lotw tmdl project: technical advisory committee · • lab analysis not 100% accurate • land use...
Post on 17-Oct-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Julie.blackburn@respec.com
LOTW TMDL PROJECT: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 21, 2015
Introduction
Lake of the Woods TMDL
• Introductions • TMDL Foundation
• HSPF – Watershed Loading • Chris Lupo - RESPEC
• Bathtub – Lake Modeling • Geoff Kramer & Bruce Wilson - RESPEC
• Questions/Discussions • Next Meeting • Lake of the Woods Forum
HSPF Overview
Process-based, Continuous Simulation Modeling
• Vetted for over 40 Years
• Core watershed model in US-EPA BASINS and US-ACE Watershed Modeling System (WMS)
• Continuous simulation model
• Represents complex multi-land use watersheds
• Multiple pollutants TSS, Nutrients, Dissolved Oxygen, Chloride, etc.
• Land surface and subsurface hydrology and water-quality processes
• Stream and lake hydraulic and water-quality processes
• BMP module to facilitate implementation planning
Why HSPF?
HSPF Overview
Hydrologic Simulation Program – FORTRAN
Cropland Barren Urban Forest Rangeland
Overland Flow Interflow
• Precipitation • Air Temperature • Evaporation • Solar Radiation • Cloud Cover • Wind • Dew Point
Model Land Uses
Model Parameterization:
Infiltration Cover Shade
Upper/lower zone storage Groundwater recession
Ice parameters Interception storage
Interflow Manning’s n Vegetation
BMP Module Implementation Plan
HSPF Overview
HSPF Model Compilation
HSPF Overview
Lake of the Woods HSPF Modeling
• 27,000 square miles
• ~ 615 HUC12s
• >30,000 Waterbodies
• 9 Linked HSPF models
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Subwatershed Delineation • Subwatersheds
delineated using • NHD HUC-12 • MN DNR Level 7
watersheds • ArcHydro for
Canada • Imagery Basemap • 1022 – total
• Additional breaks • TMDL endpoints • Gaging stations • Model Lakes
• Drainage Network • 841 Reaches • 290 Lakes
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Timeseries Development and Extension
• Met Stations • 42 HIDEN • 16 BASINS • 4 OCC • 1 ELA
• Extension Stations • Overlapping
HIDEN, OCC, ELA • NCDC’s GHCN and
ISH for BASINS
• Point Source • 45 total permitted
sites input to model
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Land Use Classification NLCD & Canada Landuse
Hydrologic Soil Group Feedlots % Impervious Tillage Pervious Classification
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
What does it mean to calibrate?
• Curve fitting • Change model parameters to drive model through each
monitoring point • Focus is on getting each calibration location “right”
• Modeling
• Change parameters to reflect physical processes • Focus is on the collective sites, not each individual site • Looking for overall model performance
• Not necessarily “fitting” each site • Always keep in mind how physical processes are represented • Because of spatial aggregation and model limitations the model
cannot reproduce each data point • Understand system challenges
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Hydrology – Calibration Data
• Flow • 27 Calibration
Gages
• Snow
• 36 Sites
• Lake Level
• 33 Lakes
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Hydrology – Snow and Lake Level Calibration
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Hydrology – Calibration Methods 1. Establish Annual
Water Balance
2. Make Seasonal Adjustments
Work Upstream to Downstream
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Hydrology – Calibration Methods 1. Establish Annual
Water Balance
2. Make Seasonal Adjustments
Work Upstream to Downstream
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Hydrology – Calibration Methods
3. High vs. Low Flows
4. Hydrograph Shape
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Hydrology – Water Balance Components
Surface 0.42%
Interflow 5.95%
Active Groundwater
21.36%
Total ET 72.27%
Water Balance at Big Fork Outlet Mean Annual Precipitation, 28 inches
81%
18%
1%
Wetland Active Groundwater
Interflow
Surface
60% 30%
10%
Developed 71%
26%
3%
Agricultrual
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Hydrology – Interpreting Results How well does the model fit the measured data? • Goodness of fit tests
• Weight of evidence approach • Graphical and statistical
• Caveats • Purpose of model application • Quality and detail of input and calibration data • Relevant to monthly and annual values; storm peaks may differ more
Difference Between Simulated and Recorded Values (%) Fair Good Very Good
Hydrology/Flow 15–25 10–15 <10
R2 = 0.84 Daily = Very Good Monthly = Good
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Hydrology – Results
Observed Flow
Gage000000
HSPF Reach
I.D.
Total Runoff Volume
Monthly Daily Storm % Error
Observed (in)
Simulated (in) % ∆ R R2 NSE(a) R R2 NSE(a) Volume Peak
USGS 05132000 470 6.96 7.36 5.80 0.96 0.92 0.88 0.91 0.83 0.79 4.85 -9.31
DNR 77107001 350 4.42 4.25 -3.96 0.90 0.91 0.60 0.91 0.83 0.80 -5.90 -21.5
Calibration Sites • Water Balance = Very Good • Monthly = Very Good • Daily = Very Good
Difference Between Simulated and Recorded Values (%) Fair Good Very Good
Hydrology/Flow 15–25 10–15 <10
Model Application
Observed Flow Gage
HSPF Reach
Total Runoff Volume Monthly Daily Storm % Error Obs Sim
% ∆ R R2 MFE R R2 MFE Volume Peak (in) (in)
Big and Little Turtle Rivers 05PB014 820 12.45 12 -3.56 0.88 0.77 0.76 0.86 0.73 0.73 -6.35 -11.76
Big Fork H77107001 350 6.96 7.36 5.8 0.96 0.92 0.88 0.91 0.83 0.79 4.85 -9.31 Little Fork 05131500 490 8.5 8.84 3.99 0.94 0.89 0.86 0.9 0.8 0.78 1.75 –15.3 Rainy Headwaters 05127500 400 8.07 8.36 3.6 0.89 0.79 0.72 0.87 0.76 0.69 -3.21 -3.51
Rainy River 05PC018 170 266.1 256.8 -3.47 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.97 -0.6 -2.81 Rainy River 05134200 330 6.17 6.14 -0.45 0.94 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.76 0.76 -1.95 -9.53 Vermilion 05129115 370 9.73 9.78 0.47 0.92 0.85 0.84 0.9 0.81 0.8 -2.25 -2.66
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Hydrology – Results Calibration Sites • Water Balance = Very Good • Monthly = Good to Very Good • Daily = Good to Very Good
Difference Between Simulated and Recorded Values (%) Fair Good Very Good
Hydrology/Flow 15–25 10–15 <10
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Model Evaluation and Variability
• Important to get physics right “phirst” • Water movement foundation of all other calculations • Can only have high confidence in hydrology with stream gaged
systems
• Models are developed to reflect the typical conditions within a stream segment
• Model complexity • Temperature < Dissolved Oxygen < TSS < Nutrients
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Model Evaluation and Variability
• Water quality vary across stream width and depth • Side temperatures can be different than in the main channel
• Can vary throughout the day • DO diel fluctuations because of photosynthesis and respiration • Must have sampling time data for accurate comparisons
• Don’t always have and we make assumptions
• Sampling design can impact calibration • May not capture larger events
• Other variations • Lab analysis not 100% accurate • Land use practices may vary
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Water Quality Calibration Sites and Constituents
• Calibration Sites • 2,009
Locations • 222 Reaches
• Constituents • Temperature • Dissolved
Oxygen • TSS • Nitrogen • Phosphorus • BOD • Chlorophyll-a
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Water Quality Calibration Methods Graphical Comparisons
at Multiple Timesteps
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Water Quality Calibration Methods Constrain calibration by verifying that loading rates are reasonable based on literature values
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
TP F
lux
[lb/a
cre/
yr]
Average Total Phosphorus Flux
Simulated
Lit - Min
Lit - Max
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Water Quality Results – Temperature
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Water Quality Results – TSS
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Water Quality Results – Phosphorus
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Water Quality Results – Landuse Fluxes
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Developed OldDeciduous
AB
OldDeciduous
CD
YoungForest AB
YoungForest CD
OldEvergreen
AB
OldEvergreen
CD
Agriculture Grassland Wetland Septics WeightedTotal
TSS
[lbs/
acre
/yr]
TSS Flux
Big Fork
Little Fork
RainyR
LittleLOW
Vermilion
RainyHW
Turtle
RainyL
CanLOW
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Water Quality Results – Landuse Fluxes
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
Developed OldDeciduous
AB
OldDeciduous
CD
YoungForest AB
YoungForest CD
OldEvergreen
AB
OldEvergreen
CD
Agriculture Grassland Wetland Septics WeightedTotal
Tota
l Pho
spho
rus [
lb/a
cre/
yr]
Annual Phosphorus Flux
Big Fork
Little Fork
RainyR
LittleLOW
Vermilion
RainyHW
Turtle
RainyL
CanLOW
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Water Quality Results – Phosphorus Developed
1%
Old Deciduous 19% Young Forest
2%
Old Evergreen 47% Agriculture
2%
Grassland 3%
Wetland 25%
Septics 1%
Percent Area
Developed 4%
Old Deciduous 16%
Young Forest 2%
Old Evergreen 37%
Agriculture 8%
Grassland 6%
Wetland 20%
Septics 2%
NPDES 5%
Percent Phosphorus Contribution
Lake of the Woods HSPF Model Review
Water Quality Results – TSS Developed
1%
Old Deciduous 19% Young Forest
2%
Old Evergreen 47% Agriculture
2%
Grassland 3%
Wetland 25%
Septics 1%
Percent Area
Developed 6%
Old Deciduous 17%
Young Forest 3%
Old Evergreen 41%
Agriculture 16%
Grassland 7% Wetland
10%
NPDES 0%
Percent TSS Contribution
Lake of the Woods BATHTUB Model Review
HSPF to BATHTUB Linkage
• MATLAB • Reads binary HSPF output files • Formats data for BATHTUB
• Ability to review other constituents • Flow & TP for BATHTUB • TSS, BOD, TN, TIN, PO4, Atmospheric
Data
• Lake Segments • Physical
• Surface area • Mean depth • Length (fetch) • Mixed layer depth
• Other • Internal loading • Observed water quality
• Tributaries • Mean Annual Runoff
(hm3) • Flow-weighted mean:
• TP and Ortho-P • TN and TIN
Lake of the Woods Bathtub Model Review
Bathtub Model Setup
• Global Variables • Precipitation • Evaporation • Change in volume
(assumed = 0) • Atmospheric loading
• TP, TN
Lake of the Woods Bathtub Model Review
Bathtub Model Setup
• Model Selections
Lake of the Woods Bathtub Model Review
Bathtub Model Setup
• Five Segments – taken from HSPF • Four Mile • Sabaskong • Muskeg • Big Traverse • Little Traverse
• 31 total tributaries (including lakesheds)
Segments
• Dimensions (ArcMAP) • Mean depths
determined from Canadian bathymetry
• Areas • Fetch measured along
NNW to SSE line
Segment Characteristics
Tributaries
• 24 streams • 5 segments
• lakeshed loading • lakeshed septic
loading
• South shoreline erosion
• 1 point source • Springsteel Island
• Q & FWMCs for
each tributary
Sabaskong Sabaskong River (45)
Splitrock River (49)
Thompson Creek (17)
Obabikon Lake (14)
Little Grassy River (11)
Big Grassy River (13)
Four Mile
Bostic River (231)
Rainy River (430)
Big Traverse
Reach 211
Reach 201
Reach 191
W Br. Zippel Creek (203)
S Br. Zippel Creek (213)
Stony Creek (301)
Little Traverse
Northwest Angle Inlet (312)
Muskeg
Reach 171
Reach 181
Reach 131
Reach 141
Reach 121
Reach 113
Warroad River (70)
Willow Creek (161)
Reach 151
Lake of the Woods BATHTUB Model Review
Routing Scheme
• Estimate of shoreline erosion between Warroad and Wheelers Point (Houston Engineering, 2013)
Sediment TP TN
Total Load (tons)
991,408 433 7,335
Mean Annual Load (tons)
165,235 72 1,223
Lake of the Woods BATHTUB Model Review
Shoreline Erosion
• Internal Loading based on equations from Bill James
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑅𝑅𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴 𝑚𝑚𝐿𝐿
𝑚𝑚2𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑑𝑑= 0.0055 ∗ 𝑇𝑇𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏1.2977
𝐴𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑅𝑅𝐿𝐿𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴 𝑚𝑚𝐿𝐿
𝑚𝑚2𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑑𝑑= 0.0338 ∗ 𝑇𝑇𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏1.8988
• Monthly estimates of bottom temperature were obtained from measured data (April to October)
• Cold season bottom T assumed constant (5°C) • Monthly aerobic loading rates calculated from bottom T
Lake of the Woods BATHTUB Model Review
Internal Loading Estimation
• Anaerobic loading occurs at DO concentration < 2 mg/L • Anaerobic release rate is much higher than aerobic
• ~25x higher at 10°C • ~37x higher at 20°C
• One day of anaerobic loading can equal one month of aerobic loading
• 2015 monitoring data (buoys) show no anaerobic events
Lake of the Woods BATHTUB Model Review
Anaerobic Loading
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
6/15/2015 7/5/2015 7/25/2015 8/14/2015 9/3/2015 9/23/2015 10/13/2015
Obs
erve
d Bo
ttom
Dis
solv
ed O
xyge
n Co
ncen
trat
ion
(mg/
L)
Bottom Dissolved Oxyen Concentration, 2015
MPCA Muskeg Big Traverse
Lake of the Woods BATHTUB Model Review
2015 Dissolved Oxygen Data
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
6/21/2015 6/26/2015 7/1/2015 7/6/2015 7/11/2015 7/16/2015 7/21/2015 7/26/2015 7/31/2015
Obs
erve
d Bo
ttom
Dis
solv
ed O
xyge
n Co
ncen
trat
ion
(mg/
L)
Bottom Dissolved Oxyen Concentration, 2015
MPCA Muskeg Big Traverse
Sustained depletion rates of ~ 0.4 - 0.5 mg/L/d
Anaerobic conditions take min. 10-12 days to develop (assuming 8 mg/L starting DO concentration
Lake of the Woods BATHTUB Model Review
June & July DO Depletion
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
6/25/2015 7/5/2015 7/15/2015 7/25/2015 8/4/2015 8/14/2015 8/24/2015 9/3/2015 9/13/2015 9/23/2015 10/3/2015
Obs
erve
d M
ean
Dai
ly W
ind
Spee
d (m
/s)
Obs
erve
d M
ean
Dai
ly B
otto
m W
ater
Dis
solv
ed O
xyge
n Co
ncen
trat
ion
(mg/
L)
Observed Mean Daily Wind Speed and Bottom Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentration
Mean MPCA DO Conc (mg/L) Mean Muskeg DO Conc (mg/L) Mean BigTrav DO Conc (mg/L) Mean Wind Speed (m/s)
Lake of the Woods BATHTUB Model Review
What Drives DO Depletion?
y = -0.1999x + 0.9015 R² = 0.3063
-2.50
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Mea
n D
aily
Oxy
gen
Dep
letio
n (m
g/L/
d)
Wind Speed (m/s)
Mean Daily Oxygen Depletion vs. Mean Daily Wind Speed
Lake of the Woods BATHTUB Model Review
What Drives DO Depletion?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Freq
uenc
y
Consecutive Calm Days
Frequency of Consecutive Calm Days (Max. wind speed <7mph, <3.1m/s), 2005-2014
Lake of the Woods BATHTUB Model Review
Consecutive Calm Days (Kenora)
• Estimate of 2 days/year for anaerobic release
Internal Loading Release Rate (mg/m2/d)
Segment Aerobic Loading Only Aerobic + 2 days Anaerobic
Four-Mile 0.14 0.17
Big Traverse 0.12 0.16
Little Traverse 0.12 0.16
Muskeg 0.12 0.16
Sabaskong No data 0.10 (assumed)
Lake of the Woods BATHTUB Model Review
Internal Loading Estimate (DRAFT)
Mean Annual Discharge (hm3) Segment MPCA (2012) RESPEC (2015)
Sabaskong Total 761 246
Four-Mile Total 12953 12469
Rainy River (note) 12915 12419
Muskeg Total 94 142
Big Traverse Total 258 152
Little Traverse Total 796 118
Total Tributary (includes point & non-point) 14862 13126
Precipitation 1962 1621
Total Inflow 16824 14747
Evaporation 1660 1737
Outflow 15257 13010
Lake of the Woods BATHTUB Model Review
Flow Summary and Comparison (DRAFT)
Mean Annual TP Load (tons) MPCA (2012) RESPEC (2015)
Sabaskong
17.9
14.9
Four Mile
454.5
390.3
Muskeg
7.9
36.1
Big Traverse
20.6
47.5
Little Traverse
18.3
5.9
Atmospheric Loading
149.8
51.4
Internal Load
409.8
139.7
Shoreline Erosion
68.4 Included in Four Mile, Muskeg, Big Traverse
Total
1,147
686
Lake of the Woods BATHTUB Model Review
TP Loading and Comparison (DRAFT)
Lake of the Woods HSPF and Bathtub Review
Climate Review
Lake of the Woods HSPF and Bathtub Review
Climate Review
Lake of the Woods HSPF and Bathtub Review
Rainy River Streamflow
Rainy ~85% of inflows: Tw ~ 1.3 years Summer flows: ~24,000 to 130,000 cfs Low Flow Summers: 2006, 2007, 2010 & 2011 Lower flushing rates Periodic anoxic P release rates Point source significance: Increases in low flows Declines in high flows
Lake of the Woods HSPF and Bathtub Review
Rainy River (Manitou Rapids) Average Summer Flows (cfs)
Next Steps
• Final QA and review • Need input on:
• Internal loading method • Temperature/DO data showing anoxia (including winter)?
• Climate change implications • Point sources
• Paper mills – production status? • Consideration of dry/wet period impacts • Demographic growth and future conditions
Coordination
Next Meeting
• Tuesday, January 26th @ 11:00am • TMDL Development
• Loading Capacity • Reasonable Assurance • Seasonal Variation • Monitoring Plan • Future Growth/Reserve Capacity
Coordination
Lake of the Woods Forum
• LOTW TMDL TAC meeting Tuesday, March 8th
• IMA TAC, 4:00 – 6:00 PM • Curve Rule Workshop, TBD • Can we set the LOTW TMDL TAC meeting for 1:00 -3:00 PM or will there be too much overlap with Curve Rule Workshop?
• Other suggested times?
Julie Blackburn
Julie.Blackburn@respec.com 651.605.5705
top related