Advertisement

A Revision of OPTEMP-LS Model for Selecting Optimal EMP Combination for Minimizing Sediment and Water Yield from Hilly Urban Watersheds

  • Sagarika PatowaryEmail author
  • Banasri Sarma
  • Arup Kumar Sarma
Article

Abstract

Hilly watersheds are inherently susceptible to more sediment and water yield. Urban developments in hills cause conversion of the natural sloppy surface to bare steep cuts, which are imperceptible in orthorectified satellite images. Sediment yield from such hilly watersheds is underestimated when estimation is performed in GIS platform. In order to improve the sustainability of ecological management practices in urban hilly watersheds, this paper revises the well-established optimal ecological management practices (EMP) allocation model “OPTimal EMP Model with Linear Programming for Single Ownership (OPTEMP-LS)” by incorporating the effect of steep hill cut area associated with the urban settlements in hills. This incorporation has basically caused a significant modification in the sediment yield constraints of the model. The revised model has been applied to an urban hilly watershed of Guwahati city. It is found that due to the consideration of soil loss from steep hill cuts, the EMP cost per unit settlement area in the hilly portion becomes 4.77 times higher than the unit cost for the plain portion of the watershed. Again, the implementation of EMPs has reduced the sediment yield from the watershed more efficiently than the peak runoff. Although this revised version of OPTEMP-LS is computationally more intensive, it gives a more realistic scenario of the total cost and efficiency of a watershed management project through the choice of EMPs individually for the plain and hilly area of the watershed as well as for the steep hill cuts.

Keywords

OPTEMP-LS EMP Steep hill cut area GIS-based RUSLE Soil loss Peak runoff 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

  1. Aswathy SS, Sindhu P (2013) Effect of urbanization on soil erosion. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science. Eng Technol 2(1):75–81Google Scholar
  2. Chang NB, Wen CG, Wu SL (1995) Optimal management of environmental and land resources in a reservoir watershed by multiobjective programming. J Environ Manag 44(2):144–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christchurch City Council (2011) Waterways, Wetlands and Drainage Guide: Rainfall and runoff, Chapter 21, Part B. Christchurch, New Zealand, Christchurch City Council 21–1–21-15Google Scholar
  4. Fang X, Thompson DB, Cleveland TG, Pradhan P, Malla R (2008) Time of concentration estimated using watershed parameters determined by automated and manual methods. J Irrig Drain Eng 134(2):202–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gabriel SA, Faria JA, Moglen GE (2006) A multiobjective optimization approach to smart growth in land development. Socio Econ Plan Sci 40(3):212–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gelagay HS, Minale AS (2016) Soil loss estimation using GIS and remote sensing techniques: a case of Koga watershed, northwestern Ethiopia. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 4(2):126–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. GMDA (2006) Building bye-laws for Guwahati metropolitan area. Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority, GuwahatiGoogle Scholar
  8. Han Y, Huang YF, Wang GQ, Maqsood I (2011) A Multi-objective Linear Programming Model with Interval Parameters for Water Resources Allocation in Dalian City. Water Resour Manag 25:449–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hsieh CD, Yang WF (2007) Optimal nonpoint source pollution control strategies for a reservoir watershed in Taiwan. J Environ Manag 85(4):908–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kang IS, Park JI, Singh VP (1998) Effect of urbanization on runoff characteristics of the On-Cheon Stream watershed in Pusan, Korea. Hydrol Process 12(2):351–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Karterakis SM, Karatzas GP, Nikolos IK, Papadopoulou MP (2007) Application of linear programming and differential evolutionary optimization methodologies for the solution of coastal subsurface water management problems subject to environmental criteria. J Hydrol 342(3–4):270–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lin YP, Verburg PH, Chang CR, Chen HY, Chen MH (2009) Developing and comparing optimal and empirical land-use models for the development of an urbanized watershed forest in Taiwan. Landsc Urban Plan 92(3–4):242–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Los M (1979) A discrete-convex programming approach to the simultaneous optimization of land use and transportation. Transp Res B Methodol 13(1):33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ODOT Highway Division (2014) Hydraulics Design Manual: Appendix F- Rational Method. Oregon Department of Transportation, Geo-Environmental Section, 7-F-1–7-F-14Google Scholar
  15. Patowary S, Sarma AK (2018) GIS-Based Estimation of Soil Loss from Hilly Urban Area Incorporating Hill Cut Factor into RUSLE. Water Resour Manag:1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2006-5
  16. Patowary S, Hazarika J, Sarma AK (2016) Potential impact of climate change on rainfall intensity-duration-frequency curves of Guwahati city. In Proceedings of CESDOC 2016, Assam Engineering College, GuwahatiGoogle Scholar
  17. Sadeghi SH, Jalili K, Nikkami D (2009) Land use optimization in watershed scale. Land Use Policy 26(2):186–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. San Diego County (2003) San Diego County Hydrology Manual. San Diego County Department of Public Works, Flood Control SectionGoogle Scholar
  19. Sarma AK, Chandramouli V, Singh B, Goswami P, Rajbongshi N (2005) Urban Flood Hazard Mitigation of Guwahati City by Silt monitoring and watershed modeling. Report submitted to Ministry of Human Resources Department (MHRD) by Dept. of Civil Engg., IIT GuwahatiGoogle Scholar
  20. Sarma B (2011) Optimal ecological management practices for controlling sediment and water yield from a hilly urban system within sustainable limit. Dissertation, IIT Guwahati, GuwahatiGoogle Scholar
  21. Sarma B, Sarma AK, Mahanta C, Singh VP (2015) Optimal ecological management practices for controlling sediment yield and peak discharge from hilly urban areas. J Hydrol Eng 20(10):04015005–1–04015005–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sarma B, Sarma AK, Singh VP (2013) Optimal ecological management practices (EMPs) for minimizing the impact of climate change and watershed degradation due to urbanization. Water Resour Manag 27(11):4069–4082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sarma AK, Mahanta C, Bhattacharya R, Dutta S, Kartha S, Kumar B, Sreeja P (2012) Planning and Design of Drainage in Hilly Area, A Conceptual Guideline. Centre of Excellence Integrated Landuse Planning & Water Resource Management, Civil Engineering Department, IIT Guwahati. https://www.iitg.ac.in/coeiitg/Hiilly%20Urban%20drainage.pdf. Accessed 14 Feb 2018
  24. Shiono T, Yamamoto N, Haraguchi N, Yoshinaga A (2007) Performance of grass strips for sediment control in Okinawa. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly, JARQ 41(4):291–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang X, Yu S, Huang GH (2004) Land allocation based on integrated GIS-optimization modeling at a watershed level. Landsc Urban Plan 66(2):61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Williams GB (1922) Flood discharges and the dimensions of spillways in India. Engineering (London) 134(9):321–322Google Scholar
  27. Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1961) A universal equation for predicting rainfall-erosion losses – an aid to conservation farming in humid regions. U.S. Dept of Agric, Agr Res Serv ARS Special Report 22–66Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sagarika Patowary
    • 1
    Email author
  • Banasri Sarma
    • 2
  • Arup Kumar Sarma
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia
  2. 2.WSSO PHED AssamGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations