Overview:
What is wrong with simple statistical regressions of hydrologic response on impervious area?
Toward a more complete understanding of normal flows.
Distributed Hydrological Modeling
Example from applications of Distributed Hydrological Modeling at UW
Changes in impervious area.
Changes in forest cover.
Global Climate Change.
Percent Impervious Area0 100%
0
1R
unof
f C
oeff
icie
nt
Typical Representation of Effect of Impervious Area on Runoff Coefficient
What we really want to know is:
What is the change from normal?
Previous graph is 100% correct for dry initial conditions.
What if it has just rained nonstop for five days . . .Well that never happens around here?
Percent Impervious Area0 1
0
1R
unof
f C
oeff
icie
nt
Representation of Effect of Impervious Area on Runoff Coefficient for extremely wet initial conditions
Therefore, normal response depends:
Static Variables:Land CoverImpervious Area, etc
Dynamic Variables:Soil MoisturePrecipitation IntensityStorm Duration, etc.
Numerous Studies have shown decreased effects of land use Change as antecedent conditions become wetter.
Our task is to build a predictive model of what is normal…And that can’t be done without considering interaction of meteorology with land cover changes
• Terrain - 150 m. aggregated from 10 m. resolution DEM
• Land Cover - 19 classes aggregated from over 200 GAP classes
• Soils - 3 layers aggregated from 13 layers (31 different classes); variable soil depth from 1-3 meters
• Stream Network - based on 0.25 km2
source area
Land surface characterization required by DHSVM
Calibration Location (Snoqualmie)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
20-Nov 4-Dec 18-Dec 1-Jan 15-Jan 29-Jan 12-Feb
Testing: Cedar
•Calibration to two USGS sites•Split sample validation at over 60 sites•Parameters transfer extremely well to other watersheds without recalibration
Application of DHSVM to lower Cedar River Watershed to assess impacts of changes in impervious area on basin hydrology
Fraction Impervious Area (1998)
100 %
75 %
50 %
25 %
0 %
Taylor Creek (14 km2) 5% imperv.
Madsen Creek (5.4 km2) 20% imperv.
DHSVM Calibration to determine baseline parameters.Taylor Creek (5% impervious area)
Feb 1991 Mar 1991 Apr 1991 May 1991
CF
S
Test of Impervious Area Representation (no re-calibration) Madsen Creek (20% impervious area)
4/1/91 4/4/91 4/7/91 4/10/91
CF
S0
2
0
40
6
0
80
1
00
120
cfs
4/5/1991 4/15/1991 4/20/1991
Old Growth Forest: 58 cfs peak, 2.3 inches total runoff
100 % increase in peak
1991 Land Cover (20 % imperv.): 115 cfs peak, 3.2 inches total runoff
Observed (1991): 120 cfs peak, 3.6 inches total runoff
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 0
Flow Duration Curves for Madsen Creek:
Red is 1991 LandCover, Blue is historic Land Cover (Based on
Continuous simulation from Oct 1 1988 to Sept 30 1996)
Percent of Time Flow is exceeded
5 4 3 2 1100 80 60 40 20
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Percent Increase in Peak Streamflow for Madsen Creek: (Based
on Continuous simulation from Oct 1 1988 to Sept 30 1996 and
comparison between 1991 landcover and historic landcover)
Historic Peak Streamflow
Predicted Change in Mean Monthly Temperature due to Increased Carbon Dioxide Levels (Mean of 4 GCM’s)
Tem
pera
ture
Inc
reas
e (d
egre
es C
)
2020’s (w.r.t mid 20th century climate)2040’s (w.r.t mid 20th century climate)
2020’s Mean Winter Increase = 1.6 C
2040’s Mean Winter Increase = 2.4 C
Methodology for Assessing Impacts of Climate Change onWatershed hydrologyObserved
MeteorologyAt Stations in and near
Target Watershed
Synthetic “Observed” Record:
Talt=Tobs + Delta TPalt = Pobs*(Delta P)
Change In Temperature
Change in Precipitation
DHSVM
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
SWE
Reservoir Inflow
Sno
w W
ater
Equ
ival
ent (
mm
)Cedar River Watershed:
Retrospective Analysis of Average Snow Water Equivalent Under Current and Altered Climates
Current20252045
Drought
Current Low YearBecomes . . .2025/2045 Best Case
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Effect of Climate Change on Mean Monthly Inflow (1988 to 1996) to Cedar Reservoir
Month
Mon
thly
Inf
low
(m
eter
s)
Higher Winter Flows: Increased PrecipitationHigher Freezing Level -> More Rain
126,000 acre-ft 90,000 acre-ft 78,000 acre-ft
Snowmelt
Current20252045
Urban / SuburbanGrass / Crop / ShrubDeciduous ForestDouglas-Fir / HemlockHarvestedRock / Ice CapWater
Basins for which streamflow was simulated for each vegetation scenario. GAP, 1991 is based on a 1991 LandSat image. Band Harvest has a total clear-cut area identical to GAP, 1991 but concentrated in the transient snow zone (700-900 m). The control simulation is the historic vegetation coverage (based on GAP with all clear-cuts regrown).
GAP, 1991
Band harvestHistoric Vegetation
01020304050
10
02/4/96 2/5/96 2/6/96 2/7/96 2/8/96 2/9/96 2/10/96
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2/4/96 2/5/96 2/6/96 2/7/96 2/8/96 2/9/96 2/10/96
HistoricGap 1991Band HarvestComplete Harvest
Flood Stage (560 cms)
87 %26 %10 %
11 %4 %2 %
Hourly Precipitation (mm)
Low elevation(<300 m) snow (mm SWE)
Historic VegetationComplete Harvest
Effect of forest canopy removal, Snoqualmie River at Snoqualmie Falls, February 1996 event