Fishery or recreation?



Other?  When trying to achieve conditions? (Target Monitoring)



Seasonally?



Flow conditions?  Where are we right now and according to who? (Data & Assessment)



Data on river water quality conditions  Where are we going and how will we know when we get there? (TMDL)



How can progress be tracked so that adaptive management approaches can be used to adjust and improve?



Continue moving in positive direction



Provide incremental steps for reductions with achievable goals and structure in TMDL to not result in over-specified restrictive effluent limitations

DRAFT