Update on Water Quality Models. TMDL Review Process

Transcription

1 Update on Water Quality s for the Truckee River WQS and TMDL Review Process presented to the Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission (NNWPC) November 2, 2011 Laura Weintraub 1

2 Overview Water Quality modeling to support the WQS / TMDL review process Watershed model: WARMF development and calibration River water quality model: TRHSPF development and calibration Overview of model updates Intended use of the models 2

3 Need for Water Quality ing in WQS Review Process 3

4 Conceptual Watershed/Water Quality

5 Linkage Observed Conditions Climate Soil Types WWTPs Land Use Management Practices Reservoir Releases Watershed Pollutant Loads Water Quantity Water Quality Water Quality WARMF TRHSPF 5

6 Compliance with Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Standard is Key Element for Aquatic Life Beneficial Use Sunlight Flow Aeration Organic Matter Dissolved Oxygen Algae Temperature Nutrients (N&P) Truckee River downstream of Lake Tahoe 6

7 Use of s in the WQS/TMDL Process Climate WWTPs Land Use Management Practices Watershed Nonpoint Loads Water Quality Water Quality 7

8 Use of s in the WQS/TMDL Process Climate WWTPs Land Use Management Practices Watershed Nonpoint Loads Water Quality Water Quality Adjust Point Sources or Land Management Practices No Meets WQS? Yes Done 8

9 WARMF Development and Calibration 9

10 WARMF: Watershed Peer reviewed, public domain Predicts watershed flow and pollutant loads based on land use meteorological conditions water management watershed improvements 125 catchments (subwatersheds) Time step = 1 day 10

11 Key Processes of WARMF Driven by meteorology and land use Simulates nonpoint source loads; point source loads are input Simulates hydrology, mass balance, acid base chemistry, erosion / sediment transport, pollutant build up / wash off, water quality, algal nutrient dynamics (simplified) Evaluates changes in nonpoint loading with varying land use, meteorological conditions, water use Subsurface Processes Mineral Weathering AMD Septic Systems Organic Matter Decay Nitrification Cation Exchange Plant Uptake 11

12 WARMF Calibration / Application Calibration: Confirmation / Verification: Calibration Report: Systech, Adaptation of the WARMF Watershed Decision Support System to the Truckee River Basin of California and Nevada, 2007 Calibration Report, Prepared for City of Reno and City of Sparks, NV, Prepared by Systech Engineering, December Report available on TRIG 12

13 TRHSPF Development and Calibration 13

14 TRHSPF: River Water Quality Long history of HSPF applications in Truckee River (USGS) Updated to include periphyton based on DSSAMt science Open code, EPA supported, peer reviewed Inputs are flow, watershed loads, point sources Predicts water quality response of river nutrients periphyton dissolved oxygen 14

15 TRHSPF Domain 43 segments from E. McCarran Blvd to Marble Bluff Dam Average reach length 1.31 miles Time step = 0.5 hr 15

16 Key Processes ed in TRHSPF Stream hydraulics Water Quality (Temperature, N, P, TDS, oxygen) Nutrient dynamics Productivity (algae growth and decay) 16

17 TRHSPF Calibration / Application Calibration: July 2000 August 2002 Many parameters estimated from data Concurrent algae biomass and water quality data available for calibration Acceptable comparison confidence that algorithms can predict benthic algae reasonably well Confirmation / Verification: 1990, 1995, 1996 Calibration Report: LimnoTech Final Draft Calibration of the Truckee River HSPF Water Quality. Prepared for the Cities of Reno and Sparks, Nevada, January, Report available on TRIG 17

18 Updates 18

19 Truckee River Water Quality Updates Goal: develop best possible tools given reasonable time, information, and funding Due diligence to ensure models work well for recent time period update steps: Extended models to run through 12/2008 updated all databases Captured changes in loading due to Truckee Meadows development Conducted model confirmation runs held model calibration parameters constant Documented changes to models and databases, results of model confirmation Share model information with the focus stakeholder group 19

20 Update to WARMF Land Use / Land Cover Old LULC data reflective of late 1990 s New LULC reflects development through 2006 Combination of several datasets 2006 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) 2010 Washoe County / Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency parcel data Site specific additions based on parks layer /Google Earth: ski resorts, golf courses, parks, animal feeding operation 20

21 Summary of Update Confirmation of WARMF and TRHSPF for updated to reflect regional growth through 2006 Evaluated linked WARMF TRHSPF framework Allows for modeling of river WQ response based on changes in watershed Both models are ready for use to support the thirdparty WQS and TMDL review efforts 21

22 Intended Use of s for WQS Review Provide linkage between nutrient loading to the Truckee River and resulting dissolved oxygen levels Account for other factors (flow, temperature, light, organic matter, aeration) Understand balance of nutrient concentrations which result in DO WQS attainment under a range of flow conditions 22

23 Linkage Observed Conditions Climate Soil Types WWTPs Land Use Management Practices Reservoir Releases Watershed Pollutant Loads Water Quantity Water Quality Water Quality WARMF TRHSPF 23

24 Linkage Future Conditions Flow Management Climate Soil Types WWTPs Land Use Management Practices Watershed Pollutant Loads Water Quantity Water Quality Water Quality WARMF TRHSPF 24

25 Selection of Flow Management Flow management model will provide a mechanism to determine a representative low flow condition with current river operations and historical climate TROM (Truckee River Operations ) Long history of application in Truckee River Previously coupled with WARMF/TRHSPF for test simulation RiverWare Newer model; water accounting version functional Still under development 25

26 Next Technical Steps in WQS Review Process Finalize model update report; distribute to stakeholders Solicit feedback from stakeholder group Construct / run a set of scenario runs Establish representative low flow Link flow management model with WQ models Vary N and P concentrations DO response Document any recommendations for revised WQS Submit report to NDEP for WQS Review 26

27 Questions? 27

28 EXTRA SLIDES 28

29 WARMF Input Data Data Type Data Source Details Topography USGS DEM (Digital Elevation ) Basis for watershed delineation Meteorology NCDC, SNOTEL Daily data of precipitation, min/max temp, cloud cover, wind speed, air pressure, dew point temperature Air Quality NADP/CASTNET Weekly data of dry and wet deposition Managed flow (diversions) Reservoir Point sources Land Use / Land Cover FWM, TROA Information System, USGS USGS, USBR, CDEC TMWRF, NDEP, TTSA NLCD, Washoe County Flow for all active agricultural and M&I diversions (46) Flow release, elevation, and bathymetry for 6 managed reservoirs 2 major and 5 minor sources; flow and WQ records Spatial data circa late 1990 s; 12 LULC categories Observed Hydrology USGS, TRIG All USGS gages (~ 30) within watershed Observed Water Quality TMWRF, TRIG, NDEP, STORET, LRWQCB, TTSA Real-time and grab water quality samples at stations throughout watershed (~40 stations) 29

30 TRHSPF Input Data Data Type Data Source Details Climate (Hourly) NCDC, WRCC Air Temperature, Dew Point, Wind, Cloud Cover, Solar Radiation (by reach) Streamflow USGS Flow for 6 locations Water Quality TMWRF (YSI & Grab) WQ (YSI) updated for 3 parameters at 9 locations. WQ (Grab) for 18 parameters at 9 locations. TMWRF TMWRF WQ input updated for 16 parameters Diversions FWM, TROA Information System Flow for 10 diversions Groundwater Upstream / tributary loads Repeat of time series based on Nowlin (1987) / Brock (1992) / Pohll (2001) Historical data or WARMF output WQ input updated for 13 parameters TR at Reno, Steamboat Creek, N. Truckee Drain 30

31 WARMF Flow Results 35 Truckee River at Reno/Sparks Average Flow Rate Observed Flow (cms) Water Year 0.6 North Truckee Drain Average Flow Rate Observed 2.5 Steamboat Creek Average Flow Rate Observed Flow (cms) Flow (cms) Water Year 0 Water Year 31

32 WARMF Total Nitrogen Results Concentration (mg/l) Truckee River at Reno/Sparks Average Total Nitrogen Observed Water Year Error bars represent the 90% confidence interval of the mean. 2.5 North Truckee Drain Average Total Nitrogen Observed 2.5 Steamboat Creek Average Total Nitrogen Observed Concentration (mg/l) Concentration (mg/l) Water Year Error bars represent the 90% confidence interval of the mean. 0 Water Year 32 Error bars represent the 90% confidence interval of the mean.

33 WARMF Total Phosphorus Results 0.06 Truckee River at Reno/Sparks Average Total Phosphorus Concentration (mg/l) PQL = 0.04 mg/l Water Year 76% of observed values are less than the practical quantification limit of 0.04 mg/l. Concentration (mg/l) North Truckee Drain Average Total Phosphorus Observed Water Year Error bars represent the 90% confidence interval of the mean. Concentration (mg/l) Steamboat Creek Average Total Phosphorus Observed Water Year Error bars represent the 90% confidence interval of the mean. 33

34 TRHSPF Flow Results 1,400 Average Annual Streamflow Vista Data 1,400 Average Annual Streamflow "Near" Tracy Data 1,200 1,200 Streamflow (cfs) 1, Streamflow (cfs) 1, ,400 Average Annual Streamflow Below Derby Dam Data 1,400 Average Annual Streamflow "Near" Nixon Data 1,200 1,200 Streamflow (cfs) 1, Streamflow (cfs) 1,

35 TRHSPF Total Nitrogen Results 2.0 Average Annual Total Nitrogen Lockwood Data 2.0 Average Annual Total Nitrogen Tracy/Clark Data Total Nitrogen (mg/l) Total Nitrogen (mg/l) Error bars represent the 90% confidence interval of the mean. 0.0 Error bars represent the 90% confidence interval of the mean. 2.0 Average Annual Total Nitrogen Painted Rock Data 2.0 Average Annual Total Nitrogen Wadsworth Data Total Nitrogen (mg/l) Total Nitrogen (mg/l) Error bars represent the 90% confidence interval of the mean. 0.0 Error bars represent the 90% confidence interval of the mean. 35

36 TRHSPF Total Phosphorus Results 0.50 Average Annual Total Phosphorus Lockwood Data 0.50 Average Annual Total Phosphorus Tracy/Clark Data Total Phosphorus (mg/l) Total Phosphorus (mg/l) Error bars represent the 90% confidence interval of the mean Error bars represent the 90% confidence interval of the mean Average Annual Total Phosphorus Painted Rock Data 0.50 Average Annual Total Phosphorus Wadsworth Data Total Phosphorus (mg/l) Total Phosphorus (mg/l) Error bars represent the 90% confidence interval of the mean Error bars represent the 90% confidence interval of the mean. 36

37 TRHSPF DO Results at Tracy / Clark Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) Dissolved Oxygen at Tracy/Clark ( ) Observed Data ed Range 0 1/1/2000 6/29/ /26/2000 6/24/ /21/2001 6/19/ /16/2002 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) Dissolved Oxygen at Tracy/Clark ( ) Observed Data ed Range 0 1/1/2003 6/30/ /27/2003 6/24/ /21/2004 6/19/ /16/ Dissolved Oxygen at Tracy/Clark ( ) Observed Data ed Range Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) /1/2006 6/30/ /27/2006 6/25/ /22/2007 6/19/ /16/2008

38 TRHSPF DO Results at Marble Bluff Dam 16 Dissolved Oxygen at Marble Bluff Dam ( ) Observed Data ed Range 18 Dissolved Oxygen at Marble Bluff Dam ( ) Observed Data ed Range Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) /1/2000 6/29/ /26/2000 6/24/ /21/2001 6/19/ /16/ /1/2003 6/30/ /27/2003 6/24/ /21/2004 6/19/ /16/ Dissolved Oxygen at Marble Bluff Dam ( ) Observed Data ed Range Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) /1/2006 6/30/ /27/2006 6/25/ /22/2007 6/19/ /16/2008

39 Water Quality Linkage Demands, Water Operations, In-stream Flow Targets RiverWare or TROM Reservoir Releases, Diversions Meteorology, Land Use, TMWRF Effluent and Re-use WARMF Diversions Tributary Flows, Nonpoint Sources TMWRF Effluent TRHSPF In stream Water Quality 39