LOTW TMDL PROJECT: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE › projects › ... · LOTW TMDL PROJECT: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 21, 2015 . Introduction Lake of the Woods TMDL •

[email protected]

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


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


Land Use Classification NLCD & Canada Landuse

Hydrologic Soil Group Feedlots % Impervious Tillage Pervious Classification


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


Hydrology – Calibration Data

• Flow • 27 Calibration

Gages

• Snow

• 36 Sites

• Lake Level

• 33 Lakes


Hydrology – Snow and Lake Level Calibration


Hydrology – Calibration Methods 1. Establish Annual

Water Balance

2. Make Seasonal Adjustments

Work Upstream to Downstream


Hydrology – Calibration Methods 1. Establish Annual

Water Balance

2. Make Seasonal Adjustments

Work Upstream to Downstream


Hydrology – Calibration Methods

3. High vs. Low Flows

4. Hydrograph Shape


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


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


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



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


Hydrology – Results Calibration Sites • Water Balance = Very Good • Monthly = Good to Very Good • Daily = Good to Very Good




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


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


Water Quality Calibration Sites and Constituents

• Calibration Sites • 2,009

Locations • 222 Reaches

• Constituents • Temperature • Dissolved

Oxygen • TSS • Nitrogen • Phosphorus • BOD • Chlorophyll-a


Water Quality Calibration Methods Graphical Comparisons

at Multiple Timesteps


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


Water Quality Results – Temperature


Water Quality Results – TSS


Water Quality Results – Phosphorus


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


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


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


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


Bathtub Model Setup

• Model Selections


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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)


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


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


TP Loading and Comparison (DRAFT)

Lake of the Woods HSPF and Bathtub Review

Climate Review


Climate 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


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

[email protected] 651.605.5705

Documents

LOTW TMDL PROJECT: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE › projects › ... · LOTW TMDL PROJECT: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 21, 2015 . Introduction Lake of the Woods TMDL •