Connely BaldwinConnely Baldwin

David TarbotonDavid Tarboton

Utah Water Research LaboratoryUtah Water Research Laboratory

Utah State UniversityUtah State University

The beginning of the end…How EDN 14 will contribute to the DSS

Outline

Purpose Context DSS Worksheet Synopsis EDN 14 – Surface Water Quantity

Model Development Tasks DSS details – the first iteration Discussion

Purpose for EDN14

Clarify model-to-model and model-to-data interactions for the surface water quantity components of the Nooksack DSS

Clarify the form of outputs required from the surface water quantity components of the Nooksack DSS

Clarify the format for specification of decision alternatives to the surface water quantity modeling components

Context

This is a stakeholder driven process DSS worksheets provided a structured

communication of issues at stake in WRIA1

The outcome DSS should be a modeling and data visualization system that presents information relevant to most important decision issues

DSS worksheet synopsis

The worksheets served to define:– Possible management alternatives– Indicator variables (for decision making)– Spatial scale– Temporal scale– Overall period of simulation

DSS Worksheet Synopsis Management Alternative Categories

Diversions Land Use/Land Cover Water Rights and Ecological Flows Storage External Influences Others (conservation, institutional)

DSS Worksheet Synopsis – An intriguing quotation

Background Conditions:

“Years of inattention to baseline information gathering and water resource issues, citizen complacency, citizen investments based upon lack of enforcement and the private wells exemption lasting forever”

DSS Worksheet Synopsis- Specific issues

         Lynden North - Includes Kamm Slough, Fishtrap and Bertrand Creek drainages. Lynden North has a substantial number of water right applications and potential unpermitted water rights, transboundary issues, stream flows that do not meet legally established flows, and nitrate concerns.

         Sumas watershed – Give analytical attention to both surface and groundwater quantity constraints for current and future uses.

         Fraser River – The Fraser River drainage area is open for additional withdrawals and as such represents a potential area to look for solutions.

         South Fork – The South Fork routinely experiences stream flows that do not meet legally established flows and initial examination indicates that this is not due to consumptive withdrawals.

         Lake Whatcom/Middle Fork – The City of Bellingham obtains water from Lake Whatcom and the Middle Fork drainages. The City water supply may be a possible source of water for other areas of the WRIA.

• Agriculture in general – respond to concerns about impact on instream flows/changing from surface water to ground water withdrawals (distance to stream)

DSS Worksheet Synopsis- Specific issues

         Agricultural lowland areas – Water conservation and reuse. Water rights implications for conserved water. Also, areas with potential supplies of water that could be reused (i.e., municipal or industrial waster water treatment facilities) would be likely focus areas.

         General – Appropriateness of 1985 IRPP Instream Flow Settings (e.g., South Fork).

         … refined information for all drainages of the mainstem of the Nooksack (below the forks) and aggregated information above.

         Hydraulic Continuity – Extent to which ground water withdrawals impact surface water flows needs to be determined to appropriately understand the physical availability of water.

         One-molecule rule – need to develop an agreed-upon pragmatic standard that can be applied realistically in making water allocation decisions within WRIA 1.

• Middle Fork Diversion – Optimal management

• Over-allocated drainages – ASR/Storage/Conservation/Reuse

DSS Worksheet Synopsis – Model Output Needs

Temporal and spatial variability of streamflow

Focus on low flow periods Water rights fulfillment Flow Duration curves by period GW level Baseflow contribution

EDN 14 : Preliminary Surface Water Quantity Model Development

An iterative and collaborative process with involvement by YOU in a team environment

Tasks1. Design of model-to-model and

model-to-data interactions

2. Implementation of DSS design using placeholder models.

Task 1Model-to-model and model-to-data interactions

Phase II and the DSS worksheets have provided documentation of the issues that need to be addressed by the DSS and the data available. It has also reviewed available modeling methodologies. The next step in developing the DSS is to define the model components, inputs, outputs and interactions. This demands definition of standardized interactions between models, e.g., how the surface water quantity model is linked to models from other related components. The inputs to and outputs from each model component need to be specified precisely in terms of location, scale and resolution.  DeliverableAn information flow diagram and accompanying text specifying the functionality of each model component.

Task 2Strawman implementation using placeholder

models

Some key issues in DSS development are best accomplished by building a working strawman DSS. These include graphical user interface design, database functionality, and presentation of the output. This task will build on the database design and visualization that is already part of the Water Quality data viewer. These interface items are nearly equal in importance to the development of rigorous underlying models. However, if these issues are only fully dealt with after the models are developed, there is significant risk of a less-than-optimal DSS. This can be avoided by implementing the design of Task 1 using “placeholder” models that provide the same output as the full model, but with extremely simplified methods. For example, the surface water quantity model would be a simple runoff coefficient model where runoff is defined as a constant fraction of rainfall. The same methods and input data would be used, but the model could be quickly implemented to define and test model-model interactions, and usability and format of model outputs.  

Deliverable A “strawman” surface water quantity DSS following the design of Task 1 comprising a suite of placeholder models to test the user interface and output functionality.

DSS – underlying structure

DSS data, simulations andalternative specifications

Data editing and importing tools

Alternative builder

Model component A (e.g. streamflow)

Model component B (e.g. groundwater)

Data viewer

Decision maker and analyst

DSS – Detail on Components

Data Viewer (Similar to Water Quality Demo)– Produce high level watershed characterization

summaries– View Historical Data– View Model Output (Fine Detail)

Alternative Builder– Change Diversions/Storage Options – Modify/Import Land Use Coverage

DSS – Visuals

Alternative Builder Examples Data Viewer. What is the best way to

compare the results of management alternatives and other conditions– High level watershed characterization

summaries examples.– Detailed examination of historical and

model output data.

DSS – Alternative Builder

Sequentially add various options graphically and enter detailed information:– Diversions

– Land use changes

– Storage

Save details as individual options Mix and match to generate a management

alternative

Add Diversion DetailDiversion ID: 101Description:Silesia Creek to NF Nooksack

Month Flow (cfs)Oct 10Nov 0Dec 0Jan 0Feb 10Mar 12Apr 20May 30Jun 50Jul 30Aug 20Sep 10

OK CANCEL

Diversion Operation Schedule

User clicks to add

diversion location and

fills in Yellow

Highlighted Fields

Modify Land UseLand Use Change ID: L102Description:Northward Growth of Lynden

Original Land Use: VariesNew Land Use: Urban

OK CANCEL

Add Storage Location InformationDiversion ID: S103Description:Keefe Lake Reservoir

Capacity 7,440 Acre FeetWater Right 37 cfs

Diversion Volume Minimum(Water Right, Flow - IRPP, 0)

OK CANCEL

Reservoir Operation Rules

Reservoir Parameters

Data ViewerWatershed Characterization Summaries

Summarize the results of the management alternatives and compare to other alternatives, pre-1850, or current conditions

Present output in readily understandable statements and plots

Distribute to stakeholders

WRIA 1 Watershed management projectStreamflow Summary: Nooksack River at Ferndale

Water Quantity Summary

Comparing:

Pre-1850CurrentManagement Alt. A3: Diversion and StorageManagement Alt. B1: Deep ground water pumping replacing surface water

Flow Summary

show

Synopsis

Pre-1850 meets instream flow requirements year-roundCurrent conditions fail to meet instream flow requirements in 3 monthsA3 meets instream flow requirements year-roundB1 fails to meet instream flow requirements in 1 month

WRIA 1 Watershed management projectNooksack River at Ferndale

Water Rights Summary

Comparing:

Pre-1850CurrentManagement Alt. A3: Diversion and StorageManagement Alt. B1: Deep ground water pumping replacing surface water

Rights Summary

IRPP Fishtrap Canal Co.PUD DiversionKeefe Lake ReservoirOct 20 5 5 5Nov 30 3 5 0Dec 40 1 0 0Jan 50 1 0 0Feb 60 5 5 5Mar 70 6 6 6Apr 80 4 3 3

May 90 4 3 3Jun 10 5 3 3Jul 15 0 0 0

Aug 10 0 0 0Sep 10 0 0 0

Synopsis

A3 Increases PUD diversion reliability by 20%, resulting in 80% reliabilityB1 increases Fishtrap Canal co reliability by 30%, resulting in 70% reliability

Water Rights Fulfilled Under Current Conditions

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Month

Wat

er R

igh

ts M

et (

cfs)

Keefe Lake Reservoir

PUD Diversion

Fishtrap Canal Co.

IRPP

Water Rights Fulfilled Management Alt. A3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Month

Wat

er R

igh

ts M

et (

cfs)

Keefe Lake Reservoir

PUD Diversion

Fishtrap Canal Co.

IRPP

Data ViewerDetail examiner

Ability to “drill down” and look at specific locations in detail.

Compare Management Alternatives at specific key locations.

Examine detailed model output, base flow, etc.

Variety of plotting options possible. Primarily for technical users.

Location of Key Decision Points

on Stream Network (outlet

of drainages, streamflow gages,

etc.)

Generate plots at key points to

compare management alternatives

Summary Statistics

Plot Options

Time Series Plot

Blue – Time series of Mgmt Alternative Flow

Red – Time series of Current Conditions

Possible Representation of Improvement of some Alternative over Current

Conditions

Yellow – Time series of Mgmt Alternative Base Flow

Drop Down Menu to Select Other Plot Types

Possible Customization of

Box Plots

Box Plot – Current Conditions

Red Line – Mgmt. Alternative

Possible Representation of Improvement of some Alternative over Current

Conditions (solid red)

Fewer Instances of Low flow (hatched magenta)

Direction of Change reinforced by arrow

More Instances of Higher flow

(hatched blue)

Discussion

We need your help– Does this meet your needs?– What information is most useful?– What information is unnecessary?– What have we left out that you want?

The next iteration