mun evaluation in ag drains summary to date · cv-salts tac (3/9/2012) recommendations in general,...

34
MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date Sacramento Valley Archetypes Colusa, Live Oak, Willows, Biggs Sampling period: April June 2012 Quarterly Review in July 2012 5/3/2012 1

Upload: others

Post on 04-Aug-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains

Summary to Date

Sacramento Valley Archetypes Colusa, Live Oak, Willows, Biggs

Sampling period: April – June 2012

Quarterly Review in July 2012

5/3/2012 1

Page 2: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

Outline

Surveys/Meetings with

Irrigation/Reclamation Districts

CV-SALTS Technical Advisory

Committee Recommendations

Monitoring Parameters

Lab Results

Next Monitoring Events

5/3/2012 2

Page 3: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

Feb/March 2012 - Local Meetings

Representatives from:

• Biggs-West Gridley Water District

• Sutter Extension Water District

• Colusa Basin Drainage District

• Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District

• Reclamation District 777

• Reclamation District 833

• Glenn County Board of Supervisors

• Glenn County Dept. of Agriculture

• City of Biggs POTW

• City of Colusa POTW

• City of Live Oak POTW

• City of Willows POTW

• Sacramento Valley Coalition

• California Rice Commission

5/3/2012 3

RD 777

RD 833

Page 4: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

Site Surveys - Summary

• No indication of existing MUN use

• Areas are dominated by agriculture – much

of it rice production

• Water bodies primarily constructed Ag.

drains and channels

• Many potential diversions and reuse of

water

• District maps were reviewed and used

during the surveys

5/3/2012 4

Page 5: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

Site Surveys

West Side – Colusa Basin Drain

Colusa Area – March 6, 2012

• Two potential diversions from Colusa Basin Drain into Powell Slough upstream of effluent discharge

• New Ag. ditch upstream of effluent

Willows Area – March 6 & March 14, 2012

• Ag. Drain C goes through Sacramento Wildlife Refuge

5/3/2012 5

Page 6: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

Site Surveys (cont.) East Side – Sutter Bypass

Live Oak Area – March 15, 2012

• During non-irrigation season, water in Lateral 1 is dominated by effluent

• Groundwater seepage another source of water (Butte Sink)

Biggs Area – March 21, 2012

• Water from the Cherokee Canal is diverted to Duck Clubs in the Butte Creek area

5/3/2012 6

Page 7: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012)

Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and

questions approved

Better to monitor for more parameters than less for the first three months

Critical review of monitoring plan after first 3 months Review constituents, frequency, period of

monitoring, sites

Have subsequent reviews every 3 months

Flow data not worth expense Photos; temperature sensors; some

instantaneous 5/3/2012 7

Page 8: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012)

Policy Issues Initiate efforts on developing a “decision

tree” If/when/what monitoring is needed

Definition of “sustained yield” for surface water Comparison of DPH recommendation vs.

Drinking Water Policy

Determining “baseline” for highly modified systems

Determine how much “weight” local grower opinions should have in decision process

5/3/2012 8

Page 9: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

Reasonable Potential Analysis Parameters with reasonable potential to

increase concentration over criteria Colusa

—Nitrate+Nitrite as Nitrogen, Aluminum

Live Oak —Nitrate+Nitrite as Nitrogen, Arsenic, Manganese, Iron,

Aluminum

Willows —Nitrate+Nitrite as Nitrogen, total trihalomethanes

Biggs —Electrical conductivity

Total Dissolved Solids is expected to be directly related to Electrical Conductivity (Colusa NPDES Permit)

5/3/2012 9

Page 10: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

April-June 2012

Monitoring Parameters 1/month (key constituents):

Volatile Organic Compounds, MBAs,

Nitrate as Nitrogen, Nitrite as

Nitrogen, boron, sodium, total:

aluminum, arsenic, iron, manganese

2/month:

Specific conductivity, turbidity, pH,

dissolved oxygen, temperature

5/3/2012 10

Page 11: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

5/3/2012 11

Page 12: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

5/3/2012 12

Study Area # of Sites Cost ($) for

April – June

2012

Biggs 7 $2,798

Colusa 9 $3,705

Live Oak 6 $2,535

Willows 8 $3,315

TOTAL 30 $12,353

Monitoring Sites

Page 13: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

West Side - Colusa Basin Drain

Specific Conductivity

5/3/2012 13

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

µmhos/cm

Sites- Upstream to Downstream

2nd MCL

AGR

New Ditch

PS @ Hwy 20

Page 14: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

East Side - Sutter Bypass

Specific Conductivity

5/3/2012 14

Lateral #2 US Live Oak Effluent

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

µmhos/cm

Sites - Upstream to Downstream

2nd MCL

AGR

Page 15: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

West Side - Colusa Basin Drain

Nitrate as Nitrogen

5/3/2012 15

0

5

10

15

20

25

mg

/L

Sites - Upstream to Downstream

Primary MCL

Willows Effluent

Colusa Effluent

Page 16: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

East Side - Sutter Bypass Nitrate

as Nitrogen

5/3/2012 16

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

mg

/L

Sites - Upstream to Downstream

Primary MCL

Live Oak Effluent

Biggs

Effluent

Page 17: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

Results: Field Measurements Turbidity >5 NTU (2nd MCL) at most

sites Turbidity < 5 NTU at Butte Creek, Lateral #2

DS & US, Effluent for Colusa, Live Oak, and Willows

Most sites had pH values within 6.5 – 8.5 (2nd MCL and Basin Plan Objective)

except C Main Drain [8.56], Unnamed Tributary (US of effluent) [8.63], and Powell Slough (DS of effluent) [8.90]

5/3/2012 17

Page 18: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

Results: Lab Analyses

Sodium results >20 mg/L (EPA Drinking Water Advisory) at most sites Sodium results below 20 mg/L at Butte

Creek, Cherokee Canal, and Sutter Bypass

One Boron result >1 mg/L , but all other sites were below DPH Notification Level for Drinking Water High result in new ditch upstream of effluent

pipe in Colusa study area

5/3/2012 18

Page 19: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

Results: Lab Analyses

Aluminum results >200 µg/L (2nd MCL)

at most sites

Aluminum results <200 µg/L at Lateral #2 DS, Butte Creek, Effluent for Colusa, Live Oak, Willows, and Biggs

Total Trihalomethane results <80 µg/L (MCL) at all sites

Bromodichloromethane result > 0.56 µg/L (CTR) at Willows Effluent

5/3/2012 19

Page 20: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

Results: Lab Analyses

MBAs results < 500 µg/L (2nd MCL) at all sites

Arsenic results < 10 µg/L (MCL) at most sites

One Arsenic result > 10 µg/L at Live Oak Effluent

Manganese results > 50 µg/L (2nd MCL) at most sites

Manganese results < 50 µg/L at Effluent for Colusa, Live Oak, Willows, and Biggs, Butte Creek

5/3/2012 20

Page 21: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

Photos

Powell Slough, Upstream of Unnamed

tributary. Picture is looking downstream

5/3/2012 21

Page 22: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

Ag Drain C at Road 60, before water

enters Wildlife Refuge. Looking upstream

5/3/2012 22

Photos

Page 23: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

Photos

Lateral Drain #2, downstream of

effluent. Looking upstream

5/3/2012 23

Page 24: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

Photos

Lateral K, upstream of effluent

discharge. Looking downstream

5/3/2012 24

Page 25: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

Next Monitoring Event

Field measurements on May 9 and

May 10, 2012

Key constituents and field

measurements week of May 21-25

5/3/2012 25

Page 26: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

Questions?

Data will be available on-line

26

Page 27: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

List of Sites

Biggs Study Area

Butte Creek near Nelson Road

Lateral K upstream of effluent

Effluent

Lateral K downstream of effluent

Cherokee Canal upstream of effluent

C Main Drain upstream of Cherokee Canal

Butte Creek in Duck Club/Butte Slough at

Meridian

5/3/2012 27

Page 28: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

List of Sites

Colusa Study Area

CBD at Highway 20

Powell Slough at Highway 20

Effluent

Unnamed Tributary upstream of effluent

New Ditch upstream of effluent

Unnamed Tributary downstream of effluent

Powell Slough upstream of unnamed tributary

Powell Slough downstream of unnamed tributary

CBD at Abel Road

5/3/2012 28

Page 29: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

List of Sites

Willows Study Area Effluent

Ag Drain C upstream of effluent

Ag Drain C downstream of effluent

Ag Drain C at Road 60

Willow Creek at Road 61

CBD at Road 61

Logan Creek downstream of effluent

Hunters Creek upstream of effluent

5/3/2012 29

Page 30: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

List of Sites

Willows Study Area Effluent

Ag Drain C upstream of effluent

Ag Drain C downstream of effluent

Ag Drain C at Road 60

Willow Creek at Road 61

CBD at Road 61

Logan Creek downstream of effluent

Hunters Creek upstream of effluent

5/3/2012 30

Page 31: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

5/3/2012 31

Page 32: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

5/3/2012 32

Page 33: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

5/3/2012 33

Page 34: MUN Evaluation in Ag Drains Summary to Date · CV-SALTS TAC (3/9/2012) Recommendations In general, monitoring approach and questions approved Better to monitor for more parameters

5/3/2012 34