Simulating hydrologic and biologic response to land use and climate change

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Simulating hydrologic and biologic response to land use and climate change"

Jonathan Fisher
5 years ago
Views:

Simulating hydrologic and biologic response to land use and climate change Trout Lake Black Earth Randy Hunt, John Walker, Jeff Steuer (and Steve

gov/tm/tm6d1/ GSFLOW Coupled Ground-Water and SurfaceWater Flow Model based on the Integration of the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) and

1 Simulating hydrologic and biologic response to land use and climate change Trout Lake Black Earth Randy Hunt, John Walker, Jeff Steuer (and Steve Westenbroek) USGS WRD, Middleton, WI Coupled ground water / surface water model USGS OGW; publication date: Feb 29, GSFLOW Coupled Ground-Water and SurfaceWater Flow Model based on the Integration of the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) and the Modular Ground-Water Flow Model (MODFLOW-2005) By Steven L. Markstrom, Richard G. Niswonger, R. Steven Regan, David E. Prudic, and Paul M. Barlow Chapter 1 of 1

2 Linking PRMS to MODFLOW Precipitation is partitioned between evapotranspiration, runoff, infiltration, and storage by balancing daily energy and mass budgets of the snowpack, soil zone, and unsaturated zone. Instead of applying recharge, ET, and runoff, as boundary conditions input into the model, they are simulated. Why would you do this to yourself? Cons Different temporal scales Different discretization paradigms Different observation and parameter issues More complexity Runtimes are much longer Pros GCM outputs are temp and precip, they aren t recharge arrays and gw sink coefficients Land-use questions can involve both sw and gw The world is coupled, you re fooling yourself by not doing it A litmus test for our understanding (or, no place to hide) 2

Wisconsin snowpack Concept: Hydrologic Memory Same parameter set different result

3 Part I: Coupled Groundwater/Surfacewater Models and Climate Change USGS Trout Lake Water, Energy, and Biogeochemical Budgets (TL-WEBB) Site Vilas County Wisconsin snowpack Concept: Hydrologic Memory Same parameter set different result based on spin up length! Seepage lake stage Early time (11 yr spin up) Late time (7 yrs) 3

Surface water and Groundwater models of the USGS Trout Lake Water, Energy, and Biogeochemical Budgets (TL-WEBB) Site PRMS HRU map streamflows heads MODFLOW model Stevenson Ck Trout

30 LAK lakes 20 SFR stream segments 230 rows x 240 columns Top Elevation (UZ range = 0 to 50 m) 6 layers, 220800 nodes Inset from regional analytic element model Stevenson Creek

4 Surface water and Groundwater models of the USGS Trout Lake Water, Energy, and Biogeochemical Budgets (TL-WEBB) Site PRMS HRU map streamflows heads MODFLOW model Stevenson Ck Trout Lake Trout Lake N lakes km 142 Hydrologic Response Units Glaciated outwash area with immature drainage Dense lake district Low topographic relief Strong gw-sw interaction 30 LAK lakes 20 SFR stream segments 230 rows x 240 columns Top Elevation (UZ range = 0 to 50 m) 6 layers, nodes Inset from regional analytic element model Stevenson Creek GSFLOW Model (northern WI) 16,000 streamflow (cubic m per day) 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 Basecase +4.4 degrees C 0 7/27/05 8/10/05 8/24/05 9/7/05 9/21/05 Date dry 4

There are very few studies that have linked the abiotic effects that hydrologists know well to the ecological community that the public holds dear.

5 There are very few studies that have linked the abiotic effects that hydrologists know well to the ecological community that the public holds dear. Without understanding the ecohydrology, we will never truly answer these important societal questions. Ground Water 41(3):289 Macroinvertebrate abundance (individuals per sample) North 200 (WGD) Stevenson 150 (GR) Low pulse frequency, counts Hydrograph shape metric Allequash (HGD) Trout Lake Abundance (individuals per sample) e.g., Olden and Poff (2003) basecase 300 N +4.4 deg C Modified from Hunt, R.J., Strand, M., and Walker, J.F., 2006, Measuring groundwatersurface water interaction and its effect on wetland stream benthic productivity, Trout Lake watershed, northern Wisconsin, USA. Journal of Hydrology 320(3-4): Allequash (HGD) North (WGD) Stevenson (GR) Kilometers 5

II: Coupled Groundwater/Surface-water Models and Land-use Change (biofuels) Black Earth

6 Part II: Coupled Groundwater/Surface-water Models and Land-use Change (urbanization) No change in climate driver Hunt and Steuer (2001) Because we have sw and a gw model Part II: Coupled Groundwater/Surface-water Models and Land-use Change (biofuels) Black Earth Creek GSFLOW Model BEC GW model extent Dane County GW regional model extent Pumping well 6

7 flood BEC surface-watershed Bla ck Ea rth C ree k Dane County line baseflow Why are these areas in model domain?! BEC groundwater contributing area What are some potential outcomes of increases in biofuel production? An increase in demand for fuel stocks (e.g., corn, switchgrass) Higher prices Economic payments from fallow land programs (e.g., CRP) less lucrative Active Ag 10 to 20 times lower than CRP Interest in conversion of CRP back to crops Steuer and Hunt (2001) 7

median daily flow) Mean high flow events per year Flood size (75 th percentile) In an area already

8 Mazomanie flood Cross Plains Black Earth Ck Middleton (urban) urban area of Hunt and Steuer (2001) Return of the Shape Metrics, this time flood related (Olden and Poff 2003) Flood size (3X and 7X median daily flow) Mean high flow events per year Flood size (75 th percentile) In an area already troubled with flooding, potential to: Increase the amount of flood size, and increase the times per year it occurs 8

9 Hypothetical Ethanol Plant well 535 gpm from stream from other muni well baseflow Black Earth Cr Double whammy? Ethanol Plant nr population center/trout water Q = 675 gpm (1 million gal/day) from Upper Aquifer 332 gpm muni well from stream from other baseflow Black Earth Cr Ethanol Plant near population center and trout water Q = 1 million gal/day from Upper+Lower Aquifer 9

Hypothetical Ethanol Plant well flooding Ethanol Plant downstream farther from population center but farther from trout water Q = 1 million gal/day from Upper Aquifer The Upshot #1 Focusing on right

10 Hypothetical Ethanol Plant well flooding Ethanol Plant downstream farther from population center but farther from trout water Q = 1 million gal/day from Upper Aquifer The Upshot #1 Focusing on right tool for the right job GCMs put out precip and temp, if not this what? Skepticism: gw models reporting sw impacts and sw models doing gw impacts (need coupled model) Climate change can be expected to influence hydroecology Land use change can also be expected to influence hydroecology, especially when all impacts included 10

11 The Upshot #2 Where/how water use occurs can mitigate impact Withdrawals form a new basement for water levels and flows (regardless of natural variability) But we have potential to influence what the resulting basement is because it is possible to distribute/ spread adverse effects of withdrawals One possible hopeful view for the future: with planning the footprint of biofuels production on water resources can be reduced 11

12 Runtime Trauma! steady-state = seconds to run Follow Sequence of Figure 10 Follow Sequence of Figure 5 MO DF L O W- only PRMS- only Integrated simulation Run GSFLOW transient = seconds to run Declare and Initialize (step 1) Fully coupled: Trout Lake = 7-14 hrs for 15-yr simulation Allocate and Read (step 2) Daily Time L oop (step 3) Check for New Stress Read and Prepare (step 4) Black Earth Creek = 2 days for 22-yr simulation Time- step loop Run Steady State (step 4) PRMS Land Surface (step 5) Iteration Loop (step 6) PRMS Soil Moisture (step 7) not so good for lots of parameters Iteration Loop Add flows from PRMS to MODF LOW (step 8) MODF LOW formulate (steps 9 and 10) Add flows from MODFLOW to P R MS (s tep 11) Check for convergence (step 12) PRMS and MODFLOW budget (step 13) Output Clean and deallocate (step 15) 12

13 macroinvertebrate abundance 450 # of individuals 400 x ± 1SE 350 North 300 (WGD) 250 Stevenson 200 (GR) Allequash 50 0 HGD site WGD site GR site (HGD) Trout Lake macroinvertebrate richness # of taxa per sample N x ± 1SE Hunt, R.J., Strand, M., and Walker, J.F., 2006, Measuring groundwater-surface water interaction and its effect on wetland stream benthic productivity, Trout Lake watershed, northern Wisconsin, USA. Journal of Hydrology 320(3-4): Kilometers HGD site WGD site GR site 13

USGS Watershed Model Evolution RRM(1972) to GSFLOW(2012) George Leavesley, USGS Retired and Steve Markstrom, USGS, Denver

USGS Watershed Model Evolution RRM(1972) to GSFLOW(2012) George Leavesley, USGS Retired and Steve Markstrom, USGS, Denver Model Evolution MMS GSFLOW Time DR3M RRM PRMS Mountain Watershed Model MODFLOW