Using DHSVM to Study Land Cover Change and Temperature Change Effects on Streamflow in Puget Sound Drainage Lan Cuo and Dennis Lettenmaier July
Objectives 1.land cover change effects: ~100 years ago, current and 100 years later 2.Climate change effects (mainly T) Background Methodology Results Problems Future Work
Background Study Area Puget Sound Drainage Bounded by the Cascade and Olympic Mountains 41,439 sqr.km 80% land, 20% water Temperate rainforest ecosystem Western Hemlock, Douglas fir, Subalpine forest, and Alpine Medows Steep slope: mollisol-ultisol-alfisol Gentle slope: Inceptisol-mollisol-spodosal Nearly level: inceptisol-mollisol-histosol
Background Population King county had almost 18 times more population in 2000 than Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management
Skagit Stillaguamish Snohomish Cedar Green Puyallup Nisqually Deschutes Quilcene Hammahamma Dosewallips Duckabush Skokomish Dam source: Washington State Department of Ecology Background Upland basins
Methodology Model Structure DHSVM Components InterceptionEvapotranspiration Energy and radiation balance Unsaturated soil water movement Saturation excess and infiltration excess runoff Ground water recharge and discharge Snow accumulation & melt
Methodology Forcing Data 1-16 th degree Tmin, Tmax, precipitation and wind speed grids. Used 33 stations from 1927 to 2003
Mean monthly precipitation comparison between PRISM and 1-16 th grid Accumulated monthly precipitation comparison between stations, 1-8 th grid and 1-16 th grid over the Cedar Basin
Annual precipitation (mm)
Annual mean Tmax (C)
Annual mean Tmin (C)
2002 Land Cover Map in Puget Sound (Marina, 2004) Fixing problems: Filled no data values and clouds location with reference to CCAP 2000 land cover map. Supplement north and south portion with CCAP 2000 and GAP 1991 land cover map. Problems: 1. Clouds, no data values. 2. Incomplete in the north and south portion of Puget Sound
Modified Land Cover Types Land Cover TypesPercentage Dense urban (>75% impervious area)1.20 Light-mediu urban (<75% impervious area)2.23 Bare ground0.70 Dry ground1.03 Native grass0.02 Grass/crop/shrub7.36 Mixed/deciduous forest30.04 Coniferous forest32.78 Regrowth vegetation0.48 Clear cuts0.70 Snow/rock/ice6.77 Wetlands0.28 Shoreline0.09 Water16.32
Methodology Pilot Study Areas Upland Cedar Basin
Methodology Pilot Study Areas Lowland Urban basins Mill Creek Spring Brook Creek
Land coverSpringbrook creek basin (22 km 2 ) Mill creek Earthworks Park basin (6.4 km 2 ) Mill creek basin (15 km 2 ) Dense urban Ligth-medium urban Bareground Dry ground Grass/crop/shrub Mixed/deciduous forest Coniferous forest Water Land cover types and percentage in urbanized basins.
Gage (Spring brook creek) Gage (mill creek at Earthworks Park) Gage Location and Surround (Mill creek at mouth)
Results - Streamflow Calibration in Cedar Basin A.Cedar River ( ) Daily statistics: Observation Mean = 7.50 cms Simulation Mean = 7.50 cms Correlation Coefficient = 0.86 RMSE = 3.92 cms Model Efficiency = 0.67
B. Rex River ( ) Daily statistics: Observation Mean = 2.93 cms Simulation Mean = 2.48 cms Correlation Coefficient = 0.81 RMSE = 2.15 cms Model Efficiency = 0.23
C. Taylor Creek ( ) Daily Statistics: Observation Mean = 2.80 cms Simulation Mean = 2.78 cms Correlation Coefficient = 0.87 RMSE = 1.18 cms Model Efficiency = 0.73
Results – Streamflow Validation period : A.Cedar River Daily statistics: Observation Mean = 6.87 cms Simulation Mean = 6.97 cms Correlation Coefficient = 0.84 RMSE = 4.54 cms Model Efficiency = 0.60
B. Rex River Daily Statistics: Observation Mean = 2.69 cms Simulation Mean = 2.29 cms Correlation Coefficient = 0.78 RMSE = 2.42 cms Model Efficiency = 0.15
C. Taylor Creek Daily Statistics: Observation Mean = 2.63 cms Simulation Mean = 2.65 cms Correlation Coefficient = 0.85 RMSE = 1.40 cms Model Efficiency = 0.65
Urban Basin Streamflow Simulation Simulation Period: to Time step: 1 hour Mill Creek at Earthworks Park, area 2.49 sq.mile (6.4 sq.km)
Urban Basin Streamflow Simulation Mill Creek Basin area 5.63 sq.mile (14.6 sq.km)
Urban Basin Streamflow Simulation Spring brook creek basin 8.44 sq.mile (21.9 sq.km)
Green River Basin Simulation Daily Statistics: Observation Mean = cms Simulation Mean = cms Correlation Coefficient = 0.84 RMSE = 7.69 cms Model Efficiency = 0.56
Map IDCreatorPublished Year Uw001*USGS1902 Uw017*USGS1898 Uw029*USDA1910 Topo063*USGS1900 Topo064*USGS1900 Uw083USGS1898 Uw102Department of Interior1883 Uw073USGS1898 Uw072USGS1898 Uw054USGS1899 Reconstruction of Historical Land Cover Map
Map of Washington Showing Classification of Lands 1902 (USGS)
Re-construction Strategy Geo-reference land cover maps. Digitize land cover types ( 5 maps) Make a composite historical map of land cover types for timber industry Transform historical timber industry land cover types to Alberti Marina’s land cover types by using census data, DEM. Crittenden 1997; Harlow et al. 1979: Maple tree grows up to 1000 ft in B.C Canada. Timber industry land cover types Transformed land cover types Cut areas/ Timberless /Burned areas Light-medium urban (?) Grass/crop/shrub (?) Bareground (?) Dry ground (?) Clear-cuts (?) 0-100,000 feet B.M. per acre Coniferous forest (?) Mixed/deciduous forest (?)
Problems Good calibration in one basin does not guarantee good simulations in the other basins. Critical issue for urban basin is to get correct basin area. Stream channels on topo map are need to get the outline of basin.
Future Work Write a urban basin study report. Search or make lowland urban basins. Simulate streamflow in Puget Sound basins Generate historical land cover map for DHSVM Study current and historical land cover change effects Study climate change (mainly Ta) effects
Special thanks to: Matt Wiley Chunmei Bernt Alan Questions?