Advertisement

Sensitivity of Nutrient Estimations to Sediment Wash-off Using a Hydrological Model of Cherry Creek Watershed, Kansas, USA

  • Vladimir J. AlarconEmail author
  • Gretchen F. Sassenrath
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9157)

Abstract

This paper presents a hydrological and water quality model for Cherry Creek watershed, located in southeastern Kansas, USA. The Cherry Creek catchment drains approximately 88220 ha and it is a main contributor of water to the Neosho River. Hydrological modeling of the Cherry Creek watershed is performed using the Hydrological Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF). Simulated results for total ammonia (TAM) concentrations occurring at the Cherry Creek watershed outlet for four land use scenarios and a 2-year simulation period, are presented. Sensitivity analysis of total ammonia estimations (TAM=NH3+NH4) to the unbounded HSPF parameter POTFW is subsequently presented. POTFW represents the ratio of a water quality constituent yield to sediment wash-off outflow. Results showed that small perturbations to a 50 mg/Kg POTFW base value produce the largest normalized sensitivities. Peak sensitivities reached up to 248%, with the -1% perturbation producing the most dramatic sensitivity response in TAM estimations. Results showed a strong relationship between normalized sensitivities to river flow regime. Non-linearities in sensitivity for small ±1% perturbations were detected. These non-linearities are more evident for high stream flow values (strong flood events). For larger perturbations (±60%, ±40%, ±20%, and ±5%) the sensitivity response was shown to be linear.

Keywords

Hydrological modeling HSPF Sensitivity analysis Total ammonia Sediment wash-off 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Manders, G.C., Aber, J.S.: Tri-State Mining District legacy in northeastern Oklahoma. Emporia State Research Studies 49(2), 29–51 (2014). http://academic.emporia.edu/esrs/vol49/manders_aber.pdf
  2. 2.
    Grand Lake O’ the Cherokees Watershed Alliance Foundation, 2008. Grand Lake Watershed Plan: For improving water quality throughout the Grand Lake Watershed. Draft. http://www.ok.gov/conservation/documents/Grand_Lake_%20WBP_DRAFT.pdf
  3. 3.
    Kansas Center for Agricultural Resources and the Environment. Middle Neosho Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy, final draft plan (2011). http://www.kswraps.org/files/attachments/middleneosho_plansummary.pdf
  4. 4.
    Alarcon, V.J., Hara, C.G.: Scale-Dependency and Sensitivity of Hydrological Estimations to Land Use and Topography for a Coastal Watershed in Mississippi. In: Taniar, D., Gervasi, O., Murgante, B., Pardede, E., Apduhan, B.O. (eds.) ICCSA 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6016, pp. 491–500. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    EPA. Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) (2013). http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/models/basins/index.cfm
  6. 6.
    Bicknell, B.R., Imhoff, J.C., Kittle Jr., J.L., Donigian Jr., A.S., Johanson, R.C.: Hydrological Simulation Program – FORTRAN, User’s Manual for Version 11 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lent, M., McKee, L.: Guadalupe River Watershed Loading HSPF Model: Year 3 final progress report. San Francisco Estuary Institute. Richmond, Califormia (2011). http://www.sfei.org/sites/default/files/Guad_HSPF_Model__forSPLRev_17Feb2012.pdf
  8. 8.
    Deliman, P.N., Pack, W., Nelson, E.J.: Integration of the Hydrology Simulation Program—FORTRAN (HSPF) WatershedWater Quality Model into the Watershed Modeling System (WMS). Technical Report W-99-2, September 1999, US Army Corps of Engineers (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tetra Tech, Inc. Appendix VII: LSPC Watershed Model Development for Simulation of Loadings to the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbors. Prepared for: USEPA Region 9 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (October 2010). http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/board_decisions/basin_plan_amendments/technical_documents/66_New/10_1217/
  10. 10.
    Jobes, T.H., Kittle, Jr. J.L., Bicknell, B.R.: A Guide to Using Special Actions in the Hydrological Simulation Program—FORTRAN (HSPF). AQUA TERRA Consultants (1999). ftp://hspf.com/hspf/Special_actions_v11.doc
  11. 11.
    Brown, L.C., Barnwell, T.O.: The enhanced stream water quality models QUAL2E and QUAL2E-UNCAS: documentation and user manual. Env. Res. Laboratory. US EPA, EPA /600/3-87/007, Athens, GA. p. 189 (1987)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, NCDECNR. Falls Lake Nutrient Response Model: Final Report. Modeling & TMDL Unit, Division of Water Quality, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (2009). http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=33debbba-5160-4928-9570-55496539f667&groupId=38364
  13. 13.
    KDHE. Guidelines for investigating and remediating nitrate/ammonia contamination from agricultural chemical releases. Kansas Bureau of Environmental Remediation/Remedial Section Policy. BER policy # BER-RS-050 (January 2007). http://www.kdheks.gov/ber/policies/BER_RS_50.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Civil Engineering SchoolUniversidad Diego PortalesSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Southeast Agricultural Research CenterKansas State UniversityParsonsUSA

Personalised recommendations