Minnesota River Basin Meeting Minnesota River Basin Meeting St. Paul - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
minnesota river basin meeting minnesota river basin
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Minnesota River Basin Meeting Minnesota River Basin Meeting St. Paul - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 02, 2023 381 likes •692 views

Watershed Management and Modeling Minnesota River Basin Meeting Minnesota River Basin Meeting St. Paul District COE April 20, 2010 Watershed Management Capabilities Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) (ERDC) Tools For Watershed

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Watershed Management and Modeling

Minnesota River Basin Meeting Minnesota River Basin Meeting

  • St. Paul District COE

April 20, 2010

Watershed Management Capabilities

Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) (ERDC)

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Watershed Management and Modeling

Tools For Watershed Modeling and Management – Discussion Items

g

W t h d M d li S t (WMS)

  • Watershed Modeling System (WMS)
  • Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis

(GSSHA) Model

  • Upper Mississippi River Basin Study
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Watershed Management and Modeling

WMS Overview

g

  • Comprehensive system for watershed modeling
  • Multiple computational models supported
  • Empirically‐based, lumped parameter models (e.g. HEC‐HMS,

HSPF, TR‐20, etc)

  • Physically‐based, distributed spatial parameter model (GSSHA)
  • Riverine models (e.g. HEC‐RAS)

R i d l ( CE QUAL W )

  • Reservoir models (e.g. CE‐QUAL‐W2)
  • Integrates
  • Models to understand system‐wide effects
  • Multiple data sources to automate model parameter

p p definition

  • With GIS through ESRI’s ArcObjects
  • With public data sources through web services
  • Widely used for civil and military applications
  • Widely used for civil and military applications
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Watershed Management and Modeling

WMS User Community

g

  • FY09 Stats:
  • 439 Total USACE‐licensed users

Breakdown of WMS Users

439 T t l USACE li d U i FY09

39

  • 58 New Users
  • 149 Support Calls
  • WMS Numerical Model

439 Total USACE-licensed Users in FY09 EPA, 33 Navy, 16 Other, 10

Maintenance Funds from 10 districts: CEORP, CELMM, CESPL, CEMVRI, CENCS, CESAJ, CENAP CENAN CESWT CENPS

USACE, 181 DoE, 3

CENAP, CENAN, CESWT, CENPS

WES, 69 Army, 127

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Watershed Management and Modeling

Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis

g

y g y

  • 2D Overland Flow
  • 1D Channel Network
  • 1st Order contaminant kinetics,

transport N t i t S b M d l Lib

  • 2Dx1D Infiltration
  • 2D Groundwater
  • 2D Evapotranspiration
  • Nutrient Sub Module Library

kinetics, transport

  • Sediment transport
  • DEM
  • Soil Type
  • Wetlands
  • Pipe Networks

yp

  • Land Use
  • Precipitation – Radar, Gages
  • Hydrometeorological

p

  • Lakes
  • Special Boundary types
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Watershed Management and Modeling

What GSSHA Can Do

g

Surface water hydrology Surface Water/Groundwater I t ti Surface water quality and TMDL’ Interaction TMDL’s Sediment Transport Contaminant fate/transport in surface water and

Watershed Modeling and Management

surface water and groundwater and related health risk assessment

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Watershed Management and Modeling

Strengths and Weaknesses of GSSHA

g

Weaknesses of GSSHA

  • Simulation of surface Water and Groundwater interactions
  • Tile drains
  • Wetlands
  • Physical Process‐driven model: can simulate fundamental changes in processes

described by other models described by other models

  • SPARROW, SWAT
  • addition of wetlands for flood attenuation and nutrient/sediment processing
  • Spatially explicit formulation: can evaluate impacts of where changes occur

p y p p g

  • Location of wetlands addition
  • Location of land use change
  • Can be run on multiple platforms

p p

  • Requires moderate modeling background/expertise
  • Temporal and spatial applications currently have some constraints
  • SW/GW Hydrology – large and small scale applications
  • Sediment/Nutrient transport – tested on small spatial and temporal scales
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Watershed Management and Modeling

Technical Support and Training

g

Training Training Applications Applications Case Studies Case Studies Hawaii Applications Applications

  • T i i

Panama

  • Training
  • GSSHA and WMS summer training courses
  • On‐line training at http://gsshawiki.com
  • Documentation
  • User’s Manual, Tutorials, Primer on‐line: http://gsshawiki.com

O i t

  • One‐on‐one assistance
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Watershed Management and Modeling

Wetland Model

g

L t l fl Bi-model flow: Linear transition Lateral flow through, over vegetation from Darcian flow at bottom to Manning’s flow at

  • vertopping level

Lateral flow through peat / muck layer Darcian Flow Vertical infiltration, exfiltration, Lateral Groundwater Infiltration, 2D Groundwater models

Assessing environmental restoration techniques in the Rio Grande Bosque in Albuquerque

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Watershed Management and Modeling

Storm and Tile Drains

g

  • Connected set of pipes,

manholes, inlet grates

  • Leaky pipes used to interact with

groundwater

Superlink 1

Node 1

Link 1 Link 2 Link 3

Node 2 Node 3 Node 4

Junction 1 Junction 2 Assumed Flow Direction Node 1 Link 1 Node 2 Link 2 Node 3

Applied at Dead Run Creek Baltimore District

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Watershed Management and Modeling

Spatial Hydrology: Dealing with Runoff Processes Changes

g

Runoff Processes Changes

  • Spatial effects of land use

changes

  • Where you put a commercial

zone, detention basin, or wetland changes the hydrology l d d l d

  • Include engineered wetlands
  • Include detention basins
  • Planning and after‐the‐fact land

h use changes Kishwaukee River Basin

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Watershed Management and Modeling

Spatial Hydrology: Sediment and Contaminants for TMDLs

g

  • U.S. Army Garrison – Schofield Barracks,

HI

  • Evaluating the Total Daily Maximum Load

Evaluating the Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) from the live‐fire training ranges at Schofield Barracks for sediments and military constituents

  • Design Best Management Practices
  • Design Best Management Practices

(BMPs) to reduce loadings

  • Vegetation management practices
  • Training schedules

d d h d

  • Reduce erosion associated with roads
  • Capture sediments and associated

contaminants

  • Vegetative filter strips
  • Detentions basins
  • Detentions basins
  • Embankments
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Watershed Management and Modeling

Sediment Transport

g

Event model within continuous simulation framework O l d fl

30000 40000 50000 tons/day)

Simulated Observed

  • Overland flow:
  • Any number of grain sizes
  • Detachment by raindrop impact and

surface runoff

10000 20000 30000 Sediment flux (

  • Transport capacity can be Kilinc‐

Richardson‐Julien or Engelund‐Hansen

  • Erosion, deposition, transport
  • Elevation and particle distribution

145 145.5 146 146.5 147 Julian day, 1982

Sediments

10000

evolution

  • Stream flow:
  • Sand and larger size particles simulated

as bed load.

100 1000

ent Discharge (cubic meters) Simulated Observed

  • Smaller particles simulated as wash

load.

  • Stream channel cross sections adjusted

for erosion/deposition

1 10 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Peak Discharge (cms) Sedime

p

  • Coupled to constituent transport

Goodwin Creek

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Watershed Management and Modeling

Nutrient Transport

g

  • Link to the Nutrient Sub Module developed by the Environmental Laboratory
  • Overland/Soils Module

Overland/Soils Module

  • NH4, NO3, Organic Nitrogen (Dissolved and Adsorbed)
  • PO4 and Organic Phosphorus (Dissolved and Adsorbed)
  • Channel Module
  • NH4, NO3, Organic Nitrogen (Dissolved and Adsorbed)

NH4, NO3, Organic Nitrogen (Dissolved and Adsorbed)

  • PO4 and Organic Phosphorus (Dissolved and Adsorbed)
  • Dissolved Oxygen
  • Algae Groups
  • Phytoplankton (Floating Algae)

Phytoplankton (Floating Algae)

  • Benthic or Periphyton (Submerged Attached Algae)
  • Plant Module (Terrestrial)
  • EPIC formulations based upon the Heat Index Method
  • EDYSLite (developed put not integrated within NSM yet)

EDYSLite (developed put not integrated within NSM yet)

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Watershed Management and Modeling

Eau Galle Reservoir Demo

g

Large Scale Hydrologic Assessment g y g Small Scale Nutrient and Sediment Transport Study

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Watershed Management and Modeling

Discharge Calibration

g

25 30 35 40 m 3 s-1) EG 18.5 observed EG 18.5 cal1

Initial

5 10 15 20 25 Discharge (m 2002.4 2002.48 Date (years)

Peak Mean Absolute Error (MAE) – 3% Total Discharge Error – 1 5%

60 70 80

3 s-1)

EG 18.5 observed EG 18.5 final cal

Total Discharge Error – 1.5%

10 20 30 40 50 Discharge (m3 2002.4 2002.48 2002.56 2002.64 2002.72 2002.8 Date (years)

Peak (MAE) – 42%

Final

Total Discharge – 7%

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Watershed Management and Modeling

Reservoir Modeling

g

50 60 computed simulated 10 20 30 40 Discharge (m 3 s-1)

  • Error Total Discharge – 3%

10 2002.37 2002.42 2002.47 2002.52 2002.57 2002.62 2002.67 2002.72 Date (years) 289.00

  • bserved

computed

Elevation

g 3

287.50 288.00 288.50 L a k e e le v a tio n (m ) 286.00 286.50 287.00 2002.37 2002.42 2002.47 2002.52 2002.57 2002.62 2002.67 2002.72 2002.77 L Date (years)

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Watershed Management and Modeling

Water Quality Calibration ‐ DIP

g

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Watershed Management and Modeling

Dead Run Creek Demo

g

  • 14.3 km2 (~5 mi2)watershed in Baltimore, MD
  • Impacts of storm drain networks on storm hydrographs
  • Impacts of storm drain networks on storm hydrographs
slide-20
SLIDE 20

Watershed Management and Modeling

Drainage Networks

g

Historical Stream Network Current Stream and Storm Drain Network Storm Drain Digitization

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Watershed Management and Modeling

Urbanization and Wetlands Creation in the Kishwaukee Watershed

g

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Watershed Management and Modeling

Watershed Overview

g

  • Watershed Area:

~1100 mi2

Fontana-on-Geneva Lake Woodstock

  • Stream Miles:

~1000 mi

Greater Chicago Area Belvidere Rockford Fox River Rock River

  • Overland flow
  • Stream flow
  • Infiltration

Huntley Sycamore

  • Groundwater
  • Tile Drains
  • Detention Basin

l d d l

  • Wetland Hydraulics

Geneva

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Watershed Management and Modeling

Project Goals

g

  • Develop Watershed Management Plan
  • Placement of 1600 ac of wetlands

Placement of 1600 ac of wetlands

  • Removal of tile drains
  • Assess impacts of future land use
slide-24
SLIDE 24

Watershed Management and Modeling

Impacts of Spatial Location: Wetlands Location Study

g

y

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Watershed Management and Modeling

Wetlands Location Results

g

Belvidere, Il

120 140 60 80 100

  • w (cm s)

No Wetlands Wetlands 1 Wetlands 2

20 40 60 Flo

Wetland 3 Wetland 4

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Time (min)

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Watershed Management and Modeling

Visualization and Stakeholder Interactions

g

Interactions

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Watershed Management and Modeling

Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB)

g

( )

  • Developed SWAT model to quantify links

between water quality and biofuel crops in the UMRB

  • Evaluated the land use and water quality

changes associated with the production of corn based ethanol

  • Conducted scenario analysis to identify

potential water quality impacts due to modified agricultural management to meet biofuel production targets set in the recent biofuel production targets set in the recent energy bill.

  • Built scientific understanding to reduce the

potential impacts of biofuels production on DA = 189,000 mi2 p p p the environment.

Study conducted for Argonne National Labs by Dr Zhonglong Zhang (ERDC-EL)

27

by Dr.Zhonglong Zhang (ERDC EL)

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Watershed Management and Modeling

UMRB SWAT Model Baseline Results Grafton, IL

g

10000 12000 14000 16000 ms)

Modeled Observed

,

2000 4000 6000 8000 Flow (cm 16000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 ns/month)

Modeled Observed

2000 4000 6000 TSS (ton

28

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Watershed Management and Modeling

UMRB SWAT Model Baseline Results Grafton, IL

g

,

140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00

month)

Modeled Observed 20 00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00

NO3+NO2 (kg/m

Observed 0.00 20.00

14.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 P (kg/month)

Modeled Observed

0.00 2.00 4.00 Total P

29

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Watershed Management and Modeling

Upper Mississippi River Basin Minnesota River Basin

g

800 1000 1200 1400 (cms)

Modeled Observe…

200 400 600 Flow

Note: Model was not calibrated f th Mi t Ri B i for the Minnesota River Basin. Model Results were extracted and compared to Observed Results (USGS Gage at outlet) ( g ) for the period from 2004 to 2007.

30