HomeMy WebLinkAboutmodel_run_example80% Flow-By
vs.
20% 7Q10
May 14, 2013
Ecological Flow Science Advisory Board
Tom Fransen
Division of Water Resources
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DWR is not assuming that the “80%
Flow-By” approach will be the SAB’s
final recommendation.
Goal of analysis is to test a potential
ecologic integrity planning criteria.
The purpose of this presentation is to
provide an example of “one” approach
that could be used to implement a
Flow-By approach.
Disclaimer
20% 7Q10 is a SEPA minimum criteria
for additional study.
If the maximum instantaneous with is less
than 20% 7Q10 then no additional analysis
is needed.
20% 7Q10 has frequency been
misapplied as the safe yield.
How is 20% 7Q10 used?
Best application is a single isolated run-of-
river withdrawal.
Does not work for withdrawals from
reservoirs.
How to apply to multiple near by
withdrawals?
Does not provide a metric to assess the
accumulative upstream impacts.
Only applies to run-of-river nodes with a
withdrawal.
Implementation Problem With
20% 7Q10
Need an approach that will work for
single, multiple near-by, and reservoir
withdrawals.
Needs to be able to assess the
accumulative upstream impacts at all
flow nodes, work at nodes with or
without withdrawals.
Trial Implementation of 80%
Flow-By
Starting Point
SL 2010-143 Definitions
"Ecological integrity" means the ability of an aquatic system to support and
maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a
species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to
prevailing ecological conditions and, when subject to disruption, to recover
and continue to provide the natural goods and services that normally accrue from
the system.
"Prevailing ecological conditions" means the ecological conditions
determined by reference to the applicable period of record of the United States
Geological Survey stream gauge data, including data reflecting the ecological
conditions that exist after the construction and operation of existing flow
modification devices, such as dams, but excluding data collected when
stream flow is temporarily affected by in-stream construction activity.
Analysis Assumption
Assume the SIMBASE modeling scenario represents “Prevailing ecological
conditions”. SIMBASE is the model scenario that represents current conditions,
withdrawals, discharges, reservoir operations, drought plans, etc.
Slide - 6
Create an 80% BASELINE using SIMBASE and
compare scenarios to the baseline. When a scenario
flow is below the BASELINE, that represents a
potential adverse ecological impact.
Analysis steps:
1.For each day (29,493 days)
BASELINE = 80% * SIMBASE (outflow from the arc)
2.Compare each day (29,493 days)
IF scenario < BASELINE then that days is a
potential adverse ecological impact day.
3.Looking for guidance on how to assess if a node is
adversely impacted based on number of days, time
of year, etc.
80% Flow-By Analysis Approach
80% Flow-By Example
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
8/1/2002 8/8/2002 8/15/2002 8/22/2002 8/29/2002 9/5/2002 9/12/2002
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
f
s
Date
Cleveland County Intake
2060 Scenario
SIMBASE
80%
SIMBASE
Potential Adverse Impact
No Impact
No impact if the green line
is above the red line.
Potential adverse impact
when the green line is below
the red line.
Broad River Basin
Only certified model
One of the smaller and simpler basins.
Has a mix of withdrawals both run-of-river
and reservoir.
Analyzed 27 river nodes, this include the
reservoir release nodes with a modeling
record of 1/1/1930 to 12/31/2009.
Trial Balloon
Broad River Basin Model
Slide - 10
Gaffney Gage
Kings Mnt
Cleveland
Slide - 11
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1/1/1930 1/1/1940 1/1/1950 1/1/1960 1/1/1970 1/1/1980 1/1/1990 1/1/2000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
f
s
Date
Cleveland County Intake
2060 Scenario
SIMBASE
80% SIMBASE
2060
No impact if the green line
is above the red line.
Potential adverse impact
when the green line is below
the red line.
Slide - 12
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
1/1/1930 1/1/1940 1/1/1950 1/1/1960 1/1/1970 1/1/1980 1/1/1990 1/1/2000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
f
s
Date
Kings Mnt Reservoir Release
2060 Scenario
SIMBASE
80% SIMBASE
2060
No impact if the green line
is above the red line.
Potential adverse impact
when the green line is below
the red line.
Slide - 13
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1/1/1930 1/1/1940 1/1/1950 1/1/1960 1/1/1970 1/1/1980 1/1/1990 1/1/2000
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
,
c
f
s
Date
Gaffney Gage
2060 Scenario
SIMBASE
80% SIMBASE
2060
No impact if the green line
is above the red line.
Potential adverse impact
when the green line is below
the red line.
80% of Flow-By
Arc Node Description of the Node Number of days with potential
adverse impacts Percent of days
010.020 Lake Summit Release 0 0.00%
020.040 Green River to Lake Adger 0 0.00%
040.050 Lake Adger Release 168 0.57%
050.060 Green River to Ken Miller 168 0.57%
060.100 Green River to Broad Confluence 168 0.57%
070.080 Lake Lure Release 0 0.00%
080.090 Upper Broad 30 0.10%
090.100 Upper Broad to Broad Confluence 24 0.08%
100.170 Broad River to Forest City Intake 4 0.01%
150.190 2nd Broad 18 0.06%
190.200 2nd Broad Cliffside 0 0.00%
170.180 Forest City Intake (2nd Broad) 4 0.01%
180.200 Upper Cliffside 4 0.01%
200.220 2nd Broad Confluence 0 0.00%
220.250 Cliffside Dam Release 25 0.08%
250.260 Boiling Spring Gage 4 0.01%
410.415 Cleveland Intake 159 0.54%
415.420 Lawndale Gage 116 0.39%
420.440 Shelby Intake (1st Broad) 131 0.44%
440.450 Gaston Shoals Dam Release 0 0.00%
450.500 First Broad Confluence 0 0.00%
500.550 Lower Broad 4 0.01%
550.700 Gaston Shoals Dam Release 104 0.35%
600.610 Kings Mountain Reservoir Release 290 0.98%
610.650 Kings Mountain WTP Discharge 163 0.55%
650.700 Buffalo Creek Confluence 50 0.17%
700.999 Gaffney Gage 26 0.09%
Broad River Basin - 2060 Scenario Node Summary
74% of the nodes (20 out 27) with 1 or more days with potential impacts.
Potential impacts occur less than 1% of the time.
Broad River Basin - 2060 Scenario
80% of Flow-By Summary
Days Potential Impact Difference (2060-80%SIMBASE), cfs
Arc
Node Description of the Node Number of days Percent of
days Minimum Average Median Maximum
410.415 Cleveland Intake 159 0.54% 0.00 0.01 0.00 4.64
600.610 Kings Mountain Reservoir
Release 290 0.98% 0 0.11 0 242.83
700.999 Gaffney Gage 26 0.09% 0.00 0.01 0.00 32.61
Average of the 27 Nodes 61 0.21%
Difference (2060-80%SIMBASE), cfs
Minimum Average Median Maximum
410.415 Cleveland Intake 0.00% 0.08% 0.00% 80.00%
600.610 Kings Mountain Reservoir
Release 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 72.59%
700.999 Gaffney Gage 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 16.46%
Slide - 16
-80%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%-5.00
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
1/1930 1/1940 1/1950 1/1960 1/1970 1/1980 1/1990 1/2000
De
f
i
c
i
t
,
%
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
-80
%
S
I
M
B
A
S
E
-20
6
0
)
/
S
I
M
B
A
S
E
De
f
i
c
i
t
(
8
0
%
S
I
M
B
A
S
E
-20
6
0
)
,
c
f
s
Time, days
Cleveland County Intake- 2060
80% Flow-By Deficit, cfs
Slide - 17
-75%
-65%
-55%
-45%
-35%
-25%
-15%
-5%
5%
15%
25%
35%
45%
55%
65%
75%-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
1/1930 1/1940 1/1950 1/1960 1/1970 1/1980 1/1990 1/2000
De
f
i
c
i
t
,
%
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
-80
%
S
I
M
B
A
S
E
-20
6
0
)
/
S
I
M
B
A
S
E
De
f
i
c
i
t
(
8
0
%
S
I
M
B
A
S
E
-20
6
0
)
,
c
f
s
Time, days
Kings Mnt Reservoir Release - 2060
80% Flow-By Deficit, cfs
80% Flow-By Deficit, %
Difference
Slide - 18
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%-35.00
-30.00
-25.00
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
1/1930 1/1940 1/1950 1/1960 1/1970 1/1980 1/1990 1/2000
De
f
i
c
i
t
,
%
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
-80
%
S
I
M
B
A
S
E
-20
6
0
)
/
S
I
M
B
A
S
E
De
f
i
c
i
t
(
8
0
%
S
I
M
B
A
S
E
-20
6
0
)
,
c
f
s
Time, days
Gaffney Gage - 2060
80% Flow-By Deficit, cfs
Non-Exceedence Cleveland Intake
cfs
Kings Mountain Reservoir Release
cfs
Gaffney Gage
cfs
Percent 80%SIMBASE 2060 80%SIMBASE 2060 80%SIMBASE 2060
0.003% 2.81 0.00 9.60 12.00 50.05 39.76
0.500% 23.80 23.44 9.60 12.00 278.08 323.90
1.000% 30.46 32.06 9.60 12.00 364.80 442.81
2.000% 38.46 42.13 9.60 12.00 396.62 485.32
5.000% 50.28 56.89 9.60 12.00 561.44 682.26
10.000% 66.46 77.13 9.60 12.00 720.60 876.10
15.000% 78.07 91.89 11.84 12.14 831.03 1,015.71
20.000% 87.00 102.98 16.20 18.27 933.17 1,144.17
25.000% 94.86 112.89 20.02 23.12 1,025.51 1,259.31
30.000% 103.01 123.14 23.41 27.49 1,115.89 1,373.37
35.000% 112.13 134.44 26.96 32.15 1,207.28 1,487.16
40.000% 121.40 146.09 30.60 36.56 1,292.03 1,593.01
45.000% 130.48 157.30 34.28 41.23 1,385.76 1,709.70
50.000% 140.08 169.34 38.61 46.72 1,487.14 1,837.53
55.000% 150.48 182.30 43.05 52.22 1,598.96 1,977.31
60.000% 162.19 197.09 48.16 58.59 1,719.80 2,128.53
65.000% 174.99 213.09 53.65 65.52 1,843.28 2,283.46
70.000% 190.48 232.28 59.81 73.28 1,996.54 2,474.56
75.000% 209.73 256.98 67.17 82.35 2,183.80 2,707.04
80.000% 235.79 289.23 77.16 94.89 2,432.98 3,019.67
85.000% 272.83 335.27 92.75 114.22 2,790.52 3,466.91
90.000% 334.48 412.28 118.64 146.41 3,393.62 4,220.36
95.000% 497.03 615.52 187.26 231.59 4,886.97 6,088.46
98.000% 868.27 1,080.09 369.03 458.72 7,920.52 9,881.02
99.000% 1,339.84 1,669.31 568.70 709.43 11,190.51 13,968.40
99.500% 1,938.71 2,417.33 828.56 1,034.32 14,958.05 18,676.93
99.997% 14,402.30 17,996.62 3,558.96 4,446.98 43,746.91 54,661.96
Broad River Basin - 2060 Scenario - 80% of Flow-By
Frequency Analysis
Red cells are 2060 flows a potential adverse impact.
How do we implement your
recommendation?
If a flow-by approach is used, is the
analysis on the right path?
Is SIMBASE the correct starting point?
Do all flows need to be ≥ 80% of
SIMBASE?
Are certain times of the year or specific
flow ranges of more importance?
?
We Need Help With -
Questions
80% flow-by is a trial balloon DWR is open willing
to consider all recommendations from the SAB,
including variations on the 80% theme.
Contact Information
Tom Fransen, Deputy Director
Tom.Fransen@ncdenr.gov
919-707-9015
Slide - 21