lake pepin water quality modeling · umrumr-lake pepin sap meetinglake pepin sap meeting april 30,...

Science Advisory Panel MeetingScience Advisory Panel MeetingScience Advisory Panel MeetingScience Advisory Panel Meeting

Lake Pepin Water Quality Lake Pepin Water Quality Modeling ProjectModeling Projectg jg j

April 30, 2008April 30, 2008

Lake Pepin Photo by Guy Schmickle

OverviewOverview

Modeling statusg

Historical system behavior

Model simulation scenarios

Model results viewer tool

Model resultsO di iOpen discussion

Next steps

Nutrient I i t

Turbidity I i t ImpairmentImpairment

Year 3 Work Plan TasksYear 3 Work Plan Tasks

Collect bathymetry data in Pool 2Calibrate modelModel load reduction scenariosDevelop submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) model Develop modeling approach forDevelop modeling approach for Mississippi River above Ford DamProvide model training and support toProvide model training and support to MPCA

Year 3 Work Plan ScheduleYear 3 Work Plan Schedule

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun2008Task 2007

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

1 Pool 2 Bathymetry

2 Refine Model and Calibrate

3 D l M B d t T l3 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 Meetings8 Project Meetings

9 Final Project Report

10 Temperature Simulations

The Model Development ProcessThe Model Development ProcessClarify Objectives /

Set Goals Ongoing Ongoing CommunicationCommunicationReview Available Data and

Model

Communication Communication and Reviewand ReviewMPCA St ffDesign Conceptual

Modeling Strategy

Recommend Additional

MPCA Staff

Stakeholder Recommend Additional Data

Develop Model

Advisory Committee

p

Evaluate ModelScience Advisory

PanelApply Model

Panel

Model Development/TMDL TimelineModel Development/TMDL TimelineModel Development/TMDL TimelineModel Development/TMDL Timeline20062006 20072007 20082008 20092009

Develop WaterDevelop Water Quality Model

Draft

Select Pollutant

ReductionDevelop

Watershed

Draft TMDL

Reduction Scenarios

PublicModels Model Alternatives

Public Review/EPA

ApprovalImplementation

Plan

Current TMDL Goals: Current TMDL Goals: Turbidity Turbidity yy

Seasonal average ≤ 20 NTU

10% f d d 25 NTU≤ 10% of days exceed 25 NTU

Goals apply up to the 90th

til hi h flpercentile high-flow year

Current TMDL Goals: Excess NutrientsCurrent TMDL Goals: Excess NutrientsSeasonal average chl-a ≤ 28 μg/LMinimize viable chl-a ≥ 50 μg/LSeasonal average Secchi ≥ 0.7 mSeasonal average TP ≤ 100 μg/LSeasonal average TP 100 μg/L

Goals apply down to the 10th percentile lowthe 10th percentile low-flow year

Overview of Historical System Overview of Historical System BehaviorBehaviorBehaviorBehavior

UMRUMR--Lake Pepin SAP MeetingLake Pepin SAP MeetingUMRUMR--Lake Pepin SAP MeetingLake Pepin SAP MeetingApril 30, 2008April 30, 2008


Annual TSS LoadsAnnual TSS LoadsAnnual TSS LoadsAnnual TSS Loads

Annual Total Phosphorus LoadsAnnual Total Phosphorus LoadsAnnual Total Phosphorus LoadsAnnual Total Phosphorus Loads

Model Calibration: Comparing Model Model Calibration: Comparing Model Results to NVSS DataResults to NVSS Data –– LD2LD2Results to NVSS Data Results to NVSS Data LD2LD2

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

Comparison of Data Comparison of Data –– Model Model Relationships for Lake PepinRelationships for Lake Pepin

Megard’s Data-Based Correlations (LTRMP for Lake Pepin, 1990-2002)

UMR-LP Model-Predictions (5-day averages for Lake Pepin 1990-2002)

Relationships for Lake Pepin Relationships for Lake Pepin (LTRMP for Lake Pepin, 1990 2002)

1E3 Volatile suspended solidsNon-volatile suspended solids

1.E+03

mg/

l)

VSS (mg/l) NVSS (mg/l)

averages for Lake Pepin, 1990-2002)

1E1

1E2

1.E+01

1.E+02

e Su

spen

ded

Solid

s (

1E 1

1E0 1.E+00

Vola

tile/

Non

-Vol

atile

1E-11E0 1E1 1E2 1E3

Total suspended solids (mg / liter)

1.E-011.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03

Total Suspended Solids (mg/l)

Comparison of Data Comparison of Data –– Model Model R l ti hi f L k P iR l ti hi f L k P i

Megard’s Data-Based Correlations UMR-LP Model-Predictions (5-day

Relationships for Lake Pepin Relationships for Lake Pepin g

(LTRMP for Lake Pepin, 1990-2002)

1E3Transparency (cm)

UMRM 764 - 797, 1990 - 2002 (LTRMP)1.E+03

Secchi depth (cm) Turbidity (NTU)

averages for Lake Pepin, 1990-2002)

1E2

Transparency (cm) Turbidity (NTU)

1.E+02

m) /

Tur

bidi

ty (N

TU)

1E1

Avg. SS = 21 mg/liter,N = 1496

1.E+01Se

cchi

Dep

th (c

m

1E01E0 1E1 1E2 1E3

Suspended solids (mg / liter)

N = 1496

1.E+001.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E


Comparison of Data Comparison of Data –– Model Model R l ti hi f L k P iR l ti hi f L k P i

Megard’s Data-Based Correlations (LTRMP for UMR LP M d l P di ti (5 d

Relationships for Lake Pepin Relationships for Lake Pepin Megard s Data Based Correlations (LTRMP for

Lake Pepin, 1990-2002)

1E3

Secchi (Jan-Feb avg. 176 cm) Secchi (Mar-Dec avg. 70 cm)

Chlorophyll (avg. 22 ug/liter) Total P (avg. 0.16 mg/liter) Total P (avg: 0.14 ug/l) Chlorophyll (avg: 20.4 ug/l) Secchi (Jan-Feb) Secchi (Mar-Dec)

UMR-LP Model-Predictions (5-day averages for Lake Pepin, 1990-2002)

1E2

1E3

1.E+02

1.E+03

dity

(NTU

)1E0

1E1

1.E+00

1.E+01

hi D

epth

(cm

) / T

urbi

d

1E-2

1E-1

1E0 1E1 1E2 1E3

Avg. TSS = 211.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+0

Secc

h

1E0 1E1 1E2 1E3Total suspended solids (mg / liter)


Model/Data Comparison: Summer Model/Data Comparison: Summer Average ChlorophyllAverage ChlorophyllAverage ChlorophyllAverage Chlorophyll

Flow PercentilesFlow PercentilesMississippi Minnesota Mississippi St Croix

YearMississippi (Prescott)

Minnesota (Jordan)

Mississippi (Anoka)

St. Croix (STC Falls)

1985 79% 49% 93% 78%1986 99% 97% 96% 99%1987 16% 21% 28% 14%1987 16% 21% 28% 14%1988 1% 3% 5% 7%1989 7% 6% 24% 24%1990 51% 72% 58% 47%1991 94% 99% 74% 82%1991 94% 99% 74% 82%1992 50% 86% 36% 46%1993 100% 100% 100% 83%1994 65% 89% 64% 57%1995 81% 94% 68% 71%1995 81% 94% 68% 71%1996 53% 79% 47% 61%1997 71% 88% 80% 43%1998 46% 60% 57% 26%1999 78% 78% 86% 68%

Median1999 78% 78% 86% 68%2000 32% 58% 33% 33%2001 76% 81% 79% 53%2002 87% 68% 91% 76%2003 56% 40% 70% 72%

High2003 56% 40% 70% 72%2004 68% 92% 50% 64%2005 59% 75% 78% 42%2006 14% 44% 14% 8%Low

Model Summer Average Turbidity Model Summer Average Turbidity Versus FlowVersus Flow –– LD2LD2Versus Flow Versus Flow LD2LD2

Target

Summer Average Chlorophyll Summer Average Chlorophyll V TPV TP L k P iL k P iVersus TP Versus TP –– Lake Pepin Lake Pepin

Model Summer Average Chlorophyll Model Summer Average Chlorophyll Versus FlowVersus Flow –– Lake PepinLake PepinVersus Flow Versus Flow Lake Pepin Lake Pepin

TargetTarget

Model Summer Average Chlorophyll Model Summer Average Chlorophyll Versus HRT Versus HRT –– Lake Pepin Lake Pepin pp

T=V/QV=550,808,000 m3

TargetTarget

Chlorophyll Loading to Lake Pepin Chlorophyll Loading to Lake Pepin ((Scenario 2 Scenario 2 –– historical/permitted loads)historical/permitted loads)(( p )p )

45.0

50.01988

20052006

y = 1.07x35.0

40.0

ake

Pepi

n

1987

yR2 = 0.79

25.0

30.0

(ug/

l) @

La

Target: 28 ug/l

10 0

15.0

20.0

orop

hyll-

a

0 0

5.0

10.0

Chl

o

0.00.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0

Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) @ Lock & Dam 3

TSS Mass Balance TSS Mass Balance –– Lake Pepin: Lake Pepin: 19851985 2006200619851985--2006 2006

TP Mass Balance TP Mass Balance –– Lake Pepin: Lake Pepin: 19851985 2006200619851985--20062006

7%

24%

TP Mass Balance TP Mass Balance –– Lake Pepin: Lake Pepin: JJ S t 2006S t 2006JuneJune--Sept, 2006 Sept, 2006

49%

91%

Development of Load Reduction Development of Load Reduction Scenarios for Phosphorus, Scenarios for Phosphorus, pp

Suspended SolidsSuspended Solids

UMRUMR--Lake Pepin SAP MeetingLake Pepin SAP MeetingUMRUMR Lake Pepin SAP MeetingLake Pepin SAP MeetingApril 30, 2008April 30, 2008


Load Reduction ScenariosLoad Reduction Scenarios

Tributary Sources:Upper Mississippi River (Lock & Dam 1)Minnesota RiverSt. Croix RiverCannon RiverVermillion RiverRush RiverRush RiverMinor tributary loadings to Lake Pepin (MN/WI)Urban/suburban loadings for the Metro area

Direct WWTP Sources:Pool 2: Metro Plant, Empire, Eagles PointPool 3: Hastings PrescottPool 3: Hastings, PrescottPool 4: Red Wing, Lake City


15 Scenarios SimulatedDirect WWTP Loads:

Permitted Loads: permitted flow, TP=1.0 mg/lReduced Loads: permitted flow, TP=0.3 mg/l

Tributary Reductions:Upper Mississippi River: 20%, 50%Minnesota River: 20%, 50%, 80%

6 UMR/MR bi ti6 UMR/MR combinationsSt. Croix River: 20%Cannon River: 50%Cannon River: 50%Other tributaries: 20%


Phosphorus-related variables:Algal biomass (C/N/P)Inorganic P (DIP/PIP)Particulate Organic P (RPOP, LPOP)Dissolved Organic P (RDOP, LDOP)

S lid l t d i blSolids-related variables:Non-Volatile Suspended SolidsParticulate Organic Carbon (RPOC LPOC)Particulate Organic Carbon (RPOC, LPOC)Particulate Organic Nitrogen (RPON, LPON)

Load Reduction ScenariosLoad Reduction ScenariosTP: 0.3 mg/l TP: 1.0 mg/l

Point Source LocationPermitted

Flow1

(MGD)

Reduced TP Loads

(MT/yr)

Permitted TP Loads (MT/yr)

M t Pl t P l 2 314 0 130 2 433 8Metro Plant Pool 2 314.0 130.2 433.8

Empire Pool 2 28.6 11.9 39.5

Eagles Point Pool 2 11.9 4.9 16.4Eagles Point Pool 2 11.9 4.9 16.4

Hastings Pool 3 2.9 1.2 10.4

Prescott Pool 3 0.5 0.2 0.7

Red Wing Pool 4 4.5 1.9 6.2

Lake City Pool 4 1.5 0.6 2.1

Totals: 364 151 509

Load Reduction Scenario MatrixLoad Reduction Scenario MatrixLoad Reduction Scenario MatrixLoad Reduction Scenario Matrix

UMR-LP Water Quality Metrics/Targets

LD1 Spring Lake LD2 LD3 Lake

PepinUpper

LPLower

LPLP

Outlet

20 NTUAverage (May 15 - Sep. 15)

* X X X * * * *

25 NTU < 10% exceedance * X X X * * * *

Secchi Depth 0.7 m Average (June-Sep.) * * * * X X X *

>50 ug/L # of days * * * * X X X *

28 ug/L Average (June-Sep.) * * * * X X X *

Total Phosphorus 100 ug/L Average

(June-Sep.) * * * * X X X *

Dissolved Phosphorus n/a Average

(June-Sep.) * * * * * * * *

System Locations

Turbidity

Metric Approach

Chlorophyll-a

Variable Target

Notes:X : metric is evaluated against the indicated target for this location* : no applicable target; metric is calculated for informational purposes only

Chlorophyll Model Diagnostic Chlorophyll Model Diagnostic ResultsResultsResultsResults

UMRUMR--Lake Pepin SAP MeetingLake Pepin SAP MeetingUMRUMR--Lake Pepin SAP MeetingLake Pepin SAP MeetingApril 30, 2008April 30, 2008


Chlorophyll Loading to Lake Pepin (Scenario 2 – historical/permitted loads)(Scenario 2 historical/permitted loads)

45 0

50.01988

20052006

y = 1 07x35.0

40.0

45.0

ake

Pepi

n

1987

y = 1.07xR2 = 0.79

25.0

30.0

(ug/

l) @

La

Target: 28 ug/l

15.0

20.0

orop

hyll-

a (

0 0

5.0

10.0

Chl

o

0.00.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0


Chlorophyll Loading to Lake Pepin (Scenario 15 – 50/80 reductions)(Scenario 15 50/80 reductions)

y = 1.35xR2 = 0 93

40.0

2006R = 0.93

30.0

35.0

ake

Pepi

n

T t 28 /l

1987

1988

2005

20.0

25.0

(ug/

l) @

La Target: 28 ug/l

1989

19982004

2003

2000

2001

10.0

15.0

orop

hyll-

a (

1990

1992

0 0

5.0Chl

o

0.00.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0


Secchi Depth Comparison Scenario 2 vs Scenario 15 (2006)Scenario 2 vs. Scenario 15 (2006)

120.0Scenario 2 (2006)

80 0

100.0

Sep

mea

n Scenario 15 (2006)

60.0

80.0

cm),

June

-S

Target: 70 cm

40.0

chi D

epth

(c

0 0

20.0Secc

0.0Lock & Dam 2 Lock & Dam 3 Lake Pepin

System Location

Algal Carbon Mass Balance, Pools 2-3S 2 ( S 2006)Scenario 2 (June-Sept. 2006)

Minnesota River22.1 MT/d

St. Croix River3.4 MT/d

Lock & Dam 116.0 MT/d

Lock & Dam 328.9 MT/dNet Productivity

-1 0 MT/d

Deposition11.6 MT/d

1.0 MT/d

Algal Carbon Mass Balance, Pools 2-3S 1 ( S 2006)Scenario 15 (June-Sept. 2006)

Minnesota River4.4 MT/d

St. Croix River2.7 MT/d


Lock & Dam 316.7 MT/dNet Productivity

+8 1 MT/d

Deposition6.5 MT/d

+8.1 MT/d

Algal Carbon Mass Balance, Lake PepinScenario 2 (June Sept 2006)Scenario 2 (June-Sept. 2006)

Cannon River1.0 MT/d

Other Tributaries0.1 MT/d


LP Outlet25.6 MT/dNet Productivity

+18 4 MT/d

Deposition22.6 MT/d

+18.4 MT/d

Algal Carbon Mass Balance, Lake PepinS 1 ( S 2006)Scenario 15 (June-Sept. 2006)

Cannon River0.6 MT/d

Other Tributaries0.1 MT/d


LP Outlet20.0 MT/dNet Productivity

+23 5 MT/d

Deposition20.8 MT/d

+23.5 MT/d

Chlorophyll Longitudinal Profile (Scenario 15)(Scenario 15)

Chl-a longitudinal patterns, Scenario 15

45.0

35.0

40.0

2006199820022005

25.0

30.0

15 0

20.0

25.0

5 0

10.0

15.0

0.0

5.0

Lock & Dam #1 Spring Lake Lock & Dam #2 Lock & Dam #3 Lake Pepin (upper) Lake Pepin (low er) Lake Pepin outlet

Next Steps for UMRNext Steps for UMR--LP ModelingLP ModelingNext Steps for UMRNext Steps for UMR LP ModelingLP Modeling

UMRUMR--Lake Pepin SAP MeetingLake Pepin SAP MeetingUMRUMR Lake Pepin SAP MeetingLake Pepin SAP MeetingApril 30, 2008April 30, 2008


Next Steps for ModelingNext Steps for Modeling

SAV Modeling StatusUpper Mississippi River Model StatusReportingp gFuture Modeling Needs

SAV Modeling SAV Modeling –– Ongoing TasksOngoing TasksEnhance SAV modeling framework

Development of user interface for visualizing results spatiallyspatially.

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. A l lib t d d l (b 2Apply calibrated models (base case + 2 scenarios) to:

Spring Lake/Lower Pool 2p gSturgeon LakeDead Slough LakeLower Pool 4Lower Pool 4

SAV ModelSAV Model –– Example GIS ResultsExample GIS ResultsSAV Model SAV Model Example GIS ResultsExample GIS Results

SAV ModelSAV Model –– Example GraphicExample GraphicSAV Model SAV Model Example GraphicExample Graphic

SAV Modeling ScenariosSAV Modeling Scenarios

Simulations will be generated for:“Base” caseBase case2 scenarios (TBD with MPCA)

For each scenario, model will be run for 3 years representing:

Low, high, and average flow conditions during the growing seasonthe growing season

For each year, model will be run for a 5-year period with repeating hydrologic and water quality conditions.

SAV Modeling ScheduleSAV Modeling Schedule

Complete enhancement of framework & model configuration: April 30g p

Discuss scenarios with MPCA & other interested parties: May 5Complete scenario runs: May 30

Reporting:P d ft J 10Prepare draft memo: June 10Prepare final memo: June 30

Upper Mississippi River Model Upper Mississippi River Model

Objective: Assess the fate of nutrient loadings in the Upper Mississippi River watershed from various point and non-

i tpoint sources

S B ild 1D h d d i d lScope: Build a 1D hydrodynamic model (FEQ) and a simple phosphorus model (RCA) to simulate TP DIP and TSS from(RCA) to simulate TP, DIP, and TSS from Brainerd to Lock & Dam No. 1

Phosphorus Kinetics in Upper ModelPhosphorus Kinetics in Upper Model

Major Tasks and ProgressMajor Tasks and Progress

1D Hydrodynamic Model (FEQ)B th t FEMA FIS ti f 5 ti f thBathymetry: 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 thedam characteristics (various sources) incorporated into the modelCalibration nearly complete for FEQ model

Water Quality Model (RCA)Point sources & loads compiled (MPCA/LimnoTech)Nonpoint source load estimates for tributaries & “directNonpoint source load estimates for tributaries & direct drainage” are in progressLinkage between FEQ/RCA is in progress

Reporting ScheduleReporting Schedule

Model DocumentationDraft to MPCA: May 30Comments due: June 16Final: June 30Final: June 30

Technical Memo on SAV ModelingDraft to MPCA: June 10Comments due: June 18Final: June 30

Technical Memo on Upper Mississippi Model

Discussing extension with MPCA (August?)Discussing extension with MPCA (August?)

Potential Future Model Application Potential Future Model Application NeedsNeeds

New load reduction scenariosSensitivity & diagnostic simulations

Incremental removal of TP/TSS loadsInternal solids dynamics scenarios

Natural background scenarioSynthetic year(s)Linkage with watershed models

UMR RCA modelMinnesota HSPF model

Model Application NeedsModel Application Needs

Diagnostic Simulations:Remove direct WWTP loads for select tributary reduction scenariosIncremental removal of tributary loadsIncremental removal of tributary loadsEvaluate potential reductions in Pool 2 resuspension:

B i il bilit f lid t d di tBasis: availability of unconsolidated sediment in lower Pool 2 will decrease following source reductionsEffects TSS and TP in Spring Lake, downstreamBecomes important for 50/80 TSS loadBecomes important for 50/80 TSS load reduction scenario


Evaluate Chlorophyll-a Criterion for Lake P iPepin:

Key Questions: Is 28 ug/l an appropriate chlorophyll criterionIs 28 ug/l an appropriate chlorophyll criterion for Lake Pepin for a 10th percentile flow year?What is an attainable chlorophyll target?

Simulate natural/background TP & TSS loads from tributary sources based on pre-settlement land coverEvaluate Pool 2 / Pool 3 drawdown to decrease production between LD1 and LD3Re-evaluate historical basis for 10th percentileRe-evaluate historical basis for 10 percentile year


Develop synthetic simulations to represent “typical” 10th, 50th, 90th percentile flows at Prescott

Challenge: Each year represents a unique combination of flows contributions from UMR, Minnesota, St. Croix,Example: 2006 flows for UMR @ Prescott, Anoka were 14th percentile, but...

MR @ Jordan: 44th percentileSt. Croix: 8th percentile

Potential Solution: Combine different flow yearsPotential Solution: Combine different flow years for major tributaries

Flow Percentiles (JuneFlow Percentiles (June--Sep)Sep)Mississippi Minnesota Mississippi St Croix

YearMississippi (Prescott)

Minnesota (Jordan)

Mississippi (Anoka)

St. Croix (STC Falls)

1985 79% 49% 93% 78%1986 99% 97% 96% 99%1987 16% 21% 28% 14%1987 16% 21% 28% 14%1988 1% 3% 5% 7%1989 7% 6% 24% 24%1990 51% 72% 58% 47%1991 94% 99% 74% 82%1991 94% 99% 74% 82%1992 50% 86% 36% 46%1993 100% 100% 100% 83%1994 65% 89% 64% 57%1995 81% 94% 68% 71%1995 81% 94% 68% 71%1996 53% 79% 47% 61%1997 71% 88% 80% 43%1998 46% 60% 57% 26%1999 78% 78% 86% 68%

Median1999 78% 78% 86% 68%2000 32% 58% 33% 33%2001 76% 81% 79% 53%2002 87% 68% 91% 76%2003 56% 40% 70% 72%

High2003 56% 40% 70% 72%2004 68% 92% 50% 64%2005 59% 75% 78% 42%2006 14% 44% 14% 8%Low


Link UMR-LP Model to Tributary Models:Minnesota River HSPF model:

Develop more realistic load reduction i f TP TSSscenarios for TP, TSS

Simulate natural/background response?Upper Mississippi River RCA model:Upper Mississippi River RCA model:

Evaluate relative contributions of point, NPS loadsDevelop more realistic load reductions for TP, TSS

UMR-LP Model Training

Model Training @ MPCA: June 27Contact: Hafiz Munir ([email protected])

lake pepin water quality modeling · umrumr-lake pepin sap meetinglake pepin sap meeting april 30,...

Documents