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……