water quality modeling 11.10.08

7/31/2019 Water Quality Modeling 11.10.08

1/33

Todays Presentation

Brief background on modeling

RWQMPU modeling process and

results


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


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


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


5/33

Key Processes Modeled


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?


7/33

Addressing Data Gaps


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


9/33

Evaluating Magnitude of Source

Loadings


10/33

Simulating Future Management

Scenarios


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


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


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


14/33


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


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


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


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


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


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 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%


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




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




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




Total Suspended Solids


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


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)


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)



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)



Temperature


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)


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)



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)



Total Phosphorus


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)



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)



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)



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)



Total Nitrogen


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)



0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Chlorophyll_a(ug/L)



0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

C

hlorophyll

_a(ug/L)



0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

C

hlorophyll_a(ug/L)



Chlorophyll a


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)



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)


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)


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)



Dissolved Oxygen


28/33

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

10000.0

100000.0

1000000.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

FecalColiform

(MPN/100mL)



1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

10000.0

100000.0

1000000.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

FecalColiform

(MPN/100mL)



1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

10000.0

100000.0

1000000.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

FecalColiform

(MPN/100mL)



Fecal Coliform

0

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

FecalColiform(

MPN/100mL)




29/33

Water Quality Calibration (cont)


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


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!


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)


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

water quality modeling 11.10.08

Documents