Minutes
March 31, 1999
University of Idaho
McClure Hall # 311
MEMBERS
PRESENT:
Craig Benjamin (WSU),
Steve Gill (Executive Secretary), Tom Scallorn (Moscow for G. Presol), Tom
Townsend, Chair. (Latah County), Mark Workman (Pullman).
MEMBERS
Absent:
Jay Becker (WSU), Sue
Hinz (Pullman), Don Huskey (UI), Derek Pohle (Whitman County), Larry Kirkland,
Vice Chair. (UI), Pam Palmer (Moscow), Gary Presol (Moscow-represented by Tom
Scallorn), Loreca J. Stauber (Latah
County), Les Wigen (Whitman County).
VISITORS:
Bill Belknap (UI),
Kevin Brackney (UI), Ron Cooper (Pullman), Dr. C. Kent Keller, (WSU), Tom Lamar
(PCEI), Mike Nelson (WSU), Dr. Jim Osiensky (UI), Dr. Dale Ralston (UI),
Kathleen Warnick.
Call
to Order
The meeting was
called to order by PBAC Chairman Tom Townsend at 8:11 a.m.
Approval
of Minutes
Minutes from the February 11, 1999 meeting were unanimously
approved (M. Workman
motioned, C. Benjamin seconded).
Guest Speaker(s) Presentation:
Drs. Jim Osiensky, UI Hydrogeology, and Kent Keller, WSU
Geology, presented to the committee their concept for future ground water
research within the Palouse Basin. Dr.
Keller opened the presentation by addressing the main concern of this
Committee, which is not the science, but how we might actually address our
water resource problem. He then
displayed a flow chart representing possible water resource options for the
Palouse Basin:
Dr. Keller noted that
the PBAC’s water resource management concerns include:
q
The long-term ground
water level declines in our aquifers suggest that alternative water sources
will be needed for future sustainable development in the basin.
q
Increased ground
water pumpage will occur as a function of continued population growth in the
basin, precluding a “ stable pumping rate” as recommended in the USGS ground
water model.
q
PBAC’s mission is to
provide for future beneficial use of the basin ground water without depleting
the basin aquifers while protecting the quality of the water.
Dr. Keller stated that there are
several possibilities for future water resource research; however, today’s
focus is on two of these possibilities: 1)
utilizing the existing resource, 2)
augmenting the resource with river water.
EXISTING WATER
RESOURCE: The points we
understand concern our existing water resource. Through the actions of the Committee, we have an internally
consistent accounting of our groundwater budget, due in part from Committee
support to both the University of Idaho and Washington State University over
the years. The following rudimentary
water budget analysis shows that basin throughput (inflow and outflow) is
substantially larger than our current rate of pumpage.
Palouse
Basin Water Budget
INFLOW (cfs) OUTFLOW
Recharge 10 - 40 10 - 20 Baseflow
~ 11 Pumpage
TOTAL 10 - 40 20 - 30
“Balance
the Checkbook”
In -
Out = Change in Storage (based on water level declines
25cfs + (-25cfs)
= < 6 cfs This number could be less-may approach zero.
Dr. Keller
noted that when his water budget for the basin is balanced we find that it
results in a semi-quantitative number: the total water budget flow
(inflow-outflow) in the basin is substantially greater (2-3 more) than current
pumpage. Dr. Keller continued that if there is ample
water resource in the basin, as indicated by his rudimentary water budget
calculations, two main questions arise:
1.
Why are groundwater levels dropping?
2.
Why are primary-aquifer water ages apparently older than
10,000 years
Dr. Keller stated that these questions can be answered by
utilizing our existing base of knowledge.
Recent geochemical isotope research by Larson (1997) has shown that the
rate of ground water recharge into the primary pumping aquifer, the deeper
Grande Ronde basalt, is relatively small, possibly as little as 1/10th of the
amount used in previous water budget calculations (Lum and others, 1990). Additionally, research by WDOE on Grande
Ronde basalt water levels in the western portion of the Columbia Basin have
shown that the water levels in the Grande Ronde have been increasing, with
continued pumpage, in response to record-high precipitation years in 1995-1997
(Covert, 1998). However, Grande Ronde
water levels in the Palouse basin continue to decline (Gill, 1998). This might be a function of ground water
hydraulics. Dr. Osiensky suggested that
the main reason water levels continue to drop may be that the Grande Ronde
basalt is isolated from the upper, dynamic part of the system, which is where
additional water throughflow could be captured.
SURFACE WATER
RESOURCE: Dr. Keller asked,
what do we do to correct this possible reversal of the ground water trend in
the Grande Ronde basalt? Dr. Keller
emphasized that by utilizing some of the available water that is in shown to be
in the basin’s water budget but not yet in the Grande Ronde basalt this trend
my be nullified. Dr. Keller noted that
there is some evidence of good hydraulic connection between the primary pumping
centers, the two cities and two universities, and a large source of surface
water (i.e. the North Fork of the Palouse River). By capturing and utilizing escaping basin water from at least two
other sources; either escaping surface “river” water or escaping ground water
through the shallow Wanapum basalt, and artificially recharging the Grande
Ronde basalt. He proposes investigating the possibility of capturing
the escaping water resources. Specifically:
q
Mapping and
quantifying ground water baseflow in both the deep Grande Ronde basalt and the
shallow Wanapum basalts. a)
utilizing previous geologic and hydrogeologic mapping, b) evaluating
ground water and surface water “signatures” via new geochemical isotope dating work.
q
Testing our
understanding of the shallow-deep aquifer exchange. We need to know how much water recharges the upper surficial
loess and the Wanapum basalt but not the Grande Ronde basalt? How good is the hydraulic connection between
the upper loess, the Wanapum basalt and the Grande Ronde basalt? a) hydraulic monitoring
across the shallow/deep boundary, b) geochemical modeling across the
shallow/deep boundary.
q
Assessing the
feasibility of enhancing ground water exchange between the upper surficial
loess and/or the shallow Wanapum basalt and the primary pumping Grande Ronde basalt.
a)
hydraulic modeling across the shallow/deep boundary, b)
geochemical modeling across the shallow/deep boundary.
q
Investigating the
possible hydraulic connection between Palouse and Pullman-Moscow areas.
a)
new observation well in the vicinity of Ringo Butte-Kamiak Butte gap, b) related hydraulic
investigation, monitoring, and modeling of new well.
q
Studying the feasibility of enhancing recharge into the deep
Grande Ronde basalt from river recharge (i.e. North Fork Palouse River). a) hydraulic research near the Kennedy-Ford
area, b) geochemical research measuring the effects
of mixing different waters.
WASTEWATER
RESOURCE: Dr. Ralston offered
the following perspective on the possible use of wastewater from Moscow’s
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).
Currently, a significant portion of the basin’s water budget is being
flushed down our toilets and leaves the basin via Paradise Creek. Capturing and reusing this water may be a
win-win situation.
The
City of Moscow is currently under pressure to try a implement a strategy to
meet the newly approved NPDES (National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit issued by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency for Moscow’s WWTP. The purpose of NPDES
permitting is to ensure that our lakes, rivers, streams and coastal estuaries
and seas are clean enough for children to swim in and healthy enough for fish
and other aquatic life to thrive in. (see article under Reports and
Announcements)
Dr.
Ralston suggests that one solution might be to treat our wastewater to drinking
water standards and inject this treated water down a well into the sedimentary
interbed between shallow Wanapum basalt and the deeper Grande Ronde
basalt. The interbed could function as
a buffer zone allowing time for the treated water to mix with the existing
ground water in the interbed before it eventually recharges the Grande Ronde
basalt. This could help the Moscow meet
the TMDL’s required by the NPDES and at the same time recharge the lower aquifer.
Dr.
Osiensky noted that we could simply treat the water and inject it directly into
the lower aquifer; however, the public perception of pumping wastewater
directly into our primary drinking water source might not allow this type of
solution.
SUMMARY: Dr. Keller offered the PBAC the following
summary of tasks:
q
Hydraulic monitoring
(water level recording) and hydraulic modeling of wells, streams, and springs.
q
Isotope monitoring or
other chemical/physical processes of wells, streams, and springs.
q
Geochemical modeling
q
Drilling new wells
1. New observation well in the Palouse-Pullman corridor,
2. Piezometers above and below Wanapum/Grande Ronde boundary
M.
Workman asked if PBAC’s recent consideration of determining the shape of our
basin is irrelevant? Dr. Osiensky
replied that we need to know the shape of the basin to model properly, but we
do not have enough information to make a new model. By researching both the hydraulics and isotopes of ground water
and surface water in the basin we should be able to determine:
1.
Are the cities and universities pumping water that
originated (recharged) in the Palouse area?
2. Have we reversed the ground water gradient in the Grande
Ronde to the extent that spring and stream discharge in Colfax and Union Flat
Creek is being affected?
3. Is it feasible to capture natural discharge, either from
surface water (N. Fork Palouse) or from an upper aquifer such as the surficial
loess aquifer near N. Fork Palouse or directly from the Wanapum basalt?
M.
Workman asked who would do this research?
Dr. Osiensky continued that the hydraulic and the isotope research would
need to be done jointly between UI and WSU research staff. By coordinating research efforts between UI
and WSU professors, graduate students and researchers the PBAC will get a much
better overall picture of the basin’s water resource potential.
M.
Workman asked what this scope of work might cost? Dr. Keller replied that the
coordinated isotope and hydraulic monitoring plus modeling, sampling, and two
(2) graduate students per year would be cost approximately $50,000/year.
Dr.
Ralston estimates that to drill a two new wells, one into the Wanapum ($5,000),
one into the Grande Ronde ($15,000) and drill additional piezometers around the
Palouse area ($20-25,000) would cost approximately $50,000 for the entire
package.
Dr.
Keller concluded that they are asking for constant support of around
$50,000/year for several years.
New
Business- WDOE WELL RFP:
S.
Gill presented the committee with copies of the low bid from Burns Well
Drilling, Inc. of Grangeville, Idaho for the RFP on the WDOE Well. The bid came in at $5,085; however, S. Gill
noted that the item # 5 - drilling additional 50 feet of hole most likely will
not be done saving $600. C. Benjamin
stipulated that someone connected to IWRRI must supervise the project. S. Gill stated that he would confirm with
either Dr. Dale R. Ralston or Dr, Roy Mink before having UI Purchasing notify
Burns Well Drilling. The committee then approved Burns Well Drilling, Inc. by a
quorum of 4 of the 6 voting entities (Latah County, Washington State
University, Pullman, and Moscow [Whitman County and the University of Idaho
were absent from this meeting]) (T. Townsend motioned, Tom Scallorn (for G.
Presol) seconded).
Reports
and Announcements:
EPA Issues First Discharge Permits in Idaho Since State's Development of TMDL's
March, 16, 1999 - - - - - - - - - - 99-13 FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE
New permits have been issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for
the Moscow, Idaho, municipal wastewater treatment plant and the aquaculture
laboratory at the University of Idaho, it was announced today by Robert R.
Robichaud, manager of the wastewater permit unit at EPA's Northwest regional
headquarters in Seattle.
The
permits set new limits on the effluent released to Paradise Creek by Moscow and
the University of Idaho. The permits
are the first issued by EPA since the state developed a plan for implementing
pollution restrictions in Idaho's impaired waters. These restrictions, called Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), are
the centerpiece of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality's efforts to
bring state waters into compliance with the federal Clean Water Act, which is
administered by EPA.
When
EPA published the draft permits last fall, city officials and members of the
community-expressed concern about meeting the limits in the Moscow permit. The Moscow permit places limits on the
effluent from the wastewater treatment plant for phosphorus, temperature,
ammonia, suspended solids and a number of other parameters.
Robichaud
singled out phosphorus and temperature as the most detrimental to aquatic life
in Paradise Creek. "If the operators of the Moscow municipal wastewater
treatment plant achieve the phosphorus limits set by the permit, their success
-- when combined with reductions of phosphorus expected in the runoff from
agricultural activities in the Paradise Creek watershed -- will go a long way
toward restoring the water quality of Paradise Creek," Robichaud declared.
The
Clean Water Act required the state to develop a TMDL management plan because
the Paradise Creek waterbody is damaged and not meeting the state's water
quality standards.
Based
on information available at the time, the state determined the total amount of
pollution Paradise Creek could assimilate and still remain a healthy
waterbody. The TMDL then divided the
total loading among the Moscow wastewater treatment plant, the University of
Idaho laboratory and nonpoint sources.
The permit is required to
implement the requirements established in the TMDL. Anything more than what is allowed by the TMDL would cause a
violation of the state's water quality standards.
"If
new information were to emerge which showed that the total loading to Paradise
Creek could be increased and still protect the designated uses, the TMDL could
be modified," Robichaud said.
"If that were to occur, the permit could be changed to reflect the
modified TMDL." The TMDL also imposed phosphorus and temperature
requirements for the University of Idaho effluent. Both EPA and the facility anticipate that the University
discharge will be able to meet these limits.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:05 A.M.
Next
Meeting
2:30 PM (AFTERNOON)
Thursday
April 29, 1999
University of Idaho McClure
Hall # 411
Respectfully
Submitted,
Steve
W. Gill, PBAC Executive Secretary/Technical Advisor