Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Assessment of the Restoration Activities on
Water Balance and Water Quality at Last
Chance Creek Watershed Using Watershed
Environmental Hydrology (WEHY) Model
M.L. Kavvas, Z. Q. Chen, M. Anderson, L. Liang, N. Ohara
Hydrologic Research Laboratory,
Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC Davis
J. Wilcox, L. Mink, T. Benoit
Feather River CRM
Feather River Basin
Last Chance Creek watershed
(Project area)
Area = 250.1km2
Doyle Crossing
(outlet of watershed)
Million $ BridgeSacramento
Pre-restoration
condition(May 5, 2002)
The deep gully due to
instream erosion induces
low groundwater level.
Post-restoration
condition(July 29, 2004)
The deep gully was filled,
and a shallow channel
was dug nearby.
Fast channel flow
More subsurface
Deep gully
Pre-restoration
Slow channel flow
More subsurface
water storage
Post-restoration
ISSUES TO ASSESS FOR RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
IN THE LAST CHANCE CREEK WATERSHED
1. How does the restoration affect flood flows?
2. How does the restoration affect flows during the summer months?
3. How does the restoration affect the groundwater storage within the
watershed?
4. How does the restoration affect sediment discharge from the
watershed to downstream?
Use of a Watershed Model in NPS Studies
Watershed model provides a tool for watershed evaluation
to help
protect and restore source areas for
water supply and flood control water supply and flood control
and
to reduce NPS substance releases from these areas.
Model can identify source areas (sediment, nutrients,
groundwater recharge, runoff)
Model can evaluate potential restoration activities for
effectiveness at any watershed
Model can assess any land use/management scenarios
WEHY (Watershed Environmental Hydrology) Model
is a
physically-based, spatially-distributed
continuous simulation model
of
hydrologic and environmental processes.hydrologic and environmental processes.
It was peer-reviewed and published
(Nov/Dec 2004 issue of Journal of Hydrologic Engineering).
Interception and
Evapotranspiration Model
Subsurface Stormflow
Overland flow
(Sheet and Rill Flow)
Hillslope Pesticide Transport
Solar Radiation + Snow
Accumulation + Snowmelt
Models
Unsaturated flow and Infiltration
Model
Precipitation
Snowfall, Temperature, Wind Speed, Relative
Humidity
Rainfall
I.
HYDROLOGIC
MODULE
INPUT
Hillslope Processes
Hillslope Erosion/Sediment,
and Nutrient Transport
II. ENVIRONMENTAL
MODULE
Parameter values related to
Topography, Soil, Land Use Land
Cover characteristics
Hillslope
Regional
Groundwater
Stream Network Flow
In-stream Erosion/Sediment,
and Nutrient Transport
In-stream Pesticide Transport
Pesticide load at any
desired location
within a watershed
Sediment and
Nutrient load at
any desired
location within a
watershed
OUTPUT
Stream and Regional
Groundwater Processes
Surface/Subsurface/GW
Water Temperature
In-stream Temperature
Transport
Water temperature
at any desired
location within a
watershed
Streamflow Hydrograph/profile,
GW Table Elev/Hydraulic Head
Soil water content, ET, Inf. rates
at any desired location
within a watershed
Develop the GIS (Geographical Information System)
for the watershed based upon existing databases and
build model parameters
1680 - 17601760 - 18301830 - 19001900 - 19801980 - 2050
Elevation (m)
Area of Detail
N
EW
S8 0 8 16 Kilometers
StreamSub watershed
1980 - 20502050 - 21302130 - 22002200 - 22802280 - 2350No Data
DoyleCrossing
Stream network at Last Chance Creek watershed
0 - 5
Slope map and delineation of meadow land
Green: flat land
Yellow: steep land
(%)0 - 55 - 45.64No Data
Stream
N
EW
S
Cross section at outlet of domain E
1680
1690
1700
1710
1720
Elevation (m)
Cross section at outlet of domain G
1690
1695
1700
1705
1710
1715
1720
0 20 40 60 80 100
120
140
160
180
200
220
Distanse (m)
Elevation (m)
Surface
Estimated bedrock
Groundwater Flow
Domain
Cross section near Doyle Crossing
1650
1660
1670
1680
1690
1700
1710
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
390
420
450
480
510
540
570
Distanse (m)
Elevation (m)
Surface
Estimated bedrock
1650
1660
1670
1680
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
390
420
450
480
510
540
570
Distanse (m)
Elevation (m)
Surface
Estimated bedrock
Soil database
(USFS soil survey)
1051081091431571581601611641701721741831841911921931992312322332342352 43
Soil map unit
2 43248249250251252253257258259260261267268270271272273275276277278279293294304
Estimated soil parameters for WEHY model over
Last Chance Creek watershed (selected)Effective Rooting Rooting Rooting Rooting DepthDepthDepthDepth
Mean Saturated Hydraulic
Conductivity
Mean TotalMean TotalMean TotalMean TotalPorosityPorosityPorosityPorosity
0 - 22 - 44 - 66 - 88 - 1111 - 1313 - 1515 - 1717 - 1919 - 21
(cm/hr)
0.2 - 0.30.3 - 0.40.4 - 0.50.5 - 0.60.6 - 0.70.7 - 0.8
(cm3/cm3)
10 - 20
20 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40
40 - 50
50 - 60
(in)
Vegetation Map (USFS)
1: Grass & shrub2: Forest
Number of Vegetation Layers
2: Forest
7 0 7 14 Kilometers
N
EW
S
Stream
Precipitation
Interception
by vegetation
Direct Evaporation
of Intercepted Water
Sun
Transpiration of
Root Zone Water
Through Fall
Infiltration
Direct runoff
Root Zone
Bare Soil
Evaporation
Unsaturated
Zone
Groundwater TableGroundwater Recharge
Infiltration
Snow coverSnowmelt
LAI
MYD15
Land Cover
MOD12
Statistical Study
of LAI
(Asner et al, 2003)
Statistical Study
of Rooting Depth
(Zeng, 2001)
Seasonally varying LAI for each vegetation type
Local Vegetation Survey
Historical
Atmospheric Data
NCEP, MM5
Ground Surface
Methodology for evapotranspiration with natural
vegetation
Local Vegetation Survey
by USFS
LAI Plant height, h Rooting Depth, dr
Plant Transpiration Coefficient, Kcb(LAI, h)(FAO, 1998)
Reference
Evapotranspiration,
ETo
Bare Ground
Evaporation
Ground Surface
Hydrometeorological
Condition
WEHY
Evapotranspiration
Estimated monthly LAI based on local
vegetation survey and MODIS data
Leaf Area Index
0 - 0.50.5 - 11 - 1.51.5 - 1.81.8 - 2.22.2 - 2.72.7 - 3.33.3 - 10
RECONSTRUCTION OF HISTORICAL ATMOSPHERIC DATA
OVER THE WATERSHED AT 9 KM RESOLUTION
BY
DOWNSCALING FROM COARSE RESOLUTION (~280KM)
GLOBAL DATASETS
MM5
Domain
Nesting
for
Last
Chance
Creek
Watershed
Model
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Oct-82
Apr-83
Oct-83
Apr-84
Oct-84
Apr-85
Oct-85
Apr-86
Oct-86
Apr-87
Oct-87
Apr-88
Oct-88
Apr-89
Oct-89
Apr-90
Oct-90
Apr-91
Oct-91
Apr-92
Oct-92
Apr-93
Oct-93
Temperature (deg F)
MM5 NCDC
The image cannot be displayed. Your computer may not have enough memory to open the image, or the image may have been corrupted. Restart your computer, and then open the file again. If the red x still appears, you may have to delete the image and then insert it again.
Reconstructing distributed atmospheric data for
validation and for critical hydrologic periods
Air Temperature Quincy
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Oct
-82
Apr-83
Oct
-83
Apr-84
Oct
-84
Apr-85
Oct
-85
Apr-86
Oct
-86
Apr-87
Oct
-87
Apr-88
Oct
-88
Apr-89
Oct
-89
Apr-90
Oct
-90
Apr-91
Oct
-91
Apr-92
Oct
-92
Apr-93
Date
Precip (mm)
MM5 Quincy Quincy
Oct
Apr
Oct
Apr
Oct
Apr
Oct
Apr
Oct
Apr
Oct
Apr
Oct
Apr
Oct
Apr
Oct
Apr
Oct
Apr
Oct
Apr
Oct
Date
PrecipitationQuincy
Snow module to simulate accumulation and
melt processes of snow
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
Snow depth (m)
Simulated snow depth at Doyle Xing
Observed snow depth at Doyle Xing
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
9/3010
/2011
/911
/29
12/1
9
1/81/
282/
17 3/83/
284/
17 5/75/
276/
16
Date (2003-04)
Snow depth (m)
Monitored Data Collected for Model Validation
5796
5798
5800
5802
5804
5806
5808
5810
5812
elevation (feet)
Oct. 29, 2001
Oct. 25, 2004
Pre-restoration
Post-restoration
Original channel
Cross-section JF4
meter
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04
RC4-2 RC5-2
5796
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
distance from left pin (feet)
Simulated Groundwater TableObserved Groundwater Table
Ground Surface
Local
groundwater
simulation
domainLocal Groundwater Simulation
at Rowland-Charles Reach
(Oct 1, 2001 – Sep 30, 2004)
Feather River Basin
Last Chance Creek watershed
(Project area)
Area = 250.1km2
Doyle Crossing
(outlet of watershed)
Million $ BridgeSacramento
Simulated
Hydrological
Conditions
Water Year
10/2003-9/2004
Q peak = 4.2 m3/s
Stream Flow at Doyle
Cross Bridge
(basin outlet)
Contribution to Stream
flow
Estimated soil parameters for WEHY model over
Last Chance Creek watershed (selected)Effective Rooting Rooting Rooting Rooting DepthDepthDepthDepth
Mean Saturated Hydraulic
Conductivity
Mean TotalMean TotalMean TotalMean TotalPorosityPorosityPorosityPorosity
0 - 22 - 44 - 66 - 88 - 1111 - 1313 - 1515 - 1717 - 1919 - 21
(cm/hr)
0.2 - 0.30.3 - 0.40.4 - 0.50.5 - 0.60.6 - 0.70.7 - 0.8
(cm3/cm3)
10 - 20
20 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40
40 - 50
50 - 60
(in)
Comparison of model simulated and observed runoff at Doyle Crossing
for Pre-restoration condition (Oct. 2001 - Sep.2002) and
Post-restoration condition (Oct. 2004 - Sep.2005)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
10/1
11/1
12/1
1/1
2/1
3/1
4/1
5/1
6/1
7/1
8/1
9/1
Daily average flow (cms)
Simulated
ObservedPre-restoration (2001-2002)10/1
11/1
12/1
1/1
2/1
3/1
4/1
5/1
6/1
7/1
8/1
9/1
Date (2001-02)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
10/1
11/1
12/1
1/1
2/1
3/1
4/1
5/1
6/1
7/1
8/1
9/1
Date (2004-05)
Daily average flow (cms)
Simulated
ObservedPost-restoration (2004-2005)
Comparison of model simulated and observed sediment
load at Doyle Crossing for post-restoration condition
(Oct. 2004 - Sep. 2005)
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Sediment load (kg/s)
simulated
observed
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
10/2
11/1
12/1
12/3
1
1/30 3/1
3/31
4/30
5/30
6/29
Date (2004-05)
Sediment load (kg/s)
ASSESSMENT OF RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
IN
LAST CHANCE CREEK WATERSHED
FOR TWO SCENARIOS:
1) PRE-RESTORATION CONDITION;
2) POST-RESTORATION CONDITION,
under the same atmospheric inputs
corresponding to wet water year
(Oct. 1982- Sep. 1983)
ARE
SIMULATED AND COMPARED.
Comparison of flow discharge at Doyle
Crossing between the pre-restoration and post-
restoration conditions (Oct.1982 - Sep.1983)
30.0
40.0
50.0
discharge (cms)
Pre-restoration
Post-restoration
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
10/1
10/30
11/29
12/29
1/28
2/27
3/29
4/28
5/28
6/27
7/27
8/26
9/25
Date (1982-83)
discharge (cms)
Comparison of monthly flow at Doyle Crossing
between pre-restoration and post-restoration
conditions (Oct. 1982 - Sep. 1983)
20000
25000
30000
Pre-restoration
Post-restoration
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Month
flow(acre-ft)
Assessment of restoration activities:
Monthly Flow at the Doyle Crossing (Oct.1982-Sep.1983)
32.7% reduction of flow in March (wet month) may
be expected, and
85.8% increase of flow in September (dry month)
may be expected because of the restoration.
Comparison of monthly mean groundwater storage
between the pre-restoration and post-restoration conditions
(Oct.1982 - Sep.1983)
237
238
239
Thousands
Groundwater storage (ac-ft)
Pre-restoration Post-restoration
232
233
234
235
236
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Month (1982-83)
Groundwater storage (ac-ft)
Comparison of sediment load at Doyle Crossing
between the pre-restoration and post-
restoration conditions (Oct.1982 - Sep.1983 )
30.0
35.0
40.0
sediment load (kg/s)
Pre-restoration
Post-restoration
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
10/1
10/30
11/29
12/29
1/28
2/27
3/29
4/28
5/28
6/27
7/27
8/26
9/25
Date (1982-83)
sediment load (kg/s)
Comparison of monthly sediment load at Doyle Crossing between
the pre-restoration and post-restoration conditions
(Oct.1982 - Sep.1983)
2000
2500
3000
sediment load (t/mon)
Pre-restoration
Post-restoration
0
500
1000
1500
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Month
sediment load (t/mon)
Assessment of restoration activities:
Monthly Sediment load at the Doyle Crossing (Oct.82-Sep.83)
Pre-
restoration (t)
Post-
restoration (t)
absolute
diff (t)
relative diff
(%)
Oct 0.2 0.2 0.0 -0.59
Nov 2.1 2.1 0.0 -2.02
Dec 53.7 53.0 -0.7 -1.37
Jan 85.6 73.2 -12.4 -14.45
Feb 585.3 442.0 -143.3 -24.49
Mar 2687.2 2186.4 -500.8 -18.64
17.5% reduction of annual sediment discharge may
be expected because of the restoration.
Mar 2687.2 2186.4 -500.8 -18.64
Apr 489.1 406.2 -82.9 -16.94
May 199.5 191.1 -8.4 -4.19
Jun 48.9 55.6 6.7 13.62
Jul 7.2 11.4 4.3 59.24
Aug 11.8 15.3 3.5 29.74
Sep 2.7 6.2 3.5 133.46
Annual 4173.3 3442.8 -730.5 -17.50
Conclusions
1. WEHY (Watershed Environmental Hydrology) Model has
been applied to the Last Chance Creek Watershed for the
Assessment of the Impact of Restoration Activities on the
Water Supply/Flood Control/NPS Pollutant Discharge;
2. WEHY Model demonstrated that restoration activities in Last
Chance Creek will store more water during wet periods
(reducing flood discharge) while increasing base flows during
dry periods; groundwater storage in the watershed will
increase by the restoration activities;
3. WEHY Model also demonstrated that the undertaken
restoration activities will reduce the sediment discharge
from Last Chance Creek watershed.
4. WEHY Model can be applied to any watershed in California
for the assessment of restoration activities.
Acknowledgement:
This study was funded by CALFED Watershed Program.