27
Water Resources Management Using Coupled Models in Alberta and the U.S. Andrew Parker Water Resources Modeling Group Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Water Resources Management
Using Coupled Models in Alberta and the U.S.
Andrew Parker
Water Resources Modeling Group
Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Environmental Modelling
► Effective tool for water
resources management
► Coupling takes advantage
of individual model
strengths
► Focus on:
Watershed-Receiving Water
Watershed-BMP
Receiving Water
BMP Watershed
Watershed-Receiving Water Models
► Cumulative Effects, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and comprehensive
watershed management studies
► 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
► Receiving water models
Simulate hydrodynamics and/or water quality processes in water bodies
Non-proprietary examples include EFDC, CE-QUAL-W2, and WASP
Watershed-BMP Models
► Watershed implementation driven
► Advanced BMP models
Simulate combinations of structural management practices
Enable users to optimize selection and placement of practices based on
hydrology, water quality, and economic targets
Example: System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis
IntegratioN (SUSTAIN)
► Evaluate potential benefits of costly infrastructure before spending
limited resources on construction
Commonly Coupled USEPA Models
► LSPC (Watershed)
Snow, flow, temperature, sediment, water quality (HSPF routines)
Object-oriented environment and relational database
Tailored for large-scale watershed modelling and TMDLs
► EFDC (Receiving Water)
Fully integrated hydrodynamics, sediment, and water quality
1, 2, or 3-dimensional simulation of rivers, lakes/reservoirs, estuaries
► SUSTAIN (BMP)
Implementation planning framework
Determine cost-effective mix of BMPs to meet flow/load goals
► All are public domain – freely available at http://www.epa.gov
► Watershed Management and
Cumulative Effects Assessment
North Saskatchewan River
► Reservoir Management
Lake Lanier, Georgia
► Optimal Implementation Planning
Milwaukee, Wisconsin Metropolitan
Sewer District
Case Studies
LSPC EFDC
LSPC EFDC
LSPC SUSTAIN
North Saskatchewan River
► Developed coupled watershed-receiving water models for AESRD
► Hydrology, hydrodynamics, and water quality
► LSPC for basin-wide simulation
► EFDC for main-stem river, Lake Brazeau, and Abraham Lake
LSPC EFDC
Phased Modelling Process ► 2D/1D model of NSR
Devon to Saskatchewan
► 1D model of NSR
Abraham Lake to Saskatchewan
► Watershed model
► 3D models of lakes
Abraham Lake
Lake Brazeau
► Watershed model enhancements
LSPC Enhancements ► Improved meteorological input data/snow representation
► Increased number of calibration locations
► Quantified impact and modelled behavior of hydrologically non-contributing areas
► 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-9
9A
-99
O-9
9D
-99
F-0
0A
-00
J-0
0A
-00
O-0
0D
-00
F-0
1A
-01
J-0
1A
-01
O-0
1D
-01
F-0
2A
-02
J-0
2A
-02
O-0
2D
-02
F-0
3A
-03
J-0
3A
-03
O-0
3D
-03
F-0
4A
-04
J-0
4A
-04
O-0
4D
-04
F-0
5A
-05
J-0
5A
-05
O-0
5D
-05
F-0
6A
-06
J-0
6A
-06
Vo
lum
e (
cm
)
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
Tem
pe
ratu
re (
Deg
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-9
9A
-99
O-9
9D
-99
F-0
0A
-00
J-0
0A
-00
O-0
0D
-00
F-0
1A
-01
J-0
1A
-01
O-0
1D
-01
F-0
2A
-02
J-0
2A
-02
O-0
2D
-02
F-0
3A
-03
J-0
3A
-03
O-0
3D
-03
F-0
4A
-04
J-0
4A
-04
O-0
4D
-04
F-0
5A
-05
J-0
5A
-05
O-0
5D
-05
F-0
6A
-06
J-0
6A
-06
Vo
lum
e (
cm
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Sn
ow
pa
ck W
ate
r D
ep
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
► Frozen Ground
Spring: runoff occurs because ground acts impervious
Summer: surface depressions contain most runoff when ground thaws
► 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 + 2.0046
R2 = 0.9196
0
20
40
60
0 20 40 60
Average Observed Flow (cms)
Avera
ge M
odelled 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 (
cm
s)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Pre
cip
itation (
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 9
Month
Flo
w (
cm
s)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Pre
cip
ita
tion (
cm
)
Average Precipitation (cm) Observed (25th, 75th)Observed Median Modelled (Median, 25th, 75th)
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 9
Month
Flo
w (
cm
s)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Pre
cip
itation (
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
Lake Lanier
► Multi-purpose application
► Reservoir operations (Army Corps of Engineers)
► TMDL and wasteload allocations (Georgia EPD and USEPA)
► Landuse management for development
LSPC EFDC
Chattahoochee River WatershedModel Land Use/Land Cover (LU/LC) Inputs
NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17NMap produced 06-20-2011 - P. Cada
NCLegend
Stream/River
Watershed ModelBoundary
County Boundary
State Boundary
2005 LU/LC (GLUT)
Water
Low Intensity Dev.
Med Intensity Dev.
High Intensity Dev.
Barren
Forest
Golf Courses
Row Crop
Pasture/Fallow Field
Wetland
0 6 123 Miles
0 6 123 Kilometers
LakeSydneyLanier
Lake Lanier - EFDC Lake Model Inputs
NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17NMap produced 10-18-2009 - P. Cada
Buford Dam
SWS#1
SWS#89SWS
#9 SWS#21
SWS#10
SWS#32
SWS#2
SWS#113
SWS#18
SWS#29
SWS#94
SWS#3
SWS#20
SWS#15
SWS#26
SWS#91
SWS#14
SWS#105
SWS#28
SWS#22
SWS#31
SWS#92
SWS#225
SWS#40
SWS#220
SWS#33
SWS#115
SWS#116
SWS#25
SWS#88
SWS#27
SWS#12
SWS#221
SWS#117
SWS#93
SWS#114
SWS#122
SWS#90
SWS#6
SWS#121
SWS#5
SWS#123
SWS#30
SWS#106
SWS#23
Legend
Stream/River
Water
EFDC Model Grid
LSPC Model Subwatershed
Lake Model Input Cell0 4 82 Miles
0 4 82 Kilometers
Flows Temperatures
Concentrations
Concentrations: Chl-a, TN, NH3, NOx, OrgN, TP,
PO4, OrgP, BOD, DO, Temp, TSS, Fecal
Lake/Harbor – Water Surface River/Lakes – Temperatures
River/Lake/Harbor Concentrations:
(Chl-a, TN, NH3, NOx, OrgN, TP, PO4, OrgP, BOD, DO, Temp)
LSPC
EFDC
Scenarios
► Historical and current conditions
► Current conditions with allowable permits
► Current conditions w/ point sources/withdrawals removed
► All forested/natural
► Future land use full build-out
► Future land use w/ point sources/withdrawals removed
► Nonpoint source management practices
► TMDL to meet water quality criteria
Landuse and point source-specific reductions
► Reservoir operational changes
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District
► Explored ability of green infrastructure to reduce combined sewer overflows
► Benefits measured by:
Environmental outcomes (pollution reductions)
Economic and social outcomes (triple bottom line)
► Applied SUSTAIN linked to LSPC
LSPC SUSTAIN
AB-West B-East
C
Potential Types and Locations
BMP Configuration: Aggregate BMP Network
Outlet
Rain Garden
Residential
Impervious
Untreated
Area
Rain Barrel
Transportation
Impervious
Road
Regional
Bioretention
Roof Pavement
Green
Alley
Treated Area
Commercial / Industrial
Impervious
Green
Roof
Parking
Block & Regional
Bioretention
RoofStreet
Porous
Pavement
Porous
Pavement Porous
Pavement
Rain
Garden
Gre
en
Str
ee
ts
From LSPC model
► BMP Configuration
Map all potential locations
Typical routing configuration
Unit cost (scalable)
► Decision Variables
BMP Size (0 to maximum)
BMP Location (on or off)
► Objectives
Minimize Cost
Maximize Volume Reduction
Selection and Placement Optimization
Solution#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
$0.0
$10.0
$20.0
$30.0
$40.0
$50.0
$60.0
$70.0
$80.0
$90.0
38%
44%
48%
50%
54%
56%
58%
60%
61%
63%
65%
67%
68%
70%
72%
73%
75%
76%
77%
79%
80%
80%
81%
82%
82%
83%
83%
83%
83%
84%
84%
84%
84%
84%
85%
Effectiveness (% Reduction)
Cost
($ M
illio
n)
Rain Barrel Regional Bioretention
Rain Gardens Green Alley
Porous Pavement Block Bioretention
Green Roof
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
$0.0 $10.0 $20.0 $30.0 $40.0 $50.0 $60.0 $70.0 $80.0
Cost ($ Million)E
ffectiveness (
% R
eduction)
All Solutions
Cost-Effectiveness Curve
Selected Solution
Selected Solutions
25%
35%
45%
55%
65%
75%
85%
95%
$4
.95
$5
.55
$5
.82
$5
.97
$6
.31
$6
.75
$7
.03
$7
.65
$7
.79
$8
.13
$8
.43
$8
.87
$9
.26
$9
.81
$1
0.5
6
$1
1.3
0
$1
2.1
2
$1
3.1
3
$1
4.1
0
$1
5.0
3
$1
6.3
2
$1
7.2
6
$1
8.8
0
$1
9.6
1
$2
0.5
5
$2
1.7
4
$2
2.9
0
$2
4.5
6
$2
5.9
5
$2
7.3
9
$2
8.8
1
$3
1.0
1
$3
3.9
4
$3
7.0
9
$4
0.0
9
$4
3.2
5
$4
6.3
4
$4
9.6
8
$5
2.9
7
$5
7.1
7
$5
9.7
5
$6
2.3
6
$6
5.4
5
$6
8.6
4
$7
2.0
3
$7
4.5
3
$7
7.4
8
0
50
100
150
200
250
1%17%
6%
17%
31%
28%
0%
Reduction:
66.0%
Cost:
$10.6 Mil
Cost-effective Solutions
Thank you!
For more information, contact:
Andrew Parker
(703) 385-6000
AESRD
Sillah Kargbo, PhD
Darcy McDonald
Deepak Muricken
Andrew Schoepf
NSWA
Gordon Thompson
David Trew
Tetra Tech
Sen Bai, PhD
John Hamrick, PhD
Ryan Murphy
John Riverson
Brian Watson
Brandon Wood
