Science Advisory Panel Meeting Science Advisory Panel Meeting Science Advisory Panel Meeting Science Advisory Panel Meeting Lake Pepin Water Quality Lake Pepin Water Quality Modeling Project Modeling Project April 30, 2008 April 30, 2008 Lake Pepin Photo by Guy Schmickle
63
Embed
Lake Pepin Water Quality Modeling · UMRUMR-Lake Pepin SAP MeetingLake Pepin SAP Meeting April 30, 2008 Lake Pepin Photo by Guy Schmickle. ... Inorganic P (DIP/PIP) ... S1(Scenario
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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
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)
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
Lake Pepin Photo by Guy Schmickle
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
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)
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
Lake Pepin Photo by Guy Schmickle
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-a (ug/l) @ Lock & Dam 3
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
Chlorophyll-a (ug/l) @ Lock & Dam 3
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 18.0 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
Lock & Dam 328.7 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)
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
Lake Pepin Photo by Guy Schmickle
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
Model Application NeedsModel Application Needs
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
Model Application NeedsModel Application Needs
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...