eRAMS: A Web-Technology for Conservation Planning and ... - Water

rouleaupromiseΑσφάλεια

5 Νοε 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 9 μήνες)

63 εμφανίσεις


eRAMS
eRAMS
‡„
Ǧ
‡…Š‘Ž‘‰› ˆ‘” ‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘

‡„
‡…Š‘Ž‘‰›
ˆ‘”
‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘


Žƒ‹‰ƒ†ƒ–‡”•Š‡†ƒƒ‰‡‡–
ƒœ†ƒ”ƒ„‹
‡’ƒ”–‡–‘ˆ‹˜‹ŽƬ˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ‰‹‡‡”‹‰

ƒ–‡”•Š‡†ƒƒ‰‡‡–
• ƒ–‡”
“
—ƒŽ‹–
›
ȋ
‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ
Ȍ
“ › ȋ Ȍ
– ‡†‹‡–
– —–”‹‡–•
– ‡•–‹…‹†‡•
– ƒ–Š‘‰‡•
• …‘‘‹…”‹–‡”‹ƒ
– ‘•–
– ‡‡ˆ‹–•
• •–‹–—–‹‘ƒŽ”‹–‡”‹ƒ


‘’‘‹–‘—”…‡‘ŽŽ—–‹‘‘–”‘Ž
• 
’
Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ…‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘
’
”ƒ…–‹…‡•
Ȁ
•
’ ’ Ȁ
– ”‡˜‡–‘”‹‹‹œ‡’‘ŽŽ—–‹‘”ƒ–Š‡”–Šƒ”‡–”‘•’‡…–‹˜‡Ž›
”‡•’‘†–‘‹–Ǥ
• —””‡–’’”‘ƒ…Š‡•
– ‘•–Ǧ•Šƒ”‹‰
–
ƒ”‰‡–‹‰



†‡˜‡Ž‘’‹‰•‘—†”‡•‘—”…‡ƒƒ‰‡‡–ƒŽ–‡”ƒ–‹˜‡•
•‡–‘ˆƒƒ‰‡‡–ƒ…–‹‘•
–
Planning
ǣ •…‡ƒ”‹‘ ƒƒŽ›•‹• ƒ† •›•–‡ ‘’–‹‹œƒ–‹‘ ˆ‘”
Planning
ǣ
•…‡ƒ”‹‘
ƒƒŽ›•‹•
ƒ†
•›•–‡
‘’–‹‹œƒ–‹‘
ˆ‘”
˜‡”ƒŽŽ
‘ƒŽ
• ‡˜‡Ž‘
’
ƒ†‡…‹•‹‘•—
’’
‘”–•
›
•–‡–‘
’ ’’ ›
– •–ƒ„Ž‹•Š„ƒ•‡Ž‹‡…‘†‹–‹‘•
ˆ‘”ƒˆ‹‡Ž†Ȁ™ƒ–‡”•Š‡†
–
Assessment
ǣ …‘•–• ƒ† ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ „‡‡ˆ‹–• ‘ˆ ƒ ‰‹˜‡
Assessment
ǣ
…‘•–•
ƒ†
‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ
„‡‡ˆ‹–•
‘ˆ
ƒ
‰‹˜‡






















–‡‰”ƒ–‡†‘†‡Ž‹‰Ƭ’–‹‹œƒ–‹‘
›•–‡
›•–‡
Develo
p
a New
Evaluate Cost
p
Conser. Plan
Is Cost greater
than Budget?


Evaluate Objectives
Reject the plan
Evaluate Water
Quality Benefits
Run Watershed
Model

m
ination
a
been
h
ed?



Are water quality
standards violated?

Reject the plan
Have ter
m
criteri
a
reac
h
END
























–‡‰”ƒ–‡†‘†‡Ž‹‰Ƭ’–‹‹œƒ–‹‘
›•–‡
›•–‡
’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘
Develo
p
a New
Evaluate Cost
p
Conser. Plan
Is Cost greater
than Budget?


Evaluate Objectives
Reject the plan
Evaluate Water
Quality Benefits
Run Watershed
Model

m
ination
a
been
h
ed?



Are water quality
standards violated?

Reject the plan
Have ter
m
criteri
a
reac
h
END

























–‡‰”ƒ–‡†‘†‡Ž‹‰Ƭ’–‹‹œƒ–‹‘
›•–‡
‡†—…‡† …”‘’ ”‘†—…–‹˜‹–›ǣ
›•–‡
‡†—…‡†
…”‘’
”‘†—…–‹˜‹–›ǣ
• ƒ†‘—–‘ˆ’”‘†—…–‹‘ǡ
• ‡†—…–‹‘‘ˆˆ‡”–‹Ž‹œ‡”ƒ’’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘
Develo
p
a New
Evaluate Cost
p
Conser. Plan
Is Cost greater
than Budget?


Evaluate Objectives
Reject the plan
Evaluate Water
Quality Benefits
Run Watershed
Model

m
ination
a
been
h
ed?



Are water quality
standards violated?

Reject the plan
Have ter
m
criteri
a
reac
h
END

























–‡‰”ƒ–‡†‘†‡Ž‹‰Ƭ’–‹‹œƒ–‹‘
›•–‡ ˆ‘” ƒ–‡”•Š‡† ƒƒ‰‡‡–
›•–‡
ˆ‘”
ƒ–‡”•Š‡†
ƒƒ‰‡‡–
Develo
p
a New
Evaluate Cost
p
Conser. Plan
Is Cost greater
than Budget?


Evaluate Objectives
Reject the plan
Evaluate Water
Quality Benefits
Run Watershed
Model

m
ination
a
been
h
ed?


C
1
0
/

Are water quality
standards violated?

Reject the plan
Have ter
m
criteri
a
reac
h
END

C
NO3-N
d
1
0
mg
/
L

























–‡‰”ƒ–‡†‘†‡Ž‹‰Ƭ’–‹‹œƒ–‹‘
›•–‡
›•–‡
Evaluate Cost
Develop a New
Watershed Plan
Is Cost greater
than Budget?
Evaluate Water
Quality Benefits
Run Watershed
Model


Evaluate Objectives
Reject the plan
t
ion
n

̴ʹ̴•‹…̴ˆ—…

Are water quality
standards violated?

Reject the plan
Have termina
t
criteria bee
n
reached?

END



ƒ–‡”•Š‡†Žƒ‹‰ǣ”ƒ†‡‘ˆˆ•Ƭƒ”‰‡–•
1
A
B: Cost Sharing
o
nstraint
C
Water Quality Target
Optimal
Budget C
o
Optimal
Tradeoff
Curve
D
0.6
0.8
02
0.4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.
5
0
0
.
2
Cost (Million $)
Cost
(Million
$)
N
N
ormalized Po
l
l
lutant Loads

‡ǣƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‘”›

• ƒ…‹Ž‹–ƒ–‡…‘ŽŽ‡…–‹‘
ǡ
‘”
‰
ƒ‹œƒ–‹‘ƒ†•Šƒ”‹
‰
‘ˆ
ǡ‰ ‰
‰‡‘•’ƒ–‹ƒŽ†ƒ–ƒ
– †‡–‹ˆ›’”‘„Ž‡•
– ‡–‡”‹‡•–ƒ‡Š‘Ž†‡”•ǯ‘„Œ‡…–‹˜‡•ǡ’”‡ˆ‡”‡…‡•ƒ†˜ƒŽ—‡•
– ‘…ƒ–‹‘ƒ†–›’‡‘ˆ’”ƒ…–‹…‡•

‡ǣƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‘”›

• ƒ…‹Ž‹–ƒ–‡ƒ—–‘ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ…‘
’
Ž‡š‘†‡Ž‹
‰
ƒ†
’ ‰
•›•–‡ƒƒŽ›•‹•’”‘…‡••‡•
– ‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ƒ••‡••‡–ƒ†’Žƒ‹‰ǣƒ–—”ƒŽ”‡•‘—”…‡
‘†‡Ž•ǡ‡Ǥ‰ǤǡȀƒ† 
– Ž—‰Ǧ‹ƒ’’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘•ˆ‘”†‹˜‡”•‡•‡–‘ˆ’”‘„Ž‡•
Dz – Ž‹ †dz ˆ
–
Dz
‡…‡
–
”ƒ
Ž‹
œ‡
†dz
‰”‘—’‘
ˆ
—•‡”•

‡…Š‘Ž‘‰›”‹˜‡”•
• ‘•
’
‡…‹ˆ‹…Šƒ”†™ƒ”‡‘”•‘ˆ–™ƒ”‡”‡
“
—‹”‡‡–•
’ “
– ‡†—…‡–”ƒ‹‹‰”‡“—‹”‡‡–•
– Ž‹‹ƒ–‹‰–Š‡…‘ŽŽ‡…–‹‘‘ˆ†—’Ž‹…ƒ–‡ †ƒ–ƒƒ…”‘••ƒ‰‡…‹‡•
– ‡†—…‡Ž‘‰Ǧ–‡”†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ†ƒ‹–‡ƒ…‡…‘•–•
– ‘„‹Ž‡•›•–‡ƒ……‡••‹„Ž‡ǡ‡†Ǧ–‘Ǧ‡†ǡ‘–Š‡™‡„
• ‘’ƒ–‹„‹Ž‹–›™‹–Š‡š‹•–‹‰†ƒ–ƒ„ƒ•‡•Ȁ

–‡…Š‘Ž‘‰‹‡•
–‡…Š‘Ž‘‰‹‡•
– ƒ‡ƒ†˜ƒ–ƒ‰‡‘ˆ”‡ƒ†‹Ž›ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡†ƒ–ƒ


‡…Š‘Ž‘‰›”‹˜‡”•
• ‡‡ˆ‹–ˆ”‘
‘‘
‰
Ž‡
’
”‘†—…–•ƒ†‘–Š‡”…‘‘Ž
›
Ǧ
‰’ ›
—•‡†‹–‡”‡––‡…Š‘Ž‘‰‹‡•
– ‘‘DzŽ‘‘ƒ†ˆ‡‡Ždz‹–‡”ˆƒ…‡
– ‹‰Š”‡•‘Ž—–‹‘ƒ‡”‹ƒŽ’Š‘–‘•ǡ‡–…Ǥ
•
‘’ƒ–‹„‹Ž‹–› ™‹–Š Ž‘‰
Ǧ
–‡” ˜‹•‹‘ ‘ˆ ‹•–‹–—–‹‘•
‘’ƒ–‹„‹Ž‹–›
™‹–Š
Ž‘‰
–‡”
˜‹•‹‘
‘ˆ
‹•–‹–—–‹‘•
‹˜‘Ž˜‡†™‹–Šƒƒ‰‡‡–‘ˆƒ–—”ƒŽ”‡•‘—”…‡•
•
‘”‹‰ ƒ…”‘•• •…ƒŽ‡•ǣ ˆ‹‡Ž† –‘ ™ƒ–‡”•Š‡†
•
‘”‹‰
ƒ…”‘••
•…ƒŽ‡•ǣ
ˆ‹‡Ž†
–‘
™ƒ–‡”•Š‡†




Data
User Login
Field
Digitization Assessment
Watershed
Scenario Anal.

Planning
Optimization
Visualization

www.erams.com
User
(www Browser)
Mtd t /
NRCS ,USGS, NWS
Data Resources
eRAMS Web Portal
equipped with
Google Zoom & Maps /
High Resolution Aerial Photos
Spatial Extent
M
e
t
a
d
a
t
a
/
Data
Data
User Login
User Upload Data
Standardization
Module
Storage
Resource
Field
Location/Attribute of BMPs
Digitization
Assessment
Digitize Field Boundary
Specify Watershed Outlet(s)
Watershed
Watershed Delineation /
Model Input Creation
Module
Scenario Anal.
Specify
Watershed
Outlet(s)
Planning
Optimization
Visualization
Field
Scale
Watershed
Scale
Distributed Computing
‡”…Š‹–‡…–—”‡ ˆ‘”‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘Žƒ‹‰ƒ†••‡••‡–









Spatial Extent, Data Identification, Extraction and Upload


www.erams.com
User
(www Browser)
Metadata /
NRCS ,USGS, NWS
Data Resources
eRAMS Web Portal
equipped with
Google Zoom & Maps /
High Resolution Aerial Photos
Spatial Extent
Metadata
/
Data
User Login
Standardization
Module
Storage
Resource
Data
User Upload Data
Module
Resource
Identification
Ȃ Šƒ–”‡Ž‡˜ƒ–†ƒ–ƒƒ”‡ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡ǫ‡ƒ–‹…ƒŽŽ
›
”‹…Š
‡–ƒ†ƒ–ƒ
›
Ȃ  ǡǡ
‡‘‡ƒ–‹…
Extraction /Transformationǣ†‹ˆˆ‡”‡–•‘—”…‡•ǡ†‹ˆˆ‡”‡–ˆ‘”ƒ–•ƒ†•…ƒŽ‡•




Data
User Login
Field
Digitization Assessment
Watershed
Scenario Anal.

Planning
Optimization
Visualization

www.erams.com
User
(www Browser)
Mtd t /
NRCS ,USGS, NWS
Data Resources
eRAMS Web Portal
equipped with
Google Zoom & Maps /
High Resolution Aerial Photos
Spatial Extent
M
e
t
a
d
a
t
a
/
Data
Data
User Login
User Upload Data
Standardization
Module
Storage
Resource
Field
Location/Attribute of BMPs
Digitization
Assessment
Digitize Field Boundary
Specify Watershed Outlet(s)
Watershed
Watershed Delineation /
Model Input Creation
Module
Scenario Anal.
Specify
Watershed
Outlet(s)
Planning
Optimization
Visualization
Field
Scale
Watershed
Scale
Distributed Computing
‡”…Š‹–‡…–—”‡ ˆ‘”‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘Žƒ‹‰ƒ†••‡••‡–





Storage
Resource
Digitization
Field
Wt h d
Watershed Delineation /
dl i
Assessment
Digitize Field Boundary
Specify Watershed Outlet(s)
Visualization
W
a
t
ers
h
e
d
Mo
d
e
l
Input Creat
i
o
n
Module
Fi ld
Wt h d
Fi
e
ld
Scale
W
a
t
ers
h
e
d
Scale
Representation of Practices
••‡••‡–‘†—Ž‡ǣ‘•–•ƒ†˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ‡‡ˆ‹–•




Storage
Resource
Watershed Delineation /
Model Input Creation
Module
Planning
Optimization
Scenario Anal.
Field
Scale
Watershed
Scale
Distributed Computing
Žƒ‹‰ ‘†—Ž‡ǣ …‡ƒ”‹‘ ƒŽ›•‹• Ȁ ’–‹‹œƒ–‹‘
Visualization
Žƒ‹‰
‘†—Ž‡ǣ
…‡ƒ”‹‘
ƒŽ›•‹•
Ȁ
’–‹‹œƒ–‹‘
‹‘ƒ••‡”‰
›
‹‘ƒ••‡”‰
›
‹‘ƒ••‡”‰
›
‹‘ƒ••‡”‰
›
tttt
see
decsooeaccouadcabea






















































ˆˆ‹…‹‡–‘—‹…ƒ–‹‘Ȁ—–’—–•
Economic Conservation Practice Placement to Reduce Atrazine Concentration Levels in the Wildcat Creek Watershed
Wildcat Creek Watershed Objective: reduction of atrazine loads into the Kokomo reservoir by 10% (Concentration reduction target from average 3.31 µg/L to 3.0 µg/L, EPA MCL).
Atrazine Concentrations
and Targets
Source of Pollutant
in Drinking Water
Runoff from herbi­
cide used on row
cro
p
s
Ba
se
lin
e
Finding a balance between cost and
environmental improvements.
Thi d i h
p
Maximum Contami-
nant Level (MCL)
0.003 milligrams per
Liter (mg/L) or 3
parts per billion (ppb)
Maximum Contami-
nant Level Goal
Thi
s recommen
d
a
ti
on on w
h
ere
t
o
t
arge
t
con­
servation implementation (provided in the map
to the right) is based on the above cost /
benefit placement. As demonstrated by the
curve, reducing pesticide concentration gener­
ally requires the increased cost of conserva­
tion practices installation. Choosing how to
address water quality concerns is a unique
dec
i
s
i
o
n f
o
r
eac
h
co
mm
u
ni
ty,
a
n
d
ca
n
be
a

nant
Level
Goal
(MCLG)
0.003 mg/L or 3 ppb
Health Effects
Some people who drink water
containing atrazine in excess
of the MCL over many years
could experience problems
ty,
fected by a water quality improvement goal, or
the budgetary resources available.
Cost Breakdown of Recommendation
with their cardiovascular sys
­
tem or reproductive difficulties.
More information
http://epa.gov/ogwdw/
contaminants/
basicinformation/
atrazine.html#one
Practice
Cost ($)
Targeted Conservation Practice Influences on Water Quality
Practice
Cost ($)
Pesticide Management
Filter Strips
Residue Management
Tillage– No Till
Practice Influence Estimated Benefit(s) Across Watershed
Pesticide Management Reduces application rates, etc. xxx ug/L
Filter Strips Filters surface xxx ug/L
Residue Management/No Till Reduces erosion xxx ug/L
TOTAL COST ($) $ xxxx.xx






‰
 
Md k Abi
‰


‰
M
az
d
a
k A
ra
bi
••‹•–ƒ–”‘ˆ‡••‘”
‹˜‹Žƒ†˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ‰‹‡‡”‹‰
‘Ž‘”ƒ†‘ –ƒ–‡ ‹˜‡”•‹–›
‰ 
‘Ž‘”ƒ†‘
–ƒ–‡
‹˜‡”•‹–›
ƒœ†ƒǤ”ƒ„‹̷‘Ž‘–ƒ–‡Ǥ†—
—†‹‰‰‡…‹‡•
‘‹…‡ǣȋͻ͹ͲȌͶͻͳǦͶ͸͵ͻ
‰ 
‰

‰