Lower Cedar River Watershed Lower Cedar River Watershed Characterization Characterization Jeff Burkey – KC DNRP November 2006
Lower Cedar River Watershed Lower Cedar River Watershed CharacterizationCharacterization
Jeff Burkey – KC DNRP
November 2006
Model DevelopmentModel Development
• 14 HSPF Models (1 mainstem, 13 subbasins)
• 83 Catchments
• Available Local Precipitation and Stream Flow Monitoring Stations
Calibration ChallengesCalibration Challenges
•• Representative PrecipitationRepresentative Precipitation
•• Assumed Land Cover Characteristics Assumed Land Cover Characteristics of Land Use (e.g. EIA)of Land Use (e.g. EIA)
•• Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Interpretations (e.g. Interpretations (e.g. LandSatLandSat--TM)TM)
•• SubSub--surface Intersurface Inter--basin transfers (i.e. basin transfers (i.e. Groundwater flow directions)Groundwater flow directions)
•• Heterogeneity of Hydrologic Heterogeneity of Hydrologic Response Units (Response Units (HRUsHRUs) and in) and in--line line storagesstorages
Local Inflow Model CalibrationsLocal Inflow Model CalibrationsMaplewood Creek Calibration
10/1994 4/1995 10/1995 4/1996 10/1996 4/1997
Flow
rate
(cfs
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Maplewood Creek Daily Mean(WY 1995 - 1997)
31B Gauge (cfs)
0 20 40 60
Sim
ulat
ed (c
fs)
0
20
40
60
Molasses Creek (Fairwood)
10/1990 12/1990 2/1991 4/1991 6/1991 8/1991
Flow
rate
(cfs
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
31CSimulated
Molasses Creek (WY 1991)
31C (cfs)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Sim
ulat
ed (c
fs)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Nothing is perfect
1 : 1 Reference
Line
More Model CalibrationsMore Model CalibrationsPeterson Creek (Wy 1996 - 2000)
1/1996 1/1997 1/1998 1/1999 1/2000
Flow
rate
(cfs
)
0
50
100
150
200
31GSimulated
Cedar River Mainstem (USGS 12119000)
93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00
Flow
rate
(cfs
)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
USGS 9000Simulated
Cedar River Mainstem (USGS 12119000)
12119000 (cfs)0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Sim
ulat
ed (c
fs)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Peterson Creek (Wy 1996 - 2000)
31G (cfs)0 100 200 300
Sim
ulat
ed (c
fs)
0
100
200
300
Almost Perfect!!!
An Anomalous CalibrationAn Anomalous Calibration
Rock Creek Calibration (Revision 4)Daily Mean Flow Rates
Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr
Flow
rate
(cfs
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
31IRev 4
Rock Creek Calibration (Revision 1) Daily Mean Flow Rate
Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr
Flow
rate
(cfs
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
31IRev 1
Rock Creek Calibration (Revision 4)Daily Maximum Flow Rates
Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr
Y D
ata
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
31ISim Max (Rev 4)
Rock Creek Calibration (Revision 1) Daily Max Flow Rate
Oct Apr Oct Apr Oct Apr
Max
Dai
ly F
low
Rat
e (c
fs)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
31IRev 1
•• 4 sq. miles of 4 sq. miles of Outwash Active GW Outwash Active GW InterInter--basin transferbasin transfer
•• Majority of land cover Majority of land cover underlain by till underlain by till routed into outwashrouted into outwash
•• Lower EIALower EIA
Upstream Boundary ConditionsUpstream Boundary Conditions
Average Monthly Diversion at Landsburg based on Differential betweenUSGS 12117500 (above) and USGS 12117600 (below)
Monthly Average
Janu
aryFeb
ruary
March
April
May
June Ju
ly
Augus
tSep
tembe
rOcto
ber
Novem
ber
Decem
ber
Rat
io (1
- Ab
ove
/ Bel
ow)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
•• 2.8 river miles between 12117500 and 2.8 river miles between 12117500 and 1211760012117600
•• USGS 12117600 (Started 1991)USGS 12117600 (Started 1991)
•• USGS 12117500 USGS 12117500 (since before 1901)(since before 1901)
•• Assumed Diversion for Period of Assumed Diversion for Period of Record based on inRecord based on in--stream Flow stream Flow records from 1991 records from 1991 –– CurrentCurrent
Model Resolution Does Not Account for:Model Resolution Does Not Account for:•• Less Population (less demand)Less Population (less demand)•• Evolution of conservation measuresEvolution of conservation measures•• Others (gauge accuracies, Pre/Post Others (gauge accuracies, Pre/Post
Implementation of HCP, etc.)Implementation of HCP, etc.)
Cedar River Cedar River MainstemMainstem TravelTravel--TimeTime
Cedar River Low Flow Travel Time Analysis
Time (15-minute increments)Sat 07 Sun 08 Mon 09
Mea
n 15
-min
Flo
wra
te (c
fs)
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
76009000
7-hrs lag at lower flow rates
What ifWhat if……
Changes in Landscape OccurredChanges in Landscape Occurred
Land Use / Land Cover
A long time ago
Year 1995
Future
GIS Model Integration to HSPFGIS Model Integration to HSPF
LCCM &
Modeling Languages
UrbanSim (Java Python)
LCCM (Python)
KC GIS Model Integration(Python, .NET, ArcGIS)
HRUs in HSPF Syntax
Draft Land Cover Change ScenariosDraft Land Cover Change Scenarios
• Forested “Historical”
• 1995 Conditions “Current”
• Full Build-out “Future”
• Full Build-out 65% Forest Retention “CAO”
• Summarized Difference between 1995 and Future
Generalized Distribution of Land Generalized Distribution of Land Cover Between ScenariosCover Between Scenarios
Cedar River Watershed Land Cover Distribution per Scenario
ScenarioForest Current CAO Future
Frac
tion
of W
ater
shed
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
ForestOtherGrass
Types Model Simulations & ResultsTypes Model Simulations & Results
•• Flood Frequency AnalysesFlood Frequency Analyses•• Index of Hydrologic Alterations Index of Hydrologic Alterations
(aka KC (aka KC –– Normative Flow)Normative Flow)•• Pollutant Loadings Pollutant Loadings
(point & non(point & non--Point sources)Point sources)•• Climate Change PossibilitiesClimate Change Possibilities•• Consumptive UsesConsumptive Uses•• Etc.Etc.
Effects on Flood PeaksEffects on Flood Peaks
EFFECT OF FOREST LOSS ON FLOOD PEAKS IN CEDAR RIVER SUBBASINS
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%PERCENT OF FOREST LAND CONVERTED BY 1992
PE
RC
EN
T IN
CR
EA
SE
IN F
LOO
D P
EA
K
DORORT
GIN
FAI
MA
CHI
CGRTAYWEPET
ROC
WA
MA
From: Cedar River CFC Report
NFP (Metric #40)NFP (Metric #40)Cedar River Cedar River MainstemMainstem
High Pulse CountsHigh Pulse CountsUnder Future unmitigated Conditions, on average 2.3 more High Pulse Counts per year
Fully Forested
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Ann
ual N
umbe
r of P
ulse
s
02468
10121416
1995 Conditions
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
02468
10121416
CAO (Future with 65% Forest Retention)
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
02468
10121416
Future unmitigated
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
02468
10121416
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Ann
ual D
iffer
ence
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Ann
ual D
iffer
ence
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Ann
ual D
iffer
ence
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Cum
ulat
ive
Diff
eren
ce
020406080
100120140
CurrentCAOFuture
NFP (Metric #40)NFP (Metric #40)SubbasinsSubbasins: Jones, Peterson, Taylor: Jones, Peterson, Taylor
High Pulse CountsHigh Pulse Counts
Jones Rd Forest
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
05
1015202530
Jones Rd Current
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
05
1015202530
Peterson Forest
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
02468
1012141618 Peterson Current
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
02468
1012141618
Cumulative Difference
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
0200400600800
100012001400
Cumulative Difference
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
0
50
100
150
200
250
Taylor Forest
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100
5
10
15
20
25Taylor Current
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100
5
10
15
20
25Cumulative Difference
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
0
100
200
300
400
500
CAO & Future nearly the same
Forested CurrentCurrent, CAO,
Future
Natural Storage > 5.0 inches in subbasin
NFP (Metric = 40)NFP (Metric = 40)SubbasinSubbasin: Rock Creek: Rock Creek
High Pulse CountsHigh Pulse CountsFully Forested
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Ann
ual N
umbe
r of P
ulse
s
0
5
10
15
20
25
1995 Conditions
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
0
5
10
15
20
25
CAO (Future with 65% Forest Retention)
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
0
5
10
15
20
25
Future unmitigated
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
0
5
10
15
20
25
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Ann
ual D
iffer
ence
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Ann
ual D
iffer
ence
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Ann
ual D
iffer
ence
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Cum
ulat
ive
Diff
eren
ce
-100
0
100
200
300
400
CurrentCAOFuture
Current Conditions hydrology very similar to Forested Conditions
Forested Condition is w/o
Kent Diversion (~ 6.2 cfs)
Absolute Change in High Pulse Counts per water year, by scenario
Additional Modeling Parameters Additional Modeling Parameters measuring environmental changemeasuring environmental change
Riparian Vegetation, Shade / Water Temp.
Pollutant: Metals
Pollutant: Bacteria
Pollutant: Nutrients
So how much environmental So how much environmental alterations have occurred and alterations have occurred and
possibly will occur? possibly will occur?
To be continuedTo be continued……