Windy Gap Firming Project Stream Water Quality Modeling and Methods Report U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation May 2008 Great Plains Region Stream Water Quality Modeling and Methods Report Windy Gap Firming Project prepared by AMEC Earth & Environmental (formerly Hydrosphere Resource Consultants) 1002 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 and ERO Resources Corporation 1842 Clarkson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................1 2.0 QUAL2K Model.........................................................................................................1 2.1. Upper Colorado River Modeling Reach ............................................................3 2.2. Model Development and Calibration.................................................................6 2.3. Discussion of Calibration Goodness of Fit ......................................................20 2.4. Additional Validation for Water Temperature.................................................20 2.5. Discussion of water quality throughout the study reach..................................21 2.6. Model Sensitivity.............................................................................................22 2.7. Simulation of Alternatives ...............................................................................27 3.0 Fraser Basin Nutrient Loading Model ......................................................................27 3.1. Model Development for Existing Conditions..................................................28 3.2. Future Conditions Simulations ........................................................................30 3.3. Model Output for Simulation of Cumulative Effects Alternatives..................31 4.0 Willow Creek Temperature Model ...........................................................................31 5.0 Water Quality Mass Balance Calculations ...............................................................35 6.0 Ammonia Standards Calculations.............................................................................38 7.0 References.................................................................................................................39 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Data measurement stations. ..................................................................................7 Table 2. Flow and key chemistry data for Colorado River headwater, tributaries, and point sources for July. ...........................................................................................9 Table 3. Locations for Colorado River water-quality measurement stations. ..................13 Table 4. Colorado River observed data for a typical July.................................................14 Table 5. Model calibration error statistics ........................................................................20 Table 6. Export coefficient data used for the Fraser River basin nutrient loading model..........................................................................................................................28 Table 7. Land use distribution used by the Fraser River basin nutrient loading model..........................................................................................................................28 Table 8. Total annual nutrient loads at the mouth of the Fraser River. ............................29 Table 9. Total annual nutrient loads at the mouth of the Fraser River. ............................30 Table 10. Comparison of Fraser River outflow nutrient concentrations for existing conditions and future cumulative effects simulations. .................................31 i LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Example QUAL2K segments describing a river reach. ......................................2 Figure 2. QUAL2K water-quality fluxes for model segments. ..........................................3 Figure 3. QUAL2K model segment map............................................................................5 Figure 4. Comparison of model output with measured data for discharge.......................15 Figure 5. Comparison of model output with measured data for water temperature. ........15 Figure 6. Comparison of model output with measured data for conductivity. .................16 Figure 7. Comparison of model output with measured data for dissolved oxygen. .........16 Figure 8. Comparison of model output with measured data for organic nitrogen............17 Figure 9. Comparison of model output with measured data for ammonia. ......................17 Figure 10. Comparison of model output with measured data for nitrate plus nitrite..........................................................................................................................18 Figure 11. Comparison of model output with measured data for organic phosphorus. ................................................................................................................18 Figure 12. Comparison of model output with measured data for inorganic phosphorus. ................................................................................................................19 Figure 13. Comparison of model output with measured data for dissolved selenium. ....................................................................................................................19 Figure 14. Comparison of model output with measured data for water temperature on July 31, 2006.....................................................................................21 Figure 15. Range of model sensitivity to air temperature and cloud cover. .....................23 Figure 16. Model sensitivity to Lake Granby release temperature...................................24 Figure 17. Model prediction of diel range of water temperatures. ...................................25 Figure 18. Sensitivity of model simulation to the inclusion of the natural springs near the Town of Hot Sulphur Springs. .....................................................................26 Figure 19. Willow Creek SSTEMP model area................................................................33 APPENDIX Appendix A SSTEMP Model Results—Output Tables ii ABBREVIATIONS CBOD Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand cfs cubic feet per second CWQCC Colorado Water Quality Control Commission EPA Environmental Protection Agency DMR Data Monitoring Report GCWIN Grand County Water Information Network HSS Hot Sulphur Springs ISDS Individual Sewage Disposal Systems NCWCD Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District SSTEMP Stream Segment Temperature Model TDS Total dissolved solids USGS United States Geological Survey WGFP Windy Gap Firming Project WWTP Wastewater treatment plant iii WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT STREAM WATER QUALITY MODELING AND METHODS REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report describes the methods used to simulate the water quality of the Colorado River, Willow Creek, and East Slope streams within the South Platte River basin for the direct and cumulative effect simulations for the Windy Gap Firming Project (WGFP). The Windy Gap Water Resources Technical Report (ERO and Boyle 2007) provided hydrologic data. The QUAL2K modeling software was used to develop a water-quality model for the Colorado River between Lake Granby and Gore Canyon, just downstream of the town of Kremmling, Colorado. The model application was developed and calibrated using hydrologic and water-quality data from the reach. Data used for calibration and the modeling results for the calibration period are discussed and the model performance is quantified. The model is described in Section 2. A nutrient loading model was developed for the Fraser River Basin for cumulative effects simulations. The details of the modeling methods used by this model are included in Section 3. The Stream Segment Temperature Model (SSTEMP) was used to determine the impacts of reduced streamflows below Willow Creek Reservoir to the temperature of the approximately 3-mile segment of Willow Creek between Willow Creek Reservoir and the Colorado River. SSTEMP handles only single stream segments for a single time period, such as a day, week, or month. Model operation and calibration is described in Section 4, as well as model results for two simulated dates. For streams in which water quality could be changed below the outfall of a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) due to changes in the amount of effluent discharge or changes in streamflow, a mass-balance analysis of ammonia and metal concentrations was completed. The calculations and assumptions are described in Section 5. In 2005, the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (CWQCC) adopted new total ammonia criteria for surface waters. The criteria are described in Section 6, and the equations are provided for calculating the ammonia standards. 2.0 QUAL2K MODEL The QUAL2K model is a one-dimensional, steady-state, numerical model that simulates flow, temperature, and water quality along a river reach (Chapra, et al. 2006). QUAL2K is distributed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and is a modernized version of the widely used QUAL2E model. QUAL2K can predict in-stream flows and water depth, water temperature, conductivity, and concentrations of inorganic solids, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, nutrients (e.g., organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate, organic phosphorus, and inorganic phosphorus), pH, alkalinity, phytoplankton concentration, and periphyton biomass.