Analisis de Sistema

WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS
ANALYSIS THROUGH CASE STUDIES

DATA AND MODELS FOR DECISION MAKING
PREPARED BY
Task Committee on Environmental and Water Resources
Systems Education
EDITED BY
David W. Watkins Jr., Ph.D.
SPONSORED BY
Environmental and Water Resources Institute
American Society of Civil Engineers
Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers

/LEUDU\RI&RQJUHVV&DWDORJLQJLQ3XEOLFDWLRQ'DWD

:DWHUUHVRXUFHVV\VWHPVDQDO\VLVWKURXJKFDVHVWXGLHVGDWDDQGPRGHOVIRUGHFLVLRQ
PDNLQJHGLWHGE\'DYLG::DWNLQV-U3K'VSRQVRUHGE\7DVN&RPPLWWHHRQ
(QYLURQPHQWDODQG:DWHU5HVRXUFHV6\VWHPV(GXFDWLRQ(QYLURQPHQWDODQG:DWHU
5HVRXUFHV,QVWLWXWH$PHULFDQ6RFLHW\RI&LYLO(QJLQHHUV
SDJHVFP
,QFOXGHVELEOLRJUDSKLFDOUHIHUHQFHVDQGLQGH[
,6%1SDSHU,6%1HERRN
:DWHUUHVRXUFHVGHYHORSPHQW6\VWHPVHQJLQHHULQJ&DVHVWXGLHV:DWHUVXSSO\
0DQDJHPHQW'HFLVLRQPDNLQJ&DVHVWXGLHV,:DWNLQV'DYLG:,,(QYLURQPHQWDODQG
:DWHU5HVRXUFHV,QVWLWXWH867DVN&RPPLWWHHRQ(QYLURQPHQWDODQG:DWHU5HVRXUFHV
6\VWHPV(GXFDWLRQ
7&:
GF

3XEOLVKHGE\$PHULFDQ6RFLHW\RI&LYLO(QJLQHHUV
$OH[DQGHU%HOO'ULYH
5HVWRQ9LUJLQLD
ZZZDVFHRUJSXEV

$Q\VWDWHPHQWVH[SUHVVHGLQWKHVH PDWHULDOVDUHWKRVHRIWKHLQGLYLGXD ODXWKRUVDQGGRQRW
QHFHVVDULO\ UHSUHVHQW WKHYLHZVRI$6& ( ZKLFK WDNHVQRUHVSRQVLELOLW\ IRUDQ\ VWDWHPHQW
PDGH KHUHLQ1RUHIHUHQFH PDGH LQWKLV SXEOLFDWLRQ WRDQ \ VSHFLILF PHWKRG SURGXFW
SURFHVV RUVHUYLFHFRQVWLW XWHV RUL PSOLHV DQHQGRUVHP HQW UHFRPPHQGDWLRQRUZDUUDQW\
WKHUHRI E\ $6&(7KH PDWHULDOV DUH IRU JHQHUDO LQIRUPDWLRQ RQO\ DQGG R QRW UHSUHVHQWD
VWDQGDUGRI$6&(QRUDUHWKH\LQWHQGHGDVDUHIHUHQFHLQSXUFKDVHVSHFLILFDWLRQVFRQWUDFWV
UHJXODWLRQV VWDWXWHVRU DQ\ RWKHU OHJDO GRFXPHQW $6&( PDNHV QRUHSUHVHQWDWLRQRU
ZDUUDQW\RIDQ\NLQGZKHWKHUH[SUHVV RULPSOLHGFRQFHUQLQJWKHDFFXUDF\FRPSOHWHQHVV
VXLWDELOLW\ RU XWLOLW\ RIDQ\ LQIRUPDWLRQ DSSDUDWXV SURGXFWRU SURFHVV GLVFXVVHG LQWKLV
SXEOLFDWLRQDQGDVVXPHVQROLDELOLW\WKHUHIRUH7KLVLQIRUPDWLRQVKRXOGQRWEHXVHGZLWKRXW
ILUVW VHFXULQJFRP SHWHQW DGYLFHZLWKUHVSHFWWR LWVVXLWDELOLW\ IRUDQ\ JHQHUDORUVSHFLILF
DSSOLFDWLRQ $Q\RQHXWLOL ]LQJ WKLVLQIRUP DWLRQ DVVXPHV DOOOLDELOLW\ DULVLQJIU RP VXFKXVH
LQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRLQIULQJHPHQWRIDQ\SDWHQWRUSDWHQWV

$6&(DQG$PHULFDQ6RFLHW\RI&LYLO(QJLQHHUV²5HJLVWHUHGLQ863DWHQWDQG7UDGH PDUN
2IILFH

Photocopies and permissions.3HUPLVVLRQWRSKRWRFRS\RUUHSURGXFHPDWHULDOIURP$6&(
SXEOLFDWLRQVFDQEHREWDLQHGE\VHQGLQJDQHPDLOWRSHUPLVVLRQV#DVFHRUJRUE\ORFDWLQJD
WLWOHLQ$6&(
VRQOLQHGDWDEDVHKWWSFHGEDVFHRUJDQGXVLQJWKH³3HUPLVVLRQWR5HXVH´
OLQN

&RS\ULJKWE\WKH$PHULFDQ6RFLHW\RI&LYLO(QJLQHHUV
$OO5LJKWV5HVHUYHG
,6%1SDSHU
,6%1HERRN
0DQXIDFWXUHGLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRI$PHULFD
Supplemental Material for Classroom Use
Several of the classroom exercises in this book require supplemental software, instructions and
directions, and data sets. These are provided as free downloads from the ASCE Library at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784412879.fm. Each download is a zipped file with the materials
necessary for a particular chapter:
Chapter 2—MACRO 2004 software and data
Chapter 3—Iowa Flood Damage data spreadsheet
Chapter 5—Bacteria Loading Estimator Spreadsheet Tool (BLEST v. 2.5) and TMDL solution in
dry weather
Chapter 6—HEC-ResPRM Prescriptive Reservoir Model and Lake Superior Data
Chapter 7—Oasis with OCL software manual and access
Chapter 8—Storm Water Investment Strategy Evaluation (StormWISE) calculation sheet
Chapter 9—WeberOgden WEAP Lab and Weber Reservoir data spreadsheet
End-User License Agreement for

Water Resources Systems Analysis through Case Studies
NOTICE: The accompanying software and content package (“Product”) is licensed to you by
ASCE under the terms set forth in this End-User License Agreement (“License Agreement”) and
is conditioned upon your acceptance of, and compliance with, these terms. Please read this
License Agreement carefully before downloading and unzipping the software, as your
downloading the software will indicate your agreement to all terms contained herein.
LICENSE AGREEMENT
This Product is owned by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and its licensors. Your
right to use the Product is governed by the terms and conditions of this agreement. No other use
of the Product is permitted without express written authorization from ASCE.
LICENSE: Throughout this License Agreement, “you” shall mean either the individual or the entity
whose agent downloads the software. You are granted a limited, nonexclusive, and
nontransferable license to use the Product subject to the following terms: (i) The Product may
only be used on a single computer (i.e., a single CPU). (ii) You may make one copy of the
Product for back-up purposes only and you must maintain an accurate record as to the location of
the back-up at all times.
COPYRIGHT, RESTRICTIONS ON USE, AND TRANSFER: All rights (including copyright) in and
to the Product are owned by ASCE and its licensors. You may not decompile, modify, reproduce,
create derivative works, transmit, distribute, sublicense, store in a database, rent or transfer the
Product, or any portion thereof, in any form or by any means (including electronically or
otherwise) except as expressly provided for in this License Agreement. You must reproduce the
copyright notices, trademark notices, and logos of ASCE and its licensors that appear on the
Product on the back-up copy of the Product which you are permitted to make hereunder. All other
rights in the Product not expressly granted herein are reserved by ASCE and its licensors.
iii
TERM: This License Agreement is effective until terminated. It will terminate if you fail to comply
with any term or condition of this License Agreement. Upon termination, you are obliged to return
to ASCE the Product together with all copies thereof and to purge all copies of the Product
included in any and all servers and computer facilities.
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY: This Product is provided to you on an “as is” basis. ASCE and
its licensors make no representation as to results to be obtained by any person or entity from use
of the Product and/or any information or data included therein. ASCE and its licensors expressly
disclaim all warranties, express or implied, in and to the Product including without limitation any
warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or use. Neither ASCE nor its
licensors warrant that the functions contained in the product will meet your requirements or that
the operation of the product will be uninterrupted or error free. You assume the entire risk with
respect to the quality and performance of the Product or your reliance on any information
contained or provided therein. This Product is provided to you subject to the understanding that
ASCE and its licensors are not engaged in providing engineering or other professional services. If
such services are required, the assistance of an appropriate professional should be sought.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: Neither ASCE nor its licensors shall be liable for any direct, indirect,
special, or consequential damages, (including, but not limited to, breach of express or implied
contract; loss of use, data or profits; business interruption; or damage to any equipment, software
and/or data files), however caused and on any legal theory of liability, whether for contract, tort,
strict liability, or a combination thereof (including negligence or otherwise) arising in any way out
of the direct or indirect use of the Product, even if advised of the possibility of such risk and
potential damage. This limitation of liability shall apply to any claim or cause whatsoever whether
such claim or cause arises in contract, tort, or otherwise. Some states do not allow the exclusion
or limitation of indirect, special or consequential damages, so the above limitation may not apply
to you.
U.S. GOVERNMENT END USER RESTRICTED RIGHTS: Any software included in the Product
is provided with restricted rights subject to subparagraphs (c) (1) and (2) of the Commercial
Computer Software-Restricted Rights clause at 48 C.F.R. 52.227-19. The terms of this
Agreement applicable to the use of the data in the Product are those under which the data are
generally made available to the general public by ASCE. Except as provided herein, no
reproduction, use, or disclosure rights are granted with respect to the Product or any data therein
and no right to modify or create derivative works from the Product or any such data is hereby
granted.
GENERAL: The agreement will be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Copyright © 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

All Rights Reserved.
iv
Contents
Preface ..................................................................................................................................... vii

Contributors and Committee Members .................................................................................. viii
1 Introduction .........................................................................................................1
David W. Watkins Jr.
2 Combined Sewer Overflows in the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
District Conveyance and Treatment System ....................................................6
Eric Loucks, David Watkins, and Teresa Culver
3 Linear Programming for Flood Control on the Iowa and
Des Moines Rivers .............................................................................................14
4 Evolution of Agricultural Watersheds in a Systems Management
Framework ........................................................................................................29
John W. Nicklow, Girmay Misgna, Christopher L. Lant, and Steven E. Kraft
5 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Whiteoak Bayou in Harris
County, Texas ....................................................................................................39
Tina Petersen, Kristin White, and Eric Loucks
6 Developing a Regulation Policy for Lake Superior: Optimization and
Trade-Off Analysis............................................................................................46
Sara M. O’Connell, David W. Watkins Jr., and Matthew M. McPherson
7 Computer Aided Negotiation and River Basin Management
in the Delaware ..................................................................................................66
Megan Wiley Rivera and Daniel Sheer
8 Optimization for Urban Watershed Management: Stormwater Runoff
and Nonpoint Pollution Control ......................................................................85
Arthur McGarity
9 Evaluating Storage Carryover in the Weber River Basin Using the Water
Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) System ...................................................102
Bereket K. Tesfatsion and David E. Rosenberg
10 Planning a Water Supply System for the Village of Adi-Gheda, Eritrea ..114
Bereket K. Tesfatsion
11 Case Studies in Environmental and Water Resource Systems Based on
Existing Literature and Texts ........................................................................119
Richard M. Vogel
12 Assessing Educational Benefits of Case Studies ..........................................127
v

Appendix: Notes for Instructors .............................................................................135
Index ..........................................................................................................................157
vi
Preface
The motivation for compiling case studies of systems analysis applications in

environmental and water resources engineering comes mainly from my personal
experience in teaching a course on this topic to graduate and upper level
undergraduate students. Because my course notes—based closely on related courses I
had as a student—and the textbooks I’ve used tend to focus heavily on methods and
algorithms, interspersed with simple examples, students have often wondered why
they needed to know so much “theory”, and whether or not these techniques were
actually used in the “real world.” Then, as I searched for examples of real world
applications, I found very few for which sufficient information was readily available
and accessible to students (at least enough to “convince” them of the usefulness of
systems analysis). As my next tack, I then set off to develop some case studies on my
own, but again my progress stalled as I realized how difficult and time-consuming it
can be to develop good case studies.
I soon learned that instructors at other universities faced similar challenges. Many felt
their courses could be improved with more focus on applications. Some had a few
case studies that they used in teaching, but they wished they had more. All agreed
they lacked the time to develop a good selection of new case studies. Hence, it
seemed logical to combine our efforts and compile a set of case studies that we all
could draw from. We joined forces with several engineering practitioners, each with
an interest in improving engineering education and a desire to pass on the results of
their studies before the reports “disintegrated on the shelf.” Although it did not
happen overnight, as few really worthwhile things do, this collaborative effort
resulted in the set of course-ready case studies compiled herein, ranging from
“classic” applications such as reservoir operations to more recent applications such as
watershed management for total maximum daily loads.
Most of the software and data sets required to complete the case studies are freely
available for download from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784412879.fm. The case
study in Chapter 4 is completed using an on-line program, and software described in
Chapter 7 may also be run remotely, following instructions in those chapters and the
appendix, “Notes for Instructors.” The software for the case study in Chapter 9 may
be downloaded free of charge, following instructions in that chapter.
The contributors to this book still want students to understand the theory behind the
software and analysis tools, but we hope that case studies will foster critical thinking
skills and provide some extra motivation along the way. In addition, we will all be
counting on today’s students to help solve difficult socioeconomic and environmental
problems such as these in the future.
vii

Contributors and Committee Members
'RPLQLF%RFFHOOL ±8QLYHUVLW\RI&LQFLQQDWL&LQFLQQDWL2+
;LPLQJ&DL ±8QLYHUVLW\RI,OOLQRLVDW8UEDQD&KDPSDLJQ8UEDQD,/
$P\&KDQ+LOWRQ ±)ORULGD6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\)ORULGD$ 08QLY7DOODKDVVHH)/
7HUHVD&XOYHU ±8QLYHUVLW\RI9LUJLQLD&KDUORWWHVYLOOH9$
.HQQQHWK+DUULVRQ ±8QLYHUVLW\RI6RXWK&DUROLQD&ROXPELD6&
6WHYHQ.UDIW±6RXWKHUQ,OOLQRLV8QLYHUVLW\&DUERQGDOH&DUERQGDOH,/
&KULVWRSKHU/DQW±6RXWKHUQ,OOLQRLV8QLYHUVLW\&DUERQGDOH&DUERQGDOH,/
(ULF/RXFNV ±&'06PLWK$XVWLQ7;
-D\/XQG 8QLYHUVLW\RI&DOLIRUQLD'DYLV'DYLV&$
$UW0F*DULW\±6ZDUWKPRUH&ROOHJH6ZDUWKPRUH3$
0DWWKHZ0F3KHUVRQ±86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV'DYLV&$
*LUPD\0LVJQD±6RXWKHUQ,OOLQRLV8QLYHUVLW\&DUERQGDOH&DUERQGDOH,/
-RKQ1LFNORZ ±6RXWKHUQ,OOLQRLV8QLYHUVLW\&DUERQGDOH&DUERQGDOH,/
(PPDQXHO1]HZL ±6RXWKHUQ8QLYHUVLW\DQG$ 0&ROOHJH%DWRQ5RXJH/$
6DUD2¶&RQQHOO±86$UP\&RUSVRI(QJLQHHUV'DYLV&$
$YL2VWIHOG ±7HFKQLRQ±,VUDHO,QVWLWXWHRI7HFKQRORJ\+DLID,VUDHO
7LQD3HWHUVRQ±&'06PLWK+RXVWRQ7;
0HJDQ:LOH\5LYHUD±+\GUR/RJLFV,QF&ROXPELD0'
'DYLG5RVHQEHUJ±8WDK6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\/RJDQ87
'DQLHO6KHHU±+\GUR/RJLFV,QF&ROXPELD0'
%HUHNHW7HVIDWVLRQ8WDK6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\/RJDQ87
5LFKDUG9RJHO ±7XIWV8QLYHUVLW\0HGIRUG0$
'DYLG:DWNLQV-U ±0LFKLJDQ7HFKQRORJLFDO8QLYHUVLW\+RXJKWRQ0,
.ULVWLQ:KLWH±86%XUHDXRI5HFODPDWLRQ6DFUDPHQWR&$
*Committee member
viii
1. Introduction
David W. Watkins, Jr.1
What is Systems Analysis?
In a broad sense, systems analysis is the systematic analysis of design or decision

alternatives to solve a problem. To formalize this approach, it is necessary to
describe the problem in terms of decisions, objectives, and constraints. In
engineering education, we often seek to simplify the problem so that the decisions,
objectives, and constraints can be formulated in mathematical terms. Often, but not
always, there are a large number of alternatives, and the evaluation of objectives and
constraints involves analysis of a complex system, or set of interrelated components,
preventing easy solution through intuition or quick analysis of all alternatives. When
the search for the best alternative is automated through a mathematical algorithm
(almost always on a computer), systems analysis is often called optimization or
mathematical programming. Fields specializing in the techniques of
optimization/math programming include Operations Research, Management Science,
and Industrial Engineering. Others have referred to systems analysis as the "science
of design" (Simon, 1969), or the "theory of problem solving" (Liebman, 1989).
Another way to define systems analysis is to describe what it is that “systems
thinkers” or “systems modelers”2 are able to do. In a nutshell, we expect students
who have completed a systems analysis course to have developed the synthesis and
analysis skills to do the following:
x Describe a water resources/environmental engineering design problem

in terms of decisions, objectives, and constraints.
x Simplify the problem, if necessary, and formulate the decisions,
objectives, and constraints in mathematical terms.
x Select an appropriate mathematical programming tool, or computer
software, to solve the problem.
x Understand the solution procedure.
x Interpret the solution and analyze the uncertainties associated with it.
x Explain the solution, solution sensitivity, and limitations of the
approach to someone unfamiliar with optimization or mathematical
programming.
1
Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University,
Houghton, MI 49931-1295; Tel: (906) 487-1640; Fax: (906) 487-2943; E-mail: dwatkins@mtu.edu
2
Systems analysis researchers and practitioners should not be confused with systems administrators,
who maintain computer networks, or with many systems engineers who design physical process
systems but are not applying the mathematical formulation and solution procedures referred to here.
1
2 WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS ANALYSIS THROUGH CASE STUDIES
Why Use Case Studies?
Although not used widely in engineering education, case studies can be extremely
beneficial as a pedagogical tool for providing students with active, collaborative, and
inquiry-based learning experiences. More specifically, case studies can provide
students the opportunity to actively acquire information, collaborate with others in
problem definition, develop an investigation strategy, choose among alternative
problem solving approaches, and negotiate or attempt to convince others of their
conclusions. Many students state a strong preference for these activities over more
traditional lecture-based learning environments.
Business and law schools, and to a lesser degree medical schools, have long traditions
of using real or simulated case studies to teach students. Harvard Business School is
widely noted for pioneering the case method of instruction (Christensen, 1986), and
the college now develops approximately 350 cases each year for use in business
courses worldwide. A typical business student may be exposed to as many as 500
cases in an MBA program (Bhandari and Erickson, 2005). These cases are typically
real and are presented as dilemmas or puzzles to be solved. Students are given
narratives describing an individual, agency, or business with a problem, along with
quantitative background information in the form of charts, graphs, and tables. The
instructor acts mainly as a facilitator to help students understand the facts of the case,
analyze the problem, and present possible solutions. There is seldom a single,
“correct” solution; rather, emphasis is placed on the decision making approach and on
evaluating the pros and cons of a range of reasonable solutions.
Of course there are distinct differences between business and engineering practice,
where analysis and design are founded upon scientific principles and a well-defined
knowledge base. Lecture and traditional problem-solving exercises will always have
their place in engineering curricula. However, the potential benefits of case studies
should not be overlooked. Case studies can generate interest in a technical subject,
foster motivation to learn, and help students to understand the relevance of the subject
in a larger societal context. Furthermore, case studies can promote deeper learning
and development of higher-order thinking skills: comprehension, application,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bloom, 1956; Felder and Prince, 2007). If case
studies are used in group work, as they frequently are, students receive the added
benefits of collaborative learning. These skills seem critically important in water
resources and environmental engineering, in which professionals often work in
multidisciplinary teams along with diverse groups of stakeholders and consider
incommensurate goals to arrive at good (not “correct”) solutions.
Case studies have at least two additional benefits. First, case study use provides a
way to engage industry and government in the university educational experience.
Many practitioners express a desire to contribute to the education enterprise, and
many instructors recognize the value of bringing practical experience into the
classroom, but there is not always a clear means to do so. Second, since cases have
strong appeal to students who dislike lecture-based courses focusing on knowledge
and content rather than on higher-level learning skills, the use of case studies may
WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS ANALYSIS THROUGH CASE STUDIES 3
encourage more undergraduate students to further their education through graduate

study. There may even be some benefits in terms of increasing the diversity of
backgrounds and perspectives in the profession, since those of us who teach
predominantly through lecture tend to be the “survivors” of the lecture-based system
(Herreid, 2005).
A challenge of using case studies is that a significant amount of time and effort may
be required to develop and teach a good case study. Bhandari and Erickson (2005)
estimated that the average time to develop an engineering case study may range from
1 to 4 months. Developing a case study may require extensive research, interviews,
and perhaps even thousands of dollars of investment. On the other hand, some
instructors have succeeded in simply using newspaper clippings and a carefully
crafted set of questions to lead students into a case study. Similarly, the time required
to cover a case may range from a portion of a class period for a simple case to several
class periods for a case requiring extensive reading and data analysis.
Assessing the impact of case studies can also be challenging, since higher-level
learning is not as easy to measure as knowledge and content-based learning.
Furthermore, students exposed to problem-based learning may be slightly less
confident of their learning than students in traditional lecture-based courses. Case
studies also have an affective as well as a content dimension, and it is important to
ask questions such as “Was the case engaging?”, “Did it cause students to think”, and
“Could they relate to the issues?” Despite these challenges, studies have shown that
inductive methods such as case studies promote a more meaning-oriented approach to
learning (with greater learning retention) and help students acquire critical-thinking,
self-directed, and cooperative learning skills (Felder and Prince, 2007).
What Can You Find Here?

The pages that follow describe 8 case studies, along with an annotated bibliography
of journal papers containing applications that may serve as “mini cases.” Each
involves the application of systems analysis methods to complex systems problems in
environmental and water resources engineering. For each case study, students are
given background information pertinent to the particular (current or past)
environmental/water management issue, including social, economic, political,
geographic, hydrologic, and other natural resource information. A series of exercises
is provided, consisting of additional research, team participation, and computer
exercises. Through the computer exercises, students will gain familiarity with
technologies commonly used in environmental and water resources planning and
management, including statistical analysis, simulation and optimization modeling,
and geographic information systems.
To help with adoption in a course, learning objectives for each case study are
provided, along with the expected level of effort for students and the instructor.
Information is provided on any software tools to be used for analysis. Recommended
prerequisites and suggested assessment methods are also given. The suggested level
of the course is graduate or upper-level undergraduate, to ensure that students have an
appropriate background in statistics, linear algebra, environmental science, and

computational methods.
Want Additional Resources?

For additional resources, the reader is referred to the Engineering Case Library
maintained jointly by the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and Carleton
University, under the auspices of the American Society for Engineering Education
(ECL, 2005). These may be found on-line at:
x http://www.civeng.carleton.ca/ECL/
The Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors has also
compiled a set of case studies (AEESP, 2006), which may be accessed at:
x http://www.aeespfoundation.org/publications.html#CaseStudies
Sample assessment surveys are provided in the Chapter 10. Additional assessment
resources are available from the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science
at the State University of New York-Buffalo and the Science Education Resource
Center at Carleton University:
x http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/icbl
Information on optimization software and links to additional public domain solvers
that might be used with these case studies are available on the following web sites:
x COmputational INfrastructure for Operations Research (COIN-OR) (Lougee-

Heimer, 2003): https://projects.coin-or.org/
x Decision Tree for Optimization Software (Mittelmann, 2010):
http://plato.asu.edu/guide.html
Finally, the members of the ASCE task committee that generated this publication plan
to continue related efforts on an informal basis, and so the reader is encouraged to
check the task committee’s website for updated information and possibly some
additional case studies:
x http://www.cee.mtu.edu/~dwatkins/Systems_Educ/index.html
References
Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors (AEESP)
Education Committee (2006). Case Studies in Environmental Engineering and
Science, A. Bhandari and M.A. Butkus, eds.,
<http://www.aeespfoundation.org/publications.html>.
Bhandari, A., and Erickson, L.E. (2005). “Case studies can fill a critical need in
environmental engineering education.” Journal of Environmental
Engineering, ASCE, 131(8), 1121.
Bloom, B.S. (ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I:

Cognitive Domain. David McKay Company, Inc., New York, NY.
Christensen, C.R., with Hansen, A.J. (1986). Teaching and the Case Method. Harvard
Business School Publishing Division, Boston, MA.
Engineering Case Library (ECL) (2005). American Society of Engineering
Education, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and Carleton Univ.,
<http://cee.carleton.ca/ECL/>.
Felder, R., and M. Prince (2007). “The Case for Inductive Teaching,” Prism, 17(2):
55.
Herreid, C.F. (2005). “Because wisdom can’t be told: Using case studies to teach
science,” Peer Review, 7(2): 30-31.
Liebman, J.C. (1989). “Designing the design engineer,” Journal of Professional
Issues in Engineering, ASCE, 115(3): 261-270.
Lougee-Heimer, R. (2003). “The Common Optimization INterface for Operations
Research,” IBM Journal of Research and Development, 47(1): 57-66.
Mittelmann, H.D. (2010). Decision Tree for Optimization Software,
<http://plato.asu.edu/guide.html>.
Simon, H. (1969). Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
2. Combined Sewer Overflows in the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Conveyance and Treatment System
Eric Loucks1, David Watkins2, Theresa Culver3
Background
Many older cities across the United States rely on combined sewers to convey both
stormwater runoff and sanitary sewage. Combined sewer overflows (CSOs),
containing untreated sewage, occur during extreme wet weather, when the capacity of
these combined sewer systems is exceeded. Across the U.S., CSOs pose a serious
threat to water quality in thousands of lake, river, and coastal ecosystems. In addition
to harming the natural environment, they may be a threat to human health and have
adverse economic consequences (e.g., beach closings, reduced aesthetics, tourism
impacts) (U.S. EPA, 2011).
Several large cities in the United States, including Boston, Chicago, and Milwaukee,
have addressed the problem of CSOs by constructing large underground storage
systems. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a large “tunnel” system has been constructed to
contain up to 405 million gallons (54 million ft3 or 1.54 million m3) of wastewater
and stormwater runoff to reduce CSOs discharging to Lake Michigan. In addition to
this tunnel system, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) operates
an extensive system of sanitary sewers to collect and convey wastewater originated
by local sewer systems in a 420 mi2 service area. Local systems are operated and
maintained by municipalities within the District and those contracted with MMSD.
Wastewater flows to the local systems are collected by the District's intercepting
system, and then conveyed to MMSD's two wastewater treatment plants, Jones Island
and South Shore (Shafer, 2005).
The main components of MMSD’s combined sewage conveyance system are the
Metropolitan Interceptor Sewer (MIS) System, the Inline Storage System (deep
tunnels), and the Central Control System. The MIS is network of sanitary sewers that
intercept wastewater from local sanitary and combined sewer systems within the
MMSD service area. This system is divided into seven subsystems for purposes of
flow monitoring analysis and system control. Flows can be diverted between the
subsystems for conveyance to either the Jones Island or South Shore treatment
facilities, or to the District's Inline (Deep Tunnel) Storage System, where they can be
stored until the plants have available capacity for treatment.

1
Senior Engineer, CDM Smith, 12357 Riata Trace Parkway, Austin TX 78727. E-mail:
LoucksED@cdmsmith.com.
2
Houghton, MI 49931.
3
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, P.O. Box 400742, The University of Virginia,
Charlottesville, VA 22904.

6
The Deep Tunnel Storage System, shown in Figure 1, consists of 19.4 miles of
tunnels 300 feet below ground that temporarily stores peak wastewater flows that
exceed treatment plant or MIS capacities. The deep tunnel system can hold up to 405
million gallons of flow and was designed to eliminate overflows from the separated
sewer area and to greatly reduce overflows in the combined sewer area. When the
system became fully operational in 1994, it substantially reduced the number of
annual average overflows from about 50 down to two or three.

Figure 1. MMSD’s Deep Tunnel (In-line Storage System) (Used with permission:
http://v3.mmsd.com/deeptunnellocation.aspx)
At the Central Control System, flows are monitored using continuous and intermittent
monitors. Continuous monitors are permanently installed in more than 300 locations
and use telephone lines and a wireless communication system to transmit data back to
the Central Control System. Intermittent monitors are temporarily installed and rely
on field crews to retrieve the data. Along with monitoring flow data, the Central
Control System allows remote operation of the conveyance system, with the goal
ensuring that treatment plant and conveyance capacity is utilized in the most efficient
manner.

Figure 2 illustrates operation of the combined wastewater and stormwater conveyance

and treatment system during wet weather and extreme wet weather events. In the
separated sewer area, storm sewer flow is discharged directly to local waterways
through local storm sewers, while sanitary sewage normally travels into local sanitary
sewers, the MIS, and treatment plants. In extreme wet weather events, when local
sanitary sewers or MIS cannot handle excessive inflow and infiltration4 into the
sanitary sewer system, excess flow is either bypassed (overflows) to nearby
waterways, or it may be diverted to the deep tunnel, where it is stored until the plants
have capacity to treat it.

Figure 2. Operation of the combined sanitary and stormwater conveyance and
treatment system under (a) wet weather conditions and (b) extreme wet weather
conditions (Used with permission: http://v3.mmsd.com/deeptunnelhowitworks.aspx)

4
Inflow and infiltration (I&I) in sanitary sewer systems is a national problem. It is the result of poor
construction, aging systems needing repair, and/or illicit stormwater connections (Shafer 2005).

In the combined sewer area, sanitary sewage travels into local combined sewers,
where it mixes with stormwater from runoff. Flow from the combined sewers
empties into the MIS to be conveyed to the plants for treatment, and excess flow is
bypassed to nearby waterways at combined sewer outfalls. If the plants are not able
to handle excessive infiltration and inflow, excess flow is diverted to the deep tunnel.
If the deep tunnel is filled, excess flow is discharged to local waterways.
Description of the MACRO Model

The MACRO model was developed to evaluate the operation of the MMSD
conveyance and storage system (CDM, 2005). Written in the Fortran programming
language, MACRO is a routing model that simulates movement of flow through the
MIS subsystems to the wastewater treatment plants (South Shore and Jones Island),
the Inline Storage System, and system overflow outfalls (separate and combined
sewer overflows). Flow continuity is maintained throughout each (hourly) time step
of the simulation, and the volume of separate sewage and combined sewage present in
the ISS is tracked. A schematic of the MACRO network system is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. MACRO system schematic, showing the main MIS subsystems, the Inline
Storage System (ISS), and the wastewater treatment plans (SSWWTP and JIWWTP)
(adapted from CDM, 2005)

The MACRO model also simulates blending at the Jones Island plant. Blending is a
process in which a certain portion (as allowed by permit) of the total plant inflow
bypasses primary and secondary treatment and is blended with the treated flow prior
to chlorination and discharge. This process, shown in Figure 4, effectively increases
the capacity of the treatment plant, which otherwise would be limited by the
secondary treatment capacity.
JIPump
HLIN
QJI-JIBLND
QJI QJI
LLIN Primary Secondary Chlorination
QJIPRI
JIBLND JIBLND
Figure 4. Blending at Jones Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (JIWWTP) (adapted

from CDM, 2005)
There are three input files needed to run MACRO (Figure 5). The Command file
contains the parameters controlling the simulation, including input and output file
names, system capacities (limits), the start and end dates of the simulation, and
various user options. This is the file that users can change to test different system
alternatives (e.g., expanding the in-line storage capacity or treatment plant capacities).
The HSPF Input file contains hourly runoff values for the system as computed by the
Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran (Crawford and Linsley 1966, Bicknell et al.
1997) using precipitation and temperature data for the period 1940-2004. The VRSSI
file (“VRSSIHINDCAST.INP”) contains daily or hourly values of storage to be
reserved for separate sewage inflow to the Inline Storage System. These values have
been calculated as the best values, dynamically adjusted, to minimize SSOs over the
historical record. As an alternative to this “perfect hindsight,” the user may specify a
dummy VRSSI file and a (constant) minimum volume of storage to reserve for
separate sewage inflow, VRSSImin, for more realistic simulation results. The value of
VRSSImin may be adjusted from 0 to the total volume of the tunnel. MMSD has
slowly increased it over the years from 40 million gallons to the current 250 million
gallons (5.35 to 33.42 million ft3).
The file VRSSIHINDCAST.INP contains perfect hindcasts of the best value to use in
each historical storm. Perhaps a poorer set of values should be used, because these
are difficult to improve upon. The minimum VRSSI (on line 14) will have some
effect though. Perhaps students could use a "dummy" VRSSI file (provided). Then
VRSSI is controlled only by the minimum value on line 14.
MACRO generates four output files (Figure 5). The Report file (***.RPT) lists
summary data for the entire simulation run, including annual ISS and CSO/SSO
summaries. The Event Summary file (***.DAT) provides output from each ISS

event in the simulation. The Detailed Output file (***.OUT) lists detailed hourly
output. Finally, the Remote Storage summary provides summary data for remote
storage. Only the Report and Summary files will be used in this exercise.
Figure 5. MACRO model input and output files (adapted from CDM, 2005)
MACRO is used to evaluate various structural and operational alternatives to prevent

SSOs and CSOs. There are three basic ways to prevent overflows: (1) Operate the
treatment and storage in the system more efficiently; (2) Increase treatment/blending
capacity at the treatment plants (including flow capacity to the plants, if that is a
limiting factor); and (3) Increase storage capacity in the ISS. Operating decisions
include the following:
• Adjusting VRSSI dynamically, or specifying VRSSImin
• Increasing blending (requires a permit; also need to increase chlorination
limit)
• Diverting more/less to South Shore WWTP
Capital investment options include the following:
• Increase tunnel (ISS) volume
• Increase pumping capacities from ISS to WWTPs
• Increase siphon capacity at JIWWTP
• Increase treatment capacity at JIWWTP

Assignment
Using the MACRO model provided, evaluate some of the structural and operational
alternatives to further reduce SSOs and CSOs, assuming you have a limited capital
investment budget of $250 million. The problem can be stated as:
Minimize: SSOs, CSOs, or some combination of the two

Subject to:
1. ISS storage capacity
2. Pumping capacities from ISS to WWTPs
3. Treatment capacities at WWTPs
4. Siphon capacity at JIWWTP
5. Budget limit for capital investment ($250 million)
Consider the capital investment and operational alternatives listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Capital investment and operational options for reducing SSOs and CSOs.
Measure Cost Input notes
Increase tunnel (ISS) volume $15/ft3 Line 13 of Command file
Adjust VRSSImin None Line 14
Increase pumping capacities 45 cfs pump costs $5 Lines 20 and 22 (Jones Island and
from ISS to WWTPs million South Shore, respectively)
Increase siphon capacity at Each siphon costs $12 Lines 33 and 34

JIWWTP million to upgrade to
400 cfs
Increase treatment capacity at $1 million/cfs Need to change values on lines

JIWWTP* 36 and 38, and corresponding
limit on line 37
* Blending at JIWWTP is limited by permit to 94 cfs.
Evaluate alternative designs by running the MACRO model with the 1940-2004
hydrologic record. To modify input parameters for the model, you will change the
Command file MITCHELL.CMM. Use the mitfld.PLT and VRSSI_zero.inp files as
the other input files. Select the metric(s) by which you will compare the various
alternatives.
One additional suggestion for running MACRO is to turn off “treatment plant
averaging” by setting line 10 of the Command file to "1". MACRO runs about 20
times faster if you turn off the treatment plant averaging, as there is a lot of overhead

tracking the average inflows over the past 24, 48, 72, ..... and 720 hours. Other lines
of the Command file not mentioned here should remain unchanged. Please see the
MACRO User’s Manual (CDM, 2005) for a complete description of the model and
input and output files. A sample input file is also provided in the Instructor’s Notes
(Appendix).
References
Bicknell, B.R., Imhoff, J.C., Kittle, J.L., Jr., Donigian, A.S., Jr., and Johanson, R.C.
(1997). Hydrological Simulation Program--Fortran, User's manual for
version 11, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure
Research Laboratory, Athens, Ga., EPA/600/R-97/080, 755 pp.
CDM, Inc. (2005). MACRO 2004 Documentation and User’s Guide (draft), prepared
for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Milwaukee, Wis.
Crawford, H.H., and Linsley, R.K. (1966). Digital Simulation in Hydrology: Stanford
Watershed Model IV, Technical Report No. 39, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 210 pp.
Shafer, K.L. (2005). “Sewer Overflows in Milwaukee: What is the Real Problem and
How Do We Solve It?,” Water Resources Impact, 7(5): 13-15.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011). Combined Sewer Overflows.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=5. Accessed 2 May 2011.

3. Linear Programming for Flood Control on the Iowa and Des Moines Rivers1
Background
The Great Midwest Flood of 1993 along the Upper Mississippi River and its
tributaries caused an estimated 48 fatalities and $15-20 billion in economic damages,
surpassing all floods in the United States up to that time (Natural Disaster Survey
Report 1994). As a result of the flood, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
declared 504 counties in nine states eligible for assistance, with the most severe
damage occurring in Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri. The flood forced 74,000 people
from their homes, disrupted commercial activity along the Mississippi and Missouri
rivers and adjacent areas, and destroyed thousands of acres of crops. Many farms also
lost facilities and equipment, and an estimated 72,000 private homes either were
washed away or suffered major damage. Approximately 40,000 commercial
structures were damaged. Virtually all forms of transportation on and across the
Mississippi River were interrupted by the flood. Along the length of the Mississippi
River that forms the western boundary of Illinois, more than 1,000 miles of roads
were closed, and nine of the 25 non-railroad bridges were shut down (USACE, 1996).
The Great Flood of 1993 was caused by a highly unusual series of thunderstorms
repeatedly forming and moving over the same area, combined with above average
precipitation and below average temperatures in the preceding months. Starting in
November 1992, precipitation was above normal, and temperatures were below
normal throughout much of the upper Midwest. Persistent rains and early snowmelt
led to high spring runoff and very high soil moisture levels. Due to an eastward-
flowing jetstream that extended from central Colorado northeastward across Kansas
to northern Wisconsin, a weather-front convergence zone formed across the upper
Midwest during the spring and summer of 1993. Moist, warm air from the Gulf of
Mexico was drawn northward along this jetstream, where it collided with cooler air
masses from central Canada. This combination of extreme conditions generated
frequent occurrences of heavy precipitation over the upper Mississippi River basin,
leading to the destructive floods. In January through July 1993, more than 20 inches
of rain fell over most of the flood-affected area, with more than 40 inches of rainfall
occurring in areas of northeast Kansas and east-central Iowa (USACE, 1996).
In the aftermath of this disaster, some concern was voiced that the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers did not operate flood control reservoirs on Upper Mississippi tributaries
in an optimal manner. Although there was no evidence of deviations from the
reservoir regulation plans, a modeling study was commissioned to provide insight for
1
Based on Needham, J.T, D.W. Watkins, J.R. Lund, and S.K. Nanda (2000). “Linear Programming for
Flood Control on the Iowa and Des Moines Rivers,” Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, ASCE, 126(3): 118-127.
2
Houghton, MI 49931. E-mail: dwatkins@mtu.edu
14
possible modifications to the operating plans (USACE, 1999). In particular, a

deterministic optimization model was applied to a three-reservoir system on the Iowa
and Des Moines Rivers to estimate the best possible operation of these reservoirs
(with “perfect foresight”) and to determine whether or not tandem operating rules
would provide appreciable benefits.
Reservoir System
The Iowa/Des Moines River Reservoir System consists of three reservoirs, one on the
Iowa River main stem and two on the Des Moines River main stem, as shown in
Figure 1. Authorized purposes for these reservoirs include flood control, low-flow
augmentation, fish/wildlife, water supply, and recreation. The Rock Island District of
the Army Corps is responsible for day-to-day decision making regarding reservoir
operations. Operators follow guidelines described in the reservoir regulation manuals
that have been prepared as part of the design of the system (USACE 1983, 1988,
1990).
Saylorville Iowa Ce
Riv da
Reservoir er rR
ive
r
Coralville IOWA
#
DES MOINES CITY
# Lake Reservoir
Red Rock #
LONE TREE
# TRACY
#
WAPELLO
De # OTTUMWA
sM
o in
es KEOSAUQUA #
BURLINGTON
IOWA
R i ve #
r
MISSOURI
ILLINOIS
LA GRANGE #
QUINCY
#
HANNIBAL #
Figure 1. Map of Iowa/Des Moines River Reservoir System
Total capacities and average inflows for the three reservoirs are shown in Table 1,
and other pertinent characteristics of the Iowa and Des Moines Rivers are shown in
Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Table 2 illustrates that Coralville Reservoir can regulate
no more than 25% of the total average annual flow entering the Mississippi from the
Iowa River. Because of this, one could expect that Coralville Reservoir’s flood
control effectiveness below the confluence of Cedar River and on the Mississippi
River is limited. Conversely, as illustrated in Table 3, Saylorville and Red Rock
reservoirs regulate over half of the average flow entering the Mississippi River from
the Des Moines River.
Table 1. Capacities of and Average Inflows to the Three Reservoirs (m3 x 106)
Inflows Capacity (acre-ft/year)

Reservoir (acre-ft/year) Conservation Flood Control Total %a
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Coralville (Iowa River) 1,271,800 25,900* 435,300 461,200 18
Saylorville (D.M. 1,540,600 90,000 586,000 676,000 20
River)
Red Rock (D.M. River) 3,568,000 265,500* 1,494,900 1,760,400 62
* Varies seasonally, value is minimum which corresponds to maximum flood storage
a
Percent of total federal project flood storage in Des Moines/ Iowa system
Table 2. Iowa River Characteristics
Drainage Area Mean Inflow

Location (sq. mi.) (cfs)
(1) (2) (3)
Coralville Reservoir 3,115 1,760
Iowa River (Confluence w/Cedar R.) 4,770 2,360
Cedar River (Confluence w/Iowa R.) 7,870 4,230
Iowa River (Confluence w/Mississippi R.) 12,980 7,120
Mississippi River (Confluence w/Iowa R.) 89,000 49,000
Table 3. Des Moines River Characteristics
Drainage Area Mean Inflow

Location (sq. mi.) (cfs)
(1) (2) (3)
Saylorville Reservoir 5,823 2,200
Red Rock Reservoir 12,323 4,928
Des Moines R. (Confluence w/Mississippi R.) 14,540 8,210
Mississippi R. (Confluence w/Des Moines R.) 119,000 64,520
Under current operations, Coralville Reservoir is to be operated for flood control at

Iowa City, Lone Tree and Wapello on the Iowa River; and Burlington, Iowa, on the
Mississippi River (USACE 1990). Presumably, when operated in conjunction with
the reservoirs on the Des Moines River, the flood peaks can be offset enough to cause
a significant difference in the water levels on the Mississippi River during flooding.
Saylorville Reservoir and Lake Red Rock projects also are associated with the
comprehensive flood control plan for the Upper Mississippi River Basin. According
to the reservoir regulation manuals, Saylorville Reservoir is operated not only to
reduce flood damage in the City of Des Moines, but it is also operated in tandem with
Red Rock Reservoir to reduce flood damage at Ottumwa and Keosauqua on the Des
Moines River and at Quincy, Illinois, on the Mississippi River (USACE 1983;
USACE 1988). Flood control priorities for this system are summarized in Tables 4
and 5.
Table 4. Coralville Release Priorities
Priority Keep flow less than (cfs) At Location

(1) (2) (3)
1 20,000 Iowa City- Iowa River
2 48,500 Wapello – Iowa River
3 265,000 Burlington – Miss. River
4 10,000 Iowa City – Iowa River
5 17,500 Lone Tree – Iowa River
6 30,000 Wapello – Iowa River
7 150,000 Burlington – Miss. River
Table 5. Des Moines River Flood Control Priorities
Priority Keep flow less than (cfs) at Location

(1) (2) (3)
1 40,000 2nd Ave. - Des Moines River
2 107,000 Ottumwa - Des Moines River
3 335,000 Quincy - Mississippi River
4 19,400 2nd Ave. - Des Moines River
5 19,000 Ottumwa – Des Moines River
6 270,000 Quincy - Mississippi River
7 90,000 Keosauqua - Des Moines River
8 13,000 Tracy – Des Moines River
9 28,000 Keosauqua - Des Moines River
Linear Programming Model
A linear programming (LP) model was developed at the Hydrologic Engineering

Center of the USACE to assist with Corps’ flood management studies (Figure 2). The
model treats the flood-operation problem as one of finding a system-wide set of
releases that minimize total system penalties for too much or too little release,
storage, and flow. Essentially embedded in the LP model constraints is a simulation

model that computes storage and downstream flows based on reservoir releases. This
model accommodates reservoir continuity and linear channel routing (e.g.
Muskingum routing) and accounts for hydraulic limitations such as reservoir outlet
capacities. The model constraint set includes continuity constraints for each reservoir
and control point, along with constraints on reservoir release capacity, in each time
period. The objective function includes penalties for too much or too little storage,
release, or flow in each time period.
Figure 2. Model Schematic of Iowa/Des Moines River Reservoir System
The general form of the reservoir continuity constraints, for reservoir j, time period i,
is
> @
i
1
S i , j S i 1, j f i , j ¦ ¦ ct ,k f t ,k I i, j (1)
't k , k: t 1
where Si-1,j and Si,j = storage at the beginning and end of period i, respectively; fi,j =
total release in period i; := set of all control points upstream of j from which flow is
routed to j; ft,k = average flow at control point k in period t; ct,k = linear coefficient to
route period t flow from control point k to control point j for period i; Ii,j = inflow to
the reservoir. The routing coefficients are found directly from the Muskingum model
coefficients.
To model desired storage-balancing schemes amongst reservoirs, the total storage

capacity of each reservoir in the system is divided into zones. The total storage at any
time i is the sum of storage in these zones:
NLF
S i, j ¦S
l 1
i , j ,l (2)
where l = index of storage zone; and NLF = number of storage zones. Substituting
this in the continuity equation yields
1 ª NLF NLF
º i
« ¦
't ¬ l 1
S i , j ,l ¦ S i 1, j ,l » f i , j ¦ ¦ ct ,k f t ,k
l 1 ¼ k , k: t 1
I i, j (3)
The storage in each zone l is constrained as

S i , j ,l d SMAX j ,l (4)
The maximum reservoir release physically possible is limited by the hydraulic

properties of the reservoir outlet works. This limitation is expressed as a piecewise
linear function of the storage in the reservoir. That is, the maximum release from
reservoir j for period i is specified as
E j ,l
S i 1, j ,l S i , j ,l
NLF
f i, j d ¦ (5)
l 1 2
where ȕ̓j,l is the slope of the storage-discharge capacity relationship in storage zone l.
In order to correctly represent non-convex storage-discharge functions, critical under
forced spill conditions, the following binary variables and logical constraints must be
added for each reservoir j.
2 2
¦S
l 1
i , j ,l t Yi , j ¦ SMAX
l 1
j ,l (6)
S i , j ,3 d Yi , j SMAX j ,3 (7)
Yi , j ^0,1` (8)
These constraints ensure that, for example, storage zones 1 and 2 are filled before
water is stored in zone 3.
The continuity constraint for each control point other than a reservoir takes the
following general form:
i
fi, j ¦ ¦c
k ,k: t 1
t ,k f t ,k I i, j (9)
where fi,j = the average control-point flow during period j; Ii,j = local inflow during
period j. For proper representation of the damage function, control-point flow may
also be divided into zones. The control-point continuity equation then takes the form
NLF i
¦f
l 1
i , j ,l ¦ ¦c
k ,k: t 1
t ,k f t ,k I i, j (10)
where l = index of discharge zone; and NF = number of discharge zones.

Penalties for too much or too little storage represent operators’ aversion to storage
levels outside of a target range. The penalties are specified for each reservoir as a
piece-wise linear convex function of volume of water stored in the reservoir during
the period. The total penalty for storage, SP , is defined as
i NLF
SPj ¦¦A
t 1 l 1
j ,l S i , j ,l (11)
where A j ,l is the slope of the storage penalty function in zone l of reservoir j .
Penalties for changing release rates too rapidly quantify negative impacts such as
bank sloughing or inadequate response time to changing conditions downstream.
Changes in release rates may also be limited by the equipment available to change
gate or outlet settings. To impose this penalty, the LP model includes a set of
auxiliary constraints that segregate the release for each period into the previous
period’s release plus or minus a change in release. If the absolute value of this change
in release exceeds a specified maximum, a penalty is imposed. The auxiliary
constraints relate the release for each period to release in the previous period by the
equation
Ri , j >
Ri 1, j Rai, j Rei, j Rai, j Rei, j @ > @ (12)
where Rai, j , Re i, j = acceptable and excessive release increase, respectively; and
Rai, j , Re i, j = acceptable and excessive release decrease, respectively. Ra i, j and Rai, j
are constrained not to exceed the user-specified desirable limits, and a penalty, RP , is
imposed on Re i, j and Re i, j at reservoir j as follows:
i i
RPj ¦B
t 1
i, j Rei, j ¦ Di , j Rei, j
t 1
(13)
where Bi , j is the penalty per unit flow for a positive change in release greater than
the user-specified limits and Di , j is the penalty per unit flow for a negative change in
release greater than the user-specified limits.
Flow penalties are specified as a piece-wise linear convex function of downstream
flow, which is the sum of local runoff and routed reservoir releases. The penalty for
flow, QP, is given by
i NF
QPk ¦¦E
t 1 l 1
k ,l f i , k ,l (14)
where Ek,l is the slope of the penalty function in flow zone l at control point k.
Incorporating penalty terms given by equations (11), (13) and (14), the objective
function is as follows:
ª º
min TP « ¦ QPk ¦ RPj ¦ SPj » (15)
¬k ,k< j , j) j , j) ¼
where TP is the total penalty; Ȍ = ҏset of all control points and ĭ = set of all
reservoirs. The release schedule that yields the minimum total penalty is the optimal
schedule.
It should be noted that the LP makes release decisions for all periods simultaneously,
with perfect knowledge of the complete flow hydrographs. Despite their inherent
optimism, results from this type of deterministic model have proven useful for
inferring general reservoir system operational policies (Lund 1996). Historical
operation of a reservoir can be compared with the “optimal” operation determined by
the model to identify possible shortcomings in current procedures; and questions
regarding the operation of multiple reservoirs or the effects of changing physical
aspects of the system can be addressed quickly.
Model Application
Application of the LP model to the Iowa/Des Moines River system required the
collection of flow data and the estimation of a number of model parameters. Daily
incremental (local) flows and Muskingum routing parameters (e.g., Ponce, 1989) for
each river reach were estimated from U.S.G.S. stream gage data. Initial storage levels
in each reservoir were set as the top of the conservation pool, and reservoir storage
pools were divided into five zones: drought pool, conservation pool, flood control
pool, emergency flood control pool, and flood surcharge pool. Storage-discharge
capacity relationships were derived from outlet and spillway rating curves. All values
are obtained from the master reservoir regulation manuals (USACE 1983, 1988,
1990).
Penalties for high flow were based on economic data found in the reservoir regulation
manuals and subsequent surveys conducted by the Rock Island District. The penalty
functions represented the total penalty at each location, which is a combination of
urban, rural, and agricultural damage. Penalty functions were developed by
approximating the nonlinear flow-damage relationships with convex piecewise linear
functions. Flows were divided into zones based on vertices of the penalty functions.
An example is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Iowa River Flood Penalty Functions
Rate of change of release penalties were difficult to determine. The reservoir

regulation manual for Saylorville states that a maximum change of 3000 cfs/day is
allowable during normal flood operations. This limits bank sloughing in the reservoir
and along the downstream channel. A relatively large penalty of 0.1 $/cfs for rates of
change greater than 3000 cfs/day was set to discourage larger rates of change but still
allow them when necessary. Maximum desirable rate of change values of 3000
cfs/day for Coralville and 6000 cfs/day for Lake Red Rock were determined through
discussions with the Rock Island District and comparisons with historical observed
reservoir storage data.
Storage penalties were set to force the model to operate within the flood control pool
when feasible. The penalty prescribed when storage enters the emergency flood
control pool or the surcharge pool represents the risk associated with uncontrolled
spills. A small “persuasion” penalty is placed on storage within the flood pool so that
reservoir levels return to the top of the conservation pool when downstream flows
recede below flood stage. Figure 4 illustrates an example storage-penalty function.
Emergency flood control pool
Surcharge pool
Drought pool
Conservation pool
Flood control pool

Penalty
Storage
Figure 4. Example Storage-Penalty Function
Activities
The accompanying spreadsheet contains a LP model representing the Coralville

Reservoir and downstream operating points on the Iowa River. Flood damage and the
reservoir storage-discharge relationships are specified on the sheet Diagram & Data.
Incremental flow data for the 1993 flood are provided on a two-day time step on the
sheet Flow-inc. These data are used to define the LP model on the sheet
Optimization-LP. Solution of the LP requires use of the Premium Solver (available
from Frontline Systems, Inc. < http://www.solver.com/>).
1. Model Formulation
First, look at the columns and formulas in the spreadsheet. The “adjustable cells”
(variables) are shaded green and include the reservoir release variables (Column
B), the reservoir storage variables (Columns C-E, representing three storage
zones), and the flow variables at Iowa City (Columns I-J, representing three flow
zones). The cells shaded blue represent cells associated with model constraints.
Upper bounds on the flow and storage variables are in Row 2. Columns F and G
are used to represent the reservoir mass balance constraints. Similarly, Columns
L and M represent the flow mass balance at Iowa City. Column H represents the
upper bound on reservoir releases as a function of reservoir storage. Finally, cells
associated with objective function terms are shaded yellow. The Coralville
Reservoir storage and Iowa City flow penalties for all time periods are summed in
Cell Q2. (Lone Tree and Wapello penalty terms are omitted due to Solver size
limits.) Note how the formulas in the reservoir release constraint and penalty
function cells relate to the model data in the Diagram & Data sheet.
Next, open the Solver (from the Tools menu) and inspect the target cell,
adjustable cells, and constraints. Choose the Standard Simplex Solver as shown
in Figure 5. Click on the Options button, and choose “Assume Non-Negative”

and “Use Automatic Scaling” as shown in Figure 6. Also, adjust the Precision to
0.0001. (Using a smaller value may lead to scaling problems.)
Due to Solver size limits (1000 variables), the change in release constraints (Eqs.
12 and 13) are omitted, as are the flood damage penalties at Lone Tree and
Wapello. The binary variables (Eqs. 6-8) are also omitted. The size of the current
model can be viewed by clicking on the Problem tab in the Solver Options
window (Fig. 6).
Q: How many additional variables, constraints, and bounds would be required to
include the change in release constraints?
Q: How many additional variables, constraints, and bounds would be required to
include flood damage penalties at Wapello?
Figure 5. Solver Parameters dialog

Figure 6. Solver Options dialog
2. Model Solution
Click on the Solve button to solve the LP problem. Results of the LP model and
the historical 1993 storage and flow values are plotted on the worksheets
Coralville Storage and Iowa City Flows. Note differences between the observed
and “optimal” values. Also note that the observed decreases in reservoir releases
in early April and late May are due to attempts to reduce high flows at Wapello
(early April) and to allow farmers to plant near the river (late May), which are
objectives that are not represented in the Excel LP model.
Q: Why are the LP reservoir releases constant at 10,000 cfs for long periods of
time?
Q: Why does the LP model hold reservoir storage much lower than the observed
value until early July?
Q: Why does the LP model hold reservoir storage below 462,000 acre-ft, even
though total storage penalties are much smaller than total flood damage
penalties?
Q: Based on these results, do you believe that the Army Corps could have
operated the reservoir more effectively?
3. Sensitivity Analysis and Duality

In this activity, we will observe the effects of small changes to model data
(objective function coefficients and constraint right-hand sides) and discuss the
implications of these changes. The following tasks involve repeatedly running
the optimization model, which may be avoided by appropriate interpretation of
the Sensitivity Report. (Note: If a Sensitivity Report is generated, you may need
to display shadow prices in scientific notation, as they may be small values.)
(a) Change the value in Cell I2 to 10,001 and re-solve the model.
Q: What is the change in the objective function value? How might this
information be useful to planners?
(b) With the value in Cell I2 reset to 10,000, change the value in Cell D2 to
435,400 and re-solve the model. (Note that this also changes the penalty function
as specified on the Diagram & Data worksheet.)
Q: What is the change in the objective function value, and how might this
information be useful to reservoir operators?
(c) Reset the value in Cell D2 to 435,300, and increase the reservoir release
constraint value in Cells H2:H148 by 1.0. Re-solve the model.
Q: What is the change in the objective function value, and what are the
implications for infrastructure modifications?
(d) Reset the release constraint values, and make one additional change to model
data that you expect will result in a decrease in the total penalty function. Re-
solve the model.
Q: What are the implications of the change in model data?
4. Summary
Q: What are the main limitations of this optimization approach?
Q: What are advantages and disadvantages of optimization as compared to
simulation modeling?
References
Beard, L. R. and Chang, S. (1979). Optimizing Flood Operation Rules. Center for
Research in Water Resources, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Ford, D. T. (1978). Optimization Model for the Evaluation of Flood-Control Benefits
of Multipurpose Multireservoir Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Texas at
Austin, Austin, TX.
Glanville, T. D. (1976). Optimal Operation of a Flood Control Reservoir. Master’s
Thesis, Iowa State University.
Labadie, J. W. (1997). “Reservoir System Optimization Models,” Water Res.
Update, 108, 83-110.
Lund, J. R. (1996). “Operating Rule Optimization for Missouri River Reservoir
System,” J. Water Resour. Plng. Mgmt., ASCE, 122(4), 287-295.
Natural Disaster Survey Report (1994). The Great Flood of 1993. United States
Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
Needham, J.T, D.W. Watkins, J.R. Lund, and S.K. Nanda (2000). “Linear
Programming for Flood Control on the Iowa and Des Moines Rivers,” Journal
of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE, 126(3): 118-127.
Ponce, V. M. (1989). Engineering Hydrology: Principles and Practices. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team (1994). Science for Floodplain
Management Into the 21st Century. Interagency Floodplain Management
Review Committee, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1983). Master Reservoir Regulation Manual:
Saylorville Lake, USACE Rock Island District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1988). Master Reservoir Regulation Manual: Lake
Red Rock, USACE Rock Island District.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District (1990). Master Reservoir
Regulation Manual: Coralville Lake, USACE Rock Island District.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1992). Authorized and Operating Purposes of Corps
of Engineers Reservoirs. Department of the Army. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington D.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1994). “Operating Rules from HEC Prescriptive
Reservoir Model Results for the Missouri River System: Development and
Preliminary Testing.” Report PR-22, Hydrologic Engineering Center, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, Calif.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1996). “Application The Great Flood of 1993 Post-
flood Report.” Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1999). “Analysis of Flood Control Operation of the
Iowa/Des Moines River Reservoir System Using Linear Programming
Techniques.” Report PR-38, Hydrologic Engineering Center, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, Davis, Calif.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (1994). The Soil
Conservation Service Responds to the 1993 Midwest Floods. Economics and
Social Sciences Division, Washington, D.C.
Watkins, D.W., Jones, D.J., and Ford, D.T. (1999). “Flood Control Optimization
Using Mixed-Integer Programming,” Proc. 26th Annual Water Resour. Plng.
and Mgmt. Conf., ASCE, Tempe, AZ.
Windsor, J. S. (1973). “Optimization Model for the Operation of Flood Control
Systems,” Water Resour. Res., 9(5), 1219-1226.
Wurbs, R. A. (1993). “Reservoir-System Simulation and Optimization Models,” J.
Water Resour. Plng. Mgmt., ASCE, 119(4), 455-472.
Yeh, W. W-G. (1985). “Reservoir Management and Operation Models: A State-of-
the-Art Review,” Water Resour. Res., 21(12), 1797-1818.
4. Evolution of Agricultural Watersheds in a Systems Management Framework
John W. Nicklow1, Girmay Misgna2, Christopher L. Lant3, and Steven E. Kraft4
Introduction
Multifunctional agricultural watersheds are important producers of ecosystem
services, including enhanced water quality, nutrient recycling, reduced sedimentation,
carbon sequestration, and enhanced wildlife habitat, in addition to traditional
agricultural commodities. Ultimately, however, the resulting mix of ecosystem
services and commodity outputs from privately owned rural agricultural landscapes
depends on the spatial pattern of land uses emerging from land use decisions by the
landowners or land managers. Thus, understanding the connections and resulting
tradeoffs among agricultural and environmental policies, landowner decision-making
processes, and environmental outcomes is an important step in structuring policies
and incentives that target ecosystem service generation and overall environmental
quality, without undermining agricultural productivity. Virtual Watershed is an
Internet-based watershed planning tool aimed at improving that understanding. The
model is built by integrating several important systems-related tools (multi-objective
evolutionary algorithms, agent-based programming, and environmental/hydrologic
simulation) in an effort to capture the dynamic interactions among economic and
ecological conditions, public policies, land manager behavior and demographics, and
historical land use patterns.
This case study involves application of Virtual Watershed to Big Creek watershed, a
133-km2 basin located in southernmost Illinois. This agriculturally-dominated
watershed is a sub-basin within the 1,944-km2 Cache River watershed located near
the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. The ecological significance of the
Cache River basin is apparent through its designation as a State Natural Area, a State
Land and Water Reserve, a National Natural Landmark, an Important Bird Area, and
a Wetland of International Importance (i.e., Ramsar Wetland). Existing threats to the
Cache River ecosystem include the loss and fragmentation of natural habitat, dramatic
alterations of natural hydrologic regimes, and excessive upland erosion and sediment
deposition as a direct result of agricultural practices. Big Creek basin has been
identified by the Illinois State Water Survey as the primary source of sediment
(approximately 70%) in the Lower Cache River (Demissie et al., 1992). The majority
of this material is transported during infrequent flood events; 96.3 percent of
sediment is moved in five percent of the time (Demissie et al., 1990). A significant
quantity of nutrients, including phosphorous and nitrogen, are transported with the
sediment, resulting in further deterioration of downstream water quality.
1
Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, and Provost and Vice Chancellor, Southern Illinois
University Carbondale, Carbondale, IL 62901; Ph: (618) 453-4321; Fax: (618) 453-4235; E-mail:
nicklow@engr.siu.edu
2
Research Associate, Environmental Resources and Policy, Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
3
Professor, Geography and Environmental Resources, Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
4
Professor, Agribusiness Economics, Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
29
Problem Formulation
The watershed management problem, ultimately focused on simultaneous
management of ecosystem service generation and agricultural commodities, can be
posed in several ways. One possible formulation and the focus of this case study
involves the determination of watershed-scale landscapes that
(i) Maximize o production of corn, soybeans, hay, and other agricultural
commodities, represented through an aggregated crop production index;
(ii) Minimize o watershed-scale sediment and nutrient yields;
(iii) Minimize o annual peak flow at the watershed outlet, and;
(iv) Maximize o carbon sequestered by the landscape;
Subject to o Governing hydrologic and environmental physics, crop yields in
response to inputs, feasible land and crop management constraints, and existing
agricultural technology.
Virtual Watershed Framework

The overall structure of Virtual Watershed is guided by the “human dimensions of
global environmental change” model (Stern et al., 1992) where socioeconomic forces
act as “structures” to which independent “agents” (e.g., farm operators) respond by
making land use choices. These choices, in combination with the hydrologic and
geographic characteristics of the watershed, provide the changing spatial structure
within which environmental processes function to produce economic and ecosystem
service outputs. Society evaluates these sets of outputs and, if they fail to meet
politically-determined social goals, responds by attempting to modify the decision
environment by changing policies.
At the center of Virtual Watershed are three loosely-coupled models: an optimal
control model, an agent-based model, and a hydrologic and environmental simulation
model. Details regarding each of these components are provided in the following
paragraphs, and the overall architecture of Virtual Watershed is shown in Figure 1.
Optimal control model: Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) (e.g., genetic algorithms and
related multi-objective search algorithms) can be used effectively to find patterns of
land use that optimize sets of economic and environmental objectives (Nicklow and
Muleta, 2001; Muleta and Nicklow, 2002; Muleta and Nicklow, 2005; Bekele and
Nicklow, 2007). EAs represent a group of robust, heuristic search procedures that
generally rely on stochastic search rules to solve complex decision problems. They
are distinctly different from gradient-based algorithms (e.g., nonlinear programming
and differential dynamic programming) in that they require no user-defined starting
point, nor do they rely upon derivative information about the objective function or
constraints. Instead, the objective function magnitude is used to display incrementally
better solutions (i.e., decisions). This characteristic alone makes them amenable for
application to non-convex, highly nonlinear and even discontinuous problems for

which most traditional optimization techniques would have difficulties or fail.
Figure 1. Virtual Watershed Framework
Within the context of the watershed management problem, a multiobjective EA

known as NSGAII (refer to Deb et al., 2002 for additional information) is used to
evaluate Pareto Optimality, better referred to in this study as a Productions Possibility
Frontier (PPF). Generation of the PPF is a key element of the analysis because it
represents ideal conditions (landscapes) from a management perspective. When
compared to a current landscape, the user can then evaluate potential opportunities for
improvement. For example, Figure 2 illustrates the PPF for Big Creek watershed. To
begin, notice that results from solving the four-dimensional (four objective) problem
were collapsed into two dimensions. This task was undertaken based on previous
studies on Big Creek demonstrating that land use patterns that retain sediment also
retain nitrogen and phosphorus and reduce flood peaks with a high degree of
correlation. For example, annual average sediment load from landscape patterns is
correlated with phosphorus load from those patterns (R2 = 0.98), nitrate load (R2 =
0.92) (Bekele and Nicklow, 2005), and flood peaks (R2 = 0.93). Similar results were
obtained for carbon sequestration. For the purposes of display only, therefore, these
three ecosystem services and their corresponding non-dominated solutions are
aggregated into a hydrologic and water index simply by weighting each of them
equally. The resulting two-dimensional PPF consists of approximately 15 data points,
each representing a discrete land use pattern with considerably different levels of
economic and ecological performance. Note that some ambiguity in whether solutions
appear dominated may occur because of the aggregation of solutions for display.
From the figure, however, it is apparent that landscape A performs maximally for
ecosystem service objectives; while landscape C performs maximally with respect to

crop production. Next, notice that the current landscape (landscape B) is sub-optimal
(i.e., dominated) with respect to all objectives. Thus, an opportunity for increased
generation of ecosystem services, agricultural commodities, or both (i.e.,
improvement space) exists. Virtual Watershed is tasked with providing the user with
a plot similar to that shown in Figure 1, including an evaluation of improvement
space. The remaining aspect of this management problem involves user determination
of how policy (e.g., public subsidization and regulation) and price structures can be
altered to provide incentives that capitalize on this opportunity and move the current
landscape through the improvement space and closer to the PPF.
C
B
Figure 2. PPF and landuse pattern for selected PPF solutions for Big Creek Watershed
Agent-Based Modeling: Multiple-farmer behavior in response to various price and

policy structures is evaluated using artificial agents, along with a genetic algorithm.
The agents themselves are autonomous entities that have limited knowledge and
information, but are represented by simple subroutines of a computer program (Parker
et al., 2003). They are goal directed, can sense the environment and act upon it, and
are capable of interacting with other agents. In the context of the watershed
management problem, the agent represents a farmer or farm manager who combines
his/her knowledge, values, relevant policy and market conditions, information on
biophysical variables (soil quality, crop productivity, and slope), and resource
availability (land, labor, and machinery) to make land use choices that define an
agricultural landscape.
Based on field surveys (Kraft et al., 1989; Loftus and Kraft, 2003), three types of
farmer agents have been identified for Big Creek: profit maximizers, satisficers, and
conservationists (see Figure 3). The three types of agents were distributed throughout
the Big Creek watershed based on assignment to faux farm boundaries. A genetic
algorithm (GA) is used to model the land use decision making behavior of each agent
and to determine a particular land use plan. In the case of the profit maximizer, for
example, the GA is used determine the land use plan that would maximize gross
margin. In contrast, the conservationist aims to minimize soil loss through erosion,
and the satisficer, minimizes soil loss while also achieving a minimum income
constraint. These land uses, along with other farmer decisions across the watershed,
are used to evaluate the anticipated landscape, which can in turn be compared to the
PPF.
Hydrologic and Environmental Simulation Model: To simulate hydrologic and
ecological processes, and thus the ecosystem service outputs of a particular watershed
landscape (objectives), the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Soil and Water Analysis
Tool (SWAT) has been integrated into Virtual Watershed. SWAT is a continuous-
time, spatially distributed hydrologic simulator designed to assist water resource
managers in routine assessment of water supplies and the effects of non-point source
pollution in river basins (Arnold et al., 1998; ASCE, 1999). The model is well
supported and widely accepted and has been incorporated into USEPA’s BASINS
model for hydrologic and water quality analysis of watersheds. The model operates
on a daily time interval and allows a watershed to be subdivided into natural sub-
watersheds, upon which distributed routing of flows is based. It is important to note
that stream flow and average annual nutrient and sediment loads are modeled by
SWAT at a watershed scale, but these analyses are more-fundamentally based on
evaluation of individual, contributing Hydrologic Response Units (HRUs).
Agricultural management practice options include tillage techniques, planting and
harvesting dates of specific crops, fertilizer and pesticide types, application dates and
dosages, and cropping sequences. The model also provides an estimate of crop yield
and accounts for crop yield reduction that may arise due to environmental stresses.
Additionally, SWAT operates on a GIS platform, which greatly assists in the
generation of model input parameters and visualization of model output. In addition
to SWAT simulation, a regression model is used to evaluate the amount of carbon
sequestered according to land use and soil type. This model was created through an
extensive field study conducted in Big Creek watershed (Yadev et al, 2007; Yadev
and Malanson, 2008).
Figure 3. GA used as a modeling tool to capture agents land use decision making and
optimization behavior.
VWS Web Application
Virtual Watershed can be publicly accessed at http://vws.erp.siu.edu:90/vws/. The

tool is a web-enabled, user-friendly application prototype that is used to run scenario-
based simulations and visualization of results. Users define policy scenarios
represented by crop prices, CRP rental rates and level of soil loss and submit through
a dialog window to run a simulation. After the completion of each scenario run,
results of simulation can be displayed in different formats as maps, graphs, and tables
together with various background layers. The display is dynamic, and automatically
changes to reflect the results of the latest scenario simulation. The map view can be
“zoomed in” to focus on specific areas and queried on a click of a mouse to view the
attribute data at that location. A collage of the input dialog and different views of the
web application interface is shown in Figure 4.
Scenario Analysis Assignment

Consider the three price structures shown in Table 1 for Big Creek watershed. Each
represents a change in market conditions with respect to the provision of ecosystem
services and/or to commodity prices as a result of corn-based ethanol, unfavorable
weather conditions, or similar pressures. The first scenario is a baseline scenario,
representing market and policy conditions that existed under the 1996 and 2002 farm
bill. This condition is reflected through the market price for commodities and land
rental rates for lands under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The second
scenario looks at changes in production of both commodity and ecosystem services as
a consequence of CRP rental rates increasing from $68 to $90/acre. The third scenario
simulates commodity and ecosystem service production as a result of high
commodity prices that are reflective of current land use changes in the Unites States
due to ethanol production. Enter the values represented by each scenario and evaluate
the resulting landscape relative to the PPF. Proceed by answering questions posed by
your instructor.
Table 1. Commodity prices and soil loss limit for the three scenarios
Commodity Farm bill CRP scenario High commodity

Scenario price
Corn ($/bu) 2.50 2.50 6.50
Soybeans ($/bu) 6.40 6.40 15.50
Wheat ($/bu) 2.73 2.73 2.73
Alfalfa hay ($/ton) 89 89 89
CRP rental ($/acre) 68 90 68
Soil loss limit 2T 2T 2T
Figure 4. VWS web application interface views
References
Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., Muttah, R.S., and Williams, J.R., 1998. SWAT: Soil and
Water Assessment Tool. USDA, Agricultural Research Service: Temple TX.
ASCE, 1999. GIS Modules and Distributed Models of Watersheds. American Society
of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA.
Bekele, E.G. and Nicklow, J.W., 2007. “Multi-objective automatic calibration of
SWAT using NSGA-II.” J. of Hydrology, Elsevier, 341: 165-176.
Costanza, R.R. d.Arge, de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg,
K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R., Sutton, P., and van den
Belt, M., 1997. “The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural
capital,” Bioscience, 37(6): 407-412.
Daily, G.C., 1997 (ed.). Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural
Ecosystems. Island Press: Washington, DC.
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., and Meyarivan, T., 2002. “A Fast and Elitist
Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA–II,” IEEE Trans. on Evolutionary
Computation, 6(2), 182–197.
Demissie, M., Soong, T., Allgire, R., Keefer, L., Makowski, P., 1990. Cache River
basin: Hydrology, hydraulics and sediment transport, Vol. 1: Background,
Data Collection, and Analysis. Contract Rep. 484, Illinois State Water Survey,
Champaign, IL.
Demissie, Fitzpatrick, W.P., and Cahill, R.A., 1992. Sedimentation in the Cache
River wetlands: Comparison of two methods. Rep. No. 129, Illinois State
Water Survey, Champaign, IL.
Kraft, S., Roth, P., and Thielen, A., 1989. “Soil conservation as a goal among
farmers: results of a survey and cluster analysis,” Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, 44: 487-490.
Lal, R., Kimble, J.M., Follett, R.F., and Cole, C.V., 1998. The Potential of U.S.
Cropland to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. Ann
Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI.
Lant, C.L., Kraft, S.E., Beaulieu, J., Bennett, D., Loftus, T., and Nicklow, J.W. 2005.
“Using GIS-based ecological-economic modeling to evaluate policies
affecting agricultural watersheds.” Ecological Economics, Elsevier, 55(4):
467-484.
Loftus, T. and S. Kraft. 2003. “Enrolling Conservation Buffer in the CRP,” Land Use
Policy, 20: 73-84.
Muleta, M.K. and Nicklow, J.W., 2002. “Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective
evaluation of watershed management decisions.” J. of Hydroinformatics,
IWA, 4(2): 83-97.
Muleta, M.K. and Nicklow, J.W., 2005. “Decision support for watershed management
using evolutionary algorithms.” Journal of Water Res. Planning and Mgmt.,
ASCE, 131(1): 35-44.
Nicklow, J.W. and Muleta, M.K., 2001. “Watershed management technique to control
sediment yield in agriculturally dominated areas.” Water International,
IWRA, 26(3): 435-443.
Parker, D.C., Manson, S.M., Janssen, M.A., Hoffmann, M.J., Deadman, P., 2003.
“Multi-Agent Systems for the Simulation of Land-Use and Land-Cover
Change: A Review,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
93(2): 314-337.
Stern, P.C., Young, O.R., Druckman, D. (eds.), 1992. Global Environmental Change:
Understanding the Human Dimensions. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Environmental
Program, World Bank, World Resources Institute, 2000. World Resources:
2000–2001—People and Ecosystems, the Fraying Web of Life. Elsevier
Science, Amsterdam.
Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenko, J., and Melillo, J.M., 1997. “Human
domination of Earth’s ecosystems,” Science, 277, 494-499.
Yadev, Vineet and G. P. Malanson, 2007. “Progress in soil organic matter research:
litter decomposition, modeling, monitoring and sequestration.” Progress in
Physical Geography 31(2): 131-154.
Yadev, V. and G. Malanson, 2008. “Spatially explicit land use land cover and soil
organic carbon transformations in Southern Illinois.” Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment 123: 280-292.
5. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Whiteoak Bayou in Harris County,
Texas
Tina Petersen1, Kristin White2, and Eric Loucks3
Background
Whiteoak Bayou is an urban stream that meanders through suburban Houston and
joins Buffalo Bayou in the highly urbanized, central business district. Water quality
monitoring has determined that there are elevated indicator bacteria levels in the
bayou, potentially posing a risk to people who could come in contact with the water
by wading, swimming or boating in the Bayou. Safety of contact recreation is
determined through the use of indicator bacteria, which epidemiological studies
(USEPA 2004) have demonstrated are correlated to incidences of gastroenteritis in
those who participate in such activities.
Bacteria is measured in terms of colony forming units (cfu) which is determined from
a most probable number (MPN) of bacterial colonies that grow in a cultured water
sample. It is an estimate of the number of viable organisms in a specific quantity of
water. The water quality is expressed in terms of concentration such as MPN per
deciliter (MPN/dL or MPN/100 mL), while daily loads are expressed as totals
typically in billions of MPN per day (BMPN/day).
The Clean Water Act requires that all regulated water bodies be evaluated and those
that do not meet water quality standards be placed on a list known as the 303(d) list.
There are several mechanisms by which water bodies can be removed from the list,
but perhaps the most common means is to perform a study known as a total maximum
daily load (TMDL) study. A TMDL study involves assessing the assimilative
capacity of a water body for a particular pollutant, identifying current loads of the
pollutant into the water body, and estimating the reductions required to achieve the
water quality standard for the pollutant within the water body. To date, various
models have been used in TMDL studies ranging from simple load duration curves,
or LDCs (Stiles 2002), to complex in-stream water quality models such as Hydrologic
Simulation Program in Fortran (HSPF) (Moyer and Hyer 2003).
Simple approaches such as load duration curves, while easy to use and able to
estimate required reductions, do little in the way of identifying pollutant loads and
developing strategies for reducing them. Furthermore, LDCs lack the meaningful
spatial and temporal resolution needed during the implementation phase of the TMDL
regulation. Sophisticated models such as HSPF, on the other hand, include spatial and
temporal variation but are time-consuming to develop, require large data sets as input,
1
Engineer, CDM Smith, 3050 Post Oak Blvd., Houston, TX 77056, E-mail:
PetersenCM@cdmsmith.com
2
Engineer, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, CA.
3
Senior Engineer, CDM Smith, 12357 Riata Trace Parkway, Austin TX 78727.
39
and suffer from the limitations associated with uncertainty and parameter estimation.
Additionally, in-stream water quality models require inventories of point and
nonpoint sources of the particular pollutant into the stream. Other tools have been
developed in spreadsheets, such as the Bacteria Source Loading Calculator (Benham
et al. 2006; Zeckoski et al. 2005) and the Bacteria Indicator Tool (USEPA 2000), to
create input for water quality models such as HSPF. These tools differ from the
Bacteria Loading Estimator Spreadsheet Tool (BLEST) because they are being used
for determining model inputs, not to provide model results directly.
The BLEST model was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate indicator bacteria
loads into the Buffalo and Whiteoak Bayou watersheds, two water bodies listed on
the State of Texas 303(d) list for impairments related to contact recreation (Petersen
et al., 2009). The model can be used to estimate load reductions and to develop
loading input data for more sophisticated in-stream water quality models such as
HSPF. The model can also be used to determine the variables within the source
loading estimation calculations that have the most impact on developing the TMDL
and estimating the required reductions. The ability to undertake such an analysis with
a relatively simple tool such as BLEST is very valuable to decision makers and
stakeholders as it can guide the process of sample collection, parameter estimation,
and detailed model development.
In BLEST, loading can be assessed for three different flow conditions: dry weather,
intermediate, and wet weather. Dry weather conditions are those that are maintained
primarily by point source flows to a bayou, while wet weather conditions are
representative of peak storm conditions. Intermediate flow conditions represent
bayou conditions several days after a rainfall event. Flow duration curves from
USGS gages were used to define low, median, and wet weather flows.
Assignment
Using the BLEST spreadsheet tool provided, along with the Excel Solver Add-in,
develop and solve a mathematical programming formulation to determine the least
cost approach to meeting the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality water
quality standards for bacteria in Segment 1017 of the Whiteoak Bayou. The problem
can be stated as:
Minimize: Cost of TMDL implementation measures.
Subject to:
1. Meeting the dry weather and wet weather Bacteria standard

2. Total daily load equals current load minus amount removed by implemented
removal measures plus/minus secondary effects of reduced loads
3. Secondary effects of reduced loads
4. Physical constraints and effectiveness limits on removal measures
5. Constraints to assure no duplication of stormwater measures (cannot treat
same flow twice except unless Source Control, if used, is applied up front)
Data/Assumptions
Current bacteria loads determined using BLEST are listed in Table 1. Bacteria
sources include the following:
x Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent

x Wet weather wash-off from the WWTP biosolids handling facility
x Separate Sewer Overflows (SSO)
x Stormwater runoff
x Leakage from faulty on-site sewage facilities (OSSF), also known as septic
tank/drainage field systems
x Direct deposition into the waterway by wild and domestic animals
x Release of bacteria from bottom sediments that accumulate during dry
weather
In addition, die-off and settling reduces in-stream concentrations of bacteria and thus
behaves like a negative source. Note that biosolids, SSO and sediment release are
sources driven by wet weather, while direct deposition is considered to be negligible
during wet weather. Sediment accumulates during dry weather and is then entrained
into the flow during wet weather, so the bacteria load associated with sediment
depends on the dry weather concentration.
Table 1. Estimated Bacteria Loads for Reach 1017 (Whiteoak Bayou)
Dry Weather Wet Weather

Source Flow Load Flow Load
MGD 109 MPN/day MGD 109 MPN/day
WWTP Discharge 20 42 21 44
Biosolids Release - - 1.25 124
SSO 1.2E-04 22 2.4E-03 31
Stormwater Runoff 0.7 249 205 342,500
Faulty Septic Tanks 5.8E-04 105 5.8E-04 105
Direct Deposition - 132 - -
Sediment Release - - - 8300
Die off/Settling - -426 - -272,800
Total 20.7 124 227 78,300
Target 99 1,084
Removal Measures Available
The following removal strategies are under consideration by the affected

communities. The effectiveness and costs of these measures were adapted from
Heaney and Joong (2006) and Heaney et al. (2002).
1. WWTP Discharge – Improve Disinfection using Ozonation
Will reduce bacteria in WW discharge by 90%.
Cost = $400,000 + $10,000 per MGD treated
2. Biosolids discharge – Containment improvements
Will eliminate the biosolids load
Cost = $1,500,000
3. SSO – Eliminate SSO through system repairs
Cost = $1,000 /gpd for dry weather discharges
Cost = $10,000 /gpd for wet weather discharges
4. Septic Tanks – Repair/replace
Assume each repair will eliminate one billion MPN/day.
Cost = $25,000 per repair
An alternative is to extend the publically owned sewer system but this is cost-
prohibitive as a TMDL measure.
5. Direct Deposition – Animal management
Can remove up to 50% of the load.
Cost = $40,000 per billion MPN.
6. Stormwater Measures – Any of the measures listed in Table 2 can be used to
reduce the bacteria load caused by stormwater discharges. Source controls
use regulations, enforcement and public education to reduce the bacteria that
is exposed to stormwater. Examples of this are strict pet waste pick up laws,
regulation of commercial dumpsters, and public education concerning storm
drains along streets. Wet ponds, filters, wetlands and bioretention facilities
remove bacteria from the water or retain bacteria to allow biological activity
to reduce populations. Infiltration strips divert stormwater from the runoff
thus reducing both the volume of water as well as the bacteria load.
Table 2. Stormwater measures to reduce bacteria loads
Measure Removal Cost Limitations

Rate
Source Control/ 25% (dry) $2,500,000 lump
Public Education 10% (wet) sum
Wet Ponds 30% $100,000/MGD
Bioretention 60% $1,000,000/MGD Wet weather only
Filters 90% $10,000,000/MGD Wet weather only
Infiltration Trenches 15% $20,000/MGD
Constructed 20% $25,000/MGD Limited to 5% of
Wetlands total flow
Secondary effects
1. Sediment Release
Channel sediments provide an excellent substrate for bacteria growth. Nutrients

adhere to sediment, readily offering a source of food. Higher flow velocities
indicative of wet weather conditions tend to “stir up” sediment, releasing the
bacteria into the flow. During dry weather, sediment tends to accumulate and is
populated by available bacteria. This gives rise to a situation where wet weather
sediment load is dependent on dry weather bacteria load. For this problem, one
could assume that sediment load in wet weather will be reduced in proportion to
the reduction of the dry weather total daily load.
2. Die off and settling
As discussed above, bacteria attach to sediment particles and settle out of the
flow. Also, as food and oxygen are consumed, bacteria die off more rapidly than
they reproduce. These processes have been shown to occur according to a first-
order decay relationship.
Bacteria die off and settling is given by R = Load*(1-exp[-kt]) where:
R = amount removed
k = rate coefficient (1/day)
t = elapsed time in days
For this TMDL, k=1.5 and a time of one day are assumed.
Additional Guidance
While it may be possible to formulate this problem as a single optimization model, it
is probably more efficient to construct separate analyses of the dry weather and wet
weather problems. Differences in the optimal policy for each case can be resolved by
trial and error or by setting constraints to force the wet weather policy to use the dry
weather measures.
Also, there is more than one way to formulate this problem, but students may find it
most natural to use binary (0-1) variables for yes/no decisions. However, there are
also nonlinear features to the problem, and mixed-integer nonlinear programming
problems are very difficult to solve. In this case, due to the small number of yes/no
decisions, the 0-1 variables may be adjusted manually (fixed in a trial-and-error
process) and the Solver used to adjust only the continuous variables. Integer
variables, such as the number of septic tank repairs, may be treated as continuous and
rounded up to the nearest integer value.
Initially, no constraints have been set for the amount of stormwater that can be treated
except for constructed wetlands. Students should consider the practical feasibility of
capturing and treating large quantities of stormwater.
References
Benham, B.L., C. Baffaut, R.W. Zeckoski, K.R. Mankin, Y.A. Pachepsky, A.M.
Sadeghi, K.M. Brannan, M.L. Soupir, and M.J. Habersack (2006). Modeling
Bacteria Fate and Transport in Watersheds to Support TMDLs, Transactions
of the ASABE, 49(4): 987-1002.
Heaney, J.P., and J.G. Lee (2006). Methods for Optimizing Urban Wet-Weather
Control System, EPA/600/R-06/034, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH.
Heaney, J.P., D. Sample and L. Wright (2002). Costs of Urban Stormwater Control,
EPA-600/R-02/021, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Moyer, D.L., and K.E. Hyer (2003). Use of the Hydrological Simulation Program-
FORTRAN and Bacterial Source Tracking for Development of the Fecal
Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Accotink Creek, Fairfax
County, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations
Report 03-4160.
Petersen, C.M., R.S. Hanadi S. Rifai, and R. Stein (2009). Bacteria Load Estimator
Spreadsheet Tool for Modeling Spatial Escherichia coli Loads to an Urban
Bayou, J. Environ. Eng., 135, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9372(2009)135:4(203).
Stiles, T.C. (2002). Incorporating Hydrology in Determining TMDL Endpoints and
Allocations, Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation: National
TMDL Science and Policy (13): 1637-1649.
USEPA (2000). “BASINS Technical Note 6: Estimating Hydrology and Hydraulic

Parameters for HSPF.” Document Number 823-R00-012, Washington, D.C.
USEPA (2004). “Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs,” EPA 833-R-04-001,
USEPA, Washington, D.C.
Zeckoski, RW., B.L. Benham, S.B. Shah, M.L. Wolfe, K.M. Brannan, M. Al-Smadi,
T.A. Dillaha, S. Mostaghimi, and C.D. Heatwole (2005). BSLC: A Tool for
Bacteria Source Characterization for Watershed Management, Applied
Engineering in Agriculture, 21(5): 879-889.
6. Developing a Regulation Policy for Lake Superior: Optimization and Trade-
Off Analysis
Sara M. O’Connell1, David W. Watkins, Jr.2, and Matthew M. McPherson3
Background
Lake Superior is the largest lake in the world by surface area4, and it is also the
largest regulated freshwater body. It drains an area of more than 200,000 km2,
including the lake surface itself. The lake’s outlet is the St. Marys River, which flows
into Lake Huron. Water discharging from Lake Superior passes through the Soo
Locks, a set of gate structures called the Compensating Works, and hydroelectric
power facilities on the U.S. or Canadian sides of the channel. Despite these outlet
facilities, Lake Superior can be regulated only to a certain extent, with levels and
flows largely dictated by natural hydrologic processes.
The regulation of Lake Superior is generally considered to have begun in 1888, when
a railroad trestle was built across the St. Marys River, near the head of the St. Marys
Rapids, restricting the river’s discharge capacity (Coordinating Committee, 1994).
Then, in the 1890s, the U.S. and Canada constructed diversion canals for
hydroelectric plants, which increased the total flow capacity of the river. In 1901,
construction of “compensating works” began at the head of the rapids on the
Canadian side. These consisted of four sluice gates, each 16 meters wide between
large masonry piers. By 1914, navigation and power canals were added, further
reducing the cross-section of the river. Additional gates were added to the
compensating works on both the U.S. and Canadian sides until 1921, when modern-
day control of the outlet of Lake Superior was achieved with a 16-gate structure
approximately 300 meters in length (Clites and Quinn, 2003).
The legal doctrines directing the management of the Great Lakes by the U.S. and
Canada are based on the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, which established the
International Joint Commission (IJC), and the Orders of Approval of 1914. At that
time, the specified purposes of regulation were commercial navigation, hydroelectric
power generation, domestic and sanitary uses, and irrigation; there was no mention of
environmental, recreational, or shoreline property impacts (flooding or low levels).
Since 1921, several Lake Superior regulation plans have been in place, with plans
typically being modified, or new plans adopted, following periods of extremely high
or low levels (e.g., low levels in the 1920s and 1960s, and high levels in the 1980s).
1
Hydraulic Research Engineer, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Institute for Water Resources, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 609 2nd St., Davis, CA, 95616. E-mail: sara.m.oconnell@usace.army.mil
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University,
Houghton, MI 49931.
3
Division Chief, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Davis, CA, 95616.
4
If Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are counted as two lakes.
46
The current regulation plan, described below, continues regulation practices instituted
in 1974 (Clites and Quinn, 2003).
In 2007, the International Joint Commission appointed the International Upper Great
Lakes Study Board to examine whether the regulation of Lake Superior outflows
could be improved to address potential climate change impacts and the evolving
needs of the upper Great Lakes. The study area includes lakes Superior, Michigan,
Huron and Erie, and their interconnecting channels (St. Marys River, St. Clair River,
Lake St. Clair, Detroit River and Niagara River), downstream to Niagara Falls. See
Figure 1. Major topics for investigation include determining the factors that affect
water levels and flows, including potential impacts of climate change; developing and
testing alternative new regulation plans; and assessing the impacts of these alternative
plans on the ecosystem and human interests.
Figure 1. The Great Lakes, connecting channels, and diversions.
Current Regulation Plan
The current regulation plan, known as Plan 1977-A, specifies monthly mean Lake
Superior outflows with the objective of balancing the levels of Lakes Superior and
Michigan-Huron relative to their historical ranges. The monthly flow is allocated
first to meet the needs of municipal and industrial water users, operate the navigation
locks, and provide sufficient flow to maintain the aquatic habitat of the St. Marys
Rapids. In accordance with IJC requirements, a one-half gate open setting (about 60-
95 m3/s, depending on Lake Superior levels) is the minimum allowable to provide
flows for the main portion of the rapids. Additionally, a continuous supply of water
(15 m3/s) is provided for the fishery remedial works. The remainder of the Lake
Superior outflow is allocated equally between the U.S. and Canada to generate
electricity. If the amount of water available for hydropower generation exceeds the
capacities of the hydropower plants (about 2,300 m3/s), the excess is released by
opening more gates at the compensating works.
If Lake Superior is experiencing low levels (defined as below 183.4 m), the IJC
mandates that releases cannot exceed “preproject” releases, defined by a formula that
represents natural (unregulated) flows in the St. Marys River. This requirement is
meant to ensure that Lake Superior levels are maintained above seasonal and
historical low levels as much as practicable. In addition, a maximum release is
specified in the winter to prevent ice jams in the St. Marys River.
The IJC may, and frequently does, approve deviations from the regulation plan. For
instance, in the spring of 1985, the water levels of Lakes Michigan-Huron were
almost 60 cm above average, while Lake Superior was less than 15 cm above
average. The continued high water supply conditions on Lakes Michigan-Huron and
Erie made it impossible for Plan 1977-A to keep the lakes balanced with regard to
their respective mean levels. To provide relief to the shore property interests on the
downstream lakes, the IJC approved Lake Superior outflows less than specified by
the regulation plan beginning in May 1985. By the end of September, the net impact
of the deviation was an 11-cm rise in water levels on Lake Superior and a 7-cm drop
on Lakes Michigan-Huron (Yee et al., 1993).
Assignment
Use a network flow optimization model, HEC-ResPRM (USACE, 2011), to evaluate
some of the trade-offs faced in developing a new regulation policy for Lake Superior.
Given a set of objective functions that represent different operating purposes and
interests (hydropower, navigation, recreational boating, shoreline property), evaluate
trade-offs by adjusting weights on the various functions. Then propose a “balanced”
plan (set of weights) that does not cause inordinate damage to any particular interest
on Lake Superior. Include the following in your analysis:
x Summarize the trade-offs between the different operating objectives in

a single table, or trade-off matrix. Include your final proposed plan
(generated with a set of “compromise” weights) for comparison.
x Compare historical levels under Plan 1977-A with those that would
have resulted from your proposed plan.
x Perform a sensitivity analysis (± 20% changes in Net Basin Supplies)

to quantify potential impacts of climate change and the robustness of
your proposed plan.
x Optional: Since ecosystem functions (wetlands, fisheries) have not

been included in the optimization model, evaluate (qualitatively or
quantitatively) the performance of your proposed plan with respect to
this objective in a post-optimization analysis. See details below on
estimating ecosystem function (wetlands) benefits.
x Optional: Because of complications associated with modeling

unregulated outflows from Lake Huron (discharges in the St. Clair
River), Lakes Michigan-Huron levels will not be included in the
optimization model, but they may be simulated post-optimization.
Using the spreadsheet provided, compare historical Michigan-Huron
levels under Plan 1977-A with those that would have resulted from
your proposed plan. Comment on the importance and practicality of
“balancing” the lakes.
Data and Assumptions

To complete this assignment you will need both historical hydrologic data, to model
the physical system, as well as socioeconomic and environmental data, to quantify
benefits (impacts) in the optimization model objective function or constraints.
Historical hydrologic data, readily available on-line from the NOAA Great Lakes
Environmental Research Lab (http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/arc/hydro/mnth-
hydro.html), has been compiled in HEC-DSS format. Using this data, water levels
may be computed simply as:
¨W = Qi + NBS – Qo
where ¨W is the change in water level, Qi is inflow to the lake from upstream lakes or
diversions, NBS = net basin supplies (equal to precipitation + runoff – evaporation),
and Qo is outflow from the lake (all in equivalent depth units). For Lake Superior,
NBS values are generally negative in the early winter, when snowpack accumulates
and evaporation is high; close to zero in the late winter, when the lake surface freezes;
positive in the spring and summer due to snowmelt, high runoff, and reduced
evaporation; and then decreasing in the fall when evaporation rates increase. A
relatively small but continuous inflow also occurs throughout the year from
diversions from the Hudson Bay watershed (Long Lake and Ogoki projects).
Limited socioeconomic and environmental data were available at this time of this
writing, as the development and compilation of data for the IJC study was under way.
Below is some guidance on quantifying impacts, which was followed to develop
HEC-ResPRM objective functions for this case study. For updates, the reader is
referred to the IUGLS web site: http://iugls.org.
Recreational Boating and Tourism - Low water levels are a concern for recreational
boating and tourism because they make some docks and boat ramps unusable, shorten
the boating season, increase boat-propeller damage, and reduce accessibility. During
low-water conditions in Summer 2007, when mean lake levels were as low as 182.9
m, about 60% of available dock space at Isle Royale National Park was inaccessible,
and the ferry was not able to run to the park from Grand Portage, MN. High water
levels can overtop boat docks and flood marinas, as occurred during the record high
water levels of the 1980s.
The economic impact of recreational boating on all the Great Lakes has been
estimated to be $6.3 billion annually (Allardice and Thorp, 1995). In lieu of an
economic impact study for Lake Superior, a simple “interest satisfaction curve”
(Eberhardt, 1994) may be used, based on the fraction of boat launches accessible at
different lake levels. This curve, based on data collected by Bill Werick (personal
communication, January 2011), is shown in Figure 2. In HEC-ResPRM, this curve
forms the basis of a penalty function to be minimized. The penalty function is
essentially the inverse interest satisfaction curve (i.e., a penalty of zero for lake levels
between 183.18 and 183.64 m).
0.8
FractionUsable
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
183 183.2 183.4 183.6 183.8
MeanMonthlyLakeLevel(m)
Figure 2. Fraction of boat launches usable at different water levels (B. Werick, personal
communication, Jan, 2011).
Hydroelectric Power - High Lake Superior levels and outflows increase hydropower
generation, while low levels and flows reduce generation. At Sault Ste. Marie, flows
for hydropower generation are divided between Canada and the U.S. On the U.S.
side, the Edison Sault Electric plant can handle nearly 900 m3/s and generates
between 25-30 MW when fully on-line, or about 225 million KWh annually.
Additionally, the Corps of Engineers hydropower plant at the Soo Locks generates
150 million KWh.
Societal benefits from hydropower generation are typically assumed to be the cost
savings from power generation by coal- or gas-fired plants. Without conducting a
study to estimate these savings, the objective of maximizing hydropower revenues
may be used instead. Based on simulated hydroelectric energy generation for the
period 1900-2008 under Plan 1977-A (B. Werick, personal communication, January
2011), hydroelectric power generation may be approximated as a linear function of
St. Marys flow up to a maximum of about 95 MW at a total flow of 2,400 m3/s, as
shown in Figure 3. This power generation function is combined with monthly
varying prices, ranging from about $44/MWh in May to $62/MWh in January, to
develop economic-based penalty functions for HEC-ResPRM.
120
100
Power(MW)
80
60
40
20
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
St.MarysFlow
Figure 3. Monthly hydroelectric power generation as a function of St. Marys flow

(m3/s), for a range of Lake Superior water levels (data from B. Werick, personal
communication, Jan. 2011).
Commercial Navigation - Low water levels reduce a ship’s capacity to transport cargo
and thus require more trips, increasing operating costs. For some harbors such as that
at Thunder Bay, low water levels can seriously disrupt shipping, particularly when
they fall below chart datum (601.1 ft, or 183.2 m).
To estimate commercial navigation impacts, consider that the Soo Locks had 75
million tons of commodities in 2003, including iron ore (54% of total at value of
$30/ton), coal (25% at $40/ton), and grain (12% at $170/ton)
(http://outreach.lrh.usace.army.mil/States/Mi/Default.htm). In this analysis we will
assume that lake levels remain high enough for these goods to be shipped (i.e., no
modal shifts occur), but a $0.60/ton increase in shipping costs is incurred for every 1
ft (.3048 m) the water level drops below 601.5 ft (183.34 m) (David et al., 1998). To
develop monthly penalty functions in HEC-ResPRM, average monthly tonnage data
are used to distribute the annual impacts over the shipping season, March through
December.
Shoreline Property (Coastal) - Low water levels may reduce property values for
aesthetic purposes, and reduce shoreline recreational opportunities, while high levels
increase the likelihood of storm damage. In lieu of economic data to formulate these
penalty functions, it is assumed that shoreline interests are adversely affected

whenever lake levels are more than two standard deviations above or below their
monthly mean values (expected to occur only 5% of the time), shown in Figure 4.
183.8
183.7
183.6
183.5
LakeLevel(m)
183.4
183.3
183.2
183.1
183
182.9
182.8
1 3 5 7 9 11
Month
Figure 4. Minimum and maximum lake levels beyond which adverse coastal impacts are
assumed to occur.
Ecosystem (Wetlands) - Seasonal and long-term cycles of high and low water levels
are considered by experts in the biology community to be essential for the well-being
of Great Lakes wetlands. Persistent high or low levels can have adverse impacts on
wetlands diversity. Also, when water levels move to and remain at a different
regime, wetlands have difficulty migrating to the new regime and may take years to
recover.
Although a comprehensive study of Lake Superior wetlands has not been completed
at the time of this writing, you may assume a goal similar to one proposed for Lake
Ontario regulation—maximize the area (zone) suitable for the meadow marsh
community, characterized by a high degree of plant diversity and dominated by short
emergent vegetation (grasses, forbs, sedges, etc.), but also including some shrub and
tree overstory. This zone may be defined by elevations last flooded 5 to 30 years ago.
Five different wetland communities may be identified (Wilcox et al., 2005):
x Upland transition community – last flooded > 30 years ago.

x Meadow marsh community – last flooded 5-30 years ago.
x Emergent marsh community #1, dominated by thin-stem persistent
emergent vegetation (mainly cattail) and does not support the same
level of diversity supported by the meadow marsh community – last
flooded < 5 years and/or last dewatered during growing season < 4
years ago.
x Emergent marsh community #2 – last dewatered during growing

season 4-39 years ago.
x Submerged/floating leaf community, dominated by submerged
vegetation, floating leaf vegetation, and algae – last dewatered during
growing season > 39 years ago.
Instructions for HEC-ResPRM
This section provides a brief summary of the basic steps required to run HEC-
ResPRM and complete the assignment. For an introduction to other software
capabilities, the reader is referred to the HEC-ResPRM Quick Start Guide (USACE,
2011).
Step 1. Installation and Data Set Up: Install HEC-ResPRM and copy the case study
watershed files (contained in the directory “Lake_Superior”) to the local C: drive.
Place the folder called “Lake_Superior” inside another folder called “Base.” For
example, the path to your case study files may be “C:/PRM/Base/Lake_Superior/.”
Step 2. Watershed Location: Define the watershed location by selecting Options

from the Tools menu. The Options Editor is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. From the Tools menu, select the Options Editor and then the Model
Directories tab in order to create a Model Directory.
The first tab of the Options editor, Model Directories, is used to define Watershed
Locations. To add a new location to the list, press the Add Location… button. The
Add Watershed Location screen will appear. Browse to the directory above the
“Base” directory where the Lake_Superior watershed is located and press OK. For
the example shown in Step 1, the Watershed Location would be “C:/PRM/.”
Step 3. Modular organization of the HEC-ResPRM program: There are three

modules within the HEC-ResPRM program: Watershed Setup, Network, and
Optimization. Although this assignment will only require interaction with the
Network and Optimization Modules of HEC-ResPRM, the reader is encouraged to

browse through all three modules that constitute the Lake Superior case study
watershed. Each module provides access to specific types and directories of data
within the watershed data tree. The Watershed Setup Module is where the Stream
Alignment is drawn and the basic shape and connectivity of a basin is defined. The
configuration of projects – reservoirs and diversions – is also done in this module.
Adding physical data and penalty functions is done in the Network Module.
Compute options are set by creating Alternatives, each of which is based on a
Network. The Optimization Module is used for running optimizations on selected
Alternatives. An Optimization in HEC-ResPRM terms is a time period, over which
one or more Alternatives will be optimized. Each Alternative added to an
Optimization is a copy of an Alternative from the Network. Some attention is
required to maintain consistency between the Network version and the Optimization
version of each Alternative. Figure 6 provides a graphical illustration of the modules.
Refer back to this figure to help keep the concepts organized as you learn more about
the function of each module.
Figure 6. HEC-ResPRM Modules
Step 4. Model constraints and penalty functions: Model constraints and penalty
functions are initially input in the Network Module, but they can be viewed (and
some changes can be made) in the Optimization Module. Start in the Network
Module by opening the Base network (if not already opened), and then open the
Reservoir Editor and right-click on the reservoir (Lake Superior) with the arrow tool
or the reservoir tool . Select Edit Reservoir Properties from the dropdown
menu. (You can also access this Editor by selecting Reservoirs… from the Edit
toolbar.) Select the Constraints tab (Figure 7) to view model constraints, which can
be either constants, monthly constants, or a time-series. Note that there are two
different types of constraints (storage and release), and they can be viewed by using
the drop-down Constraint Type selector. In this case, storage constraints are
constant, but release constraints are defined as monthly constants, representing
summer and winter seasons.
In this model, the release constraints are in units of million m3/month (MCM). The
storage constraints are defined in terms of million m3, based on an arbitrary datum of
0 meters above mean sea level. They correspond to lake elevations of 182.8 and
184.1 meters above mean sea level, respectively.
Penalty Function data are found on the Storage, Release, and Power Release tabs.
Individual Penalty Functions are defined by season and then grouped into
PenaltySets and Composite Penalties. Each PenaltySet is intended to represent one
particular interest (e.g., commercial navigation, recreational boating, hydropower)
and consists of up to 12 individual Penalty Functions – one for each month. The
Penalty Functions vary based on the season selected for each month. If a penalty
applies consistently all year, a single “all year” season can be applied to every month.
(This is the default setting.)
A single reservoir or river reach may have several competing purposes, with each
interest associated with a different PenaltySet. When optimizing the system, HEC-
ResPRM combines these separate penalties into a monthly varying Composite
penalty function. Composites must be specified for each reservoir storage and
reservoir release link in an HEC-ResPRM model. Figure 8 shows the layout of the
Storage tab of the reservoir editor with an active Composite. In the bottom left
panel, Monthly Penalties, you can select each month to view the total (composite)
storage penalty that will be applied for that month. The PenaltySet Weight Editor at
the bottom middle allows you to apply weights to the various PenaltySets that
contribute to your composite.
The Power Release tab is set up slightly differently than the Storage and Release
tabs. Only one hydropower penalty set can be used for any given run, so there is no
composite penalty. Because hydropower generation is dependent on both head and
release, it is more difficult to accurately reflect hydropower penalties. This
relationship is roughly approximated in HEC-ResPRM with the ability to make power
penalty sets vary with respect to storage and flow. For simplicity, and because
storage (head) does not change dramatically compared to the release, the Lake
Superior power penalty does not vary with storage. More can be learned about HEC-
ResPRM power calculations by reading the HEC-ResPRM Quick Start Guide or the
HEC-ResPRM User’s Manual (USACE, 2011).
Figure 7. Storage Capacity constraints for Lake Superior
Figure 8. Storage tab of the Reservoir Editor with the “Recreation” Composite Penalty
active.
Step 5. Setting up Alternatives: One or more Alternatives must be defined prior to

running an Optimization. From the Alternative menu (in the Network Module)
select Edit. The Alternative Editor window will appear, showing a list of existing
Alternatives. A user can create a new Alternative by selecting New… from the
Alternative Menu, and then selecting the parameters that should be applied.
An Alternative called “Baseline” has already been created for this model. Click on
“Baseline” in the upper panel of the Alternative Editor and then look at the tabs in the
bottom panel to view the input data and options selected for the Alternative.
The Penalty Assignments tab shows which Composite Penalties will be applied for
Lake Superior Storage and Release, and which PenaltySet will be applied for
hydropower (Figure 9). (Note that a Composite Penalty is mandatory for Reservoir
Storage and Release, so even though no Release penalties are used, a “Zero” penalty
Composite has been applied.) On the Reservoir tab, the Initial and Ending Storage
values are set (Figure 10). The Time-Series tab shows the input data set (Figure 11).
The Compute Options tab shows special compute settings (Figure 12). For this
model, default compute options were not changed, except the Restricted Basis Entry
is turned on. This option turns on an algorithm that allows for the use of non-convex
penalty functions.
Figure 9. Alternative Editor with Penalty Assignments tab active (showing assigned
penalties).
Figure 10. Alternative Editor with Reservoir tab active (showing starting and ending
storage volumes).
Figure 11. Alternative Editor with Time-Series tab active (showing Net Basin Supply
time-series).
Figure 12. Alternative Editor with Compute Options tab active (showing default
settings, except Restricted Basis Entry is ON under Solution Algorithm Options).
Step 6. Computing Alternatives: Once at least one Alternative has been defined, an
Optimization can be built and the Alternative can be run. Select Optimization from
the Module dropdown selector. An Optimization in HEC-ResPRM is defined as the
time window over which one or more Alternatives will be computed. An
Optimization covering the Period of Record (1900-2008) has been created. Open the
“1900-2008” Optimization, using the Optimization menu. Next, click on the
“Compute {Name of Alternative}” button in the control panel of the Optimization
Module’s main window to perform the computations. A compute window will
appear showing status messages and program progress. When the computation is
finished, a “Compute Complete” message will appear and the status bar will read
100%. Click Close to close this window.
To view the console output, you may select PRM Console Output and the
Alternative name under the Reports menu. This shows that the model includes over
15,000 network links and solves in about 10,000 iterations, which should take no
more than a couple seconds on modern PCs.
Step 7. Reviewing Model Results: Model results can be accessed and visualized in
three different ways: Plots, DSS Viewer, or Summary Reports, but for brevity, only
Plots and DSS Viewer will be described here. On the model schematic you can
right-click on a model element to get a menu list. Choose the Plot option to display
the default time-series graph. The plotted results can be tabulated by selecting
Tabulate from the plot’s File menu. Alternatively, when Hec-DssVue is selected
from the Tools menu, a DSS file is opened that contains the results of the
Optimization. A list of pathnames is provided, and a screened list can be obtained by
selecting a pathname part from the lists in the Search by Parts section of the
window. To select records to be displayed, highlight the pathnames and click on the
Select button. After one or more records are selected, the buttons for plot and
tabulate become active. Click either button to generate the associated output.
To view other time series plots, start by right-clicking on the Lake Superior reservoir
and select Plot Elevation. This will provide a plot of lake levels (in meters) along
with a second plot of inflows and releases (in million m3/month). To display different
variables, choose Select Variables under the Plot menu, and add or remove variables
as desired. Note that the y-axis scale may need to be adjusted, and this may be done
by selecting Plot Properties under the Edit menu. By right-clicking on the reservoir
icon, you may also display time-series of storage and power release penalties.
Step 8. Use weights to adjust the impact of each Penalty Set: In the optimization
Module, Select the Penalty Manager from the Edit menu. Here you can define
PenaltySet Groups, based on the types of objectives you are operating for. For this
study, four “Groups” have already been created, each containing the appropriate
PenaltySets. (In this case, there is only one PenaltySet for each group.) The groups
are Recreation, Hydropower, Navigation, and Coastal. You can change the impact of
each objective by adjusting its Group’s weight. In order to change the weights, select
a Group from the dropdown list on the Grouped tab, change the Weight value, click
Set, then click Apply. (See Figure 13 for an example of changing the weight on the
Coastal group.) You can view the current weights for all your Penalty Sets on the
Sorted tab. (There are other ways to apply weights to penalties in HEC-ResPRM, but
this allows the weights to all be applied in a single location.)
Use the Penalty Manager to adjust the Group weights, then recompute your
Alternative. Check the results of your run by plotting output and by looking at the
Penalty Report. The Penalty Report can be found under the Reports menu. On its
Groups tab, it will report the total penalty accumulated over the time window for
each group. Since the Hydropower and Navigation penalty sets were input in terms
of $1 million, these are the units of the total penalty for those groups. The Recreation
and Coastal penalties were input as relative penalties, ranging from zero to
approximately 1.0.
A good way to begin the process of trade-off analysis is to develop a so-called “pay-
off table,” which shows the best possible solution (lowest possible penalty) for each
objective (or penalty group). This is generated by solving the model once for each
group, with that group’s weight set to 1.0 and all others set to zero. Use the data from
the Penalty Report to record each penalty group’s total penalty for each run. Once the
payoff table is generated, repeat the process of adjusting weights, recomputing, and
examining results until you have achieved a reasonable balance between the different
Lake Superior objectives. Keep in mind that weights may need to be adjusted by
significant factors (0.01, 0.1, 10, or 100) to see appreciable changes in the results.
Figure 13. Adjust weights on groups of Penalty Sets using the PenaltySet Manager.
Step 9. Adjust time series inputs to model climate change using Hec-DssVue:
Climate change may impact the operation of Lake Superior. Rerun the Alternative
using inflows adjusted for climate change to see how well the different objectives
stay in balance. Begin by right-clicking on the Baseline Alternative in the
Optimization Control Panel. Select Save to Base… in order to save any changes that
were made to the Alternative in the Optimization Module to the copy of the
Alternative in the Network Module. (The only changes were the weights on the
Penalty Groups.) Next, go to the Network Module, and open the Alternative Editor.
Create a copy of the current Alternative using the Save As… feature of the
Alternative Menu. Name the Alternative “Climate”. Figure 14 shows the screen shots
for saving a copy of an Alternative.
Next go to the Time-Series tab of the Alternative Editor. Highlight the

“Superior_IN” time-series and click on Select DSS Path… in order to map a
different inflow time-series (Figure 15). The DSS Selector will automatically open
the DSS file that holds the original inflow time-series. To replace it with the climate
change time-series, highlight the “IUGLS-CLIMATE CHANGE FLOW-IN-NET”
time-series, click Set Pathname, and close the DSS Selector (Figure 16). Save the
Alternative and close the Alternative Editor.
Figure 14. Create a copy of an existing Alternative using the Save As… option.
Figure 15. Input time-series can be changed using the Select DSS Path… button on the
Time-Series tab of the Alternative Editor.
Figure 16. The DSS Selector is used to map input data.

Save the Network, and switch to the Optimization Module. From the Optimization
menu, choose Edit…. Check the box next to the Climate Alternative in order to add
it to the Optimization. Check the Run New Extract box to get the Optimization to
retrieve the new DSS data. Then click OK. These steps are shown in Figure 17. The
Climate Alternative will appear below Baseline in the Optimization Control panel.
In the Optimization Control panel, right-click the Climate Alternative and Set As
Active, as shown in Figure 18. Now Compute the Climate Change Alternative.
Compare results between the Baseline and Climate Change Alternative. Has there
been a significant change in the balance between different objectives?
Figure 17. Edit the Optimization to add new Alternatives and select Run New Extract to
import the new input time-series.
Figure 18. Change the active Alternative using the Optimization Control panel.
References
Allardice, D.R., and S. Thorp (1995). “A Changing Great Lakes Economy: Economic
and Environmental Linkages,” SOLEC Working Paper presented at State of
the Lakes Ecosystem Conference. <http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/solec/94/
economic>.
Clites, A.H., and F.H. Quinn (2003). “The History of Lake Superior Regulation:
Implications for the Future,” J. Great Lakes Res., 29(1), 157–171.
Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data
(1994). Hydraulic discharge measurements and regimen changes on the Great
Lakes connecting channels and the international section of the St. Lawrence
River 1841–1993.
David, M.H., E.F. Joeres, E.D. Loucks, K.W. Potter, and S.S. Rosenthal (1998).
“Effects of Diversions on the North American Great Lakes,” Water Resour.
Bull., 24(1), 141-148.
Eberhardt, A.J. (1994). “Lake Ontario regulation utilizing an expert systems approach
constrained by interest satisfaction relationships,” Proc. 21st Annual Conf.,
Water Resources Planning and Management Division, ASCE, pp. 149–152.
Labadie, J.W. (2004). “Optimal Operation of Multireservoir Systems: State-of-the-
Art Review,” J. of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE,
130(2), 93-111.
Upper Lakes Plan of Study Revision Team (2005). Upper Lakes Plan of Study for the
Review of the Regulation of Outflows from Lake Superior, prepared for the
International Joint Commission. <http://www.ijc.org/rel/boards/upper/
FullReport.pdf>. Accessed Jan. 17, 2011.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2011). HEC-ResPRM Quick Start Guide. Hydrologic
Engineering Center, Institute for Water Resources, Davis, CA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2011). HEC-ResPRM User’s Manual. Hydrologic
Engineering Center, Institute for Water Resources, Davis, CA.
Wilcox, D.A., Ingram, J.W., Kowalski, K.P., Meeker, J.E., Carlson, M.L., Xie, Y.,
Grabas, G.P., Holmes, K.L., and Patterson, N.J. (2005). “Evaluation of Water
Level Regulation Influences on Lake Ontario and Upper St. Lawrence River
Coastal Wetland Plant Communities.” Final Project Report. International Joint
Commission, Washington, DC and Ottawa, Ontario.
Yee, P., R. Edgett, and A. Eberhardt (1993). Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Regula-
tion: What it Means and How it Works. Environment Canada and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. <http://www.ijc.org/conseil_board/islrbc/en/bookshelf/
06%20Great%20Lakes-St.%20Lawrence%20River%20Regulation.pdf>.
Accessed Jan. 17, 2011.
7. Computer Aided Negotiation and River Basin Management in the Delaware
Megan Wily Rivera1 and Daniel Sheer2
Background
Disputes over water are often bitterly fought. The gun-slingers of the old west have
been replaced with armies of high-priced lawyers and well-funded lobbyists, but it is
a take-no-prisoners struggle nonetheless. In many disputes, the objectives are a
moving target: parties may not be clear on the specifics of their objectives far beyond
"as much water as I can get" or may change their objectives if progress is made
toward meeting them in hopes of additional gains. Another impediment to resolving
such disputes is a lack of tools to evaluate the impacts of proposed solutions. By
laying out the objectives (performance measures) clearly and using an appropriate
modeling tool, creative solutions can be found that often meet the needs of all parties.
Collaborative Modeling for Decision Support3 (CMDS) is a process for guiding

stakeholders to create a mutually beneficial solution to water disputes by addressing
the aforementioned challenges. The computer-aided collaborative processes in water
resources has been formalized by several groups, including Daniel Sheer of
HydroLogics (http://www.hydrologics.net/; Sheer, et al., 1989) and the Shared Vision
Planning collaborators (http://www.sharedvisionplanning.us/; Loucks, 1990; Theissen
and Loucks, 1992; Palmer and Keys, 1993; Keyes and Palmer, 1995; Werick and
Whipple, 1994; Palmer, et al., 1999; Cardwell and Lorie, 2006). The approaches are
remarkably similar, but do sometimes vary in the scope of the activities included. The
value of this approach is now becoming widely recognized. For example, in a report
by the National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment and
Natural Resources, A Strategy for Federal Science and Technology to Support U.S.
Water Availability and Quality,4 one of seven recommended strategies to meet U.S.
water challenges is the development of collaborative tools and processes. In addition,
the Institute for Water Resources (IWR) has organized two workshops, developed a
number of materials, and hosts an on-line community of practitioners.5 A new book,
Converging Waters, published by IWR contains several case studies and also chapters
on the underlying basis for CMDS.6
In less contentious river basins, the process is also valuable for developing
management plans that provide a good mix of benefits. The Computer Aided
Negotiation process practiced by HydroLogics consists of the following steps:
1
Senior Engineer, HydroLogics, Inc., Columbia, MD. E-mail: mrivera@hydrlogics.net.
2
President and Founder, HydroLogics, Inc., Columbia, MD.
3
Formerly Computer Aided Dispute Resolution (CADRe)
4
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp
5
http://www.computeraideddisputeresolution.us//
6
http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/docs/maasswhite/Converging_Waters.pdf
66
1. Identify performance measures

2. Agree on data and methods
3. Identify potential alternatives
4. Assemble and/or develop evaluation tools suitable for collaborative modeling
5. Assess and create new alternatives which are discussed in sessions open to all
stakeholders
With support from the National Science Foundation7, HydroLogics and the
University of Maryland Baltimore County collaborated to develop an undergraduate
course in which students role-play stakeholders negotiating a management plan for
the Delaware River Basin using CMDS techniques. The materials for this case study
were taken from that course; the full set of materials is available at
http://www.hydrologics.net/CAN_Course/.
Like most river basins, there are a wide range of interests in the Delaware River Basin
(DRB) including water supply, flood control, recreation, fisheries, environmental
concerns and salinity control. New York City constructed three large reservoirs in the
headwaters of the DRB starting in the 1950s. The operations of these reservoirs—the
amount and timing of withdraws for New York City and releases through the dams
into the Delaware River—are a significant component of basin management.
As part of the Supreme Court Decree allowing NYC to effect an interbasin8 transfer
over the objections of downstream states:
x NYC can take no more than a running average of 800 mgd, starting on June 1
of each year.
x NYC must make releases from its reservoirs to support 1750 cfs every day at
the PA, NJ, NY boundary point. This is referred to as the “Montague target”.
To implement the Decree the states created the Delaware River Basin Commission
(DRBC), which has the responsibility for regulating the river, but all major decisions
must have the unanimous consent of the Decree parties: Delaware, New Jersey, New
York City, New York State, and Pennsylvania (i.e. the states plus NYC).
The DRBC has a number of challenges in trying to operate the river for the best mix
of benefits. These include 1) the Montague target is not flexible, 2) new management
objectives have developed since the Decree was signed, 3) post-Decree droughts have
shown that the Decree allocations cannot be sustained during drought, and 4) the
agreements provide incentives for NYC to use the Delaware Basin water first during
drought.
7
NSF-DUE 0736942
8
New York City is not in the DRB (see Figure 1) and its wastewater is returned to the Hudson or East
River.
Figure 1. Map of Delaware River Basin
The first operating challenge involves the Montague target. While the Montague
target does guarantee the basin some water from the NYC reservoirs, it includes a
number of drawbacks:
x There is little incentive to use other reservoirs in the basin efficiently.

Any water released from other reservoirs9 to meet basin needs is
counted toward the 1750 cfs target, decreasing the release requirement
from the NYC reservoirs. Therefore, releasing water from these
reservoirs does not increase the water in the river; it simply decreases
the releases from the NYC reservoirs.
x The water released from the NYC reservoirs is colder and less turbid
than the river water was before the reservoirs were built. As a result,
world-class cold water trout fisheries have developed downstream.
9
This is true of other reservoirs upstream of Montague.
Much of the time, there is enough water flowing into the river between
the dams and Montague to meet the 1750 cfs requirement. On these
days, the Montague target does not require ANY releases from the
reservoirs, endangering the trout. Additional requirements have,
therefore, been negotiated.
x The needs of the downstream basin may be better served with more
water some days, less on others, rather than a constant 1750 cfs. For
example, livery operators are interested in higher flows during the
recreation season, particularly on weekends. Similarly, environmental
flows may be particularly important during spawning season. A
constant daily flow requirement which is not tied to a particular
purpose does not allow for efficient use of water. In fairness, the
current range of uses and their relationship to flow was not known at
the time of the Decree.
A second challenge faced by the DRBC are the new management objectives that have
developed since the Decree was signed, including the trout fisheries described above.
In addition, recent flooding along the river has put pressure on NYC to keep less
water in the reservoirs. The empty space in the reservoirs can capture and hold water
during large rain events. However, less water in the reservoir at the start of a drought
means less water for water supply and downstream uses during the drought.10 There
are also endangered dwarf wedgemussels in the river. Flow requirements for these
mussels have yet to be determined, and NYC’s legal responsibility to provide these
flows is not clear.
Along with these additional management requirements, there has been significantly
less water actually available during droughts than assumed by the Supreme Court
when it delivered it 1954 Decree. In basin management, planners generally use past
rainfall/basin inflow as an indicator for future rainfall/basin inflow, with a margin of
safety. The drought of the 1960s made it very clear that the volumes allocated in the
1954 Decree (800 mgd for New York City, 1750 cfs for the Basin) could not be
supported when rainfall is this low. In response, the Decree parties negotiated the
“Good Faith Agreements,” which provide a schedule for “shorting” NYC and the
downstream target based on the amount of water in the NYC reservoirs. Although
those agreements decrease the needed storage, they are not sufficient to cope with the
drought of record (the drought of the 1960’s).
The Good Faith Agreements, however, contribute to incentives for New York City to
rely on the Delaware during drought. New York City also draws from the Catskills
and, to a much lesser extent, the Croton Basins for water supply. The City has to
balance issues in all three basins to provide the most reliable water supply they
possibly can. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court Decree and Good Faith Agreements
create incentives for New York City to use the Delaware Basin heavily at the start of
10
There are a number of ways to balance the flood-drought risk. Currently, NYC is maintaining a void
equal to one half the snowpack volume, providing near certainty that the reservoirs will refill in the
spring.
a drought: the 800 mgd average resets every June 1, so NYC does not get any credit
next year for water it conserves in the basin this year (use it or lose it). Without this
disincentive, NYC would likely rely more heavily on the Catskills reservoirs first,
because they refill more quickly.
The DRBC and basin stakeholders have been working to meet these challenges11
using a Collaborative Modeling for Decision Support approach. To this end, they
have developed an OASIS model of the basin.
Description of the Delaware River Basin Management Model
OASIS is a software program that can realistically simulate the routing of water
through a water resources system. It includes OCL™ (Operations Control Language),
a computer language that allows the water system operator to express any condition
or rule, and enter it into the software. Users can express all operating rules as
operating goals or operating constraints, and can account for both human control and
physical constraints on the system. To model any system, the user describes the
operations of that system as a set of goals and constraints. This is done is a manner
very similar to the way an actual operator would describe operations, using OASIS’
Operations Control Language (OCL). The software then solves for the best means of
moving water through the system to meet these goals and constraints. It does this by
constructing and solving a linear program for each time step. OASIS with OCL, in
effect, provides the user the ability to include a "smart operator" as a part of the
simulation using instructions that a real operator would understand. The use of very
realistic operator instructions in the simulation helps to ensure that the simulated
operating rules can actually be implemented in the real world. The important features
of water resources simulation models useful for CMDS include:
x Flexibility. The models should be able to simulate any and all

alternatives. In addition, the modeler must be able to implement new
alternatives on-the-fly during decision support sessions involving
multiple stakeholders. OASIS provides this capability
x Simulation of Operators' Behavior. The rules developed must be
realistic and implementable. Because OASIS software simulates
routing decisions using a linear programming solver, simulation rules
are represented as either goals or constraints in a near-plain-English
language. The fact that rules can be modeled as goals is particularly
important, because goal-seeking behavior is an efficient modeling
approach that corresponds very well to the way real-world operators
and planners think about a water system.
x Ease of Use. An easy to use graphical user interface (GUI) is required.
The interface should provide a structure for input of common water
resource system data and parameters, and the ability to quickly access
and modify data. The software must simulate the operation of the
11
Most recently with the Flexible Flow Management Program.
system in a reasonable amount of time. For the purposes of facilitated

negotiation sessions this is generally on the order of no more than 15
minutes.
x Visualization capabilities. The software must allow the rapid and
automated production of easily understood visualizations of the
stakeholders multiple performance measures. These may take the form
of statistical parameters, tables, graphs, maps, pictures and other forms
as necessary. The models used must have, or have the ability to easily
link to, visualization tools. In particular, the ability to display user-
definable maps and diagrams allow users and session participants to
visualize the nature of the system and appreciate the system wide
implications of changes in alternatives. Part of the schematic for the
Delaware River Basin model is shown in Figure 2.
x Database Utilization. It is generally desirable for models to utilize
standard database formats; this provides the ability to utilize powerful
database tools to store, modify, and analyze large blocks of data. For
example, OASIS static data is kept in Microsoft Access or other
relational databases, and time-series data is kept in HEC-DSS
databases.
x Automated Task Handling. Modeling and analysis is greatly simplified
if common modeling functions are automatically handled by the
software. Such functions for water resource analysis include mass
balance, computation of evaporation from a reservoir,
storage/area/elevation and units conversions, minimum and maximum
flow targets, etc.
x Capability to integrate with other models. Water quality, groundwater
levels, salinity and temperature profiles, economic parameters, water
demands and meteorologic and hydrologic forecasts are often
important aspects of creating and evaluating water resource
management alternatives. In many cases these items are the result of
complex models, and often the items depend on the real-time
management of the water systems (e.g. water quality may depend on
the level of the reservoirs, water demands may be restricted based on
water availability, the rules for conjunctive use of ground water and
surface water often depend on both groundwater levels and surface
water availability. In many cases it is much more convenient, and
sometimes it is required, that multiple models be run in parallel in
order to properly simulate complex systems.
The assignment presented in the next section provides students with an

opportunity to work with software that has been used successfully in many CMDS
processes.
Pepacton Res
100
Downsville
W. Br. Delaware R.
105
Harvard
120
110
Cannonsville Res
125
Fishs Eddy
Stilesville
130 115
Hale Eddy
Callicoon
Delaware R.
135
Jadwin Res Dyberry Cr.
Prompton Res
155
145 DyC-Honesdale
160
WBrLackaaenR 150
Figure 2. Portion of DRB OASIS model schematic
Assignment
The following five-part assignment is intended to introduce students to river basin

modeling and provide them with experience in collaborative modeling for decision
support using the Delaware River Basin case study.12 The five parts are as follows:
1. Basics of OASIS modeling

2. Changing the Montague Target in DRB OASIS model
3. Changing the flood pool elevation in the NYC reservoirs
4. Setting minimum flows for trout
5. Designing and assessing river operations with performance measures
The OASIS manual is recommended for use in the assignments. Chapter 7 of the
OASIS manual (http://www.hydrologics.net/documents/OASIS_Manual4-2010.pdf)
describes the use of the linear programming “engine.”
12
The model is available via a server: contact Megan Rivera (mrivera@hydrologics.net) for access.
These materials are also available at http://www.hydrologics.net/CAN_Course/OASIS_Tutorial.html.
Part 1. Building an OASIS model: Lake Toho and East Lake Toho
In this exercise you will build part of an OASIS model from scratch. This will give
you a hands-on introduction to working with the GUI, writing OCL commands,
running the model, and creating plots and tables of output. Learning to use OASIS is
more important than getting this exercise done quickly, so do not hesitate to ask
questions or explore the GUI as you go.
Check that the open run is “Blank_run” (see pathname at top of GUI window). If not,
go to File-Open Run and choose “Blank_run.”
Step 1: copy the run—whenever you make a change, it’s a good idea to create a new
copy of the run.
x Under file menu select “copy run”
x Hit “OK”
x Enter any run name (such as “Exercise1”; no spaces, but you may use
underscore)
Step 2: create the schematic (from Schematic tab)

x Lake Toho
o Click on reservoir symbol (red triangle), then click on the map at the
approximate location of Lake Toho (it doesn’t actually matter where
you put it; the map is for presentation purposes only).
o Enter the following information:
Node number = 110
Node name = Lake Toho
Data source of inflow13 = times series (note, you can specify
inflow as a repeating annual pattern or a time series, or you can
set the inflow with ocl commands)
Dead storage (water under this level cannot be released without
adding a pump) = 49 ft (use dropdown menu to select units)
Max storage = 63 ft
Init storage = 55.04 ft
o Click on Edit Reservoir Storage / Area / Elevation Data
Enter the following information
Elevation (ft) Storage (acft) Area (acres)
49 38,000 13,000
55 145,000 22,000
63 370,000 36,000
o Hit “ok” buttons twice to exit dialog boxes
o The purple arrow on the reservoir node shows that there is an inflow to
your reservoir (which you specified as time series). To see the time
13
Inflow is water entering the model at this location. This water can come from a tributary,
groundwater, runoff, etc. Often, historical inflow records are created so that basin management plans
can be checked under a repeat of the historical hydrology.
series data, go to “time series data” under the edit menu. We’ll look at
the data as a group after the exercise
o Click on the “node” tab and go through the buttons on the left to see
that the information you have entered can be edited here or through the
node on the schematic.
o Save the run under the file menu (also saves when run)
x East Lake Toho
o East Lake Toho is a little more complicated because the canal flow
from the upstream lake must be added to the lateral inflow (since Lake
Hart will not be part of our model in this exercise). We will need to
specify this in OCL (Operations Control Language).
o First, create the reservoir by clicking on the red triangle and placing
the node on the map.
Node number = 100
Node name = East Lake Toho
Data source inflow = ocl
Dead storage = 52.1 ft
Max storage = 67 ft
Init storage = 57.65 ft
o Click on Edit Reservoir Storage / Area / Elevation Data
Enter the following information:
Elevation (ft) Storage (acft) Area (acres)
52 58000 9330
61 166700 14000
67 270000 20000
o Hit “ok” buttons twice to exit dialog boxes
o Now, we have to set the inflow in ocl.
Click on the “OCL” tab, and open the _main.ocl file from the
list on the lower right.
Between :COMMANDS: and :END:, insert a set statement
which sets inflow100 to timesers(100/inflow) +
timesers(Hart_to_EastToho/arcflow).
x If there is an OCL menu in the version of vedit (text
editor you’re using to view _main.ocl), then use “insert
set command”.
x Otherwise, see pg 211 of the manual.
x There is a working set command at the end of this
worksheet (don’t peek until you’ve written your own).
Save the file
x Terminal node
o Go back to the schematic and click on the red circle (junction node);
place it at the Cypress Lake location.
Node number = 130
Node name = Cypress Lake
Data source inflow = None

o Hit “ok”
x Connect the nodes with arcs (arcs should follow the river).
o click on the black arc arrow and then the nodes you want to connect,
upstream node first, then downstream.
o name them as you’d like. You can use canal numbers (C-31 and C-
35). We often use convention [up_node].[down_node], such as
100.120.
o you may want to select “hide name” to keep the schematic from
getting too crowded.
x Save! (also saves when run).
Step 3: Add reservoir operations

x Add two target statements to the ocl file which specify the desirable storage in
each Lake.
x Storage is used instead of stage because the lp solves for storage, flows, and
deliveries.
x For Lake Toho (dstorage110), set the target stage to 55 ft all year (condition:
default).
o The “d” is used in front of “storage” to specify a decision variable, a
variable that will be solved for in the lp.
o You can convert elevation to storage using “Elev_to_Stor{ [NODE],
[ELEVATION] }.” See the OCL menu and manual pg 233.
x For East Lake Toho (dstorage100):
o 58 ft from 1/1 to 6/1 (julian = 1 to 153, julian days include 2/29)
o 56.5 ft from 6/2 to 11/1 (julian = 154 to 306)
o 58 ft from 11/2 to 12/31 (julian = 155 to 366)
o Note: Later, we will see how to make smooth transitions with pattern
tables, but here we’re practicing conditional target statements.
x Priority = 1 – Priorities are used for multiple solves (tells OASIS which
simulation commands to include in each solve). OKISS, the LP solver, solves
once for each time step, so priority should always be 1.
x You need penalties for going above and below this stage. Since these are
currently the only weights in the program, you only need to worry about
setting them relative to each other. One suggestion: give East Lake Toho’s
target penalties of 20 and Lake Toho’s 10. In this way, if one of the stages
must deviate from the target, it’ll be Lake Toho’s.
x Naming the target is optional but helps in debugging (special output files use
these names, as we’ll discuss later).
x Use the OCL menu in vedit and pg 207 of the manual. Working target
statements are given at the end of this worksheet.
x Save the file.
Step 4: Run the model and view output.

x Run the model (under run menu or button on set up tab).
x Create plots to view the results.
o Open “Quickview” either from output menu or button on “setup” tab.

o Select the following options in the dialog box.
Choose elevation for East Lake Toho.
Check “Save with alternate file name” and enter name for plot
file.
Hit “Display” button.
Scroll through the plot to see entire record.
o Repeat the process for Lake Toho (with a different file name).
Step 5: Make a new run with a maximum flow limit.

x Copy the current run under the file menu – you must close “_main.ocl” to
copy run.
x Set a maximum flow on arc 110.130.
o On the “arc” button on the “arc” tab, set max flow for this arc to
“pattern” (you may have to scroll right).
o On the maximum flow button on the arc tab set the maximum flow by
entering the following:
US Number DS Number Units Month Day Max Flow
110 130 cfs 1 1 3875
110 130 12 31 3875
x Run the program.
x Verify that the arcflow does not exceed the maximum.
o In Quickview, create a plot of the flow in this arc.
Convert units from acft (which is acre-feet/day in the case of
flow) to cfs.
be sure to name file.
o Open “Tables” dialog box under the Output menu.
Highlight the file you just created and click “Edit File(s)”.
This is the onevar file that creates plots and tables. It uses
many of the same functions as OCL. We are going to add a
second line to this plot: a horizontal line at 3875 cfs.
Copy and paste from “Table” to “}” right beneath it (before
:END:).
Change “Convert_Units{
flow110.130,
ACFT, CFS }”
to “3875”
Note the “convert_units” function, which comes in handy in
OCL
and onevar files.
Save it.
o Open the “plots” dialog box, highlight the file, and click “view output”
button.
make sure the flow never exceeds the max.
make any changes to the formatting of the plot you like and
save.
x See the difference in the two runs by plotting them together.

o Open the “plots” dialog box, highlight both runs, and all three plots.
o View the results. Note that in the arc flow plot, only the first line (arc
flow) is shown (not the max flow).
o To see lines that are over-plotted, change the line thicknesses.
Step 6: Change the weights

x Create a new run.
x Open _main.ocl and change the weights on the target statements so that the
East Toho weights are less than the Toho weights.
x Run and program and view results in the plot files you have created.
If you have additional time, play: add new operating rules, minimum flow
requirements, changes to the SAE table, etc. For example, make the target stages
seasonal. Make changes in a new run so you can compare the results with the runs
you’ve done.
SET AND TARGET COMMANDS:
Set: inflow100
{
condition: default // do it all the time
value: timesers(100/inflow) + timesers(Hart_to_EastToho/arcflow)
}
OR
Set: inflow100 {value: timesers(100/inflow) + timesers(Hart_to_EastToho/arcflow)}
Target TohoStage: dstorage110

{
condition: default
priority: 1
penalty+: 10
penalty-: 10
value: Elev_to_Stor{ 110, 55 }
}
Target EastTohoStage: dstorage100

{
condition: julian < 154
priority: 1
penalty+: 20
penalty-: 20
condition: julian < 306

priority: 1
penalty+: 20
penalty-: 20
value: Elev_to_Stor{ 100, 56.5 }
condition: default
priority: 1
penalty+: 20
penalty-: 20
}
OR
Target EastTohoStage: dstorage100

{
condition: (julian > 153) and (julian < 306)
priority: 1
penalty+: 20
penalty-: 20
value: Elev_to_Stor{ 100, 56.5 }
condition: default
priority: 1
penalty+: 20
penalty-: 20
}
Part 2: Changing a Flow Target
During the model simulation, OASIS processes through a set of operating rules and
makes decisions based on the rules. Some of the rules require constant values that
may be found in the program under the various tabs. Under the OCL tab, for
example, there are constants used for direct substitutions into OCL code and
constants used by lookup functions that use a constant based on the specified input.
Currently, the flow target at Montague is 1750 cfs. Let’s experiment with the flow
target and see how our manipulation of the operating rules translates into quantifiable
change in the behavior of the model.
1. We want to compare output for the changes we make with output for the initial
settings, so run the Simbase run as is to make sure we have output for the initial
settings.
a. Make sure the open run is “Simbase”
b. “Run” Æ “Run OASIS Model”
2. Copy the “Simbase” run into “Training1” so that if we make a huge mistake, we
won’t hurt anything other than our training run. Copying runs is always a good
idea before making substantial changes because over multiple copies you build a
series of reference points that are useful for reverting back or comparing
performance.
a. “File” Æ “Copy Run” for Simbase into “Training1”
3. Modify the normal conditions flow for Montague to 1850 cfs from 1/1 to 12/31.
a. “OCL” tab Æ select “OCL Pattern” Æ find “MntaguNormal_Cfs”
4. Save your changes and run the model.
5. Now, so we can see the impact our changes made, let’s plot the flow at Montague
for the period of time the model ran.
a. “Output” Æ “Quick View”
i. Arc Output for 235.992
ii. Convert units from MG to CFS
iii. Save with alternate filename “flow_at_montague”
iv. “Display”
6. Now that we see the flow for our Training1 run, let’s compare it with Simbase.
a. “Output” Æ “PLOTS”
b. Hold “Ctrl” key and select Training1 and SimBase to compare them for
the plot “flow_at_montague.mdb” Æ “View Output”
c. The flows are similar, so in order to see both lines clearly:
i. “Edit” Æ “SimBase” Æ “LINE ATTRIBUTES…”
1. Set “Width” to 3
7. It would be helpful to verify the Montague flow target is set to 1850, so we will
add another variable onto the chart by modifying the .1v file that determines what
variables are to be displayed and how to display them. Save and close the chart.
a. “Output” Æ “TABLES” Æ select “flow_at_montague.mdb” Æ “Edit
File(s)”
b. Select and copy from “Table {“ to corresponding “}” and paste between
the “}” and “:END:”
c. Replace the value with “convert_units { _Montaguetarget , mg , cfs }” to
plot the flow target at Montague in cfs. Save and close the file.
8. Let’s view our addition, but instead of viewing the chart, we will look directly at
the data.
a. “Output” Æ “TABLES”
b. Hold “Ctrl” key and select Training1 and SimBase to compare them for
the table “flow_at_montague.1v”
c. The keystroke “Ctrl” + “End” will take you to the last row of data, where
you can see the average, min, and max for each column.
d. If the Montague flow target column in Training1 is not 1850 for the entire
period, something has been done incorrectly.
9. It would be practical to check on how the reservoir storage has been affected by
our changes.
a. We will make a cumulative frequency distribution for the storage
i. Quickview node 100 for the storage variable
1. Set the plot sorting from TimeSeries to Probability
2. Save with alternate filename “storage”
b. Open storage.1v for editing from the TABLES window
c. Edit the value so that it includes the other two reservoirs. This should be a
sum of storage100, storage120, and storage215
d. View the plot “storage.1v” for “Training1” and “Simbase”
10. Prepare the chart and copy into a document.

a. Give the chart a title, legend, and verify the axis labels are correct.
i. Use the Edit menu, or double click onto objects on the chart to
make your changes.
b. “File” Æ “Copy to Clipboard”
c. Paste into Word / Open Office Writer / etc.
11. Answer the following question:

a. Does the chart make sense considering the modification we made?
Explain.
Part 3: Changing Reservoir Pool Elevations
Flood pools are maintained in reservoirs to mitigate flood damage. When large
precipitation events occur, the voids purposefully left in the reservoir will fill from
runoff and inflows. In theory, the amount of empty space filled is the amount of
water kept from spilling over the top of the reservoir, had it been full, and flowing
downstream. The water that is prevented from spilling may have worsened flooding
had it flowed downstream. Some explanation of reservoir terminology is necessary
because we will be modifying the levels of desired storage in the reservoir. Figure 3
illustrates the important reservoir water levels to be aware of.
Figure 3. Reservoir storage levels and zones defined in OASIS model.

We will be lowering the values that determine the Upper Rule in order to increase the
size of the Flood Pool.
1. Copy the “Training1” run into “Training2”.
2. Lower the Upper Rule for reservoirs 100, 120, and 215.
a. “Node” tab Æ select “Reservoir Rules”
b. Decrease the upper rule by 25% for nodes 100, 120, and 215 from 1/1 to
12/31.
3. Save and run the model.
4. Prove to yourself that the upper rules have changed.

a. Quickview node 100 for the upper rule variable.
b. Open Quickview.1v for editing and add tables to display the upper rule for
nodes 120 and 215.
c. View the table output for Quickview.1v, the upper rules should reflect the
changes made.
5. It would be prudent to make sure that decreasing the upper rules does not leave
the reservoirs at risk for running too low on water. Compare Training1 and
Training2 for the plot “storage” that was created earlier. Zoom in to see if there
are any differences between the frequencies with which reservoir storages are at
their lowest.
a. “Edit” Æ “X Axis” Æ “Axis”
i. From 0 to 10
ii. Step of 1
6. Prepare the chart and copy into a document.
7. Answer the following question:

a. Does the chart make sense considering the modification we made?
Explain.
8. Since our goal was flood mitigation, check the flow for a downstream arc and see
if the flood pulses have reduced. Flood pulses produce spikes in the flow record.
a. QuickView arc output for 135.140, which is an area that has experienced
flooding.
i. Save as “flood_control_flow”
b. Plot “flood_control_flow” to show Training1 and Training2.
i. Show the period from 6/26/96 to 6/21/97.
ii. Increase the width of the line in the background so that both lines
are clearly visible.
iii. Prepare the chart and copy into a document.
c. Quickview node 100 for the variable storage.
i. Convert MG to BG.
ii. Save as “flood_control_storage”
iii. Edit the .1v file:
1. To show the sum of storages for nodes 100, 120, and 215.
2. Add a table that sums the upper rule for nodes 100, 120,
and 215.
d. Plot “flood_control_storage” for Training1.
ii. Prepare the chart and copy into a document. Be sure that the title
identifies the run you have plotted.
e. Plot “flood_control_storage” for Training2.
ii. Prepare the chart and copy into a document.
9. Answer the following questions:

a. What storage is being utilized when the storage line rises above the upper
rule line?
b. Looking at the highest flow event during the period 6/26/96 – 6/21/97,
how much water was caught in the reservoirs?
c. Which set of operating rules generally results in lower flood pulses?
i. Use the plots to explain how you came to your conclusion.
Part 4: Setting Minimum Flows
The trout fisheries on the Delaware River owe their existence to cold water releases
from reservoirs in the Catskills system. Trout thrive in waters low in temperature and
turbidity. Ensuring that a minimum quantity of water is released every day is
necessary to maintain low in-stream temperatures which preserve trout habitat. We
will be setting releases to maintain a cold water minimum at all times.
1. Copy the “Training2” run into “Training3”.
2. Tell the model that the min flow will be set in the OCL code.
a. “Arc” tab Æ “Arc”
i. For “PepactonRel” set Min Flow to OCL
3. Add a weight for the arc 100.105

a. “Arc” tab Æ “Arc Weights”
b. Add a weight of 4050 for upstream 100 and downstream 105 with a
priority of 1.
i. Weights and their importance are explained in the OASIS manual
on page 20.
ii. Priority refers to when the weight is used by the model. When
there are multiple solves for each time step (in our model this is
not the case) those weights with priority 1 are used for the first
solve. Other weights are included in solves 2,…, n.
4. Set the min_flow for node 100.105 to come from a previously specified pattern.
a. “OCL” tab Æ double click on “set_min_flows.ocl”
b. At the end of the file, add a Set command (OASIS manual page 210) that
sets the value to be the pattern “PepctnR1Norm_Cfs”
i. Use nearby set commands as a guide for proper syntax.
5. Save and run the model.
6. Plot the flow for arc 100.105 and compare Training2 with Training3.
7. Keep in mind that because of the modifications made, the minimum flow for
“Training3” must be released, where previously it may or may not have been
released.
a. Find a period where differing behavior of the two lines is exhibited.
b. Prepare the chart and copy into a document.
8. Answer the following questions:

a. What difference do you see between Training2 flow and Training3 flow?
b. What do you think is the significance of the difference?
Part 5: Evaluating Alternative Operation Plans with Performance Measures
Now that you are proficient with the OASIS program and its plot making capabilities,
create plots of your own performance measures. Prepare the plots and copy into a
document. Post the document to the class discussion board. Note that it may not be
possible to convert all performance measures from Excel® to OASIS (some will need
Excel®).
References
Cardwell, H. E. and Lorie, M.A. (2006). “Collaborative Modeling for Water
Management,” Southwest Hydrology, 5(4), 26-27.
Keys, A.M. and Palmer, R.N. (1995). “An assessment of shared vision model
effectiveness in water resources planning,” Integrated Water Resources
Planning for the 21st Century, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Water
Resources Planning and Management Conference. M.F. Dominica, ed. ASCE:
Washington, D.C., 532-535.
Loucks, D.P. (1990). “Analytical Aids to Conflict Management,” in Managing
Water-Related Conflicts: The Engineers Role, W. Viessman and T.T.
Smerdon, eds., ASCE: NY, 23-37.
National Research Council (2006). Review of the Lake-Ontario-St. Lawrence River
Studies. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. 148 pp.
Palmer, R.N. and Keys, A.M. (1993). “Empowering stakeholders through simulation
in water resources planning,” In Water Management in the '90s, Proceedings
of the 20th Annual Water Resources Planning and Management Conference,
K. Hon, ed. ASCE: Washington, D.C., 451-454.
Palmer, R.N., Werick, W.J., MacEwan, A., and Woods, A.W. (1999). “Modeling
Water Resources Opportunities, Challenges and Trade-Offs: The Use of
Shared Vision Modeling for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution,” In
Preparing for the 21st Century, Proceedings of the 29th Annual Water
Resources Planning and Management Conference. E.M. Wilson, ed. ASCE:
Washington, D.C., 1.
Sheer, D.P., Baeck, M.L., and Wright, J.R. (1989). “The Computer as Negotiator,”
JAWWA, 81(2), 68-73.
Theissen, E.M. and Loucks, D.P. (1992), “Computer assisted negotiation of
multiobjective water resources conflicts,” Water Resources Bulletin, 28(1),
163-177.
Werick, W.J. and Whipple, W. (1994). Managing Water for Drought, IWR Report
94-NDS-8, Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Alexandria, VA. 210 pp.
8. Optimization for Urban Watershed Management: Stormwater Runoff and
Nonpoint Pollution Control
Arthur McGarity1
Introduction
Urban and suburban watersheds are degraded by storm-water runoff through a variety
of mechanisms including frequent channel-eroding flows and nonpoint pollutants
originating in wash-off from developed impervious surfaces. The resulting decline in
water quality and loss of aquatic habitat has resulted in "impaired" designations for a
large number of urban streams in the U.S. Increasingly, municipalities that operate
storm sewer systems are being held responsible, under the federal Clean Water Act
(U.S. Code, 1972), for the restoration of water quality. Improvement of water quality
in urban/suburban settings is a complex decision-making problem that usually
requires the cooperative and coordinated efforts of multiple jurisdictions, property
owners, and interest groups. An increasing number of impaired streams have been
the subject of watershed assessment studies, and restoration "action plans" are being
developed. However, the recommendations in these plans are often generic,
especially with regard to the storm-water management projects that are necessary to
restore the quality of the impaired streams.
This exercise introduces the Storm Water Investment Strategy Evaluation

(StormWISE) model, which is used to identify cost effective strategies to improve
water quality in impaired watersheds through reductions in storm water runoff
volume and pollutant loads. The model assists watershed managers who are faced
with the daunting task of selecting sites to implement best management practices
(BMPs) and low impact development (LID) technologies in response to watershed
assessments that identify stream impairments. StormWISE is a "screening model"
because, rather than selecting specific land parcels for installation of treatment
facilities, it is used to establish target levels for investment in projects according to
two aggregated land parcel attributes, land use category and watershed drainage
zone, and also according to the BMP/LID technologies deployed. The StormWISE
model provides a methodology to bridge the large gap between the general
recommendations, typically found in watershed-level studies, and the ultimate site-
specific decisions required at the land parcel level. This screening level analysis will
usually be followed by identification of sites that possess attributes that are ranked
highly by the model for major investments involving deployment of high priority
BMP/LID technologies. If desired, candidate projects can be subjected to further
analysis through detailed simulation studies.
1
Professor, Department of Engineering, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA 19081. E-mail:
amcgari1@swarthmore.edu.
85
Case Study Exercise
In this exercise, you will apply StormWISE to determine an optimal strategy for
improving water quality in Little Crum Creek, which drains 8.3 km2 (3.2 square
miles) that is part of the Delaware River Estuary watershed. The stream is located in
Delaware County, Pennsylvania and about 10 km (6.2 miles) west of Philadelphia.
Land use in the watershed consists largely of developed residential, commercial, and
institutional parcels, with some undeveloped and lightly developed land, primarily in
the riparian zones. The impaired status of the stream is the result of untreated and
mostly uncontrolled storm-water runoff from municipal storm sewer outfalls and
unbuffered riparian zones. The stream drains four different municipalities, shown in
Figure 1. Water quality problems are quite apparent at Ridley Park Lake near the
bottom of the watershed where sediments accumulate, requiring frequent dredging
and removal at significant cost to the town. Detailed descriptions of the watershed
and its water quality problems appear in studies conducted at Swarthmore College for
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (McGarity et al., 2009;
McGarity and Murphy, 2010) which are available online at the link
http://watershed.swarthmore.edu.

Figure 1. The Little Crum Creek Watershed in Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The result of your StormWISE analysis will be target investment levels for storm
water quality management projects according to the four developed land use
categories (wooded/fields, low intensity, medium intensity, and high intensity) and
two drainage zones (headwaters and lowlands) shown in Figure 1. Seven different
categories of BMP/LID technologies are considered for deployment: riparian buffer
filter strip, constructed wetland/rain garden, bioretention/infiltration pit, rain
barrel/cistern, land restoration by impervious surface removal, permeable pavement,
and green roofs.
Software for this exercise is provided in the form of a Microsoft Excel Visual Basic
for Applications (VBA) file named “StormWISE_VBA”. The model was developed
on the Excel 2007 platform, but it should also be adaptable for earlier and later
versions of Excel. Running the model requires that macros be enabled and that the
standard Excel solver be installed.
The exercise is performed in two steps: (1) running a load simulation model,
programmed in VBA, with ten years of daily weather data in order to obtain long-
term average runoff volumes and nonpoint pollution export coefficients which serve
as parameters for StormWISE, and (2) solving the StormWISE optimization model
multiple times, using Excel Solver, while exploring how variations in the achievable
environmental benefits (expressed as reductions in annual runoff volume and
pollutant loads) affect the investment priorities (expressed as favored land uses,
drainage zone, and BMP/LID technologies).

Load Simulation Model
StormWISE VBA implements components of the Generalized Watershed Loading

Function (GWLF) model (Haith and Shoemaker, 1987) that are appropriate for a
suburban watershed. The core of the model consists of the urban components of
GWLF (recoded to VBA) that are available separately as the model RUNQUAL
(Haith, 1993). Additional components have been added to the model incorporating
measurements obtained from Swarthmore College's urban runoff monitoring program
(McGarity, et al., 2009) and undergraduate senior design projects (Willis and
McGarity, 2010), and the simulation model has been named the Small Suburban
Watersheds (SSW) model.
The hydrological components of SSW are identical to RUNQUAL, which uses the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Curve number method applied to daily precipitation
data (Soil Conservation Service, 1986). Pollutant loadings are generated by two
different mechanisms: build-up/wash-off on land surfaces, and soil erosion on
unpaved and pervious surfaces. The build-up/wash-off component is modeled
exactly as it is in RUNQUAL and similarly to other widely used models such as
SWMM (Huber and Dickinson, 1988) and STORM (Hydrologic Engineering Center,
1977).
The land soil erosion mechanism is related directly to rainfall erosivity, which is
thought by some to be a hydrological variable that is likely to change significantly
during the 21st century with a warming global climate (Nearing, 2001, Pruski and
Nearing, 2002, and Nearing, et al., 2004). Rainfall erosivity appears in SSW as the
factor R = EI30, in the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) (Renard, et al.,
1997), which is used to calculate the land soil erosion component of the stream
sediment load. The equation is applied to daily precipitation data by making the
approximate assumption that each day's precipitation is a separate rain event. R is
fundamentally the product of E, the energy of rainfall impact per unit area over the
course of the storm event (MJ/m2) multiplied by I30, the peak rainfall intensity (mm/h)
measured over a 30-minute interval during the event. I30 cannot be calculated directly
from daily precipitation totals. However, Yu (2008) cites several studies that estimate
daily values of R using a power function as shown in Equation 1,
R EI 30 aP E (1)
where P is the daily precipitation as rain (mm) and ß is determined empirically for
different regions. Yu (2008) cites values of ß ranging from 1.47 to 1.81. The value
of 1.81, which is from a study by Richardson, et al. (1983) for the United States, is
used in the SSW simulation. The factor a is then determined by finding a value that
produces good agreement with widely published maps, that show annual values of R
for different locations, when an annual average is calculated from Equation 1 using
ten years of local historical daily precipitation data. On days with an average
temperature below the freezing point, the precipitation is assumed to be snow with
negligible erosivity on impact. The value obtained for a in the vicinity of Little Crum
Creek is 0.265 (MJ/ha-day)(mm/h), which, for the 10-year period 1989-1998
produces an average annual value of R equal to 3133 (MJ/ha-year)(mm/h). This
annual value matches well with values published by Foster, et al. (1981) in metric
units for Southeastern Pennsylvania, and it is equivalent to English units of 184
(hundreds of ft-tonf/ac-year)(in/h).
SSW is typically run over a period of 10 years using historical weather data on a
watershed having multiple land uses and drainage zones, and results are generated for
average annual sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorous loads aggregated by drainage
zone, land use, and for the entire watershed. The model also generates corresponding
export coefficients, which are loadings per hectare for each combination of land use
and drainage zone, and average pollutant concentrations. These concentrations
compare fairly well with event mean concentrations measured during storm events by
the Little Crum Creek monitoring program (McGarity, et al., 2009).
Optimization Model Mathematical Formulation
The fundamental mathematical formulation is shown in Equations 2-4. This

formulation is similar to the one presented in McGarity (2010). Notation is
summarized in Equations 5-11. Solutions to the model consist of target investment
levels, prioritized by drainage zone and land use, which will achieve specified water
quality benefits at the lowest possible aggregate cost over the entire watershed.
OPTIMIZATION MODEL FORMULATION:
Minimize Z ¦¦
iI jJ
xij (2)
Subject to:
¦¦ b t T
min
ijt ( xij ) t Bt for (3)
iI jJ
xij t 0 for iI, jJ (4)
NOTATION:
BMP/LID Site Selection Attributes as Sets

I {drainage zones, indexed by i} (5)
J {land use categories, indexed by j} (6)
Benefit Set:
T {benefit categories, indexed by t} (7)
Decision Variables:
xij = investment levels for BMP/LID having attribute combination i,j (8)
Objective Function:
Z = total investment in storm water management (9)
Benefit Functions:
bijt xij contribution to benefit type t resulting from investment xij (10)
Water Quality Goals:

min
Bt = minimum level of total watershed benefits of type t necessary
to achieve water quality goals (11)
For each water quality benefit category t T, the model requires specification of a
benefit function Bt(xij) for each combination, i I and j J, that exists in the
watershed. Benefit functions are nonlinear, and they exhibit diminishing marginal
returns with increasing levels of investment. They are constructed by ranking
projects for implementation on the basis of marginal returns (such as reductions in
annual runoff volume measured in m3/$ or reductions in annual sediment load
measured in kg/$), with the BMP/LID technology producing the largest benefit per
dollar (the "low hanging fruit") selected first, followed by the technology with the
next largest benefit per dollar, and so on.
In this exercise, piecewise linear benefit functions are developed, which require an
extended version of the original decision variables. Each variable xij is replaced by a
group of decision variables xijk representing the investment in BMP/LID technology k
K for each combination of drainage zone i and land use j. When these decision
variables are multiplied by the corresponding benefit function slopes, sijkt , the benefit
functions are expressed as shown in Equation 12. In this context, the water quality
benefits, are expressed as reductions in detrimental storm water loadings, indexed by
t T , including runoff volume and nonpoint pollutant loads: sediment, Nitrogen, and
Phosphorous.
bijt ( xij ) ¦ sijkt xijk for i I , j J , t T , (12)

kK
where:
Kikt e jt
sijkt for i I , j J , k K , t T
c jk . (13)
In these formulas:
Kikt = long-term average efficiency of BMP/LID technology k K in

improving water quality by reducing detrimental loading t T
e jt = annual quantity of detrimental loading t T per unit of land area,
generated by parcels having land use j J . For runoff, the
units are m3/ha (typically calculated as centimeters or inches in
hydrologic models), and for pollutants the units are kg/ha, and
these quantities are typically called “export coefficients.”
c jk = cost of BMP/LID technology k K per hectare of land treated
when deployed on land use j J . These costs are derived from
site-based data obtained from typical projects installed on
parcels having land use j.
Finally, it is necessary to account for physical and legal constraints that limit the
applicability of BMP/LID technologies. For each technology, there is a limit on the
load reductions possible and a corresponding upper bound on the resources that can
be invested. This limit can vary by drainage zone and land use. The upper bound is a
model parameter called the upper spending limit, uijk for i I, j J, k K. This
upper bound is calculated by first estimating a "treatment fraction" parameter, fijk ,
which is the fraction of land for which technology k is the best treatment choice.
Estimating fijk requires input from experienced storm water and watershed
professionals and some knowledge of local conditions constraining implementation of
BMP/LID technologies. These constraints limit implementation of the more cost
effective options that have high benefit slope values (sijkt) and may force the use of
more expensive or less efficient options that have lower benefit slopes. Given
reasonable estimates of fijk , the upper spending limits are calculated:
uijk c jk f ijk Aij for i I , j J , kK

(14)
where Aij the aggregated land area in drainage zone i having land use j.
The complete piecewise linear formulation of the StormWISE optimization model is

expressed in Equations 15 - 17.
Minimize Z ¦¦ ¦ x
iI j J k K
ijk (15)
Subject to:
¦¦ ¦ s t T
min
x t Bt
ijkt ijk for (16)
iI jJ k K
0 d xijk d uijk for i I , j J , kK (17)
This model can be solved as a linear program by the efficient Simplex algorithm as is
used in the Excel solver.
Model Parameters for Little Crum Creek Watershed

The export coefficients are the main physical parameters describing loadings in the
watershed. In this exercise, export coefficients are obtained by running the SSW
model over a ten-year period and calculating annual averages. The SSW parameters
affecting runoff consist of the curve numbers required by the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) runoff method. Pollutant accumulation rates are also required. Curve
numbers and accumulation rates derived from values in the literature provided in the
RunQual manual (Haith, 1993) are shown in Table 1. These are the default values
used in this exercise. Pollutants of interest are sediment (TSS), Nitrogen (TN), and
Phosphorous (TP). When the model is applied to a watershed for which monitoring
data are available, these parameters can be adjusted to accurately represent local
conditions.
Table 1. SCS Curve Numbers and Pollutant Accumulation Rates by Land Use from
Haith (1993)
Impervious Surfaces Pervious Surfaces

Pollutant
SCS Pollutant Accumulation SCS Accumulation Rate
Curve Rate (kg/ha-day) Curve (kg/ha-day)
Number Number
Land Use (Avg) TSS TN TP (Avg) TSS TN TP
Forest/ Wetlands 98 1 0.01 0.001 60 0.8 0.01 0.001
Developed
Wooded/ Fields 98 2.8 0.056 0.0067 60 0.8 0.012 0.0019
Developed Low
Intensity 98 2.5 0.045 0.0045 66 1.3 0.012 0.0016
Developed
Medium Intensity 98 2.7 0.09 0.0112 72 1.1 0.022 0.0039
Developed High
Intensity 98 2.8 0.101 0.0112 85 0.8 0.012 0.0019
Additional parameters required for the SSW simulation model require geographic
analysis of the specific watershed under study. If Geographic Information System
(GIS) software is available, these parameters can be obtained through computer-based
analyses. These analyses have been performed for the Little Crum Creek watershed
and the results are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Little Crum Creek Parameters Obtained by GIS Analyses
Land Area (Ha) Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation

(RUSLE) Parameters
Soil Length-
Erodibility Slope Cover Support
Headwaters Lowlands Impervious Factor Factor factor Practice
Land Use Zone Zone Fraction (K) (LS) (C) (P)
Forest/
Wetlands 76.14 43.48 0.15 0.0454 0.451 0.001 1
Developed
Wooded/
Fields 191.16 68.94 0.21 0.0484 0.420 0.01 1
Developed
Low Intensity 222.39 59.04 0.32 0.0436 0.304 0.05 1
Developed
Medium
Intensity 83.70 26.82 0.41 0.0440 0.285 0.05 1
Developed
High
Intensity 36.45 16.65 0.5 0.0449 0.325 0.1 1
Several steps are involved in the GIS analyses. First, a digital elevation model
(DEM) layer for the region is obtained. DEM files can be obtained from the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) from the National Elevation Dataset (NED) and the
internet web site supporting that service: http://seamless.usgs.gov/ned1.php. DEM
data can be viewed and processed by commercial GIS software (ArcGIS) from ESRI
http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis or by open source software from Idaho State
University’s Geospatial Software Lab (MapWindow) http://www.mapwindow.org.
The DEM data are used in the next step, which is watershed delineation accomplished
with a software add-on that runs within the GIS program. In this exercise, the
delineation program TauDem, available for free from Utah State University,
http://hydrology.usu.edu/taudem/taudem5.0, was used (Tarbotton, 1997). The
delineation step provides the watershed boundaries and the approximate locations of
the stream channels. In areas with extensive storm sewer systems, the flow channels
may differ from the natural stream beds, and some manual adjustments may be
necessary. Also obtained from delineation are the boundaries of drainage zones
within the watershed. In this exercise, the Strahler stream order (Strahler, 1952) of
the stream channels, as determined by Taudem, are used to distinguish between the
Headwaters and the Lowlands zones. The land draining into first and second order
streams is considered headwaters, and the land draining into third and fourth order
streams is considered lowlands. In other StormWISE analyses, different ways of
designating drainage zones may be relevant, such as considering each subwatershed
catchment to be a different drainage zone.
Land use categories are based on a GIS database obtained from satellite imagery
processed for the U.S. National Land-Cover Database (NLCD), which is available
online from the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium:
http://www.mrlc.gov (MRLC, 2001). The twelve different NLCD land cover
categories that occur in the Little Crum Creek Watershed are grouped into the six
land use categories shown in Figure 1. Land areas associated with land use categories
in each of the two drainage zones are calculated by GIS software by overlaying the
land use raster image with the drainage zone boundary polygon vector map and
deploying spatial analysis tools. Four land use categories were considered to be
available for installation of BMP/LID technologies: (1) Developed Wooded/Fields,
(2) Developed Low Intensity, (3) Developed Medium Intensity, and (4) Developed
High Intensity. Another raster layer used in the analysis is one containing impervious
percentages for each pixel on the map. This layer, combined with the land use
category raster, can be used to determine the impervious fraction parameters in Table
2. Finally, values for RUSLE parameters K (soil erodibility) and LS (length-slope)
are obtained by combining the land use raster with a soil-type GIS layer and the DEM
raster, respectively.
Another set of parameters must be estimated in order to characterize the BMP/LID

technologies under consideration for deployment in the watershed. These consist of
the marginal cost parameters cjk for j J and k K and the treatable fractions, fijk for
i I, j J and k K. Table 3 shows the values used in the Little Crum Creek case
study for seven BMP/LID technologies. These values do not vary with drainage zone
in this exercise, but the model can accommodate such variations if they are relevant.
The cost parameters are taken from a study in 2010 of BMP costs including
equipment and labor based on data from installations in the U.S., scaled for inflation
and for regional variations, adjusted to the Philadelphia, PA area (McGarity, 2010).
Maintenance costs are not included in this example, although it would be possible to
include the present value of maintenance costs if estimates are available. Treatable
fractions are presently rough estimates based on the judgment of watershed
management professionals and stakeholders familiar with the watershed. The
fractions used in the Little Crum Creek study were obtained in consultation with
municipal officials and experienced professionals advising the local watershed
association. As experience in implementation of watershed action plans becomes
widespread, the accuracy of values assigned to the treatment fractions should
improve.
Finally, it is necessary to estimate the long-term annual load reduction efficiencies of

the BMP/LID technologies under consideration for each detrimental load that must be
reduced in order to improve water quality. It is well known that short-term removal
efficiencies of LID/BMP technologies vary widely and can even be negative.
However, watershed-level models incorporating load reductions usually incorporate
an efficiency factor based on a long-term load reduction fraction, which is what Kikt
represents in this paper. Table 4 shows the values used in the Little Crum Creek case
study. The base values are set for installations in the headwaters zone where the
volumes of water treated are fairly predictable. A scale factor is used to adjust these
efficiencies for the reduced performance expected for certain BMP/LID technologies
in the lowlands where the frequency of untreatable or partially treatable high flows is
expected to be higher than in the headwaters.
Table 3. BMP/LID Marginal Costs (c, $/Kha) and Treatment Fractions (f) by Land Use
Constructed
Riparian Wetland / Bioretention
Buffer Rain / Infiltration Rain Barrel Impervious Permeable
Filter Strip Garden Pit / Cistern Removal Pavement Green Roof
Land Use c f c f c f c f c f c f c f
Forest/ - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
Wetlands
Developed $21.7 0.18 $12.4 0.82 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
Wooded/ Fields
Developed Low $30.7 0.16 $15.5 0.29 $57.0 0.25 $102. 0.25 $81.3 0.05 - 0 - 0
Intensity
Developed
Medium $38.0 0.19 $47.6 0.15 $69.7 0.16 $75.6 0.15 $101. 0.10 $760. 0.10 $1,077 0.15
Intensity
Developed - 0 $20.7 0.15 $83.0 0.20 $90.2 0.20 $120. 0.10 $907. 0.15 $1,285 0.20
High Intensity
Marginal costs c include installed capital costs in $1000s per hectare of treated land surface.

Table 4. BMP/LID Long-term Annual Load Reduction Efficiencies by Land
Use and Drainage Zone
Load Reduction Efficiency in
Headwaters Zone
Runoff Lowlands Zone

BMP/LID Technology Volume TSS TN TP Scale Factor
Riparian Buffer Filter

Strip
0.25 0.84 0.20 0.40 0.8
Constructed Wetland /
Rain Garden
0.90 0.71 0.19 0.56 0.8
Bioretention / Infiltration
0.90 0.81 0.49 0.29 0.8
Pit
Rain Barrel / Cistern 0.90 0.10 0.10 0.10 1.0
Impervious Removal 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.0
Permeable Pavement 0.90 0.65 0.82 0.65 1.0
Green Roof 0.90 0.05 0.82 0.65 1.0
Instructions for Running StormWISE_VBA

1. Open the StormWISE_VBA file using Microsoft Excel, and enable macros.
2. Select the “Case_Study_Main” tab and read the instruction on that sheet.
3. Select the “Land_Data” tab and set the parameters for the SSW runoff and
pollutant load simulation model.
4. Select the “BMP_Data” tab and set the parameters for the StormWISE model
required to calculate benefit slopes.
5. Select the “Case_Study_Main” tab. Click on the “StormWISE Setup” button
to run the SSW load simulation VBA program. You will see the various
screens containing model input and receiving model output flash by as the
model runs. If any of the required sheets have been renamed, this step will
end with an error report, so do not rename any of the standard sheet tabs.
6. Specify the desired load reductions on the “Case_Study_Main” sheet under
the column labeled “Specified Target.” Do not exceed the values indicated in
the column labeled “Maximum Achievable.”
7. Click on the “Solve StormWISE” button to generate the optimal solution

associated with the specified load reduction targets. Note that the Excel
Solver sometimes reports that it can not find a feasible solution, or it may
erroneously report that the model is not linear. Usually, clicking the “Solve
StormWISE” button again will yield the correct solution. One way to avoid
this problem is to start by specifying targets that are a small fraction of the
“Maximum Achievable” levels and gradually increasing the targets.
8. Observe results in columns under the headings “Benefits Achieved” and also
in columns A-F, rows 14 – 108 under the heading “Spending Report”. More
details of the optimal solution are displayed on the sheet labeled
“Case_Study_Benefits” under the heading labeled
“Benefits_Achieved_at_Optimum.”

Example of StormWISE Model Results
To illustrate a solution to the optimization model, the targets for all four load
reductions are set arbitrarily to 50% of the maximum achievable. The Benefits
Report is shown in Table 5. Note that all of the specified target load reductions are
achieved or exceeded, as required by all feasible solutions to the problem. At least
one of the targets will be binding, and in this case, the target for annual Nitrogen
reductions is achieved exactly, while all other targets are exceeded.

Table 5. Optimal StormWISE Solution – Benefits Report
BENEFIT TARGETS BENEFITS ACHIEVED
Maximum Specified
Type of Load Achievable Target Load Fraction of Fraction
Reduction Load Load Reductions Maximum of Annual
Desired Reduction Reduction Achieved Achievable Load
Runoff Volume
(m3) 1,197,640 598,820 736,672 62% 43%
TSS (kg) 310,438 155,219 215,736 69% 39%
TN (kg) 820 410 410 50% 16%
TP (kg) 123 62 78 63% 26%

Table 6 shows the spending report for this solution. We see that reducing pollutant
loads by at least 50% of the maximum achievable by the proposed suite of BMP/LID
technologies costs about $12.5 million over the entire 3.2 mi2 watershed, which is
17% of the amount that would be spent if all of the technologies were deployed at the
maximum treatment fraction levels specified in Table 3. The distribution of these
costs is also displayed in Table 6 according to draingage zone, land use, and
BMP/LID technology. These results can help watershed managers set priorities in the
search for sites at the land parcel level where storm water treatment technologies
should be installed so as to achieve water quality goals at minimum cost.

Table 6. Optimal StormWISE Solution - Spending Report
Optimal Fraction of
Optimal Spending Summaries Upper Limit Spending Upper Limit
Optimal Spending Total: $73,578,890 $12,478,652 17%
Optimal Spending by Drainage Zone:

Headwaters $54,465,961 $10,222,804 19%
Lowlands $19,112,929 $2,255,848 12%
Optimal Spending by Land Use Category:

Forest/ Wetlands $0 $0 NA
Developed Wooded/ Fields $3,651,561 $2,636,222 72%
Developed Low Intensity $14,954,866 $4,414,563 30%
Developed Medium Intensity $31,449,051 $3,741,982 12%
Developed High Intensity $23,523,413 $1,685,885 7%
Optimal Spending by BMP:
Riparian Buffer Filter Strip / Swale $3,194,760 $798,378 25%

Constructed Wetland / Rain Garden $4,853,479 $4,662,285 96%
Bio-retention / Infiltration Pit $6,127,898 $5,265,033 86%
Rain Barrel / Cistern $9,363,685 $0 0%
Impervious Removal $2,897,285 $1,752,955 61%
Permeable Pavement $15,631,445 $0 0%
Green Roof $31,510,336 $0 0%
Suggestions for Exercises

Run StormWISE for a range of runoff and pollutant load reductions, in each case
emphasizing a different environmental benefit: reductions in (1) runoff volume, (2)
sediment load, (3) Nitrogen load, and (4) Phosphorous load. Generate stacked area
plots of optimal spending versus specified load reduction, displaying, on separate
graphs, the optimal spending allocatations by drainage zone, by land use, and by
BMP/LID technology. Also generate a plot, for each of these cases, of the percentage
load reductions achieved for all four loads versus the percentage reduction requested.
Select a single solution point for the first case, i.e. a specific runoff volume reduction
level, associated with a substantial investment that will be necessary to achieve water
quality goals on this impaired stream. Then, include specified reductions in sediment,
Nitrogen, and Phosphorous loads, individually and then jointly, above the levels
achieved when runoff volume alone was targeted for reducion. You will be exploring
the space of solutions where the different load reduction targets are interacting.

Extensions
The following extensions are suggested for further exercises.
1. Write a VBA Macro to automate the process of solving the model for
parametric variations in the specified load reduction targets, and automatically
generate plots of the results.
2. Create a multiobjective model by converting the mathematical optimization
formulation to maximize a vector objective function consisting of all four load
reduction benefit functions subject to a budget constraint on the total
investment over the watershed. For further guidance, see the paper on
StormWISE by McGarity in the ASCE Journal of Water Resources Planning
and Management, cited in References as McGarity, 2012.
3. Implement the LP in a modeling language such as AMPL or GAMS.
4. Use export coefficients from literature for simple screening analysis applied to
another watershed.
5. Examine other BMP/LID options.
6. Run the SSW simulation model using downscaled precipitation and
temperature data from a General Circulation Model (GCM) implementing a
greenhouse gas emission scenario from the International Panel of Climate
Change (IPCC). Examine how sediment load reductions based on historical
data can be offset by higher rates of erosion caused by increasing frequency
of highly erosive intense storms. See the citation for McGarity, 2011 (AWRA
Specialty Conference on Climate Change Impacts on Water Resources).
References
Foster, G.R., McCool, D.K., Renard, K.G., and Moldenhauser, W.C. (1981).
"Conversion of the Universal Soil Loss Equatin to SI Metric Units," Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation, November-December, 355 - 359.
Haith, D.A. and L.L. Shoemaker (1987). “Generalized Watershed Loading Functions
for Stream Flow Nutrients,” Water Resources Bulletin, 23(3), 471-478.
Haith, D.A. (1993). RUNQUAL: Runoff Quality from Development Sites – User’s
Manual, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY, http://www.avgwlf.psu.edu/Downloads/RUNQUALManual.pdf.
Huber, W. C. and Dickinson, R.E. (1988). Storm Water Management Model, Version
4: User's Manual. Cooperative agreement CR-811607. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Athens, GA.
Hydrologic Engineering Center (1977). Storage, Treatment, Overfow, Runoff Model
'STORM.' 723-S8-L7520. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA.
McGarity, A.E., Kreitler, G., Billett, C., Wallis, P., and Murphy, A. (2009). Riparian
Corridor Best Management Practices. Final Report, PA Dept. of Environmental
Protection Coastal Zone Management Program Project 4100043826,
CZ1:2007PD.14, http://watershed.swarthmore.edu.
McGarity, Arthur E. (2010). “Watershed-based Optimal Stormwater Management:
Part 1 - Application of StormWISE to Little Crum Creek in Suburban
Philadelphia,” Proceedings of the World Environmental & Water Resources
Congress, ASCE/EWRI, Providence, RI.
McGarity, A.E. (2011). “Climate and Land Use Changes Affecting Stormwater
Runoff Pollution Control Investments in Impaired Urban Watersheds,” Managing
Climate Change Impacts on Water Resources, American Water Resources
Association Spring Specialty Conference, Baltimore, MD, Proceedings available
at http://www.awra.org/meetings/Baltimore2011.
McGarity, A.E. (2012). “Storm-Water Investment Strategy Evaluation Model for
Impaired Urban Watersheds,” Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, 138(2), 111-124.
MRLC, Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (2001). National Land
Cover Database. http://www.mrlc.gov.
Nearing, M.A. (2001). "Potential Changes in Rainfall Erosivity in the U.S. with
Climate Change during the 21st Century," Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, 56(3), 229.
Nearing, M.A., Pruski, F.F., and O'Neal, M.R. (2004). "Expected Climate Change
Impacts on Soil Erosion Rates: A Review," Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, 59(1), 43.
Pruski, F.F. and Nearing, M.A. (2002). "Climate-induced Changes in Erosion During
the 21st Century for Eight U.S. Locations," Water Resources Research, 38(12),
1298.
Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., Weesies, G.A., McCool, D.K., and Yoder, D.C. (1996).
Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), Agriculture Handbook Number
703, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.
Richardson, C.W., Foster, G.R., and Wright, D.A. (1983). “Estimation of Erosion
Index from Daily Rainfall Amounts,” Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, 153 – 160.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (1986). “Urban hydrology for small watersheds.”
Technical Release 55, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Strahler, Arthur N. (1952). “Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional
typology,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 63 (11): 1117-1142.
Tarboton, D. G. (1997). “A new method for the determination of flow directions and
upslope areas in grid digital elevation models.” Water Resour. Res., 33(2), 309-
319.
Willis, S. K. and McGarity, A.E. (2010). “A Nonpoint Source Pollutant Loading
Model for Small Suburban Watersheds,” Proceedings of Watershed 2010
Management Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, Madison,
Wisconsin.
Yu, B. (2008). "Erosion and Precipitation," Chapter 64, Encyclopedia of Water
Science, Second Edition, ed. by S.W. Trimble, CRC Press, pp. 258 - 261.
9. Evaluating Storage Carryover in the Weber River Basin Using the Water
Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) System
Bereket K. Tesfatsion1 and David E. Rosenberg2
Summary
In this case study activity, students will use the Water Evaluation and Planning
(WEAP) system to simulate and determine appropriate reservoir carryover storage
policies in the Weber River Basin, Utah. Specifically, students will (i) enter demand
and reservoir data to complete a WEAP systems model for the Weber River Basin,
(ii) specify several scenarios representing different reservoir storage and release
policies, (iii) simulate the effects of the different policies, and (iv) identify the
resulting reservoir storages and allocation of shortages to water demand sites.
Introduction
The Weber River Basin in north-central Utah (Figure 1) covers an area of about 2,460
square miles in Davis, Weber, Morgan Counties, and a portion of Summit County
(Figure 1). The Weber River has several major tributaries, including Beaver Creek,
Chalk Creek, Lost Creek, East Canyon Creek and the Ogden River. The Basin has
seven on-stream reservoirs (Smith & Morehouse, Wanship, Echo, Lost Creek, East
Canyon, Causey, Pineview) and one off-stream reservoir (Willard) which supply
major population centers such as the city of Ogden and irrigated lands along the
Wasatch Front. Agriculture currently consumes about 69 percent of the developed
supply while municipal and industrial uses consume the remaining 31 percent (Utah
Division of Water Resources, 2009). There are some senior water right holders in the
basin who use water for irrigation. Currently, most Weber Basin water is managed by
Weber Basin Water Conservancy District (WBWCD), and the total capacity of all the
reservoirs is such that once full, the reservoirs can meet all current WBWCD
demands for about two years without additional inflow. However, rising urban
demands and reduced and altered timings of future runoff necessitate exploring
alternative reservoir operations to reduce shortages in the future. The Utah Division
of Water Resources (UDWR) developed a FORTRAN model to simulate the monthly
historical (1950-2006) water allocation within the basin.
The UDWR model (Figure 2) includes the eight reservoirs and 20 service areas (of
which two, Service Areas 1 and 7, have zero demand for the simulation period), and
is the basis for the WEAP simulation model. A service area is a group of canals or
diversions that serve agricultural or urban users and is alternatively refered to as a
“demand site” in WEAP. The UDWR model allocates water among service areas
1
Graduate Student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University,
Logan, UT 84332. E-mail: ber.kel.tes@aggiemail.usu.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Utah Water Research
Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, UT. E-mail: david.rosenberg@usu.edu
102
based on priorities (Table 1), with certain additional rules such as protected storage
rights in reservoirs for senior users. For example, the UDWR model gives Service
Area 11 protected storage rights of 28,800 and 31,000 acre-foot/year in East Canyon
and Echo Reservoirs, respectively. Similarly, Service Areas 13 and 14 have a
protected storage of 44,000 acre-foot/year in Pineview Reservoir. These rules
regarding protected storage rights are not included in the WEAP model.
Figure 1. Weber River Basin Map (Utah State Water Plan, 2009).
Legend:
Demand Sites
Reservoirs
System Links
Figure . Weber River Basin flow diagram for UDWR model (Adapted from
Cole, 2010).
Table 1. Weber River Basin service areas and priorities (McGettigan, 2010, Personal
Communication)
Order of
Service Area Use
Priority Name Reservoirs
No. Type
Called
1 1 Weber Provo Diversion Canal Ag. 1
2 2 Oakley to Wanship Ag. 1
3 3 Wanship to Echo Ag. 2,1
4 4 Echo to Devils Slide Ag. 3,2
5 5 Lost Creek Ag. 4
6 6 Devils Slide to Stoddard Ag. 3,2
7 7 Park City Ag. 1
8 8 East Canyon Creek Ag. 5
9 9 Stoddard to Gateway Ag. 3,2
10 10 Gateway Canal Mun. 3,2,4,5
11 12 Weber Basin Project Ogden Valley Ag. 6
12 13 Ogden Brigham & S. Ogden Highline Ag. 7
canals
13 14 Ogden River Below Pineview Ag. 7
14 11 Davis Weber Canal Ag. 8,7,3,5
15 19 Gateway to Slatterville Ag. 3,2,4,5
16 15 Slatterville Diversion Ag. 7,8,3,2,4,5
17 20 Additional Weber Basin Demand NA 8,7,3,2,4,5
18 16 Warren Canal Ag. 7,8,3,2,4,5
19 17 Ogden Bay Bird Refuge (Env.) Env. 8,7,3,2,4,5
20 18 G.S.L. Minerals (Ind.) Ind. 8,3,2
21 21 Great Salt Lake
The WEAP Model
The WEAP system is a software package for planning and managing water supply
developed by the Stockholm Environemntal Institute in 1988. It operates on the basic
principle of mass-balance, and allocates water based on the priorities specified for the
system components such as the demand sites, reservoirs, environmental flows (SEI,
2007). WEAP has been used in numerous water resources studies throughout the
world, including the Aral Sea (Raskin et al., 1992); Upper Chattahoochee River
Basin, Georgia (Johnson, 1994); South Africa (Levite et al., 2003); Sacramento River,
California (Purkey et al., 2008); Austin, Texas; Portland, Oregon; and Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania (Huber-Lee et al., 2005). In this activity, you will use WEAP to
represent demand priorities, reservoir storage, and release operations in the Weber
River Basin in Utah (Tesfatsion, 2011).
WEAP partitions reservoir storage into zones (Figure 3). The Flood Zone is reserved
to capture flood flows, while the Conservation Zone defines water storage to meet the
full delivery requirements of urban, agricultural, hydropower, or other demand sites
that draw from the reservoir. Should reservoir storage drop into the Buffer Zone,
water deliveries are cut back below the full delivery amount. This cutback amount is
specified by the buffer coefficient which determines the fraction of water in the buffer
zone to be released. Users can enter the reservoir zone levels and buffer coefficient in
WEAP to create model scenarios representing different reservoir storage and release
operations and simulate the associated results such as deliveries to and shortages at
demand sites (SEI, 2007).
In the activity below, you will complete a WEAP systems model for the Weber River
Basin and specify several scenarios representing different reservoir storage and
release policies. You will then simulate the effects of the different policies and
evaluate tradeoffs in the resulting reservoir storages and allocation shortages to
demand sites.
Figure 3. Definition of the operation zone parameters required by WEAP (Adapted

from SEI, 2007).
Activity
Below are the steps to follow to complete the activity. Instructions in Bold or Italic
refer to WEAP program items (windows, menus, tabs, input items, etc.). There are
also numerous resources—User Guide, forums, etc.—available to help you use
WEAP which we will introduce you to in the next section.
WEAP Resources, Installation, and Sample River Basins

1. Go to the WEAP home page (http://www.weap21.org/) and overview the
resources available for you. These resources include a demonstration, user
guide, tutorials, and user forums.
2. Download and install WEAP (skip Step 2 if you are working on a computer
where the program is already installed).
a. On the left side of the WEAP home page under Using WEAP, click
Download, join the WEAP forum, login with your newly assigned
password, and follow the directions from there. Also, read the box
“Download WEAP” (below) and start downloading.
Download WEAP
The free, evaluation version of WEAP (53 MB) is a fully working version of
the software--only the Save Data feature is disabled. To enable, you will need a
license number (see step 2b below). This download can also be used to upgrade
any existing versions of WEAP.
WEAP requires Windows 2000, XP, Vista or 7, and at least 256 MB of

RAM. To install WEAP, right click on the setup program (WEAP_Install.exe)
and choose Run as Administrator. The WEAP program (weap.exe) will install
under Program Files; WEAP data files will be stored under My Documents.
In some cases, when WEAP is first run the following error message
appears: 'Unable to merge new configuration, use BDE Administrator to
merge your new configuration'. This is not a problem--click OK to continue. It
may also suggest that you should restart your computer, but this is not
necessary.
b. The free version of WEAP you downloaded is an evaluation version and

therefore has limited use. Opening the program will prompt you to register
the program. To register, enter the User Name and Registration Code
(provided by your professor or obtained from download). After registering,
enter your initials and click “End user information” in the window provided.
3. Open the program and explore the Weaping River Basin sample model.
a. In the Schematic mode (click top icon at left), explore the system
spatial configuration. How many reservoirs, aquifers, and demand
sites are in the sample model?
b. In the Data mode (click second icon at left), explore the types of data
entered. The data is organized into a tree of Key Assumptions, Demand
Sites, Hydrology, Supply and Resources, Water Quality and Other
Assumptions. How are demands disaggregated and entered for the
South City and Agricultural North demand sites? Is this
disaggregation the same for other sites? Note this disaggregation is
different from demand data in the Weber River Basin case study.
c. In the Results mode, explore the numerous available results for one or
multiple model runs (scenarios); four scenarios are defined in the
model (Demand Measures, Integrated Measures, Reference, and
Supply Measures). In the Chart view, use the drop-down menu to
select results to view. What menu option would you select to view
shortages at a demand site (i.e., the difference between the actual
delivery and the delivery target)?
d. Click the Scenario icon to view, define, and compare results from the
various scenarios created.
The Weber River Basin
Area Setup
4. Unzip the zip file named WeberOgden-WEAP-Lab.zip available in the online

supplemental material which contains a mostly completed WEAP watershed
for the Weber River Basin. Unzip the folder into C:\Documents and
Settings\...\My Documents\WEAP Areas\. Keep the name WeberOgdenRivers-
Lab. If WEAP is already open, close and then reopen it.
5. From the Area menu, select Open and select the area WeberOgdenRivers-Lab
from the list. The model should load, and you should see the Weber River
Basin schematic. Note that this project includes most of the schematic for the
Weber River Basin, but many headwaters system components (in the
southeast part of the basin) have not yet been added. Also, Echo Reservoir is
on the schematic, but no data has been entered. Compare the WEAP
schematic to Figure 2.
a. What reservoirs, demand sites, and other elements need to be added in

WEAP?
Model Schematic
6. The Schematic mode has three tool boxes arranged in a column just to the
right of the Schematic, Data, Results, etc. icons at the far left. The top box
provides tools to add elements to the model. The middle box shows GIS files
which can be layered onto the schematic. And the lower box shows a wide-
angle zoom of the schematic.
7. First, add shape files to help place reservoirs and other elements on the
schematic.
a. From the Schematic menu, select Add Vector Layer. Navigate to the
ShapeFiles folder and select the file 1myrf3-merged.shp which
contains a merged file of the stream network and reservoir pool
outlines for all reservoirs except Willard Bay. In the subsequent
MapLayer window, click OK.
b. Repeat Step 7a for the Reservoir.shp file to add in the outline for
Willard Bay.
8. Now, add the elements you identified as missing in Step 5a.
a. To add a Demand Site (Service Area in Figure 2), go to the top box
and check Demand Site.
i. Click the Demand Site label in the box, drag it, and drop it at
the desired location. Note that you need place Demand Sites
only approximately on the WEAP schematic since no shape
file layers exist to help in placing.
ii. After dropping, a General Info window will open. Enter a

Name and Optional Label.
iii. Use Table 1 to decide the Demand Priority. Recall this priority
(similar to water rights) determines the order in which scarce
water is allocated and delivered to demand sites. Higher
priority (lower numbered) sites receive their full demands
before lower priority (higher numbered) sites receive any
water. (Optional: What might be a more equitable water rights
system?)
iv. Keep all other options to default values and click OK.
b. Repeat Step 8a for other Demand Sites that need to be added to the
schematic.
c. Add a Transmission Link by dragging the transmission link tool,

clicking on the starting point, and dragging to an ending point at a
desired Demand Site. Keep all other options to default values. You can
also add a Return Flow from a Demand Site back to the river using a
similar procedure.
d. Add any other model elements you may need.
9. After adding all the missing elements, save your work!

Data Entry
10. Now enter data for the model elements you added in Step 8 by selecting the
Data icon. When entering data, make sure to press Enter after each data entry.
Also, information on reservoirs in the basin that you can use for inputs is
organized in the file WeberResInfo.xls also available in the online
supplemental material. You will need to enter data for reservoirs, demand
sites, transmission links, and return flows.
11. Reservoir Data. First, on the Data For dropdown list, make sure to select
Current Accounts. Then right click on Echo Reservoir, and select Edit
Data=>Storage Capacity. A data window will open. Enter the Physical,
Operation, and Priority data for the reservoir by clicking the various buttons.
a. Physical Data: On the Storage Capacity and Initial Storage tabs, enter
data using the appropriate units. On the Volume Elevation Curve tab,
use the two column table provided to enter (or paste in) data for the
Volume-Elevation Curve. On the Net Evaporation tab, chose Monthly
Time-Series Wizard under the year 1950. Then enter the monthly
values provided. Leave Loss to Groundwater at the default setting of
zero.
b. Operation Data defines the reservoir zones (pools) and releases from
them. Enter storage volumes that correspond to the Top of
Conservation, Top of Buffer, and Top of Inactive pools. Enter the
Buffer Coefficient as a number between 0 and 1 to indicate the fraction
of water in the buffer pool available for release each month (should the
storage level drop into the buffer pool).
c. Note, you will not enter hydropower, water quality, or cost data for
reservoirs.
12. Demand Sites. Right click on a Demand Site you created in Step 8a. Select
Edit Data=>Method. A data window will open.
a. Select the Advanced button at the far right. In the Method table, click
the Demand Site name, select Specify Monthly Demand, and press
enter.
b. Select the Water Use button. On the Monthly Demand tab, change
Unit to AF (acre foot) and enter ReadFromFile(SA-?.csv) for the Year.
Here, “?” indicates the service area number in Figure 2 for the
Demand Site and tells WEAP which csv file to read from the
WeberOgdenRivers-Lab folder you unzipped in Step 4. (Look at other
existing Service Areas for an example.)
c. On the Consumption tab, keep the default setting at 100. What does a
setting of 100 mean?
d. Repeat Steps 12a-c for other Demand Sites you added to the
schematic.
13. Transmission Links. Right click on a Transmission Link and select Edit
Data=>Maximum Flow Volume. Here you can leave all settings at their
default values (i.e., unlimited capacity, first priority use, no losses, and no
costs).
14. Return Flows. Right click on a Return Flow, and select Edit Data=>Return
Flow Routing. Again, leave all settings at their default values (i.e., 100%
return flow routing, zero loss from system, zero groundwater loss, zero gain
from groundwater, and no costs). What does a setting of 100% return flow
routing mean?
Model Results
15. With the system schematic represented and all pertinent data entered, you can
now run the model and generate results.
16. Click the Results icon. When asked to recalculate results, select Yes.
17. There are numerous results to view and explore in WEAP. To view results for
an element, right-click the element and select View Results and the result
type. For example:
a. What is the reliability of deliveries to the Demand Site(s) you created?
b. Which demand site(s) experience shortage(s)?
c. What is the lowest reservoir storage volume seen for Willard Bay?
d. A variety of tools are available at the right-hand-side of plots to

reformat and export results, including exporting to Excel. In what year
does total system reservoir storage (in all reservoirs, excluding the
Great Salt Lake) reach a minimum?
Scenario Explorer
18. Scenarios allow you to test the effects of new infrastructure, operations,
demand forecasts, climate projections, or other changes to model inputs. In
this exercise, you will create and test two scenarios representing different
reservoir storage carryover policies.
19. The first scenario is a new reservoir hedging release rule and carryover
storage policy. This rule is: when reservoir storage falls into the buffer pool,
reservoir operators retain 50% of water in the buffer pool for use in the
subsequent month.
a. First, create the scenario. Click the Data icon. On the top row of the
data page, click the Manage Scenarios button. In the Manage
Scenarios window select Current Accounts(1950) and click the Add
button at the top left corner of the window. Finally, Name the new
scenario something meaningful like 50% Hedging. Click OK and close
the windows to return to the Data page.
b. Now change one or more inputs to reflect the new scenario. What
input data did you change and at what locations?
(Hint: In WEAP storage carryover can be represented by specifying a

Buffer Coefficient for each reservoir. Read WEAP’s User Guide to
learn more on this. Also see Step 11b.)
c. Run the new scenario (see Step 16). What are the answers to questions
17a–d above?
20. Create a second scenario where reservoir operators instead retain 60% of
water in the buffer pool for later use. (Hint, either repeat Step 19 or use the
dashboard in the Scenario Explorer). At one site that experiences shortages,
which you identified in Question 17b, how does the reliability of meeting
delivery targets change across the three scenarios (baseline plus two hedging
scenarios)? To compare results among scenarios:
a. Go to the Results mode. Select a result type from the dropdown menu
located on the top middle of the screen. Choose a convenient unit for
the volume.
b. Choose a location, make sure that the All months option is selected,
and unselect the Monthly Average box.
c. In the dropdown menu to the right of the label Monthly Average,

choose No Comparison (rather than a one-to-one comparison). From
the far right drop down menu, choose All Scenarios. Make sure All
Years is selected at the bottom of the window.
21. (Optional.) Create additional hedging scenarios in order to determine a policy

that further reduces the largest shortage experienced by any service area in the
system (with shortage expressed as a percentage of the delivery target).
Again, either repeat Step 19 or use the dashboard in the Scenario Explorer.
Compare results among scenarios as in Step 20. Do shortages to other users
increase under this policy scenario?
References
Cole, D. (2010). Weber River Simulation Documentation (unpublished).

Huber-Lee, A., Swartz, C., Sieber, J., Goldstein, J., Purkey, D., Young, C.,
Soderstrom, E., Henderson, J., and Raucher, R. (2005). “Decision Support
System for Sustainable Water Supply Planning.” AWWA Research
Foundation, Denver, CO.
Johnson, W.K. (1994). "Accounting for Water Supply and Demand: An Application
of Computer Program Weap to the Upper Chattahoochee River Basin,
Georgia." Training Document No. 34, Hydrologic Engineering Center, US
Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA
Levite, H., Sally, H., and Cour, J. (2003). "Testing Water Demand Management
Scenarios in a Water-Stressed Basin in South Africa: Application of the Weap
Model." Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 28, 779–786.
McGettingan, S. (2010). Water resources engineer, Division of Water Resources
Utah. Personal Communication, December 9.
Purkey, D. R., Joyce, B., Vicuna, S., Hanemann, M. W., Dale, L. L., Yates, D., and
Dracup, J. A. (2008). "Robust Analysis of Future Climate Change Impacts on
Water for Agriculture and Other Sectors: A Case Study in the Sacramento
Valley." Climatic Change, 87 (Suppl 1), S109–S122.
Raskin, P., Hansen, E., Zhu, Z., and Stavisky, D. (1992). "Simulation of Water
Supply and Demand in the Aral Sea Region." Water International, 17, 55-67.
Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI) (2007). WEAP Water Evaluation and
Planning System User Guide for Version 3.2; (www.weap21.org).
Tesfatsion, B.K. (2011). "Managing Water Shortages in the Weber Basin Using the
Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) System," All Graduate Theses and
Dissertations. Paper 1087, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State
University, Logan, Utah.
Utah Division of Water Resources (2009). Weber River Basin, Planning for the
Future; Utah State Water Plan. Salt Lake City, Utah; (www.water.utah.gov).
10. Planning a Water Supply System for the Village of Adi-Gheda, Eritrea
Bereket K. Tesfatsion1
Objective
This case study involves the use of mixed integer linear programming to aid in the
planning of a water supply system for a rural community, prior to more detailed
design of the system. It is based on a real situation with some estimated data and
assumed parameters. The problem involves selecting several components of the
water supply system, and it is shown that even for a simple system computer
programming is required to arrive at a solution quickly. A demo version of LINGO®
(Schrage, 1999) is recommended to formulate and solve the problem, but other
software may be used as well.
Background
Eritrea is a relatively young country located in the Horn of Africa. Adi-Gheda is a
small village located in the southern zone of Eritrea, about 5 km away from a small
city called Dubaruwa. As of 2000, the population for the village was about 1,805.
The population for the year 2020 is projected to be 3,030. Assuming a water use of
25 liters/person-day, total water use in the village in the year 2020 would be about
76,000 liters/day.
As of 2000, the residents of the village did not have a water supply system. However,
there are several existing wells in the vicinity (1 to 3 km away) where the villagers
fetch water for their use. This takes a lot of valuable time, which could be used for
other productive purposes, such as food preparation, child care, and education.
Therefore, implementing a water supply project for the village would bring a great
return to local development and the nation as a whole.
There are two possible water supply sources. The village can either be connected to
the water supply system of the nearby city of Dubaruwa or pump water from wells.
The wells they use can either be the existing ones, newly dug wells, or a combination
thereof. If wells are selected, then proper pump selection must also be made. The
material for the elevated storage may be concrete, metal, or PVC. Finally, the
number of distribution points and their type (capacity) must be selected.
A schematic of the proposed water supply system components is shown in Figure 1.
1
Graduate Student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University,
Logan, UT 84332. E-mail: ber.kel.tes@aggiemail.usu.edu
114
Figure 1. Proposed water supply system for Adi-Gheda.

Water Supply System Components
Water Sources
As shown in Figure 1, Adi-Gheda has two options for a water source: wells or
imported water from the nearby town. Currently, the village has two wells in public
use, which can be part of the proposed water system. However, since the two existing
wells are a bit far from the center of the village where the distribution will take place,
the feasibility of constructing two new wells is also considered. Table 1 shows the
relevant information on the current and future wells in the village.
Table 1. Capacity, cost, and service life of the existing and proposed wells
Capacity,
Well Current Capital Cost, Useful
liters/day
ID Status USD Life
Wet-Season
W1 Existing 50,000 0 25
W2 Existing 50,000 0 25
W3 Proposed 35,000 25,000 25
W4 Proposed 35,000 25,000 25
The other water supply source option is installing a longer pipeline to the nearby town
of Dubaruwa, 5 km away. It is estimated that Dubaruwa will charge $0.0125 per
barrel of water, or $62.50 per million liters. For the pipeline to be constructed, a
minimum of 100,000 liters/day would be delivered to Adi-Gheda, and the maximum
delivery is 250,000 liters/day.
The model should help to decide whether to import water or use domestic wells. A
combination of these two schemes is expected to be costly; however, the model could
help confirm this belief.
Pumps
Each well selected will require a pump to transmit water to the elevated water
reservoir at the center of the village. There are two types of pumps, with different
capacity and cost, which can be used in each selected well. Table 3 shows the
relevant information pertaining to the pumps.
Table 2. Cost and capacity for the two pumps considered for the project
Pump Fixed Operation and Maintenance Useful Optimum operating

Type Cost Cost ($/Million Liters) life Flow, l/s
Pump-1 4500 15 15 1.5 - 3
Pump-2 5500 20 30 1.2 – 2.5
Transmission and distribution pipes

Water will be transmitted from each selected well and/or the nearby town of
Dubaruwa to the elevated water reservoir. The water will then be distributed to the
public distribution points (fountains) as per the plan (Figure 1). Table 3 provides the
pertinent information for the transmission and distribution pipelines.
Table 3. Costs of the transmission and distribution pipes
Pipe Diameter Cost Useful Operations and Maintenance

Purpose
(mm) ($/m) life (yrs) Cost, Annual ($/1000m)
Transmission
100 3 30 50
from Dubaruwa
Transmission
80 2 30 40
from Wells
Distribution
60 1 30 20
from Reservoir
Reservoir
Previous studies conducted in the village have shown that a reservoir capacity of
50,000 liters should be provided to meet the fluctuating daily demand of the
population in the year 2020. The reservoir can be made of reinforced concrete,
plastic, or steel. Table 4 summarizes the pertinent information associated with each
option.
Table 4. Costs for the different options for the elevated water tank. (Cost of routine
cleaning is the same for all tanks and is not included.)
Type of Fixed Operation & Maintenance Useful life
Material Cost ($) ($/year) (years)
Reinforced
15,000 250 35
Concrete
Plastic 10,000 0 25
Steel 12,000 500 40
Distribution points
For the rural water supply, a number of carefully located distribution points will be
used to distribute water to the community. As can be seen in the preliminary plan
(Figure 1), three potential sites have been identified. However, the optimum number
of distribution points will be selected by the model. There are two types of
distribution points, and the relevant information associated with them is given in
Table 5.
Table 5. Water demand and population size projections
Fixed Operation & Useful Optimum delivery

Distribution Cost life capacity
Maintenance
Type
($) Cost ($/year) (years) (liters/day)
Type-1 5000 100 10 70,000 – 90,000
Type-2 3000 75 10 40,000 – 60,000
Assignment
Using a reasonable discount rate (assume 6%) and all given information for the
system components, formulate a mixed integer linear program to select from among
the different alternative components of the proposed water supply system. Show the
steps involved in formulating the model and solve the model using software such as
LINGO, Excel®, or LiPS. Present the results clearly, including the number of
decision variables and the total number of alternatives for system design. Conclude
by recommending an optimal system for Adi-Gheda. Consider the optimization
results as a first step for a detailed engineering design which will include drawings,
specifications, and quantity estimates. (Optional: Conduct some sensitivity and trade
off analyses using your model and consider the results of these analyses in making
your final recommendation.)
References
Bishop, A.B., T.C. Hughes, and M. McKee (2009). Water Resources Systems
Analysis (Course Notes). Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, UT, Spring 2009.
Kelati, B., Z. Hailemichael, B. Goitom, and B. Leake (2002). Engineering Design of
the Water Supply System for the Village of Adi-Gheda, Final project for
diploma in civil engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Asmara, Eritrea.
Schrage, L. (1999). Optimization Modeling with LINGO, 5th edition. Lindo Systems,
Inc., Chicago, IL, 534 pp.
11. Case Studies in Environmental and Water Resource Systems Based on
Existing Literature and Texts
Richard M. Vogel1
Introduction
An attractive approach to the development of case studies for use in a course in

environmental and water resource systems (EWRS) involves the use of existing
journal articles and textbook chapters which contain enough information for a student
to reproduce the study within the context of a typical semester project. Of the vast
literature which summarizes case studies on EWRS, only a small fraction of that
literature is suited for use as a case study in a course, because few studies provide
enough information to reproduce the entire analysis. Often case studies reported in
the literature are either too complex, omit important data, and/or do not provide a
complete model formulation. In this chapter, a selected group of case studies which I
have used successfully in my course CEE-214 Environmental and Water Resource
Systems at Tufts University are described. The motivation here is that the process of
reproducing an application from a published journal article or textbook chapter
assures the following:
1. The student must become fully acquainted with every detail of the case study in
order to implement, understand, summarize and present the model results.
2. The level of confidence associated with the students’ knowledge regarding EWRS
tends to increase considerably when they realize that they can reproduce the
results of a peer reviewed journal article.
3. Each case study can be implemented with only an introductory level background
in systems analysis. The project is designed to be completed near the end of a
semester, taking a student about 2-3 weeks to complete and culminating in both a
project report and an oral presentation.
4. If an entire class in EWRS participates in a case study, with each student selecting
a different case study, then each student takes complete ownership of their work.
5. Normally these projects are completed by individual students so that each student
takes full ownership of a study. It is possible for several students to work on the
same case study, as long as each student generates their own project report and
oral presentation.
6. The oral presentations which result from the wide range of different studies
presented in this chapter, as well as other chapters in this text, will enrich and
educate the entire class regarding the wide applicability of EWRS analysis.
1
Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Tufts University, Medford, MA
02155. E-mail: richard.vogel@tufts.edu
119
The case studies summarized in this chapter have the following common
characteristics:
1. Each case study is completely self-contained, so that the cited article or book
chapter contains examples which can readily be reproduced by a student in a first
course in systems analysis.
2. Most of the case studies described here are formulated as linear programs or
mixed integer linear programs; though several are nonlinear programs.
3. Each case study includes all the relevant data needed as well as a full description
of the model formulation.
4. The case studies are relatively small problems, usually consisting of fewer than
100 decision variables, so that free software such as the student versions of
LINDO and LINGO (LINDO Systems, http://www.lindo.com/) can be used to
implement the case study.
Guidance to Students Regarding Case Studies and Presentations

Each student must select and solve an environmental/water resource systems
engineering, planning or management problem which interests them. After choosing
a suitable case study, each student is expected to formulate and resolve the problem
presented in the article. The student is not required to duplicate everything done by
the authors; you are only required to implement an example which generally reflects
what the authors have done. If for some reason the authors have not given you
adequate information to duplicate their own analysis, you are allowed to assume
default values for any variables you wish.
In addition to a project report (approximately 5-8 pages, single spaced), each student
should deliver a 10-12 minute oral presentation summarizing the overall project,
followed by 3-4 minutes of questions and discussion. Your oral presentation should
include the following: introduction and background to problem; optimization problem
formulation, with description of objectives and constraints in words (and if
appropriate, mathematical terms as well); and a summary of interesting results and
conclusions.
Oral presentations are expected to mimic the types of oral presentations given at the
American Geophysical Union meetings and other conferences, where presenters have
only 10-12 minutes to introduce a complex problem and provide general results. For
guidelines on giving a short technical presentation, go to www.agu.org and search on
“presentations”. You will find many guidelines which are easily downloaded.
If you have any questions about the appropriate content of your presentation, you
should discuss your presentation with the instructor on an individual basis, prior to
your oral presentation. If you run into any problems with your analyses prior to your
oral presentation, such as obtaining results that are significantly different from the
original author’s results, you should be sure to consult the instructor prior to your oral
presentation.
EXAMPLE CASE STUDIES
Case Studies from Journal Articles

The primary methods used to formulate and solve the following problems include the
use of linear programming (LP), nonlinear programming (NLP) and mixed integer
linear programming (MILP). The primary method associated with each case study is
identified using these qualifiers.
Optimal Water Allocation (LP)
x “An Optimization Approach for Multi-Sectoral Water Supply Management in the

Greater Beirut Area,” by Yamout, G. and El-Fadel, Water Resources
Management, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp 791-812.
This paper presents a linear programming model that was developed and applied
to serve as a water supply multi-sectoral decision support system for water
resources management taking economic and socioenvironmental factors into
consideration. The applicability of the model was tested in the Greater Beirut
Area by examining future supply-demand management alternatives and
quantifying the costs and benefits of viable policies. The effect of eliminating a
particular source to account for resources depletion and public acceptability, as
well as increased returns from water use, are shown to have a very large impact
on the resulting water allocation scheme. The optimization model is also shown to
be a useful tool to assess the effect of decreasing unit costs from water supply
options (desalination) and the resulting breakeven point, and the effect of
increased water demand due to unplanned growth (tourism).
Optimal Site Level Stormwater Management (LP)
x “Geographic Information Systems, Decision Support Systems and Urban

Stormwater Management,” by Sample, D.J., J.P. Heaney, L.T. Wright and R.
Koustas, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol. 127, No.
3, 155-161, 2001.
This article introduces a very simple linear programming model for determining
the optimal configuration of a neighborhood scale lot with the goal of minimizing
runoff volumes. The neighborhood scale application includes a GIS, a database, a
storm-water system design template, and an optimization capability for screening
alternatives. The land-use and soil-type based Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
method is used for calculating runoff from GIS information. Using economic
analysis to compare the cost of controls, including the opportunity cost of land for
land intensive controls, the optimal mix of best management practice (BMP)
controls was found using linear programming. Finally, a single site example is
presented illustrating the value of GIS tools to provide more complex on-site
hydrologic analysis. This example is simpler and shorter than many of the other
case studies reported here. Thus the student would be expected to provide a
critical analysis of the formulation and model results in addition to possible
extensions and improvements.
Optimal Design of Small Reservoirs for Water Supply – Appropriate Technology

(NLP)
x “Optimal Design of Small Reservoir Systems,” by Sharma and Helweg, Journal

of the Irrigation and Drainage Division – ASCE, 108(4), 250-264, 1982. (Also
see Helweg and Sharma, Water Resources Research, 19(4), 881-885.)
Small reservoirs or ponds, often called tanks in underdeveloped countries, are an
important component of traditional water harvesting methods in the semi-arid
tropics of India and elsewhere. Though considerable investment is often involved
in such tanks, few studies have explored the optimal or efficient design of such
tanks. These two papers introduce a nonlinear optimization approach to design of
the tanks. The approach shown here is ‘appropriate technology’ because a
traditional approach is combined with newer techniques to improve irrigation
systems without capital-intensive technology construction methods. Previous
students who have implemented this model formulation have found that it is
possible to obtain significant improvements in the solutions reported by the
authors of these two studies using modern search methods such as genetic
algorithms. Students will need to read both studies to obtain sufficient
information to formulate the problem.
Optimal Design of Water Distribution Systems (NLP)
x “Optimal Design Method of Looped Water Distribution Network,” by Bai, D.

Yang P, and Song, L., Systems Engineering – Theory and Practice, Vol. 27, No.
7, pp. 137-143, 2007.
A new procedure is presented to optimize a looped water distribution network
using a linear programming algorithm. Here the objective is to minimize annual
cost (or investment). Although there are some complex discussions of quadric
orthogonal circumrotation regression, the student can ignore these and focus
entirely on the LP formulation and application. The optimal design of the looped
network is determined by linear programming based on the optimal flow
distribution scheme. The procedure can be used to optimize the single resource
looped network with a pump station.
Groundwater Management (MILP)
x “Economic Development of Groundwater in Arid Zones with Applications to the

Negev Desert, Israel,” by Brimberg, J., A. Mehrez and G. Oron, Management
Science, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 353-363, 1994. (Also see their article “A Model for
the Development of Marginal Water Sources in Arid Zones: The Case of the
Negev Desert, Israel, Water Resources Research, 29(9), 3059-3067, 1993.)
A mixed integer linear program is formulated to determine the economic
development of marginal groundwater sources at local demand sites in an arid
region. These marginal sources are required to augment the supply from an over-
drafted regional source. The model accounts for variable costs of supply, fixed
investment costs, capacity constraints at the regional and local levels, and water
quality requirements at the local sites. The more advanced analytical approaches
described in sections 3 and 4 should be ignored and omitted from the project.
Optimization of Groundwater Resources (LP and MILP)
x “Optimization models in groundwater management, based on linear and mixed

integer programming: An application to a Greek Hydrogeological Basin,” by
Psilovikos, A.A., Phys. Chem. Earth, B., 24(1-2) 139-144, 1999.
The paper compares two optimization methods used in groundwater management,
based on linear as well as on mixed integer programming (LP and MILP). The
solution, obtained by use of combined simulation – optimization models, consists
of three steps (Psilovikos, 1996): (1) Simulation model - MODFLOW, (2)
Management (response coefficient) model - MODMAN, and (3). Optimization
model – LINDO. A hydrogeological basin in Northern Greece was used as a case
study in this project. The collected data are based on 26 managed wells for a
period of 12 months (Psilovikos et al, 1996), but to reduce the amount of
calculations, only 4 managed wells were selected for a period of 3 months. The
results obtained from the solution with the two methods (LP and MILP) show a)
both models satisfy the same piezometric and balance constraints; and b) the
MILP model is more complicated and the feasible region of solutions is more
constrained than the LP model, because a number of integer constraints are added
(i.e., the LP model can be considered as the relaxed version of the MILP).
Students have found that if one makes reasonable assumptions about the response
coefficients, which are not given, credible and reasonable results can be obtained.
Groundwater Aquifer Management (LP)
x “Ground-Water Hydraulics in Aquifer Management,” by E. Aguado and I.

Remson, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. HY1, 1974.
This paper describes how the physics of an aquifer can be used to develop a
groundwater management model. An LP management model of a groundwater
aquifer system is formulated to include the groundwater state variables as
decision variables in the optimization model. Finite-difference approximations of
the governing differential equations then become simply constraints in the LP
model. Several case studies are provided as examples. Cases include a confined
and an unconfined aquifer, a one- and two-dimensional problem, and a steady-
state and transient case. These examples illustrate the feasibility and inherent
problems associated with the approach. The student may elect to solve only two
or three of the examples given in the paper.
Optimal Dam Removal Strategies (MILP)
x “Optimizing the Removal of Small Fish Passage Barriers,” by J.R. O’Hanley, and
D. Tomberlin, Environmental Modeling and Assessment, Vol. 10, pp. 85-98,
2005.
Removal of small barriers such as dams that hinder the upstream migration of fish
is a major challenge in riparian habitat restoration. Due to budget limitations, it is
necessary to prioritize barrier removal and repair decisions. These have usually
been based on scoring and ranking procedures, which, although simple to use, can
be very inefficient in terms of increasing the amount of accessible instream
habitat. The paper describes a decision model based on a mixed integer linear
program (see Figure 3 example) which leads to optimal repair and removal
decisions. Results indicate that using an MILP can lead to much more efficient
decisions than those based on traditional scoring methods.
Optimal Water Reuse (LP)
x “A Case Study of Water Reuse in an Industrial Park, by Keckler, S.E. and D.T.
Allen, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1999.
The techniques of water distribution modeling, a well-developed subject, have
been applied to water management in an industrial park--the Bayport chemical
manufacturing complex in Houston, Texas in the United States. Linear
programming and other mathematical programming approaches were used to
evaluate water reuse opportunities for a variety of scenarios, including
redesigning the industrial water use network, adding a facility to the network,
limiting the total water available to the network, and varying the price of water.
The results of the modeling demonstrate that a number of economical water reuse
opportunities may exist for this network of facilities. More generally, the types of
mathematical models developed for water reuse may find application in reuse
modeling for other materials.
Optimal Design of Levees (NLP)
x “Up or Out? – Economic-Engineering Theory of Flood Levee Height and

Setback, by T. Zhu and J.R. Lund, Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, Vol. 135, No. 2, pp”. 90-95, 2009.
Levee setback, location, and height are important issues in flood levee system
design and modification. This paper derives an economic-engineering theory of
the optimal trade-off of levee setback for height both for original and redesigned
flood levees, demonstrating the interconnection of levee setback, height, costs and
risks, and economically optimal design. These analyses assume stationary flood
hydrology and static ratios among damageable property value, unit construction
cost, and land price. The economic trade-off of levee setback for height depends
on economic cost and benefit and hydraulic parameters, and only indirectly on
flood frequency and economic damage parameters. The redesign rules derived in
this paper indicate conditions where existing levees should be raised or moved in
response to changes in conditions. Numerical examples illustrate the results. This
paper demonstrates several ideas and theory for economic flood levee system
planning and policy rather than providing guidelines for direct design practice.
Reservoir Management and Design (LP)
x “The Linear Decision Rule in Reservoir Management and Design 1: Development

of the Stochastic Model,” by Revelle, C., E. Joeres and W. Kirby, Water
Resources Research, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1969.
With the aid of a linear decision rule, reservoir management and design problems
often can be formulated as easily solved linear programming problems. The linear
decision rule specifies the release during any period of reservoir operation as the
difference between the storage at the beginning of the period and a decision
parameter for the period. The decision parameters for the entire study horizon are
determined by solving the linear programming problem. Problems may be
formulated in either the deterministic or the stochastic environment. This is one of
the most famous papers on LP in our field.
Case Studies from Textbooks and other Books

The following project ideas are basically short examples created in textbooks on
environmental and water resource systems analysis, which contain the problem
statement, problem formulation, along with associated figures, tables and all data
necessary to reproduce the example problem. They are ideal examples of projects in a
course because they provide all the relevant information needed, along with detailed
explanations of the model formulation.
1. Irrigation planning, Chapter 8, pp.392-416 in Water Resource Systems Planning
and Analysis, by D.P. Loucks, J.R. Stedinger and D.A. Haith, Prentice Hall, 1981.
2. Regional wastewater treatment and transport, Chapter 10, pp.515-519 in Water
Resource Systems Planning and Analysis, by Loucks, Stedinger and Haith,
Prentice Hall, 1981. (Also see “Siting regional environmental facilities” in
Chapter 14 of the text by Revelle and McGarity, 1997, described below.)
3. Regional water supply and wastewater disposal, pp. 418-423 in A Systems
Approach to Civil Engineering Planning and Design, by T.K Jewel, Harper and
Row, 1986.
4. Reservoir operations for water supply, pp. 203-215, in Systems Approach to
Water Management, by A. Biswas, McGraw Hill Book Co., 1976.
5. Optimal river water quality management, Chapter 2, pp. 70-83, in Design and
Operation of Civil and Environmental Engineering Systems, by Revelle and
McGarity, Wiley, 1997. (There are actually a few examples given in this chapter,
along with all the data given in the appendix for each example).
6. Management of agricultural nonpoint source pollution, Chapter 6 in
“Environmental Systems Optimization” by D.A. Haith, Wiley, 1982. (This
example is extremely rich and might be good for two people to work on, where
the two students would help each other formulate the basic problem and each
would then focus on different but related problems. In this case, exercise 6-1 on
page 157 of their text describes an extension of the problem to examine soil and
water conservation practices.)
7. Planning of municipal wastewater treatment, Chapter 3 in “Environmental
Systems Optimization” by D.A. Haith, Wiley, 1982.
8. Multiobjective land management planning, Chapter 7, pp.173-179, in
“Environmental Systems Optimization” by D.A. Haith, Wiley, 1982.
9. Reservoir design, Chapter 7, pp. 333-339, in Water Resource Systems Planning
and Analysis, by Loucks, Stedinger and Haith, Prentice Hall, 1981.
12. Assessing Educational Benefits of Case Studies
Introduction
Assessment is a critical component of the educational process, necessary for
monitoring student learning, providing timely feedback to students, and helping
instructors make adjustments as needed. However, assessing the impact of case
studies can be challenging since higher-level learning is not as easy to measure as
knowledge and content-based learning. Furthermore, due to the open-ended nature of
case studies, students exposed to case-based learning may be less confident of their
learning than students who complete a traditional lecture and test-based course. Case
studies also have an important affective dimension, which broadens the scope of
assessment.
In order to maximize the educational benefits of case studies, this chapter provides an
overview of “scientific teaching” (Handelsman et al., 2007), a method which
promotes active- and problem-based learning, and the role of assessment in this
method. Examples of assessment tools and activities are provided, including an
example grading rubric and a student survey that evaluates the affective aspects of
learning with case studies. As with case study development, additional resources for
case study learning assessment are available from a variety of sources, including the
National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science at the State University of New
York-Buffalo and the Science Education Resource Center (SERC) at Carleton
University.
Scientific Teaching & the Role of Assessment
As described in detail by Handelsman et al. (2007), “scientific teaching” is part of a

growing effort to make teaching and learning at the college level more rigorous and
evaluative, similar to the way scientific research is conducted. Related efforts have
been termed “classroom research” (Cross and Steadman, 1996), “classroom action
research” (Mettetal, 2001), “teaching and learning scholarship” (Huber and
Hutchings, 2005), and “teaching-as-research” (CIRTL, 2006), to name just a few.
Scientific teaching is based on recent research findings from the fields of
neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and education. Although some emerging
theories and models of learning are controversial, researchers agree that successful
learners are actively engaged in the learning process, receive regular feedback related
to well-defined learning goals, and are able to synthesize knowledge and apply new
information in new contexts. It is also widely recognized that successful learning
involves changes in the learner’s attitude and behavior (Handelsman et al., 2007).
1
Houghton, MI 49931. E-mail: dwatkins@mtu.edu.
127
In practice, scientific teaching involves following a logical framework for

instructional design. First and foremost, the instructor clearly defines learning goals
and outcomes, with outcomes providing specific measures of whether or not, or to
what degree, learning goals have been attained. For example, a learning goal may be
“to understand the relationship between dual variables (shadow prices) and sensitivity
analysis of a linear programming model,” and a corresponding outcome may be stated
as, “For a set of production capacity constraints, students correctly interpret the dual
variables and are able to explain how additional resources (production capacity)
should be allocated to maximize profit.” The instructor then establishes criteria for
measuring learning and designs activities that will help students achieve the learning
goals, as demonstrated by the learning outcomes. Throughout the process of
instructional design and delivery, the instructor continuously evaluates whether or not
learning and assessment activities are helping students to achieve learning goals,
using feedback from assessments to make appropriate adjustments. At the same time,
students learn to think critically and use feedback to evaluate their own learning and
adjust their learning behaviors and practices as needed (Handelsman et al., 2007).
In defining learning goals and outcomes, it is important to recognize that students

should be able to demonstrate understanding of a concept in multiple ways. Wiggins
and McTighe (1998) define six facets of understanding as follows:
1. Explanation
2. Interpretation
3. Application
4. Perspective
5. Empathy
6. Self-knowledge
This is analogous in many respects to Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956), which

defines a hierarchy of behaviors, categorized into six levels of cognition:
1. Knowledge
2. Comprehension
3. Application
4. Analysis
5. Synthesis
6. Evaluation
In addition to assessing the different facets and levels of understanding, it is important

to engage and cultivate the curiosity of all students in the classroom. Students who
are curious are more likely to ask questions, engage their peers in discussion, and
sustain learning beyond the classroom. Engaging all students in an inclusive,
collaborative learning environment requires the instructor to value the diversity in
student backgrounds, perspectives, and learning styles. One way to do this is to use a
variety of teaching and assessment methods, including active- and problem-based
activities such as case studies.
Tools & Activities for On-Going Assessment
There are typically many opportunities to assess students’ learning when they are
using case studies. For example, instructors can assess students’ participation and
contribution to group work, evaluate the complexity of the issues they identify and
questions they pose, inquire as to where and how they locate learning resources, and
provide feedback on the quality of their investigations and presentation of results.
There are also many ways to formally and informally evaluate student work on case
study activities. In addition to the traditional evaluations of the products students
create (e.g., reports, presentations, posters), peer- and self-evaluations, guided by
well-designed rubrics, may be used to promote reflection on student learning and
performance. Furthermore, as an alternative or supplement to traditional
examinations that cover the learning outcomes of the cases, the instructor may use
case-based exams, in which students individually or in a group analyze a case and
generate questions (Waterman and Stanley, 2005). However, as stated previously, it
is important for on-going assessment to occur, not just post evaluation, if students and
the instructor are to benefit from timely feedback during a course.
A number of techniques and tools may be used as both active-learning and on-going
assessment activities (Handelsman et al., 2007). Some techniques that may be
particularly amenable to case-based learning are described in Table 1. Although
traditionally the instructor develops and delivers assessment activities, students may
also be involved in developing assessments. Since this may be new to many students,
and make some uncomfortable, developing assessments might be best done by
students working in small groups.
In addition to on-going assessment activities, grading rubrics (or guidelines, or even

“hints”) are important to set expectations for student work, particularly products that
will be evaluated subjectively such as reports, presentations, and posters. Rubrics can
also demonstrate a professional tone and “best practices” that students are expected to
follow. Students can use rubrics to evaluate their own progress and as a tool for peer-
evaluation, and instructors can use rubrics to stay focused on learning goals and
outcomes that students are expected to achieve. Furthermore, as explained by
Handelsman et al. (2007, p. 61), the use of grading rubrics can promote a more
collaborative learning environment: “The non-authoritative tone of rubrics sends a
message that it is the student’s choice to do excellent work, or intermediate work, or
not to do the work at all rather than sending the message that the only correct
approach is to follow the instructor’s orders.” An example grading rubric, used at the
University of Virginia with the case study in Chapter 2, is shown in Table 2.
Additional examples of rubrics are available from the Indiana University Kokomo
Center for Learning, Teaching, and Assessment:
(http://www.iuk.edu/~koctla/assessment/rubrics.shtml).
Table 1. Examples of on-going assessment activities for case-based learning. (Adapted

from Handelsman et al., 2007.)
Activity Objectives
Brainstorming Provides an overview of students’ collective
Example – List alternatives for reducing knowledge and background on a topic.
nonpoint source pollution. Categorizing or evaluating items on the list
provides additional feedback on
understanding.
Concept Map Students develop visual representations of
Example – Arrange the following terms in a concepts and consider different ways that
diagram and show (using words or arrows) terms can relate to each other. This may
how they relate to each other: Rainfall, also promote a systems perspective and
runoff, reservoir level, water withdrawal, understanding that many processes are not
population, impervious cover. linear or unidirectional.
Task Sequence Students articulate their understanding of

Example – List in order the tasks you will the problem (or assignment). Encourages
complete in carrying out the case study. students to develop a plan of action if they
have not done so already.
One-Minute Paper Engages students in articulating their
Example – Write for one minute to answer knowledge. In just one minute, students
the following question… need to evaluate the most important points.
Provides timely feedback to instructors
Example - Write down one key concept you
prior to the next class period.
learned in today’s class and one concept
you would like to see covered again.
Pre/Post Question Similar to the one-minute paper, but also
Example – Write for one minute at the engages students in thinking critically about
beginning and end of class to answer the a specific question and evaluating their
following question…. Explain any learning during the class period.
differences in your responses.
Mini-Cases Students solve a problem in a real-world
Example – Read the following article and context and become familiar with the issues
write a paragraph explaining a potential to be addressed in a more in-depth case
solution (design alternative). study. Provides feedback on current
understanding of the problem.
Reading Assessments Gives context to reading in relation to other
Example – Read the case study background course information. Engages students in
and write three questions you have about articulating their understanding of concepts.
the reading. Discuss answers in small Provides feedback on current understanding
groups. of the case study.
Example – Compare and contrast ideas in
the reading with the textbook and lecture
notes.
Example – Indentify controversial issues in
the reading and debate them.
Table 2. Grading rubric used for presentations of case study results (T. Culver, personal
communication, 2007.)
Points Earned
I) Presentation Content
1) Selection Criteria 30
Clear, Logical
2) Design
Selected Options Clearly Defined 30
ISS Expansion
Pumps
Siphons
JI capacity
VRSSI_min
Performance Presented 20
II) Presentation Skills
Length, Speed
Clarity, Organization 20
Technical Language
Usefulness of Visual Aids, etc.
Presentation Subtotal: 100
Post Evaluation
Along with on-going assessment, which provides timely feedback on learning to both
students and instructors, post evaluation of case study use can promote reflection on
learning activities and help the instructor in planning how to use case studies in future
courses. While traditional evaluation methods (e.g., tests and projects) focus on
content, it is important for case study evaluation to address the affective aspects of
case-based learning, such as whether the case study was engaging, whether it
promoted collaborative learning, and whether it motivated further inquiry.
As an example, two case studies (early versions of the cases presented in Chapters 2
and 3) implemented at Michigan Technological University were evaluated by asking
students to complete a survey form for each of the cases. The survey, adapted from
one developed at Carleton University (http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/icbl), asked
students what they liked and disliked about learning using the case study, and whether
or not they would like to use cases in the future. It also asked students to agree or
disagree (on a scale of 1-5) with several statements about their understanding of the
case and analysis methods; the extent of active, discovery-based, and collaborative
learning involved in using the case; and their overall experience with the case study.
The results for the two case studies (“Milwaukee” and “Iowa”) are summarized in
Table 2 (Watkins et al., 2006).
Table 3. Summary of student survey results. (1 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 5 = Agree)
Average Rating
Statement Milwaukee Iowa
(N = 11) (N = 7)
We worked more collaboratively than usual using the case 3.9 3.9
study.
This case study was interesting to me. 4.2 4.3
I felt we had enough time to search for resources and to do 3.8 3.6
the assignment.
I was able to locate different resources. 3.6 3.1
I felt I had a better understanding of the process of systems 3.7 4.0
analysis after using this module.
I have a better understanding of the mathematical 3.0 4.0
techniques related to this case as a result of using the case.
The case was easy to use. 3.6 3.6
I was able to provide well-supported conclusions. 3.4 3.6
I feel I understood the main issues of the case. 4.3 4.3
We were able to identify questions to be investigated 4.3 4.0
further.
Most students were able to use convincing argumentation 3.9 3.7
with their peers.
Most students were able to understand the case and pose a 4.1 3.6
question to be pursued.
My overall experience with case based learning was 4.2 4.0
satisfactory.
Students were also asked to provide written comments. Concerning the Milwaukee
case study, students stated that they appreciated using a professional engineering
model to evaluate a real system, and they particularly liked the fact that their results
would be reported to consulting engineers who are designing system expansion
alternatives. They also felt that the large-scale problem provided a good introduction
to systems analysis, and that the case study illustrated the need for professional
judgment and further research in addressing a complex problem. However, it appears
that they tended to be unsure of their conclusions, and some students indicated that
they did not have sufficient understanding of the model or enough time to complete a
thorough analysis.
Students appreciated the Iowa flood control case study as well, and several noted that
it helped them to understand linear programming models and applications. However,
a few felt that the model was too complex, and they recommended either using a
simpler model or devoting more class time to discussion of model concepts and
structure. Two students stated a desire to spend more time on the case study in order
to explore other facets of the problem (e.g., agricultural vs. urban damage functions
and availability of forecasts).
The instructor may also wish to reflect on the case-based learning experience. In this
example, the instructor noted several benefits of using case studies, as well as a
couple difficulties encountered. First, students demonstrated a great deal of
enthusiasm for learning with case studies, and for the Milwaukee case study they
appreciated the opportunity to present their results and conclusions. The instructor
also felt that many of the students did research and analysis well beyond what was
expected, indicating a great deal of interest in wet weather flow management and the
case study in the Great Lakes region. (Several students were from Wisconsin.) There
was somewhat less enthusiasm for the Iowa case study, which was less open-ended
and did not involve presentation and defense of results.
Summary
As a critical component of the learning and teaching process, assessment needs to be
an on-going process that is integrated into classroom activities. The assessment
process involves establishing learning outcomes, defining criteria that will be used to
measure learning, and designing activities that engage students, provide them with
feedback, and provide feedback to the instructor. For busy instructors, this may seem
like a lot of work, and it is. Fortunately, many assessment activities, examples of
which have been provided herein, go hand in hand with case-based learning.
Instructors (and students) are encouraged try a variety of assessment methods and
activities and discuss them with peers to determine what works best for different case
studies, student groups, and individual learning and teaching styles.
References
Bloom, B. S. (ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I:
Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc.
CIRTL (2006). Center for Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning.
<http://cirtl.wceruw.org/> (accessed December 20, 2010).
Cross, K.P., and M.H. Steadman (1996). Classroom Research: Implementing the
Scholarship of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Handelsman, J., S. Miller, C. Pfund (2007). Scientific Teaching. New York: W.H.
Freeman and Company.
Huber, M.T., and P. Hutchings (2005). The Advancement of Learning: Building the
Teaching Commons. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mettetal, G. (2001). “The Why, What, and How of Classroom Action Research,”
Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(1): 6-13.
Waterman, M.A., and E.D. Stanley (2005). Assessing Case Learning. <http://cstl-
csm.semo.edu/waterman/CBL/assessing.html> (accessed December 20,
2010).
Watkins, D., E. Loucks, E. Nzewi, and A. Ostfeld (2006). “Case Studies for
Environmental and Water Resources Systems Analysis Education,”
Proceedings, EWRI World Water and Environmental Resources Congress,
Omaha, Neb.
Wiggins, G., and J. McTighe (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Appendix: Notes for Instructors
2. Combined Sewer Overflows in the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

Conveyance and Treatment System
Learning Objectives
Through this case study, students will
x Become familiar with problems associated with CSOs and management
alternatives for reducing them;
x Gain experience using a complex, real-world simulation model for
management modeling;
x Define a performance measure by which to judge alternative designs;
x Gain an appreciation of the difficulty of trial-and-error design.
Prerequisite Course(s):
Hydraulics and Hydrology, Introduction to Environmental Engineering
Type of Activity
The instructor should introduce the background material during class and consider an
assigned reading (homework) of related material (e.g., Shafer 2005) prior to
completing the case study activity. The activity consists of students, either
individually or in small groups of two or three, running the MACRO model to
evaluate the performance of a range of capital investment and operating alternatives.
Two approaches are suggested for the activity, depending on the time available in
class and outside of class: (1) Completion of the case study activity as an in-class
(computer lab) activity, or (2) Completion of the activity outside of class as a
homework assignment or project.
Completing the case study as an in-class exercise would require that the model and
input files be installed and ready to use, most likely in a computer lab, or perhaps on
student laptops if all students (or groups) have them. Prior to the classroom activity,
students could be asked to consider possible performance metrics and select a small
set of alternatives (10 or less) to evaluate. Alternatively, students could be guided
through the exercise by explicitly telling them which parameters to adjust. After 40-
45 minutes of running MACRO to test different alternatives, each student (or group)
would be asked to provide a recommended design, and the results would be compiled
by the instructor for comparison.
Completing the case study outside of class as a homework assignment or project
would allow students to evaluate a wider range of alternatives; however, time limits
or guidelines should be provided (e.g., students may be advised to spend no more
than 1/2 hour considering performance metrics and no more than 3 hours evaluating
alternative designs using MACRO). Classroom presentation of students’
135
performance metrics, results, and recommendations will encourage additional

discussion and increase student understanding of the problem.
Level of Effort by Instructor

It is suggested that the instructor allocate one 50-minute class period to the
introduction of CSO management and an overview of the MACRO model. The case
study activity may be completed in a second class period, or given to students as a
homework assignment or project. In the latter case, the instructor should allocate
some office hour time for answering students questions or helping them to run the
model. An instructor who is not familiar with this topic may require an additional 1
to 3 hours for review and understanding of this material and related literature.
Level of Effort by Individual Student

Students should be expected to spend 2 hours reviewing and understanding this
material, along with related literature distributed by the instructor. If done outside of
class, an additional 3-4 hours should be spent completing the case study activity, and
1 hour should be spent preparing a presentation of the results.
Software Required
The MACRO model and associated input files are required. These are available in
the online supplemental material, and a sample input file is provided in Figure (i)
below. In addition, students may use a spreadsheet tool to record model outputs for
alternative designs and graph the results.
Suggested Assessment Methods

For an in-class activity, assessment would be based primarily on student participation.
For a homework assignment or project, students may be required to prepare a brief
design memo and a 5-10 minute presentation defending their choice of a performance
metric, summarizing their results, and presenting a recommended alternative. It is
suggested that the instructor provide students with explicit guidelines and/or a
grading rubric for the design memo and presentation.
For either the in-class activity or project assignment, additional assessment may
involve written or verbal response to related evaluation-level questions. The
instructor may choose to ask one or more of the following:
x What are the key trade-offs associated with focusing solely on SSO reduction
or solely on CSO reduction?
x What additional information would be needed to perform a benefit-cost (or
cost-effectiveness) analysis of the investment alternatives?
x What stormwater management alternatives are not considered in the model?
What types of analyses could be done (or additional models used) to consider
these alternatives in a holistic manner?
x What are some additional limitations to implementing the recommended

design that may not have been fully captured in the model?
x What are the limitations of using simulation models in a trial-and-error
approach to design?
VRSSIhindcast.INP INPUT--RESERVE VOLUME DATA FILE (VRSSI)

mitfld.DAT OUTPUT--TUNNEL EVENT SUMMARY
mitfld.out OUTPUT--HOURLY SUMMARY
mitfld.RPT OUTPUT--ANNUAL AND ANALYSIS PERIOD SUMMARY
mitfld.PLT INPUT HSPF PLT FILE
01 01 1940 START DATE MM DD YYYY
05 31 2004 END DATE MM DD YYYY
1 BLENDING FLAG, 1=ALLOW,0=NO BLENDING
1 SECONDARY BYPASS FLAG 1=HIGHER PRIMARY LIMIT
1 WWTP AVERAGE FLAG, 1=IGNORE AVERAGES,0=USE
AVERAGES
15. MINIMUM HOURLY CHANGE TO ACHIEVE AVERAGE (CFS)
60. TIME STEP IN MINUTES
54144385. TOTAL ISS (TUNNEL) VOLUME, (CU-FT)
5414438. MIN VOLUME RESERVED FOR SS EACH EVENT
1.0 FACTOR TO CONVERT VRSSI TO CUBIC FEET
0 FLAG FOR HOURLY VRSSI INPUT 1=HOURLY
5347593. VOLUME AVAILABLE FOR CS TO REOPEN GATES
5347593. VOLUME AVAILABLE FOR SS TO REOPEN GATES
19. MINIMUM ISS PUMPOUT TO JONES ISLAND, (CFS)
140. MAXIMUM ISS PUMPOUT TO JONES ISLAND, (CFS)
10. MINUMUM ISS PUMPOUT TO SOUTH SHORE, (CFS)
45. MAXIMUM ISS PUMPOUT TO SOUTH SHORE, (CFS)
3208556. VOLUME OF COLLECTOR SEWERS, (CU-FT)
941531. MIS VOLUME IN SYSTEMS 5,6, (CU-FT)
1811069. MIS VOLUME IN SYSTEM 1-4, (CU-FT)
25.08 4920.6 15.52 0.0 0.0 0.567 12623 CHLXX
8.11 1839.0 5.81 475.8 48.6 0.623 3430 CLLXX
25.16 4513.4 14.18 7562.9 1403.7 0 0 C56XX
67.90 14219.9 44.61 34508.5 4767.9 0 0 C14XX
151 JONES ISLAND SEPARATE SYSTEM FLOW LIMIT, (CFS)
0.40 PROPORTION OF JI56 DIVERTED TO SS DURING WET
WEATHER
80.56 FLOW RATE TO TRIGGER DIVERSION
256 HIGH LEVEL FLOW LIMIT, (CFS)
217 LOW LEVEL FLOW LIMIT, (CFS)
94 JONES ISLAND BLENDING LIMIT, (CFS)
511 JONES ISLAND PRIMARY TREATMENT LIMIT, (CFS)
605 JONES ISLAND CHLORINATION LIMIT, (CFS)
511 464 441 412 382 353 323 294 286 277 268 258 248 JILIMITS
176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 JIPREV
464 387 371 356 340 325 310 294 289 283 277 271 263 SSLIMITS
162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 162 SSPREV
Figure (i). Sample input file for MACRO. Values students may adjust are highlighted.
3. Linear Programming for Flood Control on the Iowa and Des Moines Rivers
Summary
Following the Great Midwest Flood of 1993 along the Upper Mississippi River and
its tributaries, concern was voiced that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not
operate flood control reservoirs in an optimal manner, thereby contributing to the
estimated $15-20 billion in damage from the event. Although there was no evidence
of deviations from the reservoir regulation plans, a modeling study was
commissioned to investigate possible modifications to the operating plans. The study
included developing a deterministic optimization (linear programming) model of a
three-reservoir system on the Iowa and Des Moines Rivers to estimate the best
possible operation of these reservoirs and to determine whether or not revised rules
could provide appreciable benefits. This case study presents the development and
application of the linear programming model, and provides an opportunity to interpret
model results and draw conclusions about the effectiveness of reservoir operations
during the flood event and the usefulness of the model itself.
Learning Objectives
Through this case study, students will:
1. Become familiar with reservoir operating plans, particularly for flood control;
2. Understand the formulation of a linear programming model (objective
function, constraints, decision variables) for reservoir operations;
3. Analyze and interpret output from the linear programming model, including
dual information;
4. Recognize the limitations of deterministic optimization for problems
involving uncertainty; and
5. Evaluate (in hindsight) the effectiveness of reservoir operations during an
extreme flood event.
Linear algebra, Computer methods
Type of Activity
Following a brief introduction by the instructor, students may complete this case
study as a homework assignment (or during a computer lab session) either
individually or in pairs. Completing the case study involves running a spreadsheet
linear programming solver and interpreting the results. It is recommended that the
instructor provide students the opportunity to ask questions in class before the
assignment is due, and also follow up the assignment with a classroom discussion of
students’ findings and conclusions.

Prior to assigning this case study, the instructor should provide an introduction to
linear programming models, solution algorithms (e.g., the LP simplex method), and
interpretation of results (including dual information). Depending on students’
backgrounds, this may require two to four 50-minute class periods. The case study
itself may be introduced in about 15-30 minutes. At least 30 minutes should be made
available for class discussion following completion of the case study.
An instructor unfamiliar with this topic may require 2-4 hours to understand this
write-up, including consultation of some of the cited publications.

The student is expected to spend 2-3 hours reading and digesting this write-up, with
any points of confusion clarified during a classroom Q&A period. The student may
then spend another 2-3 hours completing the activities. Additional thinking time
(e.g., while strolling across campus or waiting for the bus) and the wrap-up discussion
in class will likely lead to further insights to questions requiring higher-level thinking
skills such as synthesis and evaluation.
Software Required
Microsoft Excel®, Premium Solver for Excel (Frontline Systems). A trial version is
available for a 15-day trial period.

A set of questions is provided to accompany the activities. The questions cover a
range of cognitive levels, mainly comprehension, analysis, and evaluation. The
instructor may wish to assign a one-page essay answering any of the following
evaluation level questions:
x Based on the LP model results, do you believe that the Army Corps could
have operated the reservoir more effectively?
x What are the main limitations of this optimization approach (deterministic
linear programming)?
x What are advantages and disadvantages of optimization as compared to
simulation modeling? (Note: This question assumes students are familiar with
the application of simulation modeling to evaluate decision alternatives.)
4. Evolution of Agricultural Watersheds in a Systems Management Framework
Summary and Background
Agricultural watersheds are uniquely multifunctional, capable of simultaneously

producing agricultural commodities and generating ecosystem services. The latter
refers to a landscape’s ability, if properly managed, to control floods, reduce non-
point source pollution, and regulate atmospheric gases, among other potential
environmental benefits. For example, Lal et al. (1998) estimate that agricultural lands
emit seven percent of greenhouse gases in the United States, yet they could sequester
a net five to fourteen percent through low to moderate changes in farming practices.
Given that these lands constitute roughly fifty percent of the contiguous United States
(Vitousek et al., 1997), efforts to increase the production of ecosystem services
should focus on improved and more holistic management of private agricultural
lands. This case study shares an integrative modeling framework called Virtual
Watershed that can be used by the reader to examine the impact of varying watershed
management strategies and explore opportunities with respect to ecosystem service
generation. This framework is particularly useful in revealing key tradeoff
information between commodity production and ecosystem services that becomes
important to policy makers and resource planners.
Learning Objectives
1. Become familiar with the concept of ecosystem services and their importance;
2. Review a possible formulation of the watershed management problem;
3. Learn how analytical tools such as multi-objective evolutionary algorithms
and agent-based programming can be useful in solving management problems
for complex systems;
4. Explore how public policy and commodity markets can serve as an impetus
for investment in and generation of ecosystem services;
5. Explore price structures and other means for achieving multiple water quality
improvement goals.
Surface Water Hydrology, Computational Methods.
Type of Activity
The instructor should introduce the background material during class and should
consider an assigned reading (homework) of related material (e.g., Costanza et al,
1997; Daily, 1997; UNDP et al., 2000) prior to completing the case study. The study
consists of students, either individually or in pairs, running various policy and price
scenarios through Virtual Watershed and interpreting the results. Classroom

presentation of students’ scenarios and answers to suggested questions will encourage
additional discussion and aid in student understanding of the problem’s complexity
and of the usefulness of multiobjective decision tools.
introduction of multiobjective optimization and Pareto optimality. A second class
period should be spent on agent-based programming and on developing an
understanding of water quality issues, the effects of different crop and tillage
practices, subsidy programs for agricultural lands, and how landowners proceed
according to different objectives (see Lant et al., 2005 and other references cited
herein). The case study itself should be introduced in a third class period; the
introduction should include simulation and interpretation of an example using Virtual
Watershed. An instructor who is not familiar with this topic may require an additional
2 to 5 hours for review and understanding of this material and related literature.

material, along with related literature distributed by the instructor. An additional 3
hours should be spent completing the Virtual Watershed assignment, and 1 hour
should be spent preparing a presentation of their recommended policy.
Software Required
No specialized software is required; students must have access to an Internet browser

and must be able to access the Virtual Watershed website at
http://vws.erp.siu.edu:90/vws/vws7.html.
The result of the analysis suggested in the case study should be similar to that shown
in Figure (ii). Assessment should involve written or verbal response to related
evaluation-level questions. The instructor may choose to ask one or more of the
following:
x Is it possible to increase the level of ecosystem services in Big Creek
watershed without sacrificing landowners’ potential to maintain or increase
gross margin? Explain.
x What price structure and/or institutional policy change would you prefer if
you were a (a) 100% conservationist; (b) 100% capitalist; (c) person that
values conservation, but not at the expense of lost profit. Justify your answer.
x What are some limitations to implementing these policies and price structures
that may not have been fully captured in the model?
x How do current political and economic affairs (e.g. presidential elections,
ethanol production, and the rise of gasoline prices), as well as natural disasters
and weather conditions (e.g., regional drought or widespread flooding) affect
watershed management decisions? Consider the impacts of these situations on
commodity prices and, based on the modeled improvement space, evaluate
and explain the resulting effects on future land use decisions.
Productions Possibilities Frontier
Figure (ii). Simulation Result for Different Price Structures

5. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Whiteoak Bayou in Harris County,
Texas
Learning Objectives
1. Become familiar with the concepts of impaired uses and total maximum daily
loads;
2. Develop a formulation of a least-cost water quality management problem;
3. Gain experience using a spreadsheet optimization tool;
4. Consider the uncertainties associated with total daily loads and perform
limited sensitivity and trade-off analysis.
Surface Water Hydrology, Introduction to Environmental Engineering,
Computational Methods.
Type of Activity
consider an assigned reading (homework) of related material (e.g., Heaney and Joong,
2006) prior to completing the case study. The study consists of students, either
individually or in pairs, developing a spreadsheet optimization model based on an
existing spreadsheet tool, BLEST. Classroom presentation of students’ formulations,
results, sensitivity analyses, and answers to suggested questions will encourage
additional discussion and increase student understanding of the problem.

It is suggested that the instructor allocate at least one 50-minute class period to the
introduction of watershed management and water quality optimization modeling. The
case study itself and the spreadsheet tool should be introduced in a second class
period. An instructor who is not familiar with this topic may require an additional 1 to
3 hours for review and understanding of this material and related literature.

material, along with related literature distributed by the instructor. An additional 4-8
hours should be spent completing the optimization model assignment (perhaps in
teams), and 1 hour should be spent preparing a presentation of their results.
Software Required
No specialized software is required; however, students must have access to Excel
with the Solver add-in. If problem size exceeds the standard Solver limits, students
may download a trial version of the Premium Solver for Excel from Frontline
Systems, Inc.: http://www.solver.com/xlspremsolv.htm.

A least-cost solution that meets all constraints during dry weather conditions can be
found by the Excel Solver, as shown in the table below. This solution may not be
feasible under wet weather conditions, however. In this case, students could be asked
to re-formulate and solve the problem for wet weather conditions and then propose an
overall solution that “best” meets the water quality goals throughout the year at a
reasonable cost.
Assessment should involve written or verbal response to related evaluation-level
questions. The instructor may choose to ask one or more of the following:
x What are the key features of the least-cost solutions for dry and wet weather
conditions? Which is the “worst case” scenario?
x How sensitive is the optimal (least-cost) solution to uncertainties (e.g., +/-
20%) in loads, removal rates, and/or estimated costs?
x Which sources do you think have the largest variability (uncertainty) in loads?
Are there seasonal factors that are not considered in the model?
x What are some additional limitations to implementing the optimal solution(s)
that may not have been fully captured in the model?
Table (i). Dry weather analysis results.
ResultingConcentration: 98.9 MPN

ResultingCost: $721,231
UseWWTPdisinfection? Yes
GPDSSOEliminated(GPD) 3.86
#ofSepticsRepaired 2.00
RemovalbyAnimalMgt(MPN) 0.00
EducationProgramused? No
WetPondFlow(MGD) 0.665
InfiltrationTrenchesFlow(MGD) 0.000
WetlandFlow(MGD) No
6. Lake Superior Regulation Plan Development

Learning Objectives

1. Become familiar with multi-purpose reservoir regulation plan development;
2. Understand the formulation of a network flow programming model (objective
function, constraints, decision variables) for reservoir operations;
3. Understand the weighting method for multi-objective programming;
4. Analyze and interpret output from the network flow programming model,
particularly in the context of trade-off analysis;
5. Recognize the limitations of deterministic optimization for problems
involving uncertainty; and
6. (Optional) Analyze results using simulation models and detailed performance
metrics.
Surface Water Hydrology recommended.
Type of Activity
study as a homework assignment (or during a computer lab session) either
individually or in pairs. Completing the case study involves running the software
multiple times, with different weights on the penalty functions, and then compiling
and interpreting the results. It is recommended that the instructor provide students the
opportunity to ask questions in class before the assignment is due, and also follow up
the assignment with a classroom discussion of students’ findings and conclusions.
Alternatively, students may be asked to give short presentations on their findings, or
to save class time, they may submit them in advance of the class discussion so that
the instructor can compile the results and present a summary.

network flow linear programming models. Optionally, solution algorithms (e.g., the
network simplex method), and interpretation of results (including dual information)
may be presented. Depending on students’ backgrounds, this may require one or two
50-minute class periods. The case study itself may be introduced in about 15-30
minutes. At least 30 minutes should be made available for class discussion following
completion of the case study.
write-up, including review of some of the cited publications. Additional time will be
required to become familiar with the HEC-ResPRM software. It is recommended that
the instructor become familiar with the HEC-ResPRM Quick Start Guide and work
through either the example in the guide or this case study prior to assigning it to
students.

The student is expected to spend 1-2 hours reading and digesting this write-up, with
then spend another 2-4 hours completing the activities. Additional thinking time and
the wrap-up discussion in class will likely lead to further insights to questions
requiring higher-level thinking skills such as synthesis and evaluation.
Software Required
HEC-ResPRM version 1.0. This software is being developed in the public domain,
and future versions will be available from the US Army Corps of Engineers Institute
for Water Resources-Hydrologic Engineering Center (IWR-HEC). IWR-HEC is not
able to provide technical support to non-Corps users, but welcomes reports of any
bugs in the software.

A partial pay-off table for the historical period is shown below in Table (i). A set of
questions is provided to accompany the activities. The questions cover a range of
cognitive levels, mainly comprehension, analysis, and evaluation. The instructor may
wish to pose these evaluation questions in a class discussion or assign a one-page
essay answering any of the following questions:
x Based on the primary trade-offs in regulating Lake Superior water levels for
the various interests, what user groups should be most concerned that they
could be adversely impacted by a new regulation plan?
x Would it make sense for any user groups to form coalitions to lobby for a
particular regulation plan over another?
x What are the main limitations of this optimization approach (deterministic
network flow linear programming)?
x What are advantages and disadvantages of optimization as compared to
simulation modeling? How could both be useful in designing a new
regulation plan?
Table (ii). Partial pay-off table for historical hydrology, 1900-2008.
Results:
Objective: Coastal Hydropower Navigation Recreation
Coastal 0.0 ͲͲ ͲͲ ͲͲ
Hydropower ͲͲ 5644.5 14.947 ͲͲ
Navigation ͲͲ 13883.2 0.0 ͲͲ
Recreation ͲͲ ͲͲ 0.383 21.864
7. Computer Aided Negotiation and River Basin Management in the Delaware
Learning Objectives
1. Become familiar with Collaborative Modeling for Decision Support, issues in
river basin management, and some of water management’s underlying science,
such as hydrology and risk analysis.
2. Gain experience using a complex, real-world simulation model that employs
LP;
3. Use performance measures to judge alternative management plans;
4. Deepen understanding of Computer Aided Negations through experiential role
play (optional)
None required, but coursework in hydrology and some programming experience
would be helpful.
Type of Activity
The attached assignments were designed to teach students to use the OASIS model by
assessing the impact of changes to the operations of the Delaware River Basin. There
are also supporting materials at http://www.hydrologics.net/CAN_Course/. Two
options for using the materials are given below.
Option 1 (requires 2.5 class periods):

1. Have students read the case study background material as homework, and
come to class prepared with questions. Encourage independent research prior
to class discussion.
2. Address questions in class, and then have students begin to work on
assignments in pairs during class time. This requires internet-ready computers
to access the UMBC server (see software requirements below) 1 . If the
backgrounds of the students vary, pair students with more and less
programming experience.
3. Have students finish Parts 1 and 2 as homework. Work again during the next
class period on Part 3 (if they finish, start Part 4).
4. Complete Part 3 as homework. If students are moving quickly, also assign
Part 4. Otherwise, skip Part 4.
5. Replace Part 5 with an in-class discussion on the use of the model and
performance measures in Computer Aided Negotiations. The displays the
1
If students will be using their own laptops, be sure to have them try to access the server during the
class period PRIOR to this one.
students create during the exercises to assess the impact of the operational
changes are performance measures. Imagine they had performance measures
for each management objective: number of flooding events, acres of dwarf
wedgemussel habitat, storage in reservoirs, number of “good” canoeing days
during recreation season, etc. Imagine they also had use of the OASIS model
to test their ideas for changes to the operations by displaying the results for all
performance measures on the same plots as the current operations and/or other
brainstormed ideas. Discuss how negotiations of river operation changes
would be different with and without these tools.
Option 2 (requires 4 class periods):

Steps 1-4 as in Option 1.
5. Have students start Part 5 during the next class period in groups of three.
Assign each group to represent a different stakeholder interest. The goal is to
develop new operations that do better on all of the given performance
measures2 (remember that changes to the Consent Decree can only be made
by unanimous agreement).
6. Each group should submit their best run prior to the next class session,
coordinating with the instructor to transfer all the runs to the instructor’s run
folder.
7. Hold a mock Computer Aided Negotiations Session during the next class
period. Start by looking at the submitted modeling runs, and decide as a
group which run to use as a starting point. The students may want to combine
elements of different runs. Make as many changes to the model during the
class period as you can—figure out how to make those changes as a group. If
the suggestion is too complicated to implement during class, make a note of it.
Also make a note of suggestions the students make to refine the performance
measures. End the class with a discussion like that described in #5 of Option
1 (but now they don’t have to imagine).
The instructor (or TA) should complete the assignments his/herself to prepare to help
the students and work out any technical kinks. Some background reading may also
be required on the stakeholder interests (start with “Sam’s Story” attachment included
in supplementary materials).
If doing a mock Computer Aided Negotiation Session (Option 2), additional practice
with the model is recommended. Remember that you are using the actual
management model of the DRB with very few simplifications, so it is possible that
some change you or the students make to the model will cause it to stop working
2
You could also have students develop their own performance measures, but that would require
additional time.
properly. Use the manual for debugging, but be prepared (and prepare your students)
to abandon some ideas for operations changes that cannot be implemented in the
allotted time. Hopefully, Exercise 5 will inspire many creative solutions.
Students should expect to invest about 2 hours preparing for discussion on the first
day. The needed time investment on the modeling exercises varies. Office hours
should be held in a computer lab if possible. Exercise 5 (optional) is very open
ended, so consider providing students with a time limit (e.g. 4 hours).
Software Required
The DRB OASIS model can be accessed on a server hosted at the University of
Maryland, Baltimore County using the attached instructions.
Require students to submit questions they have and sources they consulted in
preparation for Day 1 discussion (give credit for submission). Encouraging
preparation will improve the discussion.3
The OASIS exercises can be graded for completion, quality of presentation, and
accuracy of answers to the follow-up questions. Grades can be assigned for
appropriate4 participation during the Computer Aided Negotiation Session.
3
You could also ask for questions to be submitted via email to aid in your preparation
4
Do not encourage talking for the sake of the grade rather than moving the process forward
8. Optimization for Urban Watershed Management: Stormwater Runoff and

Nonpoint Pollution Control
Learning Objectives
1. Become familiar with urban stormwater management planning concepts;
2. Understand how spatial databases and GIS analysis can be applied to address
non-point source pollution problems;
3. Understand a linear programming formulation of a least-cost stormwater
management problem;
4. Gain experience using a spreadsheet optimization tool;
5. Explore the solution space of a multi-objective optimization problem.
Surface Water Hydrology, Introduction to Environmental Engineering.
Type of Activity
consider an assigned reading (homework) of related material (e.g., McGarity, 2010
and 2011b) prior to completing the case study. The study consists of students, either
individually or in pairs, applying a spreadsheet optimization model. Classroom
presentation of students’ results, any extended analyses, and answers to suggested
questions will encourage additional discussion and increase student understanding of
the problem.

introduction of watershed management, and at least one more class period on linear
programming model formulation and applications. The case study itself and the
spreadsheet tool may be introduced in about 20-30 minutes. An instructor who is not
familiar with this topic may require an additional 1 to 3 hours for review and
understanding of this material and related literature.

material, along with related literature distributed by the instructor. An additional 2
hours should be spent completing the optimization model assignment, and 1 hour
should be spent preparing a presentation of their results.
Software Required
No specialized software is required; however, students must have access to Excel
with the Solver add-in. For the assigned case study, the problem size will be within
the standard Solver limits. However, for other watersheds, the Premium Solver for
Excel from Frontline Systems, Inc., may be needed. Students may download a trial
version of the Premium Solver from the following web site:
http://www.solver.com/xlspremsolv.htm.

Assessment may involve written or verbal response to related evaluation-level
questions. The instructor may choose to ask one or more of the following:
x What are the key features of the least-cost solutions for the runoff and
pollutant reductions (sediment, Nitrogen, Phosphorous)?
x Why does the model select a higher spending fraction for the Developed
Wooded/Fields land category than for Developed High Intensity category?
x Which BMP/LID technologies are the most cost-effective for the various
environmental criteria?
x What do the model results suggest regarding the potential benefits of research
that either reduces the cost or increases the efficiency of the selected
BMP/LID technologies?
9. Evaluating Storage Carryover in the Weber River Basin Using the Water
Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) System
Learning Objectives
1. Become familiar with multi-reservoir system operation for water supplies to
multiple users;
2. Understand a basic formulation of reservoir operating policies, including
storage targets and hedging rules;
3. Become familiar with prior-appropriation water rights (“first in time, first in
right”), common in the western U.S.; and
4. Analyze and interpret output from a river system simulation model,
particularly in the context of trade-off analysis.
Surface Water Hydrology recommended.
Type of Activity
study as a homework assignment (or during a computer lab session), either
individually or in pairs. Completing the case study involves entering baseline data
into an existing model and running the model several times, with revised operating
parameters, and then interpreting the results. It is recommended that the instructor
provide students the opportunity to ask questions in class before the assignment is
due, and also follow up the assignment with a classroom discussion of students’
findings and conclusions. Optionally, students may be given a more open-ended
assignment involving tradeoff analysis and asked to give short presentations on their
findings.

water rights, reservoir systems operation, and hedging rules. Depending on the level
of detail in which these topics are covered, this is expected to require at least one 50-
minute class period. The case study itself may be introduced in about 15-30 minutes.
At least 30 minutes should be made available for class discussion following
completion of the case study.
write-up, including review of some of the cited publications. Additional time will be
required to become familiar with the WEAP software. It is recommended that the
instructor become familiar with the WEAP User Guide and work through either the
examples in the guide or this case study prior to assigning it to students.

The student is expected to spend up to 1 hour reading and digesting the write-up, with
then spend another 2-4 hours becoming familiar with the software and completing the
activities. Additional wrap-up discussion in class will likely lead to further insights,
synthesis, and evaluation.
Software Required
The WEAP software program is required. This software is developed and licensed by
the Stockholm Environmental Institute-US, a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit
organization. All funds collected in WEAP license fees (from users in high-income
countries) goes to supporting developing country users or in further developing the
software and documentation. The evaluation version is free but has limited
capabilities.

A set of questions accompanies the specific tasks required to complete the activity.
The questions cover a range of cognitive levels, mainly comprehension, analysis, and
evaluation. The instructor may wish to pose additional evaluation questions in a class
discussion or assign a one-page essay answering any of the following questions:
x Besides water supply, what are other objectives of reservoir system operation
in the Weber River Basin? How might changes to water supply hedging rules
affect the system’s performance with respect to these other objectives?
x What are the advantages, if any, of operating the system of reservoirs in a
coordinated manner? Are there parts of the system (sub-sets of reservoirs) that
can be operated independently of others?
x If some users, or service areas, experience shortages disproportionately
compared to others, what other policy options may be considered besides
changing reservoir operating rules?
10. Planning a Water Supply System for the Village of Adi-Gheda, Eritrea
Learning Objectives

1. Become familiar with simple water distribution system design;
2. Formulate, solve, and interpret the results of mixed integer linear
programming models;
3. Gain an appreciation of the potential computational savings of mixed integer
programming compared to complete enumeration; and
4. (Optional) Perform sensitivity and trade off analyses and make
recommendations based on the results.
Engineering Economics; Water Resources Engineering recommended.
Type of Activity
study as a homework assignment, either individually or in pairs. Completing the case
study requires formulating an optimization model “from scratch,” which may be
challenging for students doing this for the first time. It is recommended that the
instructor consider providing some hints, or even example models that may be
adapted to this case study. The instructor should also provide students the
opportunity to ask questions in class before the assignment is due, as well as follow
up the assignment with a classroom discussion of students’ findings and conclusions.

Students completing this case study should be familiar with linear programming
models. Prior to assigning this case study, the instructor should also provide an
introduction to mixed integer linear programming (MIP). While entire courses may be
taught on each of these topics (including solution algorithms and advanced modeling
techniques), students may acquire a basic understanding of linear programming in 3-4
weeks of a semester course, and then a basic introduction to MIP may be provided in
one or two 50-minute class periods. One additional 50-minute class period may be
devoted to introducing students to an optimization modeling software package such
as LINGO. The case study itself may be introduced in about 15-20 minutes. At least
30 minutes should be made available for class discussion following completion of the
case study.

Students are expected to spend up to 1 hour reading and digesting the write-up, with
any points of confusion clarified during a classroom Q&A period. Depending on the
student’s experience in formulating optimization models, 1-4 hours may be spent

developing the algebraic formulation of the model, and an additional 1-3 hours may
be spent formulating the model in an optimization software package. It is
recommended that the model be fully described algebraically (i.e., indices, variables,
parameters, objective function, and constraints) before beginning to formulate the
model in a software package. After making a good-faith effort at completing these
tasks, students are encouraged to ask the instructor or classmates for assistance if they
get stuck at a particular point in model formulation or “debugging,” rather than
staring at the page or screen for hours.
Additional wrap-up discussion in class will likely lead to further insights, synthesis,
and evaluation. Students may also present their results to the class, providing an
opportunity for peer-evaluation.
Software Required
The case study was designed for solution with an evaluation version of LINGO
(http://www.lindo.com). However, other available software may be used, including
Microsoft Excel and Linear Programming Solver (LiPS,
http://sourceforge.net/projects/lipside/). The evaluation version of LINGO is free but
has limited capabilities and a limited license duration (30 days).

The instructor may wish to pose additional evaluation questions in a class discussion
or ask students to address them in a written submittal:
x What rate would water users have to pay ($/liter) for full cost recovery over
the service life of the project? A service life (in years) needs to be assumed to
answer this question.
x What are some other factors that might be considered in determining the
number of distribution points, or the average water collection time?
x Given that future population and water demand may be highly uncertain, what
design alternatives allow for staged construction, which may be more adaptive
to actual conditions over time?
This page intentionally left blank
Index
Page numbers followed by e, f, and t indicate
equations, figures, and tables, respectively.
agricultural watershed evolution case study notes for instructors 135–137, 137f
29–38 system components 6–7, 7f
assignment 34–35, 35t system operation during wet and
background 29–30 extreme wet weather events 8–9,
notes for instructors 140–142, 142f 8f
Virtual Watershed framework 29, commercial navigation. see regulation
30–33, 31f, 32f, 34f policy case study
Virtual Watershed web application computer aided negotiation and river basin
34, 36f management case study 66–84
assessment, of case study use 127–134. see assignment 72–83, 80f
also case studies, used in systems analysis background 66–67
post evaluation and 131–133, 132t description of management model
scientific teaching and 127–128 70–71, 72f
tools and activities for on-going notes for instructors 147–149
129, 130t, 131t operating challenges 67–70
bacteria levels. see Total Maximum Daily Converging Waters (Institute for Water
Load (TMDL) case study Resources) 66
Bacteria Loading Estimator Spreadsheet Delaware River. see computer aided
Tool (BLEST) 40 negotiation and river basin management
Big Creek watershed, Illinois. see case study; urban watershed management
agricultural watershed evolution case case study
study ecosystems. see regulation policy case
case studies, used in systems analysis 119– study
126. see also assessment, of case study Eritrea. see water supply system, planning
use case study
benefits of 2–4, 119–120 evolutionary algorithms (EAs), in optimal
guidance to students regarding 121– control model 30–31
122 floods. see linear programming for flood
journal article examples 121–125 control case study
genetic algorithms (GAs), in agent-based
textbook examples 125–126
model 33, 34f
Clean Water Act 39, 85
grading rubrics, in case study work 129,
cognition, six levels of 128
131t
Collaborative Modeling for Decision
Great Lakes. see regulation policy case
Support (CMDS) 66
study
combined sewer overflows (CSOs) case
Great Midwest Flood of 1993. see linear
study 6–13
programming for flood control case study
assignment 12–13, 12t HEC-resPRM, regulatory tradeoff
background 6 evaluations 48–53, 50f, 51f, 52f
MACRO model described 9–11, 9f, instructions for use 53–55, 53f, 54f,
10f, 11f 56f, 56t, 57, 57f, 58f, 59–61, 60f,
157
61f, 62f, 63, 63f, 64f Productions Possibility Frontier (PPF), in

hydroelectric power. see regulation policy optimal control model 31–32, 32f
case study recreation and tourism. see regulation
Hydrologic Simulation Program in Fortran policy case study
(HSPF) 39–40 regulation policy case study 46–65
HydroLogics 66–67 assignment 48–53, 50f, 51f, 52f
journal articles, example case studies 121– assignment, HEC-resPRM
125 instructions 53–55, 53f, 54f, 56f,
Lake Superior. see regulation policy case 56t, 57, 57f, 58f, 59–61, 60f, 61f,
study 62f, 63, 63f, 64f
linear programming for flood control case
background and history of plans 46–
study 14–28
47, 47f
activities 23–26, 24f, 25f
current regulation plan 47–48
background 14–15
notes for instructors 145–146, 146t
notes for instructors 138–139 reservoirs. see computer aided negotiation
programming model 17–21, 18e, and river basin management case study;
18f, 19f, 20e, 21e storage carryover case study
programming model application 21– river basin management. see computer
22, 22f, 23f aided negotiation and river basin
reservoir system 15–17, 15f, 16t, 17t management case study
linear programming (LP), journal article rubrics, in assessment of case study work
example case studies 121–122, 123–124, 129, 131t
125 scientific teaching 127–128
Little Crum Creek watershed, sewers. see combined sewer overflows
Pennsylvania. see urban watershed (CSOs), case study
management case study shoreline property. see regulation policy
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. see combined case study
sewer overflows (CSOs), case study Soil and Water Analysis Tool (SWAT), of
mixed integer linear programming (MILP), USDA 33
journal article example case studies 122– storage carryover case study 102–113
123, 124 activity 107–112
Montague target, in river basin background 102–103, 103f, 104f,
management 67, 68–69 105t
New York City. see computer aided notes for instructors 152–153
negotiation and river basin management
WEAP model and 102, 105–107,
case study
nonlinear programming (NLP), journal
106f
storm-water runoff. see urban watershed
article example case studies 122, 124–
management case study
125
StormWISE model, used in urban
nonpoint pollution control. see urban
watershed management evaluation 85
watershed management case study
OASIS software model results 96–99, 97t, 98t
described 70–71 running load simulation model 87–
used in river basin management 94, 88e, 89e, 90e, 91e, 92t, 95t, 96t
assignment 72–83, 80f Strategy for Federal Science and
Technology to Support U.S. Water
on-going assessment, of case study work
Availability and Quality report 66
129, 130t
systems analysis, generally 1–5. see also
case studies, used in systems analysis hydrologic and environmental

additional resources 4 simulation model 30, 31f, 33
definitions and dimensions 1 optimal control model 30–32, 31f,
expectations of students 1 32f
use and benefits of case studies 2–4 web application 34, 36f
systems management framework. see Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP)
agricultural watershed evolution case system 102, 105–107, 106f
study downloading 107
textbooks, example case studies 125–126 in storage carryover activity 107–
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) case 112
study 39–45 water quality. see Total Maximum Daily
additional guidance 44 Load (TMDL) case study
assignment 40–43, 41t, 43t water supply system, planning case study
background 39–40 114–118
notes for instructors 143–144, 144t assignment 118
understanding, six facets of 128 background 114, 115f
urban watershed management case study components of system 115f, 116–
85–101 117, 116t, 117t, 118t
assignment, generally 86–87 notes for instructors 154–155
notes for instructors 150–151 water supply systems. see computer aided
running load simulation model 87– negotiation and river basin management
94, 88e, 89e, 90e, 91e, 92t, 95t, 96t case study; water supply system, planning
StormWISE model results 96–99, case study
97t, 98t watersheds. see agricultural watershed
Utah Division of Water Resources evolution case study
(UDWR). see storage carryover case Weber River Basin, Utah. see storage
study carryover case study
Virtual Watershed framework 29, 30–33, Whiteoak Bayou, Texas. see Total
31f Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) case
agent-based model 30, 31f, 32–33, study
34f

Analisis de Sistema

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Analisis de Sistema

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

WATER RESOURCES SYSTEMS

ANALYSIS THROUGH CASE STUDIES

Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers

End-User License Agreement for

Copyright © 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Preface ..................................................................................................................................... vii

Appendix: Notes for Instructors .............................................................................135

The motivation for compiling case studies of systems analysis applications in

Contributors and Committee Members

David W. Watkins, Jr.1

What is Systems Analysis?

In a broad sense, systems analysis is the systematic analysis of design or decision

x Describe a water resources/environmental engineering design problem

Why Use Case Studies?

encourage more undergraduate students to further their education through graduate

What Can You Find Here?

appropriate background in statistics, linear algebra, environmental science, and

Want Additional Resources?

x COmputational INfrastructure for Operations Research (COIN-OR) (Lougee-

Bloom, B.S. (ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I:

Eric Loucks1, David Watkins2, Theresa Culver3

Figure 2 illustrates operation of the combined wastewater and stormwater conveyance

Description of the MACRO Model

Figure 4. Blending at Jones Island Wastewater Treatment Plant (JIWWTP) (adapted

MACRO is used to evaluate various structural and operational alternatives to prevent

Minimize: SSOs, CSOs, or some combination of the two

Consider the capital investment and operational alternatives listed in Table 1.

Measure Cost Input notes

Increase tunnel (ISS) volume $15/ft3 Line 13 of Command file

Adjust VRSSImin None Line 14

Increase siphon capacity at Each siphon costs $12 Lines 33 and 34

Increase treatment capacity at $1 million/cfs Need to change values on lines

* Blending at JIWWTP is limited by permit to 94 cfs.

David W. Watkins, Jr.2

possible modifications to the operating plans (USACE, 1999). In particular, a

Figure 1. Map of Iowa/Des Moines River Reservoir System

Inflows Capacity (acre-ft/year)

Table 2. Iowa River Characteristics

Drainage Area Mean Inflow

Table 3. Des Moines River Characteristics

Drainage Area Mean Inflow

Under current operations, Coralville Reservoir is to be operated for flood control at

Priority Keep flow less than (cfs) At Location

Table 5. Des Moines River Flood Control Priorities

Priority Keep flow less than (cfs) at Location

Linear Programming Model

A linear programming (LP) model was developed at the Hydrologic Engineering

storage, and flow. Essentially embedded in the LP model constraints is a simulation

Figure 2. Model Schematic of Iowa/Des Moines River Reservoir System

To model desired storage-balancing schemes amongst reservoirs, the total storage

The storage in each zone l is constrained as

The maximum reservoir release physically possible is limited by the hydraulic

where l = index of discharge zone; and NF = number of discharge zones.

where A j ,l is the slope of the storage penalty function in zone l of reservoir j .

Figure 3. Iowa River Flood Penalty Functions

Rate of change of release penalties were difficult to determine. The reservoir

Emergency flood control pool

Flood control pool

Figure 4. Example Storage-Penalty Function

The accompanying spreadsheet contains a LP model representing the Coralville

in Figure 5. Click on the Options button, and choose “Assume Non-Negative”

Figure 5. Solver Parameters dialog

Figure 6. Solver Options dialog

3. Sensitivity Analysis and Duality

Data source inflow = None