Sierra Valley s Groundwater Model i v a D y r o , Workshop a t i a n r r o o b f i a l a L C h c U NIVERSITY OF C ALIFORNIA D AVIS f o r a y e t i s s H YDROLOGIC R ESEARCH L ABORATORY e r e R v c i n i g U o l o M ARCH 31, 2017 r d y H B ECKWOURTH 1
Outline s i v a D • Introduction y r o , a t i a n r r o • Integrated Hydrological Modeling o b f i a l a L C h c • Sierra Valley Groundwater Model f o r a y e t i s s e r • Historical Simulations (WY2000-WY2010) e R v c i n i g U o • Future Simulations (WY2010-WY2100) l o r d y H • Questions from SVGMD 2
Introduction s i v a • Project: Hydrological Modeling of the Upper Middle Fork D y r o , Feather River (UMF) Basin a t i a n r r o o b f • Goal: Assessment of the hydrological conditions in the UMF i a l a L Basin during the 21 st century. C h c f o r a UMF Basin y e t i s s e Lake Davis r e R v c i Sierra Valley Groundwater Basin n i g U o l o • Project Period: 2013 – 2016 r d y H • Funded by: Prop 50 3
s i v a D Regional y r o , a Climate t i a n r Integrated Models r o o b f i a l a L C h Hydrological c f o Hydrologic r a y e t Models i s s Modeling e r e R v c i n i g U o l Groundwater o r d Models y H 4
Sierra Valley Basin - Foothills s i v WEHY-HCM a D y RAINFALL / SNOWFALL r o , a Watershed Environmental Hydrology t i a n r r o Hydro-Climate Model o b f i a l a L C h c f o r a y e t i s s e r e R v c i n i g U o l o r d y H 5 https://www.museumca.org/creeks/z-groundwater.html
Sierra Valley Basin - Foothills s i v a N Regional Climate Model (MM5) & D y RAINFALL / SNOWFALL r Snow Module o , a t i a n r r o o b f i a l a L C h c f o r a y e t i s s e r N e R v c i n i g U o l o r d y H 6 Hydrologic Module https://www.museumca.org/creeks/z-groundwater.html
WEHY-HCM Dynamical Downscaling s i v Use of one-way nesting of four a D • Global data downscaled from y domains, where each nest’s r o , a ~130-mi resolution to a ~2-mi t resolution being one-third of its i a n r r o resolution over the basin at parent domain resolution: o b f i a l hourly time intervals a L C h (~50x50 mi) c f o • Downscaling done for r a y e t i s Historical period from 1951 to s (~17x17 mi) e r e R (~5.6x5.6 mi) 2013 using NCEP/NCAR v c i n (~2x2 mi) i Reanalysis data g U o l o Future period from 2010 to r d 2100 using 13 different climate y H projections 7
Reconstructed Historical Climate s i v a • Dynamical downscaling of historical NCEP/NCAR Reanlysis data D y Reconstructing historical climate over study basin at a fine resolution r o , a t i a n r r o o b f i a • Gain confidence in the performance of the dynamical downscaling technique l a L and the Regional Climate Model C h c f o r a y e t i s s • Check validity of this downscaling method by validating the reconstructed e r e R historical climate v c i n i g U o l o • Compare reconstructed historical precipitation against observation data r d y PRISM (Parameter-elevation Relationships on Independent Slopes Model) H Considered as one of the most reliable and comparable datasets for model calibration or validation 8
Validation of the Reconstructed Historical Climate s i v a D y r o , a t i a n r r o o b f i a l a L C h c f o r a y e t i s s e r PRISM NCEP e R v MEAN (mm) 83.98 90.12 c i n i g U ST DEV (mm) 100.49 105.44 o l o RMSE 37.28 r d y NASH 0.86 H CORR. 0.94 100 mm ≈ 4 in 9
Future Climate Projections • Obtained from Global Climate Models (GCMs), • Emission scenarios grouped into four different which provide projected outputs of temperature, families (or storylines): A1, A2, B1, B2 s precipitation, and other climatic variables for i v future years • Groups divided based on the underlying a D assumptions regarding demographic, economic y • Emission scenarios are the driving force; they r and technological developments o , describe how CO 2 concentrations may evolve in a t i a future years n r r o o b f i a l a L C • Other storylines have their h c f own assumptions which o r a y differ from each other e t i s s e A1FI considered most severe, r e R followed by A2 v c i n B1 considered as most i g U environmentally friendly o l o storyline among the rest r d y • Differences in assumptions H reflected in climate variables from GCMs (e.g., temperature)
Future Climate Projections s i v Scenarios a D y r o , A1B A2 B1 A1FI a t i a n r r o o CCSM3 CCSM3 – A1B CCSM3 – A2 CCSM3 – B1 CCSM3 – A1FI b f Models i a l a L C h ECHAM5 – A1B-1 ECHAM5 – A2-1 ECHAM5 – B1-1 c f o r ECHAM5 ECHAM5 – A1B-2 ECHAM5 – A2-2 ECHAM5 – B1-2 a y e t ECHAM5 – A1B-3 ECHAM5 – A2-3 ECHAM5 – B1-3 i s s e r e R v c i n i g U o l o CCSM3 ECHAM5 r d y Control runs 1901 – 1999 1951 – 2000 H Future 2000 – 2100 2001 – 2100 Projections 11
Historical Climate Simulations (Control Runs) s i v a D y r o , a t i a n r r o o b f i a l 100 mm ≈ 4 in a L C h c f o r a y e t i s s e r e R v c i n i g U o l o r d y H 10-year moving average of the basin average precipitation • obtained from the CCSM3, EH5 and the PRISM observation data over the historical period CCSM3 and EH5 models show similar behavior to the PRISM 12 • data in the average sense
Historical Climate Simulations (Control Runs) s i v a D y r o , a t i a n r r o o b f i a l a L C h c f o r a y e t i s s e r e R v c i n i g U o l o r d y H Plotted points are along or very close to dotted red line • Distribution of model and observed values is similar • 100 mm ≈ 4 in Model and observed values are statistically similar 13 Models can simulate the average climate conditions well. •
s i v a D y r o , a t i a n r r o o b f i a l a L Streamflow from C h c f o r a y e t i s s Foothills e r e R v c i n i g U o l o r d y H 14
WEHY Hydrologic Module – Input Data s i v a ■ Elevation data D y National Elevation Dataset (NED); r o , a 1 arc-second resolution ・ Digital Elevation Model (DEM) t i a n r r o o Topography, Slope, Aspect b f i a l a L C ■ Soil data h c f USDA-National Resources Conservation Service; o r a y e 100-m resolution ・ Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) t i s s e r ≈330 ft 8 Parameters (Soil depth, porosity, mean and variation of Ksat, etc…) e R v c i n i g U o ■ Land use/land cover and vegetation data l o r ≈330 ft d y ・ Multi-source land cover data CA Spatial Information Library; 100-m resolution H ・ Satellite remote sensed data (MOD15) NASA; 1-km resolution ≈0.6 mi Land cover types, leaf area index, vegetation root depth, roughness height 15
Results of the Hydrologic Module s i v a D y r o , a t i a n r r o 1 cms ≈ 35 cfs o b f i a l a L C h Feather River at Merrimac c f o r (MER) a MER y e t i s s e r e R v c i n i g U o OBS SIM l o r MEAN (cms) d 75.53 87.19 y H ST DEV (cms) 142.56 188.88 RMSE 77.21 NASH 0.71 16 CORR. 0.94
Sierra Valley Basin – Aquifer s i v a D y RAINFALL / SNOWFALL r o , a t i a n r r o o b f i a l a L C h c f o r a y e t i s s e r e R v c i n i g U o l o IWFM r d y H 17 https://www.museumca.org/creeks/z-groundwater.html
s i v a D y r o , a t i a n r r o o b f i a l a L C h c f o r a y e t i s s Groundwater Model e r e R v c i n i g U o l o r d y H 18
IWFM: I ntegrated W ater F low M odel s i v a • Developed by CA DWR, Bay-Delta Office D y r o , a t i a • Version: IWFM-2015 n r r o o b f i a l • From IWFM Website: a L C h c f User manual, o r a y e t Theoretical documentation, i s s e r e R Source code (Open Source), v c i n i g U Tutorials and examples, o l o Support tools, r d y H Publications, Users Group. 19
IWFM: I ntegrated W ater F low M odel s i v a D y • Mainly a groundwater flow model that also r o , a t i a n simulates: r r o o b f i a l Stream-aquifer interaction, a L C h c f Root zone processes (IDC), o r a y e t i s Vadose zone flow, s e r e R v Agricultural, urban and vegetation water demand, c i n i g U o Supply from imported, surface- and/or ground-water, l o r d y Land subsidence. H 20
Recommend
More recommend
