sparrow modeling of surface water quality: applications to the lake michigan basin
DESCRIPTION
SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin. By Dale M. Robertson* and David A. Saad, Wisconsin WSC Richard B. Alexander and Gregory E. Schwarz, National Center, Reston, VA. *[email protected] (608) 821-3867. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070417/5681550a550346895dc2f3b1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the
Lake Michigan Basin
By Dale M. Robertson* and David A. Saad,
Wisconsin WSC
Richard B. Alexander and Gregory E. Schwarz, National Center, Reston, VA
[email protected] (608) 821-3867
![Page 2: SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070417/5681550a550346895dc2f3b1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
SPARROW Water-Quality Model - Description
SPAtially Referenced Regression on Watershed Attributes http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow; Smith et al. 1997
Hybrid statistical and mechanistic process structure; mass-balance constraints; data-driven, nonlinear estimation of parameters
Separates land and in-stream processes
Once calibrated, the model has physically interpretable coefficients; model supports hypothesis testing and uncertainty estimation
Predictions of mean-annual flux reflect long-term, net effects of nutrient supply and loss processes in watersheds
Hybrid statistical and mechanistic process structure; mass-balance constraints; data-driven, nonlinear estimation of parameters
![Page 3: SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070417/5681550a550346895dc2f3b1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
TN Flux (metric tons/yr)< 100100 to 250250 to 1,000> 1,000
States
KEY
SPARROW Predictions of Total Nitrogen Flux
SPARROW Predictions of Nitrogen Flux
USEPA RF1 - 62,000 reaches nationally (~3,200 Upper Miss.) ~ HUC12
TN Flux (metric tons/yr)< 100100 to 250250 to 1,000> 1,000
States
KEY
SPARROW Predictions of Total Nitrogen Flux
SPARROWSPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed Attributes
![Page 4: SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070417/5681550a550346895dc2f3b1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Total Nitrogen Load
Top 4 %
1992 Nitrogen SPARROW Model Output – Alexander and others, 2007
![Page 5: SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070417/5681550a550346895dc2f3b1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Total Nitrogen – Delivered Incremental Yield
![Page 6: SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070417/5681550a550346895dc2f3b1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Total Nitrogen – Delivered Incremental Yield
Top 150
2002 Nitrogen SPARROW Output
![Page 7: SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070417/5681550a550346895dc2f3b1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Original Rank
Incr
emen
tal
N Y
ield
(kg
/km2 )
Ranked Incremental Nitrogen Yields From the HUCS, with 90 % CI’s
![Page 8: SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070417/5681550a550346895dc2f3b1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
90 Confidence Intervals for Yields and Ranks
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Original Rank
Inc
rem
en
tal N
Yie
ld (
kg
/km
2)
![Page 9: SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070417/5681550a550346895dc2f3b1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
HUCS In or Potentially In The Top 150 For TN
![Page 10: SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070417/5681550a550346895dc2f3b1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Take Advantage of Data from Other USGS and Other Agency Programs
Sites used in National Models Sites Planned to be used in Regional Models
![Page 11: SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070417/5681550a550346895dc2f3b1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
U.S. Geological Survey SPARROW models
Dale Robertson & Dave Saad, WI
Richard Rebich, MS
Lori Sprague, CO
MRB SPARROWLead ScientistsCoordinator – Steve Preston
Anne Hoos, TN
Richard Moore,NHDan Wise, OR
2002 Models
![Page 12: SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070417/5681550a550346895dc2f3b1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Mississippi River SPARROW Model
Robertson & Saad, WI
Rebich, MS
Sprague, CO
Mississippi River SPARROW Coordinator: Dale Robertson
Richard Alexander, VA
![Page 13: SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070417/5681550a550346895dc2f3b1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
SPARROW Modeling Result for the Upper Midwest
![Page 14: SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070417/5681550a550346895dc2f3b1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Incremental Yield Ranking by Incremental Yield
![Page 15: SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022070417/5681550a550346895dc2f3b1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Future Improvements from Regional SPARROW Models
1. Better spatial resolution – More sites and especially more smaller sites, should lead to more accurate predictions at smaller scales.
2. Further reductions in biases.
3. Better definition of source terms – better point-source data, more sites in unique areas, possible better local GIS inputs.
4. Better able to address more regional and local questions.