Overview of the Upper Klamath Lake and Agency Upper Klamath Lake - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Overview of the Upper Klamath Lake and Agency Upper Klamath Lake Drainage Lake TMDL Upper Klamath Lake - Hanks Marsh Page 1-24

Why is DEQ doing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)? 1. The federal Clean Water Act requires that water quality standards are developed to protect sensitive beneficial uses. 2. Water bodies that do not meet water quality standards are designated as water quality limited and placed on the 303(d) list. 3. All 303(d) listed water bodies are required to have TMDLs that develop pollutant loading that Williamson River meet water quality standards. Page 2-24

What is a Total Maximum Daily Load? A TMDL Distributes the Allowable Pollutant Loading Between Sources TMDL = WLA + LA (NPS+Background) + MOS + RC • Waste Load Allocations (WLA) - Allowable pollutant loading from point sources • Load Allocations (LA (NPS+Background) ) - Allowable pollutant loading from nonpoint sources and natural background sources • Margin of Safety (MOS) - Portion of the pollutant load held back to account for uncertainty in the analysis. • Reserve Capacity (RC) - Portion of the pollutant Upper Klamath Lake load held back in reserve for future growth Page 3-24

Water Quality Limited Water Bodies 303(d) Listings in Red Page 4-24

Why is Phosphorus Targeted in the TMDL? Total phosphorus load reduction is the primary and most practical mechanism to reduce algal biomass and attain water quality standards for pH and dissolved oxygen. • Seasonal maximum algal growth rates are controlled primarily by phosphorus, and secondarily by light and temperature. • High phosphorus loading promotes production of algae, which, then modifies physical and chemical water quality characteristics that diminish the survival and production of fish populations. Algal Bloom in Upper Klamath Lake Page 5-24

Impacts of Poor Water Quality on Beneficial Uses Fisheries and aquatic health have suffered from poor water quality Drying sucker fish at the Lost River. Tribal fishing for suckers was stopped in the "We thought nothing of mid-1980’s. catching a five- or six-pound trout," recalls Basin resident Ivan Bold, remembering days Historically, the Karuk people of the Klamath River harvested fish. of better fishing. Fishing Contemporary Karuk fishermen guides are also noting continue to dip net at Ishi Pishi declining catches as the Basin's waterways struggle to Falls on the Klamath River. There, they may still harvest salmon and support the demands placed winter steelhead for subsistence on them. (OWRD, 2001) purposes (NCIDC Photo Gallery). Page 6-24

Mean Lake Data (Kann and Walker, 2001) Water Quality Monitoring Sites – Nutrients & Flow 450 Outflow (USBR, USGS, Klamath 400 Lake 350 Tribes, OSU, ODEQ) Total Phosphorus (ppb) 300 250 # # S S # # S S U p p e r 200 Williamson River # S Annie Creek K l a m a t h # S M a r s h 150 # S Sun Creek S y c a n # S 100 Williamson River M a r s h # # S S S # # S S # 50 # S # S # # S # # # S # S # S S S # # # # S S S S S # S # # S # S # S S # S # S 0 # S W # S # # S # # S S S o # S 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 # # # S# o # S # S S S # S S # S d S # S # # S # R S S # # 400 S # S S # i # S v # S e S # S # # S # # S # S r # S # S # # # S S S S S # S # # S y S # S S # # S S # # S # # c # S S S 350 a # # S S # S n # S # # S S # S # R S S # S # # S i v e # # S S 300 r # S # # S # S # S S . F . # N # # S S S # # S # # # # S S S# S S # # # S # S # S S # S # S # S # S Chlorophyll-a (ppb) S # S p r a g u e R i v e r S S # # # S S S # # # # S S # S S S 250 # S S # # # # S S S # S S # # # S S # S # S# S S Fishhole Creek S # # S # S # S . F . 200 # # S S S # # S # S # S # S # S # # S # S S # 150 S # S S # # # S S # # S S # S # # S S # S 100 50 pH > 9.0 pH > 9.5 0 D O < 4 D O < 6 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 100 % 10.5 Excursion Frequency Excursion Frequency Lake WQ Standard 10.0 75 % 9.5 WQ 50 % Standard 9.0 pH 25 % 8.5 8.0 0 % 7.5 Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep O ct N ov D ec 7.0 Page 7-24 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Empirical Relationship Relating Total Phosphorus, Chlorophyll-a and pH (Walker 2001) Violations of water quality standards for pH and dissolved oxygen are directly related to algal productivity which in turn, is a function of phosphorous loading. Statistical Relationships support total phosphorus load reduction as the management goal for Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes Chlorophyll-a v. Phosphorus Yearly lake mean total phosphorus is associated with chlorophyll-a to derive a TMDL target for total phosphorus. Lake Mean pH v. Chlorophyll-a Chlorophyll-a correlates to lake mean pH. To achieve the pH standard of 9.0, a target concentration of chlorophyll-a is necessary. Page 8-24

Indications of Lake Water Quality Changes “The view of the lake as a naturally hypereutrophic system is consistent with its shallow morphology, deep organic-rich sediments, and a large watershed with phosphorus-enriched soils. However, watershed development, beginning in the late-1800’s and accelerated through the 1900’s, is strongly implicated as the cause of its current hypereutrophic character.” -Bortleson and Fretwell 1993 Sediment Core Data (Eilers 2001) Sediment Accumulation Rate (g/m 2 yr) Distribution of Blue Green Algae in Sediment Core 2000 0 0 1975 5 5 1950 Aphanizomenon Sediment Depth (cm) Sediment Depth (cm) Depositional Year 1925 10 10 1900 15 15 1875 1850 20 20 1825 1800 25 25 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 0% 3% 6% 9% 15% 12% Sediment core analysis demonstrates that sediment Nitrogen fixing blue-green algae accumulation rates have increased over that past are now more abundant 120 years indicating an increase in Page 9-24 phosphorus availability

Total Phosphorus Loading to the Lake Total Phosphorus Load as a Function of External and Internal Loads (Walker 2001) Average Annual TP Loading 600 External Load 466 mtons/yr Internal Load 500 Total Phosphorus Loading (mtons/year) 220 169 External Loading 400 Internal 182 mtons/yr 182 208 Loading 39% of total 208 113 241 285 mtons/yr 300 61% of total 112 200 394 376 294 285 265 257 212 100 195 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Average External Total Phosphorus Loads are Targeted as the Primary Control for AFA blooms and Corresponding pH Increases Page 10-24

Annual External Total Phosphorus Loads (Kann and Walker, 2001) Ex tern al Ph o sp ho ru s Lo ad Distributions of External Phosphorus Loading, C urrent Pho sph oru s L oad Total Inflow 181 .6 Drainage Area and Flow Input to Upper Klamath and Total Tribu ta ry/S pring Inflow 17 6.7 Agency Lakes Facto red into N o npo int Sou rce A reas W etlan d Sou rces 100% Cro oked Cre ek Hatch ery 1.9 Ch iloq uin S TP 0.6 Portion of External Phosphorus Load, Drainage 90% Crooked Creek Hatchery Pre cipitatio n 4.9 S prin gs, Un gag ed Trib s & Misc Sou rces 18 .1 Chiloquin STP 80% Area and Inflow Volume to Lake A gricu ltural Pu mps Directly to La ke 2 0.5 Precipitation 70% S eve nMile Cre ek 16 .5 Springs, Ungaged Tribs & Misc Sources Distribution of Total W ood Rive r To ta l 3 5.2 60% Agricultural Pumps Directly to Lake Wo od River b elow W e ed Rd. 13.5 W oo d River ab ove W e ed Rd. 21 .7 SevenMile Creek 50% Williamson Rive r To ta l 86 .4 Wood River Williamson Rive r 37 .8 40% Sprague River Spragu e River 48 .7 30% Williamson River 0 2 0 40 6 0 80 100 12 0 140 16 0 1 80 20 0 To tal Ph osp ho rus L oad Expo rt 20% (1000 kg p er year) 10% Ex tern al Ph o sp ho ru s Un it A rea L o a d 0% Total Tribu ta ry/S pring Inflow 18.6 C urr ent Ph osph oru s U nit Area L oad External Drainage Inflow Factored into No np oint Sou rce Ar eas W etlan d Sou rces Phosphorus Area Volume to N /A Cro oked Cre ek Hatch ery Load Lake N /A Ch iloq uin S TP • External sources of phosphorus are distributed Pre cipitatio n 18 .0 throughout the Upper Klamath Lake drainage. S prin gs, Un gag ed Trib s & Misc Sou rces 15.8 A gricu ltural Pu mps Directly to La ke 18 8.2 • For simplicity, these sources are broken into S eve nMile Cre ek 156 .2 source areas and that contribute directly to the W ood Rive r To ta l 90 .0 lake phosphorus levels. Wo od River b elow W e ed Rd. 237 .0 W oo d River ab ove W e ed Rd. 64.9 • Unit area loads can be used to identify pollutant Williamson Rive r To ta l 1 1.2 “hot spots” or source areas. Williamson Rive r 10 .8 Spragu e River 11 .5 0 50 1 00 15 0 20 0 25 0 Page 11-24 T otal Pho sp ho ru s U n it L oad E xp or t (kg /km 2 per year)