Title: Chatfield Reservoir Hydrologic Scenario Development
1Chatfield Reservoir Hydrologic Scenario
Development
- Jim Saunders
- WQCD Standards Unit
- 13 March 2008
2Roadmap for Technical Review
3For Today
- Explain purpose served by hydrologic scenario
- Review examples
- Outline issues for Chatfield
- Problems with existing scenario
- Options for new scenario
- Make a recommendation
4What Purpose Does the Hydrologic Scenario Serve?
- Part of logical basis for linking implementation
of controls to attainment of standard - Necessary for defining allowable load in terms of
pounds (flow x concentration) - Control regulations define allocations in pounds
5Hydrologic Scenarios in Existing Control
Regulations
- Dillon
- 1982 (212,000 AF) return period 3y
- Index future P loads to base year (1982)
- Cherry Creek
- 1982 (2245 AF) return period 1.2y
- Index to 1982 base year
- Chatfield
- Original 1982 (93,000 AF) return period 3y
- Revised Q10 (261,000 AF) actual return period
5y - Bear Creek not specified
6Comments on Chatfield Scenario
- Rationale for Q10 is based on exceedance
probability for load rather than in-lake
concentration - Concentration threshold could be exceeded at any
flow if load is high enough - Assumes implicitly that higher load means poorer
WQ not necessarily true
7Conceptual Basis for New Scenario
- How is the allowable phosphorus load influenced
by hydrologic conditions? - Is the chl-TP relationship affected by flow?
depends (in concept) flow may control of TP - Is the TP conc-load relationship affected by
flow? depends (in concept) on P retention - Logical basis highest inflow concentration is
most likely to yield highest in-lake
concentration - What determines highest inflow TP concentration?
- Not necessarily a low flow scenario
- Depends on mix of two sources SP and Plum
8Starting Point for Hydrologic Scenario Development
- Select median total inflow
- WQCD often uses median flow in TMDL development
for streams - Median computed inflow 100,860 AF
- Determine relative importance of the two main
tributaries for setting the inflow concentration - Inflow concentration is total load/total inflow
- Does each tributary represent a constant
proportion of total inflow? - Does concentration vary with flow in either
tributary?
9Phosphorus Annual Average Concentration and
Tributary Flow
- South Platte conc not related to flow
- Plum Cr higher conc at higher flow
- Which influence is stronger in mixed flow?
10Flows Largely Independent
11Relative Importance of Plum Creek
- TP concentration in Plum Cr gtgt South Platte
- When is Plum highest? not at highest flows
- Median Plum 16
12Expanding the Scenario
- Started with median total inflow
- Set proportion from Plum Creek
- Median (16)
- High end (gt30)
- Return period?
- What determines Plum Creek contribution to inflow
TP concentration? - Dependence of concentration on flow
- Relative importance of flow
13Concentration and Flow in Plum
- Annual avg concentration is load/inflow
- Plateau abv 20,000 AF/y (TP0.175 mg/L)
14Influence of Plum Creek on Inflow TP
- Realistic range of inflow (backdrop of median
total inflow) - More Plum Cr flow (as ) means higher inflow
phosphorus concentration for reservoir
15Defining a Return Period
- Plum Cr gt 20,000 AF/y in 11/31 yrs
- Plum Cr gt 20 of inflow in 11/31 yrs
- Both criteria met in 6/31 yrs (19) return
period about 5 y
16WQCD Recommendation for Hydrologic Scenario
- Median total inflow 100,860 AF/y
- Plum Creek set contribution
- Option 1 median (16)
- About 16,000 AF/y TP conc below plateau
- Option 2 20
- About 20,000 AF/y TP conc on plateau
- Exceedance frequency about once-in-5 yrs
17TMAL Development Issues not included in Technical
Review
- Partitioning of load between South Platte and
Plum Creek basins - Allocations to sources within each basin
- Define margin of safety
18Whats Next?
- Next month technical review as basis for
proposal connecting the dots - Hydrologic scenario
- Load translator
- Concentration translator
- Standards, goals, and attainment
- Tracking memo