Modeling the Effects of Climate and Land Cover Change in the Stoney Brook Subbasin of the St. Louis River Watershed

Transcription

1 Modeling the Effects of Climate and Land Cover Change in the Stoney Brook Subbasin of the St. Louis River Watershed Joe Johnson and Jesse Pruette 214 NASA Research Internship Geospatial Technologies Program Graduates Elizabeth Jones, PI Environmental Modeling and Research Experience (EMARE) Award NNX11AQ96G Geospatial Technologies Faculty Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College, Cloquet, Minnesota

2 ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING AND RESEARCH EXPERIENCE Model St. Louis River Watershed Predict effects in stream flow base on climate or other environmental changes

3 3655 square miles Contains 488 streams, ditches and channels

4 185.2 square kilometers

5 ArcSwat: Soil and Water Assessment Tool Developed by Texas A&M University Extension in ArcGIS Calibration: 4/1/26-12/31/28 Validation: 1/1/29-12/31/2 Scenarios: 26 vs 1992 land cover IPCC A1B climate projection

6 Digital Elevation Model (DEM) USGS- National Map Viewer 1 ArcSecond 26 NLCD Land Cover MRLC 26 data Soil Data USGS Soildatamar t STATSGO Slope ArcSWAT Derived from the DEM

7 Gage(cms) SWAT(cms) Gage Monthly Mean(cms) -4

8 Gage(cms) SWAT(cms) Nash- Sutcliffe Mean Error MAE RMSE r

9 Jan-9 Feb-9 Mar-9 Apr-9 May-9 Jun-9 Jul-9 Aug-9 Sep-9 Oct-9 Nov-9 Dec-9 Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Gage Monthly Mean(cms) SWAT Monthly Mean(cms) Gage(cms) SWAT(cms)

10 Gage(cms) SWAT(cms) Nash-Sutcliffe Mean Error MAE RMSE r.64811

11 COMPARED THE FLOW OUTPUTS OF CALIBRATED MODEL WHEN 1992 LAND COVER WAS USED AND 26 LAND COVER WAS USED THE ONLY CHANGED INPUTS IN SWAT WERE THE LAND COVER DATA

12 IPCC Models Used A1B Scenario Manually changed temperature and precipitation values in SWAT input tables Two Climate Change Scenarios 1. 5 Year Climate Projection 2. Year Climate Projection Used Median of year projections for temp/precipition and ½ of the median for 5 year projections Distinguished changes in temperature and precipitation seasonally, based on seasonal distinctions made by the IPCC

13 Percent Coverage Percent LC1992 LC Percent Change from 1992 to 26 Land Cover Land Cover Decrease in deciduous forests from 1992 to 26 Increases in forested wetlands and non-forested wetlands

14 Flow (cubic meters/sec) There was no statistically significant change in flow outputs T-test P-value of SWAT Simulated Flow, 4/1/26-12/31/ Flow with 1992 Land Cover 6 4 2

15 IPCC s Year A1B Projection, Central and North America Season Mean Temp. Response DJF MAM JJA SON Annual Season Mean Temp. Response Mean Precip. Response (%) IPCC S 5 Year A1B Projection, Central and North America DJF MAM JJA SON Annual Mean Precip. Response (%)

16 4/1/26 5/1/26 6/1/26 7/1/26 8/1/26 9/1/26 /1/26 11/1/26 12/1/26 1/1/27 2/1/27 3/1/27 4/1/27 5/1/27 6/1/27 7/1/27 8/1/27 9/1/27 /1/27 11/1/27 12/1/27 1/1/28 2/1/28 3/1/28 4/1/28 5/1/28 6/1/28 7/1/28 8/1/28 9/1/28 /1/28 11/1/28 12/1/28 Flow (cubic meters/sec) Changes in Flow Outputs Using Climate Change Projections 4/1/26-12/31/ Simulated Flow (Current Weather) Simulated Flow with 5 Year A1B Scenario 2

17 4/1/26 5/1/26 6/1/26 7/1/26 8/1/26 9/1/26 /1/26 11/1/26 12/1/26 1/1/27 2/1/27 3/1/27 4/1/27 5/1/27 6/1/27 7/1/27 8/1/27 9/1/27 /1/27 11/1/27 12/1/27 1/1/28 2/1/28 3/1/28 4/1/28 5/1/28 6/1/28 7/1/28 8/1/28 9/1/28 /1/28 11/1/28 12/1/28 Flow (cubic meters/sec) Changes in Flow Outputs Using Climate Change Projections 4/1/26-12/31/ Simulated Flow (Current Weather) 2

18 Our model showed statistically significant changes in flow outputs when using climate change projections P-value of.29 for original climate scenario and 5 year projection P-value =.28 for year projection

19 Flow with 1992 Land Cover Flow with 26 Land Cover T-test P-value of.1778 There was no statistically significant change in flow outputs

20 Percent Coverage LC1992 LC26 No increase in urbanization Decrease in Deciduous Forest Increase in Wetland forest Majority Forested wetlands Land Cover

21 Simulated Flow (Current Weather) Statistically significant change in flow outputs when using climate change projections P-value of.29 for original climate scenario and 5 year projection P-value of.28 for year projection

22 Average Change (in cubic meters/sec) Avg. Change of Original Flow to 5 Year Projection Flow Competitive Factors: Annual Change in Precipitation Annual Change in Temperature 5yr +1.5% C yr +3% +3.5 C Precipitation generally increases runoff and therefore stream flow Temperature increases ET, generally decreasing stream flow -1 DJF MAM JJA SON Net result: reduction in stream flow ET primary driver of model

23 Further calibration Sediment yield Examine whole St. Louis River Watershed

24