The Barton Springs Part of the Edwards Aquifer: Basic physical and hydrologic characteristics pertinent to permitted discharges Raymond Slade, Jr, Certified.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Wastewater Treatment.
Advertisements

Sewage and Effluent Treatment 2-4 November 2002 Seán Moran -The first few slides.
Fecal Colform Bacteria Contamination during Rain Events in Sayler’s Creek, Virginia Blake N. Robertson Senior Honors Research Under the Supervision of.
Land-Applied Wastewater Effluent Impacts on the Edwards Aquifer by: D. Lauren Ross, Ph. D., P. E. Glenrose Engineering, Inc glenrose.com.
1 Europe’s water – an indicator-based assessment Niels Thyssen.
Environmental Science 2012
Discrepancies Between HUC Boundaries and Karst Basin Boundaries By James C. Currens Kentucky Geological Survey in cooperation with Joseph A. Ray Groundwater.
Produced water brine and stream salinity James K. Otton Tracey Mercier.
Ground-Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon Kenneth E. Lite Jr., Oregon Water Resources Department.
Michael J. Brayton MD/DE/DC Water Science Center Hydrologic Controls on Nutrient and Pesticide Transport through a Small Agricultural Watershed, Morgan.
Water.
FLORIDA SPRINGS Case studies on impacts of nutrients on Florida springs ecosystems Source: J. Stevenson, Michigan State Univ.
Fundamentals of River Restoration and Salmonid Fisheries OWEB, 1999, Fundamentals of River Restoration and Salmonid Fisheries OWEB, 1999, Fundamentals.
Hydrologic Issues in Mountaintop Mining Areas Ronald Evaldi, USGS-WSC, Charleston, WV Daniel Evans, USGS-WSC, Louisville, KY Hugh Bevans, USGS-WSC, Charleston,
General threats to water quality from domestic wastewater discharges in the Hill Country By Raymond Slade, Jr, Certified Professional Hydrologist 1.
USGS Water Resource Monitoring and Assessment Activities Salinity and other topics presented to the Garfield County Energy Advisory Board Dec. 1, 2005.
Aquifers are typically saturated regions of ground water which produce an economically feasible quantity of water to a well or spring.
Water Sources and Pollution. Where does our water come from? It comes from 2 sources: 1.Surface water: above ground in lakes and rivers. –Most large cities.
Walk for a Day and the WQPL. Walk for a Day Proposed Regional Trail Hill Country Conservancy Greenways Inc. City of Austin LBJWC.
Surface Water and Groundwater Fusion Text: Pages
Groundwater Flux to the Upper Mississippi River – Approach and application to nutrient understanding.
Municipal water needs in Travis County, selected water-policy shortcomings, and water conversation measures Raymond Slade, Jr., PH Certified Professional.
Water Resources. What is a Watershed ? Area of land that sheds (moves ) water from the highest to the lowest point.
Watershed Assessment and Diagnosis of Condition for August 20, 2007 Joe Magner and Greg Johnson MPCA.
Module 10/11 Stream Surveys Stream Surveys – February 2004 Part 1 – Water Quality Assessment.
1 Aquifers/Edwards Aquifer. 2 What is an Aquifer? A body of rock, sediment, or soil that contains drinkable water and can transmit this water to wells.
TWCA 2009 Mid-Year Conference Groundwater Regulation Panel.
WHY PUMPING IN BIG CHINO VALLEY THREATENS THE VERDE RIVER By William Meyer and Edward W. Wolfe January 28, 2009.
112.3 Jessica L. Feeser, M. Elise Lauterbur & Jennifer L. Soong Research Project for Systems Ecology (ENVS 316), Fall ’06 Oberlin College, Oberlin OH BackgroundFindings.
Ecological Characteristics of Region K. Region K.
Wastewater Discharges to the Barton/Onion Creek Watersheds Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District.
Sammamish River Diel Dissolved Oxygen and pH Study September 21, 2005.
Wilmington Water. Sources Cape Fear River ◦ Surface water from 23 miles upriver in Bladen County.
Timeline Impaired for turbidity on Minnesota’s list of impaired waters (2004) MPCA must complete a study to determine the total maximum daily load (TMDL)
Ground Water Age and Chemistry Data along Flow Paths: Implications for Trends and Transformations of Nutrients and Pesticides Jim Tesoriero,
An Overview of Air, Water & Soil in Agriculture Barbara McCarthy, Ph.D. Environmental Health Department Colorado State University.
SOURCE WATER PROTECTION IN KARST SHENANDOAH VALLEY WATER CONFERENCE OCTOBER 28, 2008 WINCHESTER,VIRGINIA.
MPCA Groundwater Roles
Groundwater – Vital to Healthy Communities Steve Gaffield – Montgomery Associates Thomas Hovel – City of Fitchburg, WI Madeline Gotkowitz – Wisconsin Geological.
WLRD Science Seminar Sammamish River Water Quality Model Status Report November 19, 2002.
Introduction to Urban Hydrology
Texas Hill Country Water Management Districts Raymond M. Slade, Jr, Certified Professional Hydrologist Additional information regarding water management.
Surface water and Barton Springs What do we know? –After a storm –The rest of the time Current study objectives TCEQ – USGS study approach Additional research.
CONEWAGO CREEK GROUND WATER STUDY Base Flow and Impervious Cover November 7, 2007 Watershed Alliance of Adams County Joe McNally, P.G. GeoServices, Ltd.
June 2009: How severe is the current drought in the Hill Country?
The Importance of Groundwater in Sustaining Streamflow in the Upper Colorado River Basin Matthew Miller Susan Buto, David Susong, Christine Rumsey, John.
Manure Management and Water Quality By Jeff Lorimor, Iowa State University, Ames 32-1.
Certified Professional Hydrologist
GROUND WATER Introduction Sources and Discharge of Ground Water
Near-surface Geologic Environments
Sustainable Yield Groundwater in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands in Texas
Overview of Spokane- Coeur d’Alene Hydrology
Groundwater Basics.
Klamath ADR Hydrology Report
Wastewater Treatment.
Wastewater Treatment.
Reuse “the action of using something again”
Wastewater Treatment.
What is a watershed? It is the area of land and waterways that drain to a water body.
EARTH SCIENCE KESSEL.
Flood Monitoring Tools 2011 OFMA Annual Conference
Human Activity and Ground Water
Hydrologic Responses to Draught in the Barton Creek Segment of the Edwards Aquifer Peter Carlson.
Wastewater Treatment.
Human Activity and Ground Water
Human Activity and Ground Water
June 2009: How severe is the current drought in the Hill Country?
Hydrologic Investigation Summary
Wastewater Treatment.
Wastewater Treatment.
Presentation transcript:

The Barton Springs Part of the Edwards Aquifer: Basic physical and hydrologic characteristics pertinent to permitted discharges Raymond Slade, Jr, Certified Professional Hydrologist This presentation at org/HCA/Presentations

Presentation organization Summary comparison of size and water in Barton Springs and San Antonio parts of the Edwards aquifer Water quality limitations for effluent discharges Threat to Edwards aquifer and Barton Springs due to lack of appropriate protection from effluent discharges in upper Barton Creek Vulnerability of Edwards aquifer to nutrients Lack of attenuation of quantity or water quality for effluent discharges in Barton Springs contributing zone Rapid movement of water in the aquifer Summary of no flow and low flow characteristics for recharge zone Comparison of stream water quality and permitted discharge quality Summary

San Barton Antonio Springs (Sq. mi.) Aquifer Area Stored Water (million ac-ft) Mean Recharge (thousand ac-ft/yr) 6.0 % 2.8 % 4.2 % 0.7 % 4.9 % Comparison of Characteristics: San Antonio and Barton Springs parts of the Edwards aquifer H Contributing zone (sq mi) Recharge zone Transition/Artesian zone Artesian zone Barton Springs values as percent of San Antonio values Barton Springs part NE of red boundary. San Antonio part SW of red boundary Miles 030 Because of its much smaller size and less water, the Barton Springs part is much more vulnerable than the San Antonio part to contamination from effluent discharge

Water quality limitations for effluent discharges § Effluent Requirements for All Tributaries of Segment 1428 of the Colorado River and Segment 1427, Onion Creek, and Its Tributaries, of the Colorado River Basin. 5 mg/L carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand 5 mg/L total suspended solids 2 mg/L ammonia nitrogen 1 mg/L phosphorus § c.1 Effluent requirements for permitted discharges in the contributing zone within 5 stream miles of the Edwards aquifer recharge zone (same levels as above) § c.2 Effluent requirements for permitted discharges in the contributing zone within 5-10 stream miles of the Edwards aquifer recharge zone 10 mg/L carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand 15 mg/L total suspended solids 3 mg/L ammonia nitrogen However, neither of the above rules apply to the contributing zone of Barton Creek at least 10 miles upstream from the recharge zone § 309 Applies to Barton creek >10 miles from recharge zone 20 mg/L carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand 20 mg/L total suspended solids

Relation of Barton Creek to Barton Springs The recharge zone for Barton Creek is adjacent to Barton Springs part Samples from Barton Springs during many storm events document that recharge from Barton Creek provide immediate discharge from Barton Springs. “The quality of water at the springs responds rapidly to changes In quality of recharge contributed by Barton Creek. Ground water originating from Barton Creek remains in the aquifer for only a short period before discharging at Barton Springs; thus processes such as absorption, adsorption, and chemical precipitation have relatively little time to decrease concentrations of water-quality constituents of that water. Because of the amount and proximity of recharge contributed by Barton Creek, this creek has a greater impact upon the quality of Barton Springs than any other recharge source.” -- Slade, R.M., Jr., Dorsey, M.E., and Stewart, S.L., 1986, Hydrology and water quality of Barton Springs and associated Edwards aquifer in the Austin area, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report , ll7 p.

Phosphorus levels as low as 0.05 mg/l have produced as much as one- half of the average algal biomass in Texas streams studies and phosphorus concentrations as low as 0.20 mg/l cause full maximum algae production in streams. (Kiesling and others, 2001, p ). The Edwards aquifer contributing zone permitted discharge value for phosphorus (1.0 mg/l) is 20 times larger than the first value above and 5 times larger than the second value Kiesling, R.L., McFarland, A.M.S., and Hauck, L.M., 2001, Nutrient Targets for Lake Waco and North Bosque River: Developing Ecosystem Restoration Criteria: Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research Report TR p. Vulnerability of Edwards aquifer to nutrients Phosphorus

U.S Environmental Protection Agency recommendations for nutrient criteria for Region IV (which includes the Barton springs area) are 0.56 mg/l for total nitrogen and.023 mg/l for total phosphorus. (U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 2002). The permitted discharge value for the Edwards aquifer contributing zone for ammonia nitrogen (2 mg/l) is 3.6 times larger than the recommended nitrogen value and the permitted discharge value for phosphorus is 43 times larger than the recommended phosphorus value. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002, Summary Data for the Nutrient Criteria Documents: Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations—Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregions. Vulnerability of Edwards aquifer to nutrients (cont.)

Lack of attenuation of quantity or water quality for effluent in Barton Springs contributing zone Three USGS streamflow gain loss studies on Barton Creek and two for Onion Creek document that streamflow gains rather than losses occur almost throughout the Barton Springs Edwards aquifer contributing zone. Therefore, it is likely that most if not all permitted discharges on the Trinity aquifer in this area will be lost as recharge to the Edwards aquifer rather than the Trinity aquifer. Additionally, the low flow channels for these streams are generally composed of rock and contain minimal vegetation. Therefore, only minimal reduction of wastewater nutrients would occur due to uptake by vegetation in the channels.

Additional dye studies in in 2005 documented flow rates ranging from 2.3 to 7.4 miles per day Summary of Groundwater trace injections Tracer studies document that contamination entering the aquifer would rapidly degrade water quality in wells and Barton Springs in its fast path to the Springs

6% nf 21% lf 6% 59% 8% 17% 83% 84% 36% 43% 39% 61% Upstream end of recharge zone for Slaughter Creek is no flow 36% of time. Therefore, wastewater discharged into the contributing zone for this basin would represent all recharge 36% of time for this creek. Percent of time for no flow at upstream and downstream ends of streams crossing recharge zone (Data from USGS) Upstream end of recharge zone Downstream end of recharge zone Note: Due to streamflow capture by recent increased groundwater pumping in Hays County, Onion Creek at upstream end of recharge zone was no flow only 1% of time prior to Nov 2005 but no flow 52% of the time since. At downstream end of recharge zone Slaughter Creek is no flow 84% of time. Therefore, 84% of time all wastewater discharged into basin would recharge to the Edwards aquifer rather than flow downstream

6% nf 21% lf 21% 32% 46% 61% 65% Upstream end of recharge zone for Slaughter Creek is low flow 61% of time. Therefore, wastewater discharged into the contributing zone for this basin would be equivalent to existing flow and thus represent ½ or more of all recharge 61% of the time for this creek. Percent of time for low flow at upstream end of streams crossing recharge zone (Data from USGS) Low flow defined as one-half million gallons per day—equivalent to typical wastewater discharge

Comparison of existing stream water quality and permitted discharge quality (Data from USGS) CBOD Maximum permitted discharge value 5.0 mg/l % % % % % % % % % % Presented are mean values for BOD (mg/l) during low flow conditions for USGS stream gaging stations at upstream and downstream ends of recharge zone. Under that value is the mean value expressed as a percent of the maximum permitted discharge value.

0.02 1% % % % % % Presented are mean values for ammonia nitrogen (mg/l) during low flow conditions for USGS stream gaging stations at upstream and downstream ends of recharge zone. Under that value is the mean value expressed as a percent of the maximum permitted discharge value Comparison of existing stream water quality and permitted discharge quality (Data from USGS) Ammonia Nitrogen Maximum permitted discharge value 2.0 mg/l

0.02 2% % % % % % % % % Presented are mean values for phosphorus (mg/l) during low flow conditions for USGS stream gaging stations at upstream and downstream ends of recharge zone. Under that value is the mean value expressed as a percent of the maximum permitted discharge value. Comparison of existing stream water quality and permitted discharge quality (Data from USGS) Phosphorus Maximum permitted discharge value 1.0 mg/l

Summary The Barton Springs Edwards part is much smaller and has much less water than the San Antonio part thus likely is much more susceptible to contamination from effluent discharges than the San Antonio part Due to lack of protection for Upper Barton Creek, the creek, aquifer and Barton Springs are vulnerable to contamination from effluent discharges The Barton Springs contributing zone creeks likely would provide minimal attenuation for the quantity and water quality of effluent discharges The rapid movement of water through the aquifer likely would cause water-quality degradation of wells and Barton Springs The 6 major streams at the upstream end of the Edwards aquifer recharge zone are no flow or low flow most of the time thus effluent discharges would dominate recharge most of the time The major streams are no flow most of the time at the downstream end of the recharge zone thus most effluent discharges would recharge the aquifer rather than flow downstream The existing water quality for streams, the aquifer, and Barton Springs is much better than that of effluent discharges thus such discharges likely would cause water quality degradation