clamp 110608 deschutes handouts

8/14/2019 CLAMP 110608 Deschutes Handouts

1/49

Deschutes River, CapitolLake, and Budd Inlet

Briefing for CLAMP Steering Committee

November 6, 2008Mindy Roberts (Ecology)


2/49

Topics covered

Project purpose

Project background

Model and data results Budd Inlet and Capitol Lake water quality

Deschutes River

Tributaries

Focus on scientific findings (vs.implementation)

91 waterbodies x91 waterbodies x


3/49

Project purpose

How much ____ can the DeschutesRiver or Capitol Lake or Budd Inlettake and still meet the water quality

standards? Data collection

Model development (several)


4/49

Project Background


5/49

Water Quality Standards

Clean Water Act

Developed to protect beneficial usesof waterbodies Human health (bacteria)

Aquatic life (DO, pH, temperature,sediment)

Numeric values (thresholds, changes) Waterbody-specific standards


6/49

Project area and WQS

Outer BuddOuter Budd

Inner BuddInner Budd

CapitolCapitol

Per

ci

Per

ci

Des

chutesRiver

DeschutesRiver

(upstreamof

(upstreamof


7/49

Impaired waters (CWA

Budd Inlet

Capitol Lake

Percival Creek and Black Lake Ditch

Deschutes River Budd Inlet tributaries: Indian, Moxlie,

Adams, Schneider, Butler, Mission

creeks Deschutes River tributaries: Reichel,

Ayer (Elwanger), Spurgeon,Huckleberr Tem o Lake outlet



8/49

Parameters included

Fecal coliform bacteria

Temperature (heat)

Dissolved oxygen (nutrients) pH

Fine sediment



9/49

Parameters not included

Budd Inlet toxics (Toxics CleanupProgram)

Ward Lake and Budd Inlet PCBs

Deschutes River flow and largewoody debris Flow scenarios for temperature effects

Large woody debris links with otherparameters


10/49

Why so many parameters atn ???

Comprehensive communitystrategies are needed

Management activities that improveconditions in the Deschutes Riverand Percival would benefit CapitolLake and Budd Inlet

Capitol Lake or Deschutes Estuaryinfluence Budd InletParameteParamete

rr


11/49

Budd Inlet and Capitol

Lake(models and data)


12/49

BI-6

BI-5

BI-4

BI-3

BI-2

BI-1

Station 1CBA-2

BB-2

Station 1C

BC-2

BD-2

BE-2

BF-2

Budd InletScientific Study

(1998)

Data


13/49

2008 updates

(no(no

**

Macrophytes (rooted

plants)

Herbicideapplication(calibration)


14/49

Capitol Lake Water Quality

Critical conditions: summer


15/49

Lake standards

No more than 0.2mg/L change in DOfrom natural

conditions Effect of current

nonpoint sourcescauses >0.2 mg/L

depletionthroughout CapitolLake

Duration of depletion, days

0.4 - 15

16 - 38

39 - 56

57 - 60

61 - 63


16/49

Science 101

or

ga

nic

oxygen

oxyg

en

nitro

gen

sunli

ght

Mixedupper

Isolatedlower

wind

PugetSound

watersh

nitroge

n

nitro

gen

nitrog

en

oxyge

n or Capitol Lake or Deschutes River

phosphorus

Budd Inlet


17/49

Capitol Lake model

N i t f t i t


18/49

Nonpoint sources of nutrients aretoo high

Scenario 1: naturalconditions

Scenario 2: current

nonpoint sources inDeschutes Riverand Percival Creek

Scenario 2

Scenario 1 = effectof nonpoint sources

Max DO difference, mg/L

0.2 - 0.3

0.3 - 0.4

0.4 - 0.5


19/49

Factors affecting Capitol

Low circulation

Shallow water depths

Warm temperatures High phosphorus from sediments,

watershed

High macrophyte biomass Algae blooms

Ideal growing conditions


20/49

Budd Inlet Dissolved

OxygenCritical conditions: summer

oxygen

oxygen

nitrogensunlight

Mixed upperlayer

Isolatedlower layer

wind

PugetSound

nitrogen

nitrogen

nitrogen

oxygenphosphorus

Budd Inlet


21/49

Scenarios

1: naturalconditions (nopoint or nonpointsources)

2: current nonpointsources and nopoint sources

3: currentnonpoint andcurrent pointsources

4: current nonpoint

>6 mg/L>6 mg/L(if


22/49

Natural Current nonpoint and point

Example: Scenario 3 at a single cell off Olympia Peninsula


23/49


24/49


25/49

Magnitude (mg/L DO


26/49

Summary of Findings

Under the Lake or Estuaryalternative, the combined effect ofcurrent nonpoint (river) and point

source (wastewater treatment plant)nitrogen loads violate the waterquality standards for dissolved

oxygen in Budd Inlet.


27/49

Summary of Findings

Maximum permitted loads wouldcause further violations.

Current loads must be reduced for ahealthy Budd Inlet.

Nonpoint source loads must bereduced for a healthier Capitol Lake. Deschutes watershed = large source of

sediment

Capitol Lake sediments release large

amounts of phosphorus


28/49

Summary of Findings

Based on current nonpoint (river) andpoint source (wastewater treatmentplant) loads: An estuary would

reduce the area violating water qualitystandards compared with a lake

reduce the number of days Budd Inlet

violates water quality standards

compared with the current lake

How this translates to nutrient load

reductions will be evaluated in the


29/49

Other Parameters

Fecal Coliform Bacteria

TemperatureDO and pH

Fine Sediment


30/49

Fecal Coliform Bacteria

(data and calculations)


31/49

Fecal coliform bacteria reductiontargets

Winter Summer


32/49

Deschutes River

Temperature(data and model)


33/49

Temperature profile

Deschutes R iver (7/24/2004)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Longitudinal distance downstreamof Deschutes falls (km)

Temperature(C)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Shade(%)

Temp(C) Average Predicted Mean Temp-data Temp(C) Min Predicted Temp (C) Max Predicted

MinimumTemp-data MaximumTemp-data Tribs Shade (06:00-18:00)

downstream

Des

chutes

Falls

CapitolLake


34/49

Deschutes River shadeim r v m nt


35/49

Temperature benefits of managementactions

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Longitudinal distance downstream from Deschutes falls (km)

Tmax(C)

Base Case WQS

SCEN1: mature veg SCEN2: mat veg + microclimate

SCEN3A: S2+NSDZ,WW


36/49


37/49

Percival Creek shadeim r v m nt

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4

EffectiveShade(%)

River km upstream of percival Creek mouth

Percival Creek

CURRENT reach averaged effective shade (%)

POTENTIAL reach averaged effective shade (%) daily ave solar

radiation

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4

EffectiveShade(%)

River km upstream of Percival Creek mouth

Black Lake Ditch


38/49

Deschutes River Dissolved

Oxygen and pH(data and model)


39/49

Deschutes River DOmin

6

7

8

9

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Longitudinal distance downstream of Deschutes falls (km)

DOmin(mg/L

WQS Base ScenDO1 ScenDO2 ScenDO3 ScenDO4 ScenDO5

downstream

D

eschutes

Falls

CapitolLake


40/49

Deschutes River DOmin

6

7

7

8

8

9

9

10

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Longitudinal distance downstream of Deschutes falls (km)

DOmin(mg/L)

WQS Base ScenDO6 ScenDO7 Scen DO8

downstream

De

schutes

Falls

Cap

itolLake


41/49

Deschutes River nutrient

DIN (kg/d) 1.151.56 6.38

169.90

Headwaters

Tributaries (base)

Tributaries (current-base)

Groundwater

OP (kg/d) 0.14

5.04

0.35

0.85

)

OP (kg/d) 0.14

5.04

0.35

0.85 1.56 6.38

169.90


42/49

Deschutes River Fine

Sediment(data, model, sediment

budget)


43/49

Fine Sediment

Squaxin IslandTribe

EPA $$

QA Project Plan

Re-occupyhistorical stations

Gravel samples

Percent fines(


44/49

19 22 28 31 36

Site

0

10

20

30

40

PercentFine

s

Year

1995

2004

Konovsky and Puhn (2005)

No trend with time

High levelsthroughout

Weak trend(decreasing fines)downstream

Do not meet

healthy levels

Source: Konovsky and Puhn,

downstream


45/49

Sediment Budget

Natural sources Landslides

Bank erosion

Human sources Landslides

associated withroads

Unpaved roadsFine Sediments (


46/49

Summary of findings

Budd Inlet

Current nutrientloads are too high

Lake vs. estuary

Tributary bacterialevels are too high

Capitol Lake

Current watershednutrient loads aretoo high

Deschutes River

Temperatures aretoo hot

DO levels are toolow

Fine sediment toohigh

Percival Creek

Temperatures are

Reductions are needed How much?


47/49

Where do we go from here?

CLAMP steering committee meeting

External review comments dueNovember 17 to Lydia Wagner (

[email protected]) Finalize technical study

(more model runs)
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


48/49

Where do we go from here?

Next report

This report

Your

involvement


49/49

Questions?

clamp 110608 deschutes handouts

Documents