<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0"><?xmltex \bartext{Innovative water resources management -- understanding and balancing interactions between humankind and nature}?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">PIAHS</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">PIAHS</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Proc. IAHS</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2199-899X</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/piahs-379-131-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>Framework for quantifying flow and sediment yield to diagnose and solve the
aggradation problem<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> of an ungauged catchment</article-title><alt-title>Framework for quantifying flow and sediment yield</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Framework for quantifying flow and sediment yield}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{S.~K.~Tamang et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Tamang</surname><given-names>Sagar Kumar</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Song</surname><given-names>Wenjun</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Fang</surname><given-names>Xing</given-names></name>
          <email>xing.fang@auburn.edu</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4188-9013</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Vasconcelos</surname><given-names>Jose</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Anderson</surname><given-names>J. Brian</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Saint Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
MN 55414, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Department of Civil Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849,
USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Xing Fang (xing.fang@auburn.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>5</day><month>June</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>379</volume>
      <fpage>131</fpage><lpage>138</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>30</day><month>December</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><year/></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><year/></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>21</day><month>January</month><year>2018</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/379/131/2018/piahs-379-131-2018.html">This article is available from https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/379/131/2018/piahs-379-131-2018.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/379/131/2018/piahs-379-131-2018.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/379/131/2018/piahs-379-131-2018.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract>
    <p id="d1e122">Estimating sediment deposition in a stream, a standard procedure
for dealing with aggradation problem is complicated in an ungauged catchment
due to the absence of necessary flow data. A serious aggradation problem
within an ungauged catchment in Alabama, USA, blocked the conveyance of a
bridge, reducing the clearance under the bridge from several feet to a
couple of inches. A study of historical aerial imageries showed
deforestation in the catchment by a significant amount over a period
consistent with the first identification of the problem. To further diagnose
the aggradation problem, due to the lack of any gauging stations, local
rainfall, flow, and sediment measurements were attempted. However, due to
the difficulty of installing an area-velocity sensor in an actively
aggrading stream, the parameter transfer process for a hydrologic model was
adopted to understand/estimate streamflow. Simulated discharge combined with
erosion parameters of MUSLE (modified universal soil loss equation) helped
in the estimation of sediment yield of the catchment. Sediment yield for the
catchment showed a significant increase in recent years. A two-dimensional
hydraulic model was developed at the bridge site to examine potential
engineering strategies to wash sediments off and mitigate further
aggradation. This study is to quantify the increase of sediment yield in an
ungauged catchment due to land cover changes and other contributing factors
and develop strategies and recommendations for preventing future aggradation
in the vicinity of the bridge.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e132">Soil erosion is the process of degradation of the top layer of soils by
mechanical forces of wind or water. About USD 30–40 billion
is lost in
the US alone due to on and off-site effects such as loss in agricultural
productivity, blockage of conveyance of irrigation channel, etc. (Morgan,
2009). One of the most important dataset for modeling soil erosion and
quantifying the sediment yield is the streamflow. Streamflow data can be
obtained from gauges installed in a stream or be simulated/projected using a
hydrologic model. Even in the case of a hydrologic model, streamflow data is
necessary as the model's resemblance to reality can be increased through
calibration with the existing gauged data (Sivapalan, 2003). However,
gauged data is not available in all streams due to financial constraints and
installation difficulties. Runoff response prediction in an ungauged
catchment remains a complex problem. Considering the scope and importance of
the prediction in the ungauged basin (PUB), the International Association of
Hydrological Sciences put forward PUB as an initiative for the decade of
2003–2012.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Study Area and Input Data</title>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p id="d1e143">Location of Dean Road Bridge and Aggradation Problem.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/379/131/2018/piahs-379-131-2018-f01.jpg"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e152">Soapstone Branch, a tributary of the Little Choctawhatchee River located in
Dale County, Alabama (AL) has been experiencing a serious aggradation
problem (Fig. 1). This problem was first
identified in 2013 and aggravated over time reducing the conveyance of the
Dean Road bridge from 2.44 m (8 ft.)
to a couple of inches by 2014. A detailed study
of historical aerial imageries for the Soapstone branch catchment revealed
significant land cover changes over a period of<?pagebreak page132?> several years. In the period
from 2011 to 2015, change in land cover due to clear cutting of the trees in
the vicinity of the stream channel is clearly visible
(Fig. 2). For understanding these effects on the
process of aggradation and for quantifying the amount of sediments, a
hydrological model together with a sediment model was necessary.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p id="d1e157">Aerial Imagery of a Portion of Soapstone Branch in <bold>(a)</bold> 2011 and
<bold>(b)</bold> 2015.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/379/131/2018/piahs-379-131-2018-f02.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e173">Installation attempts of the area-velocity sensor to record the streamflow
data as required in the calibration of the hydrological model failed due to
severe aggradation occurring in the stream. The sensor was buried after each
storm event and was unable to capture flow dynamics. Therefore, a need for
parameter transfer of a hydrological model from a nearby catchment was felt.</p>
      <p id="d1e176">It has been well established that among different options for selecting
donor catchment for parameter transfer process, spatial proximity performs
best. Choctawhatchee river catchment draining near Newton, AL and covering
an area of 1776.7 sq. km. (686 sq. miles) was selected as donor catchment for parameter
transfer process to Soapstone Branch catchment (7 sq. km. (2.7 sq. miles)). Also, for
verifying the parameter transfer process of Soil Moisture accounting (SMA)
model, Double Bridges Creek catchment draining near Enterprise, AL and
covering an area of 54.4 sq. km. (21 sq. miles)  was also selected. Both of the catchments
were selected based on their spatial proximity and gauged data availability.</p>
      <?pagebreak page133?><p id="d1e179">Different types of data viz. digital elevation model (DEM from AlabamaView),
land cover data (National Land Cover Database–NLCD), soil data (Soil Survey
Geographic Database–SSURGO), streamflow data (U.S. Geological Survey),
daily evapotranspiration data (from National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration–NOAA), and precipitation data (from U.S. Climate Reference
Network's quality controlled dataset; Auburn University Mesonet; Local
Climatological data from NOAA) were obtained for donor and receiver
catchments. Three rainfall stations viz. Troy, Union Springs, and Dothan
were used for donor catchment whereas, for receiver catchments, rainfall
data from Dothan was used due to data availability and spatial proximity
(Tamang, 2017).<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?></p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p id="d1e185">Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency of the Model Output due to Percent Change
in Parameter Values.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/379/131/2018/piahs-379-131-2018-f03.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><caption><p id="d1e196">Percent Error in Volume of the Model Output due to Percent Change
in Parameter Values.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/379/131/2018/piahs-379-131-2018-f04.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Model Overview</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Hydrologic Model</title>
      <p id="d1e216">Hydrologic Engineering Center's Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS, Feldman,
2000) was developed by US Army Corps of Engineers. HEC-HMS consists of four
different models to represent each component of the runoff process viz.
models to compute runoff volume, direct runoff, baseflow, and channel
routing. HEC-HMS is capable of performing both event and continuous
hydrologic simulations. The Soil Moisture Accounting (SMA) algorithm is a
continuous, semi-distributed and empirical loss method available within
HEC-HMS. It consists of series of different layers for the movement of water
within the land-based components (Bennett, 1998).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><caption><p id="d1e221">HEC-HMS Model Setup for Soapstone Branch Catchment.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/379/131/2018/piahs-379-131-2018-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><caption><p id="d1e232">The C Factor Raster Grid of the Soapstone Branch Catchment in
2015.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/379/131/2018/piahs-379-131-2018-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation</title>
      <p id="d1e247">One of the most widely adopted methods for estimating soil erosion worldwide
is Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). Modified Universal Soil Loss
Equation (MUSLE) is an advancement over USLE, developed by replacing the
rainfall erosivity factor with the runoff energy factor (Williams, 1975).
Unlike USLE for annual sediment application, MUSLE is an event-based soil
loss model which considers the effect of runoff energy on generating
sediment. The mathematical expression for MUSLE is given by:

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M1" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.56</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LS</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          Where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the sediment yield in tons, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the runoff volume in acre-ft,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">p</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the peak discharge (ft<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> or cfs), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mi>K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the soil erodibility
factor, LS is the topographic factor (ft), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the cover management factor,
and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the support practice factor.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Hydraulic Model</title>
      <p id="d1e372">HEC's River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) version 5.0.3 (Brunner, 2016) was used
in the present study. The model enables the simulation of the river using
the two-dimensional<?pagebreak page134?> (2-D) flow equations, also referred to as the shallow
water equations. Inflows can be admitted through boundaries at the edge of
the solution domain or even through direct rainfall. Use of 2-D solution is
particularly adequate to consider effects of river meandering, proposed
alternatives for stream modification and changes of velocity magnitude
across the Dean-Road bridge cross-section.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Methodology</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Catchment Delineation</title>
      <p id="d1e387">Catchment delineation for the study area was performed using HEC's
Geospatial Hydrologic Modeling Extension: HEC-GeoHMS (Doan, 2000). A stream
definition of 0.4 sq. km was selected by using a trial and error method to
match the generated streams with the natural streams. This procedure divided
the donor catchment into 15 subcatchments and seven subcatchments for
Soapstone Branch watershed.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Land Cover Map Generation</title>
      <p id="d1e396">Unsupervised classification using the Iterative Self-Organizing Data
Analysis Technique (ISODATA, Nellis et al., 1998) with 40 classes of the
similar spectral signature was applied to 2011 and 2015 National Agriculture
Imagery Program (NAIP) dataset using ERDAS IMAGINE 2016 software. Using
multispectral NAIP imagery, these 40 classes were categorized into 4
different land use types viz. forest (34.4 % in 2011; 28.7 % in 2015),
agricultural land (56.3 % in 2011; 58.1 % in 2015), rangeland (8.7 %
in 2011; 12.6 % in 2015), and water (0.6 % in 2011 and 2015). For
improving the accuracy of land cover classification, the cluster busting
technique was applied (Civco et al., 2002).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <title>Parameter Transfer from Donor Catchment</title>
      <p id="d1e405">Sensitivity analysis is an important tool for decision makers to identify
sensitive or important variables (Pannel, 1997). Therefore, a local
sensitivity analysis was performed by varying the values of parameters
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>10 % from initial estimates and their effect on Nash-Sutcliffe
model efficiency (NSE) and percent error in volume (PEV) is shown in
Figs. 3 and 4. On the basis of their
sensitivities, parameters were ranked and then highly sensitive thus
important parameters together with calibration parameters were then
transferred to the receiver catchment. Finally, areal average values of
highly sensitive and calibration parameters from the donor catchment were
then applied to each of the seven subbasins (Fig. 5) of the Soapstone
Branch catchment.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><caption><p id="d1e417">SMA Model Result of Soapstone Branch Catchment (October
2009–September 2016).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/379/131/2018/piahs-379-131-2018-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e428">Geometric alternatives of stream modification considered in the
HEC-RAS simulation.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/379/131/2018/piahs-379-131-2018-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><caption><p id="d1e440">Effects of Stream Modification in the Water Velocity at the
Dean-Road Bridge Cross Section Calculated by HEC-RAS.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/379/131/2018/piahs-379-131-2018-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <title>HEC-HMS Model Setup</title>
      <p id="d1e455">HEC-GeoHMS was used for background map development and creating the
distributed-basin schematic model file for each of three study catchments.
It was also used in checking of errors in catchment model development and
connectivity of streams. HEC-HMS model setup for Soapstone branch catchment
is shown in Fig. 5 as an example.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS5">
  <title>MUSLE Model Development</title>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><caption><p id="d1e467">Comparison between Shear Stresses in the Channel Obtained with
the Large Trapezoidal and Small Trapezoidal Cross Section Alternatives.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/379/131/2018/piahs-379-131-2018-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11"><caption><p id="d1e478">Comparison between Shear Stresses in the Channel Obtained with
the Large Trapezoidal <bold>(a)</bold> and Small Trapezoidal <bold>(b)</bold> Cross Section
Alternatives.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/379/131/2018/piahs-379-131-2018-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e493">K factor was obtained from soil data available from SSURGO using the online
USDA soil data viewer
(<uri>https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053620</uri>).
LS factor was calculated<?pagebreak page135?> from slope length and slope gradient
values obtained from 3.28 m (1 ft.) resolution DEM of the catchment. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> factor was
developed from land cover maps provided by NLCD. However, the most recent
available NLCD data is for 2011 and unable to account for land cover changes
that occurred during the year 2011–2015. NAIP provides multispectral
imagery at a spatial resolution of 1 m every 2 years making it suitable for
our study. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> factor for the catchment was developed using normalized
difference vegetation index (Gitas et al., 2009) for two different years 2011
and 2015 (Fig. 6) to account for the land cover
change in the catchment. Since NAIP imagery was collected during the
agricultural growing season (August–September) every two years in the continental
US, the computed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> factor values are conservative due to the absence of
specific information on agricultural practices in the catchment, a
conservative value of 1 was selected for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> factor.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS6">
  <title>HEC-RAS Model Setup</title>
      <p id="d1e533">The DEM for Dale County, AL served as a base for the needed elevations for
the HEC-RAS 5 model. Mesh sizes were selected so that the typical 2-D cell
was around 1.5 to 2 m wide and there would be at least five cells across the
bridge cross section. Recorded stage levels were used for model calibration
and assessment. Through modification of DEMs using an algorithm implemented
in Excel VBA, various alternatives of stream bed elevation near the bridge
were considered, emulating the possible strategies for stream modification</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>Results and Discussions</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <title>Streamflow Simulation</title>
      <p id="d1e549">A calibration period of three years from October 2009–September 2012 and a
validation period of three years from October 2012–September 2015 were
adopted for the donor catchment. NSE values of 0.73 during calibration and
0.63 during validation period were obtained which are rated as good and
satisfactory performance by a continuous hydrologic model (Moriasi et al.,
2007), respectively. The receiver catchment (Double Bridges Creek) is a
gauged catchment, however to test the efficiency of the model parameter
transfer process, it was assumed as an ungauged catchment for the model
parameter transfer. The discharge was then simulated<?pagebreak page136?> for the receiver
catchment during a transfer validation period of three years from October 2009–September 2012.
NSE value of 0.64 was obtained, which is rated as
satisfactory performance for the continuous hydrological model (Moriasi et
al., 2007). In 2010, some parts of Alabama experienced severe to extreme
drought. Cumulative annual rainfall during this year varied from 508–1778 mm (20–70 in.).
throughout Alabama (Tamang, 2017). Due to the fewer number of rainfall
stations in both donor and receiver catchment and the discrepancy during
this year introduced by the coarser spatial resolution of precipitation data
have reduced the NSE values. The semi-distributed HEC-HMS model for
Soapstone Branch catchment was then run from October 2009–September 2016
(Fig. 7) after transferring parameters from the
donor catchment. During the study period, the annual average precipitation
was 1361.4 mm (53.6 in.) with a standard deviation of 365.8 mm (14.4 in.) and range of  922 mm (36.3 in.). An
initial warmup period of 9 months was selected to minimize the effects of
initial estimated moisture value on the simulation. As seen from
Fig. 7, streamflow was low and had fewer storm
events in 2010 and 2011 whereas, the remaining years experienced higher
streamflow and frequent storm events. The highest streamflow of 43.9 cumecs (1550 cfs)
during the study period occurred on 14 December 2009 due to a storm
event of 134.1 mm (5.28 in.).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <title>Effects of stream modification in water velocity</title>
      <p id="d1e558">Two alternative cross-sections modifications near the Dean Road bridge site
were simulated thus far using HEC-RAS 5. The geometric characteristics of
the stream modification are presented in Fig. 8. The small trapezoidal
alternative creates more significant blockage to the flow, which reflects on
the higher velocities across the bridge, as shown in Fig. 9.</p>
      <p id="d1e561">The small trapezoidal stream modification alternative also creates an
increase in backwater effect, and both these have an impact on the resulting
shear stress under the bridge. The large trapezoidal peak shear stress is in
the range of 0.49 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.10 lb ft<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), which is 70 % smaller than<?pagebreak page137?> the
corresponding value for the small trapezoidal solution (Fig. 10). Also, as
it may be noticed, the region with larger shear stresses downstream from the
bridge site are much wider in the small trapezoidal alternative (Fig. 11).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12"><caption><p id="d1e590">Simulated Annual Sediment Yield for Soapstone Branch Catchment
(2010–2015).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/379/131/2018/piahs-379-131-2018-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS3">
  <title>Annual Sediment Yield</title>
      <p id="d1e605">In order to apply event-based MUSLE to continuous streamflow simulation, a
threshold of 0.28 cumecs (10 cfs) was selected for sediment generation. SMA model
discharge was applied to MUSLE equation to calculate event sediment yield
and each event output for a year were summed up to obtain annual sediment
yield from 2010–2015 (Fig. 12). In the
calculation of sediment yield by MUSLE, 2011 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> factor value of 0.347 was
determined and applied from 2011–2012 whereas, 2015 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> factor value of 0.648
was applied from 2013–2015. During the study period, 2013 had the highest
number of storm events i.e. 24 generating sediment whereas 2011 had the
lowest number of storm events that generated sediment i.e. 4. The event on
22 February 2013 produced the maximum sediment yield of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 9400 tons. It was also found that the maximum annual
sediment yield of 69 439 tons in the catchment was in 2013 which is
consistent with the first identification of the aggradation problem. Also,
the recent land-cover changes in the catchment have accounted for 34 %
increase in sediment yield. The uncertainty of the proposed model for
sediment yield computation is dependent on two different parameter sets viz.
parameters from hydrologic model and parameters forming the remaining MUSLE
equation. Since the discharge is computed for the Soapstone branch only
after validating the parameter transfer to an assumed ungauged receiver
catchment, the uncertainty associated with the discharge parameters is low
and can be considered within the range of satisfactory performance. Also,
the attempts were made to reduce the uncertainty of remaining MUSLE
parameters by obtaining the data of highest spatial and temporal resolution
available, and conservative values viz. 1 m resolution DEM for LS factor,
conservative values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mi>C</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> factor.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e650">Significant land cover changes in the vicinity of stream negatively altered
the discharge and sediment output of the Soapstone Branch catchment and
reduced the conveyance of the bridge in the downstream. In the absence of
discharge data, parameter transfer approach with an empirical sediment yield
method was used to simulate discharge and compute sediment yield. Different
cross section modifications were simulated, and it was found that narrowing
the stream works best in increasing velocity and washing the sediment off to
downstream. An overall goal of the study to quantify the flow and sediment
yield in an ungauged catchment was achieved and a recommendation strategy of
narrowing the stream thus creating a small depth bank was suggested.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p id="d1e657">The study is from an on-going project and data are not currently
available.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e663">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="sistatement">

      <p id="d1e669">This article is part of the special issue “Innovative water resources management –
understanding and balancing interactions between humankind and nature”.
It is a result of the 8th International Water Resources Management Conference of
ICWRS, Beijing, China, 13–15 June 2018.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e675">The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers whose valuable
suggestions and comments have greatly improved the quality of the paper.
Also, the authors would like to thank Alabama Department of Transportation
(ALDOT) for funding the project 930-925 (Grant number G00009876) “Analysis
and potential solutions to sediment deposition in Dean Road Bridge watershed,
Midland City, Alabama”.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: Dingzhi Peng <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: two anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Bennett, T. H.: Development and application of a continuous soil
moisture accounting algorithm for the Hydrologic Engineering Center
Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS), University of California, Davis, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Brunner, G. W.: HEC-RAS River Analysis System
User Manual, version 5.0, US Army Corps of Engineers Report No. CPD 68,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Civco, D. L., Hurd, J. D., Wilson, S. M.,  and Zhang, Z.: A comparison of land
use and land cover change detection methods, in: ASPRS annual convention
proceedings (on CD-ROM), Washington, DC, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Doan, J. H.: Geospatial hydrologic modeling extension HEC-GeoHMS
user's manual, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center,
Davis, Calif., 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Feldman, A. D.: Hydrologic modeling system HEC-HMS technical
reference manual, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering
Center, Davis, Calif., 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Gitas, I. Z., Douros, K., Minakou, C., Silleos, G. N., and Karydas, C. G.:
Multi-temporal soil erosion risk assessment in N. Chalkidiki using
a modified USLE raster model, EARSeL eProceedings, 8, 40–52,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R.
D., and Veith, T. L.: Model evaluation guidelines for systematic
quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations, T. ASABE, 50,
885–900, 2007.  </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Morgan, R. P. C.: Soil erosion and conservation, John Wiley &amp;
Sons,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Nellis, M. D., Harrington, J. A., and  Wu, J.: Remote sensing of
temporal and spatial variations in pool size, suspended sediment, turbidity,
and Secchi depth in Tuttle Creek Reservoir, Kansas, 1993, Geomorphology, 21,
281–293, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Pannel, D. J.: Sensitivity analysis: strategies, methods, concepts,
examples, Agr. Econ., 16, 139–152,
1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Sivapalan, M.: Prediction in ungauged basins: a grand challenge for
theoretical hydrology, Hydrol. Process., 17, 3163–3170,
2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Tamang, S. K.: Quantifying flow and sediment yield of an ungauged
catchment using a combination of continuous soil moisture accounting and
even-based curve number method, Department of Civil Engineering, Auburn
University, Auburn, AL, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Williams, J. R.: Sediment-Yield Prediction with Universal Equation Using
Runoff Energy Factor, Present and Prospective Technology for Predicting
Sediment Yield and Sources ARS-S-40, 244-52, 1975.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Framework for quantifying flow and sediment yield to diagnose and solve the aggradation problem of an ungauged catchment</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Estimating sediment deposition in a stream, a standard procedure
for dealing with aggradation problem is complicated in an ungauged catchment
due to the absence of necessary flow data. A serious aggradation problem
within an ungauged catchment in Alabama, USA, blocked the conveyance of a
bridge, reducing the clearance under the bridge from several feet to a
couple of inches. A study of historical aerial imageries showed
deforestation in the catchment by a significant amount over a period
consistent with the first identification of the problem. To further diagnose
the aggradation problem, due to the lack of any gauging stations, local
rainfall, flow, and sediment measurements were attempted. However, due to
the difficulty of installing an area-velocity sensor in an actively
aggrading stream, the parameter transfer process for a hydrologic model was
adopted to understand/estimate streamflow. Simulated discharge combined with
erosion parameters of MUSLE (modified universal soil loss equation) helped
in the estimation of sediment yield of the catchment. Sediment yield for the
catchment showed a significant increase in recent years. A two-dimensional
hydraulic model was developed at the bridge site to examine potential
engineering strategies to wash sediments off and mitigate further
aggradation. This study is to quantify the increase of sediment yield in an
ungauged catchment due to land cover changes and other contributing factors
and develop strategies and recommendations for preventing future aggradation
in the vicinity of the bridge.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Bennett, T. H.: Development and application of a continuous soil
moisture accounting algorithm for the Hydrologic Engineering Center
Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS), University of California, Davis, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Brunner, G. W.: HEC-RAS River Analysis System
User Manual, version 5.0, US Army Corps of Engineers Report No. CPD 68,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Civco, D. L., Hurd, J. D., Wilson, S. M.,  and Zhang, Z.: A comparison of land
use and land cover change detection methods, in: ASPRS annual convention
proceedings (on CD-ROM), Washington, DC, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Doan, J. H.: Geospatial hydrologic modeling extension HEC-GeoHMS
user's manual, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center,
Davis, Calif., 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Feldman, A. D.: Hydrologic modeling system HEC-HMS technical
reference manual, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering
Center, Davis, Calif., 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Gitas, I. Z., Douros, K., Minakou, C., Silleos, G. N., and Karydas, C. G.:
Multi-temporal soil erosion risk assessment in N. Chalkidiki using
a modified USLE raster model, EARSeL eProceedings, 8, 40–52,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R.
D., and Veith, T. L.: Model evaluation guidelines for systematic
quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations, T. ASABE, 50,
885–900, 2007. 
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Morgan, R. P. C.: Soil erosion and conservation, John Wiley &amp;
Sons,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Nellis, M. D., Harrington, J. A., and  Wu, J.: Remote sensing of
temporal and spatial variations in pool size, suspended sediment, turbidity,
and Secchi depth in Tuttle Creek Reservoir, Kansas, 1993, Geomorphology, 21,
281–293, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Pannel, D. J.: Sensitivity analysis: strategies, methods, concepts,
examples, Agr. Econ., 16, 139–152,
1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Sivapalan, M.: Prediction in ungauged basins: a grand challenge for
theoretical hydrology, Hydrol. Process., 17, 3163–3170,
2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Tamang, S. K.: Quantifying flow and sediment yield of an ungauged
catchment using a combination of continuous soil moisture accounting and
even-based curve number method, Department of Civil Engineering, Auburn
University, Auburn, AL, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Williams, J. R.: Sediment-Yield Prediction with Universal Equation Using
Runoff Energy Factor, Present and Prospective Technology for Predicting
Sediment Yield and Sources ARS-S-40, 244-52, 1975.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
