MSD Water Quality Monitoring and Modeling

Transcription

1 MSD Water Quality Monitoring and Modeling It s all about clean water! December 12, 2018

2 AGENDA Welcome Regulatory Context Overview of Monitoring and Modeling Water Quality Modeling Water Quality Monitoring Platform for Integrating Water Quality Data Use of Data Wrap-up Conclusion

3 Regulatory Context: Monitoring and Modeling Legal provisions for waste disposal to waterways safeguarding waterways so they are healthy and safe to use NPDES Permits Findings and Orders Consent Decrees Sampling Bioassessment Modeling

4 Building blocks Collection system modeling Identify and map assets with all their attributes into a pipe network Conduct extensive and ongoing flow monitoring to calibrate and validate the system wide hydraulic model Rain radar refinements to gain wet weather inputs. Real-time Monitoring adds tremendous value Connect the sensors to the cloud, calibrate and validate to become believable / actionable Real-time Controls are now possible System-wide storage and treatment decisions

5 Building blocks Watershed Operations Wet weather assets RTC HRT DUC SCADA (remote monitoring and control) operations SMART SEWER overflow management Overflow reduction decisions in real-time Where capacity is available Doing that Hold here to avoid overflow there Building that Hold back the most polluted wet weather overflows Modeling that Restrict overflows in sensitive or low flow streams Monitoring that

6 NPDES Required Biolologal Biological sampling Sampling history History and beyond Level 3 Bioassessment Baseline Study chemical and limited macroinvertebrates Modified NPDES Permit Future NPDES Permits

7 Hierarchy of needs

8 Strengths of Modeling and Monitoring 8

9 ROI

10 MSD Water Quality Modeling It s all about clean water! December 12, 2018

11 Background What is a Model? Mathematical description of real world processes Models attempt to simulate cause-and-effect relationships If. Then. Commonly used in water quality and elsewhere Space travel Weather forecasting

12 Understanding Water Quality Modeling: Bank Account Analogy Other income sources ($$ In) Paycheck ($$ In) Balance? Expenses ($$ Out) Interest and Fees (+/- $$) How If I have do I need given to income, adjust income expenses, or expenses interest rates and to meet fees, then a goal what for my will balance? my be? 12

13 Conceptual Water Quality Model Other Pollutant Sources (WQ In) Upstream Sources (WQ In) In-Stream Concentration Downstream Transport (WQ Out) Fate processes (+/-) How do I need to adjust pollutant sources or downstream transport to meet a goal for my in-stream concentration? 13

14 Benefits of Modeling MSDGC Collection system Local jurisdictions Upstream sources EPA Stream Biota and Habitat Hamilton County Stream Flows Rainfall, met data WWTP operation Stream WQ Septic systems Watershed soils Watershed topography Watershed groups Stormwater Watershed land cover Watershed land use Health Dept Ohio EPA Models provide a means of synthesizing available system data and knowledge in a given problem domain

15 How WQ Models Provide Value to MSDGC Planning tool Watershed planning/watershed studies Project selection Watershed operations/inform real time control decisions Regulatory support Post wet weather plan implementation Stormwater rule 2407 demonstrations Watershed/built environment system synthesis High risk to public health areas Integration of lots of different types of information Forecasting river conditions Recreation conditions Communicate with public and stakeholders Dashboards Publications

16 Effort to Develop a Water Quality Model Factors Model complexity area to be covered, spatial detail, number of sources to include Pollutants to include bacteria, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, solids, toxics Available data the elephant Steps All require data Construct Calibrate Validate Cost Range: Model alone: $100,000 - $1,000,000, range based on factors above Model and data: $250,000 - $2,000,000

17 MSD s Water Quality Models

18 MSD s Investment in Water Quality Models River System/ Watershed River Model Watershed Model Configuration WQ Parameters Calibrated/ Validated? Ohio River EFDC n/a 2-D laterally E. coli Yes Little Miami River EFDC n/a 2-D laterally TBD (E. coli) No Duck Creek EFDC TBD 1-D TBD (E. coli) No Mill Creek EFDC/A2EM SWMM (coarse scale) 1-D E. coli Partial Upper Mill Creek (SSO-700 Watershed) EFDC/A2EM SWMM (fine scale) 1-D, with tribs E. coli, solids, nutrients, DO, BOD, metals, chloride Muddy Creek EFDC/A2EM SWMM 2-D E. coli, solids, nutrients, DO, BOD, chloride Rapid Run EFDC/A2EM SWMM 2-D E. coli, solids, nutrients, DO, BOD, chloride Yes In progress In progress Great Miami River (MCD) EFDC/A2EM HSPF 1-D Nutrients, DO Yes

19 Integrating Models with Monitoring Programs

20 Why do wet weather sampling? Would you expect water quality to be similar under these two conditions? Dry Weather Wet Weather

21 Wet weather vs. dry weather in-stream sampling suggests need for both types of data Upstream (East Crescentville Rd.) Downstream (Galbraith Rd.) Upstream (Beechcreek Ln.) Downstream (Hillside Rd.) Upstream (Rapid Run Rd.) Downstream (Bender Rd.) Mill Creek Muddy Creek Rapid Run

22 Integrating Water Quality Sensors Into Monitoring Program Potential Value Increased data density data every minutes Extended monitoring deploy for multiple months Near real-time accessibility to the data via the cloud Reduce sampling labor costs Can address site accessibility challenges

23 Water Quality Sensor Deployment

24 Water Quality Sensors: Challenges from Muddy Creek Deployment Maintenance needs More frequent than estimated Needed after every storm Vandalism Installation orientation Vertical better than slanted Dynamic stream conditions Mobile stream bed Out of water during low flow Calibration

25 Assessment of Sensor WQ Data (on-going) RESULTS ARE PRELIMINARY Conventional in situ parameters compare reasonably well to second sonde s data New parameters, like TSS, are more difficult. Turbidity may be better predictor of lab TSS than TSS sensor. We need to better address challenges in next deployment.

26 Wrap-up: We want these models to help you! Fill gaps in space and time that do not have water quality data Track impact of specific sources Separate the impact of MSD sources from non-msd sources Evaluate benefits of controls before investing in them Identify point of diminishing returns for MSD investments Provide technical foundation for regulatory agency negotiations Address localized areas of interest to public and other stakeholders All models are wrong, some are useful (George Box, statistician, )

27 Example: Filling gaps in space and time Mill Creek at Galbraith Road SSO 700 IWAP WQ Model Calibration Insert example from SSO-700 IWAP calibration figures

28 Example: Tracking impact of specific sources

29 Example: Identify point of diminishing return on investment If CSOs meet WQ at 8 OF/year, what is gained by reducing further to 4 OF/year, given the expense to ratepayers?

30 Example: Support Regulatory Agency Negotiations 2030 Baseline (No Control) 2030 Traditional Plan (No SSO, CSO at 4 OF/yr) 2030 SD1 Integrated Plan (No SSO, CSO at 17 OF/yr, Watershed Controls)

31 Example: Forecasting improvements to WQ? What will happen to WQ in the period?

32 Opportunities to Improve Operations? How would planning or operational decisions change based on in-stream water quality modeling? Example: Not all CSOs are created equal. Some have a higher fraction of sanitary sewage in their discharge while others discharge a large volume that is predominantly stormwater. Load-wise, they may be similar but in-stream impacts may be quite different. Other creative ideas? Estimated

33 Conclusions Water quality models Are planning tools that allow MSD to simulate the presumptive effects of alternative strategies, resulting in selection of the most cost-effective, highest benefit solutions. Align well with MSD s Hierarch of Needs How can we make water quality models work for you?

34 MSD Water Quality Monitoring It s all about clean water! December 12, 2018 Midwest Biodiversity Institute Columbus, OH

35 What is a Bioassessment? Bioassessment a systematic assessment of the aquatic resource using biological indicators AND chemical/physical indicators in a supporting role. Tiered Aquatic Life Uses (TALUs) a hierarchy of aquatic life uses in Ohio. Biocriteria data-based numerical benchmarks for determining attainment of aquatic life uses in the Ohio WQS.

36 Biological Criteria Biological criteria are based on aquatic community characteristics that are measured both structurally and functionally. These criteria are used to evaluate the attainment of aquatic life uses. The data collected in these assessments are used to characterize aquatic life impairment and to help diagnose the cause of this impairment. The principal biological evaluation tools used by Ohio EPA are the Index of Biotic integrity (IBI), the Modified Index of Well-Being (MIWB) and the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI). These three indices are based on species richness, trophic composition, diversity, presence of pollution-tolerant individuals or species, abundance of biomass, and the presence of diseased or abnormal organisms. The IBI and the MIWB apply to fish; the ICI applies to macroinvertebrates. Ohio EPA uses the results of sampling reference sites to set minimum criteria index scores for use designations in water quality standards. Provisions addressing biological criteria are in paragraph (C) of rule of the OAC.

37 Fish, Macroinvertebrates, Sondes, Chemical samples, Habitat

38 Instream Bioassessment Provides: 1. Assignment/Affirmation the appropriate & attainable aquatic life use tier (criteriabased) what can the stream attain? 2. Determine the aquatic life status of a waterbody is it impaired or attaining? 3. Determine changes over time trend assessment.

39 Bioassessment Objective 1: Exceptional Warmwater Warmwater Habitat Set Habitat the appropriate and attainable aquatic life use tier (ALU) Whitewater R. adj. Kilby Rd. (GM 42) Taylor Creek between I-74 & Harrison Ave. (GM 81) This determines which biological and Modified Warmwater Primary Headwater chemical Habitat criteria apply to Habitat a waterbody (Clean Water Act) Mill Creek downstream Spring Grove Ave. (MC07) Unnamed Trib. to Taylor Cr. at 5310 Haft Rd. (GM106)

40 Exceptional Warmwater Habitat Warmwater Habitat Whitewater R. adj. Kilby Rd. (GM 42) Taylor Creek between I-74 & Harrison Ave. (GM 81) Modified Warmwater Habitat Primary Headwater Habitat Mill Creek downstream Spring Grove Ave. (MC07) Unnamed Trib. to Taylor Cr. at 5310 Haft Rd. (GM106)

41 Major Causes Associated with Aquatic Life Impairments in Bioassessment MSDGC Service Objective Area 2: Determine aquatic life status and causes/sources of impairments CSO/SSOs are not the only source of impairments present day causes have shifted to nonpollutants that are fundamental to attainment and attainability of WQS. Knowledge of impaired (or attaining) waters is needed to develop & prioritize management actions

42 Aquatic Life Use Attainment Impairments 4.9% 10.6% 15.5% 45.7% Habitat/Sediment/Flow Nutrients Organic Enrichment/D.O./NH3 Urban Pollutants Chlorides 23.3% Overflows are not the only source of impairments habitat modification, hydro-modification, road salt, household systems, etc.

43 Where we want to be by 20?? Bioassessment Objective 3: Determine Mill Creektrends over time Trends reveal the effectiveness of strategies, controls & BMPs

44 Upper Mill Creek Mainstem designated Warmwater Habitat Aquatic Life Use (affirmed in 2011) 2016 Mill Creek Bioassessment: First MSD Level 3 revisit Does Mill Creek meet or fail Water Quality Standards? Lower Mill Creek Mainstem designated Modified Warmwater Habitat Aquatic Life Use (affirmed in 2011)

45 INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY INDEX (ICI) E. Fk. Mill Cr. SSO 700 Multiple CSOs (60+) AAV RIVER MILE W. Fk. Mill Cr. ADV 10 WWH Biocriteria (ICI = 30) ADV = [(aibia + aibib) (pibia + pibib)] *(RMa RMb), for a= 1 to n 5 AAV = Area of Attainment Value; Meets WQS and by how much ADV = Area of Degradation Value; Fails WQS and by how much

46 Modified Warmwater Habitat AAV = Area of Attainment Value; Meets WQS and by how much ADV = Area of Degradation Value; Fails WQS and by how much

47 Warm Water Habitat AAV = Area of Attainment Value; Meets WQS and by how much ADV = Area of Degradation Value; Fails WQS and by how much

48 Upper Mill Creek Warm Water Habitat 2016 Status Partial Attainment of Aquatic Life, macroinvertebrates full; fish are limiting. The 2016 results show a consistent positive trend compared to prior years (1992, 1997, 2011, 2013). Lower Mill Creek Modified Warmwater Habitat 2016 Status Full Attainment of Aquatic Life, macroinvertebrates and fish reach attainment

49 Little Miami River Mainstem designated Exceptional Warmwater Habitat Aquatic Life Use (c. 1983) 2017 Little Miami River Bioassessment: Second MSD Level 3 revisit Does Little Miami River meet of fail Water Quality Standards? Tributaries - Warm Water Habitat Primary Headwater Habitat* *functional description Duck Creek multiple designations: Limited Resource Water; Modified Warmwater Habitat; Warm Water Habitat

50 Exceptional Warmwater Habitat AAV = Area of Attainment Value; Meets WQS and by how much ADV = Area of Degradation Value; Fails WQS and by how much

51 Limited Resource, Modified or Warmwater Habitat AAV = Area of Attainment Value; Meets WQS and by how much ADV = Area of Degradation Value; Fails WQS and by how much

52 Little Miami River Exceptional Warmwater Habitat 2017 Status Full Attainment of Aquatic Life both fish and macroinvertebrates improved from 2012 The trend since 2007 has been inconsistent suggesting unaddressed impairments remain. Duck Creek Limit Resource Water, Warm Water 2017 Status Partial Attainment of Aquatic Life both fish and macroinvertebrates improved

53 Muddy Creek / Rapid Run 2014 & 2018 Table 26. Summary of biological and habitat trends at station RR02 (RM 1.2) in Rapid Run between 1991 and Year IBI Species ICI Qual. EPT Taxa QHEI * 2 P* F Rapid Run 1991 (Limited Resource Water) Rapid Run 2014 (still LRW in 2018?) 2018 watershed study report due June 30, 2019

54 3000 Mill Creek MSD Chemical WQ Data E. coli (MPN) STV (410 MPV) Year Mill Creek 90-day Geo Mean (126 MPN) Secondary Contact (1030 MPN) Critical part of bioassessment. Supports diagnosis of biological impairments. Bacteria (E. coli) Recreational Use assessment and key indicator of sewage pollution. Lower counts through 2016 is consistent with biological results. 250 Chloride levels have increased Total Chloride (mg/l) MWH IPS Threshold WWH IPS Threshold Exceed biological thresholds. Parallels national trends levels increasing 1 mg/l per year. Important role in forecasting. Year

55 Recap of Bioassessment Findings Lower Mill Creek Full ALU attainment SUCCESS! continuing to improve Upper Mill Creek Partial ALU attainment Macroinvertebrates leading indicator Little Miami Inconsistent ALU trends key impacts come from upriver Duck Creek Partial ALU attainment headed in the right direction Muddy Creek Too soon to know winter season data analysis

56 How Bioassessment Provides Value Only way to demonstrate attainment of WQ Standards Provides scientific basis for regulatory discussions Identifies limiting factors to achieving WQ Standards Documents changes in WQ over time Supports data-driven decision-making Credible source for providing stakeholder information

57 Case Example: POTW and Rate Payer Outcomes From Robust Bioassessment in NE Illinois Bioassessment monitoring demonstrated tighter POTW controls and associated costs would not be effective for Water Quality or Aquatic Life Use Attainment needs; spending and management actions instead directed to green Non-Point Source efforts and restoration of ALU impairments; bioassessment work was central to regulatory acceptance and reduced ratepayer impact. Elmhurst WWTP Elmhurst, IL

58 Bioassessment monitoring was central to regulatory acceptance allowing investment in green Non-Point Source restoration to improve Case Example: POTW and Rate Payer Outcomes Aquatic Life Use and achieve reduced ratepayer impact. From Robust Bioassessment in NE Illinois This temporary bypass channel diverted flow during the stream restoration; it will be removed.

59 MSD Water Quality Data It s all about clean water! December 12, 2018

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68 MSD Water Quality Discussion It s all about clean water! December 12, 2018

69 Mill Creek CSO Rainbow April 29, 1994 Kings Run Main Stem Bloody Run Ross Run 1% Ohio River communities have any treatment 99% primary treatment 1% secondary treatment 99% secondary treatment Mill Creek Restoration Begins Mill Creek Restoration Celebrated 1948 WPCA 1972 CWA 1994 RUMCRP 2018

70 How can you use the data?