focus group meeting: august 28, 2013 truckee river water quality standards review
TRANSCRIPT
Focus Group Meeting: August 28, 2013
Truckee River Water Quality Standards Review
Recall: Technical Decision Points for Focus Group Input• WQ models: Review Model Confirmation Report and confirm
that model calibration is complete and satisfactory (Jul/Aug)• WQS modeling process
– General approach for analysis (Jul/Aug)– Selection flow years/conditions for analysis (Aug)– Analysis of model results (spatial aggregations, critical reach, critical
season/month) (Aug) – Speciation of Phosphorus WQS: Ortho-P vs. TP (Aug/Sep)– TN WQS: evaluation of both single value max and annual ave. WQS
(Aug/Sep)• Results of WQS model runs (Aug/Oct)• Technical Rationale for WQS revision (Oct/Jan)
2
Overview of Topics for Discussion• Comments on model calibration/confirmation• Proposed approach for WQS modeling
– General approach– Flow regimes– Analysis and interpretation of model results
• Preliminary results of WQS model runs
3
Feedback on Model Confirmation
Summary of Focus Group Comments
• General Comment: “Is this model being designed to predict future water quality issues or what is it used for? I don’t understand.”– Currently used to assess alternate water quality
standards
• Additional Feedback?
Overview of General Approach for WQS Modeling
Development of Technical Rationale
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
• Establish site-specific nutrient criteria
7
Dissolved Oxygen
Sunlight
Flow
Algae
AerationNutrients (N&P)
Temperature
Organic Matter
Shifting from Model Calibration to Application• Calibration/Confirmation
– Generate confidence model is capable of accurately simulating historical river conditions
• Model application– Predict water quality response under hypothetical
scenarios (e.g., potential WQS levels)
8
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
Model Linkage: WQS Analysis
WARMF
TRHSPF
TROM(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
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
11
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
12
Flow Regimes
Development of Technical Rationale
13
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 (except during extreme low/high flows)
• Low flow periods and low flow locations– Highest potential for algal growth and depressed DO in rivers
• 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”
How is Low Flow Normally Set• Not defined in regulations• 7Q10 Statistics typically used
– Low 7-day flows expected to occur once every 10 years– Drawbacks with highly regulated system such as Truckee
• WQS Review– Can’t rely on historical flows; need to use “best
professional judgment” to define alternative approach– Based on TROM simulations of 100 years of operations– NDEP recommends using two flow conditions for analysis
• ~10th lowest year from the simulations• ~50th lowest (average) year from the simulations
Use of TROM Model Output to Select Low Flow Year
• 100 years of predicted flows: 1901 - 2000• TROM Scenarios:
– Future No Action: 2033 TMWA Demand, Historic Operations, build out of M&I
– Future TROA: 2033 TMWA Demand, TROA Operations– Current: 2002 TMWA Demand, Historic Operations
Assumptions for TROM Scenarios
Scenario Time Frame
Reservoir Operations
TMWA Demand
TMWA Irrigation
Rights Acquired
Truckee Meadows
Agricultural Demand
TMWRF Discharge and
Reuse
Newlands Project
Demands
Lower Truckee River Demand (Direct Use and
Instream Demand)
Current (EIS/EIR)
2002 Current operations
83,140 AF
57,170 AF 40,770 AF 26.53 MGD, Reuse: 0.24 MGD
Carson: 275,720,Truckee: 18,520,Fernley M&I: 0
Direct: 12,040 AF Instream: 0 AF
Future - No Action (EIS/EIR)
2033 Current operations
119,000 AF
83,030 AF 21,500 AF 40.01 MGD, Reuse: 9.7 MGD
Carson: 268,870,Truckee: 0,Fernley M&I: 6,800
Direct: 17,900 AF Instream: 16,380 AF
Future –TROA (EIS/EIR)
2033 TROA – store Credit Water
119,000 AF
93,550 AF 4,860 AF 40.01 MGD,Reuse: 9.7 MGD
Carson: 268,870,Truckee: 0,Fernley M&I: 6,800
Direct: 17,900 AF Instream: 16,380 AF
Future No Action (FNA) is most appropriate scenario
Selection of Representative Flow Conditions
• NDEP developed a process for derivation of “target flows” based on TROM FNA output (NDEP Memorandum 12/28/2011)
• Two representative flow regimes selected to date– Low Flow (10th percentile)– Average Flow (50th percentile)
18
Selection of 10th Percentile Flow Year: 1977
• 1977 better match than 1994 or 1988
19
• 1994 better match than 1988 or 1977
Conducted preliminary WQS simulations conducted for 1977, 1994, and 1988
Adjustment for 10th Percentile Year
• Considered options for better representation of 10th percentile flow year– Choose single year most representative of critical flows above and
below Derby Dam (e.g., 1977)
– Use a hybrid of multiple years• e.g., upper river 1977, lower river 1994
– Develop a separate synthetic year that matches 10th percentile targets
• Decided to keep 1977 FNA intact– Derived from the TROM FNA years closest to target flows
– Retains link between flow regime and historical climate data
– Only adjusted flows at Derby Dam for 1977 to bring closer to target values
20
1977 FNA Comparison of TROM, 10th percentile flows, and TRHSPF
21
Selection of 50th Percentile Year: 1985
• Investigated several candidate (recent) years based on TROM Future No Action (FNA) flows: 1973, 1985, 1987, 1993, 2000.
• 50%-percentile reference flows (diamonds) generated NDEP method
• Proceeded with using 1985 (FNA) – no additional adjustments
22
1985 FNA Comparison of TROM, 50th percentile flows, and TRHSPF
23
Analysis and Interpretation of Model Results
Development of Technical Rationale
General Approach: Iterative TRHSPF WQS Simulations• Representative flow year (TROM output)• TRHSPF run iteratively with different concentrations of
TN/TP/Ortho-P– Adjust N and P loads into river (increase or decrease) to match a range of
annual average river concentrations – Concentrations vary temporally but hit target WQS on an annual average
basis
• Locations with adjustments:– East McCarran (upstream model boundary)– Segments with incoming loads (North Truckee Dr., Steamboat Cr., TMWRF)
• Evaluate resulting attainment of DO WQS
25
Iterative Runs: Adjust Instream Concentrations = Specified WQS
Derek to provide WinModel screendumps illustrating how a time series of concentration was adjusted to as part of an iterative run
Target TN=0.75 mg/l, Reach 301 (E. McCarran)Blue = BaselineGreen = WQS Run Increased load to meet a target concentration
Sets of Simulations Orthophosphate (mg/L)
Total
Nitrogen
(mg/L)
0.030 0.040 0.050
PLPT std0.075 0.100
0.55 x0.65 x0.75
NDEP/PLPT std x x x x x0.85 x1.00 x
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Total Nitrogen
(mg/L)
0.030 0.040 0.050
NDEP std0.075 0.100 0.125
0.55 x 0.65 x 0.75
NDEP/PLPT std x x x x x x0.85 x 1.00 x
Conceptual Plot of Model Results
Possible Nutrient WQS
% o
f tim
e D
O W
QS
is v
iola
ted
(Based on representative flow condition)
Relationship between Nutrient Concentrations and DO WQS Attainment
?28
Conceptual Plot of Model Results
Possible Nutrient WQS
0.04 0.060.05
% o
f tim
e D
O W
QS
is v
iola
ted
0.0
5.0
10.0
Based on representative flow condition
?29
Translate DO Concentrations to Compliance
• Model simulates DO Concentrations for every hour at every model segment
• Need to translate to compliance with DO WQS
DO Compliance Considerations
• Highly dependent on the spatial and temporal scale upon which the DO exceedance percentages are calculated
• Next steps: – Evaluate the results at different spatial and
temporal scales – Make an educated determination as to what is
appropriate
31
Options for Calculating Percent Violation of DO WQS
32
% 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
Complexity of WQS Modeling Process• Models generate a lot of information
– 38 simulations (19 for each flow regime)– 43 river segments, 8760 hours per year…– 14,313,840 dissolved oxygen modeled data points
• Need to aggregate/distill model output for efficient decision making
• Working Group has been testing and revising methodology for last two years
33
Considered Various Post-Processing Options• Spatial Aggregation
– Coarse aggregation (Above Derby, Below Derby)– NDEP Control Point Reaches– Most critical reaches (individual segments)
• Temporal Aggregation– Annual aggregation – Critical season: June-September– Critical month
• Tested options with preliminary WQS simulations
Annual Critical Season (June-September)
Critical Month (e.g., June & September)
Above Derby Dam/ Below Derby Dam X X X
NDEP control point reaches X X X
Most Critical Reaches X X X
34
Approach for Post-processing and Aggregation
• Percent of days and percent of hours• Annual and critical season (June – Sep)• Four aggregated reaches and individual critical
reaches• TN range evaluated at two phosphorus levels
– Ortho-P at 0.05 mg/L (PLPT WQS)– Total P at 0.05 mg/L (current NDEP WQS)
• Develop select additional plots/tables– Magnitude of violation
35
Spatial Aggregation for WQS Modeling
36
WQS Post-Processing and Aggregation of Results
37
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
NDEP Reaches (4)
Critical Reaches (4)
Flow Regime Spatial AggregationTemporal AggregationCompliance MethodConstituent
TP
OP
TN
10% Flow (1977 FNA)
Percent of Days
Percent of Time
Percent of Days
Percent of Time
Percent of Days
Percent of Time
Critical Season (Jun-Sep)
Annual Aggregation
Critical Season (Jun-Sep)
Annual Aggregation
Critical Season (Jun-Sep)
Annual Aggregation
Critical Season (Jun-Sep)
Annual Aggregation
Critical Season (Jun-Sep)
Annual Aggregation
Critical Season (Jun-Sep)
Annual Aggregation
Preliminary WQS Modeling Results
Preliminary Low Flow Year Results
39
Preliminary Average Flow Year Results
40
Next Steps
• Finalization of model confirmation report• Focus Group comments and feedback (Sept 13th):
– Technical approach• Finalization of WQS model runs/output interpretation• Development of Technical Rationale Report• Upcoming Focus Group Workshops (City of Fernley)
– Sep 27, 2013 (F): 9 AM – 12 PM - modeling results– Oct 16, 2013 (W): 9 AM – 12 PM – Jan 15, 2014 (W): 9 AM – 12 PM – Additional Stakeholder / Focus Group meetings TBD in 2014
41