Overview of the draft Pend Oreille River Total Dissolved Gas Total Maximum Daily Load

Overview of the draft Pend Oreille RiverTotal Dissolved Gas Total Maximum Daily Load

Paul J. Pickett, P.E.

Transboundary Gas Group

Castlegar, BC

October 19, 2006

Overview of the Draft Pend Oreille River TDG TMDL

Why a TMDL on the Pend Oreille River? Total dissolved gas data exceed WA state water

quality criteria Federal legal requirement: Determine the “total

maximum daily load” (TMDL) of pollutants TMDL = technical analysis + implementation plan Ecology conducted technical studies in 2004 to

augment other data and studies


Geographic scope and jurisdictions Ecology is addressing Washington state waters

• Idaho border to Canada border

• Environmental Assessment Program (Olympia): technical

• Water Quality Program/Eastern Region (Spokane): public outreach & implementation

EPA lead for Kalispel Tribal waters EPA also coordinating interstate and international

issues


Dams on the Pend Oreille River Boundary Dam – Seattle City Light Box Canyon Dam – Pend Oreille PUD Albeni Falls Dam – Seattle Army Corps Others upstream on the Clark Fork

TDG listings in Idaho and Montana Cabinet Gorge FERC 401 certification Other sources in Montana

Cabinet Gorge

Pend Oreille/Clark Fork Watershed (U.S.A. area)

Albeni Falls Dam

Box Canyon Dam

Boundary Dam

Boundary Dam in the Future (“The Postman”)

Overview of the DraftPend Oreille River TDG TMDL

TDG technical study TDG monitoring by dam owners

• Albeni Falls, Box Canyon, Boundary• Forebay and Tailrace

Ecology continuous monitoring• Near Ruby – local resident’s dock

Ecology paired monitoring• About every two weeks – “snapshot”• Newport, dam forebays, Ecology site

Project Plan is available http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0403107.html

Overview of the Draft

Pend Oreille River TDG TMDL

Pend Oreille River Flows TDG elevated during peak freshet flows

• Mid-April through mid-July

Study period flows varied widely• 2001 critical low flow year

• 2002 high flow year

• 2003 average flow year

• 2004 low flow year

7Q10 flood flows = 105,500 – 108,300 cfs• WA standards: criteria only apply below 7Q10 flood



Pend Oreille River Flows (Newport)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

10/1 10/31 12/1 12/31 1/31 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 8/31 10/1

Date

Flo

w (

cfs

)

WY 1984

WY 1985

WY 1986

WY 1987

WY 1988

WY 1989

WY 1990

WY 1991

WY 1992

WY 1993

WY 1994

WY 1995

WY 1996

WY 1997

WY 1998

WY 1999

WY 2000

WY 2001

WY 2002

WY 2003

WY 2004

WY 2005

2001

2002

2003

2004


Box Canyon Reservoir TDG often elevated at Idaho State Line Fate in reservoir evaluated

• Difference of paired values (Box FB – ID SL)

• Separate temperature effect from wind and productivity

• Ecology data from Ruby: separate southern and northern half of reservoir

• Analyze periods of impairment


Box Canyon Reservoir TDG

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

95% 100% 105% 110% 115% 120% 125%

Pend Oreille River at Newport TDG (% sat)

Bo

x C

anyo

n F

ore

bay

TD

G (

% s

at)) 1:1

2001

2002

2003

2004

TDG at Newport and Box Canyon Forebay, 2002

85.0%

87.5%

90.0%

92.5%

95.0%

97.5%

100.0%

102.5%

105.0%

107.5%

110.0%

112.5%

115.0%

117.5%

120.0%

122.5%

125.0%

3/19 3/26 4/2 4/9 4/16 4/23 4/30 5/7 5/14 5/21 5/28 6/4 6/11 6/18 6/25 7/2 7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6Date

TD

G (

% s

at)

-15%

-12%

-9%

-6%

-3%

0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

18%

21%

24%

27%

30%

33%

TD

G D

iffe

ren

ce

(%

sa

t)

Box Canyon Dam Forebay

Idaho Stateline

Difference

Difference (temperature effect removed)



Pend Oreille River TDG at Newport and Ruby, 2004

85.0%

87.5%

90.0%

92.5%

95.0%

97.5%

100.0%

102.5%

105.0%

107.5%

110.0%

112.5%

115.0%

3/19 3/26 4/2 4/9 4/16 4/23 4/30 5/7 5/14 5/21 5/28 6/4 6/11 6/18 6/25 7/2 7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6

Date

TD

G (

% s

at)

-12%

-9%

-6%

-3%

0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

18%

21%

24%

TD

G D

iffe

ren

ce (

% s

at)

Idaho state line

Ruby

Difference

Difference (temperatureeffects removed)


TDG at Ruby and Box Canyon Forebay, 2004

85.0%

87.5%

90.0%

92.5%

95.0%

97.5%

100.0%

102.5%

105.0%

107.5%

110.0%

112.5%

115.0%

3/19 3/26 4/2 4/9 4/16 4/23 4/30 5/7 5/14 5/21 5/28 6/4 6/11 6/18 6/25 7/2 7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6

Date

TD

G (

% s

at)

-12%

-9%

-6%

-3%

0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

18%

21%

24%

TD

G s

atu

rati

on

(%

sat

)

Ruby

Box Canyon Forebay

Difference

Difference (temperatureeffects removed)


Pend Oreille River TDG TMDL 2001 2002 2003 2004 all years

1. Total number of data points 1179 7589 7857 1028 17653 2. Idaho impaired (% of all) 13.7% 33.5% 19.6% 1.5% 24.1% 3. Box FB impaired (% of all) 22.0% 23.2% 11.0% 0.0% 16.3% 4. Data points with impairment (% of all) 25.0% 33.5% 19.6% 1.5% 24.9% 5. Idaho impaired, Box FB not impaired

(% of all) 3.1% 10.4% 8.6% 1.5% 8.6%

6. Idaho not impaired, Box FB impaired (% of all)

11.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%

7. Number of data points with impairment 295 2546 1539 15 4395 8a. Temperature increases impairment

(% of points with impairment) 68.5% 96.8% 75.0% 93.3% 87.2%

8b. Productivity and wind increases impairment (% of points with impairment)

58.6% 2.7% 11.2% 0.0% 9.4%

8c. Net pool effect increases impairment (% of points with impairment)

80.7% 4.9% 10.1% 0.0% 11.8%

9. Net pool effect increases impairment (% of all)

20.2% 1.6% 2.0% 0.0% 2.9%

10. Temperature increases TDG (% of all) 84.3% 96.2% 76.9% 90.8% 86.5% 11. Productivity and wind increases TDG

(% of all) 54.3% 4.6% 31.3% 2.8% 19.7%

12. Net pool effect increases TDG (% of all) 81.4% 27.1% 40.7% 12.9% 36.0%

13. Pool effect, Idaho not impaired, Box FB impaired (median percent of saturation) 0.4% 0.4% 14. Pool effect, all impairments

(median percent of saturation) 0.3% -4.2% -3.5% -6.4% -3.8%

15. Pool effect, all measurements (median percent of saturation)

1.1% -0.8% -0.7% -2.0% -0.7%


Box Canyon Reservoir Analysis of Impairments Most impairments caused by conditions upstream of

Washington Effect of Temperature usually offset by wind or

productivity Increase in TDG producing impairment is rare

• Amount of increase is small


Box Canyon Dam TDG Generation Rising flows force spill Rising river levels decrease powerhouse efficiency

• Powerhouse shuts down at high flows (around 85 kcfs)

As river rises, TDG generation peaks, then drops• Rising tailrace river levels reduce height of spill

Currently, spills above about 5 kcfs impair TDG

Box Canyon Dam TDGy = -2E-10x2 + 2E-05x + 1.023

R2 = 0.8903

y = -5E-06x + 1.6318

R2 = 0.7768

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

150%

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100

Spill Flow (kcfs)

Ta

ilra

ce

TD

G (

% S

at)

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

33

36

39

42

45

Po

we

rho

us

e F

low

(k

cfs

)Tailrace TDG, low spill

Tailrace TDG, high spill

TDG difference, TR-FB

PH flow, low spill

PH flow, high spill

trendline (PH flow, high spill)

trendline (tailrace, low spill)

trendline (tailrace, high spill)



Boundary Reservoir TDG often elevated from Box Canyon and Idaho Fate in reservoir evaluated


Boundary Reservoir TDG

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

145%

150%

95% 100% 105% 110% 115% 120% 125% 130% 135% 140% 145% 150%

Box Canyon Dam Tailrace TDG (% sat)

Bo

un

da

ry D

am

Fo

reb

ay

TD

G (

% s

at)

2001

2002

2003

2004

1:1


TDG at Box Canyon Dam Tailrace and Boundary Dam Forebay, 2002

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

105%

110%

115%

120%

125%

130%

135%

140%

145%

150%

3/20 3/27 4/3 4/10 4/17 4/24 5/1 5/8 5/15 5/22 5/29 6/5 6/12 6/19 6/26 7/3 7/10 7/17 7/24 7/31 8/7

Date

TD

G (

% s

at)

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

TD

G D

iffe

ren

ce

(%

sa

t)

Box Canyon Tailrace

Boundary Forebay

Difference

Difference (temperature effects removed)

2001 2002 2003 2004

All years

1. Total number of data points 766 2509 1942 1808 7025 2. Box TR impaired (% of all) 3.9% 62.9% 56.5% 39.7% 48.7% 3. Boundary FB impaired (% of all) 13.6% 58.9% 56.7% 37.7% 47.9% 4. Data points with impairment (% of all) 14.0% 66.7% 59.2% 42.7% 52.7% 5. Box TR impaired, Boundary FB not impaired

(% of all) 0.4% 7.8% 2.4% 5.0% 4.8%

6. Box TR not impaired, Boundary FB impaired (% of all)

10.1% 3.8% 2.7% 3.0% 4.0%

7. Number of data points with impairment 107 1674 1149 772 3702 8a. Temperature increases impairment

(% of points with impairment) 0.0% 50.3% 51.8% 40.9% 47.4%

8b. Productivity and wind increases impairment (% of points with impairment)

100.0% 18.2% 19.5% 24.6% 22.3%

8c. Net pool effect increases impairment (% of points with impairment)

93.5% 18.8% 17.4% 19.7% 20.7%

9. Net pool effect increases impairment (% of all)

13.1% 12.6% 10.3% 8.4% 10.9%

10. Temperature increases TDG (% of all) 32.8% 49.8% 49.8% 36.7% 44.6% 11. Productivity and wind increases TDG

(% of all) 74.3% 28.9% 42.4% 57.1% 44.8%

12. Net pool effect increases TDG (% of all) 63.8% 23.8% 42.2% 46.9% 39.2% 13. Pool effect, Box TR not impaired,

Boundary impaired (median percent of saturation)

1.0% 1.3% 2.3% 0.9% 1.3%

14. Pool effect, all impairments (median percent of saturation)

0.8% -3.6% -4.9% -1.9% -3.3%




Boundary Reservoir Analysis of Impairments Most impairments caused by Box Canyon Dam and

upstream conditions Effect of Temperature usually offset by wind or

productivity Increase in TDG producing impairment is rare

• Amount of increase is small


Boundary Dam TDG Generation by spill High upstream TDG levels “mask” effect of spill

• Spill above 14 kcfs causes increase of tailrace TDG above forebay levels

Spill TDG generation can be estimated by back-calculation (with a few simplifying assumptions)

• Tailrace TDG if forebay were in compliance can be estimated

If forebay were in compliance, spills above 4 kcfs would impair TDG

Boundary Dam TDG during spill

y = 7E-11x2 + 2E-06x - 0.0383

R2 = 0.8508

y = 0.3377x0.1438

R2 = 0.7497

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

150%

160%

170%

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56

Spill Flow (kcfs)

Ta

ilra

ce

TD

G (

% S

at)

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

TD

G D

iffe

ren

ce

(%

Sa

t)

Tailrace TDG Spill TDG - calculated Tailrace TDG w/ FB=110%TDG Difference, TR-FB trendline (TDG Difference, TR-FB) trendline (Spill TDG - calculated)



Boundary Dam TDG Generation by powerhouse TDG above 110% in tailrace sometimes occurs

when there is no spill and no forebay impairment Usually occurs at very low flows

• Powerhouse shutdown and start up

Related to air intake by turbines to prevent blade damage


Boundary Dam TDG, 2001-2004, no spill, Forebay <110%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

150%

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

Downstream Flow (cfs)

Ta

ilra

ce

TD

G (

% S

at)

Tailrace

Difference, TR-FB


Boundary Dam TDG and Flow (2001, no spill, FB>110%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

150%

1/23/01 1/24/01 1/25/01 1/26/01 1/27/01 1/28/01 1/29/01 1/30/01 1/31/01 2/1/01

Date

TD

G (

%s

at)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Flo

w (

cfs

)

Tailrace TDG

Flow


Boundary Dam TDG and Flow (24 Jan 2001 10:00 to 30 Jan 2001 10:00)

y = 5E-10x2 - 3E-05x + 1.4595

R2 = 0.9746

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

150%

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Downstream Flow (cfs)

TD

G (

%s

at)

Tailrace TDG

Poly. (Tailrace TDG)


Loading capacity and allocations Equivalent to 110% saturation at low barometric pressure

Compliance areas Entire Pend Oreille River in Washington, except… Aerated (“bubbly”) zones below dams excluded

• Compliance area begins at tailrace location specified in Implementation Plan

• Draft location: existing tailrace monitoring sites.

Compliance flows Idaho State Line to Kalispel Reservation: all flows Kalispel Res. to Int’l Border: only below 7Q10 flood flow



TMDL review and submittal TMDL = technical analysis (what you just saw)

+ implementation plan



Implementation Plan Box Canyon Dam 401 Certification

(effective July 2005)• TDG Abatement Plan• Water Quality Monitoring Plan

Boundary Dam FERC relicensing (due 2011)• Pre-application Document (May 2006)• Proposed Study Plan (October 2006)

Upstream Sources• Jurisdiction of Idaho and Montana• U.S. EPA oversight



Boundary Dam “Super Six” Throttle Sluice Gates Roughen Sluice Gate Discharge New Right Abutment Tunnel with Submerged

Discharge New Left Abutment Tunnel Intercepts Diversion

Tunnel Penstock/Draft Tube By-Pass New Short Left Abutment Tunnel Next to Unit #51

Stay tuned! (Seattle City Light will provide details as planning

continues)



TMDL review and submittal TMDL = technical analysis

+ implementation plan Continue coordination with stakeholders Formal review and public comment of final

draft TMDL WA issues for state waters and submits to EPA EPA adopts for tribal waters and approves WA Implementation


Questions? Contact info:

• Paul Pickett, EAP Olympia

(360) 407-6882

[email protected]

• Jon Jones, WQP Spokane

(509) 329-3481

[email protected]

Documents

Overview of the draft Pend Oreille River Total Dissolved Gas Total Maximum Daily Load