Dept. of Ecology presentation to Nisqually River Council, 3/16/18

1. Puget Sound Nutrient
Source Reduction Project
March 16, 2018
Presented to the Nisqually River Council
by Dustin Bilhimer, Water Quality Program
1

2. Near the mouth of the Elwha
Photo Courtesy: CMAP, SEA Program,
Department of Ecology
Salish Sea Model
Modeling Team Members
With past contributions from:
Taeyun Kim, Ph.D.
Rochelle Labiosa, Ph.D.
Mindy Roberts, Ph.D, P.E.
Brandon Sackmann, Ph.D.
Taiping Wang, Ph.D.
Zhaoqing Yang, Ph.D.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Tarang Khangaonkar, Ph.D, P.E.
Wen Long, Ph.D.
Laura Bianucci, Ph.D.
Washington State Department of
Ecology
Anise Ahmed, Ph.D, P.E.
Teizeen Mohamedali, P.E.
Greg Pelletier, P.E.
Cristiana Figueroa-Kaminsky, P.E.
With support from:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ben Cope
2

3. Data, Monitoring Tools, and Observations
Ecology’s Marine Monitoring Unit – data received from Mya Keyzers, Julia Bos, Skip Albertson,
Carol Maloy, Christopher Krembs http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/mar_wat/index.html
Ecology’s Freshwater Monitoring Unit – Marcus Von Prause, Dave Hallock, Bill Ward
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/fw_riv/index.html
Fisheries and Oceans Canada http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/index-eng.htm
Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve System – data downloaded online, with
assistance from Nicole Burnett and Jude Apple http://cdmo.baruch.sc.edu/
King County – data from Stephanie Jaeger and Kim Stark
http://green2.kingcounty.gov/marine/Monitoring/Offshore
University of Washington – UW PRISM cruise data in collaboration with NOAA, data from
Simone Alin (NOAA) and Jan Newton (UW), Parker MacCready provided Matlab scripts
http://www.prism.washington.edu/home
Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/PROGRAMS/WQ/psmonitoring/index.html
Many staff members of the wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), particular in South and
Central Puget Sound – provided data and assistance in collecting samples as part of the South
Puget Sound Dissolved Oxygen Study for their facilities, which are the basis of some of the
nutrient load estimates used in the model.
Ecology staff collected information under the separate South Puget Sound Dissolved Oxygen
Study that was used as a basis for load analyses in the Salish Sea Model:
• Karen Burgess and Greg Zentner managed communications with the WWTPs through the
permit writers (Mahbub Alam, Mike Dawda, Dave Dougherty, Alison Evans, Mark Henley,
Tonya Lane), and Marc Heffner provided input regarding the Simpson industrial discharge.
• Chuck Hoffman analyzed and performed WWTP regressions.
• Ryan McEliece, Chris Moore, and Brandon Slone conducted all freshwater monitoring,
including coordinating with WWTP staff for composite sample collection, in South and
Central Puget Sound.
• Steve Golding helped develop the South and Central Puget Sound WWTP monitoring
program.
• Dave Hallock and Bill Ward coordinated supplemental freshwater monitoring in South and
Central Puget Sound.
Peer Reviewers
Simone Alin - Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Bob Ambrose, Ben Cope - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Stephanie Jaeger - Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division,
King County
Christopher Krembs, Tom Gries, Will Hobbs, Dustin Bilhimer - Washington Department of Ecology
Parker MacCready - University of Washington
Brian Rappoli - Ocean and Coastal Acidification and Coral Reef Protection Program, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Randy Shuman - King County
Samantha Siedlecki - Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of
Washington
Funding & In-kind Contributions
Framework Development
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Washington State Department of Ecology
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Individual Project Applications
National Estuarine Program
Nature Conservancy
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NW Straits Commission
Skagit River System Cooperative
Skagit Watershed Council
Tulalip Tribe
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Additional Support
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PIC) program: http://pic.pnnl.gov/
NW Regional Modeling Consortium http://www.atmos.washington.edu/cliff/consortium.html
Salish Sea Model Contributors – thank you!
3

4. Salish Sea Model Timeline
• 2008-2014
• South Sound DO Model
• Salish Sea Model (Circulation and WQ models)
• 2014-2017
• Sediment Diagenesis Module added to SSM
• Ocean Acidification Module added to SSM
• Intermediate Grid to improve resolution and skill at ocean boundary
• 2017-2018 (Begin Puget Sound Nutrient project)
• Bounding Scenarios completed with new modules
• 2019-2020
• Optimization Scenarios using refined model inputs
• Increased resolution (smaller cell sizes) in South Sound and along nearshore
areas 4
Model
Development
Model
Application

5. Puget Sound Nutrient Source Reduction
Project Phases
Develop and implement a Puget Sound nutrient source reduction plan to guide
regional investments in point and nonpoint source nutrient controls so that
Puget Sound will meet DO water quality criteria and protect aquatic life
designated uses by 2040
1. Communicate and share science with the public and stakeholders
2. Collaboratively develop a MWQ/Nutrient Implementation Strategy
3. Implement nutrient reduction actions that meet our water quality goals
5

6. WQ Dissolved Oxygen Standards in Puget Sound
• 7.0 mg/L - most of Puget Sound and
the Straits
• 6.0 mg/L – Bellingham Bay, Samish
Bay, Skagit Bay, around Whidbey,
other inlets/bays
• 5.0 mg/L - Commencement Bay,
Budd Inlet, and portions of some
inlets
• 4.0 mg/L – very tiny finger of
Commencement Bay
6

7. Water Quality Goals
• Ecology’s Regulatory Goals
• Meet Dissolved Oxygen Criteria
• Protect designated aquatic life and aesthetic uses
• Puget Sound Action Agenda Goals
• Improve Puget Sound’s health with respect to nutrient over-enrichment and related
effects
• Salish Sea Model evaluates anthropogenic DO depletion
• Reduce anthropogenic nutrient sources so that total local human sources do not
lower DO by more than 0.2mg/L below the numeric criteria or reference/natural
condition, whichever is lower
7

8. Excess nutrients are a problem
Eutrophication Low dissolved oxygen
(2014 water quality
assessment)
8

9. Sources of nutrients in Salish Sea
ModelAtmospheric Deposition
Deposition of atmospheric nutrients
natural sources plus emissions) onto
watersheds and directly onto marine
waters Net Ocean Exchange
Nutrients from the Pacific
Ocean and Puget Sound get
exchanged at the Strait of
Juan de Fuca and Admiralty
Inlet
Rivers
Includes all upstream sources that
drain into rivers, and are
transformed by stream dynamics,
before entering Puget Sound at
their mouths
WWTPs + other point sources
Human wastewater and industrial
point sources with outfalls in marine
waters
Sources included implicitly:
• near-shore septic systems
• direct marine discharge of
groundwater
Sources not included:
• net pens
• vessel discharges
• Combined sewer outflows
9

10. cold water
natural
nutrients
Estuaries and Bays Basins
Droughts increase the human burden on water quality
Ocean
Rivers are dry,
water residence time is
high
Changes to
snowpack and
river flows
Weather and Ocean Patterns
Climate Change
Drawn by: Christopher Krembs
Productive foodweb
regeneration
Less desirable foodweb
Magnify human
pollutants
With a weaker
connection to coastal
upwelling:
Water stagnant, warm
Pollutants magnify
Nutrient balance shift
Low Dissolved Oxygen
Different food web
Toxics increase in fish
10

11. Seasonality of river and WWTP nitrogen loading
Monthly DIN loads entering Puget Sound south of Admiralty Inlet
11
Source: Mohamedali et al, 2011 (ECY publication 11-03-001)

12. Watershed nutrient flux
• Watershed nutrient attenuation processes
• Physical, chemical, and biological transformation and attenuation of nutrients in
watersheds
• Channel geometry, travel time, flood plain connectivity, hyporheic exchange
• Human land use impacts that reduce natural attenuation in in watersheds1
• Agriculture and forestry are potential sources when not managed properly
• Impervious surfaces increase and concentrate polluted urban runoff
• Lack of riparian buffers and decreased channel complexity
121(USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2015-5074)

13. June 2013
Eyes Over Puget Sound
Up-to-date observations of visible water quality conditions in Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca
Flight log Weather Water column Aerial photos Ferry and Satellite Moorings
sail boat
Eutrophication
indicator Noctiluca
impacts:
• food web
structure
• nutrient cycling
• low food quality
13

14. Two differently colored red-brown blooms and abundant jellyfish patches.
Location: Across Butler Cove, Budd Inlet (South Sound), 12:31 PM.
Bloom
jellyfish
jellyfish
jellyfish
jellyfish
jellyfish
jellyfish
jellyfish
2 NavigateAerial photography 9-26-2016
Field log Climate Water column Aerial photos Continuous monitoring Streams
jellyfish
jellyfish
boat
marker
jellyfish
Bloom
boat
boat
jellyfish
jellyfish
Two eutrophication
indicator species:
Jellyfish and
flagellates often
thrive together
14

15. 7 NavigateAerial photography 4-29-2015
Red bloom and patches of jellyfish.
Location: Kitsap Marina, Sinclair Inlet (Bremerton), 9:52 AM.
jellyfish
jellyfish
jellyfish
jellyfish
barge
barge
jellyfish
Bloom
jellyfish
Hypothesis EOPS People Climate Beach Water column Aerial photos
Flagellates thrive:
• in water with
WWTP
• stagnant water
• low food quality
15

16. 16 Navigate
Extensive accumulations of organic debris, a brown algal bloom, and a large oil sheen.
Location: Between Port Madison and Shilshole (Central Sound), 3:05 PM.
Aerial photography 7-6-2015
Field log Climate Water column Aerial photos Continuous monitoring Streams
boat
boat
Debris
Bloom
oil sheen
Macro-algae:
• eutrophication
indicator
• low food quality
16

17. • Fecal Indicator Bacteria
are highest in beach
wrack,
• Enterococci and
Escherichia coli show
increased persistence.
G.J. Imamura et al. 2011. Wrack promotes the persistence of fecal indicator bacteria in marine sands and seawater. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 40-49.
Macro- algae and exposure to pathogens are connected
Algae washed up on beaches in thick layers and rotting. Location: Edmonds Underwater Park, Snohomish County, July 2016.
FIB 10 times higher with beach wrack!
17

18. Hypothesis: Changes in the lower foodweb
• A less favorable food web that keeps
material at the surface.
• Potential for toxics to enter the pelagic
food web (vs animals in the sediment)
• Climate could accelerate changes
18

19. Sluggish water exchange increases human burden on oxygen.
Model and monitoring results agree.
Eutrophication
Indicators
19

20. What we know about the nutrient over-
enrichment problem
• The ocean is the largest source of nitrogen, but…
• Salish Sea Model results show total additional nutrients from human sources are
depleting DO more than allowed
• Nitrogen and Carbon
• Circulation and Residence Time are key factors that regulate the effect of
nutrients in the Salish Sea
• Need to consider different temporal and spatial scales
• Negatively affects multiple aspects of Puget Sound health
It is time to figure out the best way to reduce human sources of Nitrogen and
Carbon to improve DO
20

21. Estimating Reference (Natural) Conditions
21
ConcentrationofDO(mg/L)
CumulativeDayslessthan6mg/L
Provisional
Data

22. Spatial and Temporal DO Problems
22
Change in DO
due to human
sources
Provisional
Data

23. Lon
Lat
250
200
150
100
50
0
Days
Cumulative days with DO depletion > 0.2 mg/l during 2006
23
• DO depletion due to human
sources that is greater than
what our standards allow
• Biggest effects and longest
durations in shallow inlets and
bays with long residence time
• Our goal is to reduce
magnitude and duration of DO
depletion
Provisional
Data

24. Looking to the future for
WWTPs
• Loading will nearly double by 2070
• Bottom chart shows potential gains
from biological nutrient removal
(BNR) if WWTPs
• Upgrading to BNR would more than
offset increase in nitrogen loading
due to population increases
Nitrogen reductions will give the
region room to grow
24Source: Roberts, et al 2014 (ECY 14-03-007)

25. Watershed nutrient sources
are important too
• Expected increase in watershed nutrient loading
due to changes in watershed land use/cover
• Increasing point and nonpoint source nutrient
loading
25
Source: Roberts, et al 2014 (ECY 14-03-007)

26. What we are doing about it
Sharing science and promoting dialogue; Engaging stakeholders;
Developing, evaluating, and implementing nutrient source reductions 26

27. Nutrient over-enrichment
affects almost every Puget
Sound recovery activity
Excessive nutrients from human sources
is a cross-cutting issue
• Yellow area is the Vital Sign we are
focusing on
• Red areas are pressures affecting the
MWQ Vital Sign
• Green areas can be improved by reducing
human sources of nutrients
27

28. 28
PSNSRP Phase 2
Marine Water Quality
Implementation Strategy
• Interdisciplinary group
• Focused on developing Action
Agenda products
• Broader Puget Sound
restoration focus and
connection with National
Estuary Program (NEP)
• Smaller group size
Puget Sound Nutrient
Forum
• Broad representation of
stakeholders and tribes
• Discuss regulatory aspects of
nutrient issues
• Advise Ecology and MWQ IS
on strategies to implement
point and nonpoint source
reductions
• Larger group size
Puget Sound Action
Agenda Process
Ecology’s Public Advisory
Committee Process
Inform and
Collaborate
• Cross-membership
• Both have input on
work products
Salish Sea Model (SSM) used to evaluate nutrient reduction options to ensure
water quality criteria and Puget Sound recovery goals are met

29. Multiple Benefits
• MWQ/Nutrient IS supports the Action Agenda
• Nutrient Forum provides transparency and opportunity for
stakeholder and tribal participation
• Collaborative development built from the combined knowledge
and experience of participants
• Build regional momentum for action
29

30. • Regular meeting series from Spring 2018 – Spring 2019
• Objectives
• Conduct a transparent process to engage stakeholders, tribes, and the public
with Ecology
• Discuss and understand the issues
• Develop recommendations for Ecology to consider when deciding on
regulatory actions to pursue
• Integrate with the MWQ IS process by providing a broader forum that will
inform the IS and vice versa
30
Puget Sound Nutrient Forum

31. MWQ/Nutrient IS Objectives
• Nutrient reduction targets for marine and watershed sources
• Key nutrient reduction actions to meet target reductions
• Strategy that addresses watershed nutrient reductions
• Monitoring plan to track progress
• Building blocks for regulatory action
31

32. MWQ/Nutrients IS Starter Package
• Defining the problem and impacts to MWQ Vital Sign
• State of Knowledge
• Nutrient permit options and current nonpoint approaches
• Bounding Scenarios evaluated with Salish Sea Model
• WQ Standards
• Data gaps
32

33. • Evaluate upper and lower bounds of large categorical changes in
nutrient sources using latest model improvements
• Answer the questions:
• What would Puget Sound water quality be like if all marine WWTPs are at
design capacity?
• What is the relative difference between marine and watershed sources?
• What would Puget Sound have been like in 2014 if the largest marine sources
of nitrogen loading were reduced to a technologically feasible level?
33
Objectives for Modeling Bounding Scenarios

34. Nutrient Permitting Options
• Process
oFormation of a Policy Forum to engage with Stakeholders
oDiscuss permitting options with Wastewater Treatment Plants
• Actions
oDetermine additional modeling scenarios
oVet different paths: Program Policy v. Rulemaking v. TMDL
oDetermine necessary level of certainty for permittees
oConsider interim permit conditions and requirements
34

35. Programmatic Watershed Approach
1. Reduce Human Loading
• Implement Nutrient BMPs for Agricultural Sources
• Support forestry practices that reduce nutrients
• Urban Growth (LID, OSS to sewer, WWTPs)
• Stormwater management
2. Restore Watershed Function
• Floodplains by Design program
• Instream channel improvements (Salmon Recovery)
• Riparian buffers
• Estuary restoration
35

36. • Assessment of key pressures driving the problem and sequence of
actions that will lead to improvement
• Defined key strategies for nutrient source reduction actions
• Assessment of ongoing programs and how to integrate strategies into
existing and new programs
• Numeric nitrogen and carbon reduction targets for marine sources
and watersheds
• Monitoring and adaptive management strategy to continue learning
• Direction and momentum behind a permitting approach
36
Implementation Strategy Content

37. Optimizing Load Reductions Using SSM
• Multiple scenarios of marine and watershed source reductions
will be evaluated
• Final solution set includes regulatory requirements and
considers costs, feasibility, priority, and sequencing
37
Reference
Condition
Best
DO
Worst
DO
Future Condition,
Status Quo Loading
Assimilative capacity to not
lower DO by more than 02.mg/L
Current
Loading
Margin for Growth
Model scenario outcomes

38. PSNSRP Phase 2 Milestones
• Starter Package (January through August 2018)
• Nutrient Forum kick-off (Late-April 2018)
• Kick-off MWQ IS Workshops(Late August 2018)
• Optimization Modeling Begins (April 2019 through March 2021)
• Complete Draft IS document for review by October 2021
• Ecology decision how to implement regulatory parts of IS
• Finalize IS document by end of 2021 – early 2022
• Begin implementation
38
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022

39. What will implementation look like?
Point and Nonpoint source nutrient reduction activities
Nutrient allocations that meet marine water quality objectives
Solutions/reductions will drive how implementation happens
Objective: Implement the right actions, in the right sequence, to get
started on water quality improvement as soon as possible.
39

40. We want to collaboratively develop and implement
solutions to improve and protect it
A healthy Puget Sound is an integral part of our identity
40

41. Questions?
Contact:
Dustin Bilhimer, PSNSRP Project Manager
WA Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program
(360) 407-7143
Dustin.Bilhimer@ecy.wa.gov
41