Water Quality Modelling and Prediction

419

The backtracking process works from upstream to downstream. It starts from the segment of interest, i, and finds all the upstream sources of contaminants that flow into segment i during time period t. The contaminants could come from segments in the same river reach or storage site, or from upstream river reaches or storage volume segments. They could also come from incremental flows into upstream segments. Flows between the source site and the segment i 1 transport the contaminants from their source sites to segment i during the time intervalt, as shown in Figure 12.27. The simulation process for each segment and for each time period involves three steps. To compute the concentration of each constituent in segment i at the end of time period t, as shown in Figure 12.27, the approach first backtracks upstream to locate all the contaminant particles at the beginning of period t that will be in the segment i at the end of period t. This is achieved by finding the most upstream and downstream positions of all reach intervals that will be at the corresponding boundaries of segment i at the end of time period t. To do

this requires computing the velocities through each of the intermediate segments or volume elements. Second, the changes in the amounts of the modelled quality constituents, such as temperature, organics, nutrients and toxics, are calculated, assuming plug flow during the time interval,t, and using the appropriate differential equations and numerical methods for solving them. Finally, all the multiple incoming blocks of water with their end-of-period constituent concentrations are completely mixed in the segment i to obtain initial concentrations in that segment for the next time step, t 1. This is done for each segment i in each time period t, proceeding in the downstream direction. If no dispersion is assumed, the backtracking process can be simplified to consider only the end points of each reach. Backtracking can take place to each end-of-reach location whose time of travel to the point of interest is just equal to or greater thant. Then, using interpolation between end-of-period constituent concentrations at those upstream sites, plus all loadings between those sites and the downstream site of interest, the constituent

C1 ,V 1

C ,V

incremental waste load mass C ,V

t t 55

22

segment i

E020801g

Figure 12.27. The backtracking approach for computing the concentrations of constituents in each reach segment or volume element i during time-step
C
t+1

C ,V

33

C ,V

tt

= C exp{ -k (Tij-20) t }

ij

44

j = 1,2,3,4,5

after mixing: C
t+1 i

= j C ij

t+1 t t+1 ji

V /V

WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ISBN 92-3-103998-9 UNESCO 2005

420

Water Resources Systems Planning and Management

concentrations at the end of the time period t at the downstream ends of each reach can be computed. This process, like the one involving fully mixed reach segments, must take into account the possibility of multiple paths from each pollutant source to the site of interest, and the different values of rate constants, temperatures and other water quality parameters in each reach along those paths. Figure 12.27 illustrates an example of backtracking involving simple first-order decay processes. Assume contaminants that end up in reach segment i at the beginning of period t 1 come from J sources with initial concentrations C1t , C2t , C3t ,, C jt at the beginning of time period t. Decay of mass from each source j during time t in each segment or volume element is determined by the following differential equation: dCjt/dt kjj(T
20) t

Cj

(12.119)

The decay rate constant kj, temperature correction coefficientj and water temperature T are all temporally and spatially varied variables. Their values depend on the particular river reaches and storage volume sites through which the water travels during the period t from sites j to segment i. Integrating Equation 12.119 yields: Cjt
1

Cjt exp{

kjj(T

20)

t}

(12.120)

Sincet is the time it takes water having an initial concentration Cjt to travel to reach i, the values Cjt 1 can be denoted as Cijt 1: Cijt
1

Cjt exp{ kijj(T

ij

20)

t}

(12.121)

In Equation 12.121 the values of the parameters are the appropriate ones for the stream or river between the source segments j and the destination segment i. These concentrations times their respective volumes, Vjt, can then be mixed together to define the initial concentration, Cit 1, in segment i at the beginning of the next time period t 1.

6.4. Model Uncertainty

There are two significant sources of uncertainty in water quality management models. One stems from incomplete knowledge or lack of sufficient data to estimate the probabilities of various events that might happen.

Sometimes it is difficult to even identify possible future events. This type of uncertainty sometimes called epistemic (Stewart, 2000) stems from our incomplete conceptual understanding of the systems under study, by models that are necessarily simplified representations of the complexity of the natural and socio-economic systems, as well as by limited data for testing hypotheses and/or simulating the systems. Limited conceptual understanding leads to parameter uncertainty. For example, there is an ongoing debate about the parameters that can best represent the fate and transfer of pollutants through watersheds and water bodies. Arguably, more complete data and more work on model development can reduce this uncertainty. Thus, a goal of water quality management should be to increase the availability of data, improve their reliabilities and advance our modelling capabilities. However, even if it were possible to eliminate knowledge uncertainty, complete certainty in support of water quality management decisions will probably never be achieved until we can predict the variability of natural processes. This type of uncertainty arises in systems characterized by randomness. Assuming past observations are indicative of what might happen in the future and with the same frequency in other words, assuming stationary stochastic processes we can estimate from these past observations the possible future events or outcomes that could occur and their probabilities. Even if we think we can estimate how likely any possible type of event may be in the future, we cannot predict precisely when or to what extent that event will occur. For ecosystems, we cannot be certain we know even what events may occur in the future, let alone their probabilities. Ecosystems are open systems in which it is not possible to know in advance what all the possible biological outcomes will be. Surprises are not only possible, but likely; hence, neither type of uncertainty knowledge uncertainty nor unpredictable variability or randomness can be eliminated. Thus, uncertainty is a reality of water quantity and quality management. This must be recognized when considering the results of water quality management models that relate to actions taken to meet the desired water quality criteria and designated uses of water bodies. Chapter 9 suggests some ways of characterizing this uncertainty.

WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ISBN 92-3-103998-9 UNESCO 2005

Water Quality Modelling and Prediction

421

7. Conclusions: Implementing a Water Quality Management Policy

This chapter has provided only a brief introduction to some of the relationships contained in water quality models. As can be said for the other chapters as well, it summarizes a subject on which entire texts, and very good ones, have been written (see, for example, Chapra, 1997; McCutcheon, 1989; Orlob, 1983; Schnoor, 1996; Thomann and Mueller, 1987). Water quality modelling and management demand skill and data. Skill comes with experience. Sufficient expertise will not be gained by working just with the material introduced in this chapter. It serves only as an introduction to surface water quality models, their assumptions and their limitations. If accompanied by field data and uncertainty analysis, many existing models can be used to assist those responsible for developing water quality management plans in an adaptive implementation or management framework. Adaptive implementation or management will allow for both model and data improvements over time. Such approaches strive toward achieving water quality standards while relying on monitoring and experimentation to reduce uncertainty. This is often the only way one can proceed, given the complexity of the real world compared to the predictive models and the data and time usually available at the time a water quality analysis is needed. Starting with simple analyses and iteratively expanding data collection and modelling as the need arises is a reasonable approach. An adaptive management process begins with initial actions that have reasonable chances of succeeding. Future actions must be based on continued monitoring of the water body to determine how it responds to the actions taken. Plans for future regulation and public spending should be subject to revision as stakeholders learn more about how the system responds to actions taken. Monitoring is an essential aspect of adaptive water quality management and modelling (see Appendix B). Regardless of what immediate actions are taken, there may not be an immediate measurable response. For example, there may be significant lags between the time when actions are taken to reduce nutrient loads and the resulting changes in nutrient concentrations. This is especially likely if nutrients from past activities are tightly

bound to sediments or if nutrient-contaminated groundwater has a long residence time before its release to surface water. For many reasons, lags between actions taken and responses must be expected. Water bodies should be monitored to establish whether the trajectories of the measured water quality criteria point toward attainment of the designated use. Wasteload allocations will inevitably be required if quality standards are not being met. These involve costs. Different allocations will have different total costs and different distributions of those costs; hence they will have different perceived levels of fairness. A minimum-cost policy may result in a cost distribution that places most of the burden on just some of the stakeholders. But until such a policy is identified, one will not know this. An alternative may be to reduce loads from all sources by the same proportion. Such a policy has prevailed in the United States over the past several decades. Even though not very cost-effective from the point of view of water quality management, the ease of administration and the fulfilment of other objectives must have made such a policy politically acceptable, even though expensive. However, these types of wasteload allocations policies will not in themselves be sufficient for many of the ecosystem restoration efforts that are increasingly being made. Restoration activities are motivated in part by the services ecosystems provide for water quality management. Our abilities to include ecosystem components within water quantity and quality management models are at a fairly elementary level. Given the uncertainty, especially with respect to the prediction of how ecosystems will respond to water management actions, together with the need to take actions now, long before we can improve these capabilities, the popular call is for adaptive management. The trial and error aspects of adaptive management based on monitoring and imperfect models may not satisfy those who seek more definitive direction from water quality analysts and their predictive models. Stakeholders and responsible agencies seeking assurances that the actions taken will always work as predicted may be disappointed. Even the best predictive capabilities of science cannot ensure that an action that will lead to the attainment of designated uses will be initially identified. Adaptive management is the only reasonable option in most cases for allowing water quality management programmes to move forward in the face of considerable uncertainties.

WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ISBN 92-3-103998-9 UNESCO 2005

Thank you for evaluating AnyBizSoft PDF to Word.

You can only convert 3 pages with the trial version.

To get all the pages converted, you need to purchase the software from:

http://www.anypdftools.com/buy/buy-pdf-to-word.html