APPENDIX 4B

I ntr oduction

An important component of the 2020 Facility Planning Project and the Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update (RWQMPU) was the development and application of a suite of watershed and receiving water models. These models allowed planners to evaluate the potential water quality benefits of a range of implementation measures, including facility improvements and urban, suburban, and rural stormwater best management practices. The models are now being used to support the development of Watershed Restoration Plans for the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee river watersheds. A watershed model is essentially a series of algorithms applied to watershed characteristics and meteorological data to simulate naturally occurring land-based processes over an extended period of time, including hydrology and pollutant transport. Watershed models were developed for both the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee rivers by performing the following tasks:

The model structure was established, including the delineation of subwatersheds, connectivity, and cross sections, etc. The model data sets were developed using physical measurements, maps, and other appropriate information The models were calibrated and validated to observed hydrologic conditions The models were calibrated and validated to observed water quality conditions
The models were used to perform production runs as required for project planning

The Loading Simulation Program in C++ or LSPC model was used to simulate conditions in the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee river watersheds and all modeling activities were extensively reviewed by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) and the Modeling Advisory Committee. The final modeling reports are included as appendices to SEWRPCs Planning Report Number 50. Calibration refers to the adjustment or fine-tuning of modeling parameters to reproduce observations. Calibration is based on several years of simulation to allow parameter evaluation under a variety of climatic conditions. The calibration procedure results in parameter values that produce the best overall agreement between simulated and observed values throughout the calibration period. Model validation tests the calibrated model using input from a different time period, without further parameter adjustment. If the model cannot properly simulate conditions for the independent data set, the calibration is not acceptable and requires additional work until validation is achieved. The calibration time period for the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee LSPC models was January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1998. The validation time period was January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2002. To support development of the Watershed Restoration Plans, the models were updated to run through December 31, 2007. The purpose of the update was to account for known changes in the watersheds and to ensure they still adequately represent baseline conditions. This appendix summarizes the model update process and results. 2 M odeling Updates This section describes several updates that were made to the calibrated models.

2.1

Meteorological Data

Hydrologic processes are time varying and depend on changes in environmental conditions including precipitation, temperature, and wind speed. As a result, meteorological data are a critical component of LSPC. Appropriate representation of precipitation, wind movement, solar radiation, potential evapotranspiration, cloud cover, temperature, and dew point are required to develop a valid model. These data provide necessary input to model algorithms for hydrologic and water quality representation. This section describes the process that was used to update the meteorological input data for the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee LSPC models.
2.1.1 Kinnickinnic River

Precipitation for the downstream part of the Kinnickinnic watershed is based on the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) Rain Gage 1203, which is located in the northern portion of the watershed. Precipitation for the Wilson Park Creek portion of the watershed uses precipitation from General Mitchell International Airport (GMIA) (National Weather Service (NWS) 475479), located in the southern part of the watershed. There are some missing data for gage MMSD1203 and they were patched by the normal ratio method using MMSD gages 1204 and 1216 and GMIA. Data for the following additional meteorological parameters use observations from GMIA:

Temperature Cloud cover Wind speed Solar radiation Potential evapotranspiration Dew point

Precipitation, temperature, cloud cover, wind speed, and dew point are gage monitored, while potential evapotranspiration (PEVT) and solar radiation were computed. PEVT for the Kinnickinnic model was estimated using the Penman method, which calculates PEVT by first estimating evaporation from a Class A pan and then converts it to a PEVT estimate by application of a monthly coefficient.
2.1.2 Menomonee

Precipitation data for the Menomonee River watershed are from five MMSD weather gages (1204, 1207, 1209, 1216, and 1218). Missing precipitation data from these stations were patched by the normal ratio using available data from index stations as shown in Table 1. Index stations were determined based on the proximity to the patch stations.

T able 1. Patch Station MMSD1204 MMSD1207 MMSD1209 MMSD1216 MMSD1218

The matrix of patch stations and index stations

1 Priority Index Station MMSD1203 MMSD1209 MMSD1207 MMSD1203 MMSD1207
st

2 Priority Index Station MMSD1216 MMSD1218 MMSD1218 MMSD1204 MMSD1209

nd

3 Priority Index Station GMIA GMIA GMIA GMIA GMIA

rd

Air temperature data for the upper portion of the watershed is from the National Weather Service Hartford cooperating observer station 473453, while temperatures for the remainder of the watershed and other climatologic series are from GMIA. Data for cloud cover, wind speed, potential evapotranspiration, dew point, and solar radiation are based on GMIA for the entire watershed. To ensure consistency with the previous modeling, a combined PEVT series was created using Penman PEVT estimates for the April to June period and Jensen-Haise estimates for the remainder of the year. The combined PEVT series is used for the upper parts of the Menomonee River watershed that are 35 percent or more rural and the Penman series are used for the areas of the watershed that are more than 65 percent urban.
2.2 Simulation of Point Sources

Discharges of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) were input to the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee models during the original calibration and validation effort based on detailed output from MOUSE modeling. Resources were not available to obtain comparable data for the model update. Instead, the time series of discharges from the previous effort were shifted forward. This approach allows for the long-term impacts of the CSOs and SSOs to be included in the modeling and was considered acceptable for evaluating whether the models still adequately represent baseline conditions. Industrial point sources discharges were also shifted forward; as these facilities were previously represented as constant time series inputs, this approach is consistent with the original calibration and validation effort.
2.3 Miller Park Update

In 2007 sanitary sewers at Miller Park were found to be misconnected to a storm sewer, allowing untreated human waste to flow directly into the Menomonee River. The problem has since been corrected and therefore the Menomonee River LSPC model was updated by returning the fecal coliform loading rates in that modeling subbasin to their original estimates. (During calibration of the LSPC model loads of fecal coliform were increased from original estimates to match observed instream conditions. The increases were attributed to unknown sources of fecal coliform, including illicit sanitary sewer connections such as those found at Miller Park. To account for the elimination of the Miller Park connection the loading rates in that modeling subbasin were returned to their original values.) 3 K innickinnic R iver R esults The results of running the calibrated model for the time period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2007 are presented in this section both graphically and statistically. Graphical comparisons are extremely useful for judging the results of model calibration because time3

variable plots of observed versus modeled flow provide insight into the models representation of storm hydrographs, baseflow recession, time distributions, and other pertinent factors often overlooked by statistical comparisons. Graphical comparisons consist of time series plots of observed and simulated values for flows, observed versus simulated scatter plots with a 45 degree linear regression line displayed, and cumulative frequency distributions (flow duration curves). Statistical comparisons focus on the relative error method. A small relative error indicates a better goodness of fit for calibration. A map of the Kinnickinnic River and the location of the USGS flow gages and MMSD water quality monitoring stations is shown in Figure 1. Hydrologic results for modeling reach 807, located at USGS gage 04087159, are presented in Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, and Table 1. Hydrologic results for modeling reach 818, located at USGS gage 040871488 on Wilson Park Creek, are presented in Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, and Table 2. Water quality results for monitoring stations RI-12 and RI-13 on the Kinnickinnic River are presented in Figure 10 to Figure 19. The hydrologic results are consistent with the original calibration and validation results and indicate an acceptable match to the observed values. The Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient of model fit improved from 0.71 at both gages for the 1995 to 2002 time period to 0.78 at gage 04087159 and 0.84 at gage 040871488 for the 2003 to 2007 time period. Water quality results also appear to indicate an acceptable match to the observed data.

Figure 1.

Location of MMSD sampling stations and USGS flow gages on the Kinnickinnic River.

Avg Flow (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007) Line of Equal Value Best-Fit Line 40

Avg Monthly Rainfall (in) Avg Observed Flow (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007) Avg Modeled Flow (Same Period) 0
J F M A M J J A S O N D

40

Average Modeled Flow (cfs)

y = 0.9005x - 0.5418 R = 0.8655

2

0.5 30 1 1.5 20 2 2.5 3

20

10

Flow (cfs)

30

10

3.5 4

0 0 10 20 30 40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4.5

Average Observed Flow (cfs)

Average Monthly Rainfall (in) Median Observed Flow (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007) 35 J 30 25 F M A M J J A S

Month
Observed (25th, 75th) Modeled (Median, 25th, 75th) 0 O N D 1 1

Flow (cfs)

2 2 3 3 4

20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4 5

Month

Figure 2.

Composite (average monthly) hydrologic calibration results for the Kinnickinnic River at USGS gage 04087159 (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007).

Monthly Rainfall (in

Monthly Rainfall (in

Avg Monthly Rainfall (in) Avg Observed Flow (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007 ) Avg Modeled Flow (Same Period)

800 700 600

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Jan-04 Jan-05 Date Jan-06 Jan-07

500 400 300 200 100 0 Jan-03

Figure 3.

Time series hydrologic calibration results (daily mean) for the Kinnickinnic River at USGS gage 04087159 (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007).

Observed Flow Duration (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007 ) Modeled Flow Duration (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007 ) 1000

Daily Average Flow (cfs)

100

10

1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent of Time that Flow is Equaled or Exceeded

Figure 4.

Flow duration curve hydrologic calibration results for the Kinnickinnic River at USGS gage 04087159 (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007).

Daily Rainfall (in)

Flow (cfs)

Table 1.

Comparison of simulated versus observed flows for the Kinnickinnic River at USGS gage 04087159 (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007)
Observed Flow Gage
87.40 46.31 12.02 19.38 15.54 20.33 32.15 36.05 9.60 Error Statistics -12.60 0.72 -22.67 -24.07 -17.81 -10.52 -2.13 -25.67 -32.50 0.783 Total Observed In-stream Flow: Total of Observed highest 10% flows: Total of Observed Lowest 50% flows: Observed Summer Flow Volume (7-9): Observed Fall Flow Volume (10-12): Observed Winter Flow Volume (1-3): Observed Spring Flow Volume (4-6): Total Observed Storm Volume: Observed Summer Storm Volume (7-9): 100.00 59.89 11.94 25.53 18.91 22.72 32.85 48.51 14.22

LSPC Simulated Flow

Total Simulated In-stream Flow: Total of simulated highest 10% flows: Total of Simulated lowest 50% flows: Simulated Summer Flow Volume (months 7-9): Simulated Fall Flow Volume (months 10-12): Simulated Winter Flow Volume (months 1-3): Simulated Spring Flow Volume (months 4-6): Total Simulated Storm Volume: Simulated Summer Storm Volume (7-9): Errors (Simulated-Observed) Error in total volume: Error in 50% lowest flows: Error in 10% highest flows: Seasonal volume error - Summer: Seasonal volume error - Fall: Seasonal volume error - Winter: Seasonal volume error - Spring: Error in storm volumes: Error in summer storm volumes: Nash-Sutcliffe Coefficient of Efficiency, E:

Avg Flow (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007) Line of Equal Value Best-Fit Line

Avg Monthly Rainfall (in) Avg Observed Flow (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007) Avg Modeled Flow (Same Period) 30
J F M A M J J A S O N D

30

Average Modeled Flow (cfs)

y = 0.981x - 0.0915 R = 0.9135

2

0 0.5 1

Flow (cfs)

20

20

1.5 2 2.5

10

10

3 3.5 4

0 0 10 20 30 Average Observed Flow (cfs)

Average Monthly Rainfall (in) Median Observed Flow (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007) 20 18 16 14 J F M A M J J

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4.5

Month

Observed (25th, 75th) Modeled (Median, 25th, 75th) 0 A S O N D 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Figure 5.

Composite (average monthly) hydrologic calibration results for Wilson Park Creek at USGS gage 040871488 (1/1/2003 to 12/31//2007).

Monthly Rainfall (in

Flow (cfs)

Monthly Rainfall (in

Avg Monthly Rainfall (in) Avg Observed Flow (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007 ) Avg Modeled Flow (Same Period)

300 250

0 2 4 6

Flow (cfs)

200 150

8 100 50 0 Jan-03 10 12 14 Jan-04 Jan-05 Date Jan-06 Jan-07

Figure 6.

Time series hydrologic calibration results (daily mean) for Wilson Park Creek at USGS gage 040871488 (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007).

Observed Flow Duration (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007 ) Modeled Flow Duration (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007 ) 1000

Daily Average Flow (cfs)

100

10

0.1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent of Time that Flow is Equaled or Exceeded

Figure 7.

Flow duration curve hydrologic calibration results for Wilson Park Creek at USGS gage 040871488 (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007).

Daily Rainfall (in)

Table 2.

Comparison of simulated versus observed flows for Wilson Park Creek at USGS gage 040871488 (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007)
Observed Flow Gage
97.18 49.56 14.27 20.41 18.21 23.67 34.89 38.07 9.74 Error Statistics -2.82 23.15 -14.38 -11.67 -8.44 -1.20 5.57 -16.69 -18.58 0.844 Total Observed In-stream Flow: Total of Observed highest 10% flows: Total of Observed Lowest 50% flows: Observed Summer Flow Volume (7-9): Observed Fall Flow Volume (10-12): Observed Winter Flow Volume (1-3): Observed Spring Flow Volume (4-6): Total Observed Storm Volume: Observed Summer Storm Volume (7-9): 100.00 57.89 11.59 23.11 19.89 23.96 33.05 45.69 11.97

LSPC Simulated Flow

Total Simulated In-stream Flow: Total of simulated highest 10% flows: Total of Simulated lowest 50% flows: Simulated Summer Flow Volume (months 7-9): Simulated Fall Flow Volume (months 10-12): Simulated Winter Flow Volume (months 1-3): Simulated Spring Flow Volume (months 4-6): Total Simulated Storm Volume: Simulated Summer Storm Volume (7-9): Errors (Simulated-Observed) Error in total volume: Error in 50% lowest flows: Error in 10% highest flows: Seasonal volume error - Summer: Seasonal volume error - Fall: Seasonal volume error - Winter: Seasonal volume error - Spring: Error in storm volumes: Error in summer storm volumes: Nash-Sutcliffe Coefficient of Efficiency, E:

10

200 180 Daily Modeled at RI-12 Daily Observed at RI-12

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 8.
200 180

Total suspended solids time series validation at Kinnickinnic River RI-12.

Daily Modeled at RI-13 Daily Observed at RI-13

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 9.

Total suspended solids time series validation at Kinnickinnic River RI-13.

11

1.4

Daily modeled at RI-12

1.2

Total Phosphorus (mg/L)

Daily observed at RI-12

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 10.

Total phosphorus time series validation at Kinnickinnic River RI-12.

1.4

Daily modeled at RI-13

1.2

Total Phosphorus (mg/L)

Daily observed at RI-13

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 11.

Total phosphorus time series validation at Kinnickinnic River RI-13.

12

7.0 6.0 Daily Modeled at RI-12 Daily Observed at RI-12

Total Nitrogen (mg/L)

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 12.

Total nitrogen time series validation at Kinnickinnic River RI-12.

7.0 6.0 Daily Modeled at RI-13 Daily Observed at RI-13

Total Nitrogen (mg/L)

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 13.

Total nitrogen time series validation at Kinnickinnic River RI-13.

13

1,000,000

100,000

Fecal Coliform (#/100mL)

10,000

1,000

100

10

Daily Modeled at RI-12 Daily Observed at RI-12 2004 2005 2006 2007

1 2003

Figure 14.

Fecal coliform time series validation at Kinnickinnic River RI-12.

1,000,000

100,000

Fecal Coliform (#/100mL)

10,000

1,000

100

10

Daily Modeled at RI-13 Daily Observed at RI-13 2004 2005 2006 2007

1 2003

Figure 15.

Fecal coliform time series validation at Kinnickinnic River RI-13.

14

60 Daily Modeled at RI-12 Daily Observed at RI-12

50

Copper (ug/L)

40

30

20

10

0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 16.
60

Total copper time series validation at Kinnickinnic River RI-12.

50

Daily Modeled at RI-13 Daily Observed at RI-13

Copper (ug/L)

40

30

20

10

0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 17.

Total copper time series validation at Kinnickinnic River RI-13.

15

500 450 400 350 Daily Modeled at RI-12 Daily Observed at RI-12

Zinc (ug/L)

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 18.

Total zinc time series validation at Kinnickinnic River RI-12.

500 450 400 350 Daily Modeled at RI-13 Daily Observed at RI-13

Zinc (ug/L)

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 19.

Total zinc time series validation at Kinnickinnic River RI-13.

16

M enomonee R iver R esults

A map of the Menomonee River and the location of the USGS flow gages and MMSD water quality monitoring stations is shown in Figure 20. Hydrologic results for USGS gage 04087120 are presented in Figure 20 to Figure 23 and Table 3. Hydrologic results for USGS gage 04087088 on Underwood Creek are presented in Figure 24 to Figure 26 and Table 4. Water quality results for monitoring stations RI-16, RI-21, and RI-22 are presented in Figure 31 to Figure 50. The updated hydrologic results for the Menomonee River model are consistent with the previous calibration and validation effort and still adequately simulate conditions observed over the period 2003 to 2007. The Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient of model fit at gage 04087120 changed from 0.89 for the period 1995 to 2002 to 0.85 for the period 2003 to 2007. The Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient of model fit at gage 04087088 changed from 0.88 for the period 1995 to 2002 to 0.79 for the period 2003 to 2007. Water quality results also appear to indicate an acceptable match to the observed data.

17

Figure 20.

Location of MMSD sampling stations and USGS flow gages on the Menomonee River.

18

Avg Flow (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007) Line of Equal Value Best-Fit Line

Avg Monthly Rainfall (in) Avg Observed Flow (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007) Avg Modeled Flow (Same Period) 300 0
J F M A M J J A S O N D

300

Average Modeled Flow (cfs)

y = 0.858x + 8.4475 R2 = 0.9454

0.5 1

Flow (cfs)

200

200

1.5 2 2.5

100

100

3 3.5 4

0 0 100 200 300 Average Observed Flow (cfs)

Average Monthly Rainfall (in) Median Observed Flow (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007) 300 J 250 F M A M J J

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4.5

Month
Observed (25th, 75th) Modeled (Median, 25th, 75th) 0 A S O N D 1 1

Flow (cfs)

200 150

2 2 3

100 50

3 4 4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Figure 21.

Composite (average monthly) hydrologic calibration results for the Menomonee River at USGS gage 04087120 (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007).

Monthly Rainfall (in

19

Monthly Rainfall (in

Avg Monthly Rainfall (in) Avg Observed Flow (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007 ) Avg Modeled Flow (Same Period)

3000 2500

0 2 4 6

Flow (cfs)

2000 1500

8 1000 500 0 Jan-03 10 12 14 Jan-04 Jan-05 Date Jan-06 Jan-07

Figure 22.

Time series hydrologic calibration results (daily mean) for the Menomonee River at USGS gage 04087120 (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007).

Observed Flow Duration (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007 ) Modeled Flow Duration (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007 ) 10000

Daily Average Flow (cfs)

1000

100

10

1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent of Time that Flow is Equaled or Exceeded

Figure 23.

Flow duration curve hydrologic calibration results for the Menomonee River at USGS gage 04087120 (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007).

Daily Rainfall (in)

20

Table 3.

Comparison of simulated versus observed flows for the Menomonee River at USGS gage 04087120 (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007)
Observed Flow Gage
93.51 45.26 9.95 14.05 15.59 22.73 41.14 22.50 4.38 Error Statistics -6.49 0.04 -15.44 -18.26 1.60 -10.26 -2.37 -9.11 -17.87 0.848 Total Observed In-stream Flow: Total of Observed highest 10% flows: Total of Observed Lowest 50% flows: Observed Summer Flow Volume (7-9): Observed Fall Flow Volume (10-12): Observed Winter Flow Volume (1-3): Observed Spring Flow Volume (4-6): Total Observed Storm Volume: Observed Summer Storm Volume (7-9): 100.00 53.52 9.94 17.19 15.35 25.33 42.13 24.75 5.33

LSPC Simulated Flow

Total Simulated In-stream Flow: Total of simulated highest 10% flows: Total of Simulated lowest 50% flows: Simulated Summer Flow Volume (months 7-9): Simulated Fall Flow Volume (months 10-12): Simulated Winter Flow Volume (months 1-3): Simulated Spring Flow Volume (months 4-6): Total Simulated Storm Volume: Simulated Summer Storm Volume (7-9): Errors (Simulated-Observed) Error in total volume: Error in 50% lowest flows: Error in 10% highest flows: Seasonal volume error - Summer: Seasonal volume error - Fall: Seasonal volume error - Winter: Seasonal volume error - Spring: Error in storm volumes: Error in summer storm volumes: Nash-Sutcliffe Coefficient of Efficiency, E:

21

Avg Flow (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007) Line of Equal Value Best-Fit Line

Avg Monthly Rainfall (in) Avg Observed Flow (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007) Avg Modeled Flow (Same Period) 30 0
J F M A M J J A S O N D

30

Average Modeled Flow (cfs)

y = 0.9223x + 0.2904 R2 = 0.9489

0.5 1

Flow (cfs)

20

20

1.5 2 2.5

10

10

3 3.5 4

0 0 10 20 30 Average Observed Flow (cfs)

Average Monthly Rainfall (in) Median Observed Flow (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007) 30 J 25 F M A M J J

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4.5

Month
Observed (25th, 75th) Modeled (Median, 25th, 75th) 0 A S O N D 1 1

Flow (cfs)

20 15

2 2 3

10 5

3 4 4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Figure 24.

Composite (average monthly) hydrologic calibration results for Underwood Creek at USGS gage 04087088 (1/1/2003 to 112/31/2007).

Monthly Rainfall (in

22

Monthly Rainfall (in

Avg Monthly Rainfall (in) Avg Observed Flow (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007 ) Avg Modeled Flow (Same Period)

600 500

0 2 4 6

Flow (cfs)

400 300

8 200 100 0 Jan-03 10 12 14 Jan-04 Jan-05 Date Jan-06 Jan-07

Figure 25.

Time series hydrologic calibration results (daily mean) for Underwood Creek at USGS gage 04087088 (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007).

Observed Flow Duration (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007 ) Modeled Flow Duration (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007 ) 1000

Daily Average Flow (cfs)

100

10

0.1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent of Time that Flow is Equaled or Exceeded

Figure 26.

Flow duration curve hydrologic calibration results for Underwood Creek at USGS gage0 4087088 (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007).

Daily Rainfall (in)

23

Table 4.

Comparison of simulated versus observed flows for Underwood Creek at USGS gage 04087088 (1/1/2003 to 12/31/2007)
Observed Flow Gage
94.40 51.66 10.20 17.92 14.30 23.30 38.88 33.43 7.38 Error Statistics -5.60 -21.20 -0.26 -8.33 -16.07 1.88 -4.11 0.49 -8.27 0.787 Total Observed In-stream Flow: Total of Observed highest 10% flows: Total of Observed Lowest 50% flows: Observed Summer Flow Volume (7-9): Observed Fall Flow Volume (10-12): Observed Winter Flow Volume (1-3): Observed Spring Flow Volume (4-6): Total Observed Storm Volume: Observed Summer Storm Volume (7-9): 100.00 51.79 12.95 19.55 17.04 22.87 40.55 33.26 8.05

LSPC Simulated Flow

Total Simulated In-stream Flow: Total of simulated highest 10% flows: Total of Simulated lowest 50% flows: Simulated Summer Flow Volume (months 7-9): Simulated Fall Flow Volume (months 10-12): Simulated Winter Flow Volume (months 1-3): Simulated Spring Flow Volume (months 4-6): Total Simulated Storm Volume: Simulated Summer Storm Volume (7-9): Errors (Simulated-Observed) Error in total volume: Error in 50% lowest flows: Error in 10% highest flows: Seasonal volume error - Summer: Seasonal volume error - Fall: Seasonal volume error - Winter: Seasonal volume error - Spring: Error in storm volumes: Error in summer storm volumes: Nash-Sutcliffe Coefficient of Efficiency, E:

24

700 Daily Modeled at RI-16 600 Daily Observed at RI-16

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

500 400 300 200 100 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 27.

Total suspended solids time series validation at Menomonee River RI-16.

700 Daily Modeled at RI-21 600 Daily Observed at RI-21

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

500 400 300 200 100 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 28.

Total suspended solids time series validation at Menomonee River RI-21.

25

700 Daily Modeled at RI-22 600 Daily Observed at RI-22

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

500 400 300 200 100 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 29.

Total suspended solids time series validation at Menomonee River RI-22.

700 Daily Modeled at RI-09 600 Daily Modeled at RI-09

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

500 400 300 200 100 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 30.

Total suspended solids time series validation at Menomonee River RI-09.

26

0.6
Daily modeled at RI-16

0.5
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)

Daily observed at RI-16

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure 31.

Total phosphorus time series validation at Menomonee River RI-16.

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Daily modeled at RI-21 (mg/L) Daily observed at RI-21

Figure 32.

Daily modeled at RI-21 (mg/L)

Total phosphorus time series validation at Menomonee River RI-21.

27

0.6
Daily modeled at RI-22

0.5
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)

Daily observed at RI-22

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure 33.

Total phosphorus time series validation at Menomonee River RI-22.

0.7
Daily modeled at RI-09

0.6
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)

Daily observed at RI-09

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure 34.

Total phosphorus time series validation at Menomonee River RI-09.

28

10 9 8 Daily Modeled at RI-16 Daily Observed at RI-16

Total Nitrogen (mg/L)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 35.

Total nitrogen time series validation at Menomonee River RI-16.

10 9 8 Daily Modeled at RI-21 Daily Observed at RI-21

Total Nitrogen (mg/L)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 36.

Total nitrogen time series validation at Menomonee River RI-21.

29

10 9 8 Daily Modeled at RI-22 Daily Observed at RI-22

Total Nitrogen (mg/L)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 37.

Total nitrogen time series validation at Menomonee River RI-22.

10 9 8 Daily Modeled at RI-09 Daily Modeled at RI-09

Total Nitrogen (mg/L)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 38.

Total nitrogen time series validation at Menomonee River RI-09.

30

1,000,000 Daily Modeled at RI-16 100,000 Daily Observed at RI-16

Fecal coliform (#/100mL)

10,000

1,000

100

10

1 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 39.

Fecal coliform time series validation at Menomonee River RI-16.

1,000,000

100,000

Fecal coliform (#/100mL)

10,000

1,000

100

10

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

1 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 40.

Fecal coliform time series validation at Menomonee River RI-21.

31

1,000,000

100,000

Fecal coliform (#/100mL)

10,000

1,000

100

10

Daily Modeled at RI-22 Daily Observed at RI-22

1 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 41.

Fecal coliform time series validation at Menomonee River RI-22.

1,000,000

100,000

Fecal coliform (#/100mL)

10,000

1,000

100

10

Daily Modeled at RI-09 Daily Modeled at RI-09

1 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 42.

Fecal coliform time series validation at Menomonee River RI-09.

32

60 Daily Modeled at RI-16 50 Daily Observed at RI-16

40

Copper (ug/L)

30

20

10

0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 43.

Total copper time series validation at Menomonee River RI-16.

60 Daily Modeled at RI-21 50 Daily Observed at RI-21

40

Copper (ug/L)

30

20

10

0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 44.

Total copper time series validation at Menomonee River RI-21.

33

60 Daily Modeled at RI-22 50 Daily Observed at RI-22

40

Copper (ug/L)

30

20

10

0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 45.
60

Total copper time series validation at Menomonee River RI-22.

Daily Modeled at RI-09 50 Daily Modeled at RI-09

40

Copper (ug/L)

30

20

10

0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 46.

Total copper time series validation at Menomonee River RI-09.

34

400 Daily Modeled at RI-16 350 300 Daily Observed at RI-16

Zinc (ug/L)

250 200 150 100 50 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 47.

Total zinc time series validation at Menomonee River RI-16.

400 Daily Modeled at RI-21 350 300 Daily Observed at RI-21

Zinc (ug/L)

250 200 150 100 50 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 48.

Total zinc time series validation at Menomonee River RI-21.

35

400 Daily Modeled at RI-22 350 300 Daily Observed at RI-22

Zinc (ug/L)

250 200 150 100 50 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 49.

Total zinc time series validation at Menomonee River RI-22.

400 Daily Modeled at RI-09 350 300 Daily Modeled at RI-09

Zinc (ug/L)

250 200 150 100 50 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Figure 50.

Total zinc time series validation at Menomonee River RI-09.

36