Exploring SRRTTF Technical Activities for Spokane River Toxics Task Force

 
SRRTTF Technical Activities
Where We’ve Been, Where We’re Going
 
Dave Dilks
Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force Workshop
January 13, 2015
 
1
 
Outline
 
Task Force objectives
Where we’ve been
Where we are
Where we’re going
 
2
 
Objectives: What are We Doing, & Why?
 
Primary Task Force objective
Identify and implement appropriate actions
needed to make measurable progress towards
meeting applicable water quality standards
Associated objective
Characterize the sources of toxics in the Spokane
River
 
3
 
Study Area
 
 
 
“Upper” Spokane River
Lake Coeur d’Alene outlet to headwaters of Lake Spokane
 
4
 
Phasing of Technical Activities
 
Phase 1
Gather existing data, identify data gaps
December, 2013 workshop
Prepare a monitoring plan
Phase 2
Collect new data
Phase 3
Analyze data and characterize sources
Phase 4
Assess potential Best Management Practices and
develop a Comprehensive Plan
 
5
 
Where We’ve Been: Phase 1 Findings
 
A large amount of data had already been
collected in the Spokane River watershed
Dept. of Ecology (2011) PCB Source Assessment
Primary data gaps defined in 2013
Sources contributing to stormwater loads
Significance of loading from groundwater sources
Significance of loading from atmospheric sources
Sources upstream of the Idaho/Washington border
 
6
 
Where We’ve Been: Phase 1 Findings
 
Conclusions from December 2013 workshop
Not feasible to address all gaps at once
First year of monitoring should focus on
characterizing dry weather sources
 
7
 
Phasing of Technical Activities
 
Phase 1
Gather existing data, identify data gaps
December, 2013 workshop
Prepare a monitoring plan
Phase 2
Collect new data
Phase 3
Analyze data and characterize sources
Phase 4
Assess potential Best Management Practices  and
develop Comprehensive Plan
 
8
 
Phase 1 Monitoring Plan Components
 
Synoptic Study
Support mass balance assessment
Seasonally Integrated Sampling
Provide information on the seasonal variability of
loading from Lake Coeur d’Alene
Confidence Testing
Can we expect to get meaningful results from
standard grab sampling?
 
9
 
Intent of Synoptic Survey
 
Support dry  weather mass balance assessment
Measure river concentration at flow gaging locations
Measure all known dry weather sources
Identify unknown sources between each station
Unknown source = Downstream load – Upstream load –
   
    Known Load
 
 
10
 
Seasonally Integrated Sampling
 
Provide information on the seasonal variability
of  loading from Lake Coeur d’Alene
Spring high flow
Summer low flow
Winter moderate flow
 
11
 
Confidence Testing
 
Determine if meaningful results can be
expected from standard grab sampling
Conducted in
conjunction
with seasonally
integrated
sampling
Two locations
sampled May
 
13-19, 2014
 
12
 
Confidence Testing Results
 
Concentrations were low (8-80 pg/L) and at
similar levels as blanks (8-54 pg/L)
Synoptic survey not expected to satisfy objective
of supporting a rigorous mass balance
assessment
 
13
 
Confidence Testing Results
 
River concentrations expected to be higher
during summer survey
Much lower river flows means much less dilution of
PCB sources
 In-river “signal” expected to rise above
measurement “noise”
Especially as we move downstream
 
14
 
Confidence Testing Conclusions
 
Synoptic survey still of value
Capable of identifying presence of larger sources
Data quality objectives modified
Support a semi-quantitative mass balance
assessment, i.e. be able to identify if and where
significant unknown sources exist
Support an adaptive management approach
Provide grab sample results that can be directly
compared to results from other sampling methods
 
15
 
Where We Are
 
Synoptic survey and mass balance assessment
completed
Results consistent with expectations
Concentrations low upstream
Increase as you go downstream
Area of likely groundwater PCB source
identified
 
 
 
16
 
Where We’re Going
 
Define appropriate next steps
Workshop segments
Day 1: Review existing results
Review analytical methods
Discuss sampling results
Mass balance assessment
Day 2: Identify next steps
Data gaps, necessary monitoring, control actions,
analyses
 
 
 
17
Slide Note
Embed
Share

Delve into the technical activities of the Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force, focusing on objectives, study areas, phasing of activities, and findings from past workshops to understand and address sources of toxics in the Spokane River watershed.


Uploaded on Sep 10, 2024 | 0 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. SRRTTF Technical Activities Where We ve Been, Where We re Going Dave Dilks Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force Workshop January 13, 2015 1

  2. Outline Task Force objectives Where we ve been Where we are Where we re going 2

  3. Objectives: What are We Doing, & Why? Primary Task Force objective Identify and implement appropriate actions needed to make measurable progress towards meeting applicable water quality standards Associated objective Characterize the sources of toxics in the Spokane River 3

  4. Study Area Upper Spokane River Lake Coeur d Alene outlet to headwaters of Lake Spokane 4

  5. Phasing of Technical Activities Phase 1 Gather existing data, identify data gaps December, 2013 workshop Prepare a monitoring plan Phase 2 Collect new data Phase 3 Analyze data and characterize sources Phase 4 Assess potential Best Management Practices and develop a Comprehensive Plan 5

  6. Where Weve Been: Phase 1 Findings A large amount of data had already been collected in the Spokane River watershed Dept. of Ecology (2011) PCB Source Assessment Primary data gaps defined in 2013 Sources contributing to stormwater loads Significance of loading from groundwater sources Significance of loading from atmospheric sources Sources upstream of the Idaho/Washington border 6

  7. Where Weve Been: Phase 1 Findings Conclusions from December 2013 workshop Not feasible to address all gaps at once First year of monitoring should focus on characterizing dry weather sources 7

  8. Phasing of Technical Activities Phase 1 Gather existing data, identify data gaps December, 2013 workshop Prepare a monitoring plan Phase 2 Collect new data Phase 3 Analyze data and characterize sources Phase 4 Assess potential Best Management Practices and develop Comprehensive Plan 8

  9. Phase 1 Monitoring Plan Components Synoptic Study Support mass balance assessment Seasonally Integrated Sampling Provide information on the seasonal variability of loading from Lake Coeur d Alene Confidence Testing Can we expect to get meaningful results from standard grab sampling? 9

  10. Intent of Synoptic Survey Support dry weather mass balance assessment Measure river concentration at flow gaging locations Measure all known dry weather sources Identify unknown sources between each station Unknown source = Downstream load Upstream load Known Load NPDES Permited Location Gauging Station Location Hangman Creek Inland Empire Paper Liberty Lake Coeur d'Alene City of Spokane Spokane County Kaiser Post Falls Hayden Spokane Trent Avenue Bridge Barker Rd. Post Falls Coeur d'Alene Lake Outlet Spokane Gage Trent Avenue Bridge Barker Rd. to Trent Avenue Bridge Post Falls to Barker Rd. Coeur d'Alene Lake Outlet to Post Falls to to Spokane Gage Nine Mile Dam 10

  11. Seasonally Integrated Sampling Provide information on the seasonal variability of loading from Lake Coeur d Alene Spring high flow Summer low flow Winter moderate flow 11

  12. Confidence Testing Determine if meaningful results can be expected from standard grab sampling Conducted in conjunction with seasonally integrated sampling Two locations sampled May 13-19, 2014 12

  13. Confidence Testing Results Concentrations were low (8-80 pg/L) and at similar levels as blanks (8-54 pg/L) Synoptic survey not expected to satisfy objective of supporting a rigorous mass balance assessment 13

  14. Confidence Testing Results River concentrations expected to be higher during summer survey Much lower river flows means much less dilution of PCB sources In-river signal expected to rise above measurement noise Especially as we move downstream 14

  15. Confidence Testing Conclusions Synoptic survey still of value Capable of identifying presence of larger sources Data quality objectives modified Support a semi-quantitative mass balance assessment, i.e. be able to identify if and where significant unknown sources exist Support an adaptive management approach Provide grab sample results that can be directly compared to results from other sampling methods 15

  16. Where We Are Synoptic survey and mass balance assessment completed Results consistent with expectations Concentrations low upstream Increase as you go downstream Area of likely groundwater PCB source identified 16

  17. Where Were Going Define appropriate next steps Workshop segments Day 1: Review existing results Review analytical methods Discuss sampling results Mass balance assessment Day 2: Identify next steps Data gaps, necessary monitoring, control actions, analyses 17

Related


More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#