Mercury TMDL Development for the Willamette River Basin (Oregon) – Technical Support Document

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Mercury TMDL Development for the Willamette River Basin (Oregon) – Technical Support Document Mercury TMDL Development for the Willamette River Basin (Oregon) – Technical Support Document December 16, 2019 PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY Oregon Department of Environmental Tetra Tech Quality One Park Drive, Suite 200 and PO Box 14409 U.S. Environmental Protection Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Tel 919-485-8278 Agency, Region 10 Fax 919-485-8280 tetratech.com The primary authors of this report are: Jonathan Butcher, Michelle Schmidt, and Mark Fernandez, Tetra Tech, Inc., Research Triangle, NC Willamette Mercury TMDL TSD December 2019 CONTENTS CONTENTS.................................................................................................................................................... I TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... III FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................................... IV ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... VII 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Problem Definition ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Technical Approach .......................................................................................................................... 8 1.2.1 2006 Technical Approach ....................................................................................................... 8 1.2.2 Revised Technical Approach ................................................................................................ 10 2.0 DATA SOURCES ................................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Mercury Database Development .................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Mercury Data for TMDL Update ..................................................................................................... 13 3.0 FOOD WEB MODEL ............................................................................................................................ 17 3.1 Model Conversion ........................................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Updating the Distributions .............................................................................................................. 18 3.3 Initial Model Calibration .................................................................................................................. 21 3.4 FWM Modifications ......................................................................................................................... 22 3.5 Final Calibrated FWM ..................................................................................................................... 25 3.6 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 34 3.7 Food Web Model Results ............................................................................................................... 34 4.0 MERCURY TRANSLATOR MODEL .................................................................................................... 39 4.1 Challenges for the Mercury Translator ........................................................................................... 39 4.1.1 The Translator and Censored Data ...................................................................................... 39 4.1.2 Non-contemporaneity ............................................................................................................ 40 4.1.3 Addressing Censoring in Paired and Aggregated Data ........................................................ 41 4.2 Exploratory Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 41 4.2.1 Spatial Variability................................................................................................................... 41 4.2.2 Paired versus Aggregated Approach .................................................................................... 43 4.2.3 Seasonal Variability............................................................................................................... 45 4.2.4 Weighted versus Unweighted Regression Analyses ............................................................ 47 4.2.5 Effect of Inclusion of Coast Fork Willamette Data ................................................................ 51 i Willamette Mercury TMDL TSD December 2019 4.2.6 Final Mercury Translator Approach ....................................................................................... 54 4.3 Translating MeHg Targets to THg Targets ..................................................................................... 55 5.0 MASS BALANCE MODEL ................................................................................................................... 57 5.1 Mass Balance Model Approach ...................................................................................................... 57 5.2 HSPF Watershed Model ................................................................................................................. 57 5.2.1 Updated Land Use in the Willamette River Basin ................................................................. 62 5.2.2 Representation of Impoundments ......................................................................................... 68 5.3 Source Characterization ................................................................................................................. 71 5.3.1 Atmospheric Deposition and Surface Runoff ........................................................................ 71 5.3.2 Soil Matrix Sources ............................................................................................................... 76 5.3.3 Groundwater Loading ........................................................................................................... 79 5.3.4 Mining Sources ..................................................................................................................... 80 5.3.5 POTW Sources ..................................................................................................................... 85 5.3.6 Industrial Discharges ............................................................................................................ 89 5.3.7 Urban Stormwater (MS4s) .................................................................................................... 98 5.4 Instream Delivery of THg .............................................................................................................. 109 5.4.1 Estimates of Riverine Loads ............................................................................................... 109 5.4.2 Losses during Transit .......................................................................................................... 111 5.4.3 Reservoir Processes ........................................................................................................... 112 5.5 Mass Balance Model Results ....................................................................................................... 114 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 145 ii Willamette Mercury TMDL TSD December 2019 TABLES Table 1-1. Waterbody Segments Assessed for Mercury in the Willamette River Basin in 2012 ................. 3 Table 2-1. Summary of Mercury Data Sources for the Phase II TMDL Analysis ....................................... 11 Table 3-1. Fish Species in the Food Web Model and Identification of Updated Distributions ................... 20 Table 3-2. List of Input Distribution Parameters for the 2006 FWM and the Updated FWM ..................... 29 Table 3-3. Updated FWM Biomagnification Factors (BMFs; L/kg) for Fish Tissue THg Concentrations (mg/kg wet weight) as a Function of Water Column dMeHg Concentration (mg/L) ...................... 35 Table 3-4. Estimated FWM Fish Tissue THg Concentrations (mg/kg wet weight) .................................... 35 Table 3-5. Comparison of [Cumulative] BMFs Calculated for the Willamette River Basin to USEPA’s (2001) Draft National BAFs (L/kg) .................................................................................. 37 Table 4-1. Frequency of Non-detects and Estimated Values in WRB Paired Mercury Translator Data ... 40 Table 4-2. Two-Sample t Tests on Summer vs. Winter dMeHg and THg Concentrations ........................ 45 Table 4-3. Statistics for Hg Translator Scenarios ...................................................................................... 46 Table 4-4. Species-specific Surface Water THg Target Levels (ng/L) to Meet a Fish Tissue YConcentration of 0.040 mg/kg MeHg ........................................................................................... 56 Table 5-1. 2011 NLCD Land Cover Summary for the Willamette River Basin .......................................... 65 Table 5-2.
Recommended publications
  • MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON and INCORPORATED AREAS Federal Emergency Management Agency
    MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON Multnomah County AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER FAIRVIEW, CITY OF 410180 GRESHAM, CITY OF 410181 MULTNOMAH COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREAS 410179 TROUTDALE, CITY OF 410184 *WOOD VILLAGE, CITY OF 410185 *No Special Flood Hazard Areas Identified PRELIMINARY Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Study Number 41051CV000B NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for the community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g. floodways, cross sections). In addition, former flood hazard zone designations have been changed as follows: Old Zone New Zone A1 through A30 AE B X (shaded) C X (unshaded) Part or all of this may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS may be revised by a Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. This FIS report was revised on (add new effective date). User should refer to Section 10.0, Revision Descriptions, for further information. Section 10.0 is intended to present the most up-to-date information for specific portions of this FIS report.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Willamette River Environmental Dredging and Ecosystem Restoration Project
    LOWER WILLAMETTE RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DRAFT FINAL REPORT March 2015 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 1020 SW Taylor St. Suite 530 Portland, OR 97205 This page left blank intentionally EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment (FS-EA) evaluates ecosystem restoration actions in the Lower Willamette River, led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the non-Federal sponsor, the City of Portland (City). The study area encompasses the Lower Willamette River Watershed and its tributaries, from its confluence with the Columbia River at River Mile (RM) 0 to Willamette Falls, located at RM 26. The goal of this study is to identify a cost effective ecosystem restoration plan that maximizes habitat benefits while minimizing impacts to environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic resources. This report contains a summary of the feasibility study from plan formulation through selection of a recommended plan, 35% designs and cost estimating, a description of the baseline conditions, and description of impacts that may result from implementation of the recommended plan. This integrated report complies with NEPA requirements. Sections 1500.1(c) and 1508.9(a) (1) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended) require federal agencies to “provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact” on actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the federal government to insure such actions adequately address “environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment." The Willamette River watershed was once an extensive and interconnected system of active channels, open slack waters, emergent wetlands, riparian forests, and adjacent upland forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Water Conveyance Systems
    Table of Contents Preface Section 1 Overview of Required Elements 1-4 A. History B. Reporting Requirements Fig 1-1 Map of Watershed Boundaries Section 2 Gresham and Fairview Environmental Monitoring Program Summary 5-8 A. History B. Required Elements C. Summary of Monitoring Program Results D. Adaptive Management Gresham and Fairview Monitoring Program Raw Data (Tables and Figures) 9-33 Section 3 City of Gresham Summary of Stormwater Management Plan Program Monitoring 35-76 Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) Implementation Status Reports Component #1 BMP No. RC1: Stormwater System Maintenance Program BMP No. RC2: Planning Procedures BMP No. RC3: Maintain Public Streets BMP No. RC4: Retrofit & Restore System for Water Quality BMP No. RC5: Monitor Pollutant Sources for Closed or Operating BMP No. RC6: Reduce pollutants from Pesticides, Herbicides and Fertilizers Component #2 BMP No. ILL-1: Non-Stormwater Discharge Controls BMP No. ILL-2&3: Illicit Discharges Elimination Program BMP No. ILL-4: Spill Response Program BMP No. ILL-5: Facilitate Public Reporting/Respond to Citizen Concerns BMP No. ILL-6: Facilitate Proper Management of Used Oil & BMP No. ILL-7: Limit Sanitary Sewer Discharges Component #3 BMP No. IND1&2: Industrial Inspection & Monitoring Component #4 BMP No. CON1&2 Construction Site Planning & Controls BMP No. CON-3: Construction Site Inspection & Enforcement Component #5 BMP No. EDU-1: Stormwater Education Program Component #6 BMP No. MON-1: Annual Report Writing BMP No. MON-2: Legal Authority & Code Review BMP No. MON-3: Program
    [Show full text]
  • Gresham/Fairview Trail Photo Map
    Acknowledgments CITY OF GRESHAM CITY OF GRESHAM STAFF COOPERATING PARTICIPANTS MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Bonnie R. Kraft, City Manager Transportation Division Charles J. Becker, Mayor Dave Rouse, Department of Environmental Services Wastewater Services Division Vicki Thompson, Council President Director Stormwater Division Jack Horner, Councilor Don Robertson, Parks & Recreation Division Manager Department of Environmental Services Chris Lassen, Councilor David Lewis, Landscape Architect & Project Manager Community and Economic Development Cathy Butts, Councilor Phil Kidby, Landscape Architect Department Jack Hanna, Councilor John Dorst, Transportation Division Manager Police and Fire Departments Larry Havercamp, Councilor Rebecca Ocken, Senior Transportation Planner City of Gresham Metro Greenspaces Planning Staff PLANNING COMMISSION Dick Anderson, Chair PLANNING CONSULTANTS Carl Culham, Vice Chair Otak, Incorporated TECHNICAL A DVISORY COMMITTEE Wes Bell Trail Planners, Landscape Architects, and Civil Dave Rouse, Former Gresham Transporta- Rob Cook Engineers tion Division Manager Dick Ehr Ron Heiden, Project Manager Marianne Zarkin, Landscape Architect Dennis Ogan Jerry Offer, Planner Cindy Bee, Park Planner Shannon Schmiitt Tim Simons, Civil Engineer Darlene Maddux, Oregon Department of Pat Speer Don Hanson, Principal-in-Charge Transportation Mike Whisler John Dorst, Former Multnomah County Vicki Thompson, Council Contact Transportation Planner Ann Pytynia, Staff Liaison DKS Associates, Inc. Doug Strickler, Multnomah County Transpor-
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan
    FAIRVIEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN JUNE 2004 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS City Council Mike Weatherby, Mayor James R. Raze Sherry Lillard Larry Cooper Steve Owen Darrell Cornelius Jim Trees Planning Commission Steve Kaufman, Chairman Carol Glasgow Maureen Zehendner Jan Shearer Patricia Martin Sam Asbury Ken Heiner Gary Stonewall (alternate) Staff Melissa K. Slotemaker AICP, Associate Planner and Lead Comprehensive Plan Planner John Andersen FAICP, Community Development Director Eric Underwood, Economic Development Specialist Connie Hansen, Administrative Assistant Carole Connell, AICP, Consulting Planner “In that city, man lives in civilization and yet in nature, where the maximum comforts of the city and the beauties of rural life are perfectly blended and preserved, where as in the ideal city, man finds both stimulation for his mind and repose for his soul.” From Moment in Peking By Lin Yutang Comprehensive Plan - City of Fairview Revised January 2017 i TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .......................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 A Historial Perspective Early History Incorporation 50 Years That Changed Fairview The 21st Century Summary of the Community Vision Old Town The Town Center Sandy Blvd The Lakes Sources Used CHAPTER 2 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................. 10 Goal
    [Show full text]
  • A Performance Assessment of Two Multi-Component Water Quality Facilities in the Columbia Slough and Fairview Creek Watersheds
    Portland State University PDXScholar Master of Environmental Management Project Environmental Science and Management Reports 6-2012 A Performance Assessment of Two Multi-component Water Quality Facilities in the Columbia Slough and Fairview Creek Watersheds Christopher Robinson Portland State University Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/mem_gradprojects Part of the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Robinson, Christopher, "A Performance Assessment of Two Multi-component Water Quality Facilities in the Columbia Slough and Fairview Creek Watersheds" (2012). Master of Environmental Management Project Reports. 23. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/mem_gradprojects/23 This Project is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master of Environmental Management Project Reports by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract Title: A Performance Assessment of Two Multi-component Stormwater Management Facilities in the Columbia Slough and Fairview Creek Watersheds We examined the treatment trains at the Columbia Slough (CSWQF) and Fairview Creek Water Quality Facilities (FCWQF) in Gresham, OR and assessed their effectiveness at removing pollutants including nutrients, TSS, metals, pesticides, PAHs, and VOCs. Time-paced, fixed volume composite samples were collected during storm events at the inlets and outlet of the CSWQF and at the inlets and outlet of each treatment train component of the FCWQF. In addition, long-term data collected at the FCWQF was analyzed. Composite data collected during November 2-3, 2011 and March 5-6, 2012 showed that the treatment trains can measurably reduce the event mean concentration (EMC) of most pollutants present in stormwater.
    [Show full text]
  • Submittal to NOAA Fisheries for Coverage Under Limit 10 of the 4(D) Rules for Routine Road Maintenance
    Submittal to NOAA Fisheries for Coverage under Limit 10 of the 4(d) Rules for Routine Road Maintenance Multnomah County Department of Community Services Land Use and Transportation Division – Road Services May 2010 Table of Contents I. ROAD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM SUMMARY ............................................................................ 4 Program Area Description ........................................................................................................................ 4 Program management and legal authority ................................................................................................ 5 II. DESCRIPTION OF LISTED SPECIES AFFECTED BY THE PROGRAM ................................... 7 Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) – Lower Columbia River ESUU ...................................................... 8 Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) – Lower Columbia River ESUU ......................................... 9 Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) – Upper Willamette River ESUU ........................................ 9 Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) – Lower Columbia River ESUU ........................................................... 10 Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) – Upper Willamette River ESU ......................................................... 11 Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) – Middle Columbia River ESUU.......................................................... 11 Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) – Columbia River ESUU ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Insurance Study Number 41051CV000B
    MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON Multnomah County AND INCORPORATED AREAS COMMUNITY COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER FAIRVIEW, CITY OF 410180 GRESHAM, CITY OF 410181 *MAYWOOD PARK, 410068 CITY OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREAS 410179 TROUTDALE, CITY OF 410184 *WOOD VILLAGE, CITY OF 410185 *No Special Flood Hazard Data Preliminary: March 28, 2016 Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Study Number 41051CV000B NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. This preliminary FIS report does not include unrevised Floodway Data Tables or unrevised Flood Profiles. These Floodway Data Tables and Flood Profiles will appear in the final FIS report. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: December 18, 2009 Revised Countywide Date: To Be Determined TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CRC FEIS Chapter 3 S14 Water Quality and Hydrology.Pdf
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 3.14 Water Quality and Hydrology Communities depend on a reliable supply of clean water for domestic use, agriculture, industry, and recreation. Fish and many wildlife species depend on clean water habitats to live. In urban areas, pollutants that wash off roadways during storms contribute to poor water quality in rivers and streams. Pollutants from roadways typically include fuel, oil, grease, and other automotive fluids; heavy metals such as copper and zinc; and small particles from erosion or road sanding which can temporarily make waterways more turbid (cloudy). The design and placement of roadways and stormwater systems can affect how stormwater is treated and released into the environment. Placing structures such as bridge piers or roadways in a waterway or its floodplain may increase the height of floods during storm events. Although an individual road or structure may be small in relationship to the volume of a waterway, collectively, all roads, What is the difference structures, and other developments between water quality constructed along a river can have a and hydrology? dramatic effect on the severity of floods. For this reason, construction in streams In this FEIS, hydrology refers to the and rivers or in their floodplains is flow of water—its volume, where it drains, and how quickly the flow rate strictly regulated, and must take into changes in a storm. Water quality refers account any incremental contribution to the characteristics of the water—its toward worsening flood conditions on temperature and oxygen levels, how clear the waterway. it is, and whether it contains pollutants.
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Retrofit Strategy
    Multnomah County NPDES MS4 Phase I Permit Stormwater Management Program Stormwater Retrofit Strategy Submitted to: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality November 2014 Submitted in Accordance with the Requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number 103004, File Number 120542 Submitted by: Water Quality Program Department of Community Services Multnomah County Prepared by Harper Houf Peterson Righellis Inc and Multnomah County Multnomah County (This page left intentionally blank) 2 Multnomah County Stormwater Retrofit Strategy November 2014 Multnomah County I. Introduction Multnomah County manages stormwater runoff under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Stormwater System Phase I Permit (NPDES MS4 Phase I). One of the requirements of the permit includes developing a strategy for retrofit projects and improvements to existing stormwater infrastructure to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. This requirement is outlined in Schedule A.6 of the NPDES permit issued December 30, 2010. Multnomah County is a unique jurisdiction with NPDES permit areas composed of several discrete urban pockets and road right-of-ways. Multnomah County’s jurisdiction contains diverse topographic features, stormwater drainage systems, and roadway infrastructure that require consideration for development of the stormwater retrofit strategy. The purpose of this document is to outline the strategy for improving water quality within Multnomah County’s NPDES Permit Areas by providing stormwater treatment for existing impervious area within the County’s right-of-way that lack stormwater quality controls. The NPDES Permit Areas are comprised of unincorporated urban pockets along the County’s borders, and arterial roadways in Fairview, Troutdale, and Wood Village (See Appendix for County Permit Area Maps).
    [Show full text]
  • Consolidated Stormwater Master Plan Update Prepared for City of Fairview, Oregon August 9, 2016
    Consolidated Stormwater Master Plan Update Prepared for City of Fairview, Oregon August 9, 2016 6500 SW Macadam Avenue, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97239 Phone: 503.244.7005 Fax: 503.244.9095 Table of Contents Foreword ....................................................................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Objectives and Approach........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Approach .................................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Recommendations..................................................................................................................1-2 1.4 Related Reports ......................................................................................................................1-2 2. Project and Program Recommendations ..........................................................................................2-1 2.1 2007 CSMP Project Review ...................................................................................................2-1 2.2 2016 Project Identification ....................................................................................................2-7 2.3 Asset Management Initiatives................................................................................................2-8
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Load and 303(D) List Pollutant Reduction Analyses
    Multnomah County NPDES MS4 Phase I Permit Stormwater Management Program Total Maximum Daily Load and 303(d) List Pollutant Reduction Analyses Submitted to: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality November 2014 Submitted in Accordance with the Requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number 103004, File Number 120542 Submitted by: Water Quality Program Department of Community Services Multnomah County Multnomah County Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Permit area .................................................................................................................................. 3 Summary of pollutants and TDMLs ........................................................................................... 3 1. 303(d) Listed Pollutant Evaluation .......................................................................................... 4 Nutrient-related impairments ...................................................................................................... 4 Biological impairment ................................................................................................................ 5 Arsenic ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Parameters associated with the Portland Harbor Clean up ......................................................... 7
    [Show full text]