Hydrology Calibration

Phase 5

Calibrators

• USGS-MD– Jeff Raffensperger– Sarah Martucci– Joe Vrabel– Angelica Gutierrez– Gary Fisher

Calibrators

• USGS-VA– Doug Moyer– Alan Simpson– Jen Krstolic

• ICPRB– Ross Mandel– Julie Kiang

Calibrators

• CBP– Sara Brandt– Jing Wu– Kate Hopkins– Lewis Linker– Gary Shenk

Status from April

• Reaching point of diminishing returns with hand calibration

• Better and more consistent overall than phase4

• Consistent with other HSPF calibrations in the literature

• Still a few small areas and issues that need attention in hydrology

Success with Hand Calibration

• Generally better calibration than previous model

• Discovered sensitive parameters

• Discovered appropriate measures of performance

Phase 5 vs Phase 4 Efficiencies

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9Phase 4

Pha

se 5

INFILT AGWR INTFW IRC AGWETP UZSN LZSN KVARYmin 0.009 0.867 0.5 0.12 0.0000 0.25 4.0 0.010th 0.041 0.954 1.0 0.25 0.0000 0.50 5.0 0.025th 0.045 0.965 1.0 0.30 0.0070 0.50 5.0 0.0median 0.072 0.974 1.0 0.38 0.0500 0.50 5.0 0.075th 0.117 0.979 2.5 0.46 0.0500 0.50 5.0 0.090th 0.176 0.983 3.5 0.60 0.0500 0.50 7.5 1.0max 0.337 0.995 5.0 0.85 0.1176 1.35 13.5 3.0

Individually Calibrated Parameters

But . . .

Surface Runoff in inches/yearBut . . .

Individual basin AGWETP calibration

But . . .

But . . .

• Some land segments were not calibrated since they supply no monitored river

• Ratios of parameters between land uses not preserved

• Other established rules not followed

The good news:

Overall BiasWinter / Summer BalanceBaseflow / Stormflow BalanceQuickflow Recession IndexBaseflow Recession IndexPeak Bias

land evapLZSNINFILTIRCAGWRINTFW

Calibration Measure HSPF Parameter

Iterative Calibration

• Started with manual calibration– Enforced land use ratios– Enforced min and max

• Used knowledge and statistics developed during the manual calibration

• Assumed sensitivities linking parameters to statistics

Sensitivities

Bias - land evap - LE = 2/(2-Bias)Wstat/Stat - LZSN - LZSN = (3-S/W)/2Bstat - INFILT - INFILT = 1/BstatQaveRI - IRC - IRC = 2/(1+QaveRI)BaveRI - AGWR - AGWR = 2/(1+BaveRI)Pbias/Vpbias - INTFW - INTFW = 1 + PorV/2

The Ratio Rules

land use infilt intfw lzsn irc agwr agwetpfor 1.6 1.25 1 1 1 6grs 1 1 1 1 1 2pur 0.8 1 1 1 1 2

min 0.0125 1 12 0.35 0.92 0.0005max 0.25 4 12 0.85 0.99 0.05

land use uzsn factor vs lzsncrp 0.14for 0.12grs 0.1pur 0.1

crop monthly uzsn factorJAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.95 1 1 0.8 0.7 0.65

ratio to crop

Crop SURO between 1 and 6

Link Land to RiverCounty A

County B

50k acres

50k acres

Station 1

Station 2

Basis: Percent of basin made up of each county

County A is:100% of station 1 50% of station 2

The ‘importance’ ratio is 2:1, so county A uses 2/3 of the station1 parameters and 1/3 station2 parameters

Ignored ‘importances’ less that 10%

Assigned ‘orphan’ counties to ‘siblings’

10% assumptioncounties controlled

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Watershed Size

April 1 Bias

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

-103% -83% -63% -43% -23% -3% 18% 38% 58% 78% 98%

Iterative Calibration Bias

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

-103% -83% -63% -43% -23% -3% 18% 38% 58% 78% 98%

Baseflow / Stormflow Stat

Fraction of flow that is baseflow (simulated)Fraction of flow that is baseflow (observed)

Bstat = 1 -

baseflow / total flow (observed)Bstat = 1 - baseflow / total flow (simulated)

stormflow / total flow (observed)Qstat = 1 - stormflow / total flow (simulated)

April 1 Bstat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-103% -83% -63% -43% -23% -3% 18% 38% 58% 78% 98%

Iterative Calibration Bstat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-103% -83% -63% -43% -23% -3% 18% 38% 58% 78% 98%

April 1 Qstat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-103% -83% -63% -43% -23% -3% 18% 38% 58% 78% 98%

Interative Calibration Qstat

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-103% -83% -63% -43% -23% -3% 18% 38% 58% 78% 98%

Baseflow / Stormflow Recession Statistic

average Simulated recession index average Observed recession index

Q rec Index = 1 -

quick flow todayAverage Recession index = Average (

quick flow tomorrow )

April 1 Average Baseflow Recession

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-48% -38% -28% -18% -7% 3% 13% 23% 33% 43%

Iterative Calibration Average Baseflow Recession

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-48% -38% -28% -18% -7% 3% 13% 23% 33% 43%

April 1 Quickflow Recession Index

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-103% -83% -63% -43% -23% -3% 18% 38% 58% 78% 98%

Iterative Calibration Quickflow Recession Index

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-103% -83% -63% -43% -23% -3% 18% 38% 58% 78% 98%

Nash – Sutcliffe Model efficiency

(variance of errors) (variance of observed)

Computed for daily, log of daily, and monthly values.

1 -

Reported values of N-S efficiency• Often reported, but little information on

‘standards’ of efficiency• Reported daily efficiencies 0.5 - 0.75• Reported daily log efficiencies 0.5 -

0.75• Reported Monthly efficiencies 0.7 – 0.8

Efficiency as of April 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-103% -83% -63% -43% -23% -3% 18% 38% 58% 78% 98%

Efficiency of Iterative Calibration

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-103% -83% -63% -43% -23% -3% 18% 38% 58% 78% 98%

Reported values of N-S efficiency• Often reported, but little information on

‘standards’ of efficiency• Reported daily efficiencies 0.5 - 0.75• Reported daily log efficiencies 0.5 -

0.75• Reported Monthly efficiencies 0.7 – 0.8

Efficiency of Logs as of April 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-103% -83% -63% -43% -23% -3% 18% 38% 58% 78% 98%

Efficiency of Logs of Iterative Calibration

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-103% -83% -63% -43% -23% -3% 18% 38% 58% 78% 98%

Reported values of N-S efficiency• Often reported, but little information on

‘standards’ of efficiency• Reported daily efficiencies 0.5 - 0.75• Reported daily log efficiencies 0.5 -

0.75• Reported Monthly efficiencies 0.7 – 0.8

Efficiency of Monthly Flow as of Apr 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-103% -83% -63% -43% -23% -3% 18% 38% 58% 78% 98%

Efficiency of Monthly Flow of Iterative Calibration

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-103% -83% -63% -43% -23% -3% 18% 38% 58% 78% 98%

results

INFILT AGWR INTFW IRC AGWETP UZSN LZSN KVARYmin 0.009 0.867 0.5 0.12 0.0000 0.25 4.0 0.010th 0.041 0.954 1.0 0.25 0.0000 0.50 5.0 0.025th 0.045 0.965 1.0 0.30 0.0070 0.50 5.0 0.0median 0.072 0.974 1.0 0.38 0.0500 0.50 5.0 0.075th 0.117 0.979 2.5 0.46 0.0500 0.50 5.0 0.090th 0.176 0.983 3.5 0.60 0.0500 0.50 7.5 1.0max 0.337 0.995 5.0 0.85 0.1176 1.35 13.5 3.0

Hand calib

Iterative calib

Results

• Used the knowledge gained during the individual calibration stage– Sensitive parameters– Important statistics

• Improved the calibration by applying the knowledge in a systematic way– More consistent parameterization– Better statistical calibration

Remaining Questions

• How robust is this calibration– Sensitive to starting point?– Sensitive to rules of assigning land segments

to calibration stations?– Sensitive to rules governing parameters to

adjust?

Efficiency

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

base

hand calib

Effect of Starting Point

Efficiency of logs

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

base

hand calib

Effect of Starting Point

Total Bias

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

base

hand calib

Effect of Starting Point

Efficiency

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

base

accentuate Small

accentuate Large

Dow nstream small

Dow nstream large

Effect of River Calibration Statistic to Land Parameter Methodology

Efficiency of logs

0.31

0.32

0.33

0.34

0.35

0.36

0.37

0.38

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

base

accentuate Small

accentuate Large

Dow nstream small

Dow nstream large

Effect of River Calibration Statistic to Land Parameter Methodology

Total Bias

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

base

accentuate Small

accentuate Large

Dow nstream small

Dow nstream large

Effect of River Calibration Statistic to Land Parameter Methodology

Efficiency

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

base

AGWETP

KVARY

kvary and AG

AGWETP2

10% cepc

50% cepc

1.5 * cepc

2 * cepc

Effect of additional variables or different rules

Efficiency of logs

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

base

AGWETP

KVARY

kvary and AG

AGWETP2

10% cepc

50% cepc

1.5 * cepc

2 * cepc

Effect of additional variables or different rules

Total Bias

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

base

AGWETP

KVARY

kvary and AG

AGWETP2

10% cepc

50% cepc

1.5 * cepc

2 * cepc

Effect of additional variables or different rules

LZSN

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

base

acce

ntuate

Small

acce

ntuate

Large

Downs

tream

small

Downs

tream

large

AGWETP2

AGWETP

KVARY

kvary

and A

G

10% ce

pc

50% ce

pc

1.5 *

cepc

2 * ce

pc

hand

calib

hand

after

iterat

ion

AGWR

0.925

0.93

0.935

0.94

0.945

0.95

0.955

0.96

0.965

0.97

0.975

base

acce

ntuate

Small

acce

ntuate

Large

Downs

tream

small

Downs

tream

large

AGWETP2

AGWETP

KVARY

kvary

and A

G

10% ce

pc

50% ce

pc

1.5 *

cepc

2 * ce

pc

hand

calib

hand

after

iterat

ion

AGWR

INFILT

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

base

acce

ntuate

Small

acce

ntuate

Large

Downs

tream

small

Downs

tream

large

AGWETP2

AGWETP

KVARY

kvary

and A

G

10% ce

pc

50% ce

pc

1.5 *

cepc

2 * ce

pc

hand

calib

hand

after

iteratio

n

INFILT

INTFW

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

base

acce

ntuate

Small

acce

ntuate

Large

Downs

tream

small

Downs

tream

large

AGWETP2

AGWETP

KVARY

kvary

and A

G

10% ce

pc

50% ce

pc

1.5 *

cepc

2 * ce

pc

hand

calib

hand

after

iterat

ion

INTFW

IRC

0.39

0.4

0.41

0.42

0.43

0.44

0.45

0.46

0.47

base

acce

ntuate

Small

acce

ntuate

Large

Downs

tream

small

Downs

tream

large

AGWETP2

AGWETP

KVARY

kvary

and A

G

10% ce

pc

50% ce

pc

1.5 *

cepc

2 * ce

pc

hand

calib

hand

after

iterat

ion

IRC

AGWETP

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

base

acce

ntuate

Small

acce

ntuate

Large

Downs

tream

small

Downs

tream

large

AGWETP2

AGWETP

KVARY

kvary

and A

G

10% ce

pc

50% ce

pc

1.5 *

cepc

2 * ce

pc

hand

calib

hand

after

iterat

ion

AGWETP

KVARY

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

base

acce

ntuate

Small

acce

ntuate

Large

Downs

tream

small

Downs

tream

large

AGWETP2

AGWETP

KVARY

kvary

and A

G

10% ce

pc

50% ce

pc

1.5 *

cepc

2 * ce

pc

hand

calib

hand

after

iterat

ion

KVARY

Results of Sensitivity Tests

• Very stable and robust calibration

• Stable for parameters as well as results

Today’s Product

• Near final version of hydrology, still need:

– Land use– Small hydrologic fixes for reservoirs, other

problem areas

Comparison with phase 4

• Generally better than phase 4 from efficiency standpoint

• Phase 4 calibrated to match CFD and time series at these stations

• Phase 5 calibrated to match statistics other than efficiency

• Phase 5 mostly calibrated to smaller stations.