Water Erosion ResearchWater Erosion Researchat Washington State Universityat Washington State University

Joan Wu, Markus Flury, Shuhui Dun, Cory Greer, Prabhakar SinghJoan Wu, Markus Flury, Shuhui Dun, Cory Greer, Prabhakar Singh

Washington State University, Pullman, WAWashington State University, Pullman, WA

Don McCoolDon McCool

USDA ARS PWA, Pullman, WAUSDA ARS PWA, Pullman, WA

Bill ElliotBill Elliot

USDA FS RMRS, Moscow, IDUSDA FS RMRS, Moscow, ID

Dennis FlanaganDennis Flanagan

USDA ARS NSERL, West Lafayette, INUSDA ARS NSERL, West Lafayette, IN

Major Funding SourcesMajor Funding Sources

In-house funding from various collaborating research institutes

US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station

Inland Northwest Research Alliance

USDA National Research Initiatives Programs

US Geological Survey/State of Washington Water Research Center

The NeedsThe Needs Protecting and improving water quality in agricultural

watersheds are major goals of the USDA NWQ and NRI Programs

For many watersheds, sediment is the greatest pollutant

In watershed assessment, it is crucial to understand sedimentation processes and their impacts on water quality

To successfully implement erosion control practices, it is necessary to determine the spatio-temporal distribution of sediment sources and potential long-term effectiveness of sediment reduction by these practices

Surface runoff and erosion from undisturbed forests are negligible

Stream formed due to subsurface flow has low sediment

Both surface runoff and erosion can increase dramatically due to disturbances

Models are needed as a tool for forest resource management

The WEPP ModelThe WEPP Model

WEPP: Water Erosion Prediction Project a process-based erosion prediction model developed by the USDA

ARS to replace the functional model USLE

built on fundamentals of hydrology, plant science, hydraulics, and erosion mechanics

WEPP uses observed or stochastically-generated climate inputs to predict spatial and temporal distributions of soil detachment and deposition on an event or continuous basis, along a hillslope or across a watershed

Equipped with a geospatial processing interface, WEPP is a promising tool in watershed assessment and management

The WEPP Model cont’d

WEPP Windows Interface

WEPP Internet Interface

GeoWEPP

Long-term Research EffortsLong-term Research Efforts

Goal Continuously develop, refine and apply the WEPP model for

watershed assessment and restoration under different land-use, climatic and hydrologic conditions

Objectives Improve the subsurface hydrology routines so that WEPP can be

used under both infiltration-excess and saturation-excess runoff conditions in crop-, range- and forestlands

Improve the winter hydrology and erosion routines through combined experimentation and modeling so that WEPP can be used for quantifying water erosion in the US PNW and other cold regions where winter hydrology is important

Continually test the suitability of WEPP using data available from different localities within and outside the US

Progresses MadeProgresses Made

Numerous modifications to WEPP have been made to Correct the hydraulic structure routines

Improve the water balance algorithms

Incorporate the Penman-Monteith ET method (UN FAO standard)

Improve the subsurface runoff routines

Expand and improve winter hydrology routines to better simulate

Freeze-thaw processes

Snow redistribution processes

WEPP new releases accessible at NSERL’s website http://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu/nserlweb/index.html

Ongoing Studies

Palouse Conservation Field Station Palouse Conservation Field Station (PCFS), Pullman, WA(PCFS), Pullman, WA

Laboratory and field experimentation on runoff and erosion as affected by freezing and thawing of soils

Tilting flume at PCFS

Experimental plots at PCFS

WEPP Applications at UB, Italy Experimental Watershed, University of Bologna,

Italy (Drs. Paola Rossi Pisa and Marco Bittelli) Joint MS program providing source of studentsJoint MS program providing source of students State-of-the-science research facilityState-of-the-science research facility

DEM Effects on WEPPErosion Modeling

Paradise Creek Watershed, ID (Dr. Jane Zhang)

WEPP Applicationsfor Watershed Erosion Modeling

Reeder Experimental Watershed at the USDA ARS CPCRC, Pendleton, OR (Dr. John Williams)

Paradise Creek Watershed, ID (Drs. Jan Boll and Erin Brooks)

Mica Creek Watershed, ID (Dr. Tim Link)

Long-term Research EffortsLong-term Research Efforts

Goal Continuously develop, refine and apply the WEPP model for

watershed assessment and restoration under different land-use, climatic and hydrologic conditions

Objectives Improve the subsurface hydrology routines so that WEPP can be

used under both infiltration-excess and saturation-excess runoff conditions in crop-, range- and forestlands

Improve the winter hydrology and erosion routines through combined experimentation and modeling so that WEPP can be used for quantifying water erosion in the US PNW and other cold regions where winter hydrology is important

Continually test the suitability of WEPP using data available from different localities within and outside the US

Comparison of ProcessesComparison of Processes

* Earlier versions of WEPP typically overestimated Dp

RedistributionRedistributionof Infiltration Water in WEPPof Infiltration Water in WEPP

E v a p o ra tio na n d

T ra n sp ira tio n

D e e pP e rc o la tio n

S u b su rfa c eL a te ra l

F lo w

In filtra ted W a ter

22 3311

Code ModificationCode Modification

Provide options for different applicationsProvide options for different applications a flag added to the soil input filea flag added to the soil input file

User-specified vertical hydraulic conductivity User-specified vertical hydraulic conductivity KK for the added restrictive layer for the added restrictive layer

e.g., 0.005 mm/hre.g., 0.005 mm/hr

User-specified anisotropy ratio for soil User-specified anisotropy ratio for soil saturated hydraulic conductivitysaturated hydraulic conductivity

horizontal horizontal KKh h vertical vertical KKvv, e.g., K, e.g., Khh/K/Kvv = 25= 25

Code ModificationCode Modification cont’dcont’d

Subroutines modified to properly write the “pass” filesWEPP’s approach to passing outputsSubsurface flow not “passed” previously

Simplified hillslope-channel relationAll subsurface runoff from hillslopes assumed to enter

the channelFlow added and sediment neglected

A Case Application:Modeling Forest Runoff and Erosion

Dun, S., J.Q. Wu, W.J Elliot, P.R. Robichaud, D.C. Flanagan, J.R. Frankenberger, R.E. Brown, A.C. Xu, 2007. J. Hydrol (in review)

Study Site: Hermada WatershedStudy Site: Hermada Watershed

Physical SettingPhysical Setting

Located in the Boise National Forest, SE Lowman, ID

Instrumented during 1995−2000 to collect whether, runoff, and erosion data

5-yr observed data showing an average annual precipitation of 954 mm, among which nearly 30% was runoff

(c)

Rad

iati

on

(M

J m

-2)

0

10

20

30

40

(b)

Tem

per

atu

re (

oC

)

-40

-20

0

20

40

60MaximumMinimumDew-point

(a)

Pre

cip

itat

ion

(m

m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

(d)

O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O

Win

d V

elo

city

(m

s-1

)

0

5

10

15

20

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O

Pre

cip

itat

ion

(m

m)

0

100

200

300

400

500

WEPP input PRISM estimationGraham Guard Station observation

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Re-processed PrecipitationRe-processed Precipitation

Watershed DiscretizationWatershed Discretization

Model InputsModel Inputs

TopographyTopography Derived from 30-m DEMs using GeoWEPPDerived from 30-m DEMs using GeoWEPP 10-ha in area, 3 hillslopes and 1 channel10-ha in area, 3 hillslopes and 1 channel 40−60% slope40−60% slope

SoilSoil Typic Cryumbrept loamy sand 500 mm in depthTypic Cryumbrept loamy sand 500 mm in depth

underlying weathered graniteunderlying weathered granite

ManagementManagement 1992 cable-yarding harvest1992 cable-yarding harvest 1995 prescribed fire1995 prescribed fire

West and North slopes with low-severity burnWest and North slopes with low-severity burn South slope and channel unburnedSouth slope and channel unburned

ClimateClimate 11/1995−09/2000 observed data11/1995−09/2000 observed data

Results

Living Biomass and Ground Cover(WEPP v2004.7)

* (a) and (b) unburned S slope; (c) and (d) burned W slope

(a)

Liv

ing

Bio

mas

s (k

g m

-2)

0

1

2

3

4

5

(c)

O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O

Liv

ing

Bio

mas

s (k

g m

-2)

0

1

2

3

4

5

(b)

Gro

un

d C

ove

r (%

)

70

80

90

100

(d)

O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O

Gro

un

d C

ove

r (%

)

70

80

90

100

PredictedObserved

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

* (a) and (b) unburned S slope; (c) and (d) burned W slope

Living Biomass and Ground Cover(WEPP v2006.5)

(a)

Liv

ing

Bio

mas

s (k

g m

-2)

0

1

2

3

4

5

(c)

O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O

Liv

ing

Bio

mas

s (k

g m

-2)

0

1

2

3

4

5

(b)

Gro

un

d C

ove

r (%

)

70

80

90

100

(d)

O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O

Gro

un

d C

ove

r (%

)

70

80

90

100

PredictedObserved

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Runoff and Erosion: Obs. vs Pre.Runoff and Erosion: Obs. vs Pre.(WEPP v2004.7)(WEPP v2004.7)

* Observation Period: 11/3/1995−9/30/2000

Water Year

Precipitation (mm)

Observed Watershed Discharge

(mm)

Observed Sediment

(t/ha)

Simulated Hillslope Runoff (mm)

Simulated Hillslope

Lateral Flow (mm)

Simulated Watershed Discharge

(mm)

Simulated Watershed Sediment

(t/ha)1995–1996 1106 321 0 31 0 11 01996–1997 1200 421 0 0 0 10 0.21997–1998 919 224 0 0 0 0 01998–1999 809 237 0 0 0 0 01999–2000 737 174 0 0 0 0 0

Average 954 275 0 6 0 4 0.0

Runoff and Erosion: Obs. vs Pre.Runoff and Erosion: Obs. vs Pre.(WEPP v2006.5)(WEPP v2006.5)

* Observation Period: 11/3/1995−9/30/2000

Water Year

Precipitation (mm)

Observed Watershed Discharge

(mm)

Observed Sediment

(t/ha)

Simulated Hillslope Runoff (mm)

Simulated Hillslope

Lateral Flow (mm)

Simulated Watershed Discharge

(mm)

Simulated Watershed Sediment

(t/ha)1995–1996 1106 321 0 0 479 447 01996–1997 1200 421 0 63 464 485 0.21997–1998 919 224 0 0 251 209 01998–1999 809 237 0 0 227 231 01999–2000 737 174 0 6 173 123 0

Average 954 275 0 17 319 299 0.0

(b)

O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O J A J O

Ru

no

ff (

mm

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Observed runoff

(a)R

un

off

(m

m)

0

5

10

15

20

25P

rec

ipita

tion

(mm

)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Simulated runoff Cumulative precipitationCumulative rain plus snowmelt

Water Year

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Ru

no

ff D

epth

, mm

0

200

400

600

800

Hermada observationWEPP simulationFeatherville Gage observation

SummarySummary Numerous modifications have been incorporated into

WEPP v2006.5

Specifically, changes were made in the approach to, and algorithms for modeling deep percolation of soil water and subsurface lateral flow

The refined model has the ability to more properly partition infiltration water between deep percolation and subsurface lateral flow

For the Hermada forest watershed Vegetation growth and ground cover were described realistically

WEPP-simulated annual watershed discharge was compatible with field observation; and predicted annual sediment yield was not significantly different from the observed

Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient for daily runoff of −0.77 suggests further improvement on winter routines are needed

Thank You!

Questions?