Citation
Hydrologic-land use interactions in a Florida river basin

Material Information

Title:
Hydrologic-land use interactions in a Florida river basin
Creator:
Bedient, Philip Bruce, 1948-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xvi, 262 leaves : ill., maps ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Dissertations, Academic -- Environmental Engineering Sciences -- UF
Environmental Engineering Sciences thesis Ph. D
Hydrology ( fast )
Land use ( fast )
Florida -- Kissimmee River Watershed ( fast )
Kissimmee River ( local )
Lakes ( jstor )
Land use ( jstor )
River basins ( jstor )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 254-261).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Photocopy of typescript. Ann Arbor, Mich. : University Microfilms International, l980.--22 cm.
General Note:
Vita.
General Note:
Photocopy imprint: Ann Arbor, Mich., University Microfilms International, 1979.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Philip Bruce Bedient.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
This item is presumed in the public domain according to the terms of the Retrospective Dissertation Scanning (RDS) policy, which may be viewed at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00007596/00001. The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
023657678 ( ALEPH )
02635012 ( OCLC )
Classification:
GB705.F5 B43 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

hydrologiclandus00bedi.pdf

EDVLFURP7_C8I8SJ.xml

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0192.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0013.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0207.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0158.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0120.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0205.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0025.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0106.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0132.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0114.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0246.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0022.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0076.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0126.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0017.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0180.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0062.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0273.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0012.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0119.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0095.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0183.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0212.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0048.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0211.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0172.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0097.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0096.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0031.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0067.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0024.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0179.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0039.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0107.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0204.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0202.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0050.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0053.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0170.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0278.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0162.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0238.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0223.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0203.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0236.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0056.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0141.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0004.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0220.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0063.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0038.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0104.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0068.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0019.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0222.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0267.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0167.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0092.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0181.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0054.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0184.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0166.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0215.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0270.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0182.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0198.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0188.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0111.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0247.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0087.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0140.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0007.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0101.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0083.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0130.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0219.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0147.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0145.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0139.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0002.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0255.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0071.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0146.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0190.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0036.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0142.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0117.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0249.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0042.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0245.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0032.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0194.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0269.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0230.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0085.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0081.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0277.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0058.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0163.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0265.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0041.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0175.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0044.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0260.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0189.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0094.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0168.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0137.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0078.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0221.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0091.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0061.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0241.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0138.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0206.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0026.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0171.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0023.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0159.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0084.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0187.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0098.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0165.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0275.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0155.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0033.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0164.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0262.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0185.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0216.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0100.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0011.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0174.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0072.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0224.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0148.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0217.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0030.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0010.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0003.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0035.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0258.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0195.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0210.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0034.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0200.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0051.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0157.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0226.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0254.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0115.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0043.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0272.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0232.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0135.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0109.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0252.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0234.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0086.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0213.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0144.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0156.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0227.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0251.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0266.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0143.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0008.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0154.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0021.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0129.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0064.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0009.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0209.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0047.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0225.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0102.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0124.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0276.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0018.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0014.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0191.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0074.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0006.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0244.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0261.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0274.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0005.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0121.txt

EDVLFURP7_C8I8SJ_xml.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0045.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0239.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0152.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0125.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0201.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0059.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0128.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0199.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0110.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0020.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0127.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0173.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0235.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0242.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0257.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0066.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0208.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0196.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0240.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0079.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0133.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0037.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0065.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0116.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0153.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0263.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0113.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0099.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0040.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0052.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0214.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0112.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0118.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0169.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0122.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0029.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0197.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0256.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0000.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0057.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0093.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0177.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0233.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0237.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0055.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0243.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0073.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0103.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0105.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0271.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0075.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0016.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0160.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0193.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0150.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0250.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0149.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0028.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0151.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0088.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0178.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0253.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0070.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0248.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0231.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0176.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0108.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0077.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0259.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0001.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_pdf.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0089.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0186.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0123.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0268.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0161.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0069.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0090.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0218.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0015.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0060.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0229.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0131.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0080.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0264.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0136.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0027.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0134.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0046.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0228.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0049.txt

hydrologiclandus00bedi_0082.txt


Full Text




















HYDROLOGIC-LAND USE INTERACTIONS
IN A FLORIDA RIVER BASIN
















By

PHILIP BRUCE BEDIENT











A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1975







































DEDICATED TO MY WIFE
CINDY
WHO WORKED UNSELFISHLY FOR FOUR YEARS
SO THAT I COULD COMPLETE NY EDUCATION

















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the members of my graduate committee for their

encouragement and advice throughout the research effort. I would espe-

cially like to thank Dr. W.C. Huber for his undivided attention and

assistance from the early conception of the research to the final days of

writing and review. I would also like to thank Dr. J.P. Heaney and Dr.

H.T. Odum for many hours of enlightening discussions and lectures. The

primary influence for the overall research has come from these three pro-

fessors, and I am deeply grateful for their guidance throughout the past

five years.

Special thanks are due to several of my co-workers who provided

support and encouragement when it was needed. Without Mr. Steve

Gatewood's cartographic and drafting ability, much of the research would

have been incomplete. Mr. Jerry Bowden contributed many hours of tedious

effort so that input data and computer outputs were available on time.

I am grateful to them both for their hard work and good friendship.

I would like to thank the research group at the Central and Southern

Florida Flood Control District for funding the Kissimmee Project, and

for providing such able assistance in data collection and analysis.

Without Mrs. Joye Barnes typing and editing ability, I doubt seriously

that the manuscript would have been completed on time. I am indebted to

her for unselfish effort during the last few weeks of writing.

Finally, I extend very special thanks to the most important mem-

ber of the team, my wife Cindy, who worked unselfishly for four years

111










so that I might complete the PhD. I am also especially grateful to her

for helping assemble the final draft copy.



























































iv
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pae

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURES x

ABSTRACT xv

I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1
Objectives
Overview of the Research 3

II. HYDROLOGIC PRINCIPLES IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 12
The Hydrologic Cycle 12
The Hydrologic Equation 14
The Runoff Cycle 17
Drainage Basin Characteristics 25
Measurement of Drainage Density 28
Drainage Density Relationships 3
Hydrologic Effects of Vegetation and Land Use 35
Forest Hydrology 36
Hydrology of Agricultural Lands 40
Hydrology of Marshes and Swamps 56
Land Use and Retention Time 58

Watershed Simulation Models 61
General Equations 62
Review of Available Models 64

III. WATER QUALITY AND ECOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES IN WATERSHED
MANAG2EMENT 70
Introduction 70
Non-Point Pollution Sources 71
Nutrient Cycling in Aquatic Ecosystems 80
Nutrient Cycling in Small Watershed Ecosystems 83
Nutrient Budgets in Lake Systems 86





V










TABLE OF (ON.TENTS (Continued)



Models of Water Quality and Ecological Processes 89
Review of Available Models 92
Concepts of Water Quality Control 97

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES IN THE KISSIMMEE RIVER BASIN 99
Description of the Basin 99
Climate and Rainfall 101
Physical Geography and Geology 101
Water Resources 105
Soils 108
Vegetation 108
Fish and Wildlife Resources 112
Water and Land Resource Problems 113
Agricultural Land 113
Urban Land 114
Natural Land 114
Water Availability 115
Flood Control Plan 118
Historical Land Use Changes 122
Water Quality Monitoring in the Kissimmee River Basin 130

V. LINKAGE MECHANISMS IN HYDROLOGIC-LAND USE ANALYSIS 137
Introduction to Storage-Control Concepts 137
Retention Time for Runoff Control 137
Retention Time for Water Quality Control 140
Storage Concepts 143
Hydrologic Analysis 143
The water balance 144
Description of the hydrologic-land use model 15.
Calculated retention times 158
Non-Point Nutrient Loadings 160
Transport Concepts 163
Drainage Density as a Transport Concept 163
Relationship with land use 165
Measurement of drainage density 166
Drainage density and hydrologic effects 183
Drainage density and water quality effects 187
Flood Routing Concepts 203




vi











TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)



Description of the routing method 206
Hydrologic calibration of the model 210
Water quality in the river 217
Lakes as Storage Control Units 221
Lake level fluctuations and flood control 222
Lake drawdown and water quality 231
Water quality and retention time 236
Marsh Areas for Runoff Storage and Control 240
Retention time and storage 243
Retention time and nutrient uptake 244

VI. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 246
Introduction 246
Storage and Retention Time 246
Transport and Retention Time 247
Drainage Density Results 248
River Routing Results 249
Lake and Marsh Studies 251
Summary Conclusions 253

REFERENCES 254

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 262



























vii

















LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Coshocton Experimental Watersheds. Description
of 1938 and 1958 Land Use. 44

2.2 Effect of Treatments on Water Yield: Coshocton
Experimental Uatersheds. 45

2.3 Runoff Curve Numbers for Hydrologic Soil-Cover
Complexes. 51

2.4 Values of Manning's Roughness Coefficient n. 54

3.1 Critical Loading Rates for Nitrogen and Phosphorus. 72

3.2 Agricultural Nutrient Runoff Coefficients. 78

3.3 Typical Values of Nutrient Runoff Coefficients. 79

3.4 Input by Precipitation and Output in Streamilow
for Various Nutrients in an Undisturbed Watershed. 85

4.1 Surface Area of the Larger Lakes in Kissimmee-
Everglades Area. 1,06

4.2 Land by Capability Class in the Kissimmee River Basin. 110

4.3 Acres Irrigated Kissimmee-Everglades Area 1968,
1980, and 2020. 117

5.1 Matrix of Curve Numbers and Maximum Soil Storage. 155

5.2 Base Flow Retention Times. 159

5.3 Surface Flow Retention Times. 161

5.4 Relative Non-Point Source Loadings. 164

5.5 Land Use Analysis of Kissimmee River Tributaries. 167

5.6 Drainage Density Measurements in the Kissitimee River
Basin. 169




viii











LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Pa f

5.7 Standards for Inclusion of Streams in Topographic
Maps of U.S. Mapping Agencies. 171

5.8 List of USGS Quadrangle Maps for the KissiLmee
River Basin 172

5.9 Drainage Density in the Lower Kissimmee River Basin. 176

5.10 Drainage Density and Retention Times in Kissimmee
River Basin Planning Units. 190

5.11 Analysis of Floods in the Kissimmee River Basin. 205

5.12 Surface and Subsurface Runoff by Planning Unit
(1967-1969). 214

5.13 Comparison of Measured (M) and Predicted (P) Runoff
Volumes (1967-1969). 215

5.14 Natural and Regulated Lake Fluctuation. 224

5.15 Hydrologic Budget for Lake Tohopekaliga. 229

5.16 Averaged Water Quality of Lake Tohopekaliga Before,
During, and After Drawdown. 232

5.17 Nutrient Budget of Lake Tohopekaliga. 235


























ix
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1 Location Map of the Kissimmee River Basin. 5

2.1 Components of the Hydrologic Cycle. 13

2.2 Water Budget of a Region. 15

2.3A Streamflow Hydrograph Separation Techniques. 19

2.3B Components of the Runoff Cycle. 21

2.4 Conceptual Hydrologic Models. 22

2.5 Mean Annual Runoff versus Drainage Area. 27

2.6 The Significance of Drainage Basin Shape and Network
Pattern on Hydrograph Response. 29

2.7 Change in Water Yield after Conversion of Hardwood
to Grass and Change in Soil Moisture under Thinned
and Unthinned Loblolly Pine Plantation. 39

2.8 First-Year Streamflow Increases after Treatment
versus Reduction of Forest Cover and Showing
Influence of Aspect. 41

2.9 Streamflow Increases for Coweeta Watershed 13
following Treatments and Decrease in Water Yield
versus Percentage of Area Reforested. 42

2.10 Effect of Farm Practices on Runoff Volumes. 46

2.11 Comparison of Runoff from Conservation Measures, W-5,
and Straight-Row Farming, W-3. 47

2.12 Land Use and Treatment Effect on 25-Year Runoff
Frequences. 49

2.13 Results of Infiltration Studies on Various Soil-
Cover Complexes. 49

2.14 Soil Conservation Service Rainfall-Runoff Relationships. 50




x










LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Figures Pag,

2.15 Effect of Vegetation and Soil Storage on Runoff
Hydrographs. 53

2.16 The Behavior of Manning's n in Grassed Channels,
Where Curves A to E Show Declining Vegetative
Retardance 55

2.17 Effect of Canals on Groundwater Elevation. 59

2.18 Attenuation of Mean Annual Flood by Lakes and
Swamps. 60

2.19 Annual Water Yields as Observed and as Computed
by the USDA Hydrologic Model. 68

3,1 Comparison of Non-Point Source Concentrations of
Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus. 75

3.2 Comparison of Non-point Source Area Yield Rates of
Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus. 76

3.3 Water Qaulity and Ecological Interactions. 90

3.4 Segmented Stream System for Hydrologic and Water
Quality Modeling. 93

4.1 Location Map of the Kissimmee River Basin. 100

4.2A Mean Annual Precipitation, Kissimmee-Everglades
Area. 102

4.2B Monthly Rainfall and Temperature in the Kissimmee
River Basin. 103

4.3 Topographic Map of the Kissimmee River Basin. 104

4.4 General Soil Map of the Kissimmee River Basin. 109

4.5 Vegetation Map of the Kissimmee River Basin. 111

4.6 Land Use Patterns (1958) in the Kissimmee River
Basin. 123

4.7 Land Use Patterns (1972) in the Kissimmee River
Basin. 124






xi










LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

F:i gur e Pag-a

4.8A Detailed Land Use Changes (1958, 1972, 2020),
Planning Unit 5. 126

4.8B Detailed Land Use Changes (1958, 1972, 2020),
Planning Unit 10. 127

4.8C Detailed Land Use Changes (1958, 1972, 2020),
Planning Unit 13. 128

4.8D Detailed Land Use Changes (1958, 1972, 2020),
Planning Unit 16. 129

4.9 Tributary and Water Quality Sampling Locations,
Lower Kissimmee River Basin. 132

4.10 Total P Concentration as a Function of Sampling
Location, Kissimmee River Basin. 133

4.11 Total P Concentration in Tributary Inflows, Planning
Units 13 and 14 of the Kissimmee River Basin. 134

4.12 Total P Concentrations in Tributary Inflows, Planning
Units 15, 16, and 17 of the Kissimmee River Basin. 136

5.1 Stage-Volume Curves, Surface and Subsurface. 139

5.2 Stage-Discharge Curves, Surface and Subsurface. 139

5.3 Schematic Water Quality Treatment System. 142

5.4 Typical First-Order Decay of Pollutant Concentration. 142

5.5 Schematic of the Water Balance. 146

5.6 Soil Moisture Depletion Curves. 148

5.7 Seasonal Water Balance in the Kissimmee River Basin. 150

5.8 Relationship between Storage and Base Flow. 157

5.9 Schematic of Land Use and Measured Drainage Density. 175

5.10 Tributaries in the Lower Kissimmee River Basin. 177

5.11A Drainage Map of Planning Unit 13. 178

5.11B Drainage Map of Planning Unit 14. 179




xii










LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Figure Page

5.11C Drainage Map of Planning Unit 15. 180

5.11D Drainage Map of Planning Unit 16. 181

5.11E Drainage Map of Planning Unit 17. 182

5.12 Drainage Length and Basin Area in the Kissimmee
River Basin. 184

5.13 Drainage Length and Basin Area Relationships. 185

5.14 Percent Runoff as Surface Flow Along the River. 186

5.15 Percent Runoff as Surface Flow versus Drainage
Density. 188

5.16 Mean Annual Flood versus Drainage Density. 189

5.17 Sediment Delivery Ratio versus Drainage Density
and Area. 192

5.18 Schematic of Drainage Density and Watershed Area. 193

5.19 Average Total P Concentration versus Drainage Density. 195

5.20 Peak Total P Concentration versus Drainage Density. 196

5.21 Total P Concentration versus Runoff Volume by
Planning Unit for Wet and Dry Seasons. 198

5.22 Total P Load Versus Drainage Density in the Kissirmnee
River Basin. 199

5.23 Total P Load versus Drainage Density in Canadian
Watersheds. 201

5.24 Influence of Nutrient Sources and Dd on Nutrient
Loads. 202

5.25 Recent Floods in the Kissimmee River Basin. 204

5.26 Schematic of Muskingum Routing Technique. 208

5.27A Measured and Predicted Hydrographs (1965-1970),
Kissimniee River Basin. 211

5.27B Measured and Predicted Hydrograph (1968), Lower
Kissimmee River Basin. 213


xiii










LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Figure 3Pa

5.28 Measured and Predicted Hydrographs (1959-1960),
Kissimmee River Basin. 216

5.29 Water Quality (Total P) Along the River. 218

5.30A Stage-Duration Curve for Lake Tohopekaliga. 223

5.30B Stage-Area and Volume Curves for Lake
Tohopekaliga. 223

5.31 Zones of Natural and Regulated Fluctuations in
Lake Tohopekaliga. 226

5.32 Effect of Regulation on Hydrologic Response. 228

5.33 Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Lake Tohopekaliga. 234

5.34 Water Quality (Total P) in the Upper Chain of Lakes. 237

5.35 Variation of Manning's n with Depth. 241

5.36 Stage-Discharge Relationship in the Marsh. 242































xiv

















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


HYDROLOGIC-LAND USE INTERACTIONS
IN A FLORIDA RIVER BASIN

By

Philip Bruce Bedient

June, 1975

Chairman: Dr. W.C. Huber
Major Department: Environmental Engineering Sciences

Techniques are presented to describe and quantify various hydro-

logic-land use interactions which occur within a watershed or river

basin in order that environmental quality be maintained. Surface run-

off quantity and quality are characterized as a function of land use

and drainage patterns at several levels of resolution including the

river basin, tributary watersheds, lake basins, and marsh areas. Source

areas of runoff and nutrients are distinguished along with associated

transport mechanisms through the river system.

Characteristics of the hydrologic and nutrient cycles in the

Kissimmee River Basin in Florida are viewed in terms of storage and

transport parameters related to the soil, land use, lake, or stream

components of the basin. The concept of retention time, defined as

the ratio of storage volume to outflow rate, is used to compare these

various components. Retention time determines the hydrologic response

of a reservoir storage unit, in terms of the potential for flood control.

In addition, nutrient uptake rates on the land, in the soil, and in


xv











various aquatic systems are dependent on retention time for physical,

biological, and chemical reactions to occur.

A daily hydrologic water balance is applied to each soil-land

use complex within a watershed (planning unit), and this provides a

continuous estimate of storage and total runoff. The output runoff is

a function of rainfall, land use, and drainage patterns, and both

historical and predicted future conditions are simulated. Source

areas which contribute large percentages of surface runoff are identi-

fied, as these have shorter retention times for nutrient uptake potential.

Potential nutrient loading rates are calculated for each planning

unit using measured concentrations of total phosphorus and predicted

runoff volumes. Higher concentrations and loading are associated vit-h

areas dominated by intense drainage. The drainage density index, a

measure of the total length of waterways per unit area, is used to

characterize each planning unit in terms of surface runoff percentage

and nutrient loading. Detailed measurements of drainage density for

the lower basin are shown to be functions of land use, soil storage,

and measurement technique.

Application of these management principles to the Kissimmee

River Basin indicates that lake and marsh areas have much higher

retention times than flows through drainage canals or the river. In

order to control runoff volumes and nutrient loading from the land,

it follows that drainage density should be kept to a minimum where

possible. This can be accomplished through the use of marsh and lake

areas for on-site storage. Upstream lake retention times should be

maintained as high as possible through regulation schedules, since

there is little uptake potential in the river.

xv i

















I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

The competition for water among various users has reached new

levels as growth rates continue to accelerate. Agricultural and urban

demands for increased water use have far-reaching effects from

economic, social, and environmental standpoints. The problem of

determining an acceptable distribution of water quantity for all

competing users is difficult in itself, but add to that the immense

complexity of maintaining high levels of water quality at the same time,

and the problems seem insurmountable.

Environmental resource planners are being asked to solve those

very problems in such a way that economic productivity from agricul-

tural and urban pursuits, along with environmental quality, are both

maintained. In addition, solutions should not favor any one group

at the expense of another. There is hope that waste treatment and

recycling will allow users cf water, e.g., municipal, industrial,

agricultural, recreational, and ecological, to exist harmoniously

within the same region. The reality of the trade-offs which exist

between continued economic productivity and environmental quality should

indicate to what extent harmonious conditions are possible. There is

no doubt that sacrifices will have to be made in one or both of these

goals.

The problem to be investigated here revolves around the question

of balancing agricultural and urban expansion with environmental




1






2




quality, measured as hydrologic and water quality responses in a cive:

basin. It is therefore necessary to define parameters which describe

past, present, and projected rates of expansion. Measured changes

in land use and drainage patterns in a river basin provide a usctul

starting point for estimating the impact of alternative future levels

of development.

The prediction of associated hydrologic and water quality respon-

ses which exist under present land use regimes, and which may result

under some future condition presents a more complex problem. Such

cause-effect relationships are only now being addressed by environ-

mental resource planners. It is first necessary to define indices

of environmental quality which can be measured or predicted. Secondly,

the environmental responses must be related to the land use and drain-

age patterns so that a variety of interactions can be evaluated.

Finally, the question of controls or constraints on these indices

must be addressed so that trade-offs between economic expansion and

environmental quality can be quantified. The above concepts are intro-

duced here and extended and quantified in later sections.

Traditional approaches to river basin studies have placed little

emphasis on linkage mechanisms which relate land use and drainage

conditions to resulting hydrologic and water quality responses in the

watershed. Environmental indices which serve as useful measures of

quality include the volume of surface runoff and streamflo.w, and

associated nutrient concentrations or loadings which stimulate aquatic

plant growth. Alterations in land use, drainage practices, and struc-

tural configurations can have significant impacts on these hydrologic

and water quality measures.






3




Objectives

The main objective of this research is to describe ;and quantify

various hydrologic-land use interactions which occur within a water-

shed or river basin in order that environmental quality be maintained.

This requires that a technique be devised to characterize surface

runoff quantity and quality as a function of land use and drainage

patterns. Influences of soil storage, vegetative cover, drainage

intensity, land use, topography, and climate must be directly consi-

dered because they all affect hydrologic and water quality responses.

It is important to consider these interactions at several

levels of detail in order to better understand the overall response

of the watershed. Levels of resolution which are investigated include

the river basin, tributary systems (planning units), lake units, and

marsh areas. Analyzing these different components allows quantifica-

tion of source areas of runoff and nutrients as well as associated

transport mechanisms through the system.


Overview of the Research

Initial chapters serve as a literature review and lay the ground-

work for more detailed presentations of theory and application. Chap-

ter II introduces general hydrologic principles, including a discussion

of drainage basin characteristics and the hydrologic effects of vegeta-

tion and land use. The chapter concludes with a section on watershed

simulation models. Chapter III discusses water quality and ecological

principles with emphasis on describing non-point nutrient sources and

cycling in aquatic systems. A review of water quality models indicates

the close relationship which exists between hydrologic and nutrient






4




processes, thus providing motivation for investigating linkage mechan-

isms between land use, drainage conditions, and observed Xwater quality

responses in a river basin.

The Kissimmee River Basin in central Florida is undergoing pres-

sure for rapid expansion and was selected for this research study

(Figure 1.1). Chapter IV describes the environmental resources in the

basin, along with observed land use changes and water quality responses.

For convenience, the basin is divided into subwatersheds or planning

units. The upper portion of the basin consists of a chain of large

lakes undergoing rapid urbanization. The lower basin is undergoing

transition from its natural state as a marsh and slough system to a

regime dominated by improved pasture with drainage canals. In addi-

tion, a flood control project exists throughout the basin in the form

of control structures, canals, and channelization of the main river

stem. Water quality degradation in the form of excess nutrient Icad-

ing in one of the upper lakes and along the river channel has been

increasing over the last two decades. There is concern for protecting

water quality, since the Kissimmee River Basin is the main inflow

tributary to Lake Okeechobee, which provides water supply to all of

south Florida and the Everglades.

Characteristics of the hydrologic and nutrient cycles in the

Kissimmee River Basin provide a valuable conceptual framework for

understanding the overall system dynamics. Each of these cycles is

distinguished by a set of specific inflows, outflows, storages, and

other losses which determine the response of a particular component

of the system, e.g., soil, marsh, pasture, stream, lake, or planning






5






OL A, DO


KISSIMMEE
SRIVER
L H BAS IN




L MYrne -CALE I MILES

Lake

SToo 5 AIgtor ) CITY
\ \ \ CONTROL SIRUCTURE
--- COUNTY LINE
SGentr -- LAKE OR RIVER
Cp UNIT BOUNDARY



SL.k


Lake



















Figure 1.1. Location Map of the Kissinee -



















River Basin.
13

AVON PARK



14






16

Lake



17 )



18 '



Figure 1.1. Location Map of the Kissim~ ee
River Basin.






6




unit. Thus, if a group of characteristic storage and tcansport para-

meters can be defined and quantified for each of these components in

the region, then the concept of management strategies which alter the

characteristic parameters can be better evaluated (see Chapter V).

With regard to the hydrologic characterization, various components

in the river basin can be viewed as a spectrum of reservoir storages

with different volumes, inflow rates, and outflow rates. An important

parameter is the retention time, T, defined as the ratio of storage

volume to outflow rate. Reservoirs with high values of T have either

relatively large storage or relatively small outflow rates. The

reservoir concept can be applied to streams or lakes as well as to

units of land use, e.g., marsh, pasture, cropland, urban, and units of

soil type.

Retention time is important not only as a hydrologic parameter,

but also it plays a key role in nutrient cycling, loading rates, and

uptake rates. In this respect, treatment rates on the land, in the

soil, and in various aquatic systems are dependent on T to provide

the necessary time for physical, biological, or chemical uptake

mechanisms to operate. In general, the longer the retention time,

the greater the uptake of nutrients either as plant biomass or as

sediments.

The storage-treatment concept thus provides a useful framework

for investigating the response of various basin components to changing

patterns of land use, drainage intensity, and nutrient loading. As

retention times are altered by various management practices, the ability

of the system to act as a storage-treatment unit is also affected. The






7




remainder of Chapter V is divided into detailed application of storage

and transport concepts in the Kissimmnee River Bnsin.

Because the hydrologic response of the drainage basin is che

controlling link for land use and water quality considerations, a

hydrologic modeling technique has been developed which directly in-

corporates land use changes and drainage practices. The model is

based on determining a water balance for each soil-land use complex

within each planning unit, thus providing an estimate of storage

effects in the basin.

Hydrologic output from the model includes surface and subsurface

runoff volumes on a daily basis which are then routed through the

river system to Lake Okeechobee. The output is a function of rainfall

distribution and land use patterns within each planning unit. Both

historical and predicted future land uses can be simulated.

The information provided by such a model allows the determination

of storages and outflows from various land use and soil components.

Characteristic retention times are calculated under changing regimes

of drainage and management for each component. Source areas which

contribute large percentages of surface runoff can be identified, and

the effects of storage capacity on outflow rates from each planning

unit can be investigated. In this way, the hydrologic model provides

a characterization of runoff quantity as a function of land use patterns.

While the hydrologic model estimates source areas which contribute

runoff volumes, non-point sources of nutrients are primarily a function

of land use, with agricultural lands contributing the highest loads due

to fertilization or cattle density. Water quality degradation, primarily






8



due to nutrient loading in the Kissimmcee River Basin, has been moni-

tored both in the upper lakes and in the lower river and tributaries.

Potential nutrient loading rates are calculated for each planning

unit using measured concentrations of total phosphorus and predicted

runoff volumes. Higher concentrations tend to be associated with

higher runoff rates in areas dominated by intense drainage. When

drainage canals are used for improved pasture, maximum storage capacity

is reduced and surface outflow rates are increased compared to natural

conditions, causing a reduction in retention time for the rainfall

which eventually flows to the river. Shorter retention times con-

tribute to an increase in potential nutrient loading from intensively

drained areas for several reasons: 1) the length of overland flow

through vegetation is significantly reduced, 2) travel times through

shallow groundwater regimes toward nearby canals are reduced, 3) flow

velocities in canals exceed rates necessary for physical uptake, and

4) vegetative surface area available for biological uptake is reduced.

Detailed analyses of land use and drainage patterns along the

lower river system indicate the importance of the drainage density

index, defined as the total length of waterways divided by the associated

watershed area. Drainage density provides a useful general indicator

of land use intensity, runoff volumes, and nutrient concentration

associated with the various tributaries in the Kissimrmee River Basin.

Drainage density is directly related to the average length of overland

flow, soil moisture storage capacity, and surface runoff volumes via

canals. In this respect, the index serves as an indicator of transport

of runoff and nutrients for a particular land use type or for an

entire planning unit.






9



While each hydrologic component in the basin has a charaLteristic

retention time for storage-treatment, it follows that the Kissini ce

River Basin taken as a whole can also be characterized using the same

concept. The original river and floodplain provided a certain delay

and treatment of lateral runoff waters and upstream contributions from

Lake Kissimmee. The present channelized regime also assumes a character-

istic retention time and storage capacity. While seasonal storage

has been reduced, and peak flows have increased in the river, the

annual retention time has probably been reduced due to channelization.

However, the alteration of retention time and associated nutrient

loading is more severe in the tributary drainage areas along the river.

Thus, the primary cause of water quality degradation and increased

flood flows may be due to upland drainage rather than floodplain

channelization, but it is undeniable that both actions have served

to decrease overall retention times in the basin.

Detailed analyses of the upper lake units indicate a similar

problem to that which is occurring in the lower portions of the

river, specifically, an excess of nutrients being transported to the

receiving water. Lake Tohopekaliga is the primary recipient of nu-

trients contained in the effluent from five sewage treatment plants

which empty into the lake. Agricultural runoff provides an additional

source. The lake has a large retention time and acts as a storage-

treatment unit for these wastes, assimilating a large majority of

nutrients as aquatic plant uptake or sediments before the water flows

downstream in the chain of lakes. While it appears that uptake mechan-

isms are presently cleansing the water to a high degree within the






10




lake, it is only a matter of time before higher concentrations are

passed downstream if excess nutrient loading is allowed to continue.

Nutrient budgets and retention times are calculated for the lake

along with uptake rates of total phosphorus. This type of analysis

may indicate the possible consequences to be expected if nutrient

loading to the lake is controlled or curtailed in the future.

The discussion thus far has emphasized the tributary and lake

drainage system where runoff water travels overland, through canals,

and via subsurface pathways. Only surface flows are assumed to con-

tribute phosphorus concentrations of any significance due to the long

retention times and uptake mechanisms in the soil. Actual sources

of nutrients from various land uses are reviewed in a later section.

Evidence indicates that certain land uses provide uptake capacity for

nutrient enriched water which flows from upstream areas.

In order to place the storage-treatment concept in proper per-

spective, a study of nutrient uptake in an actual marsh in the Kissim-

mee River Basin is presented. This provides a more detailed view of

actual storage volumes, treatment rates, and retention times which

occur in a storage-treatment unit of the basin. A marsh area in one

of the planning units was selected because flow and nutrient data

were available from an intensive field study conducted by the FCD.

Predicted inflow runoff volumes from the remaining area of the planning

unit were routed through the marsh area for several years of historical

record (1967-1970). Stage-volume and stage-discharge curves were gen-

erated in order to characterize the storage-treatment and retention

time parameters in the marsh. Results indicate that the average





11




retention time in the marsh is a function of the ratio of contributing

drainage area to marsh area and the volume of inflow runoff.

The above discussion has presented a general framework for the

analysis of hydrologic land use interactions at several levels of

resolution in a river basin. As the details of these relationships

unfold in the remaining chapters, it should be remembered that the

problem of balancing land use expansion with environmental quality

is both complex and conflicting, and that a variety of groups are

interested in the overall outcome. Thus, technical solutions must

eventually be evaluated in the public arena before implementation can

take place.
















II. IIYDROLOGIC PRINCIPLES TN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT


The Hydrologic Cycle

The hydrologic cycle is a concept which considers the processes

of motion, loss, and recharge of the earth's waters. Hydrology is

defined in the following manner (Chow, 1964; p. 1-2).

Hydrology is the science that treats of the
waters of the Earth, their occurrence, circu-
lation and distribution, their chemical and
physical properties, and their reaction with
their environment, including their relation
to living things.

As indicated in Figure 2.1, the hydrologic cycle may be divided

into three principal phases: 1) precipitation, 2) evaporation,

and 3) surface and groundwater runoff. Quantities of water going

through individual sequences of the cycle can be evaluated by a

simple continuity or water-budget equation of the form

I 0 = AS (2.1)

where

I = inflow of water per area per unit time

0 = outflow of water per area per unit time, and

AS = change in storage volume associated with the

given area per unit time

The hydrologic cycle has neither beginning nor end, as water

evaporates from land and water surfaces to the atmosphere. The

evaporated moisture eventually precipitates back to the earth




12














TRANSPIRATION (T)





PRECIPITATION (P) (P)
(E)


SRUNOFF (R) EVAPORFAT!ON (E)
INFILTRATION (I)
SOIL
WATER _MOISTURE INTERFLO (F)
TABLE -----

SATURATED ZONE _
GROUNDWATER STORAGE (Sg) SURFACE
STORAGE (Ss
GROUNDWATER FLOW (G)
Fi(G) 2..



Figure 2.1. Component& of the Hydrologic Cycle.





14




where it may be intercepted or transpired by plants, may become

surface runoff, or may infiltrate into the ground. Once in the

ground, water may be stored as soil moisture and evapotranspired,

or percolate to deeper zones to become part of groundwater flow.

Surface and groundwater flow from the land eventually reaches

streams or lakes from which water evaporates to complete the cycle.

The hydrologic cycle is comprised of the various complicated

processes of precipitation, evaporation, evapotranspiration,

interception, infiltration, percolation, storage, and runoff. The

basic theories and concepts underlying each of these processes is

presented in detail in all of the following references: Chow (1964),

DeWiest (1965), Eagleson (1970), Gray (1973), Linsley et al. (1975),

and Viessman et al. (1972). A brief discussion of various components

of the hydrologic cycle is presented below by considering the

hydrologic equation.


The Hydrologic Equation

A schematic diagram of the hydrologic cycle for a region is

presented in Figure 2.2, which can be readily translated into

mathematical terms. Hydrologic variables P, E, T, R, G, and I, as

defined in Figure 2.1, are subscripted with s or g to denote pro-

cesses above or below ground. For example, R signifies ground-
g
water flow which eventually reaches a surface stream, and Es re-

presents evaporation from surface water storage. The water budget

applied to a region is a balance between inflows, outflows, and

changes in storage. Figure 2.2 can be translated into the following

mathematical statements:











RG P Es Ts EG TG

SURFACE FLOW


I R2



-I----------------- EEVN
Ss RECEIVING
"s -- WATER






C I





0rlob etl. 167, 52)
-" -L--......- G - \ 8^ / T





Figure 2.2. Water Budget of a Region
(Orlob et a!., 1967, p. 52).






16




(1) hydrologic budget above the surface

P + R R2 + R E T I = S (2.2)
1 2 g s s s

(2) hydrologic budget below the surface

I + G G R E T = S (2.3)
1 2 g g g g

(3) overall hydrologic budget (sum of equations 2.2 and 2.3)

P (R R) (E) ( ) -- (T + T ) (G G )
2 1 s g s g 2 1

= A(S + S ) (2.4)
s g

where all values are in units of volume per unit time.

The hydrologic budget for a region can be simplified to

P R- G E T = S (2.5)

where the various terms refer to total precipitation and net

values of surface flow, groundwater flow, evaporation, transpira-

tion, and storage, respectively, in units of volume per unit time.

The application of equation 2.5 to specific areas presents a

difficult problem mainly due to the inability to estimate various

terms in the equation. Precipitation is measured by rain gages

located throughout an area. Point rainfall data are used to compute

average depths over a specific area, and the density of the gage

network significantly affects the value of the averages. Orographic

effects and storm patterns also may alter the averaged results.

Nonuniform distribution of gages can be accounted for in a weighting

method developed by Thiessen (1911), whereby each gage is weighted

by the ratio of the area surrounding the gage to the total area.

Surface flows can be measured by flow devices located in

streams and rivers of the area. Estimates of surface runoff or






17




overland flow are difficult to separate from groundwater contri-

butions, especially during flood events when the soil is saturated.

Measurements of groundwater flow can be obtained by analvzing

hydrographic streamflow records during drought periods when sur-

face runoff is negligible. Well records provide information on

the response of the groundwater system to recharge from rainfall.

Estimation of soil moisture storage and infiltration rates

are generally crude due to variations in drainage basin topography,

soils, and vegetation. Determination of the quantities of water

evaporated and transpired is also difficult because of the depen-

dence on similar factors. Most estimates of evapotranspiration (ET)

are obtained by using evaporation pans, energy budgets, cass-

transfer methods, or empirical relationships.


The Runoff Cycle

The runoff cycle is that portion of the hydrologic cycle

between incident precipitation over land areas and subsequent

discharge of this water through stream channels or evapotranspira-

tion. There are three main routes of travel for water once it

reaches the ground: overland flow, interflow, and groundwater

flow. Overland flow, or surface runoff, is that water which travels

over the ground surface to a channel. Interflow, or subsurface

flow, infiltrates the soil surface and moves laterally through the

upper soil layers until it enters a stream channel. It moves more

slowly than surface runoff and'reaches the stream later. Some pre-

cipitation may percolate downward until it reaches the water table

and discharges into streams as groundwater flow or base flow. The






18




groundwater contribution to strcamflow is relatively constant

because of its very low flow velocity.

The distinctions drawn between the three components of flow

are arbitrary. For convenience it has been customary to consider

the total flow to be divided into only two parts: direct runoff

and base flow. The difference depends more on the time of arrival

in the stream rather than on the path followed. The relative

magnitude of the various components of the runoff cycle depends on

the physical features and conditions of the drainage basin and on

the characteristics of the rainfall.

A typical streamflow hydrograph resulting from an isolated

period of rainfall consists of a rising limb, crest segment, and

recession portion. The separation of a hydrograph into direct

and groundwater runoff is somewhat arbitrary since the distinction

between these two components is vague. Various graphical techniques

exist for separating the base flow component. The most widely used

procedure consists of extending the recession existing before the

storm to a point under the peak of the hydrograph. From this point

a straight line is drawn to the hydrograph at a point N days after

the peak (ABC, Figure 2.3A). This procedure is arbitrary and no

better than line AC, which is simply a straight line from the point

of rise to the hydrograph N days after the peak. The difference

in volume of base flow by these two methods is quite small. Another

method is illustrated by line ADE (Figure 2.3A) in which the ground-

water recession after the storm is projected back under the hydro-

graph to a point under the inflection of the falling limb. An





19











RISING CREST- RECESSION-*
LIMB









S-- --N DAYS--







C'

D

A^ ~~ -- --- ~- E
B

N= A2
A= Drainage Area (Mi. )



DAYS
Figure 2.3A. Streamflow Hydrograph Separation Techniques
(From Linsley et al., 1975, p. 232).






20




arbitrary rising limb is sketched from the point of rise of the

hydrograph to connect with the projected recession. This separation

technique has advantages where groundwater is plentiful and reaches

the stream fairly rapidly.

The contribution to streamflow from a storm of moderate inten-

sity and constant in time is depicted in Figure 2.3B. Channel

precipitation is the only increment of streamflow during the initial

period of rainfall. The sum of interception, depression storages,

and evaporation is referred to as surface retention. Available

storages of surface retention and soil moisture are satisfied before

appreciable surface runoff occurs. After a sufficiently long time,

surface retention and soil moisture level off to constant values as

determined by the loss to evapotranspiration. Water not retained

as soil moisture either moves to the stream as interflow or pene-

trates the water table and may eventually reach the stream as ground-

water. The rate of surface runoff approaches a relatively constant

percentage of the rainfall rate.

The overall view of the runoff cycle presented in Figure 2.3B

is a simplification of a very complex process. Variations in

rainfall amount and intensity, soil characteristics, vegetative

patterns, antecedent moisture, and topography all act to create a

complex pattern of behavior. In an effort to describe the hydro-

logic response of a drainage basin, several conceptual views or

models have been proposed to describe drainage basin dynamics. These

are briefly described below.

Horton (1945) introduced the overland flow model (Figure 2.4A)

which basically distinguished two main components of flow to the












SCHANNEL .PRECIPITATION .









-| \ .\'/\p-, OVERLAND FLOW-"---">
S.* .* .
-.



F-
SINFILTRATION * '. .

S* *



z U . ..
'---OVERLAND FLOW VP'


S. F TOTAL RUNOFF =
.. STREAM FLOW
,. *.


Fig ur *23 .* . * CTAcle
a a: " _ 1975,I 2 ) .
LO r O .* ." .


o .. .
0o 0




-J
I-
JU Z '' .
0 W


I--


SURFACE RETENTION
E VA PO-TR ANS P!R.
,EVAPORATION

TIME FROM BEGINNING OF RAINFALL


Figure 2.3B. ComponcetLs of the Runoff Cycle
(Lisley et al.; 1975, p. 264).





22






SPRECIPITATION (P)





INFILTRATION OVERLAND FLOW

^._..WAMTERT









.P

SHROUGHFLOW

SOIL

ZONE EPHEM



.,:: .

..`SATURATEDZONE`. P E N ENNIAL




P

EXPANDED CONTRIBUTING AREA





S/STREAMFLOW








Figure 2.4. Conceptual Hydrologic Models
(Gregory and Walling, 1973, p. 28).






23



stream, overland flow and groundwater flow. The maximum rate at

which water could enter the soil was designated the infiltration

capacity. If this value was exceeded by rainfall intensity, water

would first be stored as surface detention, and subsequently would

become surface runoff. The overland flow model forms the basis for

hydrograph separation techniques which divide surface runoff from

base flow, and it treats much of the basin as a source of water

contributing directly to the streamflow hydrograph.

Difficulties encountered in separating components of stream-

flow hydrographs indicated that overland flow was not experienced in

many drainage basins, and the observation of subsurface flow led

to the suggestion of the throughflow model (Figure 2.4B). It has

been proposed that throughflow, which occurs in the soil zone, and

interflow, which occurs just above the saturated zone, are the most

important modes of flow on hillsides in humid areas (Kirkby,1969).

More recently, awareness of the dynamic character of the drain-

age basin and its stream network, along with the fact that overland

flow velocities far exceed those of throughflow, have prompted the

development of the partial area and variable source area models of

streamflow production (Figure 2.4C). These models view areas immed-

iately adjacent to streams and lakes as being the regions most likely

to contribute to runoff formation. In forested watersheds, Hewlett

and Hibbert (1967) suggested that runoff production was achieved by

expansion of saturated zones along the valley floors and over the

lower portions of adjacent slopes. The contributing areas depend on

rainfall, antecedent conditions, and basin characteristics.






24



Although the above conceptual models differ in their repre-

sentation of drainage basin dynamics, they all have several character-

istics in common. The various hydrologic components, both surface

and subsurface, are viewed as a spectrum of reservoir storages

with different volumes, inflow rates, and outflow rates. The

ratio of storage volume to outflow rate, i.e., retention time T,

serves as a useful parameter to distinguish storage and flow capa-

cities of various components in a river basin. The reservoir

concept can be applied and compared at various levels of resolution,

e.g.,river basin, tributary, lake, floodplain, or unit of land use.

In this way, it is possible to determine and quantify those regions

most likely to contribute surface runoff.

From the above discussion, it is evident that the rainfall-

runoff process is relatively complex, and that sophisticated tech-

niques of analysis offer the most reliable method of predicting

runoff from rainfall over a given drainage basin. The practice of

estimating runoff as a fixed percentage of rainfall is commonly

used for the design of urban storm-drainage facilities, a system

dominated by impervious areas. Computer simulation techniques have

been devised to handle the more complex problem of predicting runoff

and streamflow in a natural drainage basin. These methods will be

reviewed in a later section. First, it is necessary to describe the

general and specific characteristics of drainage basins which relate

to hydrologic responses in the watershed. Also in this context, it

is important to consider man-made changes in land use and drainage

patterns and their relationship to watershed hydrology. These






25



principles are introduced in this chapter, and extended and quanti-

fied in later chapters along with application to specific study

areas.


Drainage Basin Characteristics

A drainage basin is the entire area providing runoff to, and

sustaining part or all of the streamflow of, the main stream and

its tributaries. Drainage basin or watershed thus refers to the

area enclosed by the boundaries of the surface and groundwater

runoff system. The need to study the form and process relationships

in the drainage basin derives from the function involved in the

hydrologic cycle in conveying water from precipitation to its

final destination as streamflow.

Measurement and quantitative description of the drainage

basin were firmly established by Horton (1932, 1945) when he

initially characterized drainage basins by morphologic, soil,

geologic or structural, and vegetational factors. Langbein (1947)

extended these ideas to include topographic characteristics which

relate to drainage basin functions. A drainage basin can be de-

scribed by topographic parameters which include area and size,

shape and pattern, relief and slope, and drainage density. A

variety of interpretations are available in any of the following

references: Strahler (1964), Leopold et al. (1964), and Gregory

and Walling (1973).

Drainage basin area is difficult to correlate with catchment

response due to nonuniform soil, vegetative, and topographic pro-

perties. High relief and slope indices tend to be associated






26



with smaller basins. It follows that the highest floods per unit

area are found to be characteristic of the smallest catchment areas.

For many years a simple relation between an index of streamflow (Q)

and catchment area (A) has been used as a guide to basin response.

Relations of the form Q = aAb, where a and b are constants, have

been used for predicting flood events. Basin area has a different

significance depending on catchment characteristics and the index

of streamflow. Glymph and Holtan (1969) illustrate different

types of relationships which can result when mean annual runoff

is related to drainage area (Figure 2.5). In humid areas such

as Ohio, upland infiltration returns in part to downstream channels

causing a gain in streamflow per unit area as basin size increases,

In drier regions, runoff per unit area may be constant or decrease

with increasing basin size.

Other indices of basin size have been used in relationships

with watershed response. The length of the longest stream (L) was

used by Morisawa (1967) in a relation with mean annual discharge (Q)

for watersheds in the eastern United States. Stream order, which

measures the amount of branching within a basin, is of limited

value in relation to measures of stream discharge unless the method

of ordering is directly relevant to runoff production. A complete

discussion of various methods for stream ordering is contained in

Gregory and Walling (1973).

Basin relief, which refers to channel or valley slope, exer-

cises an influence over peak runoff and sediment production in the

basin. The significance of relief is difficult to ascertain because





27









100





COSHOCTON,
OHIO.---




Lu LRIESEL, TEX.

lrZ .IO I I I

I . .. ____- ... .. -


z


< TOMBSTONE, ----
ARIZ. -



.001 .1 10 1000
AREA- Sq. Miles

Figure 2.5. Mean Annual Runoff versus Drainage Area
(Glymph and Holtan, 1969, p. 54).





28



it is bound up with other basin parameters. These same points

apply to basin shape, which generally determines the lag time of

the basin hydrograph response. This effect can be observed in

Figure 2.6A, B, and C from DeWiest (1965). The pattern of the

drainage network also affects the hydrograph response as shown in

Figure 2.6D and E from Strahler (1964).

Many of the indices discussed above do not respond to the

dynamic character of the watershed because they express overall

size, shape, or relief of the basin. It is now increasingly appre-

ciated that only part of the basin actually produces runoff and

sediment at a particular time. Therefore, of all topographic

characteristics, perhaps drainage density is potentially the most

useful single index of drainage basin processes. The significance

of drainage density stems from the facts that water and sediment

yield are very much influenced by the length of water courses per

unit area, and that it can be regarded as both an input or a response

to input (output) to the basin.


Measurement of Drainage Density

Drainage density was defined by Horton (1932) as the length of

streams per unit of drainage area, and he considered a range of

drainage densities from 2.0 mi/sq mi for steep impervious areas to

nearly zero in permeable basins with high infiltration rates.

More than 20 years of investigation from areas all over the

world have shown a greater range in the values. Strahler (1957)

described drainage density values less than 5.0 mi/sq mi as coarse,

between 5.0 and 13.7 as medium, between 13.7 and 155.3 as fine, and




29







A B C





Q Q 0








D E









S\ -..E




Figure 2.6. The Significance of Drainage Basin Shape (A, B, C)
and Network Pattern (D, E) on Hvdrograph Response
(DeWiest, 1965, p. 72, and Strahler, 1964, p. 4-44).






30



greater than 155.3 as ultra-fine. Values in the medium category

have been recorded from large areas of the humid central and eastern

parts of the United States, whereas fine values have been measured

in the Badlands in South Dakota (Smith, 1958).

Reported values are subject to error because the densities must

be determined from maps, aerial photographs, or field surveys of

the basin. Horton (1945) originally suggested measuring the water-

courses shown as blue lines on U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000

topographic maps, but a disadvantage of this method is that not all

streams and valleys may be represented on the map. Some workers have

supplemented the network of blue lines with additional segments

from the pattern contour crenulations (Carlston, 1963; Orsborn,

1970). Morisawa (1957) compared several methods for measuring

drainage density and found that the blue line method differed

significantly from other methods.

The drainage network varies according to the map scale and,

in some cases, from one map edition to another. Giusti and Schneider

(1962) compared maps of different dates and scales for the Piedmont

region and demonstrated variations in drainage densities up to one

order of magnitude for scales of 1:250,000 and 1:24,000.

Map convention, map scale, and method of determination of the

drainage net must be considered to calculate drainage density

values. Because these techniques are time-consuming, more rapid

methods of calculation have been proposed. Carlston and Langbein

(1960) proposed a rapid line intersection method which involves

drawing a line of knownlength (L) on a contour map and counting






31



the number of streams (n) which intersect the line. An apprcxiia-

tion of drainage density can be expressed in mi/sq mi as

D = 1.41 n/L (2.6)
d

Electronic scanning of aerial and infra-red photographs in order

to detect changes in film intensity has also been utilized (McCoy,

1971).


Drainage Density Relationships

Drainage density occupies a central position in describing

the drainage basin because it is closely related to other basin

characteristics, as well as input to the basin and output from

the basin. Attempts have been made to develop quantitative

relationships of drainage density to climatic inputs and also to

basin outputs.

Several useful relationships exist for describing stream

areas, stream lengths, and stream numbers, all of which are im-

portant for understanding drainage density. The law of stream

lengths (Horton, 1945) can be stated as

Lu+r r
S RL (2.7)
u

where Lu is the mean length of channel of order u, RL is the ratio

of the lengths of different order,and r is a positive integer.

Another measure of network structure is the bifurcation

ratio Rb,
N
Rb Nu (2.8)
u+1






32



where N is the number of stream segments of order u and Rb is
u b
the ratio of N to the number of segments of next higher order.

Horton (1945) developed the law of stream numbers from equation

2.8 which states that the number of stream segments of each order

formsan inverse geometric sequence with order number, or


N = (2.9)
U b

where k is the order of the trunk segment.

Drainage density was defined by Horton (1932) as the ratio

of total channel-segment lengths cumulated for all orders in a

basin to the basin area A or

k Nj
r E L
D = Ak (2.10)
d Ak

Horton (1945) combined the laws of stream numbers and lengths with

his definition of drainage density to yield

u-1 u
D L1R RLbl-1
D (2.11)
u Au RLb -1

where D is the drainage density of an entire basin of order u,

RLb is the ratio of RL to Rb, and other terms are as defined pre-

viously. This equation combines all the geometric factors which

determine the composition of the drainage net of a stream system

into one expression.

The average length of overland flow L is approximately one-half
g
the average distance between stream channels, which equals the

reciprocal of Dd. When modified for the effect of land and stream

slope, Horton (1945) expressed this as






33



1
L __D= I (2.12)


where 0 is channel slope and s is average ground slope in the

area.

Factors controlling drainage density are the same as those that

control the characteristic length dimension of any group of first-

order basins. In general, low drainage density is favored in regions

of highly permeable soils, dense vegetative cover, and low relief.

High drainage density is favored in regions of impermeable soils,

sparse vegetation, and mountainous relief. Thus humid temperate

areas tend to have lower densities compared to semi-arid regions.

A comprehensive study of drainage density controls by Melton

(1957) indicated a strong inverse relationship to the effective

precipitation index of Thornthwaite (1948). Other independent

variables such as infiltration capacity, vegetative cover, surface

roughness, and runoff intensity were investigated. Of these, only

surface roughness had no significant correlation with Dd. In
d
another study, Carlston (1963) interpreted variations in drainage

density according to terrain transmissivity.

The relationship of drainage density to basin output is perhaps

most significant. The drainage network characterizes the infiltra-

tion capacity of soils and creates the density necessary for excess

outflow from the basin. If channel patterns are constant, then dis-

charge should be directly related to channel density because channel

flow usually dominates the basin response. Runoff intensity depends

to a large extent on drainage density (Melton, 1957). Mean annual

2
flood is usually related to D in the form Q 2.3 a Dd, where 0 is
d.- d' '. 3





34



flood discharge equalled or exceeded on the average once in 2.3

years, and indices of base flow are correlated to Dd (Orsborn,

1970; Trainer, 1969). Such static interpretations can give am-

biguous results if the same values of Dd are related to different

flow indices, and Gregory and Walling (1968) suggest an alterna-

tive method which considers the dynamic changes of Dd within a

given watershed. They indicate that total channel length (L),

which is directly related to Dd, increases with actual discharge

(Q) in the form Q a L2

Drainage density has been shown to be related to the average

length of overland flow, soil moisture storage capacity, and rates

of surface runoff via canals. By serving as a general indicator

of volumes and flow rates, drainage density can be associated with

a characteristic retention time for a particular land use type

or entire drainage area. High values of the index are character-

ized by low retention times, and vice versa. Thus, the concept

of drainage density as a measure of land use intensity fits nicely

into the reservoir storage concept which has already been intro-

duced.

As discussed earlier, retention time also plays a key role

in determining nutrient loading and uptake rates. It follows that

drainage density may serve as an indicator of nutrient levels

emanating from a watershed because of the close relationships with

retention time and land use. These effects are explored in more de-

tail in Chapter V. The next section discusses the effects of land

use and drainage practices on hydrologic response.






35



Hydrologic If.fccts of Vec ation and Land Use

The significance of vegetation in the drainage basin relates

to its influence over basin characteristics such as net input,

storage capacity, and hydraulic roughness. Vegetation directly

affects rates of evapotranspiration, interception, infiltra-tion, and

overland flow through the distribution of roots, stems, and leaves.

Thus vegetative cover and associated land use patterns govern, to

a large extent, the distribution of water on and under the land

surface. The general relationships between vegetation and hydrology

are summarized by Colman (1953, p. 69) in the following discussion:

Despite their great range in form all types
of vegetation share certain characteristics that
are important in relation to water-yield control.
Every vegetative cover is made up of three parts:
The canopy of living and dead stems and leaves that
stands clear of the soil, the accumulation of dead
and decaying plant remains that lies on or in the
soil surface, and the living and dead roots and sub-
surface stems that permeate the soil. The canopy
above ground and the surface litter accumulation
operate as barriers interposed between the atmosphere
and the soil. They intercept precipitation, and
thus temper the delivery of water to the soil. They
insulate the soil, thus reducing the interchange
of heat between soil and atmosphere, and they re-
tard wind movement near the soil surface. Because
both act as insulating materials they slow the
evaporation of water from the soil. Their insulat-
ing effect, however, may be offset by loss of soil
water through transpiration of the living parts of the
canopy. At the soil surface vegetation obstructs
the overland flow of water and the pickup and trans-
port of soil material. This is accomplished by stems
and litter accumulations that form miniature anchored
dams and diversion walls, and by roots and decaying
organic matter that mat the soil or bind it. Beneath
the soil surface, to depths reached by roots, vegeta-
tion acts both directly and indirectly. Roots, by
their growth and subsequent death and decay, perme.te
the soil with material that both binds it and aids
the flow of water through it. Roots also absorb water






36




and carry it to the above-ground parts of plants,
thus contributing to the return of water to the
atmosphere. The parts of vegetation that are be-
low the soil surface act indirectly through the
favorable environment they create for the activity
of small animals, insects, fungi, molds, and
bacteria. To all these organisms vegetation means
shelter and favorable living conditions; to most of
them it means food as well. Some of them burrow in
the soil and thus aid in keeping it permeable to
water. Others break down organic matter and thus
perform the same kind of function, while at the
same time permeating the soil with the binding
materials of their own bodies.

The search for quantitative relationships between vegetation

and hydrologic processes spans a broad spectrum of disciplines

including forest hydrology, agricultural hydrology, botany, eco-

system management, water resources management, and land use planning.

Research on forested and agricultural lands is at a relatively

advanced stage compared to the analysis of natural marsh and swamp

regions. Each of these land use types is discussed below with

emphasis on presenting quantitative results where they exist.

Nutrient and water quality considerations are deferred until Chap-

ter III.


Forest Hydrology

One of the most widely quoted sources of information on forest

hydrology is the International Symposium on Forest Hydrology (Sopper

and Lull, 1967). Earlier qualitative treatments are presented by

Kittredge (1948) and Colman (1953). Penman (1963) approaches the

subject by considering the mechanisms of evapotranspiration as the

dominant process linking vegetative type to hydrologic response.

Pereira (1973) presents results from studies of tropical watersheds.

Most of these sources include studies on small, well-monitored,






37



forested watersheds in which a change in vegetation is introduced

and a change in hydrologic regime observed. Hewlett and Ilibbert

(1967) present a numerical rating system which relates precipi-

tation and streamflow records for use in classifying the response

of small watersheds in humid areas. Important inputs which in-

fluence the response factors include soil depth to impervious layer,

average land slope, average annual storm depth, and land use.

Forested watersheds are ranked according to mean precipitation (P),

direct runoff or quick flow (V), and response factors R = V/P

and P = V/(P-E) where E = evaporation. Hewlett and Helvey (1970)

show an 11 percent increase in quick flow following forest clear-

felling on a small Appalachian basin. Woodruff and Hewlett (1970)

attempted to predict the average annual hydrologic response of

ungaged watersheds in the East by regression against 15 basin

parameters describing stream network, slope, and cover. The re-

gression coefficients were non-significant indicating that response

is controlled chiefly by soil storage and porous groundwater

effects not included in the analysis.

Pereira (1967) discusses the effects of land use on water and

energy budgets of tropical African watersheds. A series of experi-

ments to study major land use problems were planned based on soil

moisture studies. These included 1) replacement of mountain-pro-

tecting bamboo forests with softwood plantations, 2) replacement

of rain forests with tea plantations, 3) control of clear-felled

areas on steep slopes, and 4) control of overgrazed ranchlands from

erosion and floods.






38



Results indicate that water use by full canopies of bamboo,

cypress, and pine was approximately equal. Replacement of rain

forests by tea plantations resulted in a two- to fourfold increase

in stormflows. Peak flows were up to 50 times higher in tea

plantations over the original forest. Controls on overgrazed

ranchlands produced a doubling in penetration depth of water in

the soil and a consequent reduction in surface runoff.

Douglass (1967) discusses the effects of species and arrange-

ment of forests on evapotranspiration (ET) rates. Results indicate

that pine forests consistently use more water, and from deeper

depths, than shallower-rooted grasses, which signifies that moisture

use is closely related to rooting depth. Length and density of

grasses are found to vary with distance from the water table.

In addition, alterations in stand density generally tend to reduce

ET and increase water yield (Figure 2.7A and B).

Lull and Sopper (1967) found, after analyzing 137 small water-

sheds in the Northeastern United States, that precipitation, per-

cent forest cover, and maximum July temperature are the parameters

which most influence annual and seasonal streamflows. They used

multiple regression analyses to explain variation of flows among

the watersheds.

Hibbert (1967) reports results for 39 studies on the effect

of altering forest cover on water yield. Taken collectively, these

studies reveal that forest reduction increases water yield, and

that reforestation decreases water yield. The control watershed

approach, one treated and one untreated, is used in most cases.






39









8
7 --- -------------------------------
6964


a -4
56 L9 6

3 5196

A


Z /1962
1 961
1960
0
-t ----------
-1

-2 ---------- ---












SOTHINNED-






I
-UNTH iNED













s I 5 I1 I S I S 23 I 5 S 25
LP'ir.L I rY I IUNE JUtL | UIUIUT ISPTEMIIRf


Figure 2.7. Change in Water Yield after Conversion of
Hardwood to Grass (A), and Change in Soil
Moisture under Thinned and Unthinned Lob-
lolly Pine Plantation (B) (Douglass, 1967,
p. 453).





40



First-year response to complete forest reduction varies up to

450 mm of increased streamflow (Figure 2.8A). There is strong

evidence that, in humid regions, streamflow response is proportional

to reduction in forest cover (Figure 2.8B), depending on the

directional aspect of watershed.

Coweeta Watershed 13 represents a unique situation, in that

the cutting experiment was initiated in 1939 and repeated in 1962

after regrowth. Streamflow increases are almost identical (Figure

2.9A) and as the forest regrows following treatment, increases

in streamflow decline, and the rate of decline is related to the

rate of forest recovery as shown for several different studies

in Figure 2.9B.

The above discussion indicates the complexities which surround

forested watershed studies. Land cover, basin morphology, geology,

and climate all interact simultaneously to produce the observed

hydrologic response. While many of the above experiments on

forested lands have produced only qualitative results, agricultural

hydrology has made significant progress in obtaining quantitative

relationships.


Hydrology of Agricultural Lands

The first real impetus for research on agricultural hydrology

came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) with the soil

conservation movement of the 1930's. Research was aimed at deter-

mining the relative effectiveness of various farming practices

and land uses in holding water on the land to reduce runoff and

soil erosion. By 1964, studies had been completed on 900 small







41


















500 ---I

A COWEETA NORTHERLY
A COWEETA SOUTHERLY
0 FERNOW
S ALL OTHERS
300

A ,
200 -


100 D



0 10 20 30 40 Co 60 70 60 90 100
REDUCTION IN FO~ "ST COVER (PERCEl.T)

















400-






B ioo o
to



100 -- ^SC



0 0o 20 30 0 so 60 7 so0 0 100
REDUCTION IN FOREST COVER (PERCENT)




Figure 2.8. First-Year Streamflow Increases after
Treatment versus Reduction of Forest
Cover (A), and Showing Influence of
Aspect (B) (Hibbert, 1967, p. 536).







42











COWEETA 13
MAY-APRIL WATERYEAR




I 0 l 400


"l ,I ,t -T ,s I
B 0 0










YEARS

















I Iw TETHO L
4





















0 IO T o 4o o




PrCEN7T GE OF AA RZKP S'ED 09 AGO;STED


Figure 2.9. Streamflow Increases for Coweeta Watershed 13
Following Treatments (A), and Decrease in
Water Yield versus Percentage of Area Reforested
B) (Hibbert 1967 538).
2. COU SPRIGS pF S^ '
SHACKHOMU OPI E ToE .,


k 22Oj" WHITE HOLLOW
0 10 20 30 4 0 60 73 80 0 130
PHrPCOTi'E OF t4a 0CE3cS'ED: 0i') ;r;sE3


Figure 2.9. Streamflow Increases for Coweeta Watershed 13
Following Treatments (A), and Decrease in
Water Yield versus Percentage of Area Reforested
(B) (Hibbert, 1967, P. 538).






43




runoff plots with 35 soil types. Continued research efforts by

the USDA and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) have provided a

substantial part of the present knowledge about land use effects

on runoff and streamflow.

The Coshocton experimental watersheds were set up to study

the effects of agricultural practices on water yield (Harrold

et al., 1962). Five watersheds, having areas ranging from 29 to

76 acres, were studied with one of them serving as a control. The

study began in 1938 with a series of treatments in the form of

land use changes or alterations aimed at reducing runoff. Table

2.1 shows the details of the treatments and Table 2.2 shows the

effects of the treatments after 10 years of application. All re-

sulted in a decrease in water yield ranging from 15 to 44 percent,

the greatest decrease being experienced in the watershed converted

to forest cover.

Glymph and Holtan (1969), both with the Agricultural Research

Service, review existing knowledge of land use effects on small

agricultural watersheds. The general trend of results at three

different latitudes is that runoff from small plots in inversely

related to vegetative density and cultivation frequency (Figure 2.10).

Studies at Hastings, Nebraska showed that peak runoff is greatest

from straight-row cultivation and least for contoured watershed,

and that conservation practices such as planned terraces, grassed

waterways, and increased grassland help retain more precipitation

on the land (Figure 2.11). The frequency of peak rates of runoff

from watersheds of varying sizes and land uses are shown in Figure






44











Table 2.1. Coshocton Experimental Watersheds. Description of 1938
and 1957 Land Use in Percentage of Total Area for Five
Study Watersheds.



Watershed 172 177 169 183 196
Item 1938 1957 1938 1957 1938 1957 1938 1957 1938 1957


Woodland 29.4 100.0 9.1 9.8 6.2 11.7 13.1 13.8 25.2 27.7

Rotation
across slopes 0 0 47.4 0 69.3 0 42.4 50.8 45.7 38.1
contour strips 0 0 0 34.5 0 69.0 0 8.6 0 0.5

Permanent
pasture 50.5 0 31.1 49.5 17.9 13.4 44.2 26.8 19.3 30.5

Idle land 20.1 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 2.6 0

Miscellaneous 0 0 10.6 6.2 6.6 5.9 0.5 0 7.2 3.2


Area (acres) 43.6 75.6 29.0 74.2 30.3

(From Harrold et al., 1962
p. 23).






45











Table 2.2. Effect of Treatments on Water Yield:
Coshocton Experimental Watersheds.



Watersheds 172 177 169 183


Item

Average runoff (in)
(1957)
Year 12.02 7.89 6.81 10.46
Growing season 3.44 2.10 2.05 7.57
Dormant season 8.57 5.79 4.76 2.89

Decrease in runoff (in)
(1938-1957)
Year 5.32 1.62 1.08 1.60
Growing season 1.71 0.36 0.72 1.00
Dormant season 3.80 1.26 0.72 0.60

Percent reduction
(1938-1957)
Year 44.0% 20.6% 15.9% 15.3%

(From Harrold et al., 1962 p. 8)






46










LA CROSSE,WIS.
1933-43
IConinueus Row Crop
2Rotation Row Crop
3Roaotion Girain
4Ro)otion Hay
5Continuous Grass


GUTHRIE, OKLA.
1930-38


2
3 DITTO
4
5


CLARINDA, IOWA
1933- 42
I
2
3 DITTO
4
5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
RUNOFF FROM 0.01 ACRE PLOTS IN PERCENT
OF RAINFALL


Figure 2.10. Effect of Farm Practices on Runoff Volumnes
(Glymph and Holtan, 1969, p. 46).





47
















51

30

50

,a 49
2 -20 8
47
46
3 44 45

10
O43

42

1941

0 10 20 30 40
Wotershed W-3
ACCUMULATED ANNUAL RUNOFF IN INCHES
HASTINGS, NEBRASKA

Figure 2.11. Comparison of Runoff from Conservation Measures, W-5,
and Straight-Row Farming, W-3 (Glymph and Holtan, 1969,
p. 49).






48



2.12, and results of infiltration studies on various soil-cover

complexes are presented in Figure 2.13. Both of these figures

are in general agreement with findings concerning land use influ-

ences upon rainfall-runoff relationships on small area watersheds.

The body of information about the hydrologic performance of

agricultural, forest, and rangelands has been used by the USDA

to develop a method for computing direct storm runoff from various

soil-cover complexes. The method involves the choice of a runoff

curve depending upon the kind of soil, land use and cover, and

type of land treatment. It provides for adjustments for three

levels of antecedent moisture as described by Ogrosky and Mockus

(1964). Figure 2.14 shows the basic formula and family of curves

for estimating runoff by this technique. Table 2.3 provides a

basis for selecting the proper curve number for a particular soil-

cover complex.

Interpreting the hydrologic performance of soil-cover com-

plexes, considering the heterogeneous nature of watersheds, is not

an easy task. Besides variations in precipitation patterns and

surface features of watersheds as they increase in size, the prob-

lem is further complicated by storage and movement of water in

soils and underlying aquifers, and by natural gains and losses

of water in stream channels.

Glymph and Holtan (1969) illustrate different relationships

which can result in humid areas, where some upland infiltration

can return to downstream channels, compared to arid regions, wlhere

channels can absorb streamflow. These dynamic storage effects







49










700 T----- ----[--I

RATES OF RUNOFF, HIGH PLAINS
600 OF COLORADO AND NEW MEXICO


500 Cutlivlaed land
Tr Cultivoed ond grossed land
-Grossed land 0
S400 -
0





0200 -
o



100 /


t ,, ., -1



0 20 40 60 80 o00 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
DRAINAGE AREA (acres)


Figure 2.12. Land Use and Treatment Effect on 25-Year
Runoff Frequencies (Glymph and Holtan, 1969,
p. 51).





2 B I I I I I OLD PASTURE.


2.4 P- PSTURE. 4-8 RS OLD


20 / PASTURE, LIWHTL GRAZED

P4 PASTURE, MODERATELY
6 GRAZED
SHAYS
z
zI 2 PASTURE, HEAVILY GRAZED
MIX /ED COVER
Z08 GRAIN OR WEEDS
z ,/i CLEAN TILLED
04 ( BARE GROUND, CRUSTED


00 -1 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
TIME PERICO IN MINUTES



Figure 2.13. Results of Infiltration Studies on
Various Soil-Cover Complexes
(Glymph and Holtan, 1969, p. 51).







50

























Pr 0 o 12 rChts
HYDROLOGY: SOLUTiON OF RUNOFF EQUATION P .'-C2 co a2 ch'e
on6 QP 0 0a h
R an'oll (PI


S Rci flroIr a c,, 0,











0 2 4 5 6 7 9 11














From SCS Hydrology Guide





Figure 2.14. Soil Conservation Service Rainfall-Runoff
Relationships (SCS, 1969, p. 10.21).
RaCutosonp:h;s ( 9 p 10.21).













r5 6 7 9 10 II 12






















i






51



Table 2.3. Runoff Curve Numbers for Hlydrologic Soil-Cover
Complexes. For Average Conditions of Antecedent
Soil Moisture and Initial Abstraction.


Land Use Treatment
or or Hydrologic Hydrologic Soil Grcuj
Cover Practice Condition A B C D

Fallow Straight row 77 86 91 94

Row crops Straight row Poor 72 81 88 91
Straight row Good 67 78 85 89
Contoured Poor 70 79 84 88
Contoured Good 65 75 82 86
Contoured and terraced Poor 66 74 80 82
Contoured and terraced Good 62 71 78 81

Small grain Straight row Poor 65 76 84 88
Straight row Good 63 75 83 87
Contoured Poor 63 74 82 85
Contoured Good 61 73 81 84
Contoured and Terraced Poor 61 72 79 82

Close-seeded Straight row Poor 66 77 85 89
legumesI Straight row Good 58 72 81 85
or Contoured Poor 64 75 83 85
rotation Contoured Good 55 69 78 83
meadow Contoured and terraced Poor 63 73 80 83
Contoured and terraced Good 51 67 76 80

Pasture Poor 68 79 86 89
or range Fair 49 69 79 84
Good 39 61 74 80
Contoured Poor 47 59 75 88
Contoured Fair 25 59 75 83
Contoured Good 6 35 70 79

Meadow (permanent) Good 30 58 71 78

Woods Poor 45 66 77 83
(farm woodlots) Fair 36 60 73 79
Good 25 55 70 77

Farmsteads 59 74 82 86

Roads (dirt)2 72 82 87 89
(hard surface) 74 84 90 92

Close-drilled or broadcast. (From SCS 1969,
2 p. 9.2).
Including right-of-way.






52



cause significant changes in the amount of runoff per unit area

for the different regions (Figure 2.5). Methods for dealing with

the complexities of hydrologic budgets have been developed by the

USDA (1970) and will be discussed in more detail in the section

on simulation models.

The USDA approach to watershed hydrology thus points up the

need to consider both land use or vegetative cover as well as

soil storage in order to fully understand the response to changing

land factors. The results of applying the hydrologic budget for

calculating peak runoff rates from deep and shallow soils are shown

in Figure 2.15. Vegetation significantly reduced the rate of run-

off from the deep soils (Sg= 6.0 in), but had little effect on

runoff from shallow soils. The influence of vegetation is closely

related to cover density as well as to antecedent moisture conditions.

The effect of vegetation on overland flow rates has been

studied by the Corps of Engineers (1954) using measured velocities

to calculate Manning roughness coefficients in the Everglades

region of South Florida. Manning's equation for channel flow is

2/3 1/2
V = .5R so- (2.13)
n

where v is velocity, n is Manning's roughness coefficient, R is

the hydraulic radius, and S is the slope. Table 2.4 presents a

list of n values for various cover regimes. Ogrosky and Mockus

(1964) show graphs for the design of flow in grassed waterways

for various vegetative retardances (Figure 2.16). In general,

Manning's n is constant within a channel segment and increases






53



























//a 10
a,01
10/ 010
Sa 1.00 in.
r /I




/ \

c










0 1 ,c :00,p t200-
ce 00 5r ./hr
/ /


2 3 4 7 8 9 i1 11 12 13 14 1
HOURS FROM START OF STORM



Figure 2.15. Effect of Vegetation and Soil Storage on
Runoff Hydrographs (Glymph and Holtan, 1969,
p. 61).
p. 61).





54







Table 2.4. Values of Manning's Roughness Coefficient n.



Glass, plastic, machined metal 0.010
Dressed timber, joints flush 0.011
Sawn timber, joints uneven 0.014
Cement plaster 0.011
Concrete, steel troweled 0.012
Concrete, timeber forms, unfinished 0.014
Untreated gunite 0.015-0.017
Brickwork or dressed masonry 0.014
Rubble set in cement 0.017
Earth, smooth, no weeds 0.020
Earth, some stones and weeds 0.025
Natural river channels;
Clean and straight 0.025-0.030
Winding, with pools and shoals 0.033-0.040
Very weedy, winding and overgrown 0.075-0.150
(From Henderson, 1966, p. 99).






55






















0.5
oil
: ----i-----4-- -~







0 o ---- --- ---i p ~- -----





0 .1 012 0 0.4 0506 08 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 lO 20
0 02 0 04 0506 08 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 20
VR (fl/sec), Product of Velocity ond Hydroulic Rodius

Figure 2.16. The Behavior of Manning's n in Grassed Channels,
Where Curves A to E Show Declining Vegetative
Retardance (Ogrosky and Mockus, 1964., p. 21-54).






56



.bruptly as w!ater elevation rises above the floodplain followed

by a gradual decrease. These relationships are explored in more

detail in Chapter V.


_Hydrology of Marshes and Swamps

Studies on the hydrologic processes occurring in wetland marsh,

swamp, and slough areas have only recently been undertaken. The

association of flat land and surplus water has offered the oppor-

tunity to drain the marshlands and transform them for crops and

pastures. Confusion exists concerning the function of marshlands

as a resource or as an obstacle to development. While marshes

are composed of similar ecological associations of water-loving

plants, they may be sustained by entirely different physical

causes of water surplus (Pereira, 1973).

In steep mountainous country under high rainfall, marshes are

found behind natural rock barriers, forming reservoirs which are

drawn down by evaporation in dry weather to provide some degree

of flood storage in the wet season. Drainage by cutting through the

rock barrier destroys the reservoir storage capacity. Drainage by

partial reduction of the water level and irrigation by inter-

cepting the stream as it enters the marsh can provide an agricul-

tural resource.

Where marshland is due to a loss of water velocity in a part

of the flat streambed, as under the restricted drainage conditions

in South Florida, dead plant material falling into shallow ponded

water is not readily decomposed, and thick deposits of organic

peats and muck soils gradually build up. A vast basin has emerged






57



whose soils act as a gigantic sponge, absorbing summer rains and

releasing water during the winter drought season. Drainage of

such marshes for agricultural production has led to rapid oxida-

tion and subsidence of the peat, eventually leaving behind a coarse

sand of little agricultural interest. In order to slow the sub-

sidence of the drained muck soils, some areas are being reflooded

during portions of the year.

The removal of vegetation, to replace a swamp by an open

water surface, was at one time believed to reduce evaporation,

but studies by Linacre et al. (1970) have established by water

and energy flux measurements that shading of the water surface

by a cover of reeds can result in a reduction in water use.

Effects of marsh drainage on flood control are difficult to

find in the literature. Studies of a long historical flow record

in mountainous regions of Wales have confirmed that flooding is

increasing due to both increased rainfall intensities and drainage

of peat swamps. By plotting the flood peaks against drainage

density (mi/sq mi), the authors obtained a logarithmic relation-

ship (Howe, Slaymaker, and Harding, 1966). A relationship developed

for swamps in the Soviet Union also places significance on drainage

density (Dd) and marsh area (M) as they affect surface runoff in

the form


Q = (aDd)/Mb (2.14)

where a and b are constants (Chebotarev, 1966).

Results should be forthcoming on several research efforts in

marsh and slough regions of South Florida. A recent study in the






58



Big Cypress Swamp was undertaken by the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA, 1973) to obtain detailed technical information regard-

ing the effects of artificial drainage on the natural swamp. Figure

2.17 presents a comparison of groundwater levels for sites near

canals and sites remote from canals. An average difference of 42 cm

in the water table level indicates the effect of drainage canals on

reducing water availability to the swamp. A reduction iin annual net

above-ground productivity and total biomass was reported for the

area under the drained condition.

Barnes and Golden (1966) present an interesting relationship

between the annual flood attenuation factor as it is affected by

the percent area in lakes and swamps (Figure 2.18). The attenuation of

floods is significantly decreased for percentages less than 15 percent

due to the loss in available storage capacity for slowing excess

runoff rates.


Land Use and Retention Time

The previous discussion of vegetation and land use as they

relate to soil storage, surface detention, evapotranspiration,

infiltration, and surface runoff indicates the importance of land

management techniques. The USDA method for computing surface

runoff from various soil-cover complexes provides a first estimate

of the range of soil storages and runoff rates to be expected from

each type of cover. In general, those cover complexes with high

soil storage capacity produce relatively lower runoff volumes than

those with low soil storages. Results indicate that natural forested

lands,marshes, and undrained pasture provide for considerable soil

















25

'0------ ----------------------

50








--
10-
W

1501

J F M A M J J A S 0 N D

1972


Figure 2.17. Effect of Canals on Groundwater Elevation (EPA, 1973, p. 1II-12).






60
















1.0-




0
O
0 .8

-j
LL











.4
LL
0

O
0




U1
t-










(Barnes and Golden, 1966, p. 12).






61



storage and surface detention capacity. However, high intensity

drainage practices, while increasing the drainage density of an

area, simultaneously decrease the effective soil storage capacity,

and high runoff rates can be expected.

The idea of using soil storage and surface detention, along

with drainage density, to characterize soil-cover complexes fits

equally well into the storage reservoir framework presented earlier.

Characteristic retention times for each land use can be calculated

based on soil storages and outflow rates determined by surface

detention and drainage density. In addition, hydrologic simulation

models, which are introduced below, can incorporate land use and

drainage parameters to provide realistic hydrologic output under

alternative management regimes. Component and basin retention

times provide useful information for evaluation of management

schemes.


Watershed Simulation Models

Due to the heterogeneous and dynamic nature of rainfall input,

drainage basin characteristics, and land use changes, sophisticated

computer simlulation techniques have been developed to predict

runoff and streamflow from a given watershed. The practice of

estimating runoff as a fixed percentage of rainfall has been tradi-

tionally used in urban areas dominated by impervious areas. How-

ever, in drainage basins where vegetation and soil storage have

significant effects on the hydrologic budget, simulation techniques

offer the most reliable and accurate prediction tool.






62



General Equations

The most general formulation for the description of hydrologic

flows in one dimension involves the solution of two equations, the

equation of motion for unsteady, nonuniform flow

Sf= 3y v v i v = Q)2 n2
S = S - 2.25[ 2 -3 (2.15)
f o 0 x g x g t [ 74 3

and the equation of continuity


Q + A
x t qL (2.16)

where

S = friction slope

S = bed slope

y = vertical depth

x = linear dimension

v = velocity

g = gravitational constant

t = time

Q = flow rate in x direction

A = cross-sectional area

n = Manning coefficient

R = hydraulic radius

qL = lateral inflow per unit width

These two equations can be solved for v and y under certain conditions

using the method of characteristics or other numerical techniques for

partial differential equations.

For the case of steady, uniform flow, equation 2.15 can be reduced

to the Manning equation, which incorporates a nonlinear relationship





63




between flow and depth (see equation 2.14). The effecr of lManning's

n on flow in grassed waterways has been shown in Figure 2.L6. The

Manning equation is used to obtain stage-flow relations in the marsh

study presented in Chapter V.

If a linear relationship is assumed between flow and depth (or

storage), then equation 2.15 can be further simplified to the Mus-

kingum equation (McCarthy, 1938), for example. It takes the form

S = KO + KX(I-O) (2.17)

where

S = storage

0 = outflow

I = inflow

K = travel time parameter

X = storage parameter

The solution procedure for this equation is described in detail in

Chapter V, where it forms the basis for flood routing in rivers.

The equation of continuity presented above can be simplified

for an elemental control volume. Equation 2.16 transforms to


AS
0 I + = qLAx (2.18)


where AS represents a change in storage volume caused by inflows

and outflows. In the simplifications leading to equations 2.17 or

2.18, variations of flow and storage with time are retained, but

spatial variations are eliminated. The latter effects are incorporated

in models by sequential application of the equations in a downstream

direction for different spatial elements at each time step.






64



The above discussion shows how the governing equations of

motion and continuity can be simplified to a convenient form for

modeling purposes. Equation 2.18 is the equivalent of equation 2.4

for the overall hydrologic budget of a region. When combined with

equation 2.17, one obtains the Muskingum routing technique for rivers

and reservoirs.


Review of Available Models

Numerous hydrologic models have been developed for a variety of

specific needs. A representative spectrum of these models is

briefly reviewed in this section with the ultimate intent to select

or develop a runoff model which directly incorporates drainage and

land use parameters. It will be shown later that these parameters

are significant in characterizing the quantity and quality of surface

and subsurface runoff.

Deterministic hydrologic models basically describe the behavior

of water using a form of the equations of motion and continuity dis-

cussed above. Frequently, the models are structured to simulate or

predict a streamflow value, hourly or daily, from given rainfalls

within the drainage basin. The model is then calibrated by comparing

results of the simulation with existing records. Once the model is

adjusted to fit the known period of data, additional periods can be

simulated for changing drainage basin characteristics or land use

patterns. In this way the effect of proposed alterations can be

evaluated in a reasonable fashion.

Soil storage dynamics are an integral part of the hydrologic

cycle because surface runoff is largely dependent on the balance

between infiltration and evapotranspiration rates. Much of the early






65




v-ork in runoff modeling was prompted by developments in the under-

standing of the infiltration process in the soil as presented by

Horton (1933), Philip (1957), and Holtan (1961). Horton's original

infiltration equation takes the form

I = f + (f. f ) e' (2.19)
t c i c
where

I = infiltration rate at time t
t

f = final infiltration rate
c
f. = initial infiltration rate

S= constant

t = time

Infiltration relationships have been combined with surface flow

formulations to produce a variety of available watershed models. All

of these differ in terms of required input data, governing equations,

and overall output response. Each model has been developed for specific

needs, emphasizing particular aspects of the hydrologic cycle in

terms of storage or transport mechanisms. In addition, some are

designed for simulating particular events in time, while others

handle continuous input over a long period of time.

For simulation purposes in the Kissimmee River Basin, the hydro-

logic model must place strong emphasis on soil storage and evapotrans-

piration dynamics for determining areas of runoff contribution. The

model must also handle spatial distributions of soil-land use types,

and predict long-term seasonal responses as land use patterns change.

Available models such as the Stanford Watershed Model (Crawford

and Linsley, 1966) utilize concepts of soil moisture storage and






66




infiltration rates to predict groundwater flow, interflow, and over-

land flow. However, the requirement of an extensive array of input

data and parametric relationships places limits on its applicability

to relatively unmonitored watersheds such as the Kissimmee River

Basin.

Variable source area models have been proposed by Betson (1964),

Tennessee Valley Authority (1965), Dunne and Black (1970), and Lee

and Delleur (1972). These models rely on the concepts of infiltration

and soil storage, but they replace the classic overland flow regime of

Horton by a varying response area. This saturated area appears along

the banks and floodplains of streams and rivers, and is assumed to

be the basic runoff generating mechanism. At this time, these

models fail to properly account for the dynamic response area, be-

cause of dependence on antecedent mositure, rainfall intensity,

topography, and soils.

The Storm Water Management Model (EPA, 1971) uses the Manning

equation to generate overland flow and Horton's equation to determine

infiltration rates. But the model was specifically designed for

urban areas, and does not simulate continuous hydrologic response.

Thus, its applicability to the Kissimmee River Basin is doubtful.

One additional model worthy of mention is the USDA Hydrograph

Laboratory Model as discussed by Glymph, Holtan and England (1971).

In the USDA model, infiltration is expressed as an exhaustion function

of available soil moisture in the surface horizon of a soil (A-hori-

zon) diminishing to a low, constant rate of intake associated with

the impeding strata (B-horizon). The equation derived from small plots,

small watersheds, and infiltrometer runs is






67




f = aS 4 + f (2.20)
a c

where

f = infiltration capacity

S = available soil moisture storage
a
f = intake rate after prolonged wetting
c

a = coefficient of pore-space continuity

As S is depleted, the rate f approaches the minimum value, f Soil
a e

surveys of the Soil Conservation Service provide information on total

mositure storage capacity of a soil, S, and for partitioning avail-

able moisture into pores drained by gravity, G, and pores drained by

plants, AWC. The land use parameter, a, is a function of plant matur-

ity ranging from 0.10 for fallow to 1.0 for sods and forests. Equation

2.20 is more directly related to soil and land use parameters than

is Horton's equation 2.19. The drawback to the USDA infiltration

approach is that detailed data on rates must be supplied for all soils,

and calculations require less than hourly intervals.

Annual water yields computed by the model and compared to mea-

sured values for experimental watersheds in Hastings, Nebraska, and

Coshocton, Ohio, are shown in Figure 2.19. It can be seen that pre-

dicted runoff is in reasonable agreement with measured values for

these two watershed.

The USDA model comes closest to meeting the stated require-

ments for a hydrologic model of the Kissimmee River Basin, except

for its ability to'simulate long-term seasonal effects with its in-

filtration equation. A model has been developed for this study which

incorporates the spatial distribution of soil-land use complexes,






68














8 -i
SW-lI, HASTINGS, NEBR.

6 -










1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 961
O
Cn
4-















S1959 1960 196 1962 1965
-j 16 W-97, COSHOCTON, OHIO
Figure 219. Annual aer Yields as compubserved and as Computed








b12 Athe USA Hrlgi observed i(Gy and Ho







S-1969, 66).J 1 n
0- -I9L96 / 6/jj).
1959 :960 196! 1962 1963


Figure 2.19. Annual Water Yields as Observed and as Computed
by the USDA Hydrologic Model (Glymph and Holtan,
1969, P. 66).






69



and keeps track of soil moisture and ET on a daily basis for both

wet and dry seasons. The model predicts surface and subsurface run-

off contributions as a function of the overall jwater balance, based

on equation 2.18. Runoff contributions are then routed through

various components of the basin using the Muskingum technique (see

Chapter V).

Output from the model allows the determination of storages and

outflows from various soil-land use complexes, from which characteris-

tic retention times are calculated. The model allows for the charac-

terization of runoff quantity as a function of soil storage, land

use, and drainage patterns. The reservoir storage concept is applied

in the model at several levels of resolution, summing the soil-land use

responses to yield the various tributary contributions, and finally

to produce the overall basin response.
















CHAPTER III. WATER QUALITY AND ECOLOGICAL
PRINCIPLES IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT


Introduction

Eutrophication from the limnological point of view refers to

the gradual enrichment of a body of water with nutrients essential

for the growth of algae and rooted aquatic vegetation. It is a

natural process, but evidence indicates that it can be accelerated

by man's activities. Nutrients stimulate the growth of aquatic

plants, which can result in a series of undesirable changes in the

ecosystem. Although exact mechanisms are difficult to quantify,

it is reasonable to assume that land use practices are a signifi-

cant factor in the eutrophication process because they alter the

pathways and rate of nutrient transport from the landscape.

Mounting concern for maintaining water quality in lakes and

streams has emphasized the need for quantitative information con-

cerning nutrient budgets and loading rates in aquatic systems. It

is generally agreed that the most desirable long-term management

approach for receiving waters is to control the influx of nutrients,

although there is considerable disagreement regarding the selection

of nutrient sources which should be controlled, the method for

control, and the benefit which is to be gained. Even though nutrient

input reduction may not alone be sufficient to attain the desired

level of water quality in all receiving waters, nutrient abatement




70







71



is an essential croponent of management efforts. Regardless of

internal nutrient cycles involving lake and river sedii-merts, water

quality improvement will not result if the continuous influx of

nutrients is excessive.

The intricate process of eutrophication is far too complex

to expect that simple relationships can be established between the

influx of nutrients and measured parameters of water quality.

However, sufficient information now exists to provide some useful

guidelines. The next section discusses in more detail the quanti-

fication of non-point pollution sources.


Non-Point Pollution Sources

Sawyer (1947) suggested that if, at the time of spring over-

turn, concentrations of inorganic phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N)

exceeded 0.01 mg/l and 0.3 mg/l respectively, a lake may be ex-

pected to produce excessive growths of aquatic plants. Vollen-

weider (1968) concluded that the critical levels suggested by

Sawyer applied to the conditions of lakes in central Europe.

Although these concentrations do provide useful target

values, it is difficult to relate reductions in nutrient input

and in-lake nutrient concentrations. Tentative guidelines on speci-

fic loading rates are provided by Vollenweider (1968) for 30 lakes.

The surface area of each lake is considered by expressing nutrient

influx as a specific loading rate (g/m2/yr). Shannon and Brezonik

(1972) conducted a similar analysis of nutrient loadings in 55

Florida lakes and these values are compared to Vollenweider's results

in Table 3.1.





-- ------ A__________________











Table 3.1. Critical Loading Rates for Nitrogen and Phosphorus.



Permissible Dangerous
(up to) (in excess of)
Reference Units N P N P


Shannon & Brezonik (1972) Volumetric 0.86 0.12 1.5 0.22
(g/m -yr
Ibid Areal(g/n -yr) 2.0 0.28 3.4 0.49
Vollenweider (1968)a Areal g/m2-yr) 1.0 0.07 2.0 0.13

aFor lakes with mean depths of 5 m or less.
For lakes with mean depths of 5 m or less.






73



Ideally, nutrient loading information would be obtainejd by

direct measurement for a variety of land uses and climatic( condi-

tions. However, the costs associated with this course of action

are prohibitive in many cases, and it is necessary to use values

reported in the literature as a guide for management decisions.

Several literature reviews have recently been published which

describe nutrient loadings from non-point sources as presented for

various land use types (Uttormark et al., 1974; Loehr, 1974).

These loadings do not consider internal nutrient cycles or chemical

transformations which may alter the availability of the nutrient

for aquatic uptake.

The characteristics and relative magnitude of non-point

sources discharged to surface waters are compared by Loehr (1974).

The non-point sources include precipitation, forested land runoff,

agricultural runoff, cropland tile drainage, feedlot runoff, and

urban runoff. Available information on relative magnitudes of these

non-point sources is summarized and the feasibility of controlling

these sources is discussed.

The impact of non-point sources on aquatic systems depends on

intensity and yield factors as well as on the seasonal distributions

of their contribution. Knowledge of time changes in concentration,

overland flow, and streamflow is essential for calculations of

yield rates. Comparison of non-point sources based solely on con-

centration units is difficult due to the flow-dependent, intermittent

nature of the sources. A better method of comparison is the use of

the area yield rates such as quantity of source per unit area per






74



unit runoff. Data are generally presented in terms of both concen-

tration (mg/]) and potential area yield rate (kg/ha/yr). The area

yield rates are potential rather than actual loading rates and are

presented for comparative purposes only.

Reported ranges in concentration and yield for total N and

total P are presented in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 for various non-point

sources (Loehr, 1974). The wide range in cropland P is due to

the effect of soil erosion. Precipitation, forest land runoff,

and surface irrigation return flow have comparable values. Sub-

surface irrigation return flow has higher N concentrations due to

leaching from the soil. Animal feedlot runoff and manure seepage

have characteristics that are many orders of magnitude greater

than the other non-point sources.

Areal loading rates are compared in Figure 3.2 for the various

non-point sources. The yields of total P from precipitation and

rangeland are comparable as are the yields from land receiving

manure, surface irrigation return flows, and urban land drainage.

The yields of total P from forest land and cropland span a wide

but comparable range, again probably due to erosion effects. The

yields of N and P in animal feedlot runoff are again orders of

magnitude greater than the other non-point sources.

Although these comparisons cover wide ranges and may be con-

sidered gross, they do permit an assessment of those sources that

are controllable based on available technology. Actual decisions

on controls will depend on the relative importance of respective

sources in specific locations.







CONCENTRATION (mg/l )

0 : 0 01 0
b- 0 0 0 0 0
L --I- TTT1 11111--- -I-rI ---- I IIINl I ---I i-i1
iR)
Ei jIo PRECIPITATION 2[
0 HO
S" | I::-:-:-:".--.':-:. :.:-:':". FORESTLAND


S" ICROPLAND Z[
m 0
HoH


SRETURN FLOW "t ISUBSURFACE 2 :.:.:-:.:.::-::.::.::.:-: I
Crt

Sg CROPLAND TILE ....
n n DRAINAGE

8 o URBAN DRAINAGE -uE z



i H. I O O
1 rr
0 "




MANURE SEEPAGE TI 25


FEEDLOT RUNOFF P1 ::::::








AREAL LOADING RATE (kg/2.47ac/yr)
b 0 o -"
b 0 o0 b 0b
... I I I I T I I I l-I T 1t I

) "u- PRECIPITATION z2:::*:*

SFOREST I_ i-_ _-
LAND

r' RANGELAND -o0
Oq 0



0 o
o-3 o
(O r-h




o|i LAND RECEIVING MANURE u[ 1 :. :I.,i.i.'Zz

0 "
Uw r) E ..



1X 0C
SIRRIGATION SURFACE
RETURN FLOWS SUBSURFACE -ulZIZZI:I-T" .~i]

o oo
-I 0
" URBAN DRAINAGE -u z


'0 55

_ _ __O _-" _. . ,.._'_ '"""__FEEDLOT RUNOFF






77



Loehr (1974) summarizes his discussion by dividing the various

non-point sources into categories for control. Uncontrollable

sources include precipitation, forest land runoff, and rangeland

runoff as long as interference by man remains at a minimum. These

sources are generally considered as background unless current

practices or available data change drastically.

Non-point sources that may require control include cropland

runoff and tile drainage, runoff from land receiving manure, and

irrigation return flows. Controls should depend on the extent

to which these sources adversely affect the quality of a particular

receiving water. The basic control in this case is to avoid spread-

ing fertilizers or manure at a time or location susceptible to rapid

drainage.

Non-point sources that present the most problems include

urban land runoff, manure seepage, and feedlot runoff. Collection

and treatment of urban runoff prior to release is becoming increas-

ingly feasible. Control of manure seepage and feedlot runoff is

available through the use of retention ponds and grassed waterways.

Uttormark et al. (1974) present data from a broad spectrum

of reported loading rates for agricultural lands, urban areas,

forests, wetlands, groundwater, septic tanks, and precipitation.

Armstrong et al. (1974) estimated that on the basis of surface

runoff studies, agricultural lands could be further subdivided by

flux coefficients as shown in Table 3.2. In comparison, the studies

summarized by Uttormark et al. (1974) seem to indicate lower average

rates for total N and total P from agricultural lands (see Table

3.3).






78














Table 3.2. Agricultural Nutrient Runoff Coefficients.



Nitrogen loss, Phosphorus loss,
kg-N/ha/yr kg-P/ha/yr
NO ,+NH4 Total-N Diss Inorg Total-P

Row crops 1.6 37.0 0.21 1.62

Close-grown crops 1.7 15.0 0.13 0.47

Pasture & meadow 2.3 2.5 0.22 0.24

Idle (fallow) land 3.9 67.0 0.05 1.23


(From Armstrong et al., 1974,
p. 12).






79










Table 3.3. Typical Values of Nutrient Runoff Coefficients.



N03-N+NH4-N Total-N
kg/ha/yr kg/ha/yr
Land use High Low Ave High Low Ave

Urban 5.0 1.0 2.0 10.0 2.5 5.0

Forests 3.0 0.5 1.6 5.0 1.0 2.5

Agricultural 10.0 1.0 5.0 10.0 2.0 5.0


Diss inorg-P Total-P
kg/ha/yr kg/ha/yr

High Low Ave High Low Ave

Urban 2.0 0.5 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.5

Forests 0.1 0.01 0.05 0.8 0.05 0.2

Agricultural 0.5 0.05 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.3

(From Uttormark et al., 1974,
p. 108)..






80



Nutrient dynamics of marshes and other wetland areas is one

of the more poorly defined aspects of nutrient transport from water-

sheds. The role of wetlands as nutrient sources or sinks has not

been established satisfactorily. Low flow velocities and high

levels of productivity enhance the potential of marshes to act as

nutrient sinks. However, the periodic occurrence of anaerobic

conditions increases the possibility for discharge of ammonia and

soluble inorganic P, particularly where high runoff pulses occur

in the wet season.

Bentley (1969) presents results which indicate that marshes

tend to accumulate nutrients during the growing season and release

them during spring runoff. In addition, draining marshes may further

decrease water quality by releasing large amounts of phosphorus

runoff. Based on these studies, it is estimated that nutrient

runoff coefficients are approximately zero for wetlands. Further

discussions on the effect of marshes on nutrient uptake are deferred

until Chapter V.


Nutrient Cycling in Aquatic Ecosystems

The ecosystem is a basic functional unit of nature which in-

cludes both organisms and their nonliving environment, each inter-

acting with the other and influencing each other's properties, and

both necessary for the maintenance and development of the system

(Odum, 1971). An ecosystem, then, may be viewed as a series of

components, such as species populations, organic debris, available

nutrients, primary and secondary minerals, and atmospheric gases,

linked together by food webs, nutrient flow, and energy flow.






81



Knowledge of these components and associated interrelationships

leads to an understanding of the ramifications of any manipulation

applied to the overall system.

Once the boundaries of an ecosystem have been defined, the

connection to the surrounding biosphere is viewed as a system of

inputs and outputs in the form of radiant energy, water, gases,

chemicals, or organic materials. These flows are moved through the

ecosystem boundary by hydrologic, geological, or biological processes

(Bormann and Likens, 1967). Knowledge of input-output relationships

is necessary in order to understand fully 1) energy and nutrient

dynamics, 2) the comparative behavior of ecosystems, 3) the effect

of geological processes such as erosion, deposition, mass wasting,

and weathering on ecosystem dynamics, 4) the effect of hydrologic

variations on ecosystem behavior, and 5) the effect of management

practices on the structure and function of individual ecosystems

(Bormann and Likens, 1969).

Measurement of these critical input-output relationships

presents difficulties particularly in studies of nutrient cycles,

which are strongly geared to the hydrologic cycle. Consequently,

measurement of nutrient input and output requires simultaneous

measurement of hydrologic input and output which may involve sub-

surface seepage, overland flow, or streamflow components.

Both the hydrologic and nutrient cycles can be described by

specific inflows, outflows, storages, and other losses which deter-

mine the reponse of the particular lake, stream, or land use area.

The retention time T has been introduced previously, and it serves as






82




a useful index for both hydrologic and nutrient dynamics. Reten-

tion time determines the average length of time which water re-

mains in storage, where it is most easily available for physical,

chemical, and/or biological treatment.

The determination of nutrient uptake rates in a stream,

lake, or marsh area is a function of many complex, interacting

processes which are difficult to quantify. However, there seems

to be a greater potential for physical or chemical uptake,e.g.,

sedimentation or precipitation,when retention times are long. High

flow velocities tend to aggravate those conditions. Biological

uptake is also associated with long retention time, but the sea-

sonal effect of temperature on biological growth produces a greater

potential for uptake during warm months when more sunlight is

available for photosynthesis. Lake blooms of algae and excessive

vegetative density in marsh regions provide increased uptake capac-

ity for nutrients in the water.

Thus, the concepts of reservoir storage and treatment rates

as a function of retention time and biological growth provide a

useful framework for analyzing the complexities of hydrologic

and nutrient mechanisms which are coupled in nature. The poten-

tial for nutrient loading from various land uses has been dis-

cussed. The potential for nutrient uptake in lakes and marshes,

where T is long enough to provide some treatment, is introduced

below and extended in Chapter V with applications to specific

study areas.





83



Nutrient Cycles in Small Watershed Ecosystems

One of the most comprehensive studies on nutrient cycling has

been conducted by Bormann and Likens (1967) on a series of small,

forested watersheds at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New

Hampshire. The portion of the forest chosen for these studies con-

sists of dense second-growth northern hardwood forest. The geolog-

ical features of the area are important in providing a watertight

basement layer that prevents major losses of water and nutrients

by deep seepage. Streamflow accounts for the majority of water and

nutrient loss.

Six small watersheds were selected for the study ranging in

area from 12 to 43 hectares, all similar in altitude and vegetational

characteristics. At the base of each watershed, a concrete weir was

constructed to allow the outflow of water to be measured and its solute

and particulate loads sampled. Precipitation gages were placed to

monitor the volume and nutrient concentration of incoming precipitation.

The initial series of studies was designed to measure the pro-

cesses occurring under undisturbed conditions. Over a five-year per-

iod of time, annual precipitation ranged from 94.9 cm to 141.8 cm,

averaging 123 cm, while calculated evapotranspiration (ET) varied only

between 46.1 and 51.9 cm per year. Thus, the forest shows a high

degree of homeostasis in water loss by ET and fluctuations in pre-

cipitation are reflected almost entirely in variations in total

streamflow.

The analysis of nutrient balance required periodic measurements

of concentrations of substances in precipitation and streamflow. The






84



results do not show a clear relationship between concentration and

stream discharge, but rather the dissolved concentrations in drainage

water were remarkably constant even though discharge ranged over four

orders of magnitude. For particulate materials, however, a positive

relationship was found for streamflow volume and concentration.

Despite appreciable losses during periods of high water flow, par-

ticulate losses were of minor importance in overall nutrient out-

flow. The total nutrient output was more strongly dependent on

volume of streamflow than on ionic concentration.

A nutrient budget of dissolved cations for the Hubbard Brook

ecosystem was determined from the difference between precipitation

input and streamflow output by multiplying concentration by volume

of water per hectare. The resulting budget is presented in Table

3.4. The balance sheet of dissolved nutrients and the relatively

minor particulate matter losses from a watershed with such steep

slopes (average 26 percent) attest to the great stability of the

system. There is no question that the vegetation and organic debris

play a major role in determining chemical fractions lost either in

solution or as particulate matter.

Following the study in the undisturbed condition, one of the

watersheds was clear-cut in an experiment designed to evaluate the

effects on streamflow and nutrient cycling. In the winter of 1965-

1966, all woody vegetation was cut and left in place in watershed

number 2. As expected, runoff increased partially due to the reduc-

tion of water loss to ET. Increased runoff amounted to 40 percent

and contributed to an increase in outflow of dissolved and particulate




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EDVLFURP7_C8I8SJ INGEST_TIME 2014-12-11T20:56:45Z PACKAGE AA00026484_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

HYDROLOGIC-LAND USE I^TTERACTIONS IN A FI.ORIDA RIVER BASIN By PHILIP BRUCE BEDIENT A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL RILFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1975

PAGE 2

DEDICATED TO MY WIFE CINDY WHO WOKK-ED UNSELFISHLY FOR FOUR YEARS SO THAT I COULD COMPLETE m EDUCATION

PAGE 3

ACKNOI-JLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the members of my graduate comraittee for their encouragement and advice throughout the research effort. I would especially like to thank Dr. W.C. Ruber for his undivided attention and assistance from the early conception of the research to the final days of writing and review. I would also like to thank Dr. J. P. Heaiiey and Dr. H.T. Odum for many hours of enlightening discussions and lectures. The primary influence for the overall research has come from these three professors, and I am deeply grateful for their guidance throughout the past five years. Special thanks are due to several of my co-workers vjho provided support and encouragement when it V7as needed. Without Mr. Steve Gatewood's cartographic and drafting ability, much of the research would have been incomplete. Mr. Jerry Bowden contributed many hours of tedious effort so that input data and computer outputs were available on time, I am grateful to them both for their hard work and good friendship. I would like to thank the research group at the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District for funding the Kissimraee Project, and for providing such able assistance in data collection and analysis. Without Mrs. Joye Barnes typing and editing ability, I doubt seriously that the manuscript would have been completed on timeI am indebted to her for unselfish effort during the last few weeks of writing. Finally, I extend very special thanks to the most important mem,ber of the team, my wife Cindy, who worked unselfishly for four years iii

PAGE 4

so that I might complete the PhD. I am also especially grateful to her for helping assemble the final draft copy. iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNO\^^LEDG^^ENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES ABSTRACT I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Obj ectives Overview of the Research II. HYDROLOGIC PRINCIPLES IN WATERSHED I'lANAGEMENT The Hydrologic Cycle The Hydrologic Equation The Runoff Cycle Drainage Basin Characteristics Measurement of Drainage Density Drainage Density Relationships Hydrologic Effects of Vegetation and Land Use Forest Hydrology Hydrology of Agricultural Lands Hydrology of Marshes and Swamps Land Use and Retention Time Watershed Simulation Models General Equations Review of Available Models III. WATER QUALITY AND ECOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES IN WATERSHED MA^3AGEI-IENT Introduction Non-Point Pollution Sources Nutrient Cycling in Aquatic Ecosystems Nutrient Cycling in Small Watershed Ecosystems Nutrient Budgets in Lake Systems V

PAGE 6

TiVBLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Models of Water Quality and Ecological Processes 89 Review of Available Models 92 Concepts of Water Quality Control 97 IV. ENYIROlfi-IENTAL RESOURCES IN THE KISSTMMEE RIVER BASIN 99 Description of the Basin 99 Climate and Rainfall 101 Physical Geography and Geology 101 Water Resources 105 Soils 108 Vegetation 108 Fish and Wildlife Resources 112 Water and Land Resource Problems 113 Agricultural Land 113 Urban Land Natural Land 114 Water xWailability 115 Flood Control Plan 118 Historical Land Use Changes 122 Water Quality Monitoring in the Kissimmee River Basin 130 V. LINK/iGE MECMKISMS IN HYDROLOGIC-LAl-ID USE ANALYSIS 137 Introduction to Storage-Control Concepts 13 7 Retention Time for Runoff Control 137 Retention Time for Water Quality Control 140 Storage Concepts 1^3 Hydrologic Analysis 143 The water balance 144 Description of the hydrologlc-land use model 151 Calculated retention times 158 Non-Point Nutrient Loadings 160 Transport Concepts 163 Drainage Density as a Transport Concept/ 163 Relationship with land use 165 Measurement of drainage density 166 Drainage density and hydrologic effects 183 Drainage density and v;ater quality effects 187 Flood Routing Concepts 203 vi

PAGE 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Description of the routing method 206 Hydrologic calibration of the Hiodel 210 Water quality in the river 217 Lakes as Storage Control Units 221 Lake level fluctuations and flood control 222 Lake drax^doum and water quality 231 Water quality and retention time 236 Marsh Areas for Runoff Storage and Control 240 Retention time and storage 243 Retention time and nutrient uptake 244 VI. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 246 Introduction 246 Storage and Retention Time 246 Transport and Retention Time 247 Drainage Density Results 248 River Routing Results 249 Lake and Marsh Studies 251 Summary Conclusions 253 REFERENCES 254 BIOGRAPHICAI. SKETCH 262 vil

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table ?mi 2.1 Coshocton Experimental Watersheds. Description of 1938 and 1958 Land Use. 44 2.2 Effect of Treatments on Water Yield: Coshocton Experimental Uatersheds. 45 2.3 Runoff Curve Numbers for Hydrologic Soil-Cover Complexes. 51 2.4 Values of Manning's Roughness Coefficient n. 54 3.1 Critical Loading Rates for Nitrogen and Phosphorus. 72 3.2 Agricultural Nutrient Runoff Coefficients. 78 3.3 Typical Values of Nutrient Runoff Coefficients. 79 3.4 Input by Precipitation and Output in Streamflow for Various Nutrients in an Undisturbed Watershed. 85 4.1 Surface Area of the Larger Lakes in KissimmeeEver glades Area. -^'06 4.2 Land by Capability Class in the Kissimmee River Basin. 110 4.3 Acres Irrigated Kissimmee-Everglades Area 1968, 1980, and 2020. 117 5.1 Matrix of Curve Numbers and Maximum Soil Storage. 155 5.2 Base Flow Retention Times. 159 5.3 Surface Flow Retention Times. 161 5.4 Relative Non-Point Source Loadings. 164 5.5 Land Use Analysis of Kissimmee River Tributaries. 167 5.6 Drainage Density Measurements in the Kissimmee River Basin. 169 viii

PAGE 9

LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table Page 5.7 Standards for Inclusion of Streams in Topographic Maps of U.S. Mapping Agencies. 171 5.8 List of USGS Quadrangle >Iaps for the Kissinimee River Basin 172 5.9 Drainage Density in the Lower Kissimmee River Basin. 176 5.10 Drainage Density and Retention Times in Kissinnnee River Basin Planning Units. 190 5.11 Analysis of Floods in the Kissimmee River Basin. 205 5.12 Surface and Subsurface Runoff by Planning Unit (1967-1969). 214 5.13 Comparison of Measured (M) and Predicted (P) Runoff Volumes (1967-1969). 215 5.14 Natural and Regulated Lake Fluctuation. 224 5.15 Hydrologic Budget for Lake Tohopekaliga. 229 5.16 Averaged Water Quality of Lake Tohopekaliga Before, During, and After Drawdown. 232 5.17 Nutrient Budget of Lake Tohopekaliga. 235 ix

PAGE 10

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1333. 1.1 Location J-Iap of the Kissimmee River Basin. 5 2.1 Components of the Hydrologic Cycle. 13 2.2 Water Budget of a Region. 13 2.3A Streamflow Hydrograph Separation Techniques.. 19 2.3B Components of the Runoff Cycle. 21 2.4 Conceptual Hydrologic Models. 22 2.5 Mean Annual Runoff versus Drainage Area. 27 2.6 The Significance of Drainage Basin Shape and Network Pattern on Hydrograph Response. 29 2.7 Change in Water Yield after Conversion of Hardwood to Grass and Change in Soil Moisture under Thinned and Unthinned Loblolly Pine Plantation. 39 2.8 First-Year Streamflow Increases after Treatment versus Reduction of Forest Cover and Showing Influence of Aspect. 41 2.9 Streamflow Increases for Coweeta Watershed 13 following Treatments and Decrease in Water Yield versus Percentage of Area Reforested. 42 2.10 Effect of Farm Practices on Runoff Volumes. 46 2.11 Comparison of Runoff from Conservation Measures, W-5, and Straight-Row Farming, W-3. 47 2.12 Land Use and Treatment Effect on 25-Year Runoff Frequences. 49 2.13 Results of Infiltration Studies on Various SoilCover Complexes. 49 2.14 Soil Conservation Service Rainfall-Runoff Relationships. 50 X

PAGE 11

LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figures Page 2. .15 Effect of Vegetation and Soil Storage on Runoff Hydrograpbs. ^3 2.16 The Behavior of Manning's n in Grassed Channels, Where Curves A to E Show Declining Vegetative Retardauce ^5 2.17 Effect of Canals on Groundvjater Elevation. 59 2.18 Attenuation of Mean Annual Flood by Lakes and Swamps 2.19 Annual Water Yields as Observed and as Computed by the USDA Fiydro logic Model, 68 3.1 Comparison of Non-Point Source Concentrations of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus. 3.2 Comparison of Non-point Source Area Yield Rates of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus. 76 3.3 Water Qaulity and Ecological Interactions. 90 3.4 Segmented Stream System for Hydrologic and Water Quality Modeling. 93 4.1 Location Map of the Kissimmee River Basin. 100 4.2A Mean Annual Precipitation, Kissimmee-Ever glades Area. 102 4.2B Monthly Rainfall and Temperature in the Kissimmee River Basin. 103 4.3 Topographic Map of the Kissimmee Pdver Basin. 104 4.4 General Soil Map of the Kissimmee River Basin, 109 4.5 Vegetation Map of the Kissimmee River Basin. HI 4.6 Land Use Patterns (1958) in the Kissimmee River Basin. 123 4.7 Land Use Patterns (1972) in the Kissimmee River Basin. 124 XX

PAGE 12

LIST OF riGURES (continued) Figiira ZiLSr. 4.3/v Detailed Land Use Changes (1958, 1972, 2020), Planning Unit 5. 126 4.8B Detailed Land Use Changes (1958, 1972, 2020), Planning Unit 10. 127 4.8C Detailed Land Use Changes (1958, 1972, 2020), Planning Unit 13. 128 4.8D Detailed Land Use Changes (1958, 1972, 2020), Planning Unit 16. 129 4.9 Tributary and Water Quality Sampling Locations, Lovjer Kissimmee River Basin. 132 4.10 Total P Concentration as a Function of Sampling Location, Kissimmee River Basin. 133 4.11 Total P Concentration in Tributary Inflows, Planning Units 13 and 14 of the Kissimmee River Basin. 134 4.12 Total P Concentrations in Tributary Inflows, Planning Units 15, 16,, and 17 of the Kissimmee River Basin. 136 5.1 Stage-Volume Curves, Surface and Subsurface. 139 5.2 Stage -Discharge Curves, Surface and Subsurface. 139 5.3 Schematic Water Quality Treatment System. 1^2 5.4 Typical First-Order Decay of Pollutant Concentration. 142 5.5 Schematic of the Water Balance. 146 5.6 Soil Moisture Depletion Curves. 148 5.7 Seasonal Water Balance in the Kissimmee River Basin. 150 5.8 Relationship between Storage and Base Flow. 15 7 5.9 Schematic of Land Use and Measured Drainage Density. 175 5.10 Tributaries in the Lower Kissimmee River Basin. 177 5.11A Drainage Map of Planning Unit 13. 178 5.11B Drainage Map of Planning Unit 14. 179 xii

PAGE 13

LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure 5. lie Drainage Map of Planning Unit 15. 180 5.11D Drainage Map of Planning Unit 16. 181 5. HE Drainage Map of Planning Unit 17. 182 5.12 Drainage Length and Basin Area in the Kissimmee. River Basin. 184 5.13 Drainage Length and Basin Area Relationships. 185 5.14 Percent Runoff as Surface Flow Along the River. 186 5.15 Percent Runoff as Surface Flow versus Drainage Density. 188 5.16 Mean Annual Flood versus Drainage Density. 189 5.17 Sediment Delivery Ratio versus Drainage Density and Area. 192 5.18 Schematic of Drainage Density and Watershed Area. 193 5.19 Average Total P Concentration versus Drainage Density. 195 5.20 Peak Total P Concentration versus Drainage Density. 196 5.21 Total P Concentration versus Runoff Volume by Planning Unit for Wet and Dry Seasons. 198 5.22 Total P Load Versus Drainage Density in the Kissinmiee River Basin. 199 5.23 Total P Load versus Drainage Density in Canadian Watersheds. 201 5.24 Influence of Nutrient Sources and D on Nutrient Loads. 202 5.25 Recent Floods in the Kissimmee River Basin. 204 5.26 Schematic of Muskingum Routing Technique. 208 5.27A Measured and Predicted Hydrographs (1965-1970), Kissimmee River Basin. 211 5.27B Measured and Predicted Hydrograph (1968), Lower Kissimmee River Basin. 213 xiii

PAGE 14

LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Figure PJI^ 5.28 Measured and Predicted Hydrographs (1959-1960), Kissimmee River Basin. 216 5.29 Water Quality (Total P) Along the River. 218 5.30A Stage-Duration Curve for Lake Tohopekaliga. 223 5. SOB Stage-Area and Volume Curves for Lake Tohopekaliga. 223 5.31 Zones of Natural and Regulated Fluctuations in Lake Tohopekaliga. 226 5.32 Effect of Regulation on Hydrologic Response. 228 5.33 Water Quality Monitoring Stations for Lake Tohopekaliga. 234 5.34 Water Quality (Total P) in the Upper Chain of Lakes. 237 5.35 Variation of Manning's n with Depth. 241 5.36 Stage-Discharge Relationship in the Marsh. 242 xiv

PAGE 15

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy HYDROLOGIC-LAND USE INTERACTIONS IN A FLORIDA RIVER BASIN By Philip Bruce Bedient t June, 1975 Chairman: Dr. W.C. Huber Major Department: Environmental Engineering Sciences Techniques are presented to describe and quantify various hydrologic-land use interactions Xv'hich occur within a watershed or river basin in order that environmental quality be maintained. Surface runoff quantity and quality are characterized as a function of land use and drainage patterns at several levels of resolution including the river basin, tributary watersheds, lake basins, and m.arsh areas. Source areas of runoff and nutrients are distinguished along with associated transport mechanisms through the river system. Characteristics of the hydrologic and nutrient cycles in the Kissimnee River Basin in Florida are viewed in terms of storage and transport parameters related to the soil, land use, lake, or stream components of the basin. The concept of retention time, defined as the ratio of storage volume to outflow rate, is used to compare these various components. Retention time determines the hydrolcgic response of a reservoir storage unit, in term.s of the potential for flood control. In addition, nutrient uptake rates on the land, in the soil, and in XV

PAGE 16

various aquatic systems are dependent on retention time for physical, biological, and chemical reactions to occur. A daily hj^drologic water balance is applied to each soll--land use complex within a watershed (planning unit), and this provides a continuous estimate of storage and total runoff. The output runoff is a function of rainfall, land use, and drainage patterns, and both historical and predicted future conditions are simulated. Source areas which contribute large percentages of surface runoff are identified, as these have shorter retention times for nutrient uptake potential. Potential nutrient loading rates are calculated for each planning unit using measured concentrations of total phosphorus and predicted runoff volumes. Higher concentrations and loading are associated with areas dominated by intense drainage. The drainage density index, a measure of the total length of waterways per unit area, is used to characterize each planning unit in terms of surface runoff percentage and nutrient loading. Detailed measurements of drainage density for the lower basin are sho\vTi to be functions of land use, soil storage, and measurement technique. Application of these management principles to the Kissimmee River Basin indicates that lake and marsh areas have much higher retention times than flows through drainage canals or the river. In order to control runoff volumes and nutrient loading from the lai-id it follows that drainage density should be kept to a minimum where possible. This can be accomplished through the use of marsh and lake areas for on-site storage. Upstream lake retention times should be maintained as high as possible tlirough regulation schedules, since there is iittle uptake potential in the river. XV i

PAGE 17

I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The competition for water among various users has reached new levels as growth rates continue to accelerate. Agricultural and urban demands for increased water use have far-reaching effects from economic, social, and environmental standpoints. The problem of determining an acceptable distribution of water quantity for all competing users is difficult in itself, but add to that the immense complexity of maintaining high levels of water quality at the same time, and the problems seem insurmountable. Environmental resource planners are being asked to solve these very problems in such a way that economic productivity from agricultural and urban pursuits, along xalth environmental quality, are both maintained. In addition, solutions should not favor any one group at the expense of another. There is hope that waste treatment and recycling vjill allow users of water, e.g., municipal, industrial agricultural, recreational, and ecological, to exist harmoniously within the same region. The reality of the trade-offs which exist between continued economic productivity and environm.ental quality should indicate to what extent harmonious conditions are possible. There is no doubt that sacrifices will have to be made in one or both of these goals The problem to be investigated here revolves around the question of balancing agricultural and urban expansion with environmental 1

PAGE 18

2 quality, measured as Iiydrologic and water quality responses in a river basin. It is therefore necessary to define parameters which describe past, present, and projected rates of expansion. Measured clianges in land use and drainage patterns in a river basin provide a usc-tul starting point for estimating the impact of alternative future levels of development. The prediction of associated hydrologic and water quality responses which exist under present land use regimes, and which may result under some future condition presents a more complex problem. Such cause-effect relationships are only now being addressed by environmental resource planners. It is first necessary to define indices of environmental quality which can be measured or predicted. Secondly, the environmental responses must be related to the land use and drainage patterns so that a variety of interactions can be evaluated. Finally, the question of controls or constraints on these indices must be addressed so that trade-offs between economic expansion and environmental quality can be quantified. The above concepts are introduced here and extended and quantified in later sections. Traditional approaches to river basin studies have placed little emphasis on linkage mechanisms which relate land use and drainage conditions to resulting hydrologic and water quality responses in the watershed. Environmental indices which serve as useful measures of quality include the volume of surface runoff and streamflow, and associated nutrient concentrations or loadings which stimulate aquatic plant growth. Alterations in land use, drainage practices, and structural configurations can have significant impacts on these hydrologic and water quality measures.

PAGE 19

3 Obje ctives Tlie main objective of this research is to describe .-ind quantify various hydro. logicland use interactions which occur within a watershed or river basin in order that environmental quality be maintained. This requires that a technique be devised to characterize surface runoff quantity and quality as a function of land use and drainage patterns. Influences of soil storage, vegetative cover, drainage intensity, land use, topography, and climate must be directly considered because they all affect hydrologic and water quality responses. It is important to consider these interactions at several levels of detail in order to better understand the overall response of the watershed. Levels of resolution which are investigated include the river basin, tributary systems (planning units), lake units, and marsh areas. Analyzing these different components allows quantification of source areas of runoff and nutrients as well as associated transport mechanisms through the system. Overview of the Research Initial chapters serve as a literature review and lay the groundwork for more detailed presentations of theory and application. Chapter II introduces general hydrologic principles, including a discussion of drainage basin characteristics and the hydrologic effects of vegetation and land use. The chapter concludes with a section on watershed simulation models. Chapter III discusses v/ater quality and ecological principles with emphasis on describing non-point nutrient sources and cycling in aquatic systems. A review of water quality models indicates the close relationship which exists between hydrologic and nutrient

PAGE 20

4 processes, thus providing motivation for investigating linkage mechanisms between land use, drainage conditions, and observed water quality responses in a river basin. The Kissimmee River Basin in central Florida is undergoing pressure for rapid expansion and was selected for this research study (Figure 1.1). Chapter IV describes the environmental resources in the basin, along with observed land use changes and water quality responses. For convenience, the basin is divided into subwatersheds or planning units. The upper portion of the basin consists of a chain of large lakes undergoing rapid urbanization. The lower basin is undergoing transition from its natural state as a marsh and slough system to a regime dominated by improved pasture with drainage canals. In addition, a flood control project exists throughout the basin in the form of control structures, canals, and channelization of the main river stem. Water quality degradation in the form of excess nutrient leading in one of the upper lakes and along the river channel has been increasing over the last two decades. There is concern for protecting water quality, since the Kissimjaee River Basin is the main inflow tributary to Lake Okeechobee, which provides water supply to all of south Florida and the Everglades. Characteristics of the hydrologic and nutrient cycles in the Kissimmee River Basin provide a valuable conceptual framework for understanding the overall system dynamics. Each of these cycles is distinguished by a set of specific inflows, outflows, storages, and other losses which determine the response of a particular component of the system, e.g., soil, marsh, pasture, stream, lake, or planning

PAGE 21

5 Figure 1.1. Location Map of the Kissimmee River Basin.

PAGE 22

6 unit;. Thus, if a group of characteristic storage and transport parameters can be defined and quantified for each of these components in the region, then the concept of management strategies which alter the characteristic parameters can be better evaluated (see Chapter V) With regard to the hydrologic characterization, various components in the river basin can be viewed as a spectrum of reservoir storages with different volumes, inflow rates, and outflow rates. An important parameter is the retention time, T, defined as the ratio of storage volume to outflow rate. Reservoirs with high values of T have either relatively large storage or relatively small outflow rates. The reservoir concept can be applied to streams or lakes as well as to units of land use, e.g., marsh, pasture, cropland, urban, and units of soil type. Retention time is important not only as a hydrologic parameter, but also it plays a key role in nutrient cycling, loading rates, and uptake rates. In this respect, treatment rates on the land, in the soil, and in various aquatic systems are dependent on T to provide the necessary time for physical, biological, or chemical uptake mechanisms to operate. In general, the longer the retention time, the greater the uptake of nutrients either as plant biomass or as sediments The storage-treatment concept thus provides a useful framework for investigating the response of various basin components to changing patterns of land use, drainage intensity, and nutrient loading. As retention times are altered by various management practices, the ability of the system to act as a storage-treatment unit is also affected. The

PAGE 23

7 remainder of Chapter V is divided into detailed application of storage and transport concepts in the Kissiiranee Kiver Basin. Because the hydrologlc response of the drainage basin is the controlling link for land use and water quality considerations, a hydrologic modeling technique has been developed which directly incorporates land use changes and drainage practices. The model is based on determining a water balance for each soil-land use complex within each planning unit, thus providing an estimate of storage effects in the basin. Hydrologic output from the model includes surface and subsurface runoff volumes on a daily basis which are then routed through the river system to Lake Okeechobee. The output is a function of rainfa.li distribution and land use patterns within each planning unit. Both historical and predicted future land uses can be simulated. The information provided by such a model allows the determinationof storages and outflows from various land use and soil components. Characteristic retention times are calculated under changing regimes of drainage and management for each component. Source areas which contribute large percentages of surface runoff can be identified, and the effects of storage capacity on outflow rates from each planning unit can be investigated. In this way, the hydrologic model provides a characterization of runoff quantity as a function of land use patterns. While the hydrologic model estimates source areas which contribute runoff volumes, non-point source,s of nutrients are prim.arily a function of land use, with agricultural lands contributing the highest loads due to fertilization or cattle density. Water quality degradation, primarily

PAGE 24

8 due to nutrient loading in the Kissimmee River Basin, has been monitored both in the upper lakes and in the lower river and tributaries. Potential nutrient loading rates are calculated for each planning unit using measured concentrations of total phosphorus and predicted runoff volumes. Higher concentrations tend to be associated with higher runoff rates in areas dominated by intense drainage. When drainage canals are used for improved pasture, maximum storage capacity is reduced and surface outflow rates are increased compared to natural conditions, causing a reduction in retention time for the rainfall which eventually flows to the river. Shorter retention times contribute to an increase in potential nutrient loading from intensively drained areas for several reasons: 1) the length of overland flow through vegetation is significantly reduced, 2) travel times through shallow groundwater regimes toward nearby canals are reduced, 3} flow velocities in canals exceed rates necessary for physical uptake, and 4) vegetative surface area available for biological uptake is reduced. Detailed analyses of land use and drainage patterns along the lower river system indicate the importance of the drainage density index, defined as the total length of waterways divided by the associated watershed area. Drainage density provides a useful general indicator of land use intensity, runoff volumes, and nutrient concentration associated with the various tributaries in the Kissimmee River Basin. Drainage density is directly related to the average length of overland flow, soil moisture storage capacity, and surface runoff volumes via canals. In this respect, the index serves as an indicator of transport of runoff and nutrients for a particular land use type or for an entire planning unit.

PAGE 25

9 UTiile each hydrologic component in the basin has a characteristic retention time for storage-treatment, it follows that the Kissimmee River Basin taken as a whole can also be characterized using the same concept. The original river and floodplain provided a certain delay and treatment of lateral runoff waters and upstream contributions from Lake Kissimmee. The present channelized regime also assumes a characteristic retention time and storage capacity. While seasonal storage has been reduced, and peak flows have increased in the river, the annual retention time has probably been reduced due to channelization. However, the alteration of retention time and associated nutrient loading is more severe in the tributary drainage areas along the river. Thus, the primary cause of water quality degradation and increased flood flows may be due to upland drainage rather than floodplain channelization, but it is undeniable that both actions have served to decrease overall retention times in the basin. Detailed analyses of the upper lake units indicate a similar problem to that which is occurring in the lower portions of the river, specifically, an excess of nutrients being transported to the receiving water. Lake Tohopekaliga is the primary recipient of nutrients contained in the effluent from five sewage treatment plants which empty into the lake. Agricultural runoff provides an additional source. The lake has a large retention time and acts as a storagetreatment unit for these wastes, assimilating a large majority of nutrients as aquatic plant uptake or sediments before the water flows downstream in the chain of lakes. While it appears that uptake mechanisms are presently cleansing the water to a high degree within the

PAGE 26

10 lake, it is only a matter of time before higher concentrations are passed downstream if excess nutrient loading is allowed to continue. Nutrient budgets and retention times are calculated for the lake along with uptake rates of total phosphorus. This type of analysis may indicate the possible consequences to be expected if nutrient loading to the lake is controlled or curtailed in the future. The discussion thus far has emphasized the tributary and lake drainage system where runoff water travels overland, through canals, and via subsurface pathways. Only surface flows are assumed to contribute phosphorus concentrations of any significance due to the long retention times and uptake mechanisms in the soil. Actual sources of nutrients from various land uses are reviewed in a later section. Evidence indicates that certain land uses provide uptake capacity for nutrient enriched water which flows from upstream areas. In order to place the storagetreatment concept in proper perspective, a study of nutrient uptake in an actual marsh in the Kissiramee River Basin is presented. This provides a m.ore detailed view of actual storage volumes, treatment rates, and retention times which occur in a storage-treatment unit of the basin. A marsh area in one of the planning units was selected because flow and nutrient data were available from an intensive field study conducted by the FCD. Predicted inflow runoff volumes from the remaining area of the plamiing unit were routed through the marsh area for several years of historical record (1967-1970). Stage-volume and stage-discharge curves were generated in order to characterize the storage-treatment and retention time parameters in the marsh. Results indicate that the average

PAGE 27

11 retention time in the marsh is a function of the ratio of contributing drainage area to marsh area and the volume of inflow runoff. The above discussion has presented a general framev7ork for the analysis of hydrologic land use interactions at several levels of resolution in a river basin. As the details of these relationships unfold in the remaining chapters, it should be remembered that the problem of balancing land use expansion with environmental quality is both complex and conflicting, and that a variety of groups are interested in the overall outcome. Thus, technical solutions must eventually be evaluated in the public arena before implementation can take place.

PAGE 28

II. HYDROLOGIC PRINCIPLES TN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT The Hydrologic Cycle The hydrologic cycle is a concept, which considers the processe of motion, loss, and recharge of the earth's waters. Hydrology is defined in the following manner (Chow, 1964; p. 1-2). Hydrology is the science that treats of the waters of the Earth, their occurrence, circulation and distribution, their chemical and physical properties, and their reaction with their environment, including their relation to living things. As indicated in Figure 2.1, the hydrologic cycle may be divided into three principal phases: 1) precipitation, 2) evaporation, and 3) surface and groundwater runoff. Quantities of water going through individual sequences of the cycle can be evaluated by a simple continuity or water-budget equation of the form I 0 = AS (2.1) where I = inflow of water per area per unit time 0 = outflow of water per area per unit time, and AS = change in storage volume associated with the given area per unit time The hydrologic cycle has neither beginning nor end, as water evaporates from land and water surfaces to the atmosphere. The evaporated moisture eventually precipitates back to the earth 12

PAGE 29

13 PI o J-1 o

PAGE 30

14 vjhere it may be intercepted or transpired by plants, may become surface runoff, or may infiltrate into the ground. Once in the ground, water may be stored as soil moisture and evapotranspired, or percolate to deeper zones to become part of groundwater flow. Surface and groundwater flow from the land eventually reaches streams or lakes from xAich water evaporates to complete the cycle. The hydrologic cycle is comprised of the various complicated processes of precipitation, evaporation, evapotranspiration, interception, infiltration, percolation, storage, and runoff. The basic theories and concepts underlying each of these processes is presented in detail in all of the following references: Chow (1964), DeWiest (1965), Eagleson (1970), Gray (1973), Linsley et a l. (1975), and Viessman et al (1972) A brief discussion of various components of the hydrologic cycle is presented below by considering the hydrologic equation. The Hydrologic Equation A schematic diagram of the hydrologic cycle for a region is presented in Figure 2.2, which can be readily translated into mathematical terms. Hydrologic variables P, E, T, R, G, and I, as defined in Figure 2.1, are subscripted with s or g to denote processes above or below ground. For example, R signifies groundwater flow which eventually reaches a surface stream, and E rc' s presents evaporation from surface water storage. The water budget applied to a region is a balance between inflows, outflows, and changes in storage. Figure 2.2 can be translated into the following mathematical statements:

PAGE 31

15

PAGE 32

16 (1) hydrologic budget above t_he surface P + R R„ + R E T I = S (2.2) 1 2 g s s s (2) hydrologic budget below the surface I + G R E T = S (2,3) 1 2 g g g g (3) overall hydrologic budget (sum of equations 2.2 and 2.3) P (R„ R^) (E^ + E ) (T^ + T^) (GG^ ) 21 sg sg 21 = A(S + S ) (2.4) s g where all values are in units of volume per unit time. The hydrologic budget for a region can be simplified to P-R-G-E-T=S (2.5) where the various terms refer to total precipitation and net values of surface flow, groundv;ater flow, evaporation, transpiration, and storage, respectively, in units of volume per unit time. The application of equation 2.5 to specific areas presents a difficult problem mainly due to the inability to estimate various terms in the equation. Precipitation is measured by rain gages located throughout an area. Point rainfall data are used to compute average depths over a specific area, and the density of the gage network significantly affects the value of the averages. Orographic effects and storm patterns also may alter the averaged results. Nonuniform distribution of gages can be accounted for in a weighting method developed by Thiessen (1911) whereby each gage is weighted by the ratio of the area surrounding the gage to the total area. Surface flows can be measured by flow devices located in streams and rivers of the area. Estimates of surface runoff or

PAGE 33

17 overland flow are difficult to separate from groundv;ater cor/tributions, especially during flood events vjhen the soil is saturated. Measurements of groundwater flow can be obtained by analyzing hydrographic streamflow records during drought periods v/hen surface runoff is negligible. Well records provide information on the response of the groundwater system to recharge from rainfall. Estimation of soil m.oisture storage and infiltration rates are generally crude due to variations in drainage basin topography, soils, and vegetation. Determination of the quantities of water evaporated and transpired is also difficult because of the dependence on similar factors. Most estimates of evapotranspiration (ET) are obtained by using evaporation pans, energy budgets, i^iasstransfer methods, or empirical relationships. The Runoff Cycle The runoff cycle is that portion of the hydrologic cycle between incident precipitation over land areas and subsequent discharge of this water through stream channels or evapotranspiration. There are three main routes of travel for water once it reaches the ground: overland flow, interflow, and groundwater flow. Overland flow, or surface runoff, is that water which travels over the ground surface to a channel. Interflow, or subsurface flow, infiltrates the soil surface and moves laterally through the upper soil layers until it enters a stream channel. It moves more slowly than surface runoff and reaches the stream later. Some precipitation may percolate dov/nward until it reaches the water table and discbarges into streams as groundwater flow or base flow. The

PAGE 34

18 groundwater contribution to streamflow is relatively constant because of its very low flow velocity. The distinctions drawn between the three components of flow are arbitrary. For convenience it has been customary to consider the total flow to be divided into only two parts: direct runoff and base flow. The difference depends more on the time of arrival in the stream rather than on the path followed. The relative magnitude of the various components of the runoff cycle depends on the physical features and conditions of the drainage basin and on the characteristics of the rainfall. A typical streamflow hydrograph resulting from an isolated period of rainfall consists of a rising limb, crest segment, and recession portion. The separation of a hydrograph into direct and groundwater runoff is somewhat arbitrary since the distinction between these two components is vague. Various graphical techniques exist for separating the base flow component. The most widely used procedure consists of extending the recession existing before the storm to a point under the peak of the hydrograph. From this point a straight line is drawn to the hydrograph at a point N days after the peak (ABC, Figure 2.3A). This procedure is arbitrary and no better than line AC, which is simply a straight line from the point of rise to the hydrograph N days after the peak. The difference in volume of base flow by these two methods is quite sma.ll. Another method is illustrated by line ADE (Figure 2.3A) in which the groundwater recession after the storm is projected back under rhe hydrograph to a point under the inflection of the falling limb. An

PAGE 35

19 N = A'^ A= Drainage Area (Mi. ) Figure 2.3A. Streamflow Hydrograph Separation Techniques (From Linsley et al. 1975, p. 232).

PAGE 36

20 arbitrary rising limb is sketched iirom the point of rise of the hydrograph to connect with the projected recession. This separation technique has advantages where groundwater is plentiful and reacb.es the stream fairly rapidly. The contribution to streamflow from a storm of moderate intensity and constant in time is depicted in Figure 2.3B. Channel precipitation is the only increment of streamflow during the initial period of rainfall. The sura of interception, depression storages, and evaporation is referred to as surface retention. Available storages of surface retention and soil moisture are satisfied before appreciable surface runoff occurs. After a sufficiently long time, surface retention and soil moisture level off to constant values as determined by the loss to evapotranspiration. Water not retained as soil m.oisture either moves to the stream as interflow or penetrates the water table and may eventually reach the stream as groundwater. The rate of surface runoff approaches a relatively constant percentage of the rainfall rate. The overall view of the runoff cycle presented in Figure 2.3B is a simplification of a very complex process. Variations in rainfall amount and intensity, soil characteristics, vegetative patterns, antecedent moisture, and topography all act to create a complex pattern of behavior. In an effort to describe the hydrologic response of a drainage basin, several conceptual views or models have been proposed to describe drainage basin dynamics. These are briefly described below. Horton (1945) introduced the overland flow model (Figure 2.ii\) which basically distinguished two main components of flow to the

PAGE 37

21 3Wli iINn a3d QNV V3yv iiNfi a3d N0iiviidi03ad JO 3NnnoA nvioi JO %

PAGE 38

22 PRECIPITATION ( P) V Figure 2.4. Conceptual Hydrologic Models (Gregory and Walling, 1973, p. 23).

PAGE 39

23 stream, overland flow and groundwater flow. The maximum rate at which water could enter the soil x^7as designated the infiltration capacity. If this value was exceeded by rainfall intensity, water would first be stored as surface detention, and subsequently would become surface runoff. The overland flow model forms the basis for hydrograph separation techniques which divide surface runoff from base flow, and it treats much of the basin as a source of water contributing directly to the streamflow hydrograph. Difficulties encountered in separating components of streamflow hydrographs indicated that overland flow was not experienced in many drainage basins, and the observation of subsurface flow led to the suggestion of the throughflow model (Figure 2.4B). It has been proposed that throughflow, which occurs in the soil zone, and interflow, which occurs just above the saturated zone, are the most important modes of flow on hillsides in humid areas (Kirkby, 1969) More recently, awareness of the dynamic character of the drainage basin and its stream network, along with the fact that overland flow velocities far exceed those of throughflow, have prompted the development of the partial area and variable source area models of streamflow production (Figure 2.4C). These models view areas immediately adjacent to streams and lakes as being the regions most likely to contribute to runoff formation. In forested watersheds, Hewlett and Hibbert (1967) suggested that runoff production was achieved by expansion of saturated zones along the valley floors and over the lower portions of adjacent slopes. The contributing areas depend on rainfall, antecedent conditions, and basin characteristics.

PAGE 40

24 Although the above conceptual models differ in their representation of drainage basin dynamics, they all have several character istics in coimnon. The various hydrologic components, both surface and subsurface, are viewed as a spectrum of reservoir storages with different volumes, inflow rates, and outflow rates. The ratio of storage volume to outflow rate, i.e., retention time T, serves as a useful parameter to distinguish storage and flow capacities of various components in a river basin. The reservoir concept can be applied and compared at various levels of resolution, e.g., river basin, tributary, lake, floodplain, or unit of land use. In this way, it is possible to determine and quantify those regions most likely to contribute surface runoff. From the above discussion, it is evident that the rainfallrunoff process is relatively complex, and that sophisticated techniques of analysis offer the most reliable method of predicting runoff from rainfall over a given drainage basin. The practice of estimating runoff as a fixed percentage of rainfall is commonly used for the design of urban storm-drainage facilities, a system dominated by impervious areas. Computer simulation techniques have been devised to handle the more complex problem of predicting runoff and streamflow in a natural drainage basin. These methods will be reviewed in a later section. First, it is necessary to describe the general and specific characteristics of drainage basins which relate to hydrologic responses in the watershed. Also in this context, it is important to consider man-made changes in land use and drainage patterns and their relationship to watershed hydrology. These

PAGE 41

25 principles are introduced in this chapter, and extended and quantified in later chapters along with application to specific study areas Drainage Basin Characteristics A drainage basin is the entire area providing runoff to, and sustaining part or all of the streamflow of, the main stream and its tributaries. Drainage basin or V7atershed thus refers to the area enclosed by the boundaries of the surface and groundwater runoff system. The need to study the form and process relationships in the drainage basin derives from the function involved in the hydrologic cycle in conveying water from precipitation to its final destination as streamflow. Measurement and quantitative description of the drainage basin were firmly established by Horton (1932, 1945) when he initially characterized drainage basins by morphologic, soil, geologic or structural, and vegetational factors. Langbein (1947) extended these ideas to include topographic characteristics which relate to drainage basin functions. A drainage basin can be described by topographic parameters which include area and size, shape and pattern, relief and slope, and drainage density. A variety of interpretations are available in any of the following references: Strahler (1964), Leopold et al (1964), and Gregory and Walling (1973). Drainage basin area is difficult to correlate with catchment response due to nonuniform soil, vegetative, and topographic properties. High relief and slope indices tend to be associated

PAGE 42

26 with smaller basins. It follows that the highest floods per unit area are found to be characteristic of the smallest catchment areas. For many years a simple relation between an index of streamflow (Q) and catchment area (A) has been used as a guide to basin response. Relations of the form Q = aA^, where a and b are constants, have been used for predicting flood events. Basin area has a different significance depending on catchment characteristics and the index of streamflow. Glymph and Holtan (1969) illustrate different types of relationships which can result when mean annual runoff is related to drainage area (Figure 2.5). In humid areas such as Ohio, upland Infiltration returns in part to downstream channels causing a gain in streamflow per unit area as basin size increases In drier regions, runoff per unit area may be constant or decrease with increasing basin size. Other indices of basin size have been used in relationships with watershed response. The length of the longest stream (L) was used by Morisawa (1967) in a relation with mean annual discharge (Q) for watersheds in the eastern United States. Stream order, which measures the amount of branching within a basin, is of limited value in relation to measures of stream discharge unless the method of ordering is directly relevant to runoff production. A complete discussion of various methods for stream ordering is contained in Gregory and Walling (1973) Basin relief., which refers to channel or valley slope, exercises an influence over peak runoff and sediment production in the basin. The significance of relief is difficult to ascertain because

PAGE 43

27 a> sz o c I u. u. o z q; _j
PAGE 44

28 it is bound up with other basin parameters. These same points apply to basin shape, which generally determines the lag time of the basin hydrograph response. This effect can be observed in Figure 2.6A, B, and C from DeWiest (1965). The pattern of the drainage network also affects the hydrograph response as shown in Figure 2.6D and E from Strahler (1964). Many of the indices discussed above do not respond to the dynamic character of the watershed because they express overall size, shape, or relief of the basin. It is now increasingly appreciated that only part of the basin actually produces runoff and sediment at a particular time. Therefore, of all topographic characteristics, perhaps drainage density is potentially the most useful single index of drainage basin processes. The significance of drainage density stems from the facts that water and sediment yield are very much influenced by the length of water courses per unit area, and that it can be regarded as both an input or a response to input (output) to the basin. Measurement of Drainage Densit y Drainage density was defined by Horton (1932) as the length of streams per unit of drainage area, and he considered a range of drainage densities from 2.0 mi/sq mi for steep impervious areas to nearly zero in permeable basins with high infiltration rates. More than 20 years of investigation from areas all over the world have shown a greater range in the values. Strahler (1957) described drainage density values less than 5.0 mi/sq mi as coarse, between 5.0 and 13.7 as medium, between 13.7 and 155.3 as fine, and

PAGE 45

29 Figure 2.6. The Significance of Drainage Basin Shape (A, B, C) and Network Pattern (D, E) on Hvdrograph Response (DeWiest, 1965, p. 72, and Strahler, 1954^ p. 4-44).

PAGE 46

30 greater than 155.3 as ultra-fine. Values in the medium category have been recorded from large areas of the humid central and eastern parts of the United States, whereas fine values have been measured in the Badlands in South Dakota (Smith, 1958). Reported values are subject to error because the densities must be determined from maps, aerial photographs, or field surveys of the basin. Horton (1945) originally suggested measuring the watercourses sho^vm as blue lines on U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000 topographic maps, but a disadvantage of this method is that not all streams and valleys may be represented on the map. Some vjorkers have supplemented the network of blue lines with additional segments from the pattern contour crenulations (Carlston, 1963; Orsborn, 1970). Morisawa (1957) compared several methods for measuring drainage density and found that the blue line method differed significantly from other methods. The drainage network varies according to the map scale and, in some cases, from one map edition to another. Giusti and Schneider (1962) compared maps of different dates and scales for the Piedmont region and demonstrated variations in drainage densities up to one order of magnitude for scales of 1:250,000 and 1:24,000. Map convention, map scale, and method of determination of the drainage net must be considered to calculate drainage density values. Because these techniques are time-consuming, more rapid methods of calculation have been proposed. Carlston and Langbein (1960) proposed a rapid line intersection method which involves drawing a line of known length (L) on a contour map and counting

PAGE 47

31 the number of streams (n) which intersect the line. An apprcxii-ation of drainage density can be expressed in mi/sq mi as D. = 1.41 n/L (2.6) a Electronic scanning of aerial and infra-red photographs in order to detect changes in film intensity has also been utilized (McCoy, 1971). Drainage Density Relationships Drainage density occupies a central position in describing the drainage basin because it is closely related to other basin characteristics, as well as input to the basin and output from the basin. Attempts have been made to develop quantitative relationships of drainage density to climatic inputs and also to basin outputs. Several useful relationships exist for describing stream areas, stream lengths, and stream numbers, all of which are important for understanding drainage density. The law of stream lengths (Horton, 1945) can be stated as u where is the mean length of channel of order u, is the ratio of the lengths of different order, and r is a positive integer. Another measure of network structure is the bifurcation ratio R^, u+l

PAGE 48

32 where N is the number of stream sejrments of order u and R, is u b the ratio of N to the number of segments of next higher order. Horton (1945) developed the law of stream numbers from equation 2.8 which states that the number of stream segments of each order forms an inverse geometric sequence with order number, or \ = ^'^ (2.9) where k is the order of the trunk segment. Drainage density was defined by Horton (1932) as the ratio of total channel-segment lengths cumulated for all orders in a basin to the basin area Aj, or k Nj EEL D, = (2.10) d Ay. Horton (1945) combined the laws of stream numbers and lengths with his definition of drainage density to yield u Lb where is the drainage density of an entire basin of order u, Rj^^ is the ratio of to R^, and other terms are as defined previously. This equation combines all the geometric factors vjhich determine the composition of the drainage net of a stream system into one expression. The average length of overland flow L is approximately one-hal g the average distance between stream channels, which equals the reciprocal of D^. When modified for the effect of land and stream slope, Horton (1945) expressed this as

PAGE 49

33 vjhere 0^ is channel slope and is average ground slope in the area. Factors controlling drainage density are the same as those that control the characteristic length dimension of any group of firstorder basins. In general, low drainage density is favored in regions of highly permeable soils, dense vegetative cover, and low relief. High drainage density is favored in regions of impermeable soils, sparse vegetation, and mountainous relief. Thus humid temperate areas tend to have lower densities compared to semi-arid regions. A comprehensive study of drainage density controls by Melton (1957) indicated a strong inverse relationship to the effective precipitation index of Thornthwciite (1948) Other independent variables such as infiltration capacity, vegetative cover, surface roughness, and runoff intensity were investigated. Of these, onlysurface roughness had no significant correlation with Dj. In d another study, Carlston (1963) interpreted variations in drainage density according to terrain transmissivity The relationship of drainage density to basin output is perhaps most significant. The drainage network characterizes the infiltration capacity of soils and creates the density necessary for excess outflow from the basin. If channel patterns are constant, then discharge should be directly related to channel density because channel flow usually dominates the basin response. Runoff intensity depends to a large extent on drainage density (Melton, 1957). Mean annual 2 flood is usually related to D in the form Q„ „ a D^, where 0„ ^ is c 1.3 a V 3

PAGE 50

34 flood discharge equalled or exceeded on (he average once in 2.3 vears, and indices of base flow are correlated to D, (Orsborn, Q 1970; Trainer, 1969). Such static interpretations can give ambiguous results if the same values of are related to different flow indices, and Gregory and Walling (1968) suggest an alternative method which considers the dynamic changes of within a given V7atershed. They indicate that total channel length (L) which is directly related to D^, increases with actual discharge 2 (Q) in the form Q a L^. Drainage density has been show to be related to the average length of overland flow, soil moisture storage capacity, and rates of surface runoff via canals. By serving as a general indicator of volumes and flow rates, drainage density can be associated with a characteristic retention time for a particular land use type or entire drainage area. High values of the index are characterized by low retention times, and vice versa. Thus, the concept of drainage density as a measure of land use intensity fits nicely into the reservoir storage concept which has already been introduced. As discussed earlier, retention time also plays a key role in determining nutrient loading and uptake rates. It follows that drainage density may serve as an indicator of nutrient levels emanating from a watershed because of the close relationships with retention time and land use. These effects are explored in more d( tail in Chapter V. The next section discusses the effects of land use and drainage practices on hydrologic response.

PAGE 51

35 Hyd rologic Effects of Ve getation and Land Use Tlie significance of vegetation in the drainage basin relates to its influence over basin characteristics such as net input. storage capacity, and hydraulic roughness. Vegetation directly affects rates of evapotranspiration, interception, infiltration, and overland flow through the distribution of roots, stems, and leaves. Thus vegetative cover and associated land use patterns govern, to a large extent, the distribution of water on and under the land surface. The general relationships between vegetation and hydrology are summarized by Colman (1953, p. 69) in the following discussion: Despite their great range in form all types of vegetation share certain characteristics that are i.iiiportant in relation to water-yield control. Every vegetative cover is made up of three parts: The canopy of living and dead stems and leaves that stands clear of the soil, the accumulation of dead and decaj'ing plant remains that lies on or in the soil surface, and the living and dead roots and subsurface stems that perm.eate the soil. The canopy above ground and the surface litter accumulation operate as barriers interposed between the atmosphere and the soil. They intercept precipitation, and thus temper the delivery of water to the soil. They insulate the soil, thus reducing the interchange of heat between soil and atmosphere, and they retard wind movement near the soil surface. Because both act as insulating materials they slow the evaporation of water from the soil. Their insulating effect, however, may be offset by loss of soil vjater through transpiration of the living parts of the canopy. At the soil surface vegetation obstructs the overland flow of water and the pickup and transport of soil material. This is accomplished by stems and litter accumulations that form miniature anchored dams and diversion walls, and by roots and decaying organic matter that mat the soil or bind it. Beneath the soil surface, to depths reached by roots, vegetation acts both directly and indirectly. Roots, by their growth and subsequent death and decay, permeate the soil with material that both binds it and aids the flow of water through it. Roots also absorb water

PAGE 52

36 and carry it; to tlie above-ground parts of plants, thus contributing to the return of water to the atmosphere. The parts of vegetation that are below the soil surface act indirectly through the favorable environinent they create for the activity of small animals, insects, fungi, molds, and bacteria. To all these organisms vegetation means shelter and favorable living conditions; to most of them it means food as well. Some of them burrow in the soil and thus aid in keeping it permeable to water. Others break down organic matter and thus perform the same kind of function, while at the same time permeating the soil with the binding materials of their own bodies. The search for quantitative relationships between vegetation and hydrologic processes spans a broad spectrum of disciplines including forest hydrology, agricultural hydrology, botany, ecosystem management, water resources management, and land use planning. Research on forested and agricultural lands is at a relatively advanced stage compared to the analysis of natural marsh and swamp regions. Each of these land use types is discussed below with emphasis on presenting quantitative results where they exist. Nutrient and water quality considerations are deferred until Chapter III. Forest Hydrology One of the most widely quoted sources of information on forest hydrology is the International Sym p osium o n Forest Hydrolog y (Sopper and Lull, 1967). Earlier qualitative treatments are presented by Kittredge (1948) and Colman (1953). Penman (1963) approaches the subject by considering the mechanisms of evapotranspiration as the dominant process linking vegetative type to hydrologic response. Pereira (1973) presents results from studies of tropical watersheds. Most of these sources include studies on small, well-miOnitored

PAGE 53

37 forested watersheds in which a change in vegetation is introduced and a change in hydrologic regime observed. Hewlett and Ilibbert (1967) present a numerical rating system which relates precipitation and streamflow records for use in classifying the response of small watersheds in humid areas. Important inputs which influence the response factors include soil depth to impervious layer, average land slope, average annual storm depth, and land use. Forested watersheds are ranked according to mean precipitation (P) direct runoff or quick flow (V) and response factors = V/P and P^ = V/(P-E) where E = evaporation. Hewlett and Helvey (1970) show an 11 percent increase in quick flow following forest claarfelling on a small Appalachian basin. Woodruff and Hewlett (1970) attempted to predict the average annual hydrologic response of ungaged watersheds in the East by regression against 15 basin parameters describing stream network, slope, and cover. The regression coefficients were non-significant indicating that response is controlled chiefly by soil storage and porous groundwater effects not included in the analysis. Pereira (1967) discusses the effects of land use on water and energy budgets of tropical African watersheds. A series of experiments to study major land use problems were planned based on soil moisture studies. These included 1) replacement of mountain-protecting bamboo forests with softwood plantations, 2) replacement of rain forests with tea plantations, 3) control of clear-felled areas on steep slopes, and 4) control of overgrazed ranchlands from erosion and floods.

PAGE 54

38 Results indicate that v;ater use by full canopies of bamboo > cypress, and pine was approximately equal. Replacement of rain forests by tea plantations resulted in a twoto fourfold increase in stormflows. Peak flows were up to 50 times higher in tea plantations over the original forest. Controls on overgrazed ranchlands produced a doubling in penetration depth of water in the soil and a consequent reduction in surface runoff. Douglass (1967) discusses the effects of species and arrangement of forests on evapotranspiration (ET) rates. Results indicate that pine forests consistently use more water, and from deeper depths, than shallower-rooted grasses, which signifies that moisture use is closely related to rooting depth. Length and density of grasses are found to vary with distance from the water table. In addition, alterations in stand density generally tend to reduce ET and increase water yield (Figure 1.1k and B) Lull and Sopper (1967) found, after analyzing 137 small watersheds in the Northeastern United States, that precipitation, percent forest cover, and maximum July temperature are the parameters which most influence annual and seasonal streamflows. They used multiple regression analyses to explain variation of flows among the watersheds. Hibbert (1967) reports results for 39 studies on the effect of altering forest cover on water yield. Taken collectively, these studies reveal that forest reduction increases water yield, and that reforestation decreases water yield. The control watershed approach, one treated and one untreated, is used in most cases.

PAGE 55

39 A J. 1962 1961 piixil ,960 11 III I 1 1 Figure 2.7. Change in Water Yield after Conversion of Hardvrood to Grass (A) and Change in Soil Moisture under Thinned and Unthinned Loblolly Pine Plantation (B) (Douglass, 1967, p. 453).

PAGE 56

40 First-year response to complete forest reduction varies up to 450 mm of increased streamflow (Figure 2.8A). There is strong evidence that, in humid regions, streamflow response is proportional to reduction in forest cover (Figure 2.8B), depending on the directional aspect of watershed. Coweeta Watershed 13 represents a unique situation, in that the cutting experiment was initiated in 1939 and repeated in 1962 after regrowth. Streamflow increases are almost identical (Figure 2.9A) and as the forest regrows following treatment, increases in streamflow decline, and the rate of decline is related to the rate of forest recovery as shown for several different studies in Figure 2,9B. The above discussion indicates the complexities which surround forested watershed studies. Land cover, basin morphology, geology, and climate all interact simultaneously to produce the observed hydrologic response. Wliile many of the above experiments on forested lands have produced only qualitative results, agricultural hydrology has made significant progress in obtaining quantitative relationships Hydrology of Agricultural Land s The first real impetus for research on agricultural hydrology came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) with the soil conservation movement of the 1930 's. Research was aimed at determining the relative effectiveness of various farming practices and land uses in holding water on the land to reduce runoff and soil erosion. By 1964, studies had been completed on 900 small

PAGE 57

41 A B Figure 2.8. First-Year Streamflow Increases after Treatment versus Reduction of Forest Cover (A) and Showing Influence of Aspect (B) (Hibbert, 1967, p. 536).

PAGE 58

42 I COWEETA 13 MAY-APRIL WflTERYEAR TEARS B 10 20 30 40 50 60 TO 80 50 100 ure 2.9. Streamflow Increases for Coweeta Watershed 13 Following Treatments (A), and Decrease in Water Yield versus Percentage of Area Reforested (B) (Hibbert, 1967, p. 538).

PAGE 59

43 runoff plots with 35 soil types. Continued research efforts by the USDA and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) have provided a substantial part of the present knowledge about land use effects on runoff and streamflow. The Coshocton experimental watersheds were set up to study the effects of agricultural practices on water yield (Harrold et al ., 1962). Five watersheds, having areas ranging from 29 to 76 acres, were studied with one of them serving as a control. The study began in 1938 with a series of treatments in the form of land use changes or alterations aimed at reducing runoff. Table 2.1 shows the details of the treatments and Table 2.2 shows the effects of the treatments after 10 years of application. All resulted in a decrease in water yield ranging from 15 to 44 percent, the greatest decrease being experienced in the watershed converted to forest cover. Glymph and Holtan (1969), both with the Agricultural Research Service, review existing knowledge of land use effects on small agricultural watersheds. The general trend of results at three different latitudes is that runoff from small plots in inversely related to vegetative density and cultivation frequency (Figure 2.10) Studies at Hastings, Nebraska showed that peak runoff is greatest from straight-row cultivation and least for contoured watershed, and that conservation practices such as planned terraces, grassed waterways, and increased grassland help retain more precipitation on the land (Figure 2.11). The frequency of peak rates of runoff from watersheds of varying sizes and land uses are shown in Figure

PAGE 60

44 Table 2.1. Coshocton Experimental Watersheds. Description of 1938 and 1957 Land Use in Percentage of Total Area for Five Study Watersheds. Watershed 172 177 169 183 196 Item 1938 1957 1938 1957 1938 1957 1938 1957 1938 1957 Woodland 29.4 100.0 9.1 9.8 6.2 11.7 13.1 13.8 25.2 27.7 Rotation across slopes 0 0 47.4 0 69.3 0 42.4 50.8 45.7 38.1 contour strips 0 0 0 34.5 0 69.0 0 8.6 0 0.5 Permanent pasture 50.5 0 31.1 49.5 17.9 13.4 44.2 26.8 19.3 30.5 Idle land 20.1 0 1.80 0 0 0 0 2, 60 Miscellaneous 0 0 10.6 6.2 6.6 5.9 0.5 0 7.2 3.2 Area (acres) 43.6 75.6 29.0 74.2 30.3 (From Harrold et al 1962 p. 23).

PAGE 61

45 Table 2.2. Effect of Treatments on Water Yield: Coshocton Experimental Watersheds. Watersheds 172 177 169 183 Item Average runoff (in) (1957) Year Growing season Dormant season 12.02 3.44 8.57 7.89 2.10 5.79 6.81 2.05 4.76 10.46 7.57 2.89 Decrease in runoff (in) (1938-1957) Year Growing season Dormant season 5.32 1.71 3.80 1.62 0.36 1.26 1.08 0. 72 0.72 1.60 1.00 0.60 Percent reduction (1938-1957) Year 44.0% 20.6% 15.9% 15.3% (From Harrold et al 1962, p

PAGE 62

46 LA CROSSE,/IS. 1933-43 iCortinueu* Row Crop 2Rrtoion Row Crop 3Rolotioo Groin 4RMofion Hoy SContinuou* Grata GUTHRIE, OKLA. 1930-38 1 2 DITTO CLARINDA.IOWA 1933-42 DITTO 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 RUNOFF FROM 0.01 ACRE PLOTS IN PERCENT OF RAINFALL Figure 2.10. Effect of Farm Practices on Runoff Volumes (Glymph and Holtan, 1969, p. 46).

PAGE 63

47 1 1. -r 1 1 i 1 1 30 if) y\/48 m c w m a 10 1 1 1 1 0 10 20 Wotershed W-3 30 40 ACCUMULATED ANNUAL RUNOFF IN INCHES HASTINGS, NEBRASKA Figure 2.11. Comparison of Runoff from Conservation Measures, W-5 and Straight-Row Farming, W-3 (Glymph and Holtan, 1969, p. 49).

PAGE 64

48 2.12, and results of infiltration studies on various soil-cover complexes are presented in Figure 2.13. Both of these figures are in general agreement with findings concerning land use influences upon rainfall-runoff relationships on small area watersheds. The body of information about the hydrologic performance of agricultural, forest, and rangelands has been used by the USDA to develop a method for computing direct storm runoff from various soil-cover complexes. The method involves the choice of a runoff curve depending upon the kind of soil, land use and cover, and type of land treatment. It provides for adjustments for three levels of antecedent moisture as described by Ogrosky and Mockus (1964). Figure 2.14 shows the basic formula and family of curves for estimating runoff by this technique. Table 2.3 provides a basis for selecting the proper curve number for a particular soilcover complex. Interpreting the hydrologic performance of soil-cover complexes, considering the heterogeneous nature of watersheds, is not an easy task. Besides variations in precipitation patterns and surface features of watersheds as they increase in size, the problem is further complicated by storage and movement of water in soils and underlying aquifers, and by natural gains and losses of water in stream channels. Glyraph and Holtan (1969) illustrate different relationships which can result in humid areas, where some upland infiltration can return to downstream channels, compared to arid regions, where channels can absorb streamflow. These dynamic storage effects

PAGE 65

49 700 600 500 u it too o 2 ir o 300 ui < 200 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 ISO 200 220 240 DRAINAGE AREA (acres) Figure 2.12. Land Use and Treatment Effect on 25-Year Runoff Frequencies (Glyniph and Holtan, 1969 p. 51). Time PERIOD IN MINUTES Figure 2.13. Results of Infiltration Studies on Various Soil-Cover Complexes (Glymph and Holtan, 1969, p. 51).

PAGE 66

50 0 I 2 34 56 7 B 9 rOII Roinfall (P) in inches From SCS Hydrology Guide Figure 2.14. Soil Conservation Service Rainfall-Runoff Relationships (SCS, 1969, p. 10,21).

PAGE 67

51 Table 2.3. Runoff Curve Numbers for Hydrologic Soil-Cover Complexes. For Average Conditions of Antecedent Soil Moisture and Initial Abstraction. Land Use or Cover Treatment or Practice HvrlTol OPT c Condition Hydrologic A 3 Soil C Group D Fallow Straight row 77 86 91 94 Row crops Straight row Poor "7 O ol 88 91 Straight row Good D / 7!3 / 0 85 89 Contoured Poor ~7 r\ l
PAGE 68

52 cause significant changes in the amount of runoff per unit area for the different regions (Figure 2.5). Methods for dealing with the complexities of hydrologic budgets have been developed by the USDA (1970) and will be discussed in more detail in the section on simulation models. The USDA approach to watershed hydrology thus points up the need to consider both land use or vegetative cover as well as soil storage in order to fully understand the response to changing land factors. The results of applying the hydrologic budget for calculating peak runoff rates from deep and shallow soils are shown in Figure 2.15. Vegetation significantly reduced the rate of runoff from the deep soils (83= 6.0 in), but had little effect on runoff from shallow soils. The influence of vegetation is closely related to cover density as well as to antecedent moisture conditions. The effect of vegetation on overland flow rates has been studied by the Corps of Engineers (1954) using measured velocities to calculate Manning roughness coefficients in the Everglades region of South Florida. Manning's equation for channel flow is 1 5R2/3ql/2 V = t2^ so (2. 13) n where v is velocity, n is Manning's roughness coefficient, R is the hydraulic radius, and S^ is the slope. Table 2.4 presents a list of n values for various cover regimes. Ogrosky and Mockus (1964) show graphs for the design of flow in grassed waterways for various vegetative retardances (Figure 2.16). In general. Manning's n is constant within a channel segment and increases

PAGE 69

53 o 2 3 'J 6 rr Sj= 1. 00 in. HOURS FROM START OF STORM '0 11 13 u 14 15 Figure 2.15. Effect of Vegetation and Soil Storage on Rianoff Hydrographs (Glymph and Holtan 1969 p. 61).

PAGE 70

54 Table 2.4. Values of Manning's Roughness Coefficient n. Glass, plastic, machined metal 0.010 Dressed timber, joints flush 0 .011 Sawn timber, joints uneven 0 UlACement plaster 0.011 Concrete, steel troweled 0.012 Concrete, timeber forms, unfinished 0.014 Untreated gunite 0.0150.017 Brickwork or dressed masonry 0.014 Rubble set in cement 0.017 Earth, smooth, no v/eeds 0.020 Earth, some stones and weeds 0.025 Natural river channels; Clean and straight 0.025-0.030 Winding, with pools and shoals 0.0330.040 Very weedy, winding and overgrown 0.075-0.150 (From Henderson, 1966, p

PAGE 71

55 Figure 2.16. The Behavior of Manning's n in Grassed Channels, Wliere Curves A to E Show Declining Ve^>etative Retardance (Ogrosky and Mockus, 1964, p. 21-54).

PAGE 72

56 abruptly as water elevation rinses above the floodplain followed by a gradual decrease. These relationships are explored in more detail in Chapter V. Hydrology of I-larshes and Sw;unps Studies on the hydrologic processes occurring in wetland marsh swamp, and slough areas have only recently been undertaken. The association of flat land and surplus water has offered the opportunity to drain the marshlands and transform them for crops and pastures. Confusion exists concerning the function of marshlands as a resource or as an obstacle to development. Miile marshes are composed of similar ecological associations of water-loving plants, they may be sustained by entirely different physical causes of water surplus (Pereira, 1973). In steep mountainous country under high rainfall, marshes are found behind natural rock barriers, forming reservoirs which are drawn down by evaporation in dry weather to provide some degree of flood storage in the wet season. Drainage by cutting through tli( rock barrier destroys the reservoir storage capacity. Drainage by partial reducti on of the water level and irrigation by intercepting the stream as it enters the marsh can provide an agricultural resource. Where marshland is due to a loss of water velocity in a part of the flat streambed, as under the restricted drainage conditions in South Florida, dead plant material falling into shallow ponded water is not readily decomposed, and thick deposits of organic peats and muck soils gradually build up. A vast basin has emerged

PAGE 73

57 whose soils act as a gigantic sponge, absorbing summer rains and releasing water during the winter drought season. Drainage of such marshes for agricultural production has led to rapid oxidation and subsidence of the peat, eventually leaving behind a coarse sand of little agricultural interest. In order to slow the subsidence of the drained muck soils, some areas are being reflooded during portions of the year. The removal of vegetation, to replace a swamp by an open X'jater surface, was at one time believed to reduce evaporation, but studies by Linacre et al (19 70) have established by water and energy flux measurements that shading of the water surface by a cover of reeds can result in a reduction in water use. Effects of marsh drainage on flood control are difficult to find in the literature. Studies of a long historical flow record in mountainous regions of Wales have confirmed that flooding is increasing due to both increased rainfall intensities and drainage of peat swamps. By plotting the flood peaks against drainage density (mi/sq mi), the authors obtained a logarithmic relationship (Howe, Slaymaker, and Harding, 1966). A relationship developed for swamps in the Soviet Union also places significance on drainage density (D^) and marsh area (M) as they affect surface runoff in the form Q = (aD^)/M^ (2.14) where a and b are constants (Chebotarev, 1966). Results should be forthcoming on several research efforts in marsh and slough regions of South Florida. A recent study in the

PAGE 74

58 Big Cypress Swamp was undertaken by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1973) to obtain detailed technical information regarding the effects of artificial drainage on the natural swamp. Figure 2.17 presents a comparison of groundwater levels for sites near canals and sites remote from canals. An average difference of 42 cm in the water table level indicates the effect of drainage canals on reducing water availability to the swamp. A reduction in annual net above-ground productivity and total biomass was reported for the area under the drained condition. Barnes and Golden (1966) present an interesting relationship between the annual flood attenuation factor as it is affected by the percent area in lakes and swamps (Figure 2.18). The attenuation o floods is significantly decreased for percentages less than 15 percent due to the loss in available storage capacity for slowing excess runoff rates. Land Use and Retention Ti me The previous discussion of vegetation and land use as they relate to soil storage, surface detention, evapotranspirauion, infiltration, and surface runoff indicates the importance of land management techniques. The USDA method for computing suiface runoff from various soil-cover complexes provides a first estimate of the range of soil storages and runoff rates to be expected from each type of cover. In general, those cover complexes with high soil storage capacity produce relatively lower runoff volumes than those with low soil storages. Results indicate that natural forested lands, marshes, and undrained pasture provide for considerable soil

PAGE 75

59

PAGE 76

60

PAGE 77

61 storage and surface detention capacity. However, high intensity drainage practices, while increasing the drainage density of an area, simultaneously decrease the effective soil storage capacity, and high runoff rates can be expected. The idea of using soil storage and surface detention, along with drainage density, to characterize soil-cover complexes fits equally well into the storage reservoir framework presented earlier. Characteristic retention times for each land use can be calculated based on soil storages and outflow rates determined by surface detention and drainage density. In addition, hydrologic simulation models, which are introduced below, can incorporate land use and drainage parameters to provide realistic hydrologic output under alternative management regimes. Component and basin retention times provide useful information for evaluation of m.anagement schemes Watershed Simulation Models Due to the heterogeneous and dynamic nature of rainfall input, drainage basin characteristics, and land use changes, sophisticated computer simlulation techniques have been developed to predict runoff and streamflow from a given watershed. The practice of estimating runoff as a fixed percentage of rainfall has been traditionally used in urban areas dominated by impervious areas. However, in drainage basins where vegetation and soil storage have significant effects on the hydrologic budget, simulation techniques offer the most reliable and accurate prediction tool.

PAGE 78

62 General Equations The most general formulation for the description of hydrologic flows in one dimension involves the solution of two equations, the equation of motion for unsteady, nonuniform flow S = S --^-^^-^^=2.25 f o 9x g 9x g 9t and the equation of continuity Al 9x 3t where S = o y = X = (2.15) (2.16) friction slope bed slope vertical depth linear dimension V = velocity g = gravitational constant time flow rate in x direction cross-sectional area n = Manning coefficient R = hydraulic radius q^^ = lateral inflow per unit width These two equations can be solved for v and y under certain conditions using the method of characteristics or other numerical techniques for partial differential equations. For the case of steady, uniform flow, equation 2.15 can be reduced to the Manning equation, which incorporates a nonlinear relationship

PAGE 79

63 betv;een flow and depth (see equation 2.14). The effect of Manning's n on flow in grassed waterways has been shown in Figure 2.L6. The Manning equation is used to obtain stage-flow relations in the marsh study presented in Chapter V. If a linear relationship is assumed between flow and depth (or storage), then equation 2.15 can be further simplified to the Muskingum equation (McCarthy, 1938), for example. It takes the form S = KO + KX(I-O) (2.17) where S = storage 0 = outflow 1 = inflow K = travel time parameter X = storage parameter The solution procedure for this equation is described in detail in Chapter V, where it forms the basis for flood routing in rivers. The equation of continuity presented above can be simplified for an elemental control volume. Equation 2.16 transforms to 0 I + ff= (2.18) where AS represents a change in storage volume caused by inflows and outflows. In the simplifications leading to equations 2.17 or 2.18, variations of flow and storage with time are retained, but spatial variations are eliminated. The latter effects are incorporated in models by sequential application of the equations in a downstream direction for different spatial elements at each time step.

PAGE 80

64 The above discussion shows how the governing equations of motion and continuity can be simplified to a convenient form for modeling purposes. Equation 2.18 is the equivalent of equation 2.4 for the overall hydrologic budget of a region. When combined with equation 2.17, one obtains the Muskingum routing technique for rivers and reservoirs. Review of Available Models Numerous hydrologic models have been developed for a variety of specific needs. A representative spectrum of these models is briefly reviewed in this section with the ultimate intent to select or develop a runoff model which directly incorporates drainage and land use parameters. It will be shown later that these parameters are significant in characterizing the quantity and quality of surface and subsurface runoff. Deterministic hydrologic models basically describe the behavior of water using a form of the equations of motion and continuity discussed above. Frequently, the models are structured to simulate or predict a streamflow value, hourly or daily, from given rainfalls within the drainage basin. The model is then calibrated by comparing results of the simulation with existing records. Once the model is adjusted to fit the known period of data, additional periods can be simulated for changing drainage basin characteristics or land use patterns. In this way the effect of proposed alterations can be evaluated in a reasonable fashion. Soil storage dynamics are an integral part of the hydrologic cycle because surface runoff is largely dependent on the balance between infiltration and evapotranspiration rates. Much of the early

PAGE 81

65 vrork in runoff modeling was prompted by developments in the understanding of the infiltration process in the soil as presented by Horton (1933), Philip (1957), and Holtan (1961). Horton's original infiltration equation takes the form I = f + (f. f ) e"'^'^ (2.19) t c 1 c where I = t infiltration rate at time t f = c final infiltration rate f. = X initial infiltration rate a = constant t = time Infiltration relationships have been combined with surface flow formulations to produce a variety of available watershed models. All of these differ in terms of required input data, governing equations, and overall output response. Each model has been developed for specif needs, emphasizing particular aspects of the hydro logic cj'cle in terms of storage or transport mechanisms. In addition, some are designed for simulating particular events in time, while others handle continuous input over a long period of time. For simulation purposes in the Kissimmee River Basin, the hydrologic model must place strong emphasis on soil storage and evapotranspiration dynamics for determining areas of runoff contribution. The model must also handle spatial distributions of soil-land use types, and predict long-term seasonal responses as land use patterns change. Available models such as the Stanford Watershed Model (Crawford and Linsley, 1966) utilize concepts of soil moisture storage and

PAGE 82

66 infiltration rates to predict groundwater flow, interflow, and overland flow. However, the requirement of an extensive array of input data and parametric relationships places limits on its applicability to relatively unmonitored watersheds such as the Kissimmee River Basin Variable source area models have been proposed by Betson (1964) Tennessee Valley Authority (1965), Dunne and Black (1970), and Lee and Delleur (1972). These models rely on the concepts of infiltration and soil storage, but they replace the classic overland flow regime of Horton by a varying response area. This saturated area appears along the banks and floodplains of streams and rivers, and is assumed to be the basic runoff generating mechanism. At this time, these models fail to properly account for the dynamic response area, because of dependence on antecedent mositure, rainfall intensity, topography, and soils. The Storm Water Management Model (EPA, 1971) uses the Manning equation to generate overland flow and Horton' s equation to determine infiltration rates. But the model was specifically designed for urban areas, and does not simulate continuous hydrologic response. Thus, its applicability to the Kissimmee River Basin is doubtful. One additional model worthy of mention is the USDA Hydrograph Laboratory Model as discussed by Glymph, Holtan and England (1971). In the USDA model, infiltration is expressed as an exhaustion function of available soil moisture in the surface horizon of a soil (A-horizon) diminishing to a low, constant rate of intake associated with the impediiig strata (B-horizon) The equation derived from snuall plots small watersheds, and inf il trometer runs is

PAGE 83

67 f = aS + f (2.20) a c where f = infiltration capacity S = available soil moisture storage a f = intake rate after prolonged wetting c a = coefficient of pore-space continuity As S is depleted, the rate f approaches the minimum value, f Soil surveys of the Soil Conservation Service provide information on total mositure storage capacity' of a soil, S, and for partitioning available moisture into pores drained by gravity, G, and pores drained by plants, AWC. The land use parameter, a, is a function of plant maturity ranging from 0.10 for fallow to 1.0 for sods and forests. Equation 2.20 is more directly related to soil and land use parameters than is Horton's equation 2.19. The drawback to the USDA infiltration approach is that detailed data on rates must be supplied for all soils, and calculations require less than hourly intervals. Annual water yields computed by the model and compared to measured values for experimental watersheds in Hastings, Nebraska, and Coshocton, Ohio, are shown in Figure 2.19. It can be seen that predicted runoff is in reasonable agreement with measured values for these two watershed. The USDA model comes closest to meeting the stated requirements for a hydrologic model of the Kissimmee River Basin, except for its ability to' simulate long-term seasonal effects with its infiltration equation. A model has been developed for this study which incorporates the spatial distribution of soil-land use complexes.

PAGE 84

68 Figure 2.19. Annual Water Yields as Observed and as Computed by the USDA Hydrologic Model (Glymph and Holtan, 1969, p. 66).

PAGE 85

69 and keeps track of soil moisture and ET on a daily basis for botli wet and dry seasons. The model predicts surface and subsurface runoff contributions as a function of the overall vjater balance, based on equation 2.18. Runoff contributions are then routed through various components of the basin using the Muskingum technique (see Chapter V) Output from the model allows the determination of storages and outflows from various soil-land use complexes, from which characteristic retention times are calculated. The model allows for the characterization of runoff quantity as a function of soil storage, land use, and drainage patterns. The reservoir storage concept is applied in the model at several levels of resolution, summing the soil-land use responses to yield the various tributary contributions, and finally to produce the overall basin response.

PAGE 86

CHAPTER III, WATER QUALITY AND ECOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT Introduction Eutrophication from the linmological point of view refers to the gradual enrichment of a body of water with nutrients essential for the growth of algae and rooted aquatic vegetation. It is a natural process, but evidence indicates that it can be accelerated by man's activities. Nutrients stimulate the growth of aquatic plants, which can result in a series of undesirable changes in the ecosystem. Although exact mechanisms are difficult to quantify, it is reasonable to assume that land use practices are a significant factor in the eutrophication process because they alter the pathways and rate of nutrient transport from the landscape. Mounting concern for maintaining water quality in lakes and streams has emphasized the need for quantitative information concerning nutrient budgets and loading rates in aquatic systems. It is generally agreed that the most desirable long-term management approach for receiving waters is to control the influx of nutrients, although there is considerable disagreement regarding the selection of nutrient sources which should be controlled, the method for control, and the benefit which is to be gained. Even though nutrient input reduction may not alone be sufficient to attain the desired level of water quality in all receiving waters, nutrient abatement 70

PAGE 87

71 is an essential. coTTiponent of mapagenient efforts. Regardless of internal nutrient cycles involving lake and river sediments, water quality iraproveaent will not result if the continuous influx of nutrients is excessive. The intricate process of eutrophication is far too complex to expect that simple relationships can be established between the influx of nutrients and measured parameters of water quality. However, sufficient information now exists to provide some useful guidelines. The next section discusses in more detail the quantification of non-point pollution sources. Non-Point Pollution Sources Sawyer (1947) suggested that if, at the time of spring overturn, concentrations of inorganic phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) exceeded 0.01 mg/1 and 0.3 mg/1 respectively, a lake may be expected to produce excessive growths of aquatic plants. Vollenweider (1968) concluded that the critical levels suggested by Sa^i?y£^ applied to the conditions of lakes in central Europe. Although these concentrations do provide useful target values, it is difficult to relate reductions in nutrient input and in-lake nutrient concentrations. Tentative guidelines on specific loading rates are provided by Vollenweider (1968) for 30 lakes. The surface area of each lake is considered by expressing nutrient 2 influx as a specific loading rate (g/m /yr) Shannon and Brezonik (1972) conducted a similar analysis of nutrient loadings in 55 Florida lakes and these values are compared to Vollenweider s results in Table 3.1.

PAGE 88

72 O in o 0) CJ C 0) Q c: 2: a; r-l •H O CO 4J •H B 3 •H C P 0) u c u Qj U-i Pi O 00 o o > >^ I I U -— , 4J I M hp r-l CO 0) 01 > <: <; ^ — s CM cx 0) •n C 00 tB •H vO (U c o\ S O N ^ — ^ 42 D J-> •H CO

PAGE 89

73 Ideally, nutrient loauing information would be obtained by direct measurement for a variety of land uses and climatic conditions. However, the costs associated with this course of action are prohibitive in many cases, and it is necessary to use values reported in the literature as a guide for management decisions. Several literature reviews have recently been published which describe nutrient loadings from non-point sources as presented for various land use types (Uttormark et al ., 1974; Loehr, 1974). These loadings do not consider internal nutrient cycles or chemical transformations which may alter the availability of the nutrient for aquatic uptake. The characteristics and relative magnitude of non-point sources discharged to surface waters are compared by Loehr (1974) The non-point sources include precipitation, forested land runoff, agricultural runoff, cropland tile drainage, feedlot runoff, and urban runoff. Available information on relative magnitudes of these non-point sources is summarized and the feasibility of controlling these sources is discussed. The impact of non-point sources on aquatic systems depends on intensity and yield factors as well as on the seasonal distributions of their contribution. Knowledge of time changes in concentration, overland flow, and strearoflow is essential for calculations of yield rates. Comparison of non-point sources based solely on concentration units is difficult due to the flow-dependent, intermittent nature of the sources. A better method of comparison is the use of the area yield rates such as quantity of source per unit area per

PAGE 90

74 unit runoff. Data are generally presented in terras of both concentration (mg/l) and potential area yield rate (kg/ha/yr). The area yield rates are potential rather than actual loading rates and are presented for comparative purposes only. Reported ranges in concentration and yield for total N and total P are presented in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 for various non-point sources (Loehr, 1974). The wide range in cropland P is due to the effect of soil erosion. Precipitation, forest land runoff, and surface irrigation return flow have comparable values. Subsurface irrigation return flow has higher N concentrations due to leaching from the soil. Animal feedlot runoff and manure seepage have characteristics that are many orders of magnitude greater than the other non-point sources. Areal loading rates are compared in Figure 3.2 for the various non-point sources. The yields of total P from precipitation and rangeland are comparable as are the yields from land receiving manure, surface irrigation return flows, and urban land drainage. The yields of total P from forest land and cropland span a wide but comparable range, again probably due to erosion effects. The yields of N and P in animal feedlot runoff are again orders of magnitude greater than the other non-point sources. Although these comparisons cover wide ranges and may be considered gross, they do permit an assessment of those sources that are controllable based on available technology. Actual decisions on controls will depend on the relative importance of respective sources in specific locations.

PAGE 91

75 30.0 r 10.0 5.0 Q Z < hco UJ DC O ii. CP E < •z. UJ o z o u 1.0 I N 0.5 z o < ho UJ IT a. N 0.05 0.01 N < _j Q. O IT O UJ O 12 N N ui o < u. cn Z5 CO o o I< o a: cc z g: Z) N loV N 10 P UJ _j 10 I o z < _J O < CC ce O Q UJ < z UJ o < z < Q Z < DQ ce Z3 ( L L ( L C Figure 3.1. Comparison of Non-Point Source Concentrations of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus (Loehr, 1974 p 1866)

PAGE 92

76 30.0r10.0 5.0 h N o o cvi hi < en o 2 Q < O _J -J < UJ a: < .0 0.5 N 0.05 0.01 o < Io LU 01 a. I P N Iw o< O P o < UJ < a: Z < -J a. o a: o LU q: ZD Z < o p ? UJ UJ CE Q z < nn 186 10 UJ o < u. cc ZD CO CQ UJ 13 O CO £ q: r> CO z o I< tr q: CO o _J u. IUJ tr 10^ 10 bJ CD < < Q Z < a: 10' Uu. o z cc hO -J UJ Ui u. Figure 3.2. Comparison of Non-Point Source Area Yield Rates of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus (Loehr, 197A, p. 1867).

PAGE 93

77 Loehr (1974) summarizes his discussion by dividing the various non-point sources into categories for control. Uncontrollable sources include precipitation, forest land runoff, and rangeland runoff as long as interference by man remains at a minimum. These sources are generally considered as background unless current practices or available data change drastically. Non-point sources that may require control include cropland runoff and tile drainage, runoff from land receiving manure, and irrigation return flows. Controls should depend on the extent to which these sources adversely affect the quality of a particular receiving water. The basic control in this case is to avoid spreading fertilizers or manure at a time or location susceptible to rapid drainage Non-point sources that present the most problems include urban land runoff, manure seepage, and feedlot runoff. Collection and treatment of urban runoff prior to release is becoming increasingly feasible. Control of manure seepage and feedlot runoff is available through the use of retention ponds and grassed waterways. Uttormark et al (1974) present data from a broad spectrum of reported loading rates for agricultural lands, urban areas, forests, wetlands, groundwater, septic tanks, and precipitation. Armstrong et al. (1974) estimated that on the basis of surface runoff studies, agricultural lands could be further subdivided by flux coefficients as shown in Table 3.2. In comparison, the studies summarized by Uttormark et al (1974) seem to indicate lower average rates for total N and total P from agricultural lands (see Table 3.3)

PAGE 94

78 Table 3.2. Agricultural Nutrient Runoff Coefficients. Nitrogen kg-N/ha loss /yr Phosphorus kg-P/ha loss /yr NOj-fOTli, Total-N Diss Inorg Total-P Row crops 1.6 37.0 0.21 1.62 Close-grown crops 1.7 15.0 0.13 0,47 Pasture & meadow 2.3 2.5 0.22 0.24 Idle (fallow) land 3.9 67.0 0.05 1.23 (From Armstrong et al ., 1974, p. 12).

PAGE 95

79 Table 3.3, Typical Values of Nutrient Runoff Coefficients. NO 3-N+NHi,N Total-N kg/ha/yr kg/ha/yr Land use High Low Ave High Low Ave Urban 5.0 1.0 2.0 10.0 2.5 5.0 Forests 3.0 0.5 1.6 5.0 1.0 2.5 Agricultural 10,0 1.0 5.0 10.0 2.0 5.0 Diss inor Total-P kg/ha/y r kg/ha/yr High Low Ave High Low Ave Urban 2.0 0.5 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.5 Forests 0,1 0.01 0.05 0.8 0.05 0.2 Agricultural 0.5 0.05 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.3 (From Uttormark et al 1974, p. 108).

PAGE 96

80 Nutrient dynamics of marshes and other wetland areas is one of the more poorly defined aspects of nutrient transport from watersheds. The role of wetlands as nutrient sources or sinks has not been established satisfactorily. Low flow velocities and high levels of productivity enhance the potential of marshes to act as nutrient sinks. How^ever, the periodic occurrence of anaerobic conditions increases the possibility for discharge of ammonia and soluble inorganic P, particularly where high runoff pulses occur in the wet season. Bentley (1969) presents results which indicate that marshes tend to accumulate nutrients during the growing season and release them during spring runoff. In addition, draining marshes may further decrease water quality by releasing large amounts of phosphorus runoff. Based on these studies, it is estimated that nutrient runoff coefficients are approximately zero for wetlands. Further discussions on the effect of marshes on nutrient uptake are deferred until Chapter V. Nutrient Cycling in Aquatic Ecosyst ems The ecosystem is a basic functional unit of nature vjhich includes both organisms and their nonliving environment, each interacting with the other and influencing each other's properties, and both necessary for the maintenance and developm.ent of the system (Odum, 1971). An ecosystem, then, may be viewed as a series of components, such as species populations, organic debris, available nutrients, primary and secondary minerals, and atmospheric gases, linked together by food webs, nutrient flow, and energy flow.

PAGE 97

81 Knowledge o£ these components and associated interrelationships leads to an understanding of the ramifications of any manipulation applied to the overall system. Once the boundaries of an ecosystem have been defined, the connection to the surrounding biosphere is viewed as a system of inputs and outputs in the form of radiant energy, water, gases, chemicals, or organic materials. These flows are moved through the ecosystem boundary by hydrologic, geological, or biological processes (Bormann and Likens, 1967). Knowledge of input-output relationships is necessary in order to understand fully 1) energy and nutrient dynamics, 2) the comparative behavior of ecosystems, 3) the effect of geological processes such as erosion, deposition, mass wasting, and weathering on ecosystem dynamics, 4) the effect of hydrologic variations on ecosystem behavior, and 5) the effect of management practices on the structure and function of individual ecosystems (Bormann and Likens, 1969). Measurement of these critical input-output relationships presents difficulties particularly in studies of nutrient cycles, which are strongly geared to the hydrologic cycle. Consequently, measurement of nutrient input and output requires simultaneous measurement of hydrologic input and output which may involve subsurface seepage, overland flow, or streamflow components. Both the hydrologic and nutrient cycles can be described by specific inflows, outflows, storages, and other losses which determine the reponse of the particular lake, stream, or land use area. The retention time T has been introduced previously, and it serves

PAGE 98

82 a useful index for both hydrologi.c and nutrient dynamics. Retention time determines the average length of time which water remains in storage, where it is most easily available for physical, chemical, and/or biological treatment. The determination of nutrient uptake rates in a stream, lake, or marsh area is a function of many complex, interacting processes which are difficult to quantify. However, there seems to be a greater potential for physical or chemical uptake, e.g., sedimentation or precipitation, when retention times are long. High flow velocities tend to aggravate those conditions. Biological uptake is also associated with long retention time, but the seasonal effect of temperature on biological growth produces a greate potential for uptake during warm months when more sunlight is available for photosynthesis. Lake blooms of algae and excessive vegetative density in m.arsh regions provide increased uptake capac ity for nutrients in the water. Thus, the concepts of reservoir storage and treatment rates as a function of retention time and biological growth provide a useful framework for analyzing the complexities of hydrologi'c and nutrient mechanisms which are coupled in nature. The potential for nutrient loading from various land uses has been discussed. The potential for nutrient uptake in lakes and marshes, where T is long enough to provide some treatment, is introduced below and extended in Qiapter V with applications to specific study areas.

PAGE 99

83 Nutrien t Cycl es in Small Watershed Ecosystems One of the most comprehensive studies on nutrient cycling has been conducted by Bormann and Likens (1967) on a series of small, forested watersheds at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hampshire. The portion of the forest chosen for these studies consists of dense second-growth northern hardwood forest. The geological features of the area are important in providing a watertight basement layer that prevents major losses of water and nutrients by deep seepage. Streamflov? accounts for the majority of \-jater and nutrient loss. Six small watersheds were selected for the study ranging in area from 12 to 43 hectares, all similar in altitude and vegetational characteristics. At the base of each watershed, a concrete weir was constructed to allow the outflow of water to be measured and its solute and particulate loads sampled. Precipitation gages were placed to monitor the volume and nutrient concentration of incoming precipitation. The initial series of studies was designed to measure the processes occurring under undisturbed conditions. Over a five-year period of time, annual precipitation ranged from 94.9 cm to 141.8 cm, averaging 123 cm, while calculated evapotranspiration (ET) varied only between 46.1 and 51.9 cm per year. Thus, the forest shows a high degree of homeostasis in water loss by ET and fluctuations in precipitation are reflected almost entirely in variations in total streamf low. The analysis of nutrient balance required periodic measurements of concentrations of substances in precipitation and streamflow. The

PAGE 100

84 results do not show a clear relationship between concentration and stream discharge, but rather the dissolved concentrations in drainage water v.'ere remarkably constant even though discharge ranged over four orders of magnitude. For particulate materials, hovjever, a positive relationship was found for streamflow volume and concentration. Despite appreciable losses during periods of high water flow, particulate losses were of minor importance in overall nutrient outflow. The total nutrient output was more strongly dependent on volume of streamflow than on ionic concentration. A nutrient budget of dissolved cations for the Hubbard Brook ecosystem was determined from the difference between precipitation input and streamflow output by multiplying concentration by volume of water per hectare. The resulting budget is presented in Table 3.4. The balance sheet of dissolved nutrients and the relatively minor particulate matter losses from a watershed with such steep slopes (average 26 percent) attest to the great stability of the system. There is no question that the vegetation and organic debris play a major role in determining chemical fractions lost either in solution or as particulate matter. Following the study in the undisturbed condition, one of the watersheds was clear-cut in an experiment designed to evaluate the effects on streamflow and nutrient cycling. In the winter of 19651966, all woody vegetation was cut and left in place in watershed number 2. As expected, runoff increased partially due to the reduction of water loss to ET. Increased runoff amounted to 40 percent and contributed to an increase in outflow of dissolved and particulate

PAGE 101

85 o 2 C •H U O e 0) u u CO o •H nJ iJ CO 4J 3 •H a -H cx c T-i o C •H to O 6 d vO 1 !^ 4J CO 0^ o c o 4-1 D •H & P. d •H -H O 0) 4J C •H 3 00 I I I I + + I I I r-i I rsiinot^ OOOCOOOvOCNIOCsJ oocMi— iLO-nrocNjcNior-^ I I I I + + I + I 1 OcM-H^cOrHt^-4-or~>^ ^ ^ o-)0 vj
PAGE 102

86 matter. The total export of dissolved inorganic substances was 6 to 8 times that of the undisturbed system. The relationships permitting this loss may be due to the sudden production of ammonium ions from decomposition in the cleared watershed. Ammonium is then converted by bacteria to nitrate which is subject to intense leaching from the soil (Bormann and Likens, 1969). In a similar study, nutrient concentrations were measured in streams draining woodland and farmland watersheds at Coshccton, Ohio, 1966 through 1969 (Taylor et al 1971). Temporal variations in the nutrient concentrations were much smaller than streamflow changes, and no relationship was found between concentration and streamflow. Nutrient losses from farmland were significantly greater than those from woodland, with total N and P levels of 1.79 and 0.022 mg/d from farmland and 0.79 and 0.015 mg/d from woodland, respectively. The analysis of data shows that total nutrient losses cannot be calculated meaningfully unless both hydrologic and chemical data are available. Nutrient Budgets in Lake Systems Lake systems have provided a rich and diverse source for nutrient cycling studies. Lakes are inherently easier to study than larger watersheds or terrestrial ecosystems in terms of obtaining nutrient and hydrologic data necessary to define inputs and outputs. The various non-point sources for nutrient loading to lakes have been discussed in a previous section. Adequate data to predict lake response from large scale manipulations of nutrient budgets are still needed. Results from many ongoing research projects on lake management are yet to be finalized.

PAGE 103

87 A notable exception is the case of Lake Wasliington in Seattle, which Edinondsoa (1970, 1972, 1973) has thoroughly documented through its enrichment and starvation over the past quarter of a century. This work has not only provided the most positive encouragement for possibilities of lake recovery, but also some of the most convincing evidence of the role of phosphorus as a long-term controlling nutrient. However, Lake Washington is relatively deep (mean depth 33 m) ; it flushes rather frequently (every 3 years); it was never enriched to the point that the hypolimnlon became anaerobic; and the major portion of the phosphorus income (60-75 percent) through treated sewage was diverted (Edmondson, 1972) An interesting contrast to the Lake VJashington case is presented by nearby Lake Sammamish which is one fourth the area of Lake Washington, one half as deep, flushes about as frequently, and received about the same income of phosphorus before one third was diverted. Its hypolimnion does go anaerobic each summer. However, the diversion from Lake Sammamish has had no appreciable effect during five years on either P concentration or algal biomass (Welch et al 1973). The probable explanation for this lack of response is that the P income changes to Sammamish have occurred on the asymptote portion of a response curve that yields a much smaller change in algal biomass for a given increase in P income compared to Lake Washington. The dominant controlling mechanism of P concentrations is hypothesized to be large sediment exchanges. With a constant sediment release rate and a sedimentation rate controlled by the P concentration, only a slight reduction (7 percent) in concentration is predicted for the

PAGE 104

88 lake, which fits reasonably well the observed lack of response. The most coTTiprehensive review of lake rehabilitation techniques has recently been compiled by Dunst et al (1974) The report presents a synopsis of available technology and an inventory of lake rehabilitation experiences. Approaches to lake restoration fall into two general categories: 1) methods to limit fertility and/or sedimentation in lakes, and 2) procedures to manage the consequences of lake aging. The former treats the underlying causes of lake problems, while the latter are cosmetic in nature. Fertility and sedimentation in lakes can be limited by reducing the amount of nutrients and sediment that flow into them, mainly through wastewater treatment, nutrient diversion, land use practices, treatment of inflow, and other source modifications. In-lake schemes to accelerate nutrient outflow or prevent recycling include dredging, drawdo™, nutrient inactivation/precipitation, dilution/flushing, biotic harvesting, selective discharge, sediment exposure and desication, and lake bottom sealing. In addition, various physical, chemical, and biological approaches are available for managing lakes without treating the original source of degradation. These include aeration/circulation, water level fluctuation, use of biocides, pathogens, and many others. There are many difficulties associated with remedial efforts. Lakes are complicated ecosystems and the ability to predict the response of lake systems to various treatments is as yet limited. In addition, each lake has its own unique set of characteristics, which frustrates attempts to transfer results from one lake to another that appears to

PAGE 105

89 have similar problems. In spite of these difficulties and many others relating to economic constraints, it has been possible to develop some guidelines for the renewal of lakes as evidenced by the report of Dunst et al (1974) The overwhelming complexities which surround the eutrophication and nutrient loading problem in lakes and streams have been introduced in the previous discussions. While each lake and stream does represent a unique ecosystem, it has been possible to generalize some of the relationships on nutrient loading and cycling which have been developed in recent years. Many of these relationships have been formalized in terras of mathematical models of water quality processes in lake and river systems. A representative group of these models is reviewed in the next section. Models of Water Quality and Ecological Processes Water quality models are a relatively new development in the general area of environmental engineering. The original approach used in the solution of the BOD equation has been greatly expanded in recent years to consider the interrelationships between nutrient cycles, sediment loss, and consumer organisms in an overall ecological sense (Figure 3.3). Complex models have been developed which can be applied to both river and lake systems as long as necessary input data can be obtained or measured. The basis for most water quality formulations is the principle of conservation of mass. In its simplest form, the mass balance equation becomes

PAGE 106

90 A Aerafion m Morfolify B Dacrcriol Decay P Fr.otosyrlhesis C Chemical Equiibriurn R Rcspirafion E Excreta s Seftlmg G Grovvlh H Horvcst Figure 3'. 3. Water Quality and Ecological Interactions (Corps of Engineers, 1974, p. 20),

PAGE 107

91 ~ = Z sources Z sinks (3.1) where C = concentration at time t If hydrodynamic transport processes are a significant factor, the equation describing the concentration distribution for a onedimensional situation becomes 3C. T „ dc' 1 1 r"" 1 3t A dx where + ^ (UCJ = W,.(x,t) S,(x,t) (3.2) 8x J 8x i i i = C_j^(x,t), concentration of pollutant i at point x and time t A = cross-sectional area l^L dispersion coefficient U = advective flow velocity W. = sum of sources, related to C. and other C S. = sum of sinks, related to C. and other C The above equation can be solved by numerical integration techniques in order to characterize the distribution of substances which are being modeled. A matrix of rate coefficients and transfer constants are required to describe the source/sink interactions between nutrient cycles and consumer organisms, as presented schematically in Figure 3.3. The hydrologic inflows and outflows for a lake or river system must be continually updated in order that source/sink and advective terms in equation 3.2 can be calculated. Deep lakes can be idealized as a series of one-dimensional horizontal slices while a stream can be represented as a linear network of segments. Within each lake or river element the water is assumed to be fully mixed, while concentrations

PAGE 108

92 can vary between elements. A characterist-lc stream system is depicted in Figure 3.4. Review of Availab l e Models Water quality models differ in two general areas: 1) the form of the mass balance and hydrologic equations which are used, and 2) the solution technique of these equations. In many instances, the form of the equation determines to a large extent the solution technique which must be used. But various assumptions are often employed to simplify equation 3.2 and the solution procedure, such as assuming that steady state conditions apply, that dispersion and advection are approximately constant in space and time, or that the sink term can be expressed as a first-order decay process. A group of available water quality models are briefly reviewed below in an effort to characterize water quality relationships in the Kisslmmee River Basin. These models cover a wide spectrum of complexity, and simulate a variety of different pollutants. For the study area, total phosphorus is the primary nutrient of concern, and attention will be focused on techniques v/hich incorporate it directly. Early efforts to describe water quality interactions centered around the solution of the BOD equation. O'Connor et al. (1973) assume first-order decay and one-dimensional steady state conditions in simplifying equation 3.2 for BOD and dissolved oxygen deficit (DO) This formulation lays the' groundwork for expansion of the model to incorporate the kinetics of consumer populations and their interaction with available nutrients. Unfortunately, the determination

PAGE 109

93 / Figure 3.4. Segmented Stream System for Hydrologic and Water Quality Modeling (Corps of Engineers, 1974, p. 11).

PAGE 110

94 of growth and death rate constants requires extensive monitoring efforts to calibrate the model, data which are unavailable in the Kissimmee River Basin. The quality and ecological relationships depicted in Figure 3.3 form the basis of the ecological model developed by Chen and Orlob (1972) This model is more complex than the previously discussed steady state description because a system of mass balance equations is numerically integrated with respect to time. In this way, both spatial and temporal distributions are obtained for parameters of interest. One advantage of this model is that hydrologic flows from reservoirs or river segments are calculated and used as input to the quality calculations. Figure 3.4 depicts the stream system which is represented by a linear network of volume elements. Each element is characterized by length, width, cross section, slope, and other hydraulic parameters. Advected inflow is represented by the QC terms and Dl 3c (A -7— -IT-) represents transport due to longitudinal dispersion. Ax ox The model considers 17 different quality parameters along with interrelationships among them. For this reason, an extensive amount of input data utilizing a matrix of rate coefficients and transfer constants must be supplied for a particular study area. The model is able to simulate water quality, biological response, and nutrient cycles for a river basin which may include a series of streams, lakes, and reservoirs. However, data requirements for this formulation limit its applicability to well-monitored watersheds, thus eliminating its use for the Kissimmee River Basin.

PAGE 111

95 A simpler approach has been used by Rich (1973) to model nutrient: and consumer dynamics in lake ecosystems. The Aquatic Ecological Model is based on the mass balance of equation 3.2, with the hydrodynamic transport terms deleted. One equation is written for each subsystem including phytoplankton, consumers, detritus, nitrogen, and phosphorus The solution to these equations provides a prediction of changes in nutrient and consumer concentration in a completely mixed reservoir. Application of the model to lake systems requires information on specific growth rates, which is often lacking or difficult to obtain. Application to a river basin would require extensive hydrologic modification, and thus it was iiot considered for use in the Kissimmee River Basin. The models discussed above show the general types of formulations which are available to describe water quality and ecological interactions. Other groups have refined these relationships for specific study areas by emphasizing particular aspects of one cycle or process more than others. Huff et al (1973) simulate the Lake Wingra ecosystem in Wisconsin by coupling hydrologic predictions from the Stanford Watershed Model (Crawford and Linsley, 1966) with dynamic equations relating nutrient loading and biotic response. The model is similar in some respects to the Rich Model, except that hydrologic inputs are directly incorporated. Crawford and Donigan (1973), model the loss of pesticides from the land surface by simulating surface runoff, sediment loss, and various interactions between pesticides and the soil. They also use results from the Stanford Watershed Model, coupled with a sediment

PAGE 112

96 loss program and empirical relationships, in order to predict pesticide loss from agricultural lands. Unfortunately, the modeling effort has yet to tackle the problem of nutrient loading vjhich is of primary concern in the Kissimmee River Basin. Hydrologic models which have been expanded to include ecological interactions tend to emphasize water quantity relationships, while the ecological models tend to emphasize biological and nutrient kinetics at the expense of hydrologic relationships. This observation is due primarily to the fact that models are developed for specific needs, and the original formulation lays the groundwork for all later modifications. Most of the available aquatic models focus on processes which occur in the receiving lake or stream, assuming nutrient loading from point and non-point sources can be specified from other sources. This is the weakest link in these types of formulations, because in many cases non-point sources cannot be very well quantified as the previous discussion in this chapter indicated. Thus, one is left with a highly sophisticated tool for predicting water quality response in the receiving water, but very crude data on what is entering the system, especially from non-point sources. From a management standpoint, the available models do not seem to provide the necessary relationships for determining 1) the influx of nutrients to a system and 2) the best control strategy for water quality improvement. Yet, it is agreed that quality will continue to degrade if the continuous influx of nutrients is excessive. Causeeffect relationships between nutrient sources and resulting water

PAGE 113

97 quality response are not well defined with the available modeling technology Rather than attempting to predict the effect of specific nutrient loads on the aquatic ecosystem, perhaps it would be better at this time to focus attention on the nutrient sources, both point and nonpoint, to determine the effect of land use practices and drainage patterns on resulting nutrient discharges. In this way, one obtains a clearer definition of the source of the nutrients and possible strategies for their control. Concepts of Water Quality Control The approach to water quality in the Kissimmee River Basin must emphasize non-point sources and their control within the system. Rather than use a sophisticated water quality model where only crude data exist on loading and uptake rates, a simple technique has been devised which considers various components of the river basin as individual treatment units. Stream, lake, or marsh areas are a] 1 characterized by specific retention times which determine the potential for biological growth and nutrient uptake. Reservoir treatment units are basically composed of inputs, storage, uptake, and outputs. If one assumes that inflows and outflows are constant, that the reservoir is com.pletely mixed, and that uptake is a first-order reaction, then a mass balance of material through the reservoir, derived from equation 3.2, can be put in the form = QCj(t) QC kCS (3.3;

PAGE 114

98 where C = concentration of material in reservoir and discharge = inflow concentration Q = volumetric inflow and outflow rate S = storage volume of reservoir k = first-order decay constant It will be shown in Chapter V that equation 3.3 can be solved under certain conditions to produce a simple relationship between inflow and outflow pollutant concentrations, dependent on the decay constant k and the characteristic retention time T of the reservoir. Because k is generally fixed for a particular component of the system, e.g., lake or marsh, retention time serves as a quantifiable index for treatment potential. As retention times change with each treatment unit and with season of the year, general comparisons can be made.

PAGE 115

CHAPTER IV. ENVIRONI'IENTAL RESOURCES IN THE KISSDft!EE RIVER BASIN Description of the Basin The Kissimmee River Basin is located in the central portion of peninsular Florida between the Peace River Basin to the west and the St. Johns River Basin to the east. The river originates near Orlando and passes through a series of shallow lakes in the upper reaches before emerging south of Lake Kissimmee as a meandering river. It then flows south to Lake Okeechobee through a relatively narrow flood plain (see Figure 4.1). The basin can be conveniently divided at the outlet of Lake Kissimmee into upper and lov/er sections. The upper lake system includes 881,000 acres of land and 130, AOO acres of surface water while the lower river system includes 472,900 acres of land and 1,900 acres of surface water. Parts of seven counties are within the boundaries of the basin as shown in Figure 4.1. The area has been partitioned into 18 subareas based on the Soil Conservation Service divisions. Planning units in the upper basin are designated as lake units and those in the lower basin as river units. Much of the following discussion is summarized from a report on the Kissimmee-Everglades area by the Soil Conservation Service (1973)'. 99

PAGE 116

100 Figure 4.1. Location Map of the Kissimmee River Basin.

PAGE 117

101 Climate and Rainfall The climate of the basin is subtropical with a mean annual temperature of 72.5 degrees at Orlando. The temperature is fairly uniform over the basin during the summer months, while many winters pass without frost or freezing temperatures. The average growing season, or period between killing frosts, varies from 300 days around Orlando to 365 days south of Lake Okeechobee. Rainfall over the basin varies seasonally and by location, although the area has a fairly uniform average annual rainfall of approximately 52 inches with over 60 percent falling between June and October. The mean annual precipitation over the KissimmeeEverglades area is shown in Figure 4.2A. The distribution of average monthly rainfall and temperature in the northern and southern part of the basin is shown in Figure 4.2B. Physical Geography and Geology The topography of the basin is dominated by the central ridge of rolling hills along the western edge with elevation exceeding 100 feet above mean sea level (Figure 4.3). Drainage is principally into the thick, sandy soils. The area east of the ridge consists of a large, flat, swampy, pine forest interspersed with many shallow lakes with elevations between 50 and 100 feet mean sea level. The lowest elevations in the basin occur along the Kissimraee River floodplain marsh south to Lake Okeechobee. Numerous sloughs and small lake drain the wet prairie adjacent to the narrow floodplain and ground water is near the surface over much of the area.

PAGE 118

102 52 56 60 64 64 60 Figure 4,2A. Mean Annual Precipitation, KissiinneeEverglades Area (SCS, 1973, p. 1-2).

PAGE 119

103 2-^ < Qr ro 7, A AVON PARK(55 in./yr ) ORLANDO(51 in./yr.) I I n p / V. I ly-LXJ 1, /I I.I I' I 1,1/1 iXJ I.I/I If /I 11/ II /I I [//I I JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG.' SEPT OCT.' NOV.' DEC." MONTH AVERAGE MONTHLY RAINFALL Si o CO" O U) UJ *< UJ Q. 5 UJ O. i o CO" ORLANDO'/. I 1 / / / / / / 2_ / / / / -OKEECHOBEE / ; / / / A I 1/ V. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE • JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURE Figure 4.2B. Monthly Rainfall and Temperature in the Kissimmee River Basin.

PAGE 120

104

PAGE 121

105 The geologic formations of the basin are entirely sedimentary. The uppermost stratum is the Ocala limestone v;hich serves as the principal artesian aquifer for groundwater in the basin. The Hav;thorne formation is relatively impervious in most locations and forms a seal over the underlying limestone. The primary recharge area for the artesian Floridan aquifer is in Polk County, west of the Kissimmee River Basin. A shallow aquifer system exists in the Pleistocene deposits in the basin within 100 feet of the surface. Recharge of nonartesian ground water is mostly from local rainfall. The groundwater table generally follows the topography of the land in flat areas, and may fluctuate up to five feet in elevation between wet and dry seasons of the year. Water Resources The Kissimmee River Basin contains vast quantities of fresh water available as ground water and as surface water in lakes and streams. The upper basin consists of many shallow lakes and several major streams draining both urban and agricultural areas. Reedy, Shingle, and Boggy are the more important creeks south of Orlando and Disney World (Figure 4.1). Recent studies indicate that Shingle Creek has the most severe water quality problems due to nutrient loading from several sewage treatment plants (Orange County, 1973). The lakes of the upper basin provide more than 100 square miles of surface water area as shown in Table 4.1. Numerous smaller lakes scattered throughout the Kissimmee Valley provide additional storage capacity. Water quality problems are most noticeable in Lake

PAGE 122

106 Table 4.1. Surface Area of the Larger Lakes in KissimmeeEverglades Area. Lake Surface Area (sq mi) Okeechobee 717 Kissinnnee 47 Istokpoga 42 Tohopekaliga 26 East Tohopekaliga 16 Weohyakapka 11 Hatchineha 10 (From SCS, 1973, p. 1.4).

PAGE 123

107 Tohopekaliga which receives heavy nutrient loads from sewoge plants in the area. A recent drawdowi of the lake to improve fish and wildlife habitat and water quality resulted in partial success (Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, GFC, 1972). As one proceeds south tfirough Lakes Cypress, Hatchineha, and Kissimmee, the quality of v/ater generally improves The lower basin section of the Kissimmee River and adjacent drainage areas convey an average annual runoff of 10 inches to Lake Okeechobee. The average annual rainfall of 53 inches on Lake Okeechobee is approximately equal to the evaporation from the lake surface, and therefore most of the water supplied to the lakes comes from the Kissimmee River flow. The Kissimmee River drains mostly agricultural pasture, crops, citrus and natural slough systems. Water quality in the channelized river has become a serious problem in recent years based on extensive monitoring programs on the river as well as in Lake Okeechobee, which is considered to be in an early eutrophic condition (Joyner, 1971). Lake Okeechobee, with over 700 square miles of surface area, is by far the largest lake in the region. It is regulated by control structures on outlet canals in order to maintain elevations between 15.5 and 17.5 feet (MSL) The stored water is used to irrigate farmland, supply the Everglades National Park with at least 315,000 acre-feet per year, and recharge the aquifers of Brov.'ard, Dade and Lee Counties for water supply purposes. The quality and quantity of water in Lake Okeechobee is thus an extremely important issue for all of South Florida.

PAGE 124

108 Soils The soils of the basin range from deep, excessively drained sandy soils on the ridges to very poorly drained swamp soils in the lowland areas. The general soil map (Figure 4,4) shows the distribution of five major groups of soils for the Kissimmee River Basin. Detailed soil surveys have been completed by the Soil Conservation Service for Orange and Okeechobee Counties (SCS, 1960, 1971), while the survey for Osceola County is nearing completion. These surveys provide a basis for estimating the location and extent of the most significant soil types within each lake or river planning unit for most portions of t\ie basin. Soils are grouped into larger units such as land capability classifications for various kinds of interpretations (SCS, 1961). This classification is based on the soil's capability to produce crops and pasture plants without long-terra deterioration. Subclasses are groups of capability units within classes that have the same kinds of limitations for agricultural use such as erosion (e) wetness and poor drainage (w), and root-zone problems (s) The approximate amounts of land in terms of capability classes and subclasses in the basin are listed in Table 4.2. Vegetation Natural vegetation in the basin is directly related to climate and soils. The vegetation map in Figure 4.5 shows the distribution of various types throughout the basin. The central ridge is dominated by forests of longleaf pine, pinus palustris and turkey oak, Quercus laevis with wire grass as a common ground cover. Many former areas of this type have been converted to citrus groves.

PAGE 125

109 Figure 4.4. General Soil Map of the Kissimmee River Basin (SCS, 1973, p. 1-8).

PAGE 126

110 Table 4.2. Land by Capability Class in the Kissimmee River; Basin. Water Problem Class (Land Capability Classes) % of Basin Area (1000 Acres) (I, II, III) 8.9 132.7 2 (IV) 68.6 1024.7 (V, VI) 12.5 186.4 (VII, VIII) 10.0 149.2 Total 100.0 1493.0

PAGE 127

Ill Figure 4.5. Vegetation Map of the Kissiramee River Basin.

PAGE 128

112 The low, flat area east of the ridge and in the eastern parts of Orange and Osceola Counties is composed of the pine flatwood community. Open woodlands include one to three species of pine: longleaf, slash, or pond pines. Many herbs, saw palmetto, shrubs, and small trees form the understory, and small hardwood forests, cypress swamps, and wet prairies are interspersed in depressions or along drainage ways. A wide band of wet prairie grassland dominates border regions of the large upper basin lakes and adjacent drainage areas along the Kissimmee floodplairi. Swamp forests, mostly hardwoods, border streams in northwestern Osceola County and line the narrov? strip along the Kissimmee River floodplain. Many former wet prairies have been drained and converted to improved pasture, especially along the river. Fish and Wildlife Resources The lakes furnish some of the finest fishing in Florida, especial! for large-mouth bass, bluegill, black crappie and redear sunfish. Lake Kissimmee and the Kissimmee River are rather distantly removed from population areas and receive less fishing pressure than the upper lakes. The river is productive from the standpoint of a bass fisher3/ (GFC, 1957). Waterfowl populations vary considerably from one lake to another and Lakes Kissimmee, Tohopekaliga, Cypress, Istokpoga, and Hatchineha winter the bulk of the waterfowl in the basin. Peak populations generally occur in January, and ringneck ducks tend to be the predominant species. A comparison of the waterfowl population with the

PAGE 129

113 magnitude of fluctuation of lake level from August to January indicates a significant correlation because shoreline vegetation must be inundated before it is available to waterfowl (GFC, 1957). Water and Land Resource Problems Agricultural Land Most of the soils of the Kissinunee River Basin have excess water hazards for agricultural or urban use. Some relatively wet soils are suitable for unimproved pasture or forest production, but require drainage for production of more intensive crops such as pasture, vegetables, or citrus. Most of the soils which are drained of excess water are used for improved pasture in the basin. The natural surface removal rate of storm water is slow, and although inundation is shallow, flooding is characterized by long duration. Flooding causes damage to crops and improved pasture by affecting yields and creating delays in harvesting. Agricultural lands that suffer from flooding in the wet season of June to October are also affected by droughts during periods of low rainfall. Availability of water is one of the most pressing problems affecting agricultural productivity. Soil erosion and sedimentation are of minor importance in the basin due to the extremely flat topography. Areas of organic peat and muck which are drained for agriculture are subject to subsidence at a rate of about one foot in t.en years. Drainage allows the organic soil to oxidize in an aerobic environment, and at present oxidation rates, the organic soils south of Lake Okeechobee are expected to be used up by 2020. This will present a problem because the area supplies

PAGE 130

114 a major share of the nation's fresh vegetables during the winter months, as well as sugarcane and beef cattle (SCS, 1973). Urban Land The problems associated with the use of land for urban purposes generally result from the same conditions which contribute to agricultural problems. Periods of heavy rainfall on flat, poorly drained urban areas cause flood damages. But many of the residential areas are poorly planned, with inadequate provisions for drainage or flood proofing. Developments have been allowed to build in flood-prone areas with poorly drained soils. Planned developments, which involve large tracts of land in the basin, also create problems because increased runoff rates from streets and paved areas cause additional flooding downstream of the development. Thus the problem of excess water is transferred offsite to a more vulnerable downstream user. On-site storage of excess runoff water appears to be one possible solution for the water problems inherently associated with rapid urban development. Natural Land Natural land in the basin includes forests, marshes, swamps, and grasslands which are generally uninfluenced by man's activities. The main problem with all of these areas is the question of preservation versus conversion to some other use, e.g., timber, improved pasture. In the past, marshes have been drained for improved pasture and forests have been cut over for short-term returns. The present environmental crisis has created a new awareness for the natural system, especially wetland areas with high biological productivity. Marsh and swamp

PAGE 131

115 systems are being studied intensively to determine their structure and function as water storage areas, waste treatment units, and fish and wildlife sanctuaries (Odum, 1975; EPA, 1973; Shili and Hallett, 1974) Competition for available natural land among urban, agricultural, and preservation interests is the key environmental problem in the Kissimmee River Basin. The ultimate balance which is achieved among these three Interests will determine to a large extent future levels of water availability, water quality, flood damages, economic productivity, and a host of other related parameters. Water Availability Large quantities of surface and subsurface water are located in the basin, but rapidly increasing demands by agricultural, municipal, recreational, and industrial uses may create shortages in the future. South of Lake Okeechobee the chloride and sulfate concentrations in the deep Floridan aquifer are too high for most uses. These concentrations are a result of salt water remaining in areas which were formerly inundated by the ocean. The Floridan aquifer is of high enough quality for municipal and agricultural uses in the Kissimmee River BasinNumerous lakes in the upper basin provide large amounts of surface storage. Lake Okeechobee and Lake Istokpoga are the major sources of surface water used by agriculture. Lake Okeechobee is also utilized to meet the needs of the Everglades National Park and to recharge shallow aquifers on the east and west coasts. In very dry years.

PAGE 132

116 the demand for the lake water exceeds the supply, and as urban areas continue to expand along the coast, the problem of water allocation will become more acute. The majority of water used for irrigation In 1968 came from subsurface sources in the Kissimmee River Basin, while south of Lake Okeechobee most of the supply was from surface storage. According to Soil Coiiservation Service projections, irrigation water requirements are expected to increase along with agricultural expansion, especially in the Kissimmee Basin (SCS, 1973). Table 4.3 presents the projected irrigation requirements by county in the Kissimmee-Everglades area for 1968, 1980, and 2020. According to the SCS, organic soils south of Lake Okeechobee will be depleted to the point where farming operations are no longer feasible by 2020, and the Kissimmee Basin is projected to increase agricultural productivity to make up the difference. Irrigation requirements for Glades, Highlands, Okeechobee, Osceola and Polk Counties register large increases between 1980 and 2020 as sho\>7n in Table 4.3. Other counties south of Lake Okeechobee will undergo decreases in irrigation use as the organic soils are depleted. The allocation of available water resources among competing users depends to a large extent on the land use changes which are projected to occur in the basin. Subsidence of the organic soils and the shift of agricultural activity to mineral soils of lower productivity requires increased acreages to attain projected levels of production. By assuming that agricultural productivity win meet projected levels for the whole Kissimmee-Okeechobee area, the Kissimmee River Basin will come under increasing developmental pressure from agricultura

PAGE 133

117 .— ICOCNl >Hr-l r-Hi— lO ONCTNLOt^ooTHricNi |oor\iooa>0"~ioD -cr c^lr^^OO^I~--OL^t^'-Ov^3^~.cou^^O^ CM f^J^£)O^LOc^^o^^O~3•vOOrH 0) 03 CJ O 0) >-iO^n3 C^QJrHpq 3 CO ta t-l -H Qi U rHr-l -H O to O rH 4J 0(T!r-lT3rtC&C/>StU>-i
PAGE 134

118 interests. Irrigation, drainage, flood control, and production needs will compete with the needs of other users. Municipal, recreationa] and preservation interests also require a share of the available water resources. An equitable arrangement among competing users will certainly include a longer term objective than simply maximization of economic productivity. Other considerations, such as the influence of land use changes on runoff, downstream flooding, and water quality, should be Included in the overall evaluation (see Chapter V) Flood Control Plan In October of 1956 the Corps of Engineers (COE) released a general design memorandum (GDM, 1956) on the Kissimmee River Basin, It cited the need for flood control and water conservation in the basin. Due to prolonged seasonal rainfalls, inadequate secondary drainage canals, and limited outlet capacity, large areas of the watershed were periodically flooded. Tropical hurricanes, v.liich usually occur during the rainy season, also served to intensify the problems. Extensive and costly flooding occurred numerous times before the publication of the GDM, e.g., years 1945, 1947, 1948, 1951, and 1953, and the expanding agricultural economy in central Florida indicated that the flood damages would only increase in the future. An overall plan proposed for flood control and water conservation in central and southern Florida was to be maintained by the Central and South Florida Flood Control District (FCD) This area comprises about 15,000 square miles and extends from Orlando to the

PAGE 135

119 Everglades National Park. The plan provided for channelization and control structures on the KissiiJimee River and below the larger upper basin lakes. These lakes included Mary Jane, Preston, Alligator, Gentry, East Tohopekaliga, Tohopekaliga, Hatchineha, and Kissimmee. These works were to provide flood water storage to reduce the rate of runoff to the Kissimmee River as well as to conserve flood waters and maintain a favorable groundwater table for water supply during the periods of deficient rainfall. The system of canals and control structures was to perform the following functions: 1. Remove a 10-year flood runoff from the lower basin watershed area. 2. Provide sufficient regulation capacity for the lakes in the middle and upper basin to limit the rise in lake stage during the 10-year flood to tv;o feet or less. 3. Provide sufficient regulation capacity for Lake Kissimmee to prevent maximum stages resulting from occurrence of the standard project storm from exceeding those stages that could be expected under existing conditions. 4. Provide capacity in the Kissimmee River for the 10-year flood discharge from Lake Istokpoga. 5. Provide water control for the basin to maintain the lakes at desirable elevations, approximating the present mean stages. 6. Provide for navigation of the Kissimmee River and all lakes in the upper Kissimmee River Basin. Locks were to be provided at each control structure on the main waterway between East Lake Tohopekaliga and Lake Okeechobee. 7. Maintain levels in the lakes of the upper Kissimmee River Basin in consideration of recreational and fish and wildlife interests.

PAGE 136

120 There would be a total of 11 canals, 16 water-control structures, 3 locks and 12 boat lifts. Secondary drainage structures were planned at all inflow points. Excavated material would form spoil banks along the canal. Six structures, designated S-65, 65A, 65B, 65C, 65D and 65E, were to be constructed in the Kissinrraee P^iver for water control and regulation (see Figure 4.1). Tieback levees would prevent flow from bypassing structures during floods greater than the design flood. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC) agreed that the above plan would meet the flood control, water control, and navigation requirements of the entire area under consideration. The GFC felt, however, that the plan would not provide optimum conditions for fish and wildlife. It therefore released a recommended program for the Kissimmee River Basin which would provide for fish and wildlife interests (GFC, 1957). The GFC first presented a biological report on the basin. This was followed with an economic study of the value of fish and wildlife in the basin. The COE plan would result in minimum fluctuation in lakes in the Kissimmee River Basin, when compared to the natural seasonal fluctuation of up to 10 feet. Fish and wildlife benefits are increased by seasonal fluctuations according to the GFC and they indicated that fluctuations of about A feet would be satisfactory to fish and wildlife interests. The GFC also conducted a study of the upper basin lakes to determine the effects of lake fluctuation and flood duration on the waterfowl in the area. The duration is a primary factor in determining

PAGE 137

121 the location and abundance of various species of submerged vegetation which serve as food for the waterfowl. It was estimated that the waterfowl populations could be reduced by as much as 7 5 percent if the seasonal lake fluctuations did not occur. Thus variable lake levels were provided for in the COE plan. Although the GFC felt that the magnitude of fluctuation was adequate to maintain waterfowl values, they believed that the regulation schedule was not ideal for many of the vegetation species upon which waterfowl are dependent. The GFC also expressed a similar interest in lake fluctuation for the fish resource. In conjunction with fishing and other forms of water recreation, the Commission indicated a need for flexibility in the operation of the locks along the canal or even self-service of the lifts by the public. They recommended that the natural channel and oxbows in the Kissimniee River be left open rather than sealed off as these watersare very productive for fish populations. In addition, the GFC concluded that the various control structures on the river and their associated tieback levees should serve as water retention areas for the purpose of creating public lakes and v/etland areas. The flood control plan proposed by the COE, and somex;hat amended by the GFC, was adopted and implemented in the early 1960's. The plan transformed the upper lakes into controlled reservoirs, and turned the Kissimmee floodplain into a channelized floodway governed by six control structures. With the coming of flood control to the upper lakes and lower basin, it was possible to transform upland marsh and

PAGE 138

122 native range into improved pasture through drainage activities. Details of the shifts in land use are presented in the next section, while a more detailed discussion of flood control and drainage is deferred to Chapter V. Historical Land Use Changes Land use in the Kissimmee River Basin has undergone rapid and significant changes in the last 15 years. In the past, activities in the upper part of the basin were dominated by urban interests, especially around the Orlando area. Agricultural interests were involved in citrus on the eastern ridge, some improved pasture around the upper lakes, and large areas of unimproved pasture. By far the dominant natural category was freshwater marsh and swamp around the large lakes and adjacent to the Kissimmee floodplain. Figure 4.6 shows the general land use pattern which existed in 1958, based on the analysis of aerial photographs of the basin. Areas were obtained from the county maps (1:126,720 scale). Major shifts in land use have taken place following the construction of flood control structures and canals in the 1960's. The changes are depicted on Figure 4.7 which shows the 1972 land use patterns from aerial photographs. The most obvious shift is the conversion of 25 percent of the marsh and swamp areas to improved or unimproved pasture. Approximately 40 percent of former unimproved pasture has been brought into the improved pasture category through diking or drainage practices. Urban expansion is also evident primarily south of Orlando, around lake borders, and in the Disney World area of western Orange County.

PAGE 139

123' Figure 4.6. Land Use Patterns (1958) in the Kissimmee River Basin.

PAGE 140

124 Figure 4.7. Land Use Patterns (1972) in the Kissimmee River Basin.

PAGE 141

125 The actual land use maps prepared by Lhe FCD were drawii on a convenient scale for obtaining land use areas v/ithin each lake or river planning unit. Soil types were then superimposed over the land use areas to provide a complete description of land coverage for hydrologic, water quality, and economic purposes. Detailed land use changes for selected planning units in the upper and lower Kissimiuee River Basin are shown in Figures 4. 8A, B, C, and D. These figures depict the relative percent of land in the following categories: urban, cropland, improved pasture, unimproved pasture, citrus, forest, and marsh or swamp. An additional category of ditched improved pasture is distinguished in Chapter V, The 1958 and 1972 patterns are based on the aerial photographs, while the 2020 projections are from the SCS and represent an upper limit on agricultural activities in the basin. Such conditions may be constrained by runoff or water quality controls to protect overall basin integrity. Land uses tend to compete for various soil types based on drainage and productivity potentials. Cities usually establish on well-drained sandy soils which have no excessive flood hazard, while agricultural interests favor a wetter soil which contains clay and organic matter for maximum yields. Agricultural production can withstand some flooding in contrast to urban activities, \\fhen flood hazards are as extensive as in the Kissimmee River Basin, drainage of land becomes a common practice. As agricultural and urban production continue to expand, on the lim.ited soil resource, a point is reached where environmental degradation begins to dominate in the form of 1) increased off-site runoff, 2) increased doxmstream flooding in the wet

PAGE 142

126 4 Figure 4,8A. Detailed Land Use Changes C1958, 1972, 2020), Planning Unit 5

PAGE 143

1 127 Figure 4.8B. Detailed Land Use Changes (1958, 1972, 2G20) Planning Unit 10.

PAGE 144

128 1 Figure 4. SC. Detailed Land Use Changes (1958, 1972, 2020), Planning Unit 13.

PAGE 145

129 3) 3 7o 1358 1.6 7< PU 16 LAND USE IS72 2020 @ 2. 4% C D 3.4% (T) URBAN (D CROPLA.ND (3) CITRUS @ IMPROVED PASTURE ^ (T),8% (!)24%£^ 1.6% (5) UNIMPROVED PASTURE SWAMP /FOREST @ FOREST (D SURFACE WATER Figure 4.8D. Detailed Land Use Changes (1958, 1972, 2020) Planning Unit 16. > >

PAGE 146

130 season, 3) depressed aquifer levels, 4) degraded water quality from waste loading, 5) increased use of irrigation vjater, and 6) decreased habitat for fish and wildlife. The shift in land use and drainage practices in the past 15 years has already created a series of effects which have begun to jeopardize the region's ability to cope with flood waters. In addition, the observation of degrading water quality, as reported in the next section, presents a possibly serious problem for Lake Okeechobee. Water Quality Monitoring in the Kissimmee River Ba sin Water quality data for the Kissimmee Basin have been collected in the river for the past several years, and in tributary inflows for the period September 1973 to October 1974. The original monitoring program on the river was begun by the U. S, Geological Survey, and has been continued and expanded by the Flood Control District (FCD) While a large number of water quality parameters have been anal}'zed under the m.onitoring system, the levels cf nitrogen and phosphorus are of most direct concern because of their association with the eutrophication process. An analysis of available water quality data from the FCD indicates that total and inorganic phosphorus levels are the most responsive parameters, while no significant variation is observed for nitrogen levels. This can be explained by the assumption that phosphorus tends to be adsorbed by soil particles and is available for surface transport via runoff and erosion. On the other hand, most forms of nitrogen are soluble and can be leached from the soil or returned to the atmosphere, thus precluding any relationship with surface transport

PAGE 147

131 Water quality sampling locations are depicted in Figure 4.9 for the lower river and tributaries, where samples were taken monthly for one year. Samples were taken on a quarterly basis in the upper lakes. A plot of total P concentration as a function of sampling location for the lakes and river segments depicts a very interesting pattern (Figure 4.10). Wet season average concentrations are quite high in Lake Tohopekaliga, but decline rapidly before reaching Lake Cypress. Concentrations are further reduced to Lake Kissimmee at which point the levels indicate fairly good water quality. From the outlet of Lake Kissimmee to S65-C the levels remain fairly low, but increase rapidly between that point and S65-E. The high levels of total P in Lake Tohopekaliga are primarily due to nutrient loading from, treated sewage, and a complete analysis and budget are presented in a later section on the upper lakes. It appears that uptake mechanisms are presently cleansing the water to a high degree before it leaves Lake Tohopekaliga. The water entering the Kissimmee River from S65 is of fairly good quality, but rapidly increasing concentrations south of S65-C indicate a rather serious situation regarding nutrient loading into Lake Okeechobee. The obvious question as to the cause of these increased concentrations can be answered by considering nutrient levels of water which enters laterally via tributary flow to the river. Inflow tributaries which were sampled on a monthly basis did not yield any significant variation of total N from one location to the next, but total P levels showed a pronounced increase in wet season concentrations south of S65-C. Ice Cream and Pine Island Sloughs produced very low levels throughout the year (Figure 4.11), while Oak Creek,

PAGE 148

132 -— T,al;e Kissiminee / S-63 Blanket Bay Slough 26.3 sq mi 1^1 Oak Creek 9.8 sq mi O Rainfall Station A C-38 sample location 9 Tributary sample location §1 Control Structure Plan Unit Boundry C-38 Canal Yates Mar 21.9 sq mi Chandler Slough 49.0 sq mi Cypress Creek 67. 3 sq mi Figure 4.9 K.I ssimniee RiverTributary and Water Quality Sampling Locatio./ Lov/er Kissimmee River Basin. Lake Okeechobee

PAGE 149

133 Q CO I to o I CO UJ > q: JO Pi 0) •H 03 CO •H O •r! o o CO c a, o •r-i JJ o c •3 ca fS Ci •H f-J S-i a) u d c u (-J o H O o N0llVaiN3DM0D 3J..VHdS0Hd ivyioi •r-l

PAGE 150

134 ICE CREAM SLOUGH / \ / \ / \ I \ • • BLANKET BAY SLOUGH PINE ISLAND SLOUGH • ADJACENT AREA i M A Figure 4.11. (IS73 74) Total P Concentration in Tributary Inflows, Planning Units 13 and 14 of the Kissiinmee River Basin.

PAGE 151

135 Chcndlor Slough, Yates Marsh, and the Maple River yielded progressive] higher loading concentrations (Figure 4,12), Blanket Bay in pool A yielded high values, but inflows from Lake Kissimmee and Ice Cream Slough kept the average concentration low. It appears that the high phosphrous levels in the river are a direct result of tributary loading, especially south of S65-C, Later sections explore the effects of land use and drainage practices in each of these tributary areas as they relate to the measured nutrient concentrations

PAGE 152

136 F M A M MONTH {1973 -74) Figure 4.12. Total P Concentrations in Tributary Inflows, Planning Units 15, 16, and 17 of the Kisslmmee River Basin.

PAGE 153

CHAPTER V. LINKAGE MECHANISMS IN HYDROLOGIC LAND USE ANALYSIS Introduction to Storage-Control Concepts Characteristics of the hydrologic and nutrient cycles can be placed into the general framework of reservoir storage and control. Various hydrologic components in a river basin system are distinguished by a set of specific inflows, outflows, storages, and losses which contribute to the overall response. The retention time parameter provides a useful measure of reservoir storage and outflow, and can be used to characterize various components of the hydrologic system, e.g., soil, marsh, pasture, lake, planning unit, or river. Retention time also plays a key role in nutrient cycling as it relates to treatment rates for runoff on the land, in the soil, and in lakes or streams. In general, the longer the retention time, the greater the potential for nutrient uptake and/or deposition of sediments. Thus, water quality control through the system can be characterized by the length of time available for physical, biological and chemical uptake mechanisms. Retention Time for Runoff Control Surface and subsurface runoff volumes for a particular soilland use pattern can thus be characterized according to retention time T. The value of T is defined as the ratio of storage volume to outflow runoff rate. Both soil moisture and surface components can be evaluated. 137

PAGE 154

138 Typical stage-volume curves (Figure 5.1) and stage-discharge curves (Figure 5.2) can be constructed from predicted outflows for soil and surface storages. The soil moisture regime is characterized by small volume changes as a function of stage due to porosity effects. Similarly, the stage-discharge relation indicates a small change in base flow as a function of stage, again due to the mechanisms of flow in porous media. At the surface, a definite breakpoint occurs for both stagevolume and discharge curves. Small increases in stage are associated with large changes in volume and outflow rates. The particular slope of the surface discharge curve depends on the land cover, as shown for unimproved and ditched improved pasture in Figure 5.2. These curves indicate the effect of drainage practices on increasing rates and volumes of surface runoff. Note also the decrease in maximum soil moisture capacity as the water table is lowered from unimproved to ditched improved pasture. The above concepts can be placed into a more useful context by considering the mechanisms of surface and subsurface runoff. It will be shown in the section on storage concepts that both surface and subsurface runoff rates can be directly related to the amount of reservoir surplus. This relation takes the general form of the continuity equation 0 (5.1) If I = 0 and 0 = kS, then the solution to equation 5.1 is S -kt (3.2)

PAGE 155

139 VOLUME (AC -FT) Figure 5.1, Stage-Volume Curves, Surface and Subsurface. DISCHARGE (AC-FT/DAY) Figure 5.2. Stage-Discharge Curves, Surface and Subsurface.

PAGE 156

140 where S = reservoir storage on land or in soil S = Initial storage level o • -1 k = storage decay constant, time t = time The expected value of t corresponding to the above exponential distribution is 1/k, which is an estimate of the average retention time T. The above analysis provides a framework for considering both surface and soil reservoirs in terms of characteristic retention times. Average values of T can be calculated for various components in the river basin. Follovjing the discussion of the hydrologic model, specific surface and base flow relations are analyzed and a range of T values calculated for the Kissimmee River Basin. Because shorter T values tend to be associated with higher outflows and lower storage capacity, this index provides a useful measure for managing and controlling excess runoff in a river basin. Thus, one obtains an estimate of those areas which contribute large percentages of runoff. Retention Time for Water Quality Control Based on the above concepts for runoff control, water quality control can be placed into a similar context by considering retention time as an index of treatment potential. In the traditional sense, a treatment unit is composed of an input, uptake system, and output. The treatment efficiency depends on storage capacity, uptake capacity, and flow rates. The continuity relation presented in equation 5.1 for water volumes also applies for water quality parameters, but in the form

PAGE 157

141 gc (t) oc ~ kcs (5.3) where C = concentration of pollutant in tank and discharge = concentration of pollutant in inflow Q = volumetric inflow and outflow rate S = volume of tank k = first-order decay constant for concentration Figure 5.3 presents a schematic diagram of this relationship. Equation 5.3 is a first-order, linear differential equation, and can be rearranged to yield For the special case where Q = 0, equation 5.4 reduces to a .'simple form which can be solved to produce (5.5) where C = concentration of pollutant in the system = initial concentration of pollutant A plot of equation 5.5 is shown in Figure 5.4 for three different values of k. The expression describes a first-order decay reJationship for concentration C, similar in form to equation 5.2 for storage S. The above analysis provides a technique for characterizing v;ater quality uptake rates as a function of retention time which replaces t. dC dt + aC = C^(t) (5.4) where a

PAGE 158

142 gure 5.4. Typical First-Order Decay of Pollutant Goncentrati

PAGE 159

143 and k which depends on the particular treatment unit and pollutant. Since k is generally fixed for a particular component of the system, it follews that retention time becomes an index of treatment potential C/C^. Calculations of C/C^ for a variety of hydrologic components in the Kissimmee River Basin are presented in subsequent sections of this chapter. This procedure all.ows comparisons to be made among different treatment units, e.g. marsh, lake, river, and between different seasons for the same unit. The concepts of storage and water quality control have led to a unified methodology for considering various components in the river basin. Later sections extend and apply the retention time ideas at various levels of resolution for storage and transport from the land, through marshes, and eventually to lakes and the river. The remainder of this chapter is divided into a discussion of storage concepts for hydrologic and water quality source loadings, i.e. runoff and nutrients. Following this, the transport section presents a detailed treatment of drainage density as a measure of on-site contributions to receiving water, flood routing through rivers, and routing through lakes and marshes. Both water quantity and quality relationships are considered throughout. Storage Concepts Hydrologic Analysis Discussions in Chapter II indicated the types of watershed models which are available and have been applied in various drainage basins. None of these models addresses the problems associated with waterslieds dominated by marsh and lake storage, extremely flat slopes, and long-cerm

PAGE 160

144 seasonal rainfall and flooddng. These, are termed dep ressional watersheds, and are most commonly found along the Coastal Plain of the Southeastern United States. South Florida watersheds including the KissimmeeEverglades region fall into this category as discussed in Chapter IV. The modeling of depressional watersheds requires a strong emphasis on soil storage and evapotranspiration changes over long periods of time. As the soil becomes saturated, the surplus water above the surface is available for runoff at specified rates dependent on the vegetative cover. Because the rainy season lasts up to five months in these areas, the model must be capable of simulating long-term seasonal hydrologic response. During the dry season, streamflows are maintained largely by slow seepage of base flow from soil storage. These relationships must also be included in the model. Thus, depressional watersheds are characterized by very slow vertical movements of soil moisture and the water table as a function of rainfall. Lateral runoff is largely determined by land use and soil storage, but is difficult to measure due to poorly defined drainage paths. In order to provide a realistic simulation for these depressional watersheds, a hydrologic model has been developed based on the daily water balance technique of Thornthwaite (1945). The procedure, discussed is detail in the next section, places primary emphasis on soil storage and potential evapotranspiration dynamics for long-term seasonal effects. This approach is ideally suited for modeling any depressional watershed The water balance Tlie regional hydrologic analysis is based on a water balance which m.onitors inputs, outputs, and changes in storage for surface and

PAGE 161

145 subsurface components of each soil-land use complex in the b"sin. The results from these individual budgets are combined for a\ entire planning unit depending on the soil and land use pattern. The climatic water balance was first developed by Thornthwaite (1948) in an effort to characterize the moisture condition of an area based on a balance between precipitation (P) which adds moisture to soil storage and evapotranspiration (ET) which removes it. Knowledge of the relationship between P and ET provides information on periods of moisture surplus (S) and moisture deficit (D) which in turn provides data on irrigation requirements, surface runoff, groundwater recharge, and soil moisture storage. Thornthwaite recognized that the actual water loss from vegetation varied with the amount of moisture in the soil, but it was not until 1955 that modifications were incorporated into the bookkeeping procedure to allow 1) variation in the available soil moisture from a few millimeters to over 300 mm, and 2) variation in the rate of water loss from the vegetated soil surface depending on the existing soil moisture content. These revisions make it possible to include different soils with different water holding capacities as well as different rootzone depths of vegetation. The revised version was published along with detailed instructions on how to evaluate each component in the water balance (Thornthwaite and Mather, 1955). The various terms and relationships involved in the water balance are shown in Figure 5.5. The budget can be run on a monthly, weekly, or daily basis depending on the desired accuracy. Measured values of precipitation (P) and calculated potential evapotranspiration (PE) whic

PAGE 162

146 p 1 P-F r-ZFICIT CONDITIO;^-S ACCU^'iULATED POTENTIAL WATER LOSS DETERi'lINE ST FROM FIGURE b,2 AST D = PE AE S = (p ~ Pe) (SM ST) IF S < 0. S = 0 OTriERiVISE '" AE = PE IF P > PE AE = P +|AST IF P < PE SURPLUS CONDI TIOT-.'S LEGEND ? = Precipitation PE = Potential ET AE Actual ET ST Soil Moisture Storage SM Maximum Soil Moiscur': Storage S = Surplus RO = Runoff D = Deficit Figure 5.5. Schematic of the Water Balance.

PAGE 163

147 can be determined for a region by any one of the available techniques (Tanner, 1967), provide the initial value of excess precipitation (P-PE) If this value is positive, then soil moisture storage (ST) is increased up to the maximum level (SM) and actual evapotranspiration (AE) equals PE. A water surplus (S) is generated above the ground surface if (P-PE) exceeds (SM-ST) for a given time increment. For this condition, S = (P-PE) (SM-ST) (5.6) If the value of (P-PE) is negative, then a loss occurs from soil moisture storage. The loss is not linear, because as the soil dries, plants are less able to remove water via evapotranspiration due to capillary forces. Thornthwaite assumes that the actual amount of removal is proportional to the level of soil moisture content. This condition can be expressed by an exponential relation of the form ST = (SM) e-(^ ^ (5.7) where DWL = depletion coefficient AWL = accumulated water loss Resulting curves for various levels of SM are plotted in Figure 5.6. Thus, for the case of curve A, if the accumiulated water loss is 50 mm, the resulting soil moisture retained (ST) is 62 mm. Because ST is less than SM, the AE term is no longer equal to PE for the case of negative (P-PE). Instead, AE = P + |AST| (5.8) where I AST I = available moisture which can be removed from the soil, over one time step

PAGE 164

148 100-J 5 t -T 1 1 3 E 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 ACCUMULATED POTENTIAL WATER LOSS (mm) Figure 5.6. Soil Moisture Depletion Curves.

PAGE 165

149 The difference between PE and AE is termed the water deficit (D) Figure 5.7 shows the seasonal course of water balance for Planning Unit (PU) 14 in the Kissimmee River Basin. P varies through the year from a minimum of 39 mm in December to a maximum of 216 mm during June and July. PE is at a minimum of 41 mm in December and January, and water need increases rapidly in spring, reaching a peak of 168 mm in July. Excess precipitation (P-PE) indicates that a water deficiency for plants begins in November after the wet season of June to October. The soil is recharged in the beginning of the year and a period of water surplus dominates until May when PE exceeds P by 20 mm. The total water surplus during the year is 224 mm, which is available for runoff, compared to the total water deficit of 2 ram. This area of the Kissimmee River Basin has more than adequate water surplus for plant growth based on the 1958 land use patterns. The above figures refer to average rather than instantaneous conditions and cannot adequately represent brief periods of haavy rainfall or extended drought. Such local conditions can be better modelled using vater balance computations on a daily basis. Information provided by the water balance is useful for many reasons. First, it allows the determination of AE, the actual water loss from plant and soil surfaces, which is usually different from PE. Second, the difference between PE and AE provides a measure of moisture deficit which serves as the basis for calculating irrigation requirements of the extent of drought. Third, when water need is greater than P, that part of the demand met by stored soil moisture can be determined from the water balance. Fourth, when P exceeds water needs, the excess

PAGE 166

150 legend: O O PREC (Effective) O o PE X X AE B 0 RUNOFF T I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 d FMAMJJ ASONO MONTHS Figure 5.7. Seasonal Water Balance in the Kissiimnee River Basin.

PAGE 167

151 moisture is first used to recharge the soil. The water surplus which remains will be lost either by surface or subsurface runoff and will eventually contribute to strearaflow or groundwater recharge. The water balance technique is a powerful predictive tool for areas undergoing land use and vegetation changes, increased drainage, or urbanization. Drainage of land generally causes a reduction in soil storage, an increase in surface runoff, and a decrease in groundwater levels, all of which can be quantified using the water balance. Increases in irrigation requirements can also be predicted based on increasing moisture deficits from drainage. There are several shortcomings to the water balance procedure as originally developed. Because of the extensive distribution of soil-land use complexes v/hich occur in a river basin, the technique has been computerized for rapid calculations on a daily basis. In addition, a method has been devised to calculate maximum soil moisture storages (SM) as a function of both soil type and land use. Several additions have been incorporated into the water balance to better represent the hydrologic response. These are discussed in detail in the next section. Surplus runoff volumes calculated on a daily basis are constrained to flow at specified rates depending on the soil-cover complex. Estimates of base flow are subtracted from soil storage on a daily basis. Finally, runoff contributions are sumir.ed for each planning unit and a flood routing option is available. Description of the hydrologic-land use model A hydrologic simulation model has been developed which uses the Thornthwaite water balance to calculate surface and subsurface runoff

PAGE 168

152 from the watershed being studied. The model, hereafter referred to as HLAND, determines daily runoff contributions from each soil-land use complex and sums these to give the total runoff from the watershed or planning unit. Required input data to RLAND include daily rainfall arr.ounts for the length of the simulation period. Point estimates of rainfall from available rain gages are. distributed over the region using the Thiessen polygon technique. Specific areas of soil-land use complexes which comprise the watershed must also be supplied, in the form A(I,J,K) where I is the planning unit, J is the land use, and K is the soil type. For the present scheme, there are 18 planning units or subwatersheds in the basin, seven land use types, and four soil types. The SCS curve number method has been employed to calculate maximum soil moisture storages SM(J,K) for each soil-land use complex. The rainfall-runoff relations depicted in Figure 2.14 for various curve numbers depend on the following expression (SCS, 1969): |, = f where F = actual retention S'= potential maximum retention (S ^ F) Q = actual runoff P = potential maximum runoff = rainfall The parameter S' is a constant for a particular storm because it is the maximum that can occur. The' actual retention F is a variable depending on the difference F = P Q (5.10)

PAGE 169

153 Equation 5.9 can be rev/ritten: P Q Q p (5.11) Solving for Q produces the equation: which is the rainfall-runoff relation with the initial abstraction ignored. The initial abstraction, I consists mainly of interception, infiltration, and surface storage, wliich occur prior to and during runoff. A relation between I and S, which includes I was devela a oped by means of rainfall and runoff data from experimental small watersheds. The initial abstraction is brought into the relation by subtracting it from rainfall, thus yielding in place of equation 5.9 l = (5.13) a where F < S, and Q < (P I ) — — a The equivalent of equation 5.12 becomes 2 Q T? ^! 1 ]i s (^-1^*) a which is the rainfall-runoff relation with the initial abstraction taken into account, where S = S' + I (5.15) The empirical relation between and S from experimental data is I, = 0.2S (5.16) a. Substituting equation 5.16 into 5.14 yields the final equation: = 1L_o.2s)^ ^ p + 0.8S '^^.i-n

PAGE 170

154 The parameter CN, the runoff curve number, is a transformation of S and is used to make averaging and interpolating operations more nearly linear. Thus, given the curve number CN(J,K) for land use J and soil type K, the associated maximum soil moisture storage is calculated by Table 5.1 presents a representative range of values for SM and CN for various soil-land use complexes in the Kissimmee River Basin. Once the water balance predicts surplus runoff volumes, it is necessary to provide detention storage constants to specify the delay of outflow runoff from each land use type. The constants CDET(J,K), defined as the percent of available surplus remaining on the land per day, vary from 60 percent to 90 percent for improved pasture and marsh, respectively. These constants basically allow the surplus to become runoff at an exponential rate, or in direct proportion to the amount which is available. The storage and outflow characteristics are used to calculate retention tim.es of surface runoff from various land uses. These results are discussed in the transport section. In addition to the above information, HLAND requires further input data on the soil moisture regime, specifically, constants which describe the depletion curve due to ET in the water balance procedure. The constants are a function of soil and land use types, and basically describe the curves plotted in Figure 5.6. The depletion coefficients, DIfL(J,K), are used in equation 5.7 to provide an estimate of the resulting soil moisture as a function of the maximum level and the accumulated water loss AWL(I,J,K) in planning unit I.

PAGE 171

155 Table 5.1. Matrix of Curve Numbers and Maximum Soil Storage. Sm' 1 O U X X Cf cp s Imp Unp Citrus Fores t Marsh Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 72 00^ 67.00 49 00 39. 00 72.00 45 .00 30.00 1 3.89^ 4.93 10.41 15.64 3.89 12.22 23.33 85.00 85.00 79.00 74 00 88.00 77.00 71.00 2 1. 76 1.76 2.66 3.51 1.36 2.99 4.08 88.00 89.00 84.00 39.00 91.00 45.00 30.00 3 1.36 1.24 1.90 15.64 0.99 12,22 23.33 88.00 89.00 84.00 61.00 91.00 66.00 58.00 4 1.36 1.24 1.90 6 .39 0.99 5.15 7.24 Curve number (dimensionless) Maximum soil storage (in)

PAGE 172

156 Base flow contributions may repi-esent a significant contribution to overall streamflow volumes. During dry portions of the year, stored soil moisture and groundwater seep slowly toward the river following the gradient of the land. During flood times, base flow way contribute large volumes for many days follovjing heavy rainfall events, due to the saturation of the soil system. The rate of base flow is determined by particular characteristics of the geology, topography, and soils of a region. Base flow as a function of soil moisture storage has been specifically determined for the Kissimmee River Basin by Langbein (1955) and is depicted in Figure 5.8. The relation was obtained through the technique of hydrograph separation for 15 years of streamflow data for the Kissimmee River. Base flow is incorporated into HLAND by fitting an equation to Langbein's relation, and partitioning the subsurface flows to each soil-land use complex in each planning unit. In this v;ay, base flow is calculated as a function of soil moisture storage on a given day, and then subtracted from soil storage at the end of a day. If another type of base flow relation is preferred, it can easily be incorporated into HLAND. Once surface and subsurface contributions of runoff are calculated for each soil-land use complex in a planning unit, these are summed up over all A(I,J,K) components to yield a total daily runoff from the planning unit. These values may be zero if soil moisture levels have been depleted to less than 30 percent of the maximum and no raixifall has occurred. It should be mentioned that the model output is quite sensitive to at least three parameters: 1) the rainfall distribution, 2) the

PAGE 173

157

PAGE 174

158 maximuin soil storage levels, and 3) the soil-land use distribution. Any errors in averaging the daily rainfalls values between the few rain gages in the basin are amplified in the surface runoff predictions. Errors in estimating areas of various land uses from aerial photographs for 1958 and 1972 regimes also affect model output. Predictions for future land use patterns obviously determine to a large extent the type of model response to be expected. Finally, errors in superimposing land uses and soil types and in estimating maximum soil storages from curve numbers provide additional reasons for any observed differences between measured and predicted hydrographs. The flood routing section provides a detailed description of the calibration phase of HLAND for a series of historical years in the basin. Following this, a complete range of predictive tests are carried out for projected future land use patterns and control strategies in the basin. These results provide the essence of the regional analysis in the Kissimmee River Basin, and provide valuable information for further detailed studies along the river. Calculated retention times The base flow relation for the Kissimmee River Basin presented in Figure 5.8 was analyzed as a function of storage volume in order to calculate retention time. Table 5.2 presents the results where the storages range from 2 inches to 20 inches and produce an average retention time of about 130 days for the basin. These levels of T provide an upper limit for the control of runoff from the land under natural conditions. A similar analysis was carried out for surface runoff from soilland use complexes. Detention storage constants CDET(J,K) defined

PAGE 175

159 Table 5.2. Ba.sG Flow RGtsntxon Tines, ST (in) Base Flow (ac-ft/day) Storage (ac-ft) Retention v^udy t> ^ 4 1000 150,667 151 8 1900 301,333 158 12 3400 452,000 133 16 4600 602,665 131 20 7600 753,333 99

PAGE 176

160 previously, constrain the runoff rate from each land use in direct proportion to the amount of surplus water. The relationship used in HLAND follows the general form of equation 5.2 for reservoir storage volumes, and calculated retention times are shov.ai in Table 5.3. The values range from 1.5 to 9.5 days, considerably less than the range for soil storage. From the above analysis, average values of T can be calculated for an entire planning unit if the land use distribution is known. This technique does not consider lag effects due to routing of flows within a planning unit, but the comparative results are useful. In general, shorter retention times contribute to an increase in nutrient loading from intensively drained areas. Surface flows, with relatively short retention times compared to base flow, are assurried to contribute the majority of total phosphorous from the land. Because average surface response occurs over a rather narrow range of retention times, 1.5 to 9.5 days, it is necessary to investigate more carefully the concept of surface drainage mechanisms. Detailed studies of river, lake, and marsh drainage areas are discussed in later sections of this chapter, and results are presented. Non-Point Nutrient Loadings Previous discussions on storage and control concepts have emphasized the Importance of retention time for both runoff and water quality control. Equations 5.2 and 5.5 are analogous in that both volumes and concentrations obey exponential 'decay relationships for various reservoir units. In order to utilize these relationships, decay constants, retention tim.es, and initial conditions are required. While the

PAGE 177

161 Table 5.3, Surface Flow RetenLion Times Ditched Irnp roved Pasture CDET k Retention Time (day-l) (days) Typical L aud Use Marsh 90 0.10 9.52 Unimproved Pasture 80 0.22 4.48 Citrus 70 0.36 2.80 60 0.51 1.96 Other 50 0.69 1.44

PAGE 178

162 hydrologic model HLAND provides an estimate of initial surplus runoff for each soil-cover complex based on the water balance, there is no analogous technique to calculate source loadings of water qualityavailable for later transport in the system. The only readily available method to estim.ate non-point source loadings of nutrients from a group of land uses is to take field measurements, or use information from the literature. A detailed review of non-point pollution sources from a variety of land uses has been presented in Chapter III. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 summarize the essence of the problem, showing that nutrient loading rates for precipitation, forest land, and cropland take on a range of values depending on specific land management practices. Wliere animal densities exceed norm.al levels as in animal feedlots, nutrient loading rates are several orders of magnitude larger. These values are reported on a per acre basis, and when averaged over an entire watershed, feedlot contributions may assume lower values compared to cropland or improved pasture receiving manure. The above results represent loads which are transported off-site. Few studies have addressed the problem of primary nutrient sources on the land, mainly because it is difficult to generalize about the many interacting variables which influence the results. In attempting to relate fertilizer rates with observed nutrient transport, the transport mechanisms defy an accurate description. Cattle density or loading per animal represents a major source of nutrients in improved pasture areas. But grazing and migration patterns significantly influence the results, and transport mechanisms are difficult

PAGE 179

163 to quantify. Drainage practices may cause the release of nutrients from the soil system and thus act as a source, but this mechanism is difficult to Isolate from other nutrients being transported through drainage canals. In general, nutrient source loads on the land are difficult to quantify. Most research efforts have been aimed at the measurement of nutrients transported from a site, as a function of land use, cattle density, or fertilizer rates. Given the paucity of non-point loading data it is assumed that the relative loads can be used as shown in Table 5.4. Loading parameters were investigated for the Kissimmee River Basin, and results are presented in the next section along with the concept of drainage density as a transport mechanism from the land. Transport Concepts Drainage Density as a Transport Concept The concept of drainage density as an index of drainage basin processes has been introduced previously. It is defined simply as the total length of waterways within a watershed divided by the watershed area. The significance of drainage density as an index of drainage basin processes stems from the fact that water and sediment dynamics are heavily influenced by the length of waterways per unit area. In this way, drainage paths act as transport vehicles for runoff and associated water quality parameters. Factors controlling drainage density include climate, soils, vegetative cover, and basin slope. Humid temperate areas with highly permeable soil, dense vegetation, and low relief tend to have lower densities than semi-arid regions. The drainage network in a region is

PAGE 180

164 Table 5.4. Relative Non-Point Source Loadings Land use cate"or^ Relative weight Forest, Marsh, Rangeland 1-5 Cropland 2-10 Improved Pasture 10-30 Urban Drainage 15-50 Feedlot Runoff 50-500

PAGE 181

165 chai"acteris tic of the infiltration capacity of soils and creates the necessary density for excess outflow from the basin. Man-made alterations to the natural drainage patterns are common in regions where flat slopes and excessive rainfall create flooding problems. Such drainage activities tend to be associated with urban developments and high intensity agriculture. Citrus, cropland, and improved pasture are usually characterized by an extensive system of drainage canals, designed for water table control. Thus, drainage density is tied closely to land use patterns, and represents a useful index of land use intensity. While other studies of drainage density have indicated the range in values to be expected from one watershed to another (Gregory and Walling, 1973), there has been very little work reported on variation within a watershed due to land use modifications. The Kissimmee River Basin has provided a useful study area because of the extremely flat slopes, generally uniform soil types, and the gradient of land use intensity which extends from Lake Kissimmee to Lake Okeechobee. Relationship with land use The initial survey of land use practice in the Kissimmee River Basin revealed a widespread shift to improved pasture condition from the original native range and marsh condition. As reported in the section on land use changes, the shift has been most pronounced in planning units 15 through 18, while 13 and 14 have remained in a relatively natural condition (see Figures 4.8A, B, C, and D) Land use data for the original survey were analyzed on county highway maps (scale 1:126,720).

PAGE 182

166 In order to obtain better estimates, a more detailed land use analysis has been undertaken utilizing 1:24,000 aerial pliotograplTS of the region, which correspond exactly to the U. S. Geological Survey quadrangle maps. The detailed survey revealed the necessity for distinguishing another land use category, ditched improved pasture, in addition to the others. The original survey only separated total improved pasture and unimproved pasture. Results presented in Table 5.5 for major tributary systems depict not only an increase in the percentage of improved pasture below PU 14, but, more importantly, a major shift to ditched improved pasture in five of the seven areas evaluated. The results of the land use survey also indicated the need for more accurately determining the characteristics of the major drainage patterns in each planning unit, with the intent of explaining some of the observed nutrient loading rates. Measurement of drainage density Tlie measurem.ent of is a time-consuming effort because maps or aerial photographs must be thoroughly searched for the total length of drainage paths. Several techniques are available including 1) the blue line method on U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps (Horton, 1945), 2) the rapid line intersections method (Carlston and Langbein, 1960), and 3) the complete analysis of aerial photographs. The first two methods have the advantage of speed, but the third method is decidedly more accurate. The detailed measurement of drainage lengths and areas on 1972 Mark Hurd aerial photographs was greatly simplified by the use of a Hewlett Packard Calculator (Model 9810) and Digitizer (Model 9864A)

PAGE 183

167 CJ u c u E 0) CO Pi C/3 CO iH 5^ ON 5^ O rn o 5^2 3 2 O CSl CM 00 CO C7\ 00 o CO -a a) •H Q a o o O 00 H O CM 00 CM i-l CM -J rH 00 x: cn o ^ rH O O rH oi CO e-5 vT rH CM r-l 0-] ,H 00 <£> S< CO ro CM CM o oo OJ cn as CO iH iH CM CO 6^ (N CM O O 00 rH ro n3 U QJ ^3 cn D •H U O O O O o o o o o o o o c •a > ^1 CO ^ CM 00 \0 O CN CJ\ 00 -Jo o CO ro lH ON CO o CO o CM ^ 5^ CO CO 00 0 O U e O CM CM ON rH N cd to B (=3 0) ri c OJ ^ — s u •H "w CO CO OJ d ^-1 rH U 60 rH CO C u o N^ 3 c 3 to •H iJ c; O cd O rH C n3 CJ rH rH rH hH CO pa CO c q; c3 rH rH •H OJ CO OJ CD ^ — V M i-i rH rH 1 c bO -H u rH 'V bO rH OJ 3 c 3 N^ G > O CO o H GJ rH CO rH Ph 00 C/1 o CO CO w u p. CC CO

PAGE 184

168 which measures lengths to a resolution of 0.01 in. Areas are obtained 2 by integration on the calculator to a resolution of 0,0001 in The analysis of land use areas on the 1:24,000 scale aerial photos involves the use of 12 equally spaced sample plots, in the shape of circles with 3 in diameters, which are overlaid on each photograph. The sample area represents from 15 to 25 percent of the total aerial photograph area depending on the size of the watershed (see Table 5.5). The overall land use pattern is determined by summing all the sample plot results for each subwatershed The digitizer technique thus provides a rapid and accurate estimate of drainage lengths and land use areas from aerial photographs. Measurements in the Kissimmee River Basin indicate the relative accuracy of these techniques for selected subwatersheds Table 5.6 sh o\-is that for the relatively natural areas, the blue line map method underestimates the value of obtained from 1:24,000 aerial photographs. This is due to the fact that the quadrangle maps do not include all of the drainage lengths contained on the aerials. Conversely, the rapid line intersection method overestimates the value of D from d the aerials. This method involves drawing a line of known length (L) in miles on a contour map and counting the number of streams (n) which intersect the line. (mi/sq mi) is then approximated by = 1.41 n/L (5.19) Giusti and Schneider (1962) compared maps of different dates and scales for the Piedmont area, finding variation in D. from 2.3 to 5.2 d mi/sq mi and from 0.69 to 3.1 mi/sq mi at two different map scales. The values ranged from 0.23 to 5.2 mi/sq mi on map scales from 1:250,000 to

PAGE 185

169 Table 5.6. Drainage Density Measurements in the Kissimmee River Basin (Mi/Sq Mi) Planning Unit 13 Planning Unit 14 Lower Basin Scale (1:24,000) Line Intersection Map Method Blue Line Map Method Aerial Photographs 1.62 1.07 1.41 2.10 0.64 1.17 1.82 Scale (1:126,720) County Road Maps 1.19 1.06 1.12 Scale (1:250,000) USGS Maps 0.62 0.44 0.45

PAGE 186

170 1:24,000. Similarly, Selby (1968) showed in New Zealand that densities of 5.4 mi/sq mi compared with densities of 2.8 from 1:15,840 scale maps. Morisawa (1957) suggested, based on statistical analysis, that measuring blue lines on topograpliic maps is inaccurate and should not be used for watersheds less than 2.68 sq mi in drainage area. Similar inaccuracies apply in the Kissimraee River Basin where planning unit areas range from 45 to 223 sq mi. One of the main sources of map error, then, is the definition of stream length as compared to an associated aerial photograph. Drumraond (1974) reviews the standards for including perennial and intermittent streams on topographic maps of various United States agencies. The U. S. Geological Survey includes all of those streams up to 1000 ft from the divide, and greater than 2000 ft in length for intermittent reaches. No length limitations are provided for perennial streams. Standards used by various agencies are presented in Table 5.7. Map scale has a significant effect on the value of D, in the study d area. Table 5.6 shows that the larger the map scale, the lower the predicted level of because drainage detail is sacrificed as map scale is increased. In addition, the county highway maps (1:126,720) do not give a proper indication of the differences in for planning units along the river when compared to the 1:24,000 scale results. It appears that the 1:24,000 scale aerial photographs provide the most accurate measure of the drainage network. Because 1972 Mark Hurd aerials were available for the entire Kissimmee River Basin, it was decided to use them to analyze in detail. The aerials correspond to U. S. Geological Survey quadrangle maps of the region, and a list of these along with map dates is presented in Table 5.8.

PAGE 187

171 CO Q> •H O C Qi to < CO c •r-( a. t3 5 = .a i j § ; 4-) c 0) d3 •H c c o oQ o oT3 § E •5 5; — o — c 1^ c c •i-;^ c'S-5 J g i u a -5 a 2 o o o -3 E o H 'o 6o "rt 1^ = 9 o ^ o £ o m77 H-o< e to -'o o s £ u a o 5 to r ^ c — 'o 1-2 c U O ecu C n Sf a. 5 -2 J3 J ^ 3= = 5 < 5 £: 15. o o o t:0 -r o c ^c o u J -JO o n II 0-2 2 j= c — c u X C C c a c — Ct5 o S > -u^ c — ^ c ^ = c ^ — — ./I S 2 O C i: o U e y, m 5^ It — ^ c ; cc>2 o ( o yi 3 o je — .Ho 2a <1^

PAGE 188

172 Table 5.8. List of USCS Quadrangle Maps for the Kissiraraee River Bas.iuf Date Planning Units USGS Quad Name Date Revised Included Winter Garden 1956 2 Orlando East 1956 3 Orlando West 1956 3,2 Lake Louisa 1959 1 Windermere 1953 2,1 Lake Jessamine 1953 2,3 Pine Castle 1953 3,4 Narcoossee NT-J 1953 4 Lake Louisa SW 1959 1,7 Intercession City 1953 1,2 Kissimmee 1953 12 5 St. Cloud N 1953 '3,'5 Narcoossee 1953 1970 3,4,6 Narcoossee SE 1953 4 Gum Lake 1959 7 Davenport 1953 1970 1,7 Lake Tohopekaliga 1953 1,2,5,7 St, Cloud S 1953 1970 3,'5,'6',8 Ashton 1953 1970 3,4,6 Holopaw 1953 1970 4,6 Dundee 1953 1970 7,9 Lake Hatchineha 1953 1,8,7 9 Cypress Lake 1953 1970 1,5,6,8,10 Holopaw SW 1953 6,8,10 Holopaw SE 1953 6 11 Lake Wales 1952 9 12 Hesperides 1952 8,9,lo'l2 Lake Weohyakapka NE 1952 8,10 Lake Marian NW 1953 10 11 Lake 1-larian NE 1953 'll Babson Park 1952 12 Lake Weohyakapka 1952 10,12 Lake Weohyakapka SE 1952 10,12,13 Lake Marian SW 1953 10 13 Lake Marian SE 1953 10,11 13 Lake .\rbuckle NE 1952 13 14 Fort Kissimmee NW 1952 13 14 Fort Kissimmee NE 1953 13 14 Fort Drum NT^J 1953 'l4 Lake Arbuckle SE 1952 14 Fort Kissimmee 1952 14 15 Fort Kissimmee SE 1953 14 15 16 Fort Drum SW '1953 'l4,'l6 Lorida 1952 '15 Basinger W 1953 15 Basinger 1953 15,] 6

PAGE 189

173 Table 5.8. Continued uses Quad Name Date Taylor Creek NW 1953 Basinger SW 1953 Fort Basinger 1953 Taylor Creek SW 1953 Brighton 1953 Okeechobee N'W 1953 Okeechobee 1953 Date Revised Planning Units Included 16,17 15,16 16,17,18 16,17 17,18 17,18 18 Corresponding Mark Hurd aerial photographs (1972-73 edition) available from Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc., 345 Pennsylvania Ave. So., Minneapolis, Minn. 55426.

PAGE 190

174 The actual measurement technique distinguishes among natural, modified natural, and man-made drainage paths only in the accounting. No attempt is made to separate hydraulic or nutrient loading capabilities. Drainage lengths which are measured include natural sloughs, tributaries, channels, and agricultural or urban drainage canals. Marsh, svjamp, and pond areas are not specifically included unless they are part of a defined drainage path. Typical areas are shown schematically in Figure 5.9. Final results of analyzing the tributaries in the lov;er basin of the Kissimmee River are presented in Table 5.9. Figure 5.10 shows the respective locations of these subwatershed areas. Man-made densities range from 18 to 33 mi/sq mi and include only those areas which have been intensively ditched for improved pasture, citrus, crops, or urban use. The modified natural category includes natural range, forest, and marsh areas which may have been partially channelized by connecting ponds or sloughs together. Natural densities range from 1.2 to 2.3 mi/sq mi and include all areas of natural drainage devoid of any channel modifications. The overall average drainage densities combine the three drainage types into a single index for a given planning unit or slough system. Planning unit values range from 2.92 to 8.63 mi/sq mi while individual sloughs range from 1.49 to 9.23 m.i/sq mi. Those areas dominated by ditched improved pasture tend to have the highest drainage densities, and these are schematically presented for each planning unit in Figures 5.11A through E. As one proceeds north from Lake Okeechobee, a definite break-point occurs in the plot of total drainage length versus drainage

PAGE 191

175 1 "T — I — r — r— rURBAfy D ^ 17.0 MI/SQ Ml M I i 1 1 1 rn ^ M I M I I I I M I I ; I I i I I I I I M I I M \— — L J. IMPROVED (DITCHED) PASTURE D = 33.0 MI/SO Ml LL.JJJ mmv II Ml I I I I I I iTTl M M l"Ti
PAGE 192

176 a -H CO C CO c GJ 13 O 01 TJ JJ O (0 tJ CO u en 60 -H cij C •H < ca o •H T3 to to ^-l •H iJ C CTJ G S cd rH ca CO n3 •o Cd e H d E s d •H fei d a; 0^ -4CM .H 3 4-1 Cfl II to d i S-i QJ -d t-i d o ^ CO ,H u II II II h-J •< c CO in H-J CM r^ c\ o 00 CM CO II II CO -d 00 <; Q o 0^ J CO CO O CM
PAGE 193

177

PAGE 194

178

PAGE 195

179

PAGE 196

180 PLANNING UNIT 15 ^ NATURAL DRAINAGE MODIFIED DRAINAGE ~ PAVED ROAD INTENSIVELY DITCHED PLANNING UNIT BOUNDRY AREAS WATERSHED BOUNDRY Figure 5.11C. Drainage Map of Planning Unit 15.

PAGE 197

181 Figure 5.11D. Drainage Map of Planning Unit 16.

PAGE 198

182 PLANNING UNIT NATURAL DRAINAGE MODIFIED DRAINAGE PAVED ROAD RAILROAD PLANNING UNIT BOUNDRY V/ATERSHED BOUNDRY 5. HE. Drainage Map of Planning Unit. 17

PAGE 199

183 area, indicating that regions south of S65-C have higher drainage densities (Figure 5.12). The values range from 3.33 rai/sq rai to 5.88 mi/sq mi. The range in measured values of drainage density in the Kissimmee River Basin compares favorably with other values reported for watersheds in the eastern United States where the average is 4.0 mi/sq mi. These are at the low end of the spectrum compared to drainage densities in arid regions, which range from 10 to 100 mi/sq mi (Figure 5.13). Drainage density and hydrologic effect s Attempts have been made to relate the drainage density index to a variety of climatic inputs and basin outputs. The main thrust of these studies has been to look at streamflow response for a variety of watersheds with different soil, topographic, and drainage characteristics. Results usually relate some measure of average annual streamflow to D^. d The main objective of this effort has been to describe and quantify various hydrologic-land use interactions which occur within a single river basin or watershed. There is a definite need to explain the distribution of effects which are observed at various locations within the river basin, such as surface runoff volumes and nutrient loading rates. If these can be related to various land use activities and drainage practices, then the question of control measures for these problems can be realistically addressed. Results from the Kissimmee River Basin, with regard to hydrologic response predicted by HLAND, indicate the significance of land use and soil moisture capacity in determining runoff volumes. Figure 5.14

PAGE 200

184

PAGE 201

185 km 100050010050 J KM/SQ KM = 1.6 MI/SQ Ml 0-001 I 1 — r ICO knr Figure 5.13. Drainage Length and Basin Area Re] .^ • u(Gregory and Walling, 1973! p ^^J^^^^^^^P^ 1000

PAGE 202

186 100' 90o 80 H 1967DROUGHT YEAR 1969 FLOOD YEAR u 70*o s CO S 50Li. fe40^ Z3 30H < H O 2010o -T 13 Figure 5.14. i \ r14 15 16 PLANNING UNIT 17 Percent Runoff as Surface Flow Along the River,

PAGE 203

187 shov7s the typical response, measured as percent runoff which comes from surface flow, for flood and drought conditions at various locations along the river. About 70 percent of total runoff is via surface routes downstream of PU 15 compared to about 30 percent on the upstream side. This predicted response is due primarily to drainage activities which have reduced the fluctuations of the water table and available soil moisture storage below PU 15. If one plots the percent surface runoff against for each planning unit, the result indicates that they are approximately linearly related (Figure 5.15). 3 Annual mean flood in m /sec/sq mi of watershed has been related to (Figure 5.16) by other investigators. A data point for the Kissimmee River Basin has been inserted into the graph. The above relationships are significant with regard to the storagetreatment concept presented earlier. Drainage density is directly related to the average length of overland flow, soil moisture storage capacity, and surface runoff volume via canals. Thus, the D index d serves as an indicator of retention time T for particular land uses or planning units, where T is the ratio of storage capacity to outflow rate. Table 5.10 presents the planning unit surface retention times, determined from the land use pattern and detention storage constants CDET(J,K). Short retention times from intensively drained areas can contribute to an increase in surface runoff as well as nutrient loading, mainly because of the reduction in time necessary for physical, biological, and chemical uptake mechanisms to operate. Drainage density and water quality effects Previous discussions of water quality and non-point source loadings

PAGE 204

188 •CO a: < < >hi >Q O O _J Li. H X ID o n: Q -in ..CO o CO >iij o LiJ CD < < •H CO S3 01 P I H a) o to !/) CO 03 o a 60 ~~ S jj ~ ep~L o o O lO i 9 lO CM iwoizi 3ovjdns sv -iJONfiy %

PAGE 205

189 6.0 4.0 2.0 S 1.0 J^O.8 % 0.6 :S 0.4 o o o 0.2 < O.i i .08 < .06 < .04UJ .02.01/ / / /c O— KRB / I KM/SO KM = 1.6 MI/SQ Ml • I > — I — I I I 1 n n 2 4 6 8 10 20 DRAINAGE DENSITY (KM/SQ KM) Figure 5.16, Mean Annual Flood versus Drainage Density (Adapted from, Gregory and Walling, 1973, p. 270)

PAGE 206

190 Table 5.10. Drainage Density and Retention Times in Kissimmee River Basin Planning Units, 13 14 15 16 Planning Unit Drainage Density Retention Time (mi/sq mi) (days) 3.42 3.66 2 .92 5.53 4.92 4.16 7.50 2.19 17 5.68 2.24

PAGE 207

191 have indicated that land use type is an important parameter in determining specific nutrient loadings. Various ranges in values for nitro gen (N) and phosphorus (P) have been reported in the literature under a variety of climatic and land management conditions. However, the nutrient source loadings which are reported rarely include any measure of intensity of use, which has a definite effect on potential for off-site transport. While cattle density, fertilizer rates, and grazing pastures have significant effects on nutrient source loadings in the Kissimmee River Basin, drainage density is by far one of the most representative indices of nutrient transport off-site. Because of the overall uniform slope and character of agricultural land use in the lower basin, it vjas felt that drainage density might provide a valid general indicator of nutrient concentrations measured in the tributaries The relationship of to average length of overland flow, along with nutrient loading potential, is analogous to the concept of sediment delivery ratios, defined as the fraction of gross erosion delivered to a stream (>tLdwest Research Institute, 1975). The basic approach considers the size of a unit watershed as a function of the potential for sediment delivery off-site. Figure 5.17 shovjs the sediment delivery ratio to be expected from various unit watershed sizes. The concept of drainage density can be placed into this sane general framework, because the reciprocal of the square of D, provides an estid mate of the area of the unit watershed. The relationship between D d and unit watershed area is schematically presented in Figure 5.18 for various land use types. Thus, the associated potential sediment

PAGE 208

192 ( 7o ) oiivy Ay3An3a iN3wia3S

PAGE 209

193 FOREST MAftSK SWAMP 0^=1.0 IMPROVCD PASTURE D^=2.5 A^ = 0.64 UNIMPROVED PASTURE D^=l.5 A =1.77 1 T" 41 -1— L 1 — r 1 — -i -4 1 '] r 1 ;^ -i— — ( ^ URBAN D^=I6.0 A^ = 0.0I6 m DITCKED IMPROVED PASTURE a CITRUS Dj=32.0 A^-0.004 Figure 5.18. 2 Ml = DRAIHAGE DEN IN MI/SQ Ml = SUBDRAINAGE AREA IN SQ Ml D? /A. ro Schematic of Drainage Density and Watershed Area.

PAGE 210

194 deJivery ratios increase dramatically for the more intensively drained areas (Figure 5.17). Because nutrients such as phosphorous tend to be associated with the soil, the potential for nutrient loading from these areas also increases. Such reasoning leads to the hypothesis that increased levels of may be associated with increased nutrient concentrations and loading rates. In the Kissinnnee River Basin, inflow tributaries were sampled on a monthly basis for concentrations of various forms of N and P. As indicated before, only total P levels yielded significant variation in time and space. Results for various contributing tributaries were presented in Figure 4.12. It can be seen that both peak and average wet season (June-September) concentrations of total and ortho P increase rapidly south of S65-C. Based on the detailed investigations of drainage density levels in each planning unit and slough system along the river, measured concentrations of average and peak total P for the wet season (1974) were plotted versus measured drainage densities. Although only a limited number of data points are available for the lower basin, positive correlations are obtained as shown in Figures 5.19 and 5.20. The importance of these relationships is not the actual measured values of and associated P concentrations, but rather the fact that higher drainage densities tend to be associated with higher concentrations which are transported to the river. With regard to nutrient loac^ing rates, data on both hydrologic flows and nutrient concentrations must be available. U%ile water qualit monitoring has been extensive throughout the basin, the associated

PAGE 211

195

PAGE 212

196

PAGE 213

197 measurement of hydrologic flows entering the river is unavailiible on a continuous basis. However, predictive capabilities of the model HLAND provide for the simulation of surface and subsurface runoff from each planning unit on a daily basis. Realizing the errors involved in the monthly water quality measurements and in the predicted runoff volumes from each planning unit, a positive correlation appears between measured total P concentration and the predicted surface runoff event which corresponds to the measurement (Figure 5.21). In general, the higher the surface runoff, the higher the concentration of total P which is transported via overland flow and tributary to the river. Thus, the phenomenon of dilution by increasing volumes of water is masked by more rapidly increasing volumes of nutrients transported in the runoff. Below S65-C, loading rates increase more rapidly due to higher surface runoff volum.es and higher nutrient concentrations, combining to yield the nutrient flux into the river. Nutrient loading rates are plotted against and the resulting exponential relationship is presented in Figure 5.22, which can be explained by considering that higher drainage densities yield higher runoff rates and higher nutrient concentrations. Together, these produce a multiplicative effect on nutrient delivery rates. The range of nutrient delivery rates from 0.01 to 0,45 kg/ac/yr compares favorably with values reported by Uttormark et al (1974) for similar types of land use (Table 3.3). One other study has indicated similar relationships between nutrient loading of total P and drainage density in Canadian watersheds (Kirchner,

PAGE 214

198 Figure 5.21. Total P Concentration versus Runoff Volume by Planning Unit for Wet and Dry Seasons.

PAGE 215

199

PAGE 216

200 1974). Figure 5.23 shows a linear relationship with ranging from 0.32 mi/sq mi to 2.24 rai/ sq mi, and loading rates up to 0.03 kg/ac/yr. This is at the lower end of the spectrum for results in the Kissimmee River Basin, but values for PU 13 (W) and 14 are quite similar with between 1.0 and 3.0 mi/sq mi in Figure 5,22. Thus, the relationship between and nutrient loading has been observed in other watersheds The discussions of off-site effects have described a series of responses which are observed or predicted for a river basin as a function of the drainage density. In general, increased volumes of surface runoff, higher nutrient concentrations, and higher nutrient loadings are associated with higher drainage densities in the Kissimmee River Basin. However, it has been mentioned that more intensively drained areas, such as improved pasture and cropland, have potentially greater source loadings initially applied to the land due to cattle density and fertilization. Thus, the fact that these areas produce higher export rates than more natural areas is not surprising. Nutrient source loadings from cattle density and fertilizers were investigated in the Kissimmee River Basin in order to better evaluate the effect of drainage density. In general, the results show that nutrient loading depends on both the magnitude of source nutrients and associated drainage density. Figure 5.24 indicates this concept very nicely, especially for planning unit 15 where the nutrient source is relatively low but is high and planning unit 16 where both parameters take on large values and produce heavy loading.

PAGE 217

201 .03a: >o < h.02-] O a. X UJ CO ID q: o X Q. CO O X Q. .01 1.^ •0 1.5 2.0 DRAINAGE OENSITY (MI/SQ Ml) Figure 5.23. Total P Load versus Drainage Density in Canadian Watersheds (Adapted from Kircbner, 1974, p. 8).

PAGE 218

202 •5^ >>A P / AC o ^10-.4 2 a < o < LO Ui -J o X a. < o> o 5-.2 0 X a. •o o a < o -J < o -1 "Of o Ui T3 Q r3(E) 14 15 PLANNING 17(E) UNIT Figure 5.24. Influence of Nutrient Sources and on Nutrient Loads Q

PAGE 219

203 Flood Routing Concepts Flood control has long been an Important issue in the Kissiramee River Basin dating back to 1949 when the Central and South Florida Flood Control District was originally formed. The basin has a history of naturally occurring flood events I'/hich have inundated large areas above the lake shorelines and along the river floodplain. In recent years as agricultural and urban developments have located along the lake shorelines, a demand for flood control for the upper basin lakes was expressed. The existing flood control project in the area uses structural controls and channelization to speed the flood waters through the chain of lakes, do\m the Kissimmee Canal, and into Lake Okeechobee. A comparison of the flood hydrograph with and without the flood control project can be made by investigating the floods of 1953, 1960, and 1969. Figure 5.25 shows the monthly rainfall and daily streamflow for the Kissimmee River near Okeechobee, Florida (S65-E) for the three flood years. The 1969 flood occurred five years after the control works had begun operation and the other floods represent the response of the unchannelized river floodplain. Rainfall patterns are similar for the three floods with 1953 recording the highest rainfall amount. Table 5.11 characterizes the three events according to total flood time above 3000 cfs, recession time from peak flow to 3000 cfs, and total volume of flow. The 1953 and 1960 flood hydrographs are similar in all categories except for the actual shape of the curve. The recession for the 1953 event was slightly longer. The 1969 hydrograph is markedly different from the others and is

PAGE 220

204

PAGE 221

205 Table 5.11, Analysis of Floods in the Kissimraee River Basin. Year Kamiall (in) Recession Time (flow > 3000 cfs) (mo) Flood Time (flov/ > 3000 cfs) (rao) Total Volume (10 ac-ft) 1953 63.4 6.5 9.5 321.0 1960 52.2 5.0 9.0 318.0 1969 57.7 2.5 7.0 270.0

PAGE 222

206 characteristic of a developed drainage system, i.e., a higher peak flow and a sliorter lag time between rainfall and response. Recession time is reduced, but total flood time is comparable to the others since the flood volume is less by 15 percent. Note the secondary flood peaks which are characteristic of a channelized system. In addition, the time of travel through the system has been significantly reduced due to the increased rates of channelized flow and the reduction in total river length from about 90 miles to 50 miles. This section develops a technique for predicting flood hydrographs discharged from the Kissimmee River Basin. The routing procedure uses input runoff from the HLAND model, and thus can simulate the response for any given land use pattern in the basin. The routing procedure can simulate the present C-38 channel system, or it can be altered to model the original meandering floodplain. In this way, it is possible to determine whether the river channelization or the upland tributary drainage activities has caused the greatest change in the observed outflow hydrograph (Figure 5.25). Description of the routing method The total runoff for each planning unit predicted by HLAND, plus any inflows from upstream, can be routed through the main stem of the river by considering the governing momentum and continuity equations 2.15 and 2.16. It was shown in Chapter II that these equations can be simplified by considering a linear relationship between flow and storage. In a natural channel with overbank floodplains, the assumption of linearity may be approximately correct (Linsley et al 1975), and the resulting storage equation is termed the Muskingum equation (see equation 2.17).

PAGE 223

207 VJhile more sophisticated flood routing methods are available (Viessman et al ]972), the Muskingum method is ideally suited for modeling the response in depressional watersheds where long-term seasonal effects are of primary concern. Daily time steps can be used in order to complement the runoff calculations from HLAND. The Muskingum method is relatively simply in theory, using wedge and prism storage concepts to relate outflow to storage and inflow (Figure 5.26). During the advance of a flood wave, inflow always exceeds outflow, thus producing the wedge storage shown in Figure 5.26. Conversely, during the recession of the wave, outflow exceeds inflow resulting in a negative wedge storage. The wedge storage is represented by KX(I 0) and the prism storage by KO. The total storage is, therefore S = KO + KX(I 0) (5.20) where S = storage I = inflow 0 = outflow K = travel time parameter X = storage parameter This is the Muskingum equation presented in Chapter II (equation 2.17), and may be written for two routing periods (1 and 2) as = K[X(l2 I^) + (1 X)(02 0^)] (5.21) Combining equation 5.21 with the' continuity equation (equation 2.18) at the same two periods, 1/2(F^ + F2)At + 1/2(1^ + 1/2(0^ + 0^)ht = (5.22)

PAGE 224

208 TIME gure 5.26. Scheinatic of Muskingum Routing Techniq

PAGE 225

209 K(.l-X) + 0.5At 0.5At KX K(l-X) + 0.5At 1 K(l-X) + 0.5At the fol]ov7ing equations can be derived: O2 = 0^ + C^(I^ 0^) + C^il^ I^) + F^) (5.23) where C, (5.24) (5.25) S = K(l-X) i 0.5At (5.26) The and F^ terms represent the tributary or lateral runoff contribution for two consecutive routing periods (analogous to q^^^^X in equation 2.18). The solution of equation 5.23 for 0^ is accomplished for consecutive segments of the river reach, since all terms on the right hand side are known. The 0^ from one segment serves as to the next dovmstream segment. Tributary contributions of lateral runoff are simply added in for each segment on a daily basis. Values of K and X must be estimated for a particular river segment. Graphical techniques and the analysis of observed inflow and outflow hydrographs are recommended. The value of K is essentially the travel time in the reach in days. The value of X varies from 0.0 to 0.5 as a function of storage capacity in the river, with the lower values related to greater storage. The effect of X on the routed hydrograph is depicted in the lower portion of Figure 5.26. Pure translation results when X = 0.5, and storage effectively reduces the peak for X = 0.0. HLAND has been applied to the lower basin of the Kissimmee River south of Lake Kissimmee (Figure 5.10). Surface and subsurface runoff volumes are routed down the river to Lake Okeechobee using

PAGE 226

210 the Muskingum routing technique. The river has been segmented corresponding to the various control structures which also define the planning unit boundaries. Measured outflows from Lake Kissimmee are treated as inflows to the routing procedure. The routing is applied on a daily basis, incorporating total runoff from each planning unit, and ultimately providing the outflow hydrograph to Lake Okeechobee, By using present land use configurations (1972) and a series of daily rainfall patterns over the basin (1965-1970), the predicted outflow hydrograph from the Kissimmee River can be compared to measured streamflows at the gaging station near Okeechobee (S65-E) By adjusting storage (X) and travel time (K) parameters in the routing model to conform to the C-38 geometry, the HLAND model can be calibrated. Hydrologic calibration of the model The model HLAND was verified for the Kissimmee River Basin using present land use configurations and a series of daily rainfall patterns over the basin. HLAND calculates the contribution of total runoff to the river, which is then routed down the river to yield the predicted outflow hydrograph on a daily basis. A series of calibration years, 1965-1970, was selected based on the availability of data and the fact that this sequence includes both drought and extreme flood conditions, which provides a good test of the accuracy of the model. A comparison of measured and predicted streamflows is depicted in Figure 5.27A at the gaging station near Okeechobee (S65-E) It can be seen that the model provides a generally accurate representation of the basin response during

PAGE 227

211 (SdO 0001) M01dWV3aiS

PAGE 228

212 conditions of floods (1969-1970), droughts (1965-1967), and average flows (1968). Figure 5.27B shows one year of predicted and measured flows for the lower basin, with inflovjs from Lake Kissimmee subtracted from outflows at S65-E. This indicates that the model is accurately predicting runoff volumes from each planning unit. A summary of flow data for selected planning units is presented in Table 5.12 in order to indicate the distribution of surface and subsurface runoff volumes. Total volumes of runoff for the basin are compared in Table 5.13. In addition, HLAND was run for a 2-year period prior to channel! zation (1959-1960) using the 1958 level of land use for predicting runoff and the original meandering floodplain for routing the flows. Results are shown in Figure 5.28 for measured and predicted streamflows at S65-E. Based on calibration runs, the basin response seems to be much more sensitive to the land drainage characteristics than to the condition of the narrow river floodplain. Travel times were slower under the 1958 regime because upland marsh and slough retention provided additional storage capacity during the wet season. The present regime induces excess water into drainage canals at a faster rate, a:id thus yields increasing percentages of surface runoff compared to subsurface flows as shown in Figure 5.14. The calibration procedure has revealed several interesting charac teristics about the hydrologic response in the Kissimmee River Basin. These are listed below: 1) The basin has a marked wet season between the months of June and October associated with the majority of rainfall and streamflow volumes in the river.

PAGE 229

213

PAGE 230

214 •H a 00 d •nl C 4-1 U-l o d 3 Pi OJ o n) m Vi 3 CO C^ O I to u a> CO ^ O lO CI rH in ca +j a\ C3^ Oi 00 o o o O o 00 00 CO o r-l O o O o tH o CO o ro o -do o O O O O O CO CO tH m rH in CNI 00 tH o o o o o o o o O CTN O iH O OJ O CNl IH IH o d 3 PS ON tH 00 ^ o o CM cr> CTi vD CNJ CO CO CO •H d •H d rH CO ^ ^ — S r — s ^— V y — -X to O CO CJ CO CO iX) rH rH rH rH CO O CO O CO CO O rH rH iH rH CO C5 CO O CO CO v£) >vO tH rH iH rH

PAGE 231

rH O o o a\ CM \o o CM rH iH rH r^l 00 <300 in <3CJ^ o o 00 CO rH rH rH 4-1 VO O 00 CTi CJ^ O O CM 0\ rH -JO O i-l CM o C =) CM O CO ^ (i3| oo 00 SI CM rH O O H Ln r-i CM VO vO CO CO in CM CN CO CO ^ rH (7\ CN CO ^ CM vo CTi CO C7\ CO VO O CM o -3cyi CO Cvl (N 00 o VO 00 o in iH CM VO 00 rH 00 • • vo cy\ o • • vD m in vD o o H CM VO rH O o o cn rH CM -H CO CM CM
PAGE 232

216

PAGE 233

217 2) Remaining months of the year are dominated by very low flows due primarily to lack of rainfall and flat topography, 3) The 1972 land use regime along with the channelized river produces higher maximum and lower minimum flows for typical flood events compared to the 1958 regime. 4) The increased hydrologic response in the basin is due primarily to upland drainage activities rather than the C-38 channelization itself; upland drainage contributes more volume and at a faster rate than before, thus creating an increased hydrologic response overall. 5) Planning units dominated by drainage canals tend to produce more surface runoff than planning units In a more natural state, while subsurface flows are less under drained conditions. Water quality in the river Water quality monitoring in the Kissimmee River Basin v^as reviewed in Chapter IV. Figure 5.29 shows the generally increasing trend for total phosphorus concentrations as one proceeds downstream. Nitrogen levels do not exhibit any significant spatial variation. The section on drainage density in this chapter indicated a positive relationship between measured concentrations of total P, contributing to the river via tributary flow, and the drainage density index for that watershed. Similar relationships were obtained for total P loading (kg/ac/yr) and D^, except that the loading rates increased exponentially dovmstream of S65-C (see Figure 5.22). The curve on Figure 5.29 exhibits the same type of increase below S65-C, indicating that the non-point surface loading of total P from the tributary systems is the primary cause for the increase. The concept of retention time, which has been a common theme in much of the previous discussion on storage and transport, also can be applied in the main channel of the river. The K factor used in the

PAGE 234

218 il/On) N0llVdlN33N03 SfldOHdSOHd IVlOi

PAGE 235

219 Muskingum routing technique estimates the travel time from Lake Kissimmee to Lake Okeechobee. The travel time K is equal to the retention time T because they both define the length of time that a given volume remains in the system. Based on the analysis of observed hydrographs at S65-E, a T value of 3.5 days was derived and used in the calibration of HLAND for the present C-38 configuration. In order to estimate the potential for nutrient uptake in the river, equation 5.5 was applied to give an estimate of reduction in concentration as a function of T. There is a problem in defining the value of the decay constant k for the case of a river, but a commonly accepted value for nutrients in a river is 0,1 day""*" at 20 C. The resulting calculation for the ratio of outflow to inflow concentration is where -1 -kT C/C^ = e = 0.7 (5.27) k = 0.1 day T = 3.5 days Thus, there is a potential for about 30 percent uptake (at 20 C) in the river under the present configuration. But for the section of the river below S65-C where most of the nutrient loading is generated, the retention time is reduced to about 1.0 day, and the revised calculation above results in only a 10 percent uptake potential. The dashed line on Figure 5.29 indicates the uptake of nutrients which would occur in the river if lateral inflows of nutrients were completely curtailed. This result was obtained by solving a mass balance of inflow volumes and concentrations from Lake Kissimmee and

PAGE 236

220 each planning unit, and subtracting the observed loading to Lake Okeechobee. The difference provides an estimate of the nutrient decay constant, k, of 0.24 day Based on the accuracy of the predicted planning unit flows, this value compares favorably with the k of 0.1 used previously. Under the natural floodplain condition, prior to the construction of C-38, the travel times were somewhat shorter in the river due to the meandering pattern, but the analysis of hydrographs and the pre-channelization runs of HLAND indicate that travel times were no longer than about 9.0 days in the entire river. With the present upland drainage activities, especially downstream of S-65C, increased surface runoff volumes would tend to reduce the value of T if the natural floodplain still existed. Based on the above arguments, the potential upper limit for nutrient uptake in the critical lower tV70 segments of the river was about 15 to 25 percent under the original floodplain regime, compared to 10 percent at the present. The above simplified analysis of nutrient uptake potential indicates the relative range in values to be expected under both channeliz and original floodplain regimes. For either case, the river and flood plain alone do not provide nearly the nutrient uptake which one might expect based on previous studies (Marshall et al ., 1972). The main reason for this is the fact that the rapidly flowing river environment does not provide enough retention time for physical, biological, and chemical mechanisms to operate. It has been mentioned that nutrient uptake requires relatively long retention times. This implies that the greatest potential would

PAGE 237

221 occur in lakes and marsh areas scattered throughout the basin. If one could route agricultural runoff, enriched with nutrients, through these areas prior to entry into the river, then the observed trend in Figure 5.29 could possibly be averted. Under the assumption that the river itself provides little uptake potential, the next section explores the idea of using onsite storage of runoff and uptake of nutrients in marsh, pond, or lake areas. These reservoir storages thus provide a double service in helping to delay surface runoff from contributing to flood flows, and in providing enough retention time for nutrient uptake. Lakes as Storage Control Units A discussion of nutrient loading in lake systems has been presented in Chapter III, where limited results were reported for several case studies of nutrient diversion. The most permanent approach to lake restoration involves methods to limit fertility and/or sedimentation in lakes by controlling the problem at the source. However, in-lake schemes are available to accelerate nutrient outflow or prevent recycling. One such technique was applied to Lake Tohopekaliga (Toho) in the upper Kissiimnee Pvlver Basin which involved an experimental drawdown of the lake to slow the eutrophication process by consolidating loose sediments and detritus. Lake Tohopekaliga is one of the largest lakes in the Kissimmee chain of lakes and currently supports a productive fishery. Inflows to the lake are from two primary tributaries. Shingle Creek and the C-31 canal. Outflow from the lake to Lakes Cypress and Hatchincha has been regulated by a control structure since 1964 (see Figure 4.1).

PAGE 238

222 The lake receives treated sewage effluent from five plants serving adjacent cities as v;ell as agricultural runoff from improved pasture and citrus surrounding the lake. Heavy nutrient loads combined with lake level regulation have produced degraded water quality and a loss of game fish habitat over the last few years. As a result of preliminary investigations in 1968 of water quality, sediments, algae, and fish populations, an extreme drawdown was recomjnended by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC) to reduce or moderate the extent of habitat degradation. The drawdown was begun in February, 1971. Lake level fluctuations and flood control Before discussing the results of the drawdown, it is necessary to introduce the concept of lake level fluctuations. Prior to 1964 the level of lake Toho naturally varied from a low of 48.9 feet to a high of 59.4 feet (mean sea level), a range of 10.5 feet. The high water line is exceeded 15 percent of the time and the low water line 85 percent of the time, based on the stage-duration curve in Figure 5.30A, The stage-area curve then determines the lake area for low, mean, and high water conditions (Figure 5.30B). The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District completed construction on a concrete lock and spillway at the lake outlet for flood control purposes. The present water regulation schedule permits a 2 foot fluctuation between 53 and 55 feet MSL. When lakes are regulated as in the Kissimmee River Basin, the zone of regulated fluctuation is usually reduced over natural conditions. Table 5.14 indicates the relative area of lake fluctuation for several Kissimmee

PAGE 239

223 CO 60n Q 58 LJ a u X LU EC o o UJ 54< LU o 50' h• % LU _l lU 48 .HIGH WATER 15 7o MEAN WATER 50% ,LOW WATER 8 5 % -r T— 1 r20 40 60 80 PERCENT OF TIME "1 100 Figure 5.30A. Stage-Duration Curve for Lake Tohopekaliga (Bishop, 1967, p. 28). AREA (ACRES x 10^) 24 22 20 18 -I L 6058CO 56Li. 54UJ 52< Ui 5048-60 80 STORAGE 100 (AC FT Figure 5.30B. Stage-Area and Volume Curves for Lake Tohopekaliga (Corps of Engineers, 1956, p, 55).

PAGE 240

224 c o •H U n) 4J U 3 -a 3 60 Pi c ca 3 u ca in 0) CO H ''^ UJ CO (11 CJ o GJ o QJ > OJ ^1 OJ ^1 u QJ ca •u ca 0) rH 4-J ca ca !-l rH 3 3 u to CO OJ Z o o in in rH in o cr> in m m o t CM -^r -3in cN in CO ^ • • • iH O (3> CM in in o 00 CN in ^ r-00 O CM (N rsi cNi o o o CO in cN m in u QJ 4-) CO o ^ to 13 -Xl QJ 0) 4-1 to 4-1 l4-( to O 3 3 OJ CjO M d QJ QJ O Pi Cii N ta QJ o •H UH 4-1 O to 3 4J 4-1 3 a QJ 3 L) rH M QJ p-l

PAGE 241

225 lakes under natural and regulated conditions. Lake Toho and Lake Hatchincha/ Cypress register decreases in fluctuation from 29 percent and 100 percent to 11 percent and 65 percent of the total lake area, respectively. Figure 5.31 depicts the zones of fluctuation under natural and regulated conditions for Lake Toho. The lake naturally ranged from 51.5 feet to 55.5 feet on the average during the year. Regulation schedules allow an absolute range from 53 feet to 55 feet, but this represents a significant reduction in lake area which was in the littoral zone previously. Large areas of marsh fringes are now inundated all year. These areas not only are vital and productive for fish and wildlife, but also represent vegetated buffer zones for urban and agricultural runoff vjaters. Recent studies have quantified the uptake of nutrients by such marsh/swamp areas (Shih and Hallett, 1974; Gleason, 1974). As these areas are reduced in size, waste assimilative capacity Is also reduced. The fluctuations under natural conditions provided for flood storage in the large, flat buffer zones. Present regulation schedules maintain high pools in the dry season for recreation and irrigation, and keep lower pools in the wet season for flood storage. Such flood control strategies induce agricultural and urban expansion within the lake basin. Drainage of these adjoining land areas increases the rate of runoff, which in turn increases the flood storage capacity which must be provided to protect existing flood plain developments. A point will soon be reached where natural lake capacity may be exceeded, and the conversion to a diked reservoir has traditionally been used

PAGE 242

226

PAGE 243

227 to increase the storage capacity. In the process, the benefits of vegetated buffer zones are eliminated, fish and wildlife liabitat is altered irreversibly, and water quality is degraded. The effect of lake level regulation is depicted for two of the largest and most recent flood years in Figure 5.32. The majority of the rainfall occurs in the wet season between June and October. The lake level fluctuates 4 feet on the average, but fluctuation was almost twice as great during the flood year 1960. The area of the lake fluctuated between 17,500 acres and 25,500 acres while the storage volume varied from 45,000 ac-ft to 125,000 ac-ft. For shallow lakes, small increases in stage can store tremendous volumes of water. Lake stages were regulated during the 1969 flood period. In order to better understand the dynamics of the lake basin, hydrologic budgets have been prepared for the lake to provide an estimate of retention times and inflow and outflow volumes. The resulting balance of inflows, outflows, and changes in storage is shown in Table 5,15 for the year 1973, which represents an average year for rainfall. The monthly budget is based on applying the continuity equation to the lake basin (equation 2.4). Rainfall, evaporation, tributary inflows, surface runoff, and lake outflow are used to obtain an estimate of change in storage in the lake. Estimates of surface runoff were obtained by applying the HLAND model to the lake basin for present land use conditions. The calculated storage changes in the lake compare favoipably with the observed values as shown in Table 5.15. Retention time in the lake is defined as the total lake volume divided by the outflow of x^ater. From the hydrologic budget, retention

PAGE 244

228 STAGE (FT MSL) o in o CD lO lO (S3H0NI) "inVJNIVd

PAGE 245

229 to •H iH tfl A! (U D. O 42 O H 0) 4J ror-^OrHOOOC^OiOrHO O CI ^rHOOrHOJ (N tTi UO Csl in ON -vj" vX) O ON 1/1 o O-rOrHLOmrHrHCNnc^JI^ rH CTi rH LTl -3o oocNjo o CO H iJ •H /-V cfl a. CL, ^ ^ H w o w O 0) cfl >-l > a, cu u o a; MH a M rH U-( to <+-( rH d rH O Cfl in W -H to d -U CO I .d I 3 O I d o o < •H rH 4-1 CO U-l — s -a cfl <1 4J CO > 3 • — u O CO rH rH fil > rH 3 >^ Cfl u (1) d) OJ rH rH CO Cfl O C CO 43 H > U O t3 CU +J O d cu ^-1 0) 43 & a 0) o X (U d H cn o 3 rH CO > QJ d •r( m o 03 H d o :z) 53 cfl CO e CH O in •H d

PAGE 246

230 time T is calculated to be about 6.0 months during the dry season of January to June, and 4.0 months during the wet season of July to October. These values are influenced by the extent of flood or drought conditions. For the flood of 1960, retention time varied from about 1.0 to 3.0 months during the wet season and up to 7.0 months for the following dry season. During the drawdown experiment and drought conditions of 1971, the retention time exceeded 1.0 year since outflows from the lake were zero for most of the months during the experiment Based on the above hydrologic analysis, average retention time in the lake is assumed to be about 5.0 months, which implies that the lake turns over 2.4 times per year, on the average. It is difficult to say whether retention times have increased or decreased due to lake level regulation schedules. Because average storage capacity in the lake has been decreased while inflows have probably increased, one might conclude that average retention times have decreased since 1964. However, average outflows have probably decreased during the dry season due to the regulation schedule which maintains nigh pools. These conditions contribute to longer retention times for the dry season. During the wet season, outflows have probably increased while the average storage has been reduced for flood control, thus producing shorter retention times. In general, the value of retention time depends on the hydroperiod variation in the lake, and because wet season inflows and outflows represent the greater percentage of volume over the year, the average weighted retention time is reduced under the regulated condition. These changes in retention time due to

PAGE 247

231 the flood control regulation are important from a water quality standpoint as discussed in the next section. L ake drawdo\vTi and water qual i ty The primary purpose for lake drawdovm is to reduce consolidated sediment depth by exposing sections of lake bottom to the air. In this way, a better habitat is produced for bottom plants and game fish. The process of drawdown is expected to result in reductions in ammonia, total organic nitrogen, and volatile solids. Phosphates and nitrates generally remain in the newly consolidated sediment. Several lakes in Florida have been studied in relation to the effects of drawdown (Fox and Brezonik, 1974), and consolidation of sediments has been observed. The drawdovm sequence on Lake Toho proceeded fiom a high pool of 55 feet in March, 1970 to a low pool of 52 feet in June. Following seven months of drought, the scheduled drawdown began in February, 1971 with a drop in elevation to 48 feet by June, exposing up to 50 percent of the lake bottom to the air. Reflooding occurred gradually until February, 1972 when the water level stood at the low pool stage of 52 feet. Complete results of the drawdown experiment such as the response of fish, vegetation, sediments, and algae are available (GFC, 1972, 1973). Water quality and nutrient loading effects are discussed below. The general response to lowered water level and reduced volume was a gradual increase in concentration of most constituents and a reduction as reflooding progressed. Table 5.16 shows the average water quality at three lake stations before, during, and after drawdown. The table dem.onstrates a concentrate

PAGE 248

232 oooooooooooocMooo^Loco^r ov£30ooiHOoosoo-moooor^cNiiniNo>cNOOooooo rn ,-1 <}• n B o 60 Q) o • j:; a o s H o -a QJ ^ n >4-l U O QJ u >, M-l 4J <; •H nj d 3 to QJ CO 60 •H 3 O 60 OJ CO ^1 ^1 O > QJ SO QJ H C rH O •H CTv U ^ CD U CO o CM rH 0 o •H 4-) CTi w 000000000000CN000Cvl~3-0 Or^OOOOOOr--OOCOOOOrH- -O-rHCOu-, rH H ooooooocoooocy\0LOCO(7irsJcr>CMOOrHOOrHr-H rH ro Csl !30 so T3 Q) U O c QJ to •rl CO M QJ rH a 3 QJ QJ P. W e i-i 60 •H to •H C 3 0) ^ cO a •H 4:! "13 O rH O Q) T3 C O o • • • rH rH O < < QJ a. C/3 C/3 ftj H QJ U CO x: • rH i-l 3 3 t/3 H H • •r^ 4J MH rH 3 UH 60 CO a 3 I I c^ ens Z 25 O K O O O 3 a H Q Ph o 4= M O O -U -0^ o o •H S C to e o (0 o s o u u •H •ri T3 •rl rQ 3 C O CO u CO

PAGE 249

233 gradient from north to south because several major pollution sources enter at the northern side of the lake (see Figure 5.33). Measurements of transparency, pH, and total organic nitrogen (TON) are comparable to pre-drawdown levels at station 1. Stations 2 and 3 register reduced transparency, increased pH, and increased TON corresponding to increases in algal blooms at these stations. Cation levels decline over dravjdovm levels but remain above pre-drawdown concentrations Reduction in NO^-N reflects a conversion to organic forms due to increased productivity in the lake. Total phosphate levels are lov/er at all stations com.pared to the drawdown period, but rem.ain higher tha'.i the pre-drawdown concentrations. The major source of nutrients to the lake is from treated sev/age effluent from five plants serving cities around the north shore of the lake. These are depicted as stations 5 through 9 in Figure 5.33. Agricultural runoff is a secondary source of nutrients to the lake. Loading rates from the sewage treatment plants have been calculated by the GFC (1972). The ab ove information on nutrient sources combined with previous data on non-point sources allows a nutrient budget to be prepared for Lake Toho. The nutrient budget approach is similar to the one used by Sliannon and Brezonik (1972). Table 5.17 presents the results of the annual budget for nitrogen and phosphorus, where it can be seen that the sewage treatment plants are the major source of nutrients. Comparing the areal and volumetric loading rates to the critical loading rates in Table 3.1, it can be concluded that volumetric loading

PAGE 250

234

PAGE 251

235 Table 5,17. Nutrient Budget of Lake Tohopekaliga Source Nitrogen Phosphorus (10^ fe/y O (10^ g/yr) 7.93 36.80 #6 1.21 1.77 #7 0.10 0.20 #10 1.29 2.70 Agric Land 6.87 1.45 Rainfall 3.47 2.72 Outflow 6.31 3.44 I-O 14.56 42.20 Areal Load 1.71 g/m^/yr 4.96 g/ra^/yr Volumetric Load 1.31 g/xs?/fx 3.80 g/m~^/yr

PAGE 252

236 rates exceed dangerous levels for both nitrogen and, in particular, phosphorus. The exceedingly high levels for phosphorus compared to nitrogen provide a readily available source for the growth of algae and aquatic weeds in the lake. Aj though the drawdown experiment did not result in iinproved water quality. It did succeed in establishing the major source of the problem during the water quality monitoring program. The GFC (1972) feel that the treated effluent is the predominant factor accelerating the degradation of Lake Toho at the present. Water quality and retention time Further water quality monitoring efforts by the Flood Control District during the past two years in the upper chain of lakes have revealed an interesting response (Figure 5.34). The distribution of total phosphate concentration declines significantly from the northern part of Lake Toho to the outflow from the lake, and then a much slower decline occurs through Lakes Cypress, Hatchineha, and Kissimmee. These data suggest that uptake rates in Lake Toho are reducing the total F concentrations by approximately 85 percent by the time the water leaves the lake, depending on the season. The concept of retention time T can be used to explain the observe decline in concentration. As in the case of the river, equation 5.5 can be applied to Lake Toho to estimate the reduction as a function of T and k, the first-order decay coefficient. Since C/Cq is known (Figure 5.34) and T is assumed to vary from 4.0 to 6.0 months, one can solve for the value of k at 20C. These average values range from 0.02 day for the wet season to 0.01 day for the dry season.

PAGE 253

237 SA>iPLTNG LOCATION 1974 JMUARY APRIL JUTSiE o-.4 -o "t — T" r r 19 16 14 13 10 9 I TOHO. -! !-CYPRKSS-^ }mCH.~! ^ KISS Figure 5 LAKE & Sy\jMPLING LOCATION .34. Water Quality (Total P) in the Upper Chain of Lakes

PAGE 254

238 Compared to 0.1 day reported for rivers, these k values are an order of magnitude less, but with the long retention time in the lake, it is possible to obtain about. 85 percent uptake compared to about 10 percent in the lower part of the river. The reason for the low value of k in Lake Toho is difficult to explain, because the nutrient uptake in the lake is greater than in most other components of the river basin. One possible explanation is that the exponential decay (Figure 5.34) is in reality a tv7o-stage process, with an initial rapid loss of nutrients over several days and a final decay stage of several months. This type of response would yield a value of around 0,1 day for the iriitial stage. Unfortunately, the frequency of data collected by the FCD on Lake Toho does not allow a more accurate determination of k. From a water quality standpoint, nutrient uptake depends on both the first-order decay coefficient and the retention time. Decay coefficients tend to increase with temperature, which affects biological and chemical activity. Retention times are shorter in the wet season when decay coefficients are at their peak, and longer in the dry season when uptake rates are at a minimum. Thus the hydroperiod variation in the lake significantly influences the potential for nutrient uptake, especially in the wet season. These relationships imply that regulation schedules should be altered in order to retain water longer during the wet season, rather than dramng the lake down as rapidly as possible. These changes should also consider the needs of flood storage, so that a balance can be secured between objectives of water quality and flood control.

PAGE 255

239 The results for Lake Toho compare favorably to a relationship for Canadian lakes developed by Klrchner and Dillon (1975). They relate the phosphorus retention or uptake to the areal v/ater load to the lake (m/yr), defined as the lake outflov? divided by lake surface area. For Lake Toho, the areal water load is 2.64 m/yr on the average, and this corresponds to phosphorus uptake of 66 to 82 percent/yr from their relation. The observed uptake is 85 percent. Lake Toho, although receiving excessive loads of nutrients at the present time, is able to process a large percentage by biological or physical uptake. Water quality leaving the lake is much improved over x^ater entering the northern side of the lakes, and other lakes in the chain further reduce total phosphorus concentrations to an acceptable level prior to entry into the Kissimmee River. It should be mentioned that this situation is subject to change if future developments around the lake should increase the loading and runoff rates such that retention times are reduced. If, for example, average v/et season retention times were reduced from 4.0 to 2.0 months, then uptake would drop from 89 percent to 67 percent, assuming a constant first-order decay. Such a reduction would have a tremendous impact on water quality passing through the chain of lakes If the viability and habitat of Lake Toho are to be maintained, some form of nutrient diversion should be considered and implemented in the near future. Advanced waste treatment and spray irrigation of waste water are two possible alternatives which have been considered.

PAGE 256

240 Marsh Areas for Runoff Stora ge and Con trol Previous discussions in Chapters II and IT I have indicated the importance of marsh areas in providing storage for the attenuation of flooding, and possibly treating runoff waters utilizing nutrient uptake. Because the Kissimmee River Basin is composed of large areas of marsh and swamp which could potentially provide some runoff control, a detailed investigation was undertaken by the FCD on Chandler Slough in PU 16 (see Figure 5.10). Both water quantity and water quality response were monitored for the 19 74 wet season (Shih and Hallet t, 1974). Results of the study on a 970-acre section of marsh, monitored for hydrologic and nutrient inputs as well as outputs, indicate several interesting characteristics. Flow m.easurements allow the calculation of retention times in the marsh for July and September, 1974. These range from 2.25 days up to 5.80 days depending on the ratio of storage to outflow. In addition, depth and flow values are related through the Manning coefficient and slope (equation 2.13). For a given slope. Manning's n increases with depth in the marsh as shown in Figure 5.35 from Shih and Hallett (1974). The Corps of Engineers (1954) relationship developed for sawgrass in the Everglades is plotted for comparison. Using the Manning equation, it is possible to develop a stage-discharge curve for the marsh area, which is nonlinear as shown in Figure 5.36. IvTiile the stage and/or storage capacity in the marsh doubles from 1.0 to 2.0 feet, the outflow increases by a factor of 4.0. Thus, the retention time is reduced by approximately one half in this range

PAGE 257

241

PAGE 258

242 O -o o -to ro O .O to o •in >< Q \. li. O CO O O •O (M UJ CD < JL o o o •o o •in j ro (IJ ) OJ o

PAGE 259

243 of the curve, which corresponds closely to the measured retention time. Based on the range of retention times from 3.0 to 5.0 days in September, 1974, the measured uptake of total phosphorus in the marsh was approximately 55 percent, with a reduction from 0.30 to 0.14 mg/1 total P. Thus, the marsh is providing a significant level of nutrient uptake. Retention time and storage In order to more accurately estimate the response of the marsh to various inflow volumes of runoff, a simple routing model has been developed which accepts daily inflows from the HLAND m.odel. It is assum.ed that all runoff from PU 16 passes through the 970-acre marsh before reaching the Kissimmee River. The model is based on the continuity equation and the stage-discharge curve depicted in Figure 5.36. Complete details of the structure of the model are available (Heaney et al 1975). The marsh model was applied in order to determine the distribution of retention times in the marsh as a function of contributing land use in PU 16. Only 40 percent of the runoff is retained longer than 5 days under present land use conditions compared to 75 percent for 1958 land use. If the total marsh size in PU 16 is reduced by one fourth, then the runoff retained longer than 5 days is reduced to 10 percent for 1972 land use, and 20 percent for 1958 land use. These results indicate the significant Influence of contributing runoff and relative marsh size to the predicted value of retention time. The above conditions are analogous to the hydrograph response of pure translation compared to reservoir storage and attenuation.

PAGE 260

244 Pure translation occurs when storage capacity is exceeded in the marsh, and attenuation occurs when inflow runoff is held up by storage and released over a longer period of time. Barnes and Golden (1966) show that flood attenuation is significantly decreased when the percent area in lakes and swamps is less than 15 percent, as in PU 16 (see Figure 2,18). But the attenuation is also dependent upon the ratio of drainage area to marsh area. Results for PU 16 indicate that when this ratio exceeds about 25:1, attenuation is significantly reduced. These findings show that the relative size of marsh storage areas has a profound influence on flood potential. As these areas are drained for improved pasture and other uses, the associated flood control is slowly reduced up to a point, beyond which there is a very rapid loss in attenuation potential. This break-point occurs when the ratio of drainage area to marsh area is about 25:1. Retention time and nutrient uptake As discussed above, the marsh provides up to 55 percent uptake of total P. But this uptake is dependent on many complex factors of biological growth and system response. A simple approach to the problem of predicting nutrient uptake was developed for river and lake systems based on the retention time, and this technique will be extended to the marsh area. It is possible to apply equation 5.5 to solve for C/C if values o of k and T can be determined. Based on the FCD water quality data in the marsh, nutrient uptake rates were calculated for two runoff events, with retention times of about 2,25 days and 4.5 days, respectively. The first event yielded 30 percent uptake, and the second yielded 55 percent

PAGE 261

245 uptake. From this Information, one can solve for k, the first-order decay coefficient in equation 5.5. The resulting value at 20C is 0.15 day which compares favorably to the value reported previously for rivers. The distribution of retention time in the present marsh area indicates an average retention time of 5 days or a potential for approx mately 50 percent uptake. This represents a significant portion of the total uptake vlien compared to the potential after the runoff reaches the river channel. In summary, the experimental marsh area in PU 16 has been studied intensively in order to determine its effect on runoff volumes and quality. Further studies are planned for the immediate future. Results indicate that marsh areas do provide a significant level of control, both from floods and nutrient loading, as long as retention times remain relatively long. An important issue to be addressed in the next wet season involves the first flush effect. Studies will determine if the previous build-up of nutrients through the dry season are flushed out to the river with the first heavy rainfall. Bentley (1969) found this to be the case in Wisconsin marshes due to the spring thawing effect. It remains to be seen if such a condition applied in the Kissimmee River Basin. It should be noted that the heavy rains have short retention times, in general, whd.ch further decrease the potential for nutrient uptake at this time of the season.

PAGE 262

VI. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS I ntroduction The main objective of this research has been to describe and quantify various hydrologic-land use interactions within a watershed or river basin. Surface runoff quantity and quality have been characterized as a function of land use and drainage patterns for several different components in the basin. These include planning units, lake units, and marsh areas, as well as the entire river basin. Characteristics of the hydrologic and nutrient cycles in the Kissimmee Pviver Basin have provided a useful framework for investigating linkage mechanisms between land and water systems. The concept of retention time, T, has been used to distinguish storage and transport mechanisms in each component of the river basin. Both hydrologic and nutrient cycling (quantity and quality) are influenced by the retention time, and as these are altered by various management practices, the potential for storage and treatment is also affected. Storage and Retention Time The hydrologic-land use model HLAND calculates a water balance for each soil-land use complex in the basin, thus providing a continuous estimate of storage changes and runoff production from each planning unit. Source areas of runoff are identified, and characteristic retention times are calculated for different land use and drainage conditions, based on the detention storage constants. Base flow contributions are incorporated as a function of soil moisture storage. 246

PAGE 263

247 Calculated retention tiines average about 130 days in the soil system (Table 5.2), and range from 1.5 to 9.5 days for surface runoff (Table 5.3) from various land uses. Planning units characterized by intensive drainage, as measured by the drainage density index, tend to have lower average retention times (Table 5.10). The above range in values can be placed in perspective by comparing river, lake, and marsh retention times. The analysis of observed hydrographs at S65-E revealed a T value of 3.5 days for the Kissimraee River (C-38) which was used to calibrate HLAND. The hydrologic budget on Lake Toho yielded an average T value of 150 days, while the 970" acre marsh in PU 16 averaged about 5 days. The marsh value of T is somewhat comparable to the lake when considered on a per acre of marsh basis. Similarly, the soil system is within this same order of magnitude. Hov/ever, both the surface runoff and river system are distinguished by considerably smaller values of T, generally less than 5.0 days for a planning unit or the entire river. These results have significant influence with regard to nutrient transport in surface runoff and through the river system. Nutrient source loadings are discussed in Chapter III for various land uses. Results are presented in Figures 3.1 and 3.2, showing that animal density on the land is an important determining factor. Table 5.4 presents the assumed relative nutrient loads for the Kissimmee River Basin, Transport and Retention Time Retention time is an important concept in distinguishing modes of transport from the land, through the soil, and into marshes, lakes, and streams. Flood attenuation and the potential for nutrient loading

PAGE 264

248 depend to a large extent on the length of overland flow through vegetation on the land. Higher nutrient loading tends to be associated with higher runoff rates in areas dominated by intense drainage. The result from the drainage density analysis reveal the distribution of these effects in the basin. Drainage Density Results The detailed analysis of land use and drainage patterns along the lower river system is discussed in Chapter V, Xi7here Table 5.9 presents planning unit summaries for the various drainage categories. Planning unit values range from 2.92 to 8.63 mi/sq mi while individual sloughs range from 1.49 to 9.23 mi/sq mi, with higher values associated with areas of ditched improved pasture. Regions south of S65-C (PU 16 and 17) have the highest densities. These values compare favorably with the average of 4.0 mi/sq mi for the eastern United States. From a hydrologic standpoint. Figure 5.14 shows that 70 percent of total runoff is via surface routes downstream of PU 15 compared to about 30 percent on the upstream side. These results are due to drainage activities which have increased surface runoff volumes, as indicated by drainage density (Figure 5.15). In addition, drainage density serves as an indicator for retention time for particular land uses or planning units (Table 5.10). Short retention times from intensively drained areas can contribute to an increase in surface runoff as well as nutrient loading. The concept of sediment delivery ratio and unit watershed size can be related to drainage density (Figure 5.17), and this leads to a further relationship between drainage density and nutrient loading. Positive

PAGE 265

249 relationships are obtained for the lower Kissimniee River Basin when concentration of total P is plotted versus drainage density (Figures 5.19 and 5.20). Using predicted runoff volumes from HLAND for each planning unit and associated nutrient concentrations, nutrient loading rates by planning unit are calculated. An exponential relationship with is presented in Figure 5.22. Nutrient delivery rates range from 0.01 to 0.45 kg/ac/yr. In general, increased volumes of surface runoff, higher nutrient concentrations, and higher nutrient loadings are associated with higher levels of in the Kisslmmee River Basin. However, nutrient loading is also a function of source contributions, e.g., cattle and fertilizers, as sho^m in Figure 5.24. But the drainage density index has proved to be a very useful measure of hydrologic and nutrient cycling in a depressional watershed. River Routing Results Flood control has long been an important issue in the Kissimmee River Basin. Figure 5.25 shows the daily streamflow response under channelized (1969) and original floodplain conditions. The basin has a marked wet season (June to October) when most of the rainfall and streamflow occurs. Remaining months of the year are dominated by low flows. The 1969 hydrograph is markedly different from the others and is characteristic of a developed drainage system with higher peak flows and travel times. The output from HLAND for each planning unit is routed domi the river to yield the predicted outflow hydrographs. A series of calibration years are compared to measured values at S65-E in Figure 5.27A.

PAGE 266

250 It can be seen that the model is able to simulate the hydrologlc response for flood, drought, and average years. A summary of flov? data for selected planning units (Table 5.12) indicates the distribution of surface and subsurface runoff volumes for 1972 land use conditions. Planning Unit 16, characterized by high drainage density, yields 70 percent as surface runoff compared to 30 percent for PU 13. While total volumes of runoff do not appear to increase under future land use patterns (2020), the percentage of total runoff vrhich is via surface routes increases with the drainage density. For example, surface runoff in PU 13 increases from 30 percent for present land use to about 60 percent under future conditions, primarily due to drainage activities Based on the calibration runs, the basin response seems to be much more sensitive to the land drainage characteristics than to the condition of the narrow floodplain. Travel times were slower under the 1958 regime because upland marsh and slough retention provided storage capacity to delay runoff. The present regime induces excess water into drainage canals at a faster rate, thus creating an increased hydrologic response in the river channel. The routing technique used above incorporates a travel time, or retention time, for the Kissimmee River. A value of 3.5 days was used for the present regime, with a possible upper limit of 9.0 days for the original floodplain. These short retention times result in a 30 percent uptake potential for nutrients in the entire river, compared to 10 percent for the critical section below S65-C where most of the loading is generated. Figure 5.29 shows the generally increasing

PAGE 267

251 trend for total P as one proceeds dowistream along the river. The dashed line signifies the uptake of nutrients which would occur if lateral inflows were completely curtailed, based on a mass balance of inflow volumes and concentrations. Based on the above analysis of river routing and nutrient uptake, it can be concluded that the river and floodplain alone do not provide sufficient nutrient uptake due to the short retention time. In addition, the water entering the upstream end of C-38 is of fairly good quality, and degrades rapidly below S65-C due to agricultural loading. Since nutrient uptake requires relatively long retention times, the greatest potential for uptake would occur in lakes and irarsh storage areas. These areas provide a double service in helping to delay surface runoff from contributing to flood flows also. Lake and Marsh Studies The analysis of Lake Toho for flood control and nutrient uptake yields some interesting results. The present lake level regulation schedule has resulted in a decrease in fluctuation from 29 to 11 percent of the total lake area. Large areas of marsh fringes formerly in the littoral zone are now inundated all year. Based on the hydrologic budget on the lake, average retention time in the lake varies from 4.0 to 6.0 months in wet and dry seasons, respectively. During extreme floods, the value can drop as low as 1.0 month. The value of retention time depends on the hydroperiod variation in the lake, and the average value is generally reduced under regulated conditions due to higher outflows and lower storages in the wet season.

PAGE 268

252 Nutrient loading to Lake Toho is excessive primarily due to treated sewage effluent (Table 5.17), but the lake is successful in reducing concentrations by 85 percent by the time the water leaves the lake (Figure 5.34). The uptake depends on both the first-order decay coefficient and the retention time. Retention times are shorter in the wet season when decay coefficients are at their peak, and longer in the dry season when uptake rates are at a minimuiu. This implies that regulation schedules should be altered to hold water longe during the wet season for more uptake, while also considering the needs of flood storage. If future developments should cause a reduction in retention times from 4.0 to 2.0 months, then uptake could drop from 89 percent to 67 percent, which would have a tremendous impact on v;ater quality. In the long run, some form of nutrient diversion should be considered and implemented in order to maintain the viability and habitat of Lake Toho. The study of a marsh area in PU 16 reveals their potential for flood attenuation and nutrient uptake. Retention times range from 3.0 to 5.0 days and provide from 30 to 55 percent uptake of total P. These results depend to a large extent on contributing drainage area and marsh size. Flood attenuation is significantly reduced when the percent area in lakes and swamps is less than 15 percent (Figure 2.18), or when the ratio of drainage area to marsh area exceeds about 25:1 m PU 16. As marshes are drained for improved pasture and other uses, associated potential for flood attenuation and nutrient uptake is also reduced. The distribution of retention times in the present marsh area was determined by a routing model, and results yielded a 5 -day average.

PAGE 269

253 or a potential for 50 percent nutrient uptake. Thus marshes provide a significant potential for the control of surface runoff if it can be routed through them so as not to reduce retention times below 3.0 days. During excessive rainfall at the beginning of the wet season, the first flush of nutrients to the river may be a problem unless flows can be delayed initially. Summ a ry Conclusions The study of the Kissimmee River Basin has revealed the importance of managing upland drainage and retention times in order to control the quantity and quality of runoff volumes. Excessive drainage activities have led to increased volumes appearing as surface runoff as well as higher nutrient loads. It has been shown that on-site storage in marsh, pond and lake areas provides necessary retention time for flood attenuation and nutrient uptake. The Kissimmee River Basin should be managed in order to maximize retention time and keep water on the land as long as possible through the use of available marsh storage areas and small check dams in heavily drained areas. Alterations of the river floodplain will have little effect except for increasing habitat for fish and wildlife. Nutrient uptake potential is comparatively low in the river channel compared to marsh and lake areas. Lower portions of the Kissimmee River Basin have generally been overdrained. In agricultural areas, adverse drainage effects may be minimized by routing runoff through man-made or marsh storage areas, and on-site storage will help to provide harmonious conditions between both agricultural development and natural land in the basin.

PAGE 270

LIST OF REFERENCES Armstrong, D.E., K.W, Lee, P.D. Uttormark, D.R, Keeney, and R,F, Harris. Pollution of the Great Lakes by Nutrients from Agricultural Land Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1974. Barnes, H.H., Jr., and H.G. Golden. "Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in the United States," U.S. Geol. Survey Water Supply Paper 1674 1966. Bentley, E.M. The Effect of Marshes on Water Quality PhD Thesis, Water Chemistry Dept., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1969. Betson, R.P. "What Is Watershed Runoff," J ourn of Geop h y. R es., 69(8), 1964. Bishop, E.W. Florida Lakes Florida Board of Conservation. Tallahassee, Florida, 1967. Bormann, F.H., and G.E. Likens. "Nutrient Cycling," Science 1^5, 1957, pp. 424-429. Bormann, F.H., and G.E. Likens. "The Watershed-Ecosystem Concept and Studies of Nutrient Cycles," in The Ecosystem. C o ncept in M£L'£I.gA-fi^ sources Management G. Van Dyne, ed., Academic Press, New York, 1969, pp. 49-76. Carlston, C.W., and W.fi. Langbein. "Rapid Approximation of Drainage Density: Line Intersection Method," U.S. Geol. Survey Water Resources Div Bull. 11, I960. Carlston, C.W. "Drainage Density and Streamflow," U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 422C, 1963. Chebotarev, N.P. Theory of Stream Runoff Israel Program for Scientific Translations, 1966. (ofeS > Chen, C.W., and G.T. Orlob. Ecologic Simulation for Aquatic Environm ents, Water Resources Engineers, Inc., Calif., 1972. Chow, V.T. Handbook of Applied Hydrology McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1964. 254

PAGE 271

255 Colman, E.A. Vegetation and Wate rshed Man agement Ronald Press Co., Nev7 York, 1953. Corps of Engineers. Interim Report on Evaluation of Mann ing's n in Vegetated Areas Office of the District Engineer, Jacksonville, Florida, 1954. Corps of Engineers. General Design Memorandum, Kissimmee Rive r Basin Jacksonville District, Florida, 1956. Corps of Engineers. Water Quality for River-Reservoir Systems The Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California, 19 74^ Crawford, N.H., and A.S. Donigan, Jr. Pesticide Transport for Ag ricultural Lands Environmental Protection Agency. Washington dTc. 1973. Crawford, N.H., and R.K. Linsley. The Stanford Watershed Model MK. IV., Tech. Rept. 39 Dept. Civ. Eng., Stanford University, 1966. DeWiest, R.J.M. Geohydrology John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Nevj York, 1965. Douglass, J.E. "Effects of Species and Arrangement of Forests on Evapotranspiration," in Forest Hydrology W.E. Sopper and H.W. Lull, eds., Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1967, pp. 451-461. Drummund, R.R. '\Jhen Is a Stream a Stream," Prof. Geogr. 21^(1), 1974. Dunne, T., and R.D. Black. "An Experimental Investigation of Runoff Production in Permeable Soils," Water Resources Res. 6(2), 1970, pp. 418-490. Dunst, R.C., S.M. Born, D.D. Uttormark et al. Survey of Lake Rehabilitation Techniques and Experiences Technical Bulletin No. 75^ Dept. of Natural Resources, Wisconsin, 1974. Eagleson, P.S. Dynamic Hydrology McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1970. Edmondson, W.T. "Phosphorus, Nitrogen, and Algae in Lake Washingron After Diversion of Sewage," Science 169 1970, pp. 690-691. Edmondson, W.T. "Nutrients and Phy toplankton in Lake Washington," Limnol. and Oceanogr. S pecial Symposia 1, 1972, pp. 172-188. Edmondson, W.T. "Lake Washington," in Environmental Quality and Wa t Development. C.R. Goldman e t al eds., W.H. Freeman Co., San Francisco, 1973, pp. 281-298. Environmental Protection Agency. Storm Water Management Model (4 Volumes), Washington, D.C., 1971. Environmental Protection Agency. Ecosystems .toalysis ^_t_hg^g S wamp and Estuaries Atlanta, Georgia, 1973. er

PAGE 272

256 Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Conmission. R ecommen d ed Progr am for t he Kissimmee River B asin, Tallahassee, Florida, 1957 Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Lake TohopekaliRa Drawdown Annual Progress Report, 19 72. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Lake Tohopekali>>a Drawdown Annual Progress Report, 19 73. Fox, J.L., and P.L. Brezonik. Effects of Drawdown on Lake Water Preliminary Kept, to Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis Oregon, 1974. Giiisti, E.V. and G.R. Schneider. "A Relation Between Flood;; and Drought Flows in the Piedmont Province in Virginia," U.S. Geol Survey Prof. Pape r 45QC. 1962, pp. 128-129. ~ Gleason, P.J. Chemical Quality of Wate r in Conservation Area 2A and Associated Canals, Tech. Pub. #74-1, Central and Southet~Fl^da Flood Control District, West Palm Beach, Florida, 1974. Glymph, L.M., and H.N. Holtan. "Land Treatment in Agricultural Watershed Hydrology Research," in Effects of Watershed Change o n Streamflow, W.L. Moore and C.W. Morgan, eds.. University of Texas, 1969, pp. 44-68. Glymph, L.M., H.N. Holtan, and C.B. England. "Hydrologic Response of Watershed to Land Use Management," Jour, of Irrig and Drainage Div^^_ASCE, 97(IR2), 19 71, pp. 305-318. Gray, D.M. ed. Hand book on the Principles of Hydrology Water Information Center, Inc., New York, 1973. Gregory, K.J., and D.E. Walling. "The Variation of Drainage Density Withm a Catchment," Bull. Int. Assoc Sci. Hyd. 13 1968 pp. 61-68. ~ ^ — — Gregory, K.J., and D.E. Walling. Drainage Basin Form and Proce<^s John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1973. ~' Harrold, L.L., D.L. Brakensiek, and J.L. McGuinness et al "Influence of Land Use and Treatment on the Hydrology of Small Watersheds at Coshocton, Ohio," U.S. Dept. Agr. Te ch. Bull. Heaney, J.P., W.C. Huber, P.B. Bedient, and J.P. Bowden. Environmental Resources Management Stud ies in the Kissimmee River Ba sin Fin^f~ Report to the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District West Palm Beach, Florida, 1975. ^cricc, Henderson, F.M., Open Channel Flow The Mac.millan Co., New York, 1966.

PAGE 273

257 Hevjlett, J.D., and J.D, Helvey. "Effects of Forest Clear Felling on the Storm Hydrograph," Water Resources Res. 6^(3), 1970, pp. 168-182. Hewlett, J.D., and A.R. Hibbert. "Factors Affecting the Response of Small Watersheds to Precipitation in Humid Areas," in Forest Hydrology W.E. Sopper and H.W. Lull, eds., Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1967, pp. 275-290. Hibbert, A.R. "Forest Treatment Effects on Water Yield," in Fore st H ydrology W.E. Sopper and H.W. Lull, eds., Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1967, pp. 527-543. Holtan, H.W. "A Concept for Infiltration Estimates in Watershed Engineering," U.S. Dept. of Agric. Agricultural Research Service ARS 41-51 1961. Horton, R.E. "Drainage Basin Characteristics," Trans. Amer. Geoph ys. Union, 13, 1932, pp. 350-361. Horton, R.E. "The Role of Infiltration in the Hydrologic Cycle," Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union 14, 1933, pp. 446-460. Horton, R.E, "Erosional Development of Streams and Tlieir Drainage Basins; Hydrophysical Approach to Quantitative Morphology," G eol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 56, 1945, pp. 275-370. Hov7e, G.M., H.O. Slayraaker, and D.M. Harding. "Flood Hazard in MidWales," Nature, 212, 1966, pp. 584-585. Huff, D.D. J.F. Koonce, and W.R. Ivarson. "Simulation of Urban Runoff, Nutrient Loading, and Biotic Response of a Shallow Eutrophic Lake," in Modeli ng the Eutrophication Process E.J. Middlebrooks et al. eds., Utah State University, Logan, 1973, pp. 33-57. Joyner, B.F. Appraisal of Chemical and Biological Cond i tions of Lake Okeechobee. Florida U.S. Geol. Survey, Open-File Report No. 71006, 1971. Kirchner, W.B. "An Examination of the Relationship between Drainage Basin Morphology and the Export of Phosphorus," Contribution No. 7 of the Canadian Shield Research Project, Toronto, 1974. Kirchner, W.B., and P.J. Dillon. "An Empirical Method of Estimating the Retention of Phosphorus in Lakes," Water Resources Res. 11(1), 1975, pp. 182-183. Kirkby, M.J. "Infiltration Throughflow, and Overland Flow," in W ater Earth, and Man R.J. Chorley, ed., London, 1969, pp. 215-228.^ Kittredge, J. Forest Influences McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1948.

PAGE 274

258 I.angbein, VJ.B. "Topographic Characteristics of Drainage Basins," U.S. Geol. Survey Wafer Supply Paper 968_C, 1947, pp. 125-157. Langbein, VJ.B. "Hydrologic Studies," in U.S Geol. S urvey Water Supply Pap er 1255 G.G. Parker, G.E. Ferguson et__al 1955, pp. 511-551. Lee, M.T., and J.W. Delleur. A Program for Estimating Ru noff from Indiana Watersheds, Tech. Kept. 24, Purdue University, Water Resources Res. Center, 1972. Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller. Fluvial Processes in Hydrology Freeman Press, San Francisco, 1964. Likens, G.E., F.H. Bormann, and N.M. Johnson. "Nitrof ication: Importance to Nutrient Losses from a Cutover Forested Ecosystem," I Science 163 1969, pp. 1205-1206. Linacre, E.T., B.B. Hicks, G.R. Sainty, and G. Grange. "The Evaporation from a Swamp," Agric Met. 1_, 1970, pp 375-396. Linsley, R.K. M.A. Kohler, and J.L.H. Paulhus. H ydrology for Engineers McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1975. Loehr, R.C. "Characteristics and Comparative Magnitude of Non-Point Sources," Water Pollution Control Fed. 46(8), 1974, pp. 1849-1872. Lull, H.W. and W.E. Sopper. "Prediction of Average Annual and Seasonal Streamflow of Physiographic Units in the Northeast," in Forest Hydrology VJ.E. Sopper and H.W. Lull, eds Pergamon PresT^, Oxford, 1967, pp. 507-521. McCarthy, G.T. "The Unit Hydrograph and Flood Routing," Unpublished Manuscript, North Atlantic Div., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1938. McCoy, R.M. "Rapid Measurement of Drainage Density," Geol. Soc Amer. Bull 82, 1971, pp. 757-762. ~ Marshall, A.R., J.H. Hartwell, D.S. Anthony et al The KissimmeeOk eechobee Basin Report to the Florida Cabinet, Tallahassee, Florida, 1972. Melton, M.A. "An Analysis of the Relations Among Elements of Clim.ate, Surface Properties, and Geomorphology Office of Naval Researc h Geography Branch, Project N.R. 389-042: Technical Report iT j Columbia University, 1957. Midwest Research Institute. User's Handbook for Assessment of Water Pollution from Nonpoint Sources Kansas City, Mo., 1973.

PAGE 275

259 Morisawa, M,E. "i\ccuracy of Deteriiu.nation of Stream Lengths from Topographic Maps," Trans. Amer. Geophys. U nion, 38, 195 7, pp. 86-88. Morisawa, M.E. "Relation of Discharge and Stream Length in Eastern United States," Proc. Int. Hyd. Symp. Fort Collins, Colorado, 1967, pp. 173-176. O'Connor, D,J., R.V. Thomann, and D.M. DiToro. Dynamic Water Quality Forecasting and Management Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1973. Odum, E.P. Fundamentals of Ecology W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, 1971. Odum, H.T. Cypress Wetlands for Water Management, Recycling, and Conservation Annual Report to the Rockefeller Foundation and the National Science Foundation, 1975. Ogrosky, H.O., and V. Mockus "Hydrology of Agricultural Lands," Handbook of Applied Hydro logy;, V.T. Chow, ed., McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1964, pp. 21-1-21-97. Orange County Pollution Control Dept. Shingle Creek Basin Report Orange County, Florida, 1973. Orlob, G.T., and P.C. Woods. "Water Quality Management in Irrigation Systems," Jour, of Irrig. and Drainage Dir. ASCE, 93(IR2), 1967, pp. 49-66. Orsborn, J.F. "Drainage Density in Drift-Covered Basins," Jour, of Hyd. Div. ASCE, 96(HY1) 1970, pp. 183-192. Penman, H.C. Vegetation and Hydrolo gy, Commonwealth Bureau of Soils, Harpenden, 1963. Pereira, H.C. "Effects of Land Use on the Water and Energy Budgets of Tropical Watersheds," in Forest Hydrology W.E. Sopner and H.W. Lull, eris., Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1967, pp. 435-450. Pereira, H.C. Land Use and Water Resources Cambridge Unive-'-sity Press, 1973. ~~ Philip, J.R. "The Theory of Infiltration. I. The Infiltration Equation and Its Significance," Soij^cience, 83, 1957, pp. 345-357. Rich, L.G. Environmental Systems Engineer ing. McGraw-Hill, New York. 1973. Sawyer, C.N. ||Fertilization of Lakes by Agricultural and Urban Drainage," J. New England Water Works Assoc. 51, 1947, pp. 1091 2 7 •

PAGE 276

260 Selby, M.J. "Morphometry of Drainage Basins in Areas of Pumice Lithology," Prcc. Fifth New Zealand Geogr. Conference, New Zealand Geogr. Soc 1968, pp. 169-17A. Shannon, E.E., and P.L. Brezonik. "Relationships Between Lake Trophic State and Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loading Rates," En viron. Sci. and Technol. ^(8), 1972, pp. 719-725. Shih, S.F., and D.y. Hallett. Impact of Upland Marsh on Water Quality Preliminary Report Central and Southern Florida~Flood Control District, West Palm Beach, Florida, 1974. Smith, K.G. "Erosional Processes and Landforms in Badlands National Monument, South Dakota," Geol. Soc. Amer. Bul l.. 69, 1958, pn 975-1008. ~ Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey for Orange County, Flor ida, U.S. Dept. of Agric, 1960. Soil Conservation Service. Land Capability Classification Agriculture Handbook No. 210, U.S. Dept. of Agric, 1961. Soil Conservation Service. National Engineering Handbook: Hydrolog y, Sec. 4, U.S. Dept. of Agric, Washington, D.C., 1969. Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey for Okeechobee County, Florid a. U.S. Dept. of Agric, 1971. Soil Conservation Service. Report for Kissimmee-Everglades Area, Flor ida, U.S. Dept. of Agric, Gainesville, Fla., 1973. Sopper, W.E., and H.W. Lull, eds. International Symposium on Forest Hydrolo gy, Pergamen Press, Oxford, 1967. Strahler, A.N. "Quantitative Analysis of Watershed Geomorphologv, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union 38, 1957, pp. 913-920. Strahler, A.N. "Quantitative Geoimrphology of Drainage Basins and Channel Networks," in Handbook of Applied Hydrology. V.T. Chow ed., 1964, pp. 4-39-4-76: Tanner, C.B. "Measurement of Evapotranspiration, in Irrigation of Agricultural Lands. R.M. Hagan et al., eds., Amer. Soc. Agron." Madison, Wis., 1967, pp. 534-574. Taylor, A.W., W.M. Edwards, and E.C.Simpson. "Nutrients in Streams Draining Woodland and Farmland Near Coshocton, Ohio," Water Resources Res .. 7(1). 1971, pp. 81-89. Tennessee Valley Authority. "Area-Stream Factor Correlation," Internat Assoc. Sci. Hyd. Bull. 10_, 1965, pp. 22-37.

PAGE 277

261 Thiessen, A.H. "Precipitation for Large Areas," Monthly Weather Rev. 39, 1911, pp. 1082-1084. Thornthwaite, C.W. "An Approach Toward a Rational Classification of Climate," Geogr. Rev. 38, 1948, pp. 55-94. Thornthwaite, C.W., and J.R. Mather. The Water Balance Drexel Institute of Technology, Publications in Climatoloty 8^(3), 1955. Trainer, F.W. "Drainage Density as an Indicator of Base Flow in Part of the Potomac River," U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 650C, 1969, pp. 177-183, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, USDAHL-70 Model of V/atershed Hydrology Tech. Bull. No. 1435, Washington, D.C., 1970. Uttormark, P.D., J.D. Captin, and K.M. Green. Estimating Nutrient Loading of Lake s from Non-Point Sources Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1974. Viessman, W., I.E. Harbaugh, and J.W, Knapp. Introduction to Hydrology Intext Educational Publishers, New York, 1972. Vollenweider R.A. "Scientific Fundamentals of the Eutrophlcation of Lakes and Flowing Waters, with Particular Reference to Nitrogen and Phosphorus as Factors in Eutrophlcation," Organ, for Econ Co-operation and Dev., Dir. for Sci. Aff. France, 1968. Welch, E.B., C.A. Rock, and J.D. Krill. "Long-term Lake Recovery Related to Available Phosphorus," in Modeling the Eutrophlcation Process E.J. Middlebrooks et al eds., Utah State Univ., Logan, 1973, pp. 5-15. Woodruff, J.F,, and J.D. Hewlett. "Predicting and Mapping the Average Hydrologic Response for the Eastern United States," Water Resources Res ., 6, 19 70, pp. 1312-1326.

PAGE 278

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Philip Bruce Bedient was born January 13, 1948, in Greenbrook Township, New Jersey. He graduated from Sarasota High School in June, 1965. After attending the University of Mississippi for one year, he transferred to the University of Florida in 1967 and received a Bachelor of Science with High Honors in Physics in June, 1969. He continued in the Department of Physics as a graduate student before transferring to the Department of Environmental Engineering at the University of Florida in September, 1970. He worked until December, 1971, as a graduate student taking courses and pursuing research toward the degree of Master of Science with a major in Environ mental Engineering which was conferred in March, 1972. After receiving an educational delay from the U.S. Army, he stayed on in the department as a graduate assistant. He completed work on the Upper St. Johns River Basin Study prior to the completion o the present study on the Kissimmee River Basin, Florida. He will receive the Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Engineering in June, 1975. After serving three months with the U.S. Army, he x^/ill assume a faculty position as Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Science and Engineering at Rice University, Houston, Texas. Philip Bruce Bedient is married to the former Cynthia Marie Coats. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa. 262

PAGE 279

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. : / Dr. Wayne C. Huber Assistant Professor Environmental Engineering Sciences I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. DrT^'James P. Heaney Assistant Professor / Enviromnental Engineering Sciences I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Dr. Howard T. Odum Graduate Research Professor Environmental Engineering Sciences I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / ? / Z / Ilr-v'"John J. "Ewel Assistant Professor of Botany This dissertation was submitted to the Dean of the College of Engineering and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. April, 1975 Dean, College of Engineering Dean, Graduate School