SWAT Modeling of Priority Watershed- Phase II 2013 NPS Conference – September 19, 2013 Dharmendra Saraswat Assoc. Prof,/Ext. Engineer- Geospatial 501-681-5987 (mobile) [email protected]Naresh Pai Post-Doctoral Associate Mike Daniels Extension Water Quality and Nutrient Management Specialist Tom Riley Interim Assistant Director- CED and Director, Public Policy Center Project# 11- 900
11
Embed
SWAT Modeling of Priority Watershed- Phase II 2013 NPS Conference – September 19, 2013 Dharmendra Saraswat Assoc. Prof,/Ext. Engineer- Geospatial 501-681-5987.
B ACKGROUND Phase II (2011 – 2013) SWAT Modeling Project 12-digit HUC Prioritization NPS Conference – September 19, 2013
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Qualitative comparison with AWRC data (monthly data from Oct 2011-Sept 2012 and then storm samples through March 2013)
Uncertainty analysis
Subwatershed prioritization*White et al., 2012
2013 NPS Conference – September 19, 2013
PRIORITIZATION RESULTSPoteau
2013 NPS Conference – September 19, 2013
Critical source area analysis (CSA) suggested that merely 5% of the watershed area was responsible for 26%, and 34% of the sediment and TP overland loads, respectively. In contrast, the nitrate loading was relatively uniform in this watershed.
UNCERTAINTYPoteau
2013 NPS Conference – September 19, 2013
Results suggest that 55% of observed data at Cauthron and 49% of observed
data at Hackett, respectively was found within 95% confidence interval of the
best simulations as shown by the 95PPU plot.
SWAT model uncertainty band (i.e. 95PPU, shown in green) at Cauthron and its comparison with the observed (shown in blue) and best simulated (shown in red) data.
SWAT model uncertainty band (i.e. 95PPU, shown in green) at Hackett and its comparison with the observed (shown in blue) and best simulated (shown in red) data.
PRIORITIZATION RESULTSStrawberry
2013 NPS Conference – September 19, 2013
Critical source area analysis (CSA) suggested that merely 5% of the watershed area was responsible for 85%, 22%, and 16% of sediment, TP, and NO3-N loads, respectively.
PRIORITIZATION RESULTSUpper Saline
2013 NPS Conference – September 19, 2013
Critical source area (CSA)
analysis indicated that merely 5% of
the watershed area was responsible
for 28%, and 13% of the sediment
and TP overland loads, respectively.
In contrast, the nitrate loading was
relatively uniform in this watershed.
COMPARISON WITH MONITORING DATA
2013 NPS Conference – September 19, 2013
Source: Massey et al., 2013
Overall Summary
1)the load comparisons were favorable across all three watersheds;
2)The mean concentration comparison during base flow conditions at the selected HUC 12 level showed relations in the ranks of the sites within the Poteau and Upper Saline Watersheds for NO3-N and TP, but not TSS. The monitoring data and SWAT output were not related at the Strawberry Watershed.
3)These results increase our confidence in the subwatershed prioritization by SWAT model for the Poteau and Upper Saline Watersheds, but not necessarily for the Strawberry Watershed.