-
Modeling Toolbox Application to Alberta Water
Resources Management
Jon Ludwig
Water Resources Modeling Group
Fairfax, Virginia, USA
-
Environmental Modelling
º Effective tool for water resources management
º Coupling takes advantage of individual model strengths
º Focus on: Watershed Watershed-Receiving Water
Watershed-Geochemical
Speciation Receiving Water
Geochemical Speciation Watershed
-
Watershed-Receiving Water Models º Cumulative Effects, Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and comprehensive
watershed management studies
º Watershed models
Predict time-variable hydrology and water quality for various
land surface
categories (typically surface and groundwater)
Evaluate land-based, climate change, and other scenarios
Determine source-based load distribution
Non-proprietary examples include LSPC, HSPF, SWAT, and SWMM
º Receiving water models
Simulate hydrodynamics and/or water quality processes in water
bodies
Non-proprietary examples include EFDC, CE-QUAL-W2, and WASP
-
Watershed-Integrated Geochemical Speciation Models
º Comprehensive watershed hydrology and chemical reactions
modeling system
º Evaluate cumulative impacts on local/regional scale
º Integration of dynamic surface/subsurface chemical loadings w/
reactive chemical transport principals
º Planning for local and regional mitigation practices
º Defensible science based framework for optimization of
management strategies
-
Commonly Coupled USEPA Models
º LSPC (Watershed) Snow, flow, temperature, sediment, water
quality (HSPF routines) Object-oriented environment and relational
database Tailored for large-scale watershed modelling and TMDLs
º EFDC (Receiving Water) Fully integrated hydrodynamics,
sediment, and water quality 1, 2, or 3-dimensional simulation of
rivers, lakes/reservoirs, estuaries
º MDAS (Integrated Watershed/Geochemical) Watershed scale
analyses to evaluate cumulative impacts Local/site-specific
evaluation/BMP effectiveness
º All are public domain – freely available at
http://www.epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/
-
º Watershed Management and Cumulative Effects Assessment
North Saskatchewan River
º Receiving Water
Lower Athabasca River
º Integrated Watershed/Geochemical
Assessment of Mining Impacts, Central Appalachia (USA)
Case Studies
LSPC EFDC
EFDC
LSPC MDAS
-
North Saskatchewan River
º Developed coupled watershed-receiving water models for
AESRD
º Hydrology, hydrodynamics, and water quality
º LSPC for basin-wide simulation
º EFDC for main-stem river, Lake Brazeau, and Abraham Lake
LSPC EFDC
-
Phased Modelling Process º 2D/1D model of NSR
Devon to Saskatchewan
º 1D model of NSR Abraham Lake to
Saskatchewan
º Watershed model
º 3D models of lakes Abraham Lake Lake Brazeau
º Watershed model enhancements
-
LSPC Enhancements
º Improved meteorological input data/snow representation
º Increased number of calibration locations
º Quantified impact and modelled behavior of hydrologically
non-contributing areas
º Multi-faceted water quality calibration
-
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
O-9
8D
-98
F-9
9A
-99
J-99
A-9
9O
-99
D-9
9F
-00
A-0
0J-
00A
-00
O-0
0D
-00
F-0
1A
-01
J-01
A-0
1O
-01
D-0
1F
-02
A-0
2J-
02A
-02
O-0
2D
-02
F-0
3A
-03
J-03
A-0
3O
-03
D-0
3F
-04
A-0
4J-
04A
-04
O-0
4D
-04
F-0
5A
-05
J-05
A-0
5O
-05
D-0
5F
-06
A-0
6J-
06A
-06
Vol
ume
(cm
)
-40-30-20-100102030
Tem
pera
ture
(D
eg C
)
Rainfall (cm) Snowfall Water-Equivalent (cm) Air Temp (Deg
C)
Snowfall Temp (Deg C) SNOTEL Temperature (Deg C)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
O-9
8D
-98
F-9
9A
-99
J-99
A-9
9O
-99
D-9
9F
-00
A-0
0J-
00A
-00
O-0
0D
-00
F-0
1A
-01
J-01
A-0
1O
-01
D-0
1F
-02
A-0
2J-
02A
-02
O-0
2D
-02
F-0
3A
-03
J-03
A-0
3O
-03
D-0
3F
-04
A-0
4J-
04A
-04
O-0
4D
-04
F-0
5A
-05
J-05
A-0
5O
-05
D-0
5F
-06
A-0
6J-
06A
-06
Vol
ume
(cm
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Sno
wpa
ck W
ater
Dep
th (
cm)
Modeled Snowpack as Water (cm) Snowfall as Water (cm) Snowmelt
(cm)
Water Yield From Snow Pack (cm) Observed Snowpack (cm)
10 LSPC snow calibration at Edmonton Woodbend (10/1/1998 to
9/30/2006)
-
Calibration Locations
-
Summary of Seasonal Flow Patterns in NSR Basin
NSR Tributary Average Elevation
(m)
Percent NCA
Peak Flow
Month
Percent of Observed Annual Flow
Name Gage ID March-April-May May-June-July
Ram River 05DC006 1,807 0.0% June 20% 61% Clearwater River
05DB006 1,731 0.0% June 19% 51% Baptiste River 05DC012 1,106 0.010%
June 30% 58% Rose Creek 05DE007 974 0.004% May 49% 62% Modeste
Creek 05DE911 893 0.0% April 63% 50% Tomahawk Creek 05DE009 799
0.0% April 72% 41% Strawberry Creek 05DF004 798 0.19% April 71% 47%
Sturgeon River 05EA001 715 27% April 82% 37% Vermillion River
05EE009 673 77% April 84% 41% Vermillion River 05EE007 666 74%
April 96% 17% Waskatenau Creek 05EC002 664 37% April 92% 14%
Redwater River 05EC005 661 26% April 90% 34%
-
NCA – Evaluation of Physical Processes
º Frozen Ground Spring: runoff occurs because ground acts
impervious Summer: surface depressions contain most runoff when
ground thaws
º Deep Aquifer Recharge Summer/fall: baseflow in streams
dissipates Performed full mass balance
• Maximum potential evapotranspiration had little effect •
Groundwater recharge was most effective
-
14
Ram River Gage (05DC006)
y = 0.9466x + 2.0046R2 = 0.9196
0
20
40
60
0 20 40 60
Average Observed Flow (cms)
Ave
rage M
odelle
d F
low
(cm
s)
Avg Flow (10/1/1999 to 9/30/2008)Line of Equal ValueBest-Fit
Line
O N D J F M A M J J A S
0
20
40
60
10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Month
Flo
w (
cms)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Pre
cipita
tion (
cm)
Avg Precipitation (cm)Avg Observed Flow (10/1/1999 to
9/30/2008)Avg Modelled Flow (Same Period)
O N D J F M A M J J A S
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Month
Flo
w (
cms)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Pre
cipita
tion (
cm)
Average Precipitation (cm) Observed (25th, 75th)Observed Median
Modelled (Median, 25th, 75th)
Streamflow Observed vs. Modelled
seasonal / monthly flow
quartile variation
-
Error Statistics: Ram River (LSPC)
Hydrologic Indicator Observed (cm/year)
Simulated (cm/year)
Error Statistics
Error (%) Goal (%)
Total In-stream Flow: 24.34 26.43 8.60 ±10 Total of lowest 50%
flows: 3.35 3.60 7.51 ±10 Total of highest 10% flows: 10.90 10.41
-4.55 ±15 Summer (months 7-9): 7.75 8.16 5.31 ±30 Fall (months
10-12): 3.06 2.96 -3.21 ±30 Winter (months 1-3): 1.29 1.45 12.50
±30 Spring (months 4-6): 12.24 13.86 13.22 ±30 Total Storm Volume:
5.18 4.56 -11.89 ±20 Summer Storm Volume (7-9): 1.16 1.20 3.43 ±50
Nash-Sutcliffe Coefficient of Efficiency, E: 0.54 Model accuracy
increases Baseline adjusted coefficient (Garrick), E': 0.44 as E or
E' approaches 1.0
15
Metrics: HSPEXP, Nash-Sutcliffe, Garrick
-
Lower Athabasca River
º Developed EFDC hydrodynamic and water quality model for
Alberta Environment
º 2D model from Fort McMurray to Lake Athabasca
º Includes contributions from oil sand mining areas
º Primary focus on hydrodynamic and eutrophication modeling
EFDC
-
Cumulative Assessment of Mining Impacts in Central
Appalachia
º Multi-purpose application
º Dynamic geochemical speciation
º Evaluate cumulative impacts on a large watershed scale
º Site-specific impacts
º Regulatory support, mitigation and reclamation planning
LSPC MDAS
-
Watershed Characteristics º Extensive monitoring and source
tracking
activities Background and groundwater contribution loading
of
ionic species Residential sources of ionic loading
• Road salt application • Failing septic systems/straight
pipes
Abandoned mine discharges Permitted mining discharges Surface
mines & valley fills Underground mine discharges Oil and gas
operations
-
º Comprehensive watershed hydrogeochemical model
º Time variable dissolved/particulate chemical loading
capability User defined land surface/subsurface
º Reactive chemical transport capability within one-dimensional
channels Chemical thermodynamics & kinetics
º Dynamic chemical interactions Dissolved chemicals Suspended
sediments/active channel sediment layer Adsorbed chemical transport
associated with the deposition and
scour of cohesive sediment fraction (e.g. clay, Fe-Mn-Al
hydroxides)
Mining Data Analysis System (MDAS)
-
22
Conceptualization of Land Processes & Loading Mechanisms in
LSPC/MDAS Model
-
23
Conceptualization of in-stream processes/ functionalities
-
Simulated Water Quality Parameters º Master variables:
temperature, pH
º Major Anions: SO4, Cl, CO3
º Major Cations: Ca, Na, Mg, K
º Common metals: Fe, Al Contributing to TDS in AMD
impacted streams Affecting water pH
-
25
Results
-
26
-
Thank you!
For more information, contact:
Jon Ludwig
(703) 385-1973
[email protected]
AESRD
Sillah Kargbo, PhD
Darcy McDonald
Deepak Muricken
Andrew Schoepf
NSWA
Gordon Thompson
David Trew
Tetra Tech
Andrew Parker
Sen Bai, PhD
Ryan Murphy
John Riverson
Brandon Wood
Yoichi Matsuzuru
Allen Medine, PhD
mailto:[email protected]
Modeling Toolbox Application to Alberta Water Resources
Management �Environmental ModellingWatershed-Receiving Water
ModelsWatershed-Integrated Geochemical Speciation ModelsCommonly
Coupled USEPA ModelsCase StudiesNorth Saskatchewan River�Phased
Modelling Process�LSPC Enhancements�Slide Number 10Calibration
LocationsSummary of Seasonal Flow Patterns in NSR BasinNCA –
Evaluation of Physical ProcessesRam River Gage�(05DC006)Error
Statistics: Ram River (LSPC)Slide Number 16Slide Number 17Lower
Athabasca River �Cumulative Assessment of Mining Impacts in Central
Appalachia � Watershed CharacteristicsSlide Number 21Slide Number
22Slide Number 23Simulated Water Quality ParametersSlide Number
25Slide Number 26Thank you! �
