Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

November 2, 2011 Laura Weintraub, Dave Dilks

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "November 2, 2011 Laura Weintraub, Dave Dilks"— Presentation transcript:

1 November 2, 2011 Laura Weintraub, Dave Dilks
Background on Water Quality Models for the Truckee River WQS Review Process November 2, 2011 Laura Weintraub, Dave Dilks

2 Overview Water Quality modeling to support the WQS (water quality standards) 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

3 Need for Water Quality Modeling in WQS Review Process

4 Conceptual Watershed/Water Quality Model

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

6 Model Calibration Process
Certain model parameters cannot be directly measured, and must be indirectly estimated by finding which values allow the model to best describe the observed data Process is called model calibration Calibration guidelines Keep calibration parameters within reasonable range No single objective measure of model calibration

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

8 Use of Models in the WQS/TMDL Process
Climate WWTPs Nonpoint Loads Land Use Watershed Water Quality Water Management Model Model Quality Practices

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

10 WARMF Development and Calibration

11 WARMF: Watershed Model
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 Message: new watershed model not available in 1994

12 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

13 WARMF Input Data Data Type Data Source Details Topography
USGS DEM (Digital Elevation Model) 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) FWM, TROA Information System, USGS Flow for all active agricultural and M&I diversions (46) Reservoir USGS, USBR, CDEC Flow release, elevation, and bathymetry for 6 managed reservoirs Point sources TMWRF, NDEP, TTSA 2 major and 5 minor sources; flow and WQ records Land Use / Land Cover NLCD, Washoe County 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)

14 WARMF Calibration / Application
Model Calibration: Model 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 2007. Report available on TRIG

15 TRHSPF Development and Calibration

16 TRHSPF: River Water Quality Model
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 Message: new, updated public domain model Stakeholder-based model selection process Higher temporal and spatial resolution than WARMF Predicts diurnal fluctuations of DO

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

18 Key Processes Modeled in TRHSPF
Stream hydraulics Water quality Temperature, nitrogen, phosphorus, algae, oxygen

19 Key Processes Modeled in TRHSPF (continued)
Mass transport (Nitrogen, Phosphorus, TDS) Nutrient dynamics Productivity (algae growth and decay) Performed literature review on benthic algae modeling HSPF Enhancements based on DSAMMt algorithms

20 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 WQ input updated for 16 parameters Diversions FWM, TROA Information System Flow for 10 diversions Groundwater Repeat of time series based on Nowlin (1987) / Brock (1992) / Pohll (2001) WQ input updated for 13 parameters Upstream / tributary loads Historical data or WARMF output TR at Reno, Steamboat Creek, N. Truckee Drain The number of parameter updates for TMWRF and GW were different. GW is assumed to have negligible organic refractory nutrients (ORC, ORN, and ORP) and assumed to be zero. The 18 parameters listed for the TMWRF grab data include calculated parameters.

21 TRHSPF Calibration / Application
Model 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 Model Confirmation / Verification: 1990, 1995, 1996 Calibration Report: LimnoTech Final Draft Calibration of the Truckee River HSPF Water Quality Model. Prepared for the Cities of Reno and Sparks, Nevada, January, 2008. Report available on TRIG

22 Model Updates

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

24 Model Database Updates: WARMF Land Use / Land Cover
Old Land Use / Land Cover (LULC) data reflective of late 1990’s Rapid growth and development through 2006 New LULC reflective of recent growth Combination of several datasets 2006 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) – underlying base layer 2010 Washoe County / Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency – developed parcel data supersedes NLCD data Site-specific additions based on “parks” layer /Google Earth: ski resorts, golf courses, parks, animal feeding operation Need to check data of Washoe County data

25 Include table of % / area of each LULC category?

26 Late 1990’s previously in WARMF

27 New 2006/2007 layer imported to WARMF
(increased development)

28 Evaluation of Linked WARMF/TRHSPF Modeling Framework
Previously used data to drive TRHSPF upstream boundary – now using WARMF results Comparison of TRHSPF results to data isn’t just evaluation of TRHSPF, but evaluation of linked WARMF/TRHSPF Allows for modeling of river WQ response based on changes in watershed

29 TRHSPF DO Results at Tracy / Clark

30 TRHSPF DO Results at Marble Bluff Dam

31 Summary of Model Update
Confirmation of WARMF and TRHSPF for period Model updated to reflect rapid regional growth through 2006 Both models are ready for use to support the third-party WQS and TMDL review efforts Third-parties welcome comments and questions from Focus Stakeholder group Model confirmation report being finalized

32 Intended Use of Models 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

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

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

35 Water Quality Model Linkage

36 Selection of Flow Management Model
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 Model) 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

37 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

38 Questions?

Download ppt "November 2, 2011 Laura Weintraub, Dave Dilks"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google