Download the Hydrologic Modeling Guidelines Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Hydrologic Modeling Guidelines for Regulatory Permit Actions FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT January 22, 2018 Hydrologic Modeling Guidelines for Regulatory Permit Actions FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT January 22, 2018 prepared by DiNatale Water Consultants and Carollo Engineers for the US Army Corps of Engineers — Fort Worth District Front cover: Stillhouse Hollow Lake and Dam. Photo: USACE Hydrologic Modeling Guidelines for Regulatory Permit Actions FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT Contents 1.0 Introduction . 7 1.1 Objectives . .8 . 1.2 Organization of Deliverables . 8 1.3 Intended Use of Deliverables . 10 2.0 Previous Efforts and Current Focus . 13. 2.1 Corps Review of WAM . 13 2.2 RiverWare . 14 2.3 Other Modeling Platforms . 15. 3.0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program and Overview . 19 3.1 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230) . .19 3.2 Public Interest Review and General Regulatory Program Requirements (33 CFR 320-332) . 22 3.3 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1500-1508 and 33 CFR 325 Appendix B) 24 3.4 Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 402) . 25. 3.5 Permit types (General and Individual Permits) . 25 4.0 Hydrologic Analysis and Modeling Overview in Corps Regulatory Setting . 27 5.0 Tier-1 HMGs: Standard Information Needs and HMGs for all Projects . 29 5.1 GUIDELINE 1.A: Describe the organizational structure of the Applicant . 30 5.2 GUIDELINE 1.B: Describe the existing system and operations . .31 5.3 GUIDELINE 1.C: Describe the proposed project and anticipated operations . 32 5.4 GUIDELINE 1.D: Identify existing relevant hydrologic data and hydrologic models . 33 5.5 GUIDELINE 1.E: Determine the geographic scope of assessment . 34 5.6 GUIDELINE 1.F: Minor-level project analysis and determination . 35 6.0 Tier-2 HMGs: Medium-Level Project and Effects Analysis . 39 6.1 GUIDELINE 2.A: Gather the best available hydrologic data for the project area . 40 6.2 GUIDELINE 2.B: Determine critical hydrologic period for analysis . 43 6.3 GUIDELINE 2.C: Determine the timestep required for hydrologic modification analysis . 45 6.4 GUIDELINE 2.D: Understand assumptions included in any modeling used . 47 6.5 GUIDELINE 2.E: Hydrologic modification analysis should preferentially use observed data for a baseline and modeled data secondarily . 48. 6.6 GUIDELINE 2.F: Coordination with resource agencies . 49 6.7 GUIDELINE 2.G: Simplify hydrologic modification analysis as much as possible to make determination of adequacy of analysis . .51 7.0 Major Project and Detailed Effects Analysis . 53 7.1 GUIDELINE 3.A: Use any Applicant-provided modeling where appropriate to save time and money in hydrologic model development . .54 1 FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT Hydrologic Modeling Guidelines for Regulatory Permit Actions Contents, cont. 7.2 GUIDELINE 3.B: Hydrologic model should be designed around known or anticipated needs of aquatic resources to be evaluated. 56. 7.3 GUIDELINE 3.C: Model purpose should be centered on reasonably representing streamflows under a variety of conditions, including critical periods. 57 7.4 GUIDELINE 3.D: Simulate Avoidance and Minimization actions separate from Compensatory Mitigation . 60 7.5 GUIDELINE 3.E: Model domain should encompass geographic extent and a sufficient study period to accurately reflect the range of effects. 61 7.6 GUIDELINE 3.F: Model timestep should reflect the critical timescale of the aquatic resources being evaluated. 62. 7.7 GUIDELINE 3.G: Proposed operations and administration should be incorporated into the hydrologic modeling. 63. 7.8 GUIDELINE 3.H: The study period time frame should consider reasonably foreseeable future actions for the development of a future-conditions baseline. 66 8.0 Case Studies . .69 . 8.1 Fort Worth District Water Supply Projects . .71 8.1.1 Sabine River Intake . 72. 8.1.2 Turkey Peak (Complex EA with Standard IP) . .75 8.1.3 Stillhouse Hollow Lake . .91 . 8.1.4 Trinity River Intake (EA with Regional General Permit) . .96 8.1.5 Lake Ralph Hall (EIS with Standard IP) . 106 8.2 Colorado water supply EIS projects . 116. 8.2.1 Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) . 116 8.2.2 Moffat Collection System Project . 121. 9.0 Glossary for Hydrologic Modeling Guidelines . .127 10.0 References . 135. 11.0 Citations for Figures and Photos . 137. Appendix A: Information on RiverWare . .A-1 . Appendix B: Water Availability Model (WAM) Specific Considerations for Texas Applications B-1 Appendix C: Permit Condition Examples . C-1 2 Hydrologic Modeling Guidelines for Regulatory Permit Actions FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT List of Figures Figure 1. Hydrologic modeling can support many resource factor evaluations. 21 Figure 2. The Sabine River Intake location is near Logansport, LA, which is adjacent to the border of Texas and Louisiana. 72 Figure 3. Map of the Brazos River Basin and location of proposed Turkey Peak Expansion. 76 Figure 4. Lake Palo Pinto Dam is located near Mineral Wells, Texas. The proposed project would expand the storage by creating another reservoir immediately downstream from Lake Palo Pinto. 77 Figure 5. Water rights of interest located near the proposed Turkey Peak Expansion. 78 Figure 6. Summary of water demands for Palo Pinto County Municipal Water District No. 1 and results of early 2010s drought on supply. 79 Figure 7. Map of Lake Palo Pinto and proposed Turkey Peak Expansion. Brazos River Basin. 80 Figure 8. Palo Pinto Creek and Paluxy River drainages used for neighboring-gage correlation analysis. 82 Figure 9. Map of Turkey Peak Expansion site and alternative sites. 83 Figure 10. Comparison of evaporation and channel losses at Palo Pinto Creek. 86 Figure 11. Palo Pinto Creek and Paluxy River have an overlapping period of record, which allows for comparison when modeling Palo Pinto Creek from the Paluxy River data. 89 Figure 12. Brazos River Authority water supply reservoirs. Lake Belton and Stillhouse Hollow Lake (7 and 8) are part of the Little River system, located near Killeen and Temple, Texas. 91 Figure 13. Proposed Stillhouse Hollow Lake and existing Lake Belton intake locations near Killeen and Temple, Texas. 93 Figure 14. Map of NTMWD water sources and proposed Trinity River Mainstem Pump Station. 97 Figure 15. NTMWD Main Stem and East Fork Pump Stations and Wetland Diversion. The proposed pump station location is near Rosser, Texas along the Trinity River. 99 Figure 16. Trinity River near Rosser, TX gaged flows show an increase in streamflow over the past few decades. .102 . Figure 17. Trinity River near Rosser gage with 60 MGD and 90 MGD withdrawals from 2000–2015. 103 Figure 18. Lake Ralph Hall and Upper Trinity Regional Water District raw water system schematic. 107 Figure 19. Map of initial area of hydrologic interest and the final area of hydrologic interest with key Applicant infrastructure. 120 Figure 20. Map of Denver Water raw water collection system and geographic extent of area of hydrologic interest. 122. 3 FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT Hydrologic Modeling Guidelines for Regulatory Permit Actions List of Tables Table 1. Summary of modeling platforms (replica of Table 5-1 of CDM Smith (2016)) . 16 Table 2. HMGs described with each case study. .70 . Table B1. Availability of WAM Runs 3 and 8 for Texas’ 23 River Basins . B-9 Lake Belton. Photo: USACE 4 Hydrologic Modeling Guidelines for Regulatory Permit Actions FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT Acronyms 404(b)(1) Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) PPC Palo Pinto Creek A&M Avoidance and Minimization PIR Public Interest Review CFR Code of Federal Regulations RFFAs Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions CM Compensatory Mitigation RPL RiverWare Policy Language CWA The Clean Water Act TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental EA Environmental Assessment Quality EIS Environmental Impact Statement TPE Turkey Peak Expansion ESA Endangered Species Act TRA Trinity River Authority H&H Hydraulics and Hydrology TRWD Tarrant Regional Water District HMG Hydrologic Modeling Guidelines TPWD Texas Parks & Wildlife Department LEDPA Least Environmentally Damaging USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers Practicable Alternative USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service LPP Lake Palo Pinto USGS United States Geological Survey LRH Lake Ralph Hall WAM Water Availability Model NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NISP Northern Integrated Supply Project NTMWD North Texas Municipal Water District NWP Nationwide Permit 5 FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT Hydrologic Modeling Guidelines for Regulatory Permit Actions Brazos River below Possum Kingdom County Lake, Palo Pinto County, TX. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brazos_River_below_Possum_Kingdom_Lake,_Palo_Pinto_County,_Texas.jpg 6 Hydrologic Modeling Guidelines for Regulatory Permit Actions FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT 1.0 Introduction This Technical Report presents technical information supporting development of a set of Hydrologic Modeling Guidelines (HMGs) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Worth District Regulatory Division (Corps). The HMGs are designed for discretionary application by Corps project managers and water supply permit Applicants to assist in identifying hydrologic analysis and modeling needs and requirements associated with water supply and management permit applications, with a focus on the RiverWare modeling platform for cases that require hydrologic modeling. The HMGs are intended to add predictability and transparency to the aspects of the permitting process related to hydrologic modeling but are not required to be used by Applicants or Corps regulators. These guidelines have been developed primarily for the Corps’ Regulatory Program’s (Regulatory) project managers who