Upload
sweet-water
View
216
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
1/33
Todays Presentation
Brief background on modeling
RWQMPU modeling process and
results
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
2/33
Modeling 101
What is a model?
A theoretical construct,
together with assignment of numericalvalues to model parameters,
incorporating some prior observationsdrawn from field and laboratory data,
and relating external inputs or forcing
functions to system variable responses
* Definition from: Thomann and Mueller, 1987
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
3/33
How Models Work
Inputs + Model Equations = Output
Land Use/Land Cover
Weather DataSoil Characteristics
Point Sources
Agricultural Practices
Runoff
GroundwaterTotal Flow
Temperature
Sediment (TSS)
Dissolved OxygenTotal Nitrogen
Total Phosphorous
Fecal Coliform
Cu
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
4/33
Types of Models
Landscape/Site-scalemodels
Receiving watermodels
Watershed models
Landscape/Site-scalemodels
Receiving watermodels
Watershed models
Crops
Pasture
Urban
Crops
Pasture
Urban
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
5/33
Key Processes Modeled
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
6/33
Well never have sufficient monitoring
data to answer all of the questions we
have about water quality
Link sources of pollution to water qualityimpacts
Evaluate magnitude of source loadings
Evaluate/simulate future management
actions
Why Model?
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
7/33
Addressing Data Gaps
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
8/33
Linking Sources to Water Quality
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
0 1500 3000 4500 6000
Minutes
FecalColiform(
#/100
mL)andFlow
(cfs)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Precipitation(inches)
Existing Fecal
A3 Fecal
Not-to-Exceed StandardPrecip
MENOMONEE RIVER @ 70TH ST - WET WEATHER EVENT
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
9/33
Evaluating Magnitude of Source
Loadings
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
10/33
Simulating Future Management
Scenarios
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
11/33
2020/RWQMPU Modeling Scope
System Modeling treatment/conveyance(resulting CSO and SSO)
Watershed Models
Kinnickinnic River, Oak Creek, Menomonee River,Milwaukee River, and Root Rivers (1100 square miles)
Lake Michigan Harbor/Estuary Model
Objectives
Allow planners to evaluate the potential water
quality benefits of a range of alternatives
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
12/33
Watershed Modeling
Loading Simulation Program in C++
(LSPC) Updated version of Hydrologic
Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF)
Comprehensive watershed and
receiving water quality modeling
framework Maintained by the EPA Office of
Research and Development
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
13/33
SWAT and SLAMM Modeling Nested modeling
approach Match edge of field
loadings
Considermanagement/cropping/ practices
Consistent withWisconsin DNRmethods
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Corn-Soy B
Corn-Soy C
Corn-Soy D
PastureB
PastureC
PastureD
kg/ha/yr
SWAT
HSPF
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Corn-
Soy B
Corn-
Soy C
Corn-
Soy D
Pasture
B
Pasture
C
Pasture
D
kg/ha/yr
SWAT
HSPFLSPC
LSPC
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
14/33
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
15/33
Seven Step Process
1) Establish the model structure
2) Develop the model data sets3) Perform hydrologic and hydraulic
calibration and validation
4) Perform water quality calibration andvalidation
5) Perform harbor/estuary and lake waterquality calibration
6) Perform production runs as required forproject planning
7) Document results
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
16/33
Calibration:1) Flow
2) Sediment (TSS)
3) Temperature
4) Initial - gross nutrient (N,P) transport
5) Initial - BOD and DO
6) Algae
7) Final of nutrient species and DO8) Fecal coliform bacteria
9) Includes simulation of metals at a simplified
level
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
17/33
Testing Model Performance
Extensive review by Modeling
Subcommittee SEWRPC, WDNR, MMSD, USEPA,
Marquette University, UWM and others
Calibrated to 1994 to 1998 data
Validated to 1999 to 2001 data
Various tests for both hydrology andwater quality calibration
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
18/33
Hydrologic CalibrationGauge 04087159 @ 11th Street
1999
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
11/28/98 12/28/98 1/27/99 2/27/99 3/29/99 4/29/99 5/29/99 6/28/99 7/29/99 8/28/99 9/28/99 10/28/99 11/28/99 12/28/99 1/27/00
Flow
rate(cfs)
USGS 1999
LSPC 1999
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
19/33
Hydrologic Calibration (cont)
0
200
400
600
Jan-99 Feb-99 Mar-99 Apr-99 May-99 J
Visual Evaluations Shaping, Timing, Recession, Seasons, Snowmelt
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
20/33
Hydrologic Calibration (cont)
CategoryLSPC volume (ac-ft)
USGS volume (ac-ft)
Percent Difference Tolerance
Total Highest 10% volume 49,000 53,806 -8.9% 15%
Total Highest 20% volume 58,143 63,518 -8.5% 15%
Total Highest 50% volume 71,767 74,965 -4.3% 15%
Total Lowest 10% volume 1,255 1,319 -4.8% 10%
Total Lowest 30% volume 5,064 4,872 4.0% 10%
Total Lowest 50% volume 10,849 9,508 14.1% 10%
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
21/33
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
TotalSuspendedSolids(mg/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-16
Daily Observed at RI-16
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
TotalSuspendedSolids(mg/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-21
Daily Observed at RI-21
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
TotalSuspendedSolids(mg/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-22
Daily Observed at RI-22
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
TotalSuspendedSolids(mg/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-09
Daily Observed at RI-09
Total Suspended Solids
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
22/33
Sediment LoadRI-09
1.00
10.00
100.00
1,000.00
10,000.00
100,000.00
1,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
1.00 10.00 100.00 1,000.00 10,000.00Flow (cfs)
Load
(lb/d)
Simulated
Observed
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
23/33
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
W
aterTemperature(Celsius)
Daily Modeled at RI-16Daily Observed at RI-16
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
W
aterTemperature(Celsius)
Daily Modeled at RI-21Daily Observed at RI-21
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Water
Temperature(Celsius)
Daily Modeled at RI-22
Daily Observed at RI-22
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Water
Temperature(Celsius)
Daily Modeled at RI-09
Daily Observed at RI-09
Temperature
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
24/33
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
To
talPhosphorus(mg/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-16Daily Observed at RI-16
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
To
talPhosphorus(mg/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-21Daily Obs erved at RI-21
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Tot
alPhosphorus(mg/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-22
Daily Observed at RI-22
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
TotalPhosphorus(mg/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-09
Daily Observed at RI-09
Total Phosphorus
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
25/33
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
TotalNitrogen(mg/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-16
Daily Observed at RI-16
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
TotalNitrogen(mg/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-21
Daily Observed at RI-21
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
TotalNitrogen(mg/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-22
Daily Observed at RI-22
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
TotalNitrogen(mg/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-09
Daily Observed at RI-09
Total Nitrogen
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
26/33
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Chlorophyll_a(ug/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-16
Daily Observed at RI-16
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Chlorophyll_a(ug/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-21
Daily Observed at RI-21
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
C
hlorophyll
_a(ug/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-22
Daily Observed at RI-22
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
C
hlorophyll_a(ug/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-09
Daily Observed at RI-09
Chlorophyll a
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
27/33
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
D
issolvedOxygen(mg/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-16
Daily Observed at RI-16
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
DissolvedOxygen(mg/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-21Daily Observed at RI-21
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
DissolvedOxygen(mg/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-22Daily Observed at RI-22
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Dis
solvedOxygen(mg/L)
Daily Modeled at RI-09
Daily Observed at RI-09
Dissolved Oxygen
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
28/33
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
10000.0
100000.0
1000000.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
FecalColiform
(MPN/100mL)
Daily Modeled at RI-16
Daily Observed at RI-16
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
10000.0
100000.0
1000000.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
FecalColiform
(MPN/100mL)
Daily Modeled at RI-21
Daily Observed at RI-21
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
10000.0
100000.0
1000000.0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
FecalColiform
(MPN/100mL)
Daily Modeled at RI-22
Daily Observed at RI-22
Fecal Coliform
0
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
FecalColiform(
MPN/100mL)
Daily Modeled at RI-09
Daily Observed at RI-09
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
29/33
Water Quality Calibration (cont)
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
30/33
Evaluating Response to Changes1. Existing Condition 2000 land use & facilities
2. Future Condition
Projected 2020 land use (increase)
Committed MMSD projects
Full adoption of all urban NR151 measures
Same weather data as Existing Condition
3. Scenarios/Alternatives - various combinations of
controls on point and nonpoint
4. Innovative approaches to simulating variouscontrols
Detention facilities
Infiltration
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
31/33
Presentation of Results Multiple Locations
5 rivers, numerous modeling reaches Multiple Indicators
Fecal coliform, TSS, nutrients, DO, etc
Time Annual, seasonal, daily, statistics
Vast amount of output 682 modeling subwatersheds X 10 year model
runs X 14 parameters X 365 days in a year Xhourly output X 20 modeling runs= 10 billion+data points!
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
32/33
Selected 94 assessment points
Summarized output in a variety of ways tofacilitate decision making
Geometric Mean
Mean Median
Days Meeting Standards
Percent of Time Standards are Met
Presentation of Results (cont)
7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08
33/33
Conclusions
1. Models are a good fit to the large data
base of actual water quality samplingdata
2. Models produced massive amounts of
output which can be used in the WRPto target potential actions
3. Comprehensive modeling system is agood framework for beginning the
WRPs