phase 5.1 modifications from phase 5.0

1

Phase 5.1 Modificationsfrom Phase 5.0

Gary Shenk

Modeling Subcommittee

9/9/2008

2

Upgrades in phase 5.1

• Software:– Complete revamp of BMP methods– Improved low-flow nitrogen simulation– Modification of regional factor calculation– Improved river calibration rules

• Data:– January 1996 rain-on-snow event– Corrected some errors in the observed data set– New point sources– New atmospheric deposition

3




4

BMP efficiency Multiplier for storm events

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

return frequency

BM

P m

utip

lier

efficiency multiplier

MM Model

The equation is a modification of the Michaelis-Menten equation. The equation is asymptotic to a minumum rather than a maximum and is at the maximum rate when the return frequency is less than a starting value.

Efficiency multiplier = 1-(1-M)*(RF-S)/(RF-S+H-S) when RF > S = 1 when RF < S

Where:M = minimum efficiency under any circumstancesRF = return frequencyS = Starting return frequency where efficiency multiplier is less than oneH = half-saturation constant to control curve shape

Bm

p E

ffic

ienc

y M

ultip

lier

5

Old SystemBMP Data

Jeff S. Spreadsheets

Factors by land-river segment, land use, and constituent

Phase 5.0 model

6

New SystemBMP Data

Phase 5.1 model

NEIEN?

7

New Functionality

• New Abilities– Hydrologic BMP effects– Random BMP effects

• Enhanced Functionality– Exclusive / non-exclusive BMPs– Easy to add new BMPs– Maximum implementation enforcement– Separate effectiveness by region

8

BMP Specifications

Base EfficienciesShortname Landuse_Type HGMR TN eff TP eff TSS eff Max ImplementationAnimalWasteMngt afo all 1 1 0 0.9ConPlan Hi_Till all 0.08 0.15 0.25 0.9ConPlan Low_Till all 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.9ConPlan allhay all 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.9ConPlan Pasture all 0.05 0.1 0.14 0.9CoverCropEarly Hi_Till all 0.45 0.15 0.2 0.9CoverCropEarly Low_Till all 0.45 0 0 0.9DryPonds Urban all 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.9ContinuousNT Low_Till APSN 0.15 0.4 0.7 0.9ContinuousNT Low_Till CPDN 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.9ContinuousNT Low_Till CPLN 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.9ContinuousNT Low_Till CPUN 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.9ContinuousNT Low_Till ML_N 0.15 0.4 0.7 0.9ContinuousNT Low_Till PCRN 0.15 0.4 0.7 0.9ContinuousNT Low_Till VRCN 0.15 0.4 0.7 0.9ContinuousNT Low_Till BR_N 0.15 0.4 0.7 0.9

9

Hydrologic effect parameters

BMP Landuse_Type HGMR Const HydType HydParm1 HydParm2 HydParm3all nonurban all all 1 5 17 0.2all urban all all 1 10 22 0.2Animal Waste Management Livestock afo all TN 0 0 0 0Animal Waste Management Livestock afo all TP 0 0 0 0Animal Waste Management Livestock afo all SED 0 0 0 0

**Same type of specifications for random effects

HydTypes are different hydrologic effect models

10

Exclusive BMP Table

Shortname AnimalWasteMngt ConPlan ContinuousNT CoverCropSDB CoverCropSDR CoverCropSDW CoverCropSOBAnimalWasteMngt 1 0 0 0 0 0 0ConPlan 0 1 0 0 0 0 0ContinuousNT 0 0 1 0 0 0 0CoverCropSDB 0 0 0 1 1 1 1CoverCropSDR 0 0 0 1 1 1 1CoverCropSDW 0 0 0 1 1 1 1CoverCropSOB 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

Small grain early planting and small grain late planting are exclusive

Forest Buffers and Grass Buffers are exclusive

The two groups are not exclusive with respect to each other

11

Acreage by land-river segmentrseg lseg Shortname Landuse_Type Acres constrained?PU0_3871_3690 A24001 AnimalWasteMngt afo 222 YPU0_3871_3690 A24001 ConPlan hwm 333 YPU0_3871_3690 A24001 ConPlan lwm 444 YPU2_3180_3370 A24001 ConPlan npa 654 YPU2_3180_3370 A24001 CoverCropEarly hwm 1234 YPU2_3180_3370 A24001 CoverCropEarly lwm 2 YPU2_3180_3370 A24001 DryPonds pur 87 YPL1_5910_0001 A24037 AnimalWasteMngt afo 236 YPL1_5910_0001 A24037 ConPlan hwm 300 YPL1_5910_0001 A24037 ConPlan lwm 954 YPL1_5910_0001 A24037 ConPlan npa 379 YPL1_5910_0001 A24037 CoverCropEarly hwm 222 YPL1_5910_0001 A24037 CoverCropEarly lwm 0 YPL1_5910_0001 A24037 DryPonds pur 52 Y

The Constrained field refers to whether or not this particular LRseg is constrained to the maximum implementation percentage or can go to 100%

12

Specifications are scenario-specific

• Test Influence of hydro rules

• Different maximum implementation rates

• Run uncertainty with BMP randomness

13




14

Improved Low-Flow Nitrogen

• General under simulation of low-flows create dry soil conditions in the model– Increased soil moisture conditions

• HSPF partitioning coefficient is based on mass– Switched to concentration

17

Partitioning Coefficients

• Original formulation:

• K = sorbed mass / mass in solution – With small amounts of water, concentrations

can be very high

• Revised formulation

• K = sorbed mass / soil mass

mass in solution / mass of water

20




21

Sediment in P5 (subgrid factors)

BMP Factor

Land Acre Factor

Subgrid Factor

Edge of Field

Edge of Stream

In Stream Concentrations

22

Nutrients in Phase 5 – Regional Factors

BMP Factor

Land Acre Factor

Regional Factor

Edge of Stream

In Stream Concentrations

23

Calculation of Regional Factors

• RF = (Lupstream*(1 – Bupstream/Bdownstream)

+ (Point+Atdep+Septic)*(1-Bdownstream)

+ EOS ) ( EOS * Bdownstream)

• Highly dependent on estimates of the load bias, for which there is no observed comparison

24

Regional Factors – p5.0 Method

• Regional factors previously determined at each calibration point with greater than 50 observations

• Requires knowledge of load bias in the calibration which is uncertain

• Uncertainly led to large changes in regional factors over a relatively small area

25

ungaged basins

TN calibrated Factors0.25 - 0.50.5 - 0.6670.667 - 0.8330.833 - 1.21.2 - 1.51.5 - 2 2 - 4

TN Calibrated Regional Factors

P50

26

ungaged basins


TP Calibrated Regional Factors

P50

27

Regional Factors – p5.1 method

• Use USGS Estimator as the ‘known’ load in the bias calculation.

• Restrict regional factors to larger basins on which CBP decisions are made

• Better load calculations at decision points

• Worse calibration in small basins

• Less ‘scattering’ of regional factors

28

ungaged basins


Phase 5.0 TN Calibrated

Regional Factors

29

ungaged basins



Regional Factors

30

ungaged basins


Phase 5.0 TP Calibrated

Regional Factors

31

ungaged basins



Regional Factors

32

TP Coastal Plain Regional Factor vs Region

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

fact

or

33

TP Coastal Plain Regional Factor vs dominant HGMR

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5number of observations0-100101-200201-400400+

34

TP Coastal Plain Regional Factor vs dominant HGMR

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5number of observations0-100101-200201-400400+

0.5

0.7

1.25

CPL = CPDML = PCR

35

TN Coastal Plain Regional Factor vs Region

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

fact

or

36

TN Coastal Plain Regional Factor vs dominant HGMR

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

number of observations0-100101-200201-400400+

37

TN Coastal Plain Regional Factor vs dominant HGMR

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

number of observations0-100101-200201-400400+

Not a consistent story for TN either through Region or HGMRWeighted average is 1.02 so 1 is chosen consistently

38

ungaged basins



Regional Factors

P51

39

ungaged basins


P50


Regional Factors

40



• Better Reservoir simulation• Improved checks on parameter values

• Data:– January 1996 rain-on-snow event– New point sources– New atmospheric deposition– Corrected some errors in the observed data set

41




42

No Modification

43

Ice Dam

44

• January 7-13, 1996: The Blizzard of '96 or the Great Furlough Storm began early on Sunday, January 7. Just two days earlier, a six week impasse between a republican congress and a democratic president over the 1996 Federal Budget had finally come to an end. Many federal employees had been on furlough with government offices shut down. Employees would finally return to work on Monday, January 8. But mother nature had something else in mind. By Monday morning, Washington, DC was buried under 17 to 21 inches of snow. As much as 30 to 36 inches of snow fell over Frederick and Washington Counties. Baltimore recorded over 22 inches and even Ocean City received 10 inches of snow. A two-foot swath of heavy snow fell across Dorchester and Caroline Counties into southern Kent County, DE. The entire state was paralyzed and the Federal Government remained shut down. As road crews worked hard to clear the snow, an "Alberta Clipper" shot through on Tuesday, January 9 dumping an additional 3 to 5 inches from Washington northeast through Baltimore. Plows that would have been working on secondary roads and residential areas were sent back to the primary roads. The government remained shut for 4 days that week and many schools and businesses announced their closure for the entire week. A third storm struck on Friday, January 12 dumping another 4 to 6 inches over the metro areas. A maximum of 6 to 12 inches of snow fell over Frederick and Carroll Counties. By the week's end, most of Maryland, west of Baltimore, had seen 3 to 4 feet of snow! Most areas to the east had received 1 to 2 feet! Just one week later, a dramatic warming would occur melting the snow pack with an additional two to three inches of rain falling.

• ”No one expected that such a deep snow pack could disappear in just one night.”

• A flood was the result. It had been 60 years since a flood of this type had hit Maryland. The Potomac and Susquehanna saw major flooding. Ice Jams on the lower Susquehanna River compounded the flood. An ice jam broke sending a surge of ice and water down to the Conowingo Dam. It was more than the dam could handle and operators had no choice but to open all of their gates to prevent the dam from being topped. Once water tops a dam, the entire dam can fail. With the gates open, the water surged to the bay causing a rapid and significant flood to hit the town of Port Deposit just a few miles below the dam. People were able to flee the cold waters, but there was no time to save any belongings.

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/Historic_Events/md-winter.html

45


47


48

No Modification

49

High Rainfall Temperature

50

No Modification Harrisburg

51

High Rainfall Temperature Harrisburg

52

No Modification West Branch

53

High Rainfall Temperature West Branch

54

No Modification Juniata

55

High Rainfall Temperature Juniata

56

No Modification Towanda

57

High Rainfall Temperature Towanda

60

Improvement in monthly efficiency for WY 1996

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

- -

-0.0

5

-0.0

5 -

0.05

0.05

- 0

.15

0.15

- 0

.25

0.25

- 0

.35

0.35

- 0

.45

0.45

- 0

.55

0.55

- 0

.65

0.65

- 0

.75

0.75

- 0

.85

0.85

- 0

.95

0.95

- 1

.05

1.05

- 1

.15

1.15

- +

improvement

cali

bra

tio

n s

tati

on

s

61




62

Point Sources include non-significant facilities and Washington Aqueduct

Percent Increase by Adding Non-Sigs

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

flow do bod nh3 no3 orn TN po4 orp TP tss

63

Point Sources include non-significant facilities and Washington Aqueduct

Percent Increase by Adding Non-Sigs

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

450%

500%

flow do bod nh3 no3 orn TN po4 orp TP tss

64

Wet DIN deposition

Gis_gisowner_p5_landsegs_july07.shp

Gis_gisowner_p5_landsegs_july07.shp3 - 44 - 55 - 66 - 77 - 88 - 1010 - 1313 - 1616 - 22

Pounds per acre per year DIN

65

Dry DIN deposition

36 km CMAQ




66

Dry DIN deposition

12 km CMAQ




67

Million Pounds of Atmospheric Deposition

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

DE DC MD NY PA VA WV

wet DIN

36k dry

12k dry

68




phase 5.1 modifications from phase 5.0

Documents