Lake Pepin Photo by Guy Schmickle

Transcription

1 Science Advisory Panel Meeting Lake Pepin Water Quality Modeling Project April 30, 2008 Lake Pepin Photo by Guy Schmickle

2 Overview Modeling status Historical system behavior Model simulation scenarios Model results viewer tool Model results Open discussion i Next steps

3

4 Turbidity Nutrient Impairment Impairment

5 Year 3 Work Plan Tasks Collect bathymetry data in Pool 2 Calibrate model Model load reduction scenarios Develop submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) model Develop modeling approach for Mississippi River above Ford Dam Provide model training and support to MPCA

6 Year 3 Work Plan Schedule Task 1 Pool 2 Bathymetry Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2 Refine Model and Calibrate 3 Develop Mass Budget Tools 4 Load Reduction Scenarios 5 Model Training and Support 6 Develop and Apply SAV Model 7 Scope 1D Model above Ford Dam 8 Project Meetings 9 Final Project Report 10 Temperature Simulations

7 The Model Development Process Clarify Objectives / Set Goals Review Available Data and Model Design Conceptual Modeling Strategy Recommend Additional Data Develop Model Evaluate Model Apply Model Ongoing Communication and Review MPCA Staff Stakeholder Advisory Committee Science Advisory Panel

8 Model Development/TMDL Timeline Develop Water Quality Model Develop Watershed Models Select Pollutant Reduction Scenarios Model Alternatives Draft TMDL Public Review/EPA Approval Implementation Plan

9 Current TMDL Goals: Turbidity Seasonal average 20 NTU 10% of fdays exceed d25ntu Goals apply up to the 90 th percentile high-flow h year

10 Current TMDL Goals: Excess Nutrients Seasonal average chl-a 28 μg/l Minimize viable chl-a 50 μg/l Seasonal average Secchi 0.7 m Seasonal average TP 100 μg/l Goals apply down to the 10 th percentile lowflow year

11 Overview of Historical System Behavior UMR-Lake Pepin SAP Meeting April 30, 2008 Lake Pepin Photo by Guy Schmickle

12 Annual TSS Loads

13 Annual Total Phosphorus Loads

14 Model Calibration: Comparing Model Results to NVSS Data LD2

15 Model Calibration: Comparing Model Results to Phosphorus and Chlorophyll Data Lake Pepin

16 Comparison of Data Model Relationships for Lake Pepin Megard s Data-Based Correlations (LTRMP for Lake Pepin, ) 1E3 1E2 1E1 1E0 Volatile suspended solids Non-volatile suspended solids 1E-11 1E0 1E1 1E2 1E3 Total suspended solids (mg / liter) mg/l) Volatile/Non-Volatile e Suspended Solids ( 1.E+03 1.E+02 1.E+01 1.E+00 UMR-LP Model-Predictions (5-day averages for Lake Pepin, ) VSS (mg/l) NVSS (mg/l) 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 Total Suspended Solids (mg/l)

17 Comparison of Data Model Relationships for Lake Pepin Megard s Data-Based Correlations (LTRMP for Lake Pepin, ) UMRM , (LTRMP) 1E3 Transparency (cm) 1E2 1E1 Turbidity (NTU) Avg. SS = 21 mg/liter, N = E0 1E0 1E1 1E2 1E3 Suspended solids (mg / liter) Secchi Depth (cm m) / Turbidity (NTU) 1.E+03 1.E+02 1.E+01 UMR-LP Model-Predictions (5-day averages for Lake Pepin, ) Secchi depth (cm) Turbidity (NTU) 1.E+00 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E Total Suspended Solids (mg/l)

18 Comparison of Data Model Relationships for Lake Pepin Megard s Data-Based Correlations (LTRMP for UMR-LP Model-Predictions di (5-day Lake Pepin, ) averages for Lake Pepin, ) Secchi (Jan-Feb avg. 176 cm) Secchi (Mar-Dec avg. 70 cm) 1E3 Chlorophyll (avg. 22 ug/liter) Total P (avg mg/liter) Total P (avg: 0.14 ug/l) Chlorophyll (avg: 20.4 ug/l) Secchi (Jan-Feb) Secchi (Mar-Dec) 1.E+03 1E2 1E1 1E0 1E-1 Secch hi Depth (cm) / Turbid dity (NTU) 1.E+02 1.E+01 1.E+00 1.E-01 Avg. TSS = 21 1E-2 1E0 1E1 1E2 1E3 Total suspended solids (mg / liter) 1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+0 Total Suspended Solids (mg/l)

19 Model/Data Comparison: Summer Average Chlorophyll

20 Flow Percentiles Median High Low Mississippi Minnesota Mississippi St. Croix Year (Prescott) (Jordan) (Anoka) (STC Falls) % 49% 93% 78% % 97% 96% 99% % 21% 28% 14% % 3% 5% 7% % 6% 24% 24% % 72% 58% 47% % 99% 74% 82% % 86% 36% 46% % 100% 100% 83% % 89% 64% 57% % 94% 68% 71% % 79% 47% 61% % 88% 80% 43% % 60% 57% 26% % 78% 86% 68% % 58% 33% 33% % 81% 79% 53% % 68% 91% 76% % 40% 70% 72% % 92% 50% 64% % 75% 78% 42% % 44% 14% 8%

21 Model Summer Average Turbidity Versus Flow LD2 Target

22 Summer Average Chlorophyll Versus TP Lake Pepin

23 Model Summer Average Chlorophyll Versus Flow Lake Pepin Target

24 Model Summer Average Chlorophyll Versus HRT Lake Pepin T=V/Q V=550,808,000 m 3 Target

25 Chlorophyll Loading to Lake Pepin (Scenario 2 historical/permitted loads) La ake Pepin Target: 28 ug/l y = 1.07x R 2 = Chlo orophyll-a Chlorophyll-a Lock & Dam 3

26 TSS Mass Balance Lake Pepin:

27 TP Mass Balance Lake Pepin: % 24%

28 TP Mass Balance Lake Pepin: June-Sept, % 91%

29 Development of Load Reduction Scenarios for Phosphorus, Suspended Solids UMR-Lake Pepin SAP Meeting April 30, 2008 Lake Pepin Photo by Guy Schmickle

30 Load Reduction Scenarios Tributary Sources: Upper Mississippi River (Lock & Dam 1) Minnesota River St. Croix River Cannon River Vermillion River Rush River Minor tributary loadings to Lake Pepin (MN/WI) Urban/suburban loadings for the Metro area Direct WWTP Sources: Pool 2: Metro Plant, Empire, Eagles Point Pool 3: Hastings, Prescott Pool 4: Red Wing, Lake City

31 Load Reduction Scenarios 15 Scenarios Simulated Direct WWTP Loads: Permitted Loads: permitted flow, TP=1.0 mg/l Reduced Loads: permitted flow, TP=0.3 mg/l Tributary Reductions: Upper Mississippi River: 20%, 50% Minnesota River: 20%, 50%, 80% 6UMR/MR combinations St. Croix River: 20% Cannon River: 50% Other tributaries: 20%

32 Load Reduction Scenarios Phosphorus-related variables: Algal biomass (C/N/P) Inorganic P (DIP/PIP) Particulate Organic P (RPOP, LPOP) Dissolved Organic P (RDOP, LDOP) Solids-related l d variables: Non-Volatile Suspended Solids Particulate Organic Carbon (RPOC, LPOC) Particulate Organic Nitrogen (RPON, LPON)

33 Load Reduction Scenarios TP: 0.3 mg/l TP: 1.0 mg/l Point Source Location Permitted Flow 1 (MGD) Reduced TP Loads (MT/yr) Permitted TP Loads (MT/yr) Mt Metro Plant Pool l Empire Pool Eagles Point Pool Hastings Pool Prescott Pool Red Wing Pool Lake City Pool Totals:

34 Load Reduction Scenario Matrix

35 UMR-LP Water Quality Metrics/Targets Variable Turbidity Secchi Depth Target 20 NTU 25 NTU 0.7 m Metric Approach Average (May 15 - Sep. 15) < 10% exceedance Average (June-Sep.) LD1 Spring Lake LD2 System Locations Lake LD3 Pepin Upper LP Lower LP LP Outlet * X X X * * * * * X X X * * * * * * * * X X X * Chlorophyll-a Total Phosphorus Dissolved Phosphorus >50 ug/l # of days * * * * X X X * 28 ug/l 100 ug/l n/a Average (June-Sep.) Average (June-Sep.) Average (June-Sep.) * * * * X X X * * * * * X X X * * * * * * * * * Notes: X : metric is evaluated against the indicated target for this location * : no applicable target; metric is calculated for informational purposes only

36 Chlorophyll Model Diagnostic Results UMR-Lake Pepin SAP Meeting April 30, 2008 Lake Pepin Photo by Guy Schmickle

37 Chlorophyll Loading to Lake Pepin (Scenario 2 historical/permitted loads) La ake Pepin Target: 28 ug/l y = 1.07x R 2 = Chlo orophyll-a ( Chlorophyll-a Lock & Dam 3

38 Chlorophyll Loading to Lake Pepin (Scenario 15 50/80 reductions) Chlo orophyll-a La ake Pepin Target: 28 ug/l y = 1.35x R 2 = Chlorophyll-a Lock & Dam 3

39 Secchi Depth Comparison Scenario 2 vs. Scenario 15 (2006) Secc chi Depth (c cm), June-S Sep mean Scenario 2 (2006) Scenario 15 (2006) Target: 70 cm Lock & Dam 2 Lock & Dam 3 Lake Pepin System Location

40 Algal Carbon Mass Balance, Pools 2-3 Scenario 2 (June-Sept. 2006) Minnesota River 22.1 MT/d St. Croix River 3.4 MT/d Lock & Dam MT/d Net Productivity -1.0MT/d Lock & Dam MT/d Deposition 11.6 MT/d

41 Algal Carbon Mass Balance, Pools 2-3 Scenario 15 (June-Sept. 2006) Minnesota River 4.4 MT/d St. Croix River 2.7 MT/d Lock & Dam MT/d Net Productivity +8.1 MT/d Lock & Dam MT/d Deposition 6.5 MT/d

42 Algal Carbon Mass Balance, Lake Pepin Scenario 2 (June-Sept. 2006) Cannon River 1.0 MT/d Other Tributaries 0.1 MT/d Lock & Dam MT/d Net Productivity MT/d LP Outlet 25.6 MT/d Deposition 22.6 MT/d

43 Algal Carbon Mass Balance, Lake Pepin Scenario 15 (June-Sept. 2006) Cannon River 0.6 MT/d Other Tributaries 0.1 MT/d Lock & Dam MT/d Net Productivity MT/d LP Outlet 20.0 MT/d Deposition 20.8 MT/d

44 Chlorophyll Longitudinal Profile (Scenario 15) Chl-a longitudinal patterns, Scenario Lock & Dam #1 Spring Lake Lock & Dam #2 Lock & Dam #3 Lake Pepin (upper) Lake Pepin (low er) Lake Pepin outlet

45 Next Steps for UMR-LP Modeling UMR-Lake Pepin SAP Meeting April 30, 2008 Lake Pepin Photo by Guy Schmickle

46 Next Steps for Modeling SAV Modeling Status Upper Mississippi River Model Status Reporting Future Modeling Needs

47 SAV Modeling Ongoing Tasks Enhance SAV modeling framework Development of user interface for visualizing results spatially. Configure model to simulate wild celery & sago pondweed dynamics in lower Pool 4. Configure framework to simulate SAV response in portions of Spring Lake & lower Pool 2. Apply calibrated models (base case + 2 scenarios) to: Spring Lake/Lower Pool 2 Sturgeon Lake Dead Slough Lake Lower Pool 4

48 SAV Model Example GIS Results

49 SAV Model Example Graphic

50 SAV Modeling Scenarios Simulations will be generated for: Base case 2 scenarios (TBD with MPCA) For each scenario, model will be run for 3 years representing: Low, high, and average flow conditions during the growing season For each year, model will be run for a 5-year period with repeating hydrologic and water quality conditions.

51 SAV Modeling Schedule Complete enhancement of framework & model configuration: April 30 Discuss scenarios with MPCA & other interested parties: May 5 Complete scenario runs: May 30 Reporting: Prepare draft memo: June 10 Prepare final memo: June 30

52 Upper Mississippi River Model Objective: Assess the fate of nutrient loadings in the Upper Mississippi River watershed from various point and non- point sources Scope: Build a 1D hydrodynamic d model (FEQ) and a simple phosphorus model (RCA) to simulate TP, DIP, and TSS from Brainerd to Lock & Dam No. 1

53

54 Phosphorus Kinetics in Upper Model

55 Major Tasks and Progress 1D Hydrodynamic Model (FEQ) Bathymetry: t FEMA FIS cross sections from 5 counties for the main stem of the Mississippi River (MDNR) Daily flow (USGS) from 2000 to 2007 for all major tribs and dam characteristics (various sources) incorporated into the model Calibration nearly complete for FEQ model Water Quality Model (RCA) Point sources & loads compiled (MPCA/LimnoTech) Nonpoint source load estimates for tributaries & direct drainage are in progress Linkage between FEQ/RCA is in progress

56 Reporting Schedule Model Documentation Draft to MPCA: May 30 Comments due: June 16 Final: June 30 Technical Memo on SAV Modeling Draft to MPCA: June 10 Comments due: June 18 Final: June 30 Technical Memo on Upper Mississippi Model Discussing extension with MPCA (August?)

57 Potential Future Model Application Needs New load reduction scenarios Sensitivity & diagnostic simulations Incremental removal of TP/TSS loads Internal solids dynamics scenarios Natural background scenario Synthetic year(s) Linkage with watershed models UMR RCA model Minnesota HSPF model

58 Model Application Needs Diagnostic Simulations: Remove direct WWTP loads for select tributary reduction scenarios Incremental removal of tributary loads Evaluate potential reductions in Pool 2 resuspension: Basis: availability of unconsolidated d sediment in lower Pool 2 will decrease following source reductions Effects TSS and TP in Spring Lake, downstream Becomes important for 50/80 TSS load reduction scenario

59 Model Application Needs Evaluate Chlorophyll-a Criterion for Lake Pepin: Key Questions: Is 28 ug/l an appropriate chlorophyll criterion for Lake Pepin for a 10 th percentile flow year? What is an attainable chlorophyll target? Simulate natural/background TP & TSS loads from tributary sources based on pre-settlement land cover Evaluate Pool 2 / Pool 3 drawdown to decrease production between LD1 and LD3 Re-evaluate historical basis for 10 th percentile year

60 Model Application Needs Develop synthetic simulations to represent typical 10 th, 50 th, 90 th percentile flows at Prescott Challenge: Each year represents a unique combination of flows contributions from UMR, Minnesota, St. Croix Example: 2006 flows for Prescott, Anoka were 14 th percentile, but... Jordan: 44 th percentile St. Croix: 8 th percentile Potential Solution: Combine different flow years for major tributaries

61 Flow Percentiles (June-Sep) Median High Low Mississippi Minnesota Mississippi St. Croix Year (Prescott) (Jordan) (Anoka) (STC Falls) % 49% 93% 78% % 97% 96% 99% % 21% 28% 14% % 3% 5% 7% % 6% 24% 24% % 72% 58% 47% % 99% 74% 82% % 86% 36% 46% % 100% 100% 83% % 89% 64% 57% % 94% 68% 71% % 79% 47% 61% % 88% 80% 43% % 60% 57% 26% % 78% 86% 68% % 58% 33% 33% % 81% 79% 53% % 68% 91% 76% % 40% 70% 72% % 92% 50% 64% % 75% 78% 42% % 44% 14% 8%

62 Model Application Needs Link UMR-LP Model to Tributary Models: Minnesota River HSPF model: Develop more realistic load reduction scenarios for TP, TSS Simulate natural/background response? Upper Mississippi River RCA model: Evaluate relative contributions of point, NPS loads Develop more realistic load reductions for TP, TSS

63 UMR-LP Model Training Model MPCA: June 27 Contact: Hafiz Munir (hafiz.munir@pca.state.mn.us)