g ih i l md w qi lw ater quality modeling in the greater ...€¦ · noaa sarp climate change study...

W Q li M d li i h G W Q li M d li i h G Water Quality Modeling in the Greater Water Quality Modeling in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds and the Lake Michigan Milwaukee Watersheds and the Lake Michigan Nearshore Area in Southeastern WisconsinNearshore Area in Southeastern WisconsinNearshore Area in Southeastern WisconsinNearshore Area in Southeastern Wisconsin

Presentation to the Lake Michigan Presentation to the Lake Michigan Monitoring Coordinating CouncilMonitoring Coordinating Council

Serving the Counties of Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Walworth, Washington, and Waukesha

1

Monitoring Coordinating CouncilMonitoring Coordinating CouncilOctober 15, 2013October 15, 2013

#213860

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC)(SEWRPC)

• Official areawide public planning agency for the seven county Region

33

28

144

57

4541

32

43

• Created in 1960 under State legislation

• Purpose:167

175

60

33

83

33

60

32

57

181

167 57

145

144

45

43

Purpose:– Consider and address physical development and

infrastructure problems that extend beyond municipal and county boundaries. P i id d i l l

94

16

67 83

164

74

190

59

145 57

59

167

100

175

18

41

18

32

1645

41

45

43

79494– Prepare regionwide advisory long-range plans.

• Land Use• Transportation• Water Quality Management 38

67

2020 31

164

3683

59

59

83 36

24

100

32

32100

12

41

894

43894

43

94

• Flooding Management• Parks and Open Space• Environmental Corridors• Natural Areas

505075

11

11

2020

2075

158

31142

142

3231

20

11

120

83

89

11

14

45

41

94

43

43


• Water Supply 67

50

67

50

50

83

32165

158

120

14

14

12

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC)(SEWRPC)

Southeastern Wisconsin Region • 154 general purpose units of government

− 7 counties− 29 cities− 61 villages− 57 towns

• 4 urbanized areas4 urbanized areas− Milwaukee− Racine − Kenosha− R nd Lake Beach− Round Lake Beach

• Relationship to State − 5% – Area − 35 – 40% – Population,

E l E V lEmployment, Economic Value


Three Water Quality Modeling StudiesThree Water Quality Modeling Studies

MMSD/WDNR/SEWRPC 2007 “Water Quality Initiative”Quality Initiative

U i i f Wi i Mil k /UW University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee/UW-Madison/SEWRPC Climate Change Study for NOAANOAA

MMSD Third-Party Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Study


( ) y

4

SEWRPC Regional Water Quality Management Plan SEWRPC Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update/MMSD Update/MMSD 2020 Facilities 2020 Facilities Plan (Water Quality Initiative)Plan (Water Quality Initiative)SEWRPC Regional Water Quality Management Plan SEWRPC Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update/MMSD Update/MMSD 2020 Facilities 2020 Facilities Plan (Water Quality Initiative)Plan (Water Quality Initiative)

Cooperative Intergovernmental Watershed Based Planning ProgramCooperative Intergovernmental Watershed Based Planning Programg gg g

PPPartners:Partners:


Modeling PartnersModeling Partners


6

Regional and Watershed SettingRegional and Watershed Setting

• Greater Milwaukee Watersheds(1127 i )(1127 sq. mi.)

– Kinnickinnic River (24.7 sq. mi.)– Lake Michigan Direct Drainage

(40.7 sq. mi.)– Menomonee River (135 8 sq mi )Menomonee River (135.8 sq. mi.)– Milwaukee River (700.0 sq. mi.)– Oak Creek (28.2 sq. mi.)– Root River (197.6 sq. mi.)

• MMSD Planning Area (411 sq. mi.)


g ( q )

Civil DivisionsCivil Divisions

• Nine CountiesNine Counties– Kenosha, Milwaukee,

Ozaukee, Racine, Washington, and Waukesha

– Dodge Fond du Lac Dodge, Fond du Lac, and Sheboygan

• 88 Municipalities


Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update

Documented in SEWRPC Planning Report No Documented in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, A Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, December 2007. h // /SEWRPC/E i http://www.sewrpc.org/SEWRPC/Environment

/RegionalWaterQualityManagement.htm


9

Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update

Models simulate:• Hydrology: Stormwater runoffy gy

• Hydraulics: Movement of water in streams, estuary, y yand Lake Michigan

• Water quality: In-stream and in-Lake pollutant concentrations


Regional Water Quality Management Plan Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update/MMSD Update/MMSD 2020 2020 Facilities PlanFacilities Plan

ELEMENTS OF RECEIVING WATER QUALITY MODELINGWATERSHED WATERCOURSE HARBOR / ESTUARY / LAKE

ONE DIMENSIONAL MODELTHREE DIMENSIONAL

LAND AREASPRODUCE ONE DIMENSIONAL MODEL

(LSPC/HEC-2/HEC-RAS)MODEL (ECOMSED

AND RCA)

PRODUCENPS LOADS

(LSPC or HSPF)

POINT SOURCE INPUTS (FFS and Streamline MOUSE)

•Combined Sewer OverflowsSanitary Sewer Overflows


•Sanitary Sewer Overflows•Industrial Discharges•Publicly-Owned Treatment Works

Regional Water Quality Management Plan Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update/MMSD Update/MMSD 2020 2020 Facilities Plan: Models UsedFacilities Plan: Models Used

Hydrology:

LSPC or HSPF to model runoff from land surface from the entire study area

Flow Forecasting System (FFS) to model MMSD wastewater flows, including base flow and dry and wet weather infiltration and inflow. For the combined sewer service area, wet weather surface runoff to the sewers is also modeled.

LAND AREASLAND AREAS

WATERSHED WATERCOURSE HARBOR / ESTUARY / LAKE

ONE DIMENSIONAL MODEL (LSPC/HEC-2/HEC-RAS)


THREE DIMENSIONALTHREE DIMENSIONALMODEL (ECOMSED

AND RCA)(LSPC or HSPF)

LAND AREASPRODUCE

NPS LOADS(LSPC or HSPF)


•Combined Sewer Overflows•Sanitary Sewer Overflows

( )( )



Regional Water Quality Management Plan Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update/MMSD Update/MMSD 2020 2020 Facilities Facilities Plan: Models Used Plan: Models Used

Hydraulics: HEC‐2 or HEC‐RAS one‐dimensional, steady flow models of flow in streams. (Input to LSPC)

Streamline MOUSE one dimensional unsteady flow model of MMSDStreamline MOUSE one dimensional, unsteady flow model of MMSD metropolitan interceptor system, near surface collectors, and Inline Storage System (deep tunnel)

ECOMSED three‐dimensional model of hydrodynamics of estuary and Lake



y y yMichigan





LAND AREASPRODUCE




( )( )



Regional Water Quality Management Plan Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update/MMSD Update/MMSD 2020 2020 Facilities Facilities Plan: Models Used Plan: Models Used

Water quality:LSPC or HSPF to model time‐varying loads and concentrations of point and nonpoint source pollutants in streamspoint and nonpoint source pollutants in streams

RCA to model time‐varying loads and concentrations of point and nonpoint source pollutants in the estuary and Lake Michigan







LAND AREASPRODUCE




( )( )



Modeled Water Modeled Water Quality Quality Parameters Parameters

TSS Fecal Coliform BOD N (total N, NH3-N, Organic-N, nitrate & nitrite) Ph h (T l P) Phosphorus (Total P) Cu (copper) T t Temperature


LSPC/HSPF LSPC/HSPF InputsInputs

Continuous Time Series Data For: Precipitation Precipitation Potential Evapotranspiration Air Temperature Solar RadiationWind Dewpoint Temperature Dewpoint Temperature


LSPC/HSPF LSPC/HSPF Inputs Inputs (continued(continued))

Land Use Groups (25)

Impervious Land Cover Classifications (6)

Pervious Land Cover Classifications (11)( )

Conversion Matrix


LSPC/HSPF LSPC/HSPF Inputs (continued)Inputs (continued)

R i f Representation of subbasins and water quality monitoring sitesmonitoring sites


18

Milwaukee Harbor Estuary and Lake Michigan Nearshore AreaMilwaukee Harbor Estuary and Lake Michigan Nearshore Area


19

Model Calibration and ValidationModel Calibration and Validation

P f C lib i (1995 1998) Purpose of Calibration (1995-1998)• Compare model results for a given time period to

observed data and adjust model parameters to observed data and adjust model parameters to better match observations

Purpose of Validation (1999-2002)Purpose of Validation (1999-2002)• Compare calibrated model results to observed

data for a time period different than was used for pcalibration


Relationship of Models to Development of RWQMPU Relationship of Models to Development of RWQMPU

C l b d d l b d Calibrated models can be revised to represent different alternative plans Model results indicate instream and in-Lake

water quality conditionsWater quality conditions (pollutant

concentrations) can be compared to standards ) p Alternatives that result in greatest improvement

in water quality can be identified


in water quality can be identified

Example of Hydrologic Calibration Results (1996)Example of Hydrologic Calibration Results (1996)

Gauge 4087030 @ Pilgrim Road1996

600

HSPF 1996

400

500

USGS 1996

300

Flo

w r

ate

(cfs

)

100

200

01/1/96 1/31/96 3/2/96 4/1/96 5/2/96 6/1/96 7/2/96 8/1/96 9/1/96 10/1/96 11/1/96 12/1/96

Time


22

Total Total Suspended Suspended Solids (1994Solids (1994--1998)1998)

400 0

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

300.0

350.0

400.0

(mg/

L)

Daily Observed at RI-21

200.0

250.0

spen

ded

Solid

s

100.0

150.0

Tota

l Sus

0.0

50.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998


23

Total Total Phosphorus (1994Phosphorus (1994--1998)1998)

0.7

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

0.6

g/L)

0.4

0.5

hosp

horu

s (m

g

0.2

0.3

Tota

l Ph

0 0

0.1


24

0.01994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Model ResultsModel Results

PERCENT OF ASSESSMENT POINTS ACHIEVING OR EXCEEDING85 PERCENT COMPLIANCE WITH TOTAL PHOSPHORUS STANDARD

100

Achievement of the Recommended Total Phosphorus Planning Standard

Estimated Average Annual per Acre NPS Load of TP

rcent ofA

ssessm

ent P

oin

ts

40

60

80

PERCENT OF ASSESSMENT POINTS ACHIEVING OR EXCEEDING70 PERCENT COMPLIANCE WITH TOTAL PHOSPHORUS STANDARD

Pe

0

20

100

MenomoneeRiver (18 sites)

MilwaukeeRiver (28 sites)

Oak Creek(10 sites)

Root River(22 sites)

KinnickinnicRiver (10 sites)

MilwaukeeHarbor Estuary

(6 sites)

MilwaukeeOuter Harbor

(4 sites)

NearshoreLake MichiganArea (8 sites)

nt ofA

ssessm

ent P

oin

ts

40

60

80

100

Perc

en

0

20

MenomoneeRiver (18 sites)

MilwaukeeRiver (28 sites)

Oak Creek(10 sites)

Root River(22 sites)

KinnickinnicRiver (10 sites)

MilwaukeeHarbor Estuary

(6 sites)

MilwaukeeOuter Harbor

(4 sites)

NearshoreLake MichiganArea (8 sites)

E i ti C diti R i d 2020 B li R d d Pl E t M C diti


25

Recent Modeling EffortsRecent Modeling Efforts

NOAA Sectoral Applied Research Program

Study to Assess Potential Mid Century Climate Change Effects


26

Study to Assess Potential Mid‐Century Climate Change Effects

NOAA SARP NOAA SARP Climate Change Climate Change StudyStudy

Study Purpose:• Apply the Menomonee River watershed HSPF Apply the Menomonee River watershed HSPF

watershed water quality model from the 2007 RWQMPU to assess instream changes in water Q gquality

• Apply two hydrodynamic models of Lake Michigan to represent bacteria loads and transport in coastal waters in the Milwaukee area


27

NOAA SARP NOAA SARP Climate Change StudyClimate Change Study

Downscaled precipitation and air temperature data representing mid-century climate change conditions• Developed by UW-Madison Center for Climatic

Research • “Best” and “worst” case climate change conditions

based on 14 general circulation models


28

NOAA SARP Climate Change StudyNOAA SARP Climate Change Study

Characterization of possible changes

Table 1. Comparison of 2050 Climate Scenarios to 1988 – 1997 Baseline

Baseline (1988 – 1997)

10th Percentile (“Best Case”)

90th Percentile (“Worst Case”)

Precipitation (in/yr) 32.5 33.2 33.4

Average Temperature (°F) 47.7 53.3 56.4

Potential Evapotranspiration (in/yr) 30.4 37.5 42.1


29


Statistical downscaling of GCM to generate precipitation and air temperature time series consistent with 1988-1997 period in the Milwaukee area. A1B emissions scenario (medium (increase in greenhouse gases)

Potential evapotranspiration may increase due to increased air t ttemperatures

Generalized modeled flow or concentration changes under climate changeg• Average annual flow: • Fecal Coliform Bacteria: • Dissolved Oxygen: • Dissolved Oxygen: • Total Phosphorus: • Total Nitrogen: Mixed


• Total Suspended Solids: Mixed• Total Copper: Mixed 30


Account for effect of increasedground-level CO2 on transpiration by plants• Plants can obtain CO2

needed for growth with decreased transpiration

• May offset anticipated• May offset anticipatedincreased PET resulting fromhigher air temperatureshigher air temperatures

Tested using Menomonee River


watershed model31

Menomonee River Menomonee River Watershed CO2Watershed CO2Fertilization Sensitivity AnalysisFertilization Sensitivity Analysis

Flow or concentration changes relative to initially-modeled climate change conditions without CO2 adjustment:• Average annual flow: • Fecal Coliform Bacteria: • Di l d O E i ll h d• Dissolved Oxygen: Essentially unchanged• Total Phosphorus: • Total Nitrogen: Total Nitrogen: • Total Suspended Solids: • Total Copper: Unchangedpp gBut the general conclusions regarding the direction of change between current and estimated future climate conditions was th ( i iti ll d l d d i fl


the same (e.g., an initially-modeled decrease in flow or concentration remained a decrease with CO2 adjustment) 32

Ongoing Third Party TMDL StudyOngoing Third Party TMDL Study

Milwaukee Metropolitan SewerageDi i i d l i TMDLDistrict is developing TMDLs Suite of watershed, estuary, and

nearshore Lake Michigan models nearshore Lake Michigan models developed for 2007 SEWRPC RWQMPU were adapted and used Q p TSS, phosphorus, and fecal coliform TMDLs Developed for Kinnickinnic, Menomonee,

and Milwaukee River watersheds


33

g ih i l md w qi lw ater quality modeling in the greater ...€¦ · noaa sarp climate change study...

Documents