1 / 15

SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin

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. *dzrobert@usgs.gov (608) 821-3867.

marc
Download Presentation

SPARROW Modeling of Surface Water Quality: Applications to the Lake Michigan Basin

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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 *dzrobert@usgs.gov (608) 821-3867

  2. SPARROW Water-Quality Model - DescriptionSPAtially Referenced Regression on Watershed Attributeshttp://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

  3. SPARROW Predictions of Nitrogen Flux USEPA RF1 - 62,000 reaches nationally (~3,200 Upper Miss.) ~ HUC12 SPARROWSPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed Attributes

  4. Top 4 % Total Nitrogen Load 1992 Nitrogen SPARROW Model Output – Alexander and others, 2007

  5. Total Nitrogen – Delivered Incremental Yield

  6. Total Nitrogen – Delivered Incremental Yield Top 150 2002 Nitrogen SPARROW Output

  7. Ranked Incremental Nitrogen Yields From the HUCS, with 90 % CI’s

  8. 90 Confidence Intervals for Yields and Ranks

  9. HUCS In or Potentially In The Top 150 For TN

  10. Take Advantage of Data from Other USGS and Other Agency Programs Sites used in National Models Sites Planned to be used in Regional Models

  11. Dan Wise, OR Richard Moore,NH Lori Sprague, CO Dale Robertson & Dave Saad, WI Anne Hoos, TN Richard Rebich, MS MRB SPARROW Lead Scientists Coordinator – Steve Preston 2002 Models U.S. Geological Survey SPARROW models

  12. Sprague, CO Robertson & Saad, WI Richard Alexander, VA Rebich, MS Mississippi River SPARROW Coordinator: Dale Robertson Mississippi River SPARROW Model

  13. SPARROW Modeling Result for the Upper Midwest

  14. Incremental Yield Ranking by Incremental Yield

  15. 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.

More Related