truckee river water quality standards review
Post on 22-Mar-2016
50 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Public Meeting: March 3, 2014
Truckee River Water Quality Standards Review
Overview of Topics for Discussion• Welcome and introductions • Review of water quality standards review
process– Background– Water quality models– Approach for analysis– Results and observations
• Next steps
2
Overview of Water Quality Standards Review Process
Background on Review of Truckee River Water Quality Standards (WQS)
• Truckee River standards not reviewed since 1993– Science has progressed significantly
• NDEP encourages review of WQS prior to TMDL development
• Jan 6, 2011 – NDEP announces triennial WQS Review process, solicits input– Feb 22, 2011 – Third Parties submit letter to NDEP requesting
review of Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Nitrogen (TN) WQS– Truckee River on NDEP list of priority waters for Triennial
Review of Water Quality Standards
Current Numeric Nutrient Criteria
5
Note: Also a NDEP single value max OP std of 0.05 mg/L from Stateline to E. McCarran Blvd.
Key Parties in Process• Third-Parties (City of Reno, City of Sparks, Washoe
County, TMWA)– Leading technical review efforts– WRWC – funding– LimnoTech – technical work
• Working Group (third-parties, NDEP, and US EPA)– Technical guidance and review– NDEP will make recommendations for any changes to water
quality standards • Focus Group – stakeholder input and review• General Public – additional review and feedback
6
Documentation of WQS Review • All relevant reports and presentations available on
TRIG (Truckee River Information Gateway)http://truckeeriverinfo.org/tmdl
7
Review of Water Quality Models
WARMF: Watershed Model
• 125 catchments (subwatersheds)
• Time step = 1 day
9
• Peer reviewed, public domain
• Predicts watershed flow and pollutant loads based on– land use– meteorological conditions– water management– watershed improvements
TRHSPF: River Water Quality Model• Based on science used for 1994 TMDL• Open code, EPA-supported, peer reviewed• Calibrated and verified, technology transferred• Inputs are flow, watershed loads, point sources• Predicts:
– water quality response of river– nutrients periphyton dissolved oxygen
10
Model Linkage: Model Calibration
WARMF
TRHSPF
Historical Reservoir Releases, Diversions
Historical Diversions
Tributary Flows, Nonpoint Sources
In-stream Water Quality
Meteorology, Land Use, TMWRF Effluent and Re-use
TMWRF Effluent
Compare with observed data
2012/2013 Model Extension/Update• Effort to keep models current and build confidence in
models• Extended all databases through 12/31/2011
– Minor refinement of calibration– Several previous shortcomings addressed
• Model performance results “as good as” or “better” compared to prior model update
• Documented results in updated model confirmation report (available on TRIG)
12
Review of Approach for Technical Analysis
Use of Models for WQS Review
• Provide linkage between nutrient concentrations in the Truckee River and resulting dissolved oxygen levels
• Account for other factors (flow, temperature, light, organic matter, aeration)
• Understand river water quality response (dissolved oxygen) to ranges of nutrient concentrations under range of flow conditions
• Review site-specific nutrient criteria
14
Dissolved Oxygen
Sunlight
Flow
Algae
AerationNutrients (N&P)
Temperature
Organic Matter
Model Linkage: WQS Analysis
WARMF
TRHSPF
Flow Management
Model
Reservoir Releases, Diversions
Diversions Tributary Flows, Nonpoint Sources
In-stream Water Quality
Demands, Water Operations, In-stream Flow Targets Meteorology, Land Use, TMWRF
Effluent and Re-use
TMWRF Effluent
Evaluate water quality response
Conceptual Plot of Model Results
16
Assumptions for Model Application• Flow management model provides model inputs
reflective of historical climate/hydrology under selected river operations:– Reservoir releases– Diversions– TMWRF discharge flows
• Climate – consistent with selected representative year
• Land use / land cover – updated layer circa 2006
17
WQS Modeling Steps
• Select flow management model• Establish representative flow period(s)• Construct / run a set of scenario runs
– Link flow management model with WQ models– Vary N and P concentrations, examine DO response– Use visualization tools to view / report results
18
Why Flow Regime is Important• Truckee River water quality relates to flow
– Managed flow conditions– Highly variable flow conditions year to year
• WQS are set to protect Beneficial Uses throughout the expected range of flows
• Highest potential for algal growth and depressed DO during low flows
• WQS don’t apply if flows are too low– NAC 445A.121(8) – “The specified standards are not considered
violated when the natural conditions of the receiving water are outside the established limits, including periods of extreme high or low flows”
Representative Flow Conditions
• Derived “target flows” based on TROM Future No Action output
• Two representative flow regimes – Low Flow (10th percentile) – Average Flow (50th percentile)
20
Flow Regimes for Water Quality Standards Modeling
21
Set of Simulations
Spatial Aggregation for WQS Modeling
23
Options for Calculating Percent Violation of DO WQS
24
% of Hours: attainment is aggregation of all hours that have violated WQS
X hours violated 8760 hours/yr
% of Days: if 1+ hours violate WQS on a given day, that day is not in attainment
X days violated365 days/yr
Reviewing attainment as “% of days” is more
conservative approach
Final Model Simulation Results
Final Results Total P10th Percentile Flow: Reach Averaged
26
% of Days % of Hours
TN = 0.75 TN = 0.75
Final Results Ortho-P10th Percentile Flow: Reach Averaged
27
% of Days % of Hours
TN = 0.75 TN = 0.75
Final Results Total Nitrogen10th Percentile Flow: Reach Averaged
28
% of Days % of Hours
Longitudinal Plot: Low Flow Year
29
OP = 0.05 mg/L
TP = 0.05 mg/L
Final Results Total P50th Percentile Flow: Reach Averaged
30
% of Days % of Hours
TN = 0.75 TN = 0.75
Final Results Ortho P50th Percentile Flow: Reach Averaged
31
% of Days % of Hours
TN = 0.75 TN = 0.75
Final Results Total N50th Percentile Flow: Reach Averaged
32
% of Days % of Hours
Longitudinal Plot: Average Flow Year
33
OP = 0.05 mg/L
TP = 0.05 mg/L
Summary of Three Scenarios
• Scenario 1: Current numeric nutrient criteria • Scenario 2: Nitrogen levels at current numeric
TN criteria; phosphorus levels at annual average TP = 0.05 mg/l
• Scenario 3: Nitrogen levels at current numeric TN criteria; phosphorus levels at annual average OP = 0.05 mg/l
34
Summary of DO Compliance (Percent of Days)
35
Location
Low Flow Average Flow
Scenario 1: Existing Criteria
Scenario 2: TP=0.05 mg/L
Scenario 3:OP=0.05 mg/L
Scenario 1: Existing Criteria
Scenario 2: TP=0.05 mg/L
Scenario 3: OP=0.05 mg/L
Aggregated
Reaches
Reach 1 0.27 0.27 0.31 1.9 1.9 1.9
Reach 2 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.39 0.39 0.44
Reach 3 0.17 0.17 0.34 0.0 0.0 0.0
Reach 4 5.5 (5.6) 3.2 5.5 (5.6) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 0.0 (0.0)
Most Critical Segmen
ts
Vista(within Reach 1) 1.6 1.6 1.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
Tracy (within Reach 2) 1.1 1.1 1.1 3.2 3.2 3.5
Below Derby (within Reach 3) 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Marble Bluff Dam (within Reach 4) 23 (23) 11 23 (23) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 0.0 (0.0)
* The value in parentheses denotes the percent DO violation calculated using a flow-weighted average OP concentration. This is the method of calculation specified for the current OP numeric criteria in the PLPT jurisdiction (Reach 4).
Other Considerations
Integrated Flow: Reached Averaged
37
• % violations in Reach 4 (PLPT) much lower when integrating over all flows than for only the low flow year
Climate Sensitivity Simulation
38
Low Flow Average Flow
Modest increase in percent DO violations with increased air and water temperature
River Geomorphology and Restoration
• Supplementary information included with analysis• Potential relationship between channel geometry and
most critical segments• Developed and mapped “indicator” of potentially
vulnerable regions – Based on depth, velocity, slope
• Mapped restoration activity• Model is a conservative representation of actual river
– TRHSPF parameterized for pre-restoration geometry condition
Reach Geometry Index
40
Vista (304)
Tracy (315)
Marble Bluff Dam (343)
Below Derby Dam (320)
Observations
Summary of Technical Findings
Reaches 1, 2, 3 of the Truckee River• DO criterion violation is low over the entire range of
annual average nutrient concentration examined• With both low and average flow, no sensitivity to
increasing phosphorus concentrations• With low flow, slight sensitivity to increasing TN
concentrations– Does not occur unless the annual average TN concentration is
greater than approximately 0.80 mg/L– Verifies appropriateness of existing TN criterion
Summary of Technical Findings (continued)Reach 4 of the Truckee River• DO criterion violation varies depending on nutrient concentration and
flow regime• For low flow, Truckee River is sensitive to the phosphorus
concentration– No DO criterion violations were calculated for the average flow regime
• For both low and average flow, no sensitivity to TN concentration over the range examined– For the low flow, DO criterion violations ranged from 3% to 6% of days
• For average flow, no DO criterion violations regardless of nutrient concentrations (N and P)
• DO criterion violations sensitive to other factors beyond phosphorus concentration– Flow condition, channel geometry and stream temperature
Closing Thought• If the Nevada phosphorus criterion were changed to be
consistent with the current PLPT criterion, there would be no expected increase in DO violations in the Truckee River under either low flow or average flow conditions compared to conditions under existing standards
44
45
46
WQS Technical Analysis Documented in LimnoTech Report
• Provides NDEP and U.S. EPA with technical information to support their triennial review of the nutrient water quality standards for the Truckee River in Nevada
• Provided to Focus Group for review
• Available on TRIG
47
Next Steps
Next Steps in Process
• Any proposed recommendations for changes from the existing nitrogen and phosphorus numeric nutrient criteria will be developed by and documented by NDEP in a rationale document – NDEP report will be available for public comment
• Any proposed changes will need to be approved by the State Environmental Commission and U.S. EPA before becoming effective under the federal Clean Water Act
NDEP Tentative Timeline• 1/17/2014: Draft LimnoTech report on modeling results
• 1/28/2014: NDEP Public Workshop - Relaunch WQS review
• 2/14/2014: Review completed by Focus Group
• 3/1/2014: Final LimnoTech report on modeling results
• 3/3/2014: NDEP Public Workshop - Present LimnoTech Technical Report
• April 2014: NDEP develop rationale/petition for proposed standards changes
• Early May 2014: NDEP Public Workshop – Present Draft Rationale
• 6/30/2014: Final NDEP Rationale/Petition to Legislative Counsel Bureau
• October 2014 (expected): State Environmental Commission hearing
50
Questions?
51
top related