Proposal: Development and Validation of the Tahoe Project Sediment Model (TPSM)
I. Title Page
Title:
Development and Validation of the Tahoe Project Sediment Model
Subtheme this proposal is
responding to
Subtheme 1b: Modeling and decision support tools for multi-objective
forest management
Principal Investigator and
Receiving Institution
Co-Principal Investigator
Co-Principal Investigator
Grants Contact Person
Dr. William Elliot
USDA-FS Rocky Mountain Research Station
1221 South Main, Moscow, ID 83843
Phone: 208.883.2338
Fax: 208.883.2318
Email: welliot@fs.fed.us
Dr. Erin Brooks
Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of Idaho
P.O. Box 442060
Moscow, ID 83844-2060
Phone: 208.885.6562
Fax: 208.884.8923
Email: ebrooks@uidaho.edu
Drea Traeumer
Em Hydrology, LLC
1165 Hunter Lake Dr.
Reno, NV 89509
Phone: 775.750.0472
Fax: 775.322.8345
Email: drea.em@gmail.com
Sue Major
Grants and Agreements Specialist
USDA Forest Service, 240 West Prospect Road
Fort Collins, CO 80526
Telephone: 970-498-1395
Fax: 970-498-1396
smajor@fs.fed.us
Funding requested:
$197,046
Total cost share
$ 28,335
1
Proposal: Development and Validation of the Tahoe Project Sediment Model (TPSM)
II. Proposal Narrative
A. Project Abstract
Now more than ever there is a great need for scientifically defensible upland decision support tools in the
Lake Tahoe basin. The recognition of the excess build-up of forest fuels and the continued struggle with
maintaining or improving clarity in the lake has put enormous pressure on decision-makers in the basin.
Managers are faced with stiff time constraints to meet TMDL requirements while thinning forests to
reduce the risk or intensity of wildfire in the basin. The proposed research will develop an upland
decision support tool to assist managers in the selection and assessment of site-specific management
options to reduce forest fuel loads and to evaluate effectiveness of sediment mitigation practices. The
proposed online Tahoe Pollutant Source Model (TPSM) will be based fundamentally on the WEPP model
and will be parameterized using existing Tahoe experimental databases. TPSM will be a flexible webinterface tool which will assess the effects of site specific management practices on sediment transport
and delivery from a treated hillslope to a channel. One of the primary focuses will be on developing step
by step training materials that clearly describe how to apply the tool to many of the common fuel
management and sediment management practices employed by decision-makers in the basin. The web
interface will be developed such that new information can be incorporated into the tool as it becomes
available from on-going research in or near the basin. TPSM will have an immediate impact in the basin
as it provides the scientifically defensible predictions that watershed managers in the basin so
desperately need.
B. Justification Statement
The Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program is moving into the implementation phase
with the goal of reducing fine sediment particles (FSP) (<16µm) loadings by a total of 65%, and a 15-year
interim goal (the Lake Clarity Challenge) to reduce FSP loadings by 32%. Concurrently, the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency is implementing a five-year strategic plan with the goal of meeting
environmental thresholds developed for water quality. To meet these goals, regulators, managers, and
implementers need tools that utilize the best available science for evaluating forest upland baseline and
expected FSP loads at the project- and watershed-scales. Our proposed project will develop an online
Tahoe Project Sediment Model (TPSM), based on WEPP technology and local data. The TPSM will
provide regulators, managers, and implementers with a single, easy-to-use tool to predict upland forest
baseline and expected fine sediment (< 20 um) loads at the project-scale.
The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) is a process-based, spatially distributed hydrology and
erosion prediction model that is the best available science for predicting runoff and sediment yield. It can
be applied at the project- and watershed-scales (GeoWEPP). WEPP internet interfaces for forest erosion
predictions have been developed in response to agency needs to apply the complex process-based
WEPP model to support management plans that are frequently challenged in court (Elliot, 2004). We
have found these customized internet interfaces for complex prediction tools to be highly effective. For
example, the Forest Service Tool (Elliot, 2004, http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/) contains three
interfaces to aid in predicting road erosion, and three for disturbed forest and rangeland hillslopes. It is
accessed by thousands of users every year, making nearly 100,000 model runs annually to aid in
reducing sediment from roads, rangelands, and forests.
We propose to develop the TPSM for application at the project-scale describing Tahoe-specific
topographic, soil, climate and vegetation conditions for input into the WEPP model. Developing a
watershed-scale tool is beyond the scope of this project, but it should be noted that the Tahoe-specific
WEPP files developed as part of this project can also be used with the current GeoWEPP and WEPP
Windows interfaces, and the future online GeoWEPP watershed interface that is currently under
development by the USFS, ARS and Washington State Univ. under an agreement with the Army Corps of
Engineers.
2
Proposal: Development and Validation of the Tahoe Project Sediment Model (TPSM)
Table 1. Attributes of PLRM, LSPC and WEPP models
PLRM
LSPC
WEPP
Scale
Catchment
Subwatershed, Watershed
Hillslope, Watershed
Spatial Distribution
Area Weighted
Area Weighted
Hillslope OFEs
Erosion/Erodibility
EMCs
Deposition
RUSLE K Factors
Rill and Interrill* Erosion
Mechanics* Sediment Transport
Theory*
No
No
Sediment Transport Theory*
Sediment Delivery
EMCs
EMCs
Sediment Tranpsort Theory*
Sediment Load
<16um
Calculated with Pollutant
Delivery Factors
< 63um
Calculated as % TSS
Five size classes allowing
calculation of
< 20 mu
Sediment Load
Average Annual
Average Annual
Single Storm, Average Annual,
Return Periods as requested
Climate
SNOTEL
SNOTEL
CLIGEN, PRISM,
Future Climates by lat, long, elev.
Spatial Adjustment
(Precipitation)
PRISM-derived Scaling
Factors
No
PRISM or manual
Spatial Adjustment
(Temperature)
Tahoe Lapse Rate 0.002 °F
per ft. elev ∆
Tahoe Lapse Rate 0.002 °F
per ft. elev ∆
PRISM Lapse Rate 0.003 °F per
ft. elev ∆ or manually adjust
Evapotranspiration
Penman Method w/Crop
Factors
Penman Method w/Crop
Factors
Penman-Monteith Method*
Plant Growth/Decomp
No
No
EPIC Model*
Snowmelt (no rain)
Temerature Index
w/Snowmelt Factors
SNOW Module
Modified USACE Snowmelt Eqn.*
Rain on Snow
Simplified Heat Balance
Eqtn
SNOW Module
Modified USACE Snowmelt Eqn.*
Soil Freeze/Thaw
Dynamics
No
No
Heat Flow Theory*
a
b
* Indicates process-based, non-empirical
a
b
EMC = Event Mean Concentration (TSS)
Tahoe LSPC Watershed Model replaces RUSLE K Factors with EMCs
C. Background/Problem Statement
The problem faced by watershed managers within the Tahoe Basin is estimating the effects of specific
management practices or mitigation treatments on the delivery of FSP loads to Lake Tahoe.
Some of the current tools used to estimate upland forest FSP loads during the TMDL development phase
do not meet the needs of regulators, managers, and implementers as they move into the TMDL
implementation phase. Tools that can be applied at the project-scale using the best available science
and current or future climate scenarios are needed to design and implement the most effective
management strategies to meet fuel reduction goals, the Lake Clarity Challenge, and TRPA
environmental thresholds. The PRLM and LSPC models are widely used within the basin; however, their
empiricism and scales of application do not meet the needs of regulators, managers, and implementers
who need to evaluate the effects of individual fuel management treatments or other forest upland
disturbances at the project scale using the best available science.
Table 1 provides a comparison of the attributes of the WEPP model to the PRLM and LSPC models. It
shows that generally the winter hydrology is similar among the three models, but that WEPP uses
3
Proposal: Development and Validation of the Tahoe Project Sediment Model (TPSM)
Table 2. Output of sediment delivery and size distribution directly from a typical WEPP run (100-ft skid trail
uphill, 100-ft forest buffer downhill) from the current prototype interface (Figure 1).
III. OFF SITE EFFECTS
---------------A.
B.
OFF SITE EFFECTS
----------------
OFF SITE EFFECTS
----------------
AVERAGE ANNUAL SEDIMENT LEAVING PROFILE
0.001
kg/m of width
0.052
kg (based on profile width of
0.000
t/ha (assuming contributions from
SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS AND ENRICHMENT
100.000
0.610
m)
ha)
Sediment particle information leaving profile
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Particle Composition
Detached Fraction
Class Diameter Specific --------------------------------- Sediment In Flow
(mm)
Gravity
% Sand
% Silt
% Clay
% O.M. Fraction Exiting
------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
0.002
2.60
0.0
0.0
100.0
50.0
0.026
0.026
2
0.010
2.65
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.170
0.170
3
0.030
1.80
0.0
77.8
22.2
11.1
0.180
0.180
4
0.300
1.60
75.3
13.4
11.4
5.7
0.299
0.299
5
0.200
2.65
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.325
0.325
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
physically-based processes to estimate erosion and sediment delivery, whereas PRLM and LSPC use
delivery factors to estimate erosion and sediment delivery. Because of the complexities involved in the
sediment generation and delivery process, the estimation of these factors is problematic for PRLM and
LSPC. The WEPP model, however is process-based so the user provides details of soil properties and
surface cover as well as topography and site-specific climate, and sediment delivery is calculated for five
particle size classes (large and small aggregates, and primary sand, silt, and clay particles)(Flanagan and
Nearing, 2000). Deposition within WEPP is preferential, with sand particles depositing first, and clay
particles last. The other three classes are dependent on flow conditions. From the distribution of the five
particle size classes (example output in Table 2), it is possible to readily estimate the concentration of
clay particles ( < 4 um) and silt particles (between 4 and 50 um). In the example shown in Table 2, the
delivered sediment size distribution is the same as the detached sediment. The table shows that the
sediment delivery from a 100-ft long skid trail, across a 100-ft wide buffer would average 0.001 kg/m
width per year. Assuming the skid trail is 2.5 m wide, the predicted total sediment delivery is 2.5 g. From
the distribution given in Table 2, and assuming that about half the silt fraction is less than 20 um dia,
(exact fraction is available from an NRCS soil survey) it can be determined that about 25 percent of the
delivered sediment is less than 20 um dia, or that on the average, this skid trail will deliver about 0.6 g of
fine sediment for the year of the disturbance. Our proposed interface and documentation will explain to
users how to make this determination from the output of the proposed tool for a wide range of
management conditions.
It is clear from the above example and Table 1 that the WEPP model is superior to other tools now used
in the basin for predicting impacts of forest management and mitigation strategies at the project scale.
One of the common criticisms of the WEPP technology is the difficulty of applying it. We therefore
propose to develop a Tahoe Basin-specific online interface to estimate delivery of fine sediment at the
project scale for management activities and mitigation practices at disturbed sites. Figure 1 shows the
current prototype for the simple input screen of such an interface.
The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Model (Flanagan and Livingsotn, 1995)
The WEPP model can be run for a hillslope or a watershed. The base model is designed for a hillslope,
predicting surface runoff, soil erosion, and sediment yield from a single hillslope profile of any length up to
about 1000 ft. A hillslope can have a complex shape, and include numerous changes in slope steepness.
Each hillslope can be divided into multiple overland flow elements (OFEs), which provide a spatiallydistributed representation of unique combinations of slope, soil, and vegetation management (Figure 2).
Flow is then simulated from one OFE through the next, such as flow from a burn pile footprint through
undisturbed forest before reaching a channel.
4
Proposal: Development and Validation of the Tahoe Project Sediment Model (TPSM)
The WEPP model is based fundamentally on principles of hydrology, soil physics, plant science,
hydraulics, and erosion mechanics and sediment transport theory. It simulates both Hortonian (infiltration
excess) and variable source area (saturation excess) runoff. This capability is important for predicting
erosion and sediment delivery on shallow soils and in snowmelt-dominated climates. This feature is
especially appropriate for the highly erodible shallow, volcanic soils in the Lake Tahoe Basin, which have
been identified as a significant FSP source.
Processes in WEPP include rill and interrill erosion, sediment transport and deposition, infiltration, soil
consolidation, residue, and canopy effects on soil detachment and infiltration, surface sealing, rill
hydraulics, surface runoff, plant growth, residue decomposition, percolation, evaporation, transpiration,
snow melt, frozen soil effects on infiltration and erodibility, climate, and effect of surface random
roughness.
The WEPP model computes soil loss along a hillslope slope and sediment yield at the end of a hillslope
using governing equations for sediment continuity, detachment, deposition, and sediment transport
capacity. A total sediment yield is computed, and five particle size classes exiting the hillslope are
calculated using a procedure involving the analytic solution to the governing sediment continuity equation
to model sediment particle sorting on interrill areas and during rill depositions (Flanagan and Nearing
2000), as shown in Table 2. The WEPP model can be run as a continuous simulation for 50 or more
years of stochastic or observed climate to generate mean average annual predictions. WEPP can also
generate single event return period predictions (such as 2-, 5-, 10-, 20- or more year return periods) for
precipitation, runoff, erosion, and sediment delivery events.
Disturbed WEPP Online Interface
The Disturbed WEPP online interface provides runoff, erosion, and sediment delivery predictions at the
hillslope-scale from forest conditions that include: skid trails; prescribe fire; wildfire; and early years of
vegetation and soil recovery. Disturbed WEPP has two OFEs, so that users can study numerous
combinations of uphill and downhill disturbances, such as a skid trail or harvest area above a buffer zone,
or a burned area above a riparian zone. Our proposed interface will be customized from the Disturbed
WEPP interface, which has already been used by Forest Service specialists within the basin (for example
Loupe and Downie, 2008).
Disturbed WEPP is linked to the Rock:Clime interface, which allows users to build custom input files for
the CLIGEN weather generator (Flanagan and Livingston 1995). The CLIGEN database is supplemented
with the Parameter-elevation Regression on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) monthly precipitation
values estimated at a 4-km grid for the entire U.S. (Daly et al., 1994). The online interface also helps
users to adjust monthly average maximum and minimum temperatures by adiabatic lapse rates.
Precipitation and temperature values as well as the average number of wet days in a month can be
further adjusted manually if the user desires.
Project Team
Dr. William Elliot will serve as Lead PI. Dr. Elliot has been involved in the development of the WEPP
technology since 1986, and is the WEPP Project Manager for forest applications. In recent years, Dr.
Elliot he has focused on developing the first online WEPP interfaces. ARS scientists have followed his
lead, and have since developed a number of their own online interfaces. Dr. Elliot is currently the PI for a
SNPLMA Round 7 project to assess and develop the WEPP model for evaluating fine sediment transport
in the Lake Tahoe Basin for forest management practices at the watershed scale.
Dr. Erin Brooks will serve as Co-PI and Technical Lead. Dr. Brooks has had extensive experience with
the WEPP model, developing online WEPP interfaces for forest conditions, and developing scientific
management tools based fundamentally on complex hydrologic processes. Dr. Brooks is currently a CoPI on Dr. Elliot’s SNPLMA Round 7 project, described above, and a Co-PI on Ms. Traeumer’s SNPLMA
Round 8 Project, as described below.
Ms. Traeumer will serve as Co-PI and Technology Transfer Lead. Ms. Traeumer has 12 years of
5
Proposal: Development and Validation of the Tahoe Project Sediment Model (TPSM)
technical, research, and regulatory experience, the fields of surface water quality and sediment transport
modeling. Ms. Traeumer has been involved in the application of WEPP technology since 2000, and is
currently the PI for a SNMPLA Round 8 project to locally-optimize the WEPP model, and to predict
nutrient and sediment loadings from prescribed pile burning at the hillslope- and subwatershed-scales.
Mr. David Hall is a computer specialist under Dr. Elliot’s supervision with the Rocky Mountain Research
Station. Mr. Hall has been the lead programmer on all of the current Forest Service online interfaces to
the WEPP model, and has been consulted by the ARS and other agencies to assist in the development of
their online interfaces. Mr. Hall’s role will be to develop the Tahoe Basin Interface, and in particular, to
develop the code to automate the determination of the fine fraction of eroded sediments.
D. Goals, Objectives, and Hypotheses
The goal of this project is to develop the Tahoe Project Sediment Model (TPSM) online decision support
tool that will be used by forest managers and planners in the Tahoe Basin to assess hillslope-scale fine
sediment (<20 um) loads for the most common forest upland management practices in the basin under
current and future climate scenarios. The hypothesis to be tested is: the TPSM generates reasonable
fine sediment predictions for forest conditions and management practices. The primary objectives of the
project are to:
1. Compile a database of existing upland rainfall, runoff, and erosion experiments in the Tahoe basin.
2. Develop WEPP input files from existing datasets in the basin for the most common forest upland
management practices.
3. Develop a climate generation tool that creates current and future climate files for any project location
in the Tahoe basin.
4. Develop the TPSM with user friendly protocols for evaluating the effects of alternative management
practices on fine sediment loads.
5. Validate TPSM loading estimates for sine sediment (<20um) from current and proposed monitoring
projects within the basin (like the proposal submitted by Hogan et al. with Elliot as the Admin PI to Round
10).
6. Publish results in a peer reviewed journal
E. Approach, Methodology and Location of Research
1. Tahoe Experimental Database
The Tahoe Basin is relatively rich in publications and datasets describing the fundamental soil, vegetative
and climatic factors controlling sediment transport in the basin. In particular Grismer and Hogan (Grismer
and Hogan 2004, 2005a, 2005b) and Drea Traeumer (SNPLMA Round 8, in progress) have collected
much of the data necessary to quantify the relationships between soil type, slope, vegetative cover, and
plot-scale runoff and sediment loading. The initial task in this project will be creating a database of these
experiments. The database will be organized by location, soil type, vegetative cover, topography, and
type of management practice in a standardized format. This database framework will allow for quick
assessment of data gaps in the existing datasets, and will be a useful tool for directing future field
experiments to ensure the necessary information is collected to calculate critical soil and vegetative
parameters used in process-based models such as WEPP.
2. Soil and vegetative management files
Critical soil and vegetative WEPP parameters will be calculated from the experiments available in the
Tahoe experimental database. These critical WEPP parameters include: effective hydraulic conductivity,
inter-rill erodibility, rill erodibility, critical shear, soil depth, percent surface cover, surface residue biomass,
canopy cover and surface roughness. The effective hydraulic conductivity and interrill erodibility will be
calculated in a stepwise manner from rainfall simulation experiments following the approaches of Foltz et
al. (2007). In this approach, an objective function (sum of square errors) is used to first fit the effective
6
Proposal: Development and Validation of the Tahoe Project Sediment Model (TPSM)
hydraulic conductivity to observed runoff volume and peak runoff rate. Rill erodibility and critical shear
may calculated following a similar approach using simulated and observed sediment load, or may be
determined from simulated rill erosion studies using methods described by Robichaud et al. (Under
Review). The method will depend on the detail of the data. The residue biomass and percent cover are
dependant primarily on recent and current vegetation and residue decay coefficients. The existing decay
coefficients will be tested and modified if necessary.
With the Tahoe experimental database, we will adapt existing (or develop new) soil and management files
for roads, wildfire, harvested lands, burn piles and broadcast burning. We will also develop mitigation
files to model undisturbed soils and re-vegetation treatments including hydro-seeding and variable levels
of mulching. These core soil and management files will provide the information necessary to simulate
most of the common upland management practices in the basin. The complementary documentation will
aid users in selecting appropriate input data to describe onsite conditions.
3. Climate Generation Tool
The hydrologic response across the basin is greatly affected by spatial variability in climate. We propose
to develop a climate generation tool that will provide both current and future climate files scaled to any
point in the basin. Similar to the existing climate generator interface available through the FS-WEPP
interfaces (Rock-Clime), users will select a base weather station and then be given the option to scale
precipitation and temperature based on 4-km resolution PRISM maps to account for elevation and
orthographic effects (Daly et al., 1994). The interface will provide the option of generating climate files or
using existing climate files for a project’s specific location, including future climate scenarios being
developed by the SNPLMA Project “The Effects of Climate Change on Lake Tahoe, and Implications for
Design of Best Management Practices”. The PIs of that proposal state “the modeling results will have
applications to other problems … and will be made available to other investigators.” Other sources for
future climate data will also be evaluated, as the above proposal was limited to only two of at least seven
possible future scenarios (Rehfeldt et al., 2006).
4. Disturbed WEPP Applications
The primary focus of the project will be in the development of the TPSM online decision support tool,
which will be easy to learn and flexible enough to be useful for a wide range of applications. The TPSM
will consist of a dynamic user interface that clearly describes the steps to apply and compare a variety of
management applications. Figure 1 is a prototype of the single input screen for this tool. These
applications may include restoration of ski runs, road decommissioning, water bars, pile burning,
broadcast burning, restoration after wildfire, cut-to-length, whole tree logging, and mastication. A survey
of managers and consultants within the basin will be used to prioritize treatments for inclusion in the
TPSM. The treatment boxes in Figure 1 show the place holders for these treatment alternatives. The
interface will allow for direct comparison of the effects of baseline conditions and various treatments on
average annual fine sediment loads, or under specific design storm conditions such as the 20-yr, onehour storm. With features from the current WEPP technology, users will be able to quantify reinfiltration
and deposition down slope from disturbed regions in SEZs. The interface will be designed such that
critical WEPP management parameters can be updated as new information on management practices
becomes available. The interface will be designed to incorporate new management files as new
techniques for fuel reduction or erosion mitigation are developed. It will be housed on public servers
maintained by the Rocky Mountain Research Station, who are committed to keeping the site active for at
least five years, and likely longer. Current online RMRS web sites have been operating continuously
since January, 2000, and have provided tens of thousands of users with hundreds of thousands of
erosion predictions.
5. TPSM Validation
Much of the data that have been collected are from plot-scale rainfall simulation studies. Validation data
will be collected from existing hillslope and small watershed monitoring sites required by various Tahoe
Agencies (Manley et al., In Press). This approach will ensure that the validation data sets are different
from the data used to parameterize the initial model. Results of the validation exercise will be published
in a peer-reviewed journal article describing the Lake Tahoe management challenges, the proposed
TPSM decision support tool, and the validation results. As it is likely that many of the monitoring activities
7
Proposal: Development and Validation of the Tahoe Project Sediment Model (TPSM)
will measure no sediment delivery (Elliot and Glaza, 2009; Robichaud et al., 2009), much of the validation
will be comparing zero or near zero predictions with zero observed delivery.
F. Relationship of the research to previous and current relevant research, monitoring, and/or
environmental improvement efforts
The project will utilize the following previous and current SNPLMA research projects and monitoring data
to the greatest extent possible to develop, parameterize, and validate the TPSM online decision support
system as expeditiously and cost-effectively as possible: SNPLMA Projects “Assessing the Sources and
Transport of Fine Sediment in Response to Management Practices in the Tahoe Basin using the WEPP
model”; “Improving Road Erosion Modeling for the Lake Tahoe Basin and Evaluating BMP Strategies for
Fine Sediment Reduction at Watershed Scales”, “Nutrient and Sediment Loading Predictions for
Prescribed Fire Using Optimized WEPP Model”, and “The Effects of Climate Change on Lake Tahoe, and
Implications for Design of Best Management Practices”. Reports by Grismer and Hogan (2004, 2005a,
2005b) from earlier Tahoe Basin studies will also be referenced to aid in building the TPSM input
databases. Our proposed project will complement these current projects, and will build on some of them
as information generated by them will be used to develop the input soil, vegetation, and future climate
files for our proposed tool.
G. Strategy for Engaging Managers /Obtaining Permits
We will hold a workshop in the basin during the first quarter of the project with regulators, managers, and
implementers. The primary purpose of the workshop will be to establish working relationships with
managers and implementers, and identify the priority management practices they wish to evaluate with
the TPSM. Following the workshop, field surveys will be conducted with managers and implementers to
gain the on-the-ground knowledge necessary for developing Tahoe-specific files for the TPSM. Co-PI
Drea Traeumer resides in Reno, NV, providing the local presence and scheduling flexibility to conduct
these field surveys.
At the conclusion of our project, we will deliver a User Manual and present a one-day Training Workshop
for regulators, managers, and implementers. This will provide the technology transfer necessary for
successful implementation of the TPSM.
H. Description of deliverables/products and plan for how data and products will be reviewed and
made available to end users
A database summarizing previous studies and the interpretation of these studies for developing WEPP
input files will be completed by the end of the first year of the project. This database will be available for
immediate use by specialists currently using WEPP Windows or WEPP GIS technology in and near the
basin.
An online interface will be available on a public web site, along with documentation on how to use this
interface for a wide range of project analyses on impacts of upland management and mitigation on fine
sediment delivery within the basin.
The TPSM online interface and detailed User Manual will be presented to regulators, managers, and
implementers in a one-day workshop to be held in early 2012.
A peer-reviewed publication will be prepared describing Basin needs, the TPSM model, its application,
and its validation. Final publication will likely not occur within the time constraints of this proposal due to
the lengthy review process.
8
Proposal: Development and Validation of the Tahoe Project Sediment Model (TPSM)
III. Schedule of major milestones/deliverables
Milestones/Deliverables
Start
Stop
Quarterly Reports
Q1
Q8
An initial list of conditions
that should be included in
the TPSM database
Q1
Q2
Tahoe Experimental
Database
Q1
Q2
Soil and Vegetative
Management Files
Q2
Q4
TPSM Interface
Q3
Q6
Climate Generation Tool
Q4
Q5
TPSM Validation
Q5
Q7
TPSM Manual
Q5
Q7
Training Workshop
Q7
Q7
Peer-reviewed paper
Q7
Beyond
Q8
Description
Submit brief progress report to Tahoe Science
st
program coordinator by the 1 of July,
October, January and April. Prepare
summary of annual accomplishments in
January
A short report from an initial meeting and
subsequent survey of potential users within
the basin, specifying which conditions will be
modeled with the first release of the TPSM
interface
A synthesis of research and monitoring data
collected in or near the Basin that can be
used to develop the soil and vegetation input
files for WEPP
A set of ascii files for input to any version of
the WEPP model describing Tahoe-specific
conditions
An online interface to the WEPP model with a
database made up of Basin-specific soil and
vegetation files. Figure 1 is the prototype
input page
A complement to the TPSM interface to assist
in generating stochastic climates that are site
specific for current or future climates
A summary report, perhaps a meeting
proceedings, that validates the TPSM model
using monitoring data from the basin
An electronic manual to complement the
TPSM interface providing guidance on
describing how to model a list of conditions
within the basin identified from a survey
during the first quarter of the project
A one-day workshop during the final winter of
the project training potential TPSM users and
receiving feedback on ways to improve or
enhance the TPSM model.
A peer-reviewed paper describing Tahoe
conditions, the TPSM model, and the
validation of the tool
9
Proposal: Development and Validation of the Tahoe Project Sediment Model (TPSM)
IV. References
Daly, C., R.P. Neilson and D.L. Phillips, 1994. A statistical-topographic model for mapping climatological
precipitation over mountainous terrain. J. Appl. Meteor., 33:140-158.
Elliot, W.J. 2004. WEPP Internet interfaces for forest erosion prediction. Jour.qw of the American Water
Resources Assoc. 40(2): 299-309.
Elliot, W.J and B.D. Glaza. 2009. Impacts of Forest Management on Runoff and Erosion. In Procs of
2008 Third Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds Estes Park, CO. 8 - 11
September, 2008. Denver, CO: USGS. 117-127.
Flanagan, D.C., and M.A. Nearing. 2000. Sediment particle sorting on hillslope profiles in the WEPP
model. Trans of the ASAE 43(3): 573-583.
Flanagan, D.C., and S.J. Livingston (Editors), 1995. WEPP User Summary. NSERL Report No. 11.
National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, West Lafayette, Indiana, 131 pp.
Foltz, R.B., H. Rhee, and K.A. Yanosek. 2007. Infiltration, erosion and vegetation recovery following road
obliteration. Trans of the ASABE 50(6): 1937-1943.
Grismer, M.E. and M.P. Hogan. 2004. Evaluation of Revegetation/Mulch Erosion Control Using Simulated
Rainfall in the Lake Tahoe Basin: 1. Method Assessment. Land Degradation & Dev. 13:573-588.
Grismer, M.E. and M.P. Hogan. 2005a. Evaluation of Revegetation/Mulch Erosion Control Using
Simulated Rainfall in the Lake Tahoe Basin: 2. Bare Soil Assessment. Land Degradation & Dev.
16:397-404.
Grismer, M.E. and M.P. Hogan. 2005b. Evaluation of Revegetation/Mulch Erosion Control Using
Simulated Rainfall in the Lake Tahoe Basin: 3. Treatment Assessment. Land Degradation & Dev.
16:489-501.
Loupe, T., and D. Downie. 2008. USFS LTBMU proposed methodology for evaluating the sensitivity of
SEZs I the South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project to mechanical
th
equipment operations. Presented at the 4 Biennial Tahoe Basin Science Conference, Science as
a Tool in Lake Tahoe Basin Management: Making Sense of Complexity. March 17-19, 2008,
Incline Village, NV.
Manley, P. N., W. J. Zielinski, M. D. Schlesinger, and S. R. Mori. In Press. Evaluation of a multiplespecies approach to monitoring species at the ecoregional scale. Ecological Applications.
Rehfeldt, G. E., N. L. Crookston, M. V. Warwell. and J. S. Evans. 2006. Empirical analyses of plant
climate relationships for the western United States. Int. J. Plant Sci. 167(6):1123-1150.
Robichaud, P.R., L.H. MacDonald and R.B. Foltz. 2009. Fuel management and erosion. IN Elliot, W.J.,
I.S. Miller and L. Audin (eds.). Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western
United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 80-101.
Robichaud, P.R., J.W. Wagenbrenner, R.E. Brown and W.J. Elliot. (Under Review) Measurements and
mechanics of rill erosion in disturbed forests: Part II. Accepted pending modification by Water
Resources Research.
10
Proposal: Development and Validation of the Tahoe Project Sediment Model (TPSM)
V. Figures
Figure 1. Prototype of the Tahoe Project Sediment Model Interface showing climate options for current or
future conditions, and place holders for evaluating management practices like pile burning, ski slopes,
etc. (Treatment 1, Treament 2, etc.) (http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/fswepp/tahoe/tahoe.pl)
11
Proposal: Development and Validation of the Tahoe Project Sediment Model (TPSM)
Figure 2. Example of three overland flow elements describing the combination of two vegetation
conditions and two soil types (Elliot, 2004).
12