msd water quality monitoring and modeling · 2018. 12. 12. · • overview of monitoring and...
TRANSCRIPT
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
MSD Water Quality Monitoring and Modeling
It’s all about clean water!December 12, 2018
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
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
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Regulatory Context: Monitoring and Modeling
Legal provisions for waste disposal to waterwayssafeguarding waterways so they are
healthy and safe to use
NPDES PermitsFindings and OrdersConsent Decrees
SamplingBioassessmentModeling
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
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
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
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
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Biolologal sampling historyNPDES Required
Biological SamplingHistory 1996-2018
and beyond 2011-2014Level 3
BioassessmentBaseline Study
1996-2011 chemical and limited macroinvertebrates
Future NPDES Permits
Modified NPDES Permit
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Hierarchy of needs
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Strengths of Modeling and Monitoring
8
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
ROI
MSD Water Quality Modeling
It’s all about clean water!December 12, 2018
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
Paycheck ($$ In) Expenses ($$ Out)Balance?
Interest and Fees(+/- $$)
Other income sources ($$ In)
If I have given income, expenses, interest rates and fees, then what will my balance be? How do I need to adjust income or expenses
to meet a goal for my balance?
13
Conceptual Water Quality Model
Upstream Sources (WQ In)
Downstream Transport (WQ Out)In-Stream
Concentration
Fate processes(+/-)
Other Pollutant Sources (WQ In)
How do I need to adjust pollutant sources or downstream transport to meet a goal for my
in-stream concentration?
Benefits of Modeling
Models provide a means of synthesizing available system data and knowledge in a given problem domain
Collection system
WWTP operation
Storm-water
Stream WQ
Upstream sources
Septic systems
Watershed land cover
Watershed land use
Watershed soils
Watershed topography
Stream Flows
Health Dept
Local jurisdictions
EPA
Hamilton County
Ohio EPA
Watershed groups
Stream Biota and Habitat
MSDGC
Rainfall, met data
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 Stormwaterrule 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
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
MSD’s Water Quality Models
MSD’s Investment in Water Quality ModelsRiver System/ Watershed River Model Watershed
ModelConfiguration 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
Yes
Muddy Creek EFDC/A2EM SWMM 2-D E. coli, solids, nutrients, DO, BOD, chloride
In progress
Rapid Run EFDC/A2EM SWMM 2-D E. coli, solids, nutrients, DO, BOD, chloride
In progress
Great Miami River (MCD) EFDC/A2EM HSPF 1-D Nutrients, DO Yes
Integrating Models with Monitoring Programs
Why do wet weather sampling?
Dry Weather Wet Weather
Would you expect water quality to be similar under these two conditions?
Wet weather vs. dry weather in-stream sampling suggests need for both types of data
Mill Creek Muddy Creek Rapid Run
Upstream (East Crescentville Rd.)
Downstream (Galbraith Rd.)
Upstream (Beechcreek Ln.)
Downstream (Hillside Rd.)
Upstream (Rapid Run Rd.)
Downstream (Bender Rd.)
Integrating Water Quality Sensors Into Monitoring Program• Potential Value
– Increased data density – data every 15 – 60 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
Water Quality Sensor Deployment
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
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.
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, 1919 - 2013)
Example: Filling gaps in space and time
• Insert example from SSO-700 IWAP calibration figures
Mill Creek at Galbraith Road – SSO 700 IWAP WQ Model Calibration
Example: Tracking impact of specific sources
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?
Example: Support Regulatory Agency Negotiations
2030 SD1 Integrated Plan(No SSO, CSO at 17 OF/yr,
Watershed Controls)
2030 Traditional Plan(No SSO, CSO at 4 OF/yr)
2030 Baseline(No Control)
?
Example: Forecasting improvements to WQ
What will happen to WQ in the 2017-2021 period?
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
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?
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Midwest Biodiversity InstituteColumbus, OH
www.midwestbiodiversityinst.org
MSD Water Quality Monitoring
It’s all about clean water!December 12, 2018
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
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.
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
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 3745-1-07 of the OAC.• https://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/wqs/index#123033408-numeric-criteria
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Fish, Macroinvertebrates, Sondes, Chemical samples, Habitat
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Instream Bioassessment Provides:
1. Assignment/Affirmation the appropriate & attainable aquatic life use tier (criteria-based) – 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.
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Primary HeadwaterHabitat
Warmwater HabitatExceptional WarmwaterHabitat
Modified WarmwaterHabitat
Mill Creek downstream Spring Grove Ave. (MC07)
Taylor Creek between I-74 & Harrison Ave. (GM 81)
Unnamed Trib. to Taylor Cr. at 5310 Haft Rd. (GM106)
Whitewater R. adj. Kilby Rd. (GM 42)
Bioassessment Objective 1: Set the appropriate and attainable
aquatic life use tier (ALU)
This determines which biological and chemical criteria apply to a waterbody
(Clean Water Act)
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Taylor Creek between I-74 & Harrison Ave. (GM 81)
Unnamed Trib. to Taylor Cr. at 5310 Haft Rd. (GM106)
Warmwater Habitat
Primary Headwater
Habitat
Whitewater R. adj. Kilby Rd. (GM 42)
Exceptional Warmwater
Habitat
Modified Warmwater
Habitat
Mill Creek downstream Spring Grove Ave. (MC07)
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
CSO/SSOs are not the only source of
impairments –present day causes
have shifted to non-pollutants that are
fundamental to attainment and
attainability of WQS.
Major Causes Associated with Aquatic Life Impairments in
MSDGC Service AreaBioassessment Objective 2: Determine aquatic life status and causes/sources of impairments
Knowledge of impaired (or attaining) waters is needed to develop & prioritize management actions
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Overflows are not the only source of impairments – habitat modification, hydro-modification, road salt, household systems, etc.
Habitat/Sediment/FlowNutrientsOrganic Enrichment/D.O./NH3Urban PollutantsChlorides
23.3%
45.7%
15.5%
10.6%4.9%
Aquatic Life Use Attainment Impairments
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Where we want to be by
20??
Mill CreekBioassessment Objective 3: Determine trends over time
Trends reveal the effectiveness of strategies, controls & BMPs
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Lower Mill Creek Mainstem – designated Modified WarmwaterHabitat Aquatic Life Use (affirmed in 2011)
Upper Mill Creek Mainstem – designated Warmwater Habitat Aquatic Life Use (affirmed in 2011)
Does Mill Creek meet or fail Water Quality Standards?
2016 Mill Creek Bioassessment: First MSD Level 3 revisit
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
AAV = Area of Attainment Value;Meets WQS and
by how much
ADV = Area of Degradation Value;
Fails WQS and by how much
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
51015202530
19922016
INVE
RTE
BR
ATE
CO
MM
UN
ITY
IND
EX (I
CI)
RIVER MILE
WWH Biocriteria(ICI = 30)
E. Fk. Mill Cr. SSO 700 Multiple CSOs (60+)
W. Fk. Mill Cr.
AAV
ADV
ADV =∑ [(aIBIa + aIBIb) – (pIBIa + pIBIb)] *(RMa – RMb), for a= 1 to n
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Modified Warmwater Habitat
AAV = Area of Attainment Value;Meets WQS and
by how much
ADV = Area of Degradation Value;
Fails WQS andby how much
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
AAV = Area of Attainment Value;Meets WQS and
by how much
ADV = Area of Degradation Value;
Fails WQS andby how much
Warm Water Habitat
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Upper Mill Creek Warm Water Habitat2016 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 Habitat2016 Status – Full Attainment of Aquatic Life, macroinvertebrates and fish reach attainment
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Does Little Miami River meet of fail Water Quality Standards?
2017 Little Miami River Bioassessment: Second MSD Level 3 revisit
Little Miami River Mainstem – designated Exceptional Warmwater Habitat Aquatic Life Use (c. 1983)
Duck Creek – multiple designations:Limited Resource Water;
Modified Warmwater Habitat;Warm Water Habitat
Tributaries -Warm Water Habitat
Primary Headwater Habitat**functional description
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
AAV = Area of Attainment Value;Meets WQS and
by how much
ADV = Area of Degradation Value;
Fails WQS andby how much
Exceptional Warmwater Habitat
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
AAV = Area of Attainment Value;Meets WQS and
by how much
ADV = Area of Degradation Value;
Fails WQS andby how much
Limited Resource,
Modified or Warmwater
Habitat
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Duck Creek Limit Resource Water, Warm Water2017 Status – Partial Attainment of Aquatic Life
both fish and macroinvertebrates improved
Little Miami River Exceptional Warmwater Habitat2017 Status – Full Attainment of Aquatic Life both fish and macroinvertebrates improved from 2012
The trend since 2007 has been inconsistent suggesting unaddressed impairments remain.
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Table 26. Summary of biological and habitat trends at station RR02 (RM 1.2) in Rapid Run between 1991 and 2014.
Year IBI Species ICIQual. EPT
Taxa QHEI1991 12* 2 P* 4 36.52014 24 6 F 7 56.5
Rapid Run 1991 (Limited Resource Water) Rapid Run 2014 (still LRW in 2018?)
Muddy Creek / Rapid Run 2014 & 2018
2018 watershed study report due June 30, 2019
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
0
50
100
150
200
250
30019
92
1997
2002
2011
201 3
2016
Mill Creek
Tota
l Chl
orid
e (m
g/L)
Year
MWH IPS Threshold
WWH IPS Threshold
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2002 2011 2013 2016
Mill Creek
E. c
oli (
MPN
)
Year
90-day GeoMean (126 MPN)
STV (410 MPV)
SecondaryContact(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.
MSD Chemical WQ Data
Chloride levels have increased. Exceed biological thresholds. Parallels national trends – levels
increasing ≈1 mg/L per year. Important role in forecasting.
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
• 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
Recap of Bioassessment Findings
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
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
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Case Example: POTW and Rate Payer Outcomes From Robust Bioassessment in NE Illinois
Elmhurst WWTPElmhurst, IL
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.
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Case Example: POTW and Rate Payer Outcomes From Robust Bioassessment in NE Illinois
Bioassessment monitoring was central to regulatory acceptance allowing investment in ‘green’ Non-Point Source restoration to improve
Aquatic Life Use and achieve reduced ratepayer impact.
This temporary bypass channel diverted flow during the stream restoration; it will be removed.
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
MSD Water Quality Data
It’s all about clean water!December 12, 2018
MSD Water Quality Discussion
It’s all about clean water!December 12, 2018
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
Mill Creek CSO Rainbow April 29, 1994Kings Run – Main Stem – Bloody Run – Ross Run
2018
1% se
cond
ary
trea
tmen
t
Mill
Cre
ek R
esto
ratio
n Be
gins
1% O
hio
Rive
r com
mun
ities
ha
ve a
ny tr
eatm
ent
1948WPCA
1972CWA
1994RUMCRP
99%
seco
ndar
y tr
eatm
ent
99%
prim
ary
trea
tmen
t
Mill
Cre
ek R
esto
ratio
n Ce
lebr
ated
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT OF GREATER CINCINNATI
How can you use the data?