Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Overview

1

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Overview

February 4, 2010

Jing Wu UMCES/CBPO Modeling Group

2

Watershed Model Overview

• HSPF model 101

• Features of Phase 5 model

• Uses for management

3

Chesapeake Bay ProgramDecision Support System

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of Space

Per

cent

of T

ime

CFD Curve

Area of Criteria Exceedence

Area of AllowableCriteria

Exceedence

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent of Space

Per

cent

of T

ime

CFD Curve

Area of Criteria Exceedence

Area of AllowableCriteria

Exceedence

Management Actions

Watershed Model

Bay Model

CriteriaAssessmentProcedures

Effects

Allocations

Airshed Model

Land UseChange Model

ScenarioBuilder

Sparrow

4

HSPF Model

• HSPF (Hydrological Simulation Program –Fortran)

• Open source, free• Supported by USGS and EPA• Heavily parameterized (sensitive to

many inputs)• Recommended for TMDLs

5

Land Use AcreageBMPsFertilizerManureAtmospheric DepositionPoint SourcesSeptic Loads

RainfallSnowfallTemperatureEvapotranspirationWindSolar RadiationDewpointCloud Cover

Flow and loads at various time scales

1. Watershed Divided into sub-watershed ‘segments’

2. Model is fed hourly values for meteorological forcing functions

3. Model is fed a particular snapshot of management options

HSPF Modeling Process

66

Each segment consists of separately-modeled land uses

• High Density Pervious Urban• High Density Impervious Urban• Low Density Pervious Urban• Low Density Impervious Urban• Construction• Extractive • Wooded• Disturbed Forest

• Corn/Soy/Wheat rotation (high till)

• Corn/Soy/Wheat rotation (low till)

• Other Crops• Alfalfa• Nursery• Pasture• Degraded Riparian Pasture• Animal Feeding Operations• Fertilized Hay • Unfertilized Hay

– Nutrient management versions of the above

Plus Point Source and Septic

77

Each Land Use type is divided into four soil Layers

Ground Water

SurfaceInterflow Lower Zone

Water, Sediment, Nitrogen, Phosphorus

88

Trees

Roots Leaves

ParticulateRefractoryOrganic N

ParticulateLabile

Organic N

SolutionAmmonia

Nitrate

SolutionLabile

Organic N

AdsorbedAmmonia

SolutionRefractoryOrganic N

A complex nutrient cycling structureA

tmos

pher

ic

Dep

ositi

onD

enitr

ifica

tion

Export

Export Export ExportExport Export Export

9

River Simulation

River 3

10

Annual or Monthly:


Hourly Values:


Daily outputs comparedto observations

Watershed Model Calibration

HSPF

1111

Snapshot:


Hourly Values:


“Average AnnualFlow-Adjusted Loads”

Watershed Model Scenarios

Hourly output is summed over 10 years of hydrology to compare against other management scenarios

HSPF

1212

Management questions and model have been both increasing exponentially in complexity.

Watershed Model History

Year Segs Years Land Uses Purpose1982 64 2 5 Split point source and nonpoint source1985 64 2 5 Establish 40% goal 1992 64 4 8 Define 40% by basins 1994 89 8 9 Simulate nutrient cycle in more detail 1997 89 8 9 Re-evaluate and redefine 40% by major basin 2000 94 11 9 Set new goals and distribute by major subbasin 2010 1000 22 25 TMDL

1313

Phase 4

Phase 5 Model Development

Phase 5

14

Co-Developers of Phase 5 Model

MDEVA DCR

DevelopersEPA

UMCESUSGSNRCSCRC

VPISU

ICPRB

Chesapeake Bay Program

Advisors and data suppliersNY, PA, MD, DE, VA, WV, DC

STACUSGS

$

$

$

15

Major Advances in Phase 5

• Finer segmentation • Flexible functionality• High resolution input data

• Automated calibration • Transferability

16

Phase 5 – A ten fold increase in segmentation over previous phase 4.3 model

ELK

TIOG A

ON EID A

YO RK

KEN T

STEU BE N

SUS SE X

HER KIM E R

PO TTER

DELA WA RE

BER KS

OTS EG O

MC KE AN

ACC O M AC K

IND IAN A

WAY NE

HALIF AX

ALLEG AN Y

SO M ERS ET

LE E

CLEA RFIE L D

CAY UG A

BL AIR

LU ZE RN E

BRA DF OR D

CEN TR E

LA NC AS TER

PER RY

BRO O M E

CH EST ER

CH EN ANGO

SUR R Y

CAM B RI A

ST M AR YS

CLIN TO N

ON TAR IO MA DIS ON

CEC IL

DO RC H ESTE R

LO U ISA

PITTS YLVA NIA

ON O ND AG A

GA RR ETT

CH AR LES

WISE

SCO TT

PRE STO N

HU NTIN G DO N

LY CO M IN G

BED FO RD

SCH U YLKILL

GU IL FO RD

FRA NK LIN

TALBO T

WYT HE

BALTIM O R E

FAU QU IER

FLOY DSM YTH

YATE S

HEN R Y

STO KE S

AUG U STA

JE FFER SO N

BATH

HAR D Y

FULTO N

HAM P SH IRE

BL AN D

AL BE MA RLE

SUS Q UEH AN N A

ADA M S

MIF FLIN

HAR FO RD

MO N RO E

WO RC ES TER

LIV ING S TON

CAR O LI NE

SCH O HA RIE

CR AIG

LO U DO U NTUC KE R

NO RT HAM P TO N

WAR R EN

AM EL IA

FAIR FAX

PER SO N

HAN O VER

CAR R OLL

GR AN VIL LE

CAM P BELL

JU NIA TA

TOM P KIN S

CO LUM B IA

DIN WID DIE

SULL IV AN

SUF FO LK

OR AN G E

MC D OW EL L

BRU N SWIC K

CO RT L AND

CAR BO N

BUC H ANA N

ASH E

NELS O N

CAS WE LL

ME CK LEN BU RGPATR IC K

FOR SY TH

BUC KIN G HA M

ESS EX

RO CK ING H AM

RU SSE L L

DAU PH IN

TAZE WELL

GR AN T

SNY DE R

CH EM UN G

ALAM AN C E

CH AR LOTT E

PULA SKI

BO TETO U RT

VAN CE

CAM E RO N

SO UTH AM P TON

RO CK BR IDG EALLEG HA NY

WAS HIN G TO N

LE BA NO N

AM HE RS T

NEW C ASTLE

ANN E A RU ND EL

CALV ER T

W IC OM I C O

FRE DE RIC K

CU LPEP ER

QU EE N AN N ES

LU N EN BUR G

MO N TG OM E RY

PAG E

LA CK AW AN NA

SCH U YLER

JO H NS ON

WAT AU GA

BER KE LE Y

VIRG IN IA BE AC H

CU M BER LAN D

WYO M IN G

PEN DLE TO N

CH EST ERF IELD

DIC KEN SO N

UN ION

HO WA RD

PRIN C E G EO RG ES

FLUV ANN A

NO TTO WA Y

SPO TS YLVA NIA

HEN R ICO

GR AY SO N

STAF FOR D

CH ESA PEA KE

MO R G AN

HIG HLA ND

SHE NA ND O AH

MA TH EWS

NO RT HU M BER LAN D

GILE S

APP OM A TTO X

ISLE O F W IGH T

GO O CH LAN D

PO WH ATA N

CL AR KE

PRIN C E WILL IA M

GR EE NSV ILLE

MIN ER AL

NEW KE NTGLO U CES TER

KING W ILL IAM

PRIN C E ED WA RD

RIC HM O ND

KING A ND QU EE N

MID D LESE X

RO AN O KE

PRI N C E G EO RG E

JA M ES C ITY

WES TM O RE LAND

CH AR LES C ITY

KING G EO R GE

HAM P TO N

MO N TO UR

NO RF OLK

RAP PA HAN N OC K

GR EE NE

NEW PO R T NE WSPO QU O SO N

BO TETO U RT

DAN VILL E

LY NC HB UR G

DIST OF CO L UM B IA

PO RTS M OU THBRIS TO L

HAR R ISO NB UR G

RAD FO RD

WAY NE SBO R O

HO PE WELL

MA NA SSA S

NO RT ON

EM PO RIA

FRE DE RIC KSB UR G

WIL LIAM S BU RG

BUE NA VIST A

SO UTH BO ST ON

ARL IN G TO N

SALE M

STAU N TON

PETE RS BU RG

GA LAX

ALEX AN DR IA

MA RT INSV ILL E

WIN CH EST ER

CH AR LOTT ESV ILL E

FAI R FAX CITY

CO LO NIAL H EIG H TS

CO VIN G TONLE XIN G TON

CL IFTO N FO RG E

FALLS C HU R CH

MA NA SSA S P ARK

ELK

TIOG A

ON EID A

YO RK

KEN T

STEU BE N

SUS SE X

HER KIM E R

PO TTER

DELA WA RE

BER KS

OTS EG O

MC KE AN

ACC O M AC K

IND IAN A

WAY NE

HALIF AX

ALLEG AN Y

SO M ERS ET

LE E

CLEA RFIE L D

CAY UG A

BL AIR

LU ZE RN E

BRA DF OR D

CEN TR E

TIOG A

LA NC AS TER

PER RY

BRO O M E

CH EST ER

CH EN ANGO

KEN T

SUR R Y

CAM B RI A

ST M AR YS

CLIN TO N

ON TAR IO MA DIS ON

CEC IL

DO RC H ESTE R

LO U ISA

PITTS YLVA NIA

ON O ND AG A

GA RR ETT

CH AR LES

WISE

SCO TT

PRE STO N

HU NTIN G DO N

LY CO M IN G

BED FO RD

SCH U YLKILL

GU IL FO RD

FRA NK LIN

TALBO T

SUS SE X

WYT HE

BALTIM O R E

FAU QU IER

FLOY DSM YTH

YATE S

HEN R Y

STO KE S

AUG U STA

JE FFER SO N

BATH

HAR D Y

FULTO N

SO M ERS ET

HAM P SH IRE

BL AN D

AL BE MA RLE

SUS Q UEH AN N A

ADA M S

MIF FLIN

HAR FO RD

MO N RO E

WO RC ES TER

LIV ING S TON

CAR O LI NE

SCH O HA RIE

CR AIG

LO U DO U N

LY CO M IN G

TUC KE R

NO RT HAM P TO N

CEN TR E

WAR R EN

AM EL IA

FAIR FAX

FRA NK LIN

PER SO N

HAN O VER

CAR R OLL

GR AN VIL LE

CAM P BELL

CAR R OLL

JU NIA TA

TOM P KIN S

CO LUM B IA

DIN WID DIE

SULL IV AN

SUF FO LK

OR AN G E

MC D OW EL L

BRU N SWIC K

BED FO RD

CO RT L AND

BATH

CAR BO N

BUC H ANA N

ASH E

SULLI V AN

NELS O N

SUR R Y

CAS WE LL

ME CK LEN BU RGPATR IC K

FOR SY TH

BUC KIN G HA M

ESS EX

RO CK ING H AM

RU SSE L L

DAU PH IN

TAZE WELL

GR AN T

SNY DE R

CH EM UN G

ALAM AN C E

OR AN G E

CH AR LOTT E

PULA SKI

BO TETO U RT

VAN CE

CAM E RO N

SO UTH AM P TON

RO CK BR IDG E

YO RK

ALLEG HA NY

WAS HIN G TO N

LE BA NO N

AM HE RS T

NEW C ASTLE

ANN E A RU ND EL

CALV ER T

W IC OM I C O

FRE DE RIC K

AUG U STA

FRE DE RIC K

RO CK ING H AMCU LPEP ER

NO RT HAM P TO N

QU EE N AN N ES

LU N EN BUR G

MO N TG OM E RY

PAG E

ASH E

WAS HIN G TO N

LA CK AW AN NA

SCH U YLER

CAR O LINE

JO H NS ON

WAT AU GA

BER KE LE Y

VIRG IN IA BE AC H

CU M BER LAN D

FRA NK LIN

BED FO RD

CL IN TO N

BED FO RD

WYO M IN G

PEN DLE TO N

CH EST ERF IELD

HAR D Y

GR AN T

DIC KEN SO N

PEN DL E TO N

UN ION

HO WA RD

PRIN C E G EO RG ES

FLUV ANN A

NO TTO WA Y

SPO TS YLVA NIA

MO N TG OM E RY

HEN R ICO

GR AY SO N

STAF FOR D

CH ESA PEA KE

MO R G AN

HIG HLA ND

SHE NA ND O AH

MA TH EWS


GILE S

APP OM A TTO X

ISLE O F W IGH T

ALL EG AN Y

MA DIS ON

PAG E

GO O CH LAN D

RO CK ING H AM

PO WH ATA N

CL AR KE

LE E

PRIN C E WILL IA M

GR EE NSV ILLE

FRE DE RIC K

CU M BER LAN D

GIL E S

DAU PH IN

MIN ER AL

NEW KE NT

UN ION

GLO U CES TER

KING W ILL IAM

PRIN C E ED WA RD

ADA M S

RIC HM O ND

LA NC AS TERKING A ND QU EE N

GR AY SO N

MID D LESE X

JE FFER SO N

RO AN O KE

ALLEG AN Y

PRI N C E G EO RG E

BRA DF OR D

GIL E S

MIN ER AL

HIG HLA ND

JA M ES C ITY

ALLEG HA NY

WES TM O RE LAND

BED FO RD


CH AR LES C ITY

WAR R EN

NEL S O N

KING G EO R GE

HAM P TO N

MO N TO UR

SCO TT

PATR IC K

MA DIS ON

SHE NA ND O AH

RU SSE LL

AM HE RS T

WYO M IN G

NO RF OLK

AUG U STA

RAP PA HAN N OC K

GR EE NE

W AR R EN

LU ZE RN E

CU M BER LAN D

FRA NK LIN

TAZE W ELL

SM YTH

GR EE NE

BALTIM O R E

SCO TT

ALBE MA RLE

RO AN O KE

NEW PO R T NE WSPO QU O SO N

RIC HM OND

RAP PA HAN N OC K

BO TETO U RT

AL LEG HA NY

DAN VILL E

FAU QU IER

RO AN O KE

LY NC HB UR G

WYT HE

CAR R OLL

DIST OF CO L UM B IA

PO RTS M OU THWAS HIN G TO N

PETE RS BU RG

BRIS TO L

RAD FO RD

WAY NE SBO R O

HO PE WELL

MA NA SSA S

EM PO RIA

BED FO RD

FRE DE RIC KSB UR G

WIL LIAM S BU RG

SO UTH BO ST ON

CH EST ER

RO CK BR IDG E

RO CK ING H AM

ARL IN G TO N

SALE M

STAU N TON

GA LAX

ALEX AN DR IA

HAR R ISO NB UR G

NO RT ON

FRA NK LIN

MA RT INSV ILL E

WIN CH EST ER

CH AR LOTT ESV ILL E

BUE NA VIST A

FAI R FAX CITY

CO LO NIAL H EIG H TS

CO VIN G TONLE XIN G TON

CL IFTO N FO RG E

FALLS C HU R CH

MA NA SSA S P ARK

Phase 4.3 land and river segments

Phase 5 land segments Phase 5 river segments

Finer Segmentation

17

Flexible Functionality

• Normal HSPF editing modes– hand-edited ASCII files – windows-based point-and-click database– GIS-based population

• CBP phase 5 software– Automated file creation and modification in a

linux scripting environment

18

Land variableWDM

Final TextOutput

River variableWDM

METWDM

ATDEPWDM

PSWDM

ExternalTransferModule

Land Input File Generator

River Input File Generator

WDM = HSPF-specific binary file typeUCI = User Controlled Input (input file)

12 3 5

6

4

1. Land UCIs are generated2. HPSF is run on the land UCIs and output is stored in individual WDMs3. The ETM is run converting land output to river input, incorporating land use, BMPs, and

land-to-water delivery factors. Output is stored in river-formatted WDMs4. River UCIs are generated5. HSPF is run on the river UCIs and output is written back to WDMs6. Postprocessor reads river WDMs and writes ASCII output

Flexible Functionality

19

Overall Software System Functionality

- Inserted software that allows extreme flexibility-- Time Varying Land Use/BMPs-- BMP efficiency reacting to hydrologic condition -- Simulate any described management practice

- Easily allows large-scale parameter adjustments during calibration

- Parallel computing operations convenient

- Easy to add new land use types

- Easily integrated into outside databases for scenarios

• Advantages of phase 5 model system over a traditional HSPF application:

2020

Better, extended, and finer scale data sets

Improved Input Data


PrecipitationTemperatureEvapotranspirationWindSolar RadiationDewpointCloud Cover

Simulation period is 1984-2005: Two decades of meteorology and watershed management data

212121

Scenario Builder

Snapshot:


22

Sample Input and Output

Inputs• BMP

implementation

• Remote Sensing • Crop acreage

• Crop yield• Animal numbers

Outputs• BMP

implementation on phase 5 scale

• Land use

• Crop Uptake• Fertilizer• Manure

Parameters• BMP effects on

land use

• Tillage Type

• Plant and harvest dates

• Nutrient application by crop type

• Animal manure nutrient content

2323

• Ensures even treatment across jurisdictions

• Fully documented calibration strategy• Repeatable • Makes Calibration Feasible• Enables uncertainty analysis

Automated Calibration

24

Where do we calibrate?

River Reach

Reasonable values of sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus

Observations of flow, sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus

25

Phase 5 River Segments and Calibration Stations

Flow: 292

Water Quality: 130

26

Calibration Strategy

• Match observations in rivers• Match properties and trends

– Groundwater recession curve– Crop uptake of nitrogen

• Match literature and other models– Reasonable rates of nutrient export– USGS estimator and sparrow empirical

models

27

Calibration Process

HydrologyLand parameters

River data

TemperatureLand parametersRiver parameters

River data

Land SedimentLand parameters

Land targets

Land NutrientsLand parameters

Land targets

River Water QualityRiver parameters

River targets

1 week

1 week

1 week

2 weeks

Single-processor time

28

Open-Source Model• Entire model available on web

– Input data– Modified HSPF– Phase 5 system

• Already in Use– Community model in Climate Change

Study– Community model at ICPRB– Phase 5 output in Potomac PCB TMDL– Phase 5 information in MDE TMDLs– Phase 5 information in USGS

Watershed Study– USGS Shenandoah Models– Phase 5 output in Academic studies– UNC / Baltimore LTER study

Transferability

29

Agriculture40%

Forest15%

Atmospheric Deposition to Non-

Tidal Water1%

Urban & Suburban Runoff18%

Municipal & Industrial

Wastewater21%

Septic5%

Agriculture - manure19%

Agriculture - chemical fertilizer

16%

Agriculture - Atmospheric Deposition - livestock & fertilized soil

emissions6%

Atmospheric Deposition - mobile (on-road + non-

road) + utilities + industries

21%

Natural - lightning + forest soils

1%

Urban & Suburban Runoff - chemical

fertilizer11%

Municipal & Industrial Wastewater

21%

Septic5%

Land Use Source

Ultimate SourceWSM Uses:

Divide Load into contributing areas and sources

30

WSM Uses:Track Implementation Progressfrom different sources over time

Agriculture

313120.7 18.9 18.8 18.2 17.8 17.1 16.8 16.8 16.5 13.6

120.0 114.7 109.8 109.2 108.4 106.6 105.7 104.4 103.9 102.8

71.4 71.9

8.25.0 3.5 3.6 4.1 3.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.5

2.4 2.4

81.1

59.158.1 56.7 57.7 56.9 56.2 53.7 53.2 54.8

37.1 37.3

7.5

7.77.3 7.1 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.6

4.8 4.7

90.5

79.078.4 77.8 75.4 74.4 73.1 73.9 73.8 71.9

52.1 51.4

5.9

5.55.1 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.5

3.0 2.9

175

17 130

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1985 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Strategy StateCap

Goal

mill

ion

lbs.

/yea

r

NY PA DC MD WV VA DE

Nitrogen Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay By Jurisdiction Point source loads reflect measured discharges while

nonpoint source loads are based on an average-hydrology year

333.9

289.9 281.1270.2

175

266.3277.7 275.1

262.9 261.9260.7

184.4 183.1

32From the Chesapeake Bay Commission Report: Cost-Effective Strategies for the BayDecember, 2004

WSM Uses:Determine Effective Practices

33

WSM Uses:Estimate annual loads below monitoring stations

Roughly 25% of the total load is unmonitored

34

WatershedStates

Responsibility

By 9 major river basins

...then by 20 major tributary basins by

jurisdiction

…then by 44 state-defined tributary

strategy subbasins

WatershedPartners

Responsibility

WatershedStates

Responsibility

WSM Uses:Allocating Nitrogen-Phosphorus-Sediment loads

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Overview

Documents

Transcript of Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Overview