Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
CPASW March 23, 2006
Incorporating Climate Variability Uncertainty in Water Resources Planning
for the Upper Santa Cruz River.
Eylon Shamir
Hydrologic Research Center12780 High Bluff Drive suite 250
San Diego, CA 92130Tel: (858) 794 2726
www.hrc-web.org
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Project Researchers: Konstantine Georgakakos, HRC Director Eylon Shamir, HRC Nicholas Graham, HRC Jianzhong Wang, HRC David Meko, The Tree-Ring Research Laboratory, The University of
Arizona
In cooperation with Arizona Department of Water Resources: Frank Corkhill, Alejandro Barcenas, Frank Putman, Gretchen Erwin and
Keith Nelson.
Sponsored by,
Arizona Department of Water Resources Contract No. 2005-2568
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Mexico
U.S
Santa Cruz River
Santa Cruz R
iver
Precipitation and Streamflow gaugesNogales
Tucson
Mexico
Santa Cruz Headwater
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
The Study Objectives
Develop a modeling system that produces likely future streamflow scenarios at the Nogales USGS Gauge site.
Integrate the future streamflow scenarios with a groundwater model
Evaluate the future streamflow – groundwater response in various schemes of water consumptions.
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Zoom into the study area
Data
Analysis Area
Area of Interest
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Landscape
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Trends in summer (Jul-Aug) flow
Rain
Flow
Rain
Flow
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000
5
10
15
YearsC
ount
of E
vent
s
NogalesLaveenTucsonLochiel
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Years
Nor
mal
ized
tota
l sum
mer
flow
Num
ber
of E
vent
sN
orm
aliz
ed T
otal
Su
mm
er F
low
Pool and Coes (1999) found similar trend in Charleston gauge –San Pedro
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Variability in Monthly Flow
0 200 400 600 800 10000
2000
4000Monthly volume (106 ft3)
0 200 400 600 800 10000
10
20Box-Cox transformed
0 200 400 600 800 1000-5
0
5Seasonal standardization of the Box-Cox transformed
Months (Jan 1936 -Sep 2003)0 200 400 600 800 1000
-2
-1
0
1
2
Mea
n
Mean of the moving average 24 month
0 200 400 600 800 10000
0.5
1
1.5
2
S.D
Linear fit of the S.D of the moving average 24 month
• Change in monthly flow variability since the 1970s
Average monthly flow as a function of time
Variability of monthly flow as a function of time
1936 Years 2003
0 1000 2000 30000
200
400
600
800(a) Monthly flow
Cou
nts
-4 -2 0 2 40
20
40
60
80(b)Transformed and standardized
-4 -2 0 2 40
20
40
60
80(c) Normal distribution
Cou
nts
-4 -2 0 2 40
20
40
60
80 (d) Conditional normal distribution
0 1000 2000 30000
200
400
600
800(a) Monthly flow
Cou
nts
-4 -2 0 2 40
20
40
60
80(b)Transformed and standardized
-4 -2 0 2 40
20
40
60
80(c) Normal distribution
Cou
nts
-4 -2 0 2 40
20
40
60
80 (d) Conditional normal distribution
Histograms
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Nogales precipitation Vs. climatic indices
Correlations with Nogales precipitation (1915-2000).NINO3 PDO ARIZ.
DIV. 7
WINTER 0.53 0.27 0.94
DRY 0.11 0.22 0.70
SUMMER -0.06 0.09 0.53
OCTOBER -0.03 -0.09 0.87
• Only the winter flow in Nogales is correlated with El–Niño
Prec
ipita
tion
(inch
es)
Nino SST Anomaly (°C)
Nogales Annual Precipitation Vs. NINO3 SST Anomaly (1915-2000)
R=0.53
Climate Divisions
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Simulation of Precipitation Vs. Streamflow
Precipitation (Pros) Better linked to climatic forcing and global circulation Less affected by geomorphological changes and human
activity in regional scale. Independent of the basin antecedent condition
Precipitation (Cons) Point measurement rather than areal measurement that
contributes to the flow. Requires a model to transform into streamflow
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
0 50 100 150 200 250
0.1
0.2
Inch
es
Winter 1969 (Hours)
0 50 100 150 200 250
0.5
1
1.5
Inch
es
Summer 1969 (Hours)
Winter Hourly Precipitation (Dec 68- Feb 69)
Summer Hourly Precipitation (Jul 69- Aug 69)
Precipitation events
Precipitation clusters
Clusters inter-arrival time
0 50 100 150 200 250
0.1
0.2
Inch
es
Winter 1969 (Hours)
0 50 100 150 200 250
0.5
1
1.5
Inch
es
Summer 1969 (Hours)
Stochastic Precipitation model components
Winter
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Daily streamflow transformation model for the basin outlet
Groundwater storage changes in the downstream aquifers
Long term risk assessment for a variety of management schemes
Stochastic hourly precipitation over the basin drainage area
Daily streamflow transformation model for the basin outlet
Groundwater storage changes in the downstream aquifers
Long term risk assessment for a variety of management schemes
Stochastic hourly precipitation over the basin drainage area
The Modeling Scheme The Modeling Scheme
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
0
300
600
900
1 6 11 16 21
0
300
600
900
1 6 11 16 21
Days
Dis
char
ge (c
fs)
Winter (1/4/95)
Summer (8/27/99)
Nogales Daily Precipitation 1980
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 366
1980 (Days)
Prec
ipita
tion
(mm
)
Winter
Summer
Summer and winter properties
Model of the watershed
• The model should maintain the special characteristics of the seasons
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Total Seasonal Flow Seasonal division:Winter: November-MarchSpring: April–JuneSummer: July-SeptemberFall: October
0 20 40 60 800
1
2
3x 10
4 Summer
Tota
l sea
son
(cub
ic3 )
0 20 40 60 800
2
4
6x 10
4 Winter
0 20 40 60 800
1
2
3x 10
4 Fall
Tota
l sea
son
( fee
t3 )
Years0 20 40 60 80
0
1000
2000
3000Spring
Years
Tota
l Sea
sona
l Flo
w (f
t3 )
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
0 50 1000
20
40
60(a) Summer
SimulatedObserved
0 50 1000
20
40
60(d) Spring
0 50 1000
20
40
60(b) Winter
0 50 1000
20
40
60(b) Fall
0 20 40 60 80 100500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Percentiles
Box
-Cox
Tra
nsfo
rmed
(ft3 )
Evaluation of the simulated streamflow
0 50 1000
1000
2000
3000(a) Summer
ObservedSimulated
0 50 1000
1000
2000
3000(b) Winter
0 50 1000
1000
2000
3000(c) Fall
Percentiles
T
rans
form
ed S
easo
nal v
olum
es
0 50 1000
500
1000
1500(d) Spring
Annual
Daily Seasonal
Percentiles
Tran
sfor
med
Box
-Cox
Dai
ly F
low
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Precipitation estimates from tree-rings
Current record
Reconstructed by, David Meko, The Tree-Ring Research Laboratory, The University of Arizona
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Winter flow categories
Precipitations quartiles of the tree rings
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Wet 0 0 0 0.625
Medium 0.5 0.69 0.75 0.375
Dry 0.5 0.31 0.25 0
Streamflow scenarios forced by the tree-ring reconstructed precipitations
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Highw
ay 82
ArizonaMexico
International Wastewater Treatment Plant
Precipitation gauge
Precipitation gauge
Streamflowgauge
Potrero creek Santa Cruz River
Well 1
Well 2
Well 3
Well 4Well 5
Well 6Well 7
Well 8
Well 9
Wells# MicrobasinsBuena Vista
Guevavi
Highway 82
Kino Springs
Elevation (m)
1000 - 1100
1100 - 1200
1200 - 1300
1300 - 1400
1400 - 1500
1500 - 2300
No Data
Elevation (m)
Groundwater Microbasins
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
0.51
Buena Vista
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
0.51
Kino Springs
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
0.51
Hy 82
Rel
ativ
e Fi
lling
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
0.51
Guevavi
Months10/97 9/02
Red –AZDWR MODFLOW MODELBlue- HRC Simplified model
Groundwater Model Development
Q1
I1 Q2 = Q1-I1Santa Cruz River
ET1
P1
Buena Vista(2740 ac/ft)
Kino Springs(4020 ac/ft)
Highway 82(5910 ac/ft)
Guevavi7950 (ac/ft)
Q1
I1 Q2 = Q1-I1Santa Cruz River
ET1ET1
P1
Buena Vista(2740 ac/ft)
Kino Springs(4020 ac/ft)
Highway 82(5910 ac/ft)
Guevavi7950 (ac/ft)
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
0 500 1000 1500 20000
1020
Buena Vista
0 500 1000 1500 20000
50100
Kino Springs
0 500 1000 1500 20000
50100
Hy 82
Dep
th to
Wat
er (f
t)
0 500 1000 1500 20000
50Guevavi
10/97 9/02Days
Model Comparison with index-wells
Point to area
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
How can the model output be used?
Time
Flow
Ensemble of possible scenarios
Threshold
Water consumption
Well
Groundwater Storage
Chance to drop bellow the t-hold
Aquifer
Risk Analysis
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Various water consumption scenarios
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Ensemble with 100 realizations
Ensemble with 1000 realizations
Consecutive monthly stress
Consecutive Months Below 50%
Consecutive Months Below 50%
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
0 20 400
0.5
1Buena Vista
0 20 400
0.5
1Kino Springs
0 20 400
0.5
1Hy 82
Pumpage (% of reservoir capacity)
Fra
ctio
n of
tim
e be
low
thre
shol
d
0 20 400
0.5
1Guevavi
Risk Assessment Using Tree Ring Winter Precipitation Estimate
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Future Challenges
The use of risk analysis as exemplified in this work in collaboration with regional officials and agencies to establish policy regarding regional development.
Incorporation of climate change scenarios to possibly improve the generation of future streamflow ensembles.
Application in other semi-arid or arid regions
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
http://www.hrc-lab.org/projects/dsp_projectSubPage.php?subpage=santacruz
Project Report:
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Precipitation EvaluationPrecipitation Evaluation
Medium Summer
Red –Observed Blue -Simulated
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Nogales Gauge
Nogales gauge hydrograph
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
1935
1937
1939
1941
1943
1945
1947
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1997
1999
2001
2003
Days
Mea
n da
ily fl
ow (c
fs)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 4 6 9 12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9 12 3 6 9 12
Month (1998-2002)
Dis
char
ge (c
fs)
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
0 2 4 6 8 100
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Days
CV
SummerWinterFallSpring
Minimum Cluster Inter-Arrival Time
Coe
ffici
ent o
f Var
iatio
n of
Inte
r Arr
ival
Per
iod
Restrepo-Posada and Eagleson (1982)
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
0 20 400
2000
4000
cfs
days0 20 40
0
20
40Jan 1979 Total Precipitation
0 20 400
100
200
cfs
days5 10 15 20
0
20
40Jan 1991 Total Precipitation
Cou
nt
5 10 15 200
20
40Jan 1992 Total Precipitation
Total Precipitation (cm)0 20 40
0
20
40
cfs
days
Regional simulation using mm5 atmospheric model 6X6 km, 20 second (output at 1 hour) for January 1979, 1991, and 1992 Lateral Boundary layers are from the NCEP ETA re-analysis data 32X32 km 3 hour
Precipitation distribution from regional atmospheric modeling
January 16 1979January 16 1979
Wind Speed and Direction
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Precipitation areal distribution
How is precipitation distributed over the area?
With the lack of dense raingauges, we used: Regional atmospheric model with high spatial resolution
Analysis was done for 6 historical winter storms
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Areal distribution of precipitation for 6 winter stormsfrom regional atmospheric model
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Stochastic Hourly Precipitation Model
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
BxA
x eBf)(
1
, A ≤ x, and B > 0
Exponential Distribution
Exponential Distribution
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Exponential Distribution cont.Table B-2: Parameter values of the exponential distributions that are used to simulate the hourly precipitation at Nogales. In parenthesis are the fitted parameters that are used to match the flow. Cluster inter arrival
period Duration of
cluster Hourly precipitation magnitude
A B A B A B Winter: Wet 0.06 0.17 0.02 0.26 0.02 0.1 (0.5)
Medium 0.11 0.4 -0.05 0.1 0.008 0.14
Dry 0.12 0.3 -0.04 0.1 0.08 0.12
Summer: Wet 0.06 0.4 (0.1) 0.02 0.17 -0.04 0.13 (0.5)
Medium 0.04 0.5 (0.15) -0.01 0.3 (0.2) -0.03 0.1
Dry 0.02 0.45 (0.4) -0.015 0.2 -0.04 0.15 (0.1)
Hourly precipitation chance
Magnitude
Fall -0.03 0.2 (0.05) -.009 0.04 (0.015)
Spring 0.04 0.24 -0.01 0.087 (0.01)
0 5 10 15 20 25 300
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
x
f(x)
B=0.1
B=0.4
Exponential Distribution
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
0
300
600
900
1 6 11 16 21
0
300
600
900
1 6 11 16 21
Days
Dis
char
ge (c
fs)
Winter (1/4/95)
Summer (8/27/99)
Processes-based Conceptual Model
Hourly precipitation to mean daily flow
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Seasonal Daily flow of the three moments
simulations are from 100 realizations 100 year each. (mean and the standard deviation of the moments from the 100 realizations).
Hydrologic Research Center http://www.hrc-lab.org [email protected]
Ensemble of 100 realizations using the tree ring reconstruction of precipitation
Top Related