Exacerbation of Flooding Responses Due toLand Cover/Land Use Change:
A Comparative Study*
Keith N. Eshleman1, Phil Townsend2, Todd Lookingbill1, and Mykola Zalogin3
1Appalachian Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Frostburg, MD2Department of Forest Ecology and Management, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI3ISDU, Kiev, Ukraine
*Response to NASA-NEWS 2004 RFA
Flooding on the Central Appalachian Plateau (CAP): interaction among precipitation, topography,and land use change
Outline
• Prior Research• Science Questions• Technical Approach• Progress-to-Date• On-going Activities
Surface mining and reclamation practices on the Central Appalachian Plateau (CAP)
• Most “extreme” LCLUC?• Changes in topography, soil properties and
vegetation• Quasi-permanent conversions from natural forests to
pasture (grass) land• Extensive and intensive
Land cover change in eastern U.S. ecosystems (1973-2000)
Loveland et al. (USGCRP) 2003
Prior Research
ObjectiveCompare hydrologic responses of surface mined/reclaimed lands to forested lands at multiple scales
small watershed scaleplot scaleriver basin scale
ROCA Watersheds
EBNR(104 ha)
MAT1(29 ha)
NEF1(3 ha)
Field Hydrologic Measurements
Continuous discharge from Montana flumes at NEF1 and MAT1 since 10/99
Continuous hourly precipitation from Belfort weighing gage since 12/99
Infiltration capacity measurements using double-ring infiltrometers
Annual Runoff
0.210.19
0.17
0.69
0.62
0.26 0.27
0.22
0.60 0.59
0.00
0.15
0.30
0.45
0.60
0.75
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Water Year
Ann
ual R
unof
f (m
)
TNEF
TMAT
Average annual runoff for Georges Creek at Franklin, MD(1909-present) = 0.39 m
• Similar water balances over very different hydroclimatological conditions
Mean Storm Responses+
-264CENTROID LAG, hr
0.8*0.5
(0.0-1.6)1.3
(0.0-3.6)PEAK RUNOFF,
mm hr-1
4.7*3.1
(0.0-5.1)7.8
(0.0-20.3)TOTAL RUNOFF,
mm
0.14*0.09
(0.00-0.29)0.23
(0.00-0.63)RUNOFF COEF.
DIFFERENCENEF1MAT1
++ Fifteen most intense rain-storms (April – November, 2000-2002) for which data from both sites were available
* Statistically significant difference based on one-tailed, paired t-test (p < 0.01)
Negley and Eshleman 2006
• Storm runoff response at MAT1 is, on average, 2.5 times higher than at NEF1
Negley and Eshleman 2006
• Similar unit hydrographs
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Hours
Dis
char
ge
(mm
per
mm
input)
TRIB MAT1 2000TRIB NEF1 2000TRIB MAT1 2001TRIB NEF1 2001
Plot-Scale Measurements: Infiltration Capacity
TRIB NEF-1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12Time from start of infiltration (min)
Cum
ulat
ive
dept
h of
wat
er in
filtra
ted
(mm
)
Plot 1Plot 2Plot 3
TRIB MAT-1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0 10 20 30 40 50Time from start of infiltration (min)
Cum
ulat
ive
dept
h of
wat
er in
filtra
ted
(mm
Plot 1Plot 2Plot 3
NEF1 MAT1
• Infiltration capacity at NEF1 is ~30 times greater than at MAT1
ROCA watersheds
10 km
Georges Creek
(187 km2)
Savage River
(127 km2)
Maryland
Savage River forested watersheds
1997 Land Use/Land Cover
Annual Maximum Series (1949-2002)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Savage River maximum (mm/hr)
Geo
rges
Cre
ek m
axim
um (m
m/h
r)
1996
1954
1950
1980
1986
• Long-term USGS daily data suggest higher peak floods in SR than at GC
Annual Maximum Series
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Watershed
Inst
anta
neou
s di
scha
rge
(mm
/hr)
Savage River near Barton, MDGeorges Creek at Franklin, MDWills Creek near Cumberland, MD
Annual Maximum Series
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
Year
Inst
anta
neou
s di
scha
rge
(mm
/hr)
Savage River near Barton, MDGeorges Creek at Franklin, MDWills Creek near Cumberland, MD
Direct Runoff HydrographsHurricane Fran (September 1996)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
0 12 24 36 48
Hours after 1000 EST on 9/06/1996
Hou
rly d
isch
arge
(cfs
)
Savage River near Barton, MD (total DR = 5.84 cm)
Georges Creek at Franklin, MD (total DR = 4.21 cm)
Adjusted NEXRAD Storm RainfallSeptember 6, 1996
Direct Runoff HydrographsHurricane Fran (September 1996)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
0 12 24 36 48
Hours after 1000 on 9/06/1996
Hou
rly
disc
harg
e (c
fs)
Savage River near Barton, MD (total DR = 5.84 cm)
Georges Creek at Franklin, MD (total DR = 4.21 cm)
Georges Creek near Franklin, MD* (total DR = 5.38 cm)
+
= ?
TSSR
TSNR
Science Questions
• How has LCLUC affected flooding responses in watersheds in two predominantly-forested, mountainous regions of the world?– Central Appalachian Plateau (CAP) in eastern U.S.
• Focus is on surface mining & reclamation– Carpathian Mountain (CM) region of northern
Eurasia• Focus is on deforestation
• At what scale are flooding responses affected?– Small watershed scale– River basin scale
Central Appalachian Plateau (CAP) Ecoregion
300 0 300 600 Kilometers
N
EW
S
POLAND
HUNGARY
CZECH REPUBLIC
ROMANIA
UKRAINE
SLOVAKIA
AUSTRIA
Carpathian Mountain (CM) Region
Carpathian Mountain (CM) Region:Zakarpatska Oblast in Ukraine
Technical Approach (CAP; CM similar)• Task 1. Quantify ~decadal-scale LCLUC over period 1965-present for 8
gaged river basins using various LANDSAT images (MSS, TM, ETM+) or aerial photography
– Classification requires discrimination of reclaimed mines (grasses and forests)– Rules reference digital surface mining permit data
Technical Approach (CAP; CM similar)• Task 1. Quantify ~decadal-scale LCLUC over period 1965-present for 8
gaged river basins using various LANDSAT images (MSS, TM, ETM+) or aerial photography
– Classification requires discrimination of reclaimed mines (grasses and forests)– Rules reference digital surface mining permit data
• Task 2. Compare flooding responses of 4 pairs of gageddisturbed/reference watersheds as measured by differences in storm runoff and peak discharge for paired low frequency events
– Utilize NEXRAD Stage II/IV (daily rainfall) products in interpretation
Technical Approach (CAP; CM similar)• Task 1. Quantify ~decadal-scale LCLUC over period 1965-present for 8
gaged river basins using various LANDSAT images (MSS, TM, ETM+) or aerial photography
– Classification requires discrimination of reclaimed mines (grasses and forests)– Rules reference digital surface mining permit data
• Task 2. Compare flooding responses of 4 pairs of gageddisturbed/reference watersheds as measured by differences in storm runoff and peak discharge for paired low frequency events
– Utilize NEXRAD Stage II/IV (daily rainfall) products in interpretation• Task 3. Test the ability of calibrated hydrologic models to predict
exacerbation of flooding responses attributable to LCLUC in realwatersheds
– NRCS runoff model: CN = f(LC, HSG)– HSPF (decadal-scale LCLUC implemented via “special actions”); parameter
estimation based on zero-order catchment studies/PEST – RHEESys ?
Technical Approach (CAP; CM similar)
• Task 1. Quantify ~decadal-scale LCLUC over period 1965-present for 8 gaged river basins using various LANDSAT images (MSS, TM, ETM+) or aerial photography
– Classification requires discrimination of reclaimed mines (grasses and forests)– Rules reference digital surface mining permit data
• Task 2. Compare flooding responses of 4 pairs of gageddisturbed/reference watersheds as measured by differences in storm runoff and peak discharge for paired low frequency events
– Utilize NEXRAD Stage II/IV (daily rainfall) products in interpretation• Task 3. Test the ability of calibrated hydrologic models to predict
exacerbation of flooding responses attributable to LCLUC in realwatersheds
– NRCS runoff model: CN = f(LC, HSG)– HSPF (decadal-scale LCLUC implemented via “special actions”); parameter
estimation based on zero-order catchment studies/PEST – RHEESys ?
• Task 4. Exercise the models to examine the effects of spatial scale, spatial pattern, extent, and intensity of LCLUC on flooding responses
– 25-50 years of observations and predictions for 8 basins– “Threshold” LCLUC
Progress-to-Date (CAP: 6 months)
• Obtained LANDSAT images for CAP• Obtained digital mining-permit data from WV, PA, and MD• Completed selection of 8 gaged river basins that the project will focus on
Downloaded historical USGS daily data for 8 river basins• Developed method for de-archiving NWS WSR88D (NEXRAD) Stage II/IV
daily rainfall products• Established 1 new precipitation station at TSSR• Produced a continuous record of runoff/precipitation data for 7 small
catchments in western MD (2005-present)• Preliminary calibration of WIN-HSPF for Georges Creek• PEST operational
On-going Activities
• CAP– Classifying land cover (Wisconsin)– Using intra-annual and inter-annual NDVI variations as an index of mineland
hydrologic function (Wisconsin)– De-archiving NEXRAD products (Wisconsin)– Monitoring rainfall and runoff (AL)– Comparing rainfall-runoff responses and calibrating the models (AL)– Archiving data and technology transfer (AL, Wisconsin)– Upgrading project website/data warehouse (AL): http://roca.al.umces.edu
• CM– Identifying CM collaborators/river basin datasets (ISDU, AL)– Assisting with CM digital river basin & catchment data acquisition (ISDU)– Obtaining imagery for CM river basins (ISDU)– Classifying land cover (Wisconsin, ISDU)– Comparing and modeling flooding responses (AL)
Top Related