Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
net/publication/236512760
Article in Transactions of the ASABE (American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers) · April 2013
DOI: 10.13031/2013.42681
CITATIONS READS
29 588
5 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Linking remote sensing and process-based hydrological models to increase understanding of wildfire effects on watersheds and improve post-fire remediation efforts View
project
All content following this page was uploaded by William J. Elliot on 31 July 2014.
ABSTRACT. At the hillslope profile and/or field scale, a simple Windows graphical user interface (GUI) is available to
easily specify the slope, soil, and management inputs for application of the USDA Water Erosion Prediction Project
(WEPP) model. Likewise, basic small watershed configurations of a few hillslopes and channels can be created and simu-
lated with this GUI. However, as the catchment size increases, the complexity of developing and organizing all WEPP
model inputs greatly increases due to the multitude of potential variations in topography, soils, and land management
practices. For these types of situations, numerical approaches and special user interfaces have been developed to allow
for easier WEPP model setup, utilizing either publicly available or user-specific geospatial information, e.g., digital ele-
vation models (DEMs), geographic information system (GIS) soil data layers, and GIS land use/land cover data layers.
We utilize the Topographic Parameterization (TOPAZ) digital landscape analysis tool for channel, watershed, and sub-
catchment delineation and to derive slope inputs for each of the subcatchment hillslope profiles and channels. A user has
the option of specifying a single soil and land management for each subcatchment or utilizing the information in soils and
land use/land cover GIS data layers to automatically assign those values for each grid cell. Once WEPP model runs are
completed, the output data are analyzed, results interpreted, and maps of spatial soil loss and sediment yields are generat-
ed and visualized in a GIS. These procedures have been used within a number of GIS platforms including GeoWEPP, an
ArcView/ArcGIS extension that was the first geospatial interface to be developed in 2001. GeoWEPP allows experienced
GIS users the ability to import and utilize their own detailed DEM, soil, and/or land use/land cover information or to ac-
cess publicly available spatial datasets. A web-based GIS system that used MapServer web GIS software for handling and
displaying the spatial data and model results was initially released in 2004. Most recently, Google Maps and OpenLayers
technologies have been integrated into the web WEPP GIS software to provide significant enhancements. This article dis-
cusses in detail the logic and procedures for developing the WEPP model inputs, the various WEPP GIS interfaces, and
provides example real-world geospatial WEPP applications. Further work is ongoing in order to expand these tools to al-
low users to customize their own inputs via the internet and to link the desktop GeoWEPP with the web-based GIS system.
Keywords. Geographic information systems, Prediction, Soil erosion, WEPP.
W
EPP is a process-based, distributed- FORTRAN and a rudimentary DOS-based interface written
parameter, continuous-simulation model for in the C language. In response to user responses and re-
erosion prediction (Flanagan and Nearing, quests, a Windows-based stand-alone interface written in
1995). The main computer program was de- C++ was subsequently created by USDA-ARS (Flanagan et
veloped by a large team of federal government scientists, al., 1998) for hillslope profile and small watershed simula-
university researchers, and action agency representatives tions. GIS-linked model applications were also initially
from 1985 to 1995, with an official model release ceremo- created in the late 1990s, and web-based applications of the
ny in Des Moines, Iowa, in July 1995. At the time of re- model have been developed by several agencies as well
lease, the software available was a science model written in since then. This article describes the two main WEPP mod-
el geospatial interfaces, the procedures used within the
software programs for creating the necessary WEPP model
Submitted for review in April 2012 as manuscript number SW 9722; inputs, and how the spatial WEPP model runoff, soil ero-
approved for publication by the Soil & Water Division of ASABE in Oc- sion, and sediment loss outputs are processed and dis-
tober 2012. Presented at the 2011 Symposium on Erosion and Landscape played.
Evolution (ISELE) as Paper No. 11084.
The authors are Dennis C. Flanagan, ASABE Fellow, Research Agri-
cultural Engineer, and James R. Frankenberger, Information Technology
Specialist, USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, West
Lafayette, Indiana; Thomas A. Cochrane, Senior Lecturer, Department of BACKGROUND
Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, WEPP is a complex, process-based soil erosion predic-
Christchurch, New Zealand; Chris S. Renschler, Associate Professor, De- tion model that incorporates the fundamentals of soil hy-
partment of Geography, University at Buffalo, The State University of
New York, Buffalo, New York; and William J. Elliot, ASABE Member, drologic and erosion science. The FORTRAN model
Research Engineer, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Sta- (v2012.8) currently consists of 237 subroutines that simu-
tion, Moscow, Idaho. Corresponding author: Dennis C. Flanagan, late a myriad of processes including water infiltration into
USDA-ARS NSERL, 275 S. Russell Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907- soil, surface runoff, soil water percolation, evapotranspira-
2077; phone: 765-494-7748; e-mail: Dennis.Flanagan@ars.usda.gov.
Figure 1. Example application showing steps involved in automatically creating WEPP watershed inputs from a DEM: (a) watershed and chan-
nel delineation using a selected outlet point and a critical source area, (b) discretization of subcatchments (hillslopes) based on channels, and
(c) representative slope profile definition for each hillslope. The inset in (c) shows a DEM-derived flowpath used to define a representative pro-
file (from Cochrane and Flanagan, 2003).
Figure 3. Application of GeoWEPP to a burned forested region in Jefferson County, Colorado, draining into the southwest portion of Cheesman
Lake. Spatial soil loss results are from a 10-year model simulation. Red pixels are above the target value of 1 t ha-1 year-1, and green pixels are
below this target value.
Server
Local GIS Server Data Apache2, PHP, WEPP, TOPAZ, CLIGEN,
USGS land use, PRISM, DEM, TOPAZ GDAL, MapServer GIS Remote web GIS image
model results, WEPP model results data (USGS, Google)
Prepwepp - invoking WEPP for all flowpaths
Other local data: WEPP management and watershed representative hillslopes Remote NRCS SSURGO
database, CLIGEN database soil properties
Other C++ programs
Figure 5. Major software components in the WEPP GIS web-based interface. The client web browser communicates with the server software to
setup WEPP model runs and view results.
the DEM to process with TOPAZ. ure 6, with channel networks, watershed, and subcatch-
The first run of TOPAZ delineates the channel network, ments delineated with the TOPAZ program. Also shown in
and then from the channel network the user selects a water- figure 6 are the average annual spatial soil loss results pre-
shed outlet point. The second run of TOPAZ defines the dicted by the WEPP model for a 10-year simulation period.
watershed and subcatchments from the outlet. The delinea- There are some drawbacks to running the WEPP water-
tion area is limited to 0.25° latitude by 0.25° longitude, to shed simulations on the web, particularly when involving
ensure that TOPAZ can handle the extracted DEM and to flowpath simulations in which a watershed may require
allow for a reasonable response time. If the watershed de- thousands of WEPP model runs. To prevent excessively
lineated is acceptable, the Prepwepp program is executed long model run times, the watershed area has been restrict-
again to generate WEPP inputs from the extracted DEM, ed in size, and the maximum number of simulation years is
land use, soils, and TOPAZ watershed structures (fig. 5). currently limited to ten for flowpath simulations. For expe-
WEPP is then run on the watershed (subcatchments and rienced WEPP users, the inability to create new manage-
channels) and/or flowpaths, and Prepwepp interprets the re- ment scenarios or to use observed climate data are other
sults and produces maps that are sent to the client using drawbacks. For these types of simulations, the desktop
MapServer. A screen shot of this interface is shown in fig- GeoWEPP application is recommended.
Figure 6. Current WEPP web-based watershed interface using OpenLayers and Google Maps, showing the spatial soil loss results of a 10-year
model simulation in Bartholomew County, Indiana.
Figure 7. A portion of the School Fire in southeast Washington State, analyzed with GeoWEPP in flowpath analysis mode. The redder the pixel,
the greater the erosion rate predicted during a year with a 10-year return-period runoff event (Elliot et al., 2006). The darker the green pixels,
the lower the predicted fraction of a user-specified soil loss target rate.
Figure 8. Sediment yields simulated for contributing hillslope areas into channel segments on the northeast corner of Big Bear Lake, San Ber-
nardino County, California. Note that the map illustrates which hillslope polygons generate potentially the greatest amount of sediment (reddish
subcatchments) in the event of a high-intensity burn wildfire.
to that done for Big Bear Lake was carried out to determine mental physical processes (including infiltration, runoff,
the current levels of sediment generation and the likely and soil detachment), a number of interface programs and
amount of sediment that would be generated in the event of databases have also been created to allow the program to be
wildfire. This analysis, like the School Fire analysis, used more easily applied by field engineers, foresters, and soil
topographic information generated for hillslope polygons conservation personnel. The Windows interface for the
from the web interface to run the online ERMiT post-fire model is typically used for hillslope and simple watershed
erosion model to evaluate the probability of large sediment applications but is too cumbersome to apply model scenari-
generation if there were a wildfire. Like the Big Bear anal- os for larger watersheds.
ysis, the study determined that reducing the fuel load with GIS-based interfaces, such as the GeoWEPP approach,
prescribed fire should be considered to minimize the ero- allow much easier model setup for larger and more com-
sion risk after a wildfire (Lewis, 2011). plex watershed simulations, since digital elevation data and
other land use/land cover and soil GIS data layers can be
automatically processed to create the watershed structure
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS and slope inputs, and other geospatial data can provide soil
and land use information. The community of international
WEPP is a process-based soil erosion prediction model
users of geospatial WEPP applications is continuously in-
that has been developed over the past 25 years by the
creasing because GeoWEPP enables them to use their own
USDA. In addition to the core model that simulates funda-
data formats and standards that are different from the U.S.
V i e w p u b l i c a t i o n s t a t s