Todays Presentation

Brief background on modeling

RWQMPU modeling process and results

Modeling 101
What is a model?
A theoretical construct, together with assignment of numerical values to model parameters, incorporating some prior observations drawn from field and laboratory data, and relating external inputs or forcing functions to system variable responses

* Definition from: Thomann and Mueller, 1987

How Models Work

Inputs + Model Equations = Output
Land Use/Land Cover Weather Data Soil Characteristics Point Sources Agricultural Practices Runoff Groundwater Total Flow Temperature Sediment (TSS) Dissolved Oxygen Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorous Fecal Coliform Cu

Types of Models
Landscape/Site-scale models Receiving water models Watershed models
Urban Crops Pasture

Key Processes Modeled

Why Model?
Well never have sufficient monitoring data to answer all of the questions we have about water quality Link sources of pollution to water quality impacts Evaluate magnitude of source loadings Evaluate/simulate future management actions

Addressing Data Gaps

Linking Sources to Water Quality

1,000,000
Fecal Coliform (#/100 mL) and Flow (cfs)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Existing Fecal A3 Fecal Not-to-Exceed Standard Precip

100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1 0 1500 3000 4500 6000

0.5 0.6

Minutes

MENOMONEE RIVER @ 70TH ST - WET WEATHER EVENT

Precipitation (inches)

Evaluating Magnitude of Source Loadings

Simulating Future Management Scenarios

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

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

SWAT and SLAMM Modeling

Nested modeling approach Match edge of field loadings Consider management/cropping / practices Consistent with Wisconsin DNR methods
1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 kg/ha/yr kg/ha/yr

SWAT SWAT HSPF LSPC HSPF LSPC

CornCornCorn- Pasture Pasture Pasture CornCornCorn- Pasture Pasture Pasture Soy B Soy C Soy D B C D Soy B Soy C Soy D B C D

Seven Step Process

1) Establish the model structure 2) Develop the model data sets 3) Perform hydrologic and hydraulic calibration and validation 4) Perform water quality calibration and validation 5) Perform harbor/estuary and lake water quality calibration 6) Perform production runs as required for project planning 7) Document results

Calibration:
1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Flow Sediment (TSS) Temperature Initial - gross nutrient (N,P) transport Initial - BOD and DO Algae Final of nutrient species and DO Fecal coliform bacteria Includes simulation of metals at a simplified level

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 and water quality calibration

Hydrologic Calibration
Gauge 04087159 @ 11th Street 1999 1400 USGS 1999 LSPC 1999 1200

1000

Flow rate (cfs)

800

600

400

200

0 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

Hydrologic Calibration (cont)

600

400

200

0 Jan-99

Feb-99

Mar-99

Apr-99

May-99

Visual Evaluations Shaping, Timing, Recession, Seasons, Snowmelt

Hydrologic Calibration (cont)

Category Total Highest 10% volume Total Highest 20% volume Total Highest 50% volume Total Lowest 10% volume Total Lowest 30% volume Total Lowest 50% volume

LSPC volume (acft) 49,000 58,143 71,767 1,255 5,064 10,849

USGS volume (acft) 53,806 63,518 74,965 1,319 4,872 9,508

Percent Difference Tolerance -8.9% -8.5% -4.3% -4.8% 4.0% 14.1% 15% 15% 15% 10% 10% 10%

Total Suspended Solids

450.0
Daily Modeled at RI-16

450.0
Daily Modeled at RI-21 Daily Observed at RI-16

400.0 350.0 Total Suspended Solids (m g/L)

400.0 350.0 Total Suspended Solids (m g/L) 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 1994

Daily Observed at RI-21

300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1995

1996

1997

1998

450.0 400.0 350.0 T otal Suspended Solids (m g/L) Total Suspended Solids (m g/L) 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 1994
Daily Modeled at RI-22 Daily Observed at RI-22

450.0
Daily Modeled at RI-09

400.0 350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 1994

Daily Observed at RI-09

1995

1996

1997

1998

1995

1996

1997

1998

Sediment Load
RI-09
10,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 100,000.00 Load (lb/d) 10,000.00 1,000.00 100.00 10.00 1.00 1.00 10.00 100.00 Flow (cfs) 1,000.00 10,000.00
Simulated Observed

Temperature
40.0 Daily Modeled at RI-16 35.0 Daily Observed at RI-16
35.0 40.0 Daily Modeled at RI-21 Daily Observed at RI-21

30.0 Water Tem perature (Celsius)

Water Tem perature (Celsius)

30.0

25.0

25.0

20.0

20.0

15.0

15.0

10.0

10.0

5.0

5.0

0.0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

0.0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

40.0 Daily Modeled at RI-22 35.0 Daily Observed at RI-22

40.0 Daily Modeled at RI-09 35.0 Daily Observed at RI-09

30.0 Water Tem perature (Celsius)

30.0 Water Tem perature (Celsius)

1995 1996 1997 1998

25.0

25.0

20.0

20.0

15.0

15.0

10.0

10.0

5.0

5.0

0.0 1994

0.0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Total Phosphorus
0.8
Daily Modeled at RI-16

0.8
Daily Modeled at RI-21 Daily Observed at RI-16

0.7 0.6 T otal Phosphorus (m g/L)

0.7 0.6 T otal Phosphorus (m g/L) 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 1994

Daily Observed at RI-21

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1995

1996

1997

1998

0.8
Daily Modeled at RI-22

0.8
Daily Modeled at RI-09 Daily Observed at RI-22

0.7 0.6 T otal Phosphorus (m g/L) 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 1994

0.7 0.6 T otal Phosphorus (m g/L) 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 1994

Daily Observed at RI-09

1995

1996

1997

1998

1995

1996

1997

1998

Total Nitrogen
8.0
Daily Modeled at RI-16

8.0
Daily Modeled at RI-21 Daily Observed at RI-16

7.0 6.0 T otal Nitrogen (m g/L)

7.0 6.0 T otal Nitrogen (m g/L) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1994

Daily Observed at RI-21

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1995

1996

1997

1998

8.0
Daily Modeled at RI-22

8.0
Daily Observed at RI-22

Daily Modeled at RI-09 Daily Observed at RI-09

7.0 6.0 T otal Nitrogen (m g/L)

7.0 6.0 T otal Nitrogen (m g/L) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1994

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1995

1996

1997

1998

Chlorophyll a
60.0
Daily Modeled at RI-16 Daily Observed at RI-16

60.0
Daily Modeled at RI-21 Daily Observed at RI-21

50.0

50.0

Chlorophyll_a (ug/L)

Chlorophyll_a (ug/L)

40.0

40.0

30.0

30.0

20.0

20.0

10.0

10.0

0.0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

0.0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

60.0
Daily Modeled at RI-22 Daily Observed at RI-22

60.0
Daily Modeled at RI-09 Daily Observed at RI-09

50.0

50.0

Chlorophyll_a (ug/L)

Chlorophyll_a (ug/L)

40.0

40.0

30.0

30.0

20.0

20.0

10.0

10.0

0.0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

0.0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Dissolved Oxygen
18.0 16.0 14.0 Dissolved Oxygen (m g/L) 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1994 Dissolved Oxygen (m g/L) 18.0
Daily Modeled at RI-16 Daily Observed at RI-16 Daily Modeled at RI-21

16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1994

Daily Observed at RI-21

1995

1996

1997

1998

1995

1996

1997

1998

18.0
Daily Modeled at RI-22

18.0
Daily Modeled at RI-09

16.0 14.0 Dissolved Oxygen (m g/L) 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1994

Daily Observed at RI-22

16.0 14.0 Dissolved Oxygen (m g/L) 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1994

Daily Observed at RI-09

1995

1996

1997

1998

1995

1996

1997

1998

Fecal Coliform
1000000.0
Daily Modeled at RI-16

1000000.0
Daily Modeled at RI-21 Daily Observed at RI-21

100000.0 Fecal Coliform (M PN/100 m L)

Daily Observed at RI-16

100000.0 Fecal Coliform (M PN/100 m L)

10000.0

10000.0

1000.0

1000.0

100.0

100.0

10.0

10.0

1.0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1.0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1000000.0
Daily Modeled at RI-22 Daily Observed at RI-22

1000000
Daily Modeled at RI-09 Daily Observed at RI-09

100000.0 Fecal Coliform (M PN/100 m L)

Fec al Coliform (M P N/100 m L)

100000

10000

10000.0

1000

1000.0

100

100.0

10

10.0

1.0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

0 1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

Water Quality Calibration (cont)

Evaluating Response to Changes

1. 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 various controls Detention facilities Infiltration Disinfection units

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 X hourly output X 20 modeling runs= 10 billion+ data points!

Presentation of Results (cont)

Selected 94 assessment points Summarized output in a variety of ways to facilitate decision making Geometric Mean Mean Median Days Meeting Standards Percent of Time Standards are Met

Conclusions
1. Models are a good fit to the large data base of actual water quality sampling data 2. Models produced massive amounts of output which can be used in the WRP to target potential actions 3. Comprehensive modeling system is a good framework for beginning the WRPs