Link to USGS home page.
Publications—Scientific Investigations Report

Prepared in cooperation with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Simulated Effects of the 2003 Permitted Withdrawals and Water-Management Alternatives on Reservoir Storage and Firm Yields of Three Surface-Water Supplies, Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts

By Phillip J. Zarriello

 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5122
Revised 2006

 

The body of the report is available in PDF Format ( 3,642 KB)

Abstract

The Hydrologic Simulation Program–FORTRAN (HSPF) model of the Ipswich River Basin previously developed by the U.S. Geological Survey was modified to evaluate the effects of the 2003 withdrawal permits and water-management alternatives on reservoir storage and yields of the Lynn, Peabody, and Salem–Beverly water-supply systems. These systems obtain all or part of their water from the Ipswich River Basin. The HSPF model simulated the complex water budgets to the three supply systems, including effects of regulations that restrict withdrawals by the time of year, minimum streamflow thresholds, and the capacity of each system to pump water from the river. The 2003 permits restrict withdrawals from the Ipswich River between November 1 and May 31 to streamflows above a 1.0 cubic foot per second per square mile (ft3/s/mi2) threshold, to high flows between June 1 and October 31, and to a maximum annual volume. Yields and changes in reservoir storage over the 35-year simulation period (1961–95) were also evaluated for each system with a hypo-thetical low-capacity pump, alternative seasonal streamflow thresholds, and withdrawals that result in successive failures (depleted storage).

The firm yields, the maximum yields that can be met during a severe drought, calculated for each water-supply system, under the 2003 permitted withdrawals, were 8.59 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) for the Lynn, 3.24 Mgal/d for the Peabody, and 8.38 Mgal/d for the Salem–Beverly systems; these yields are 19, 45, and 17 percent less than their average 1998–2000 demands, respectively. The simulations with the same permit restrictions and a hypothetical low-capacity pump for each system resulted in slightly increased yields for the Lynn and Salem–Beverly systems, but a slightly decreased yield for the Peabody system.

Simulations to evaluate the effects of alternative streamflow thresholds on water supply indicated that firm yields were generally about twice as sensitive to decreases in the November–February or March–May thresholds than to increases in these thresholds. Firm yields were also generally slightly less sensitive to changes in the November–February than to changes in the March–May thresholds in the Peabody and Salem–Beverly water-supply systems. Decreases in the June–October streamflow threshold did not affect any of the system’s firm yield.

Simulations of withdrawal rates that resulted in successive near failures during the 1961–95 period indicated the tradeoff between increased yield and risks. The Lynn and Salem-Beverly systems were able to meet average 1998-2000 demands after the third near failure. The Peabody system was allowed to nearly fail up to six times. At the sixth near failure, yield increased to 4.60 Mgal/d, or about 78 percent of average 1998–2000 demands. The risk of failure was about 5 percent at the withdrawal rate that caused the sixth near failure in the Peabody system and about 2.5 percent at the withdrawal rate that caused the third near failure in the Lynn and Salem–Beverly systems. Supply systems are at greatest risk of failure from persistent droughts (lasting more than 1 year), but short-term droughts also present risks during the fall and winter when the supply systems are most vulnerable. Uncertainties in model performance, simplification of reservoir systems and their management, and the possibility of droughts of severity greater than simulated in this investigation underscore the fact that the firm yield calculated for each system cannot be considered a withdrawal rate that is absolutely fail-safe. Thus, the consequences of failure are an important consideration in the planning and management of these systems.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract

Introduction

Purpose and Scope

Study Area

Water Demands

Permitted Water Withdrawals

Model Description

Modifications to the HSPF Model

Special Actions

Lynn System

Peabody System

Salem–Beverly System

Limitations

Effects of 2003 Permitted Withdrawals and Water-Management Alternatives on Reservoir Storage and Firm Yield

Permitted Withdrawals (FY-IPR1) and Permitted Withdrawals with a Low-Capacity Pump (FY-IPR2)

Lynn System

Peabody System

Salem–Beverly System

Effects of Alternative Seasonal Streamflow Thresholds on Firm Yield (FY-IPR3)

System Yield at Successive Failures (FY-IPR4)

Discussion of Reservoir Performance

Summary

References

Appendix: Hydrologic Simulation Program–FORTRAN (HSPF) Special Actions Used to Simulate Withdrawals for Water-Supply Systems

Figures

1.Map showing principal geographic features, model reach numbers, and locations of the Lynn, Peabody, and Salem–Beverly water-supply systems, Ipswich and Saugus River Basins, Massachusetts

2–4.Graphs showing examples of withdrawals limited by Hydrologic Simulation Program–FORTRAN (HSPF) special actions under 2003 permitted withdrawals:

2.Lynn water-supply system from the A, Saugus River under the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) recommended flows and the B, Ipswich River, 1989

3.Peabody water-supply system, Ipswich River, 1989

4.Salem–Beverly water-supply system, Ipswich River, 1989

5–8.Graphs showing simulation results for Lynn water-supply system under average 1998–2000 demands and 2003 permitted withdrawals from the Ipswich River and Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) recommended flow for the Saugus River, 1961–95:

5.Daily mean reservoir storage A, hydrographs and B, duration curves

6.Average monthly reservoir storage

7.Withdrawal-duration curves from the Ipswich and Saugus Rivers

8.Daily mean streamflow-duration curves at the intake locations on the A, Ipswich River and B, Saugus River, 1961–95

9. Graph showing daily mean reservoir storage simulated at firm-yield demand rates under 2003 permitted withdrawals and under the same streamflow criteria with a hypothetical low-capacity pump, 1961–95

10–13.Graphs showing simulation results for Peabody water-supply system under average 1998–2000 demands and 2003 permitted withdrawals, 1961–95:

10.Daily mean reservoir storage A, hydrographs and B, duration curves

11.Average monthly reservoir storage

12.Withdrawal-duration curves from the Ipswich River

13.Daily mean streamflow-duration curves

14.Graph showing daily mean reservoir storage simulated at firm-yield demand rates under 2003 permitted withdrawals and 2003 permitted withdrawals with a hypothetical low- capacity pump, Peabody water-supply system, 1961–95

15–18.Graphs showing simulation results for Salem–Beverly water-supply system under average 1998–2000 demands and 2003 permitted withdrawals, 1961–95:

15.Daily mean reservoir storage A, hydrographs and B, duration curves

16.Average monthly reservoir storage

17.Withdrawal-duration curves from the Ipswich River

18.Daily mean streamflow-duration curves at the Ipswich River

19–27.Graphs showing:

19.Daily mean reservoir storage simulated at firm-yield demand rates under 2003 permitted withdrawals and 2003 permitted withdrawals with a hypothetical low-capacity pump, Salem–Beverly water-supply system, 1961–95

20.Changes in firm yield in response to changes in the seasonal streamflow threshold in the Ipswich River for A, Lynn; B, Peabody; and C, Salem–Beverly water-supply systems

21.Daily mean reservoir storage A, hydrographs and B, duration curves simulated at withdrawal rates that cause successive failures under the 2003 permitted withdrawals, Lynn water-supply system, 1961–95

22.Daily mean reservoir storage A, hydrographs and B, duration curves simulated at withdrawal rates that cause successive failures under the 2003 permitted withdrawals, Peabody water-supply system, 1961–95

23.Daily mean reservoir storage A, hydrographs and B, duration curves simulated at withdrawal rates that cause successive failures under the 2003 permitted withdrawals, Salem–Beverly water-supply system, 1961–95

24.Relation of yield and risk of failure simulated under 2003 permitted withdrawals for the Lynn, Peabody, and Salem–Beverly water-supply systems, 1961–95

25.Simulated average monthly reservoir storage during April (normally highest) and November (normally lowest) at demand rates that cause successive failures under 2003 permitted withdrawals for the A, Lynn; B, Peabody; and C, Salem–Beverly water-supply systems, 1961–95

26.Characteristics of total precipitation in the past 60, 90, 183, 365, 730, and 1,095 days and antecedent conditions that led to simulated successive failures under the 2003 permitted withdrawals for the Lynn, Peabody, and Salem–Beverly water-supply systems, 1961–95

27.Expected recurrence of minimum 90-, 183-, 365-, 730-, and 1,095-day precipitation and the expected recurrence of droughts on the basis of these antecedent conditions that led to simulated successive failures under the 2003 permitted withdrawals for the Lynn, Peabody, and Salem-Beverly water- supply systems, 1961–95

Tables

1.Monthly water demands for the Lynn, Peabody, and Salem–Beverly water-supply systems, 1998–2000

2.Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 2003 permitted surface- water withdrawals from the Ipswich River Basin

3.Description of Hydrologic Simulation Program–FORTRAN (HSPF) simulations of reservoir storage and yields for the Lynn, Peabody, and Salem–Beverly water- supply systems

4.Identification attributes and organization of output time series simulated by the Hydrologic Simulation Program–FORTRAN (HSPF) for the analysis of reservoir storage and yields of the Lynn, Peabody, and Salem–Beverly water-supply systems

5.Average monthly reservoir storage and number of days during which the mean daily reservoir storage was depleted under average 1998–2000 demands (10.6 million gallons per day) and 2003 permitted withdrawals and under 2003 permitted withdrawals with a hypothetical low-capacity pump, Lynn water-supply system, 1961–95

6.Average monthly reservoir storage and number of days during which the mean daily reservoir storage was depleted under average 1998–2000 demands (5.9 million gallons per day) and 2003 permitted withdrawals and under 2003 permitted withdrawals with a hypothetical low-capacity pump, Peabody water- supply system, 1961–95

7.Average monthly reservoir storage and number of days during which the mean daily reservoir storage was depleted under average 1998–2000 demands (10.1 million gallons per day) and 2003 permitted withdrawals and under 2003 permitted withdrawals with a hypothetical low-capacity pump, Salem–Beverly water-supply system, 1961–95

8.Summary of yield and reservoir performance at successive failures simulated with the Hydrologic Simulation Program–FORTRAN (HSPF) for the Lynn, Peabody, and Salem–Beverly water-supply systems, 1961–95


If you have Adobe® Acrobat® or Adobe® Acrobat® Reader® installed on your computer, you may view and print the PDF version of this report. Acrobat Reader, is a free download from Adobe Systems, Inc. Users with disabilities can view information concerning accessibility at access.Adobe.com .


For additional information write to:
Director,
USGS Massachusetts–Rhode Island Water Science Center
10 Bearfoot Road
Northborough, MA 01532

or visit our Web site at
http://ma.water.usgs.gov


U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Persistent URL:
Page Contact Information: Contact USGS
Last modified: Thursday, December 01 2016, 08:08:42 PM
FirstGov button  Take Pride in America button