Shuvra Sangeeta Jacob CES (I) Pvt. Ltd., [email protected].

Debajit Basu Ray Jacob CES (I) Pvt. Ltd.  The current study focuses on developing a model in SWAT that uses measured spatially and temporally varying inputs. It demonstrates that the comprehensiveness in the model’s interrelationship after calibration at gauged locations, combined with incorporating the spatio‐temporal heterogeneity of climate and landscape properties in a basin, can be used to predict flow at watershed scale ungauged locations.  The finding of the study shows that, given appropriate spatial and temporal input, SWAT can provide a satisfactory simulation of the water budget at ungauged sites, when calibrated at a basin scale. Study Area : Basin Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) Model set up  DEM  Soil  Landuse  Weather Calibration and Validation data Naturalisation : Approach Water Balance Results and discussion Conclusion Further prospects of the study Acknowledgement Pranhita sub‐basin ngs to Godavari basin, prising of rivers ganga, Penganga and dha draining an area 09,079 km2. fall : ual rainfall variation is mm ‐ 1900mm

: age 1063 cumec mum 1.1 cumec June 2005) mum 38914 cumec Study area

Wainganga rises at an e of 640m in the Satpura u in of ya Pradesh. Winding the spurs of hills from to east for a short ce, it flows south and west through Bhandara, hat and Pauni area. The catchment area of the upto its confluence with Wardha is 51,000 km2. Study area dha is the right bank tary of Pranhita with its n at Dahawadhna peak 777 m in the Satpura e in of hya Pradesh. After rsing 528 km, it joins ganga at Seoni, draining chment of 48,000 km2. combined water of ganga and Wardha d Pranhita flows joins avari near Kaleshwaram arashtra border. Study area

major tributary of Wardha enganga which originates m Ajantha hills at an ude of El 686m in angabad district in Madhya desh. It flows along the e border between harashtra and Andhra desh along south‐east and nders along U shape twice onverge into r Wadhna village. The total th of the river is 676 km total catchment area up s confluence with Wardha 3,898 km2. Study area

Tekra : Flow (cms) 0

0

0

0 Average

0 1972‐73 1983‐84 0

0

0

0

0 June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May SWAT is a river basin scale Long‐term, continuous watershed simulation model (Arnold et al,1998) Assesses impacts of climate and land management on yields of water, sediment, and agricultural chemicals Physically based, including hydrology, soil temperature, plant growth, nutrients, pesticides and land management It is a public domain model actively supported by the USDA Agricultural Research Service at the Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory in Temple, Texas, USA. The SWAT system (ArcSWAT/MWSWAT) is embedded within geographic information system (GIS), and can integrate various spatial environmental data, including soil, land cover, climate, and topographic features.

M tal Elevation dataset (DEMs) at 90m resolution was obtained from the NASA ttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) website. basin has medium topographic relief ation in the basin 1086m‐95m. Mean Elevation is 360m a.m.s.l average slope of the sub‐basin is 1.6%.

L soil map by Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations O,1995) with a spatial resolution of 10km as per AISLUS Classification, was d. soil of Pranhita sub‐basin is predominantly clay with clay loamy soil rspersed throughout the basin. AND USE e Landuse map is from USGS Global Land Cover Characterisation (GLCC) tabase (April 1992‐March 1993) p://edcsns17.cr.usgs.gov/glcc/glcc.html).

% agriculture 0%pasture % . WEATHER ational Climate Centre (NCC) of Indian Meterological Department (IMD) aily precipitation and temperature values at 0.5 and 1 degree interval espectively Wind speed and solar radiation were simulated from the nearest climate ation using the weather generator in SWAT. Evapotranspiration was calculated within the model using Penman‐ Montieth Method (Montieth, 1965). 2000 Precipitation (mm) daily 1000 (0C) mp 0 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Annual Rainfall (mm) The daily and monthly streamflow observation data from CWC (Central Water Commission) maintained gauging stations viz. Ghugus (Wardha sub‐basin), P G Bridge (Penganga) and Tekra (Pranhita) are used for calibration and validation.

Annual sub‐basin level utilisation from National Water Development Agency (NWDA) sub‐basin Reports of Godavari There are four major Projects, 37 medium Projects and minor projects of 1028 M cu m utilization capacity existing in truncated Pranhita. In the Penganga sub‐basin, two major projects and seven medium Projects and several Minor schemes existing which indicates utilization of about 18% In the Wardha sub‐basin, Sixteen medium projects and several Minor schemes of 202 M cu m capacity shows utilization percent of 12%. Overall, there is over 12% utilization in Pranhita basin based on information collected upto 1992‐93. Naturalisation : Approach sin level Annual utilization collected from Reports. The lization comprises of irrigation, water supply, return flows, aporation loss. aggregate into monthly utilization based on cropwater quirement. on‐Monsoon utilization is added to Monsoon months in oportion to the rainfall received. r gauging sites located inside the basin, the annual utilization derived on pro‐rata basis from design capacity of projects cated in its catchment to the basin level design capacity.

Default Calibrated meter Description Unit value value

Soil Evaporation compensation factor fraction 0.95 0.7

AWC Available soil water capacity mm mm‐1 0.1‐0.18 0.18‐0.32 Threshold water depth in shallow MN aquifer for return to occur mm 0 100

RGE_DP Deep aquifer percolation fraction fraction 0.05 0.3 Catchment Area Monthly Annual (km2)Period R2 NSE PBIAS R2 NSE

kra 108780 Calib 1971‐72 to 1983‐84 0.95 0.94 ‐10 0.92 0.83

Pranhita Valid 1984‐85 to 1993‐94 0.97 0.95 ‐16 0.98 0.84 ugus 21429 Calib 1971‐72 to 1983‐84 0.92 0.91 ‐5 0.93 0.88

Wardha Valid 1984‐85 to 1993‐94 0.9 0.87 ‐15 0.9 0.76 P G dge 18441 Calib 1971‐72 to 1983‐84 0.95 0.95 ‐7 0.94 0.93 Penganga Valid 1984‐85 to 1993‐94 0.93 0.92 ‐9 0.96 0.95 Catchment Average Standard deviation Area (km2) Observed Naturalised Simulated Observed Simulated Asthi 50990 680 784 893 389 346 Bamni 46020 335 362 426 206 192 Bishnur 5000 20.1 20.2 29.8 16 18.6 Ghugus 21429 146 154 211 88.5 90.6 Hivra 10240 44.6 46 71.9 34 38.3 Kanhargaon 3515 16 20 24.1 14.3 19 2970 33.8 34.3 44.9 21.2 20.5 Kumhari 8070 111.2 114.9 138.6 69.2 58 Marlegaon 7410 35.9 39.9 58.9 31.6 38.9 Nandgaon 4580 26.7 34.6 49.2 17.9 24 Pauni 35520 347 440.7 617.6 210 252.1 P G Bridge 18441 132.3 144.4 168.6 86.3 91.9 Rajegaon 5380 111.8 121.1 141.6 79.8 56.4 Rajoli 1900 21 25.3 30.1 12 16.1 Satrapur 11100 81.2 111.2 129.1 55.7 60.4 47500 370.3 415.5 476.4 230.8 199.6 Catchment Annual Monthly Area (km2) R2 NSE PBIAS (%) R2 NSE Asthi 50990 0.97 0.92 ‐8.3 0.94 0.94 Bamni 46020 0.95 0.86 ‐16.8 0.93 0.9 Bishnur 5000 0.79 0.09 ‐44 0.71 0.3 Ghugus 21429 0.98 0.63 ‐37.4 0.81 0.62 Hivra 10240 0.89 0.15 ‐56 0.82 0.59 Kanhargaon 3515 0.97 0.94 ‐7 0.82 0.81 Keolari 2970 0.91 0.69 ‐24.5 0.9 0.85 Kumhari 8070 0.97 0.85 ‐15.7 0.92 0.91 Marlegaon 7410 0.99 0.57 ‐41 0.91 0.81 Nandgaon 4580 0.94 0.33 ‐38 0.94 0.71 Pauni 35520 0.97 0.54 ‐29.1 0.93 0.73 P G Bridge 18441 0.97 0.89 ‐16.7 0.94 0.88 Rajegaon 5380 0.71 0.62 ‐16.9 0.77 0.76 Rajoli 1900 0.93 0.72 ‐15 0.93 0.91 Satrapur 11100 0.85 0.71 ‐16.1 0.81 0.66 Sirpur 47500 098 09 14 7 093 091 Result and discussion : Tekra ‐ Calibration

80000

70000 Tekra - SWAT Tekra (NWDA)_Natural 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0

1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 Annual1975-76 1976-77 Flow1977-78 (m cu1978-79 m) 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83

Catchment Area Monthly Annual (km2) Period R2 NSE R2 NSE PBIAS ekra 108780 Calib 1971‐72 to 1982‐83 0.95 0.94 0.92 0.88 ‐6 Result and discussion : Tekra ‐ Validation

80000 Tekra - SWAT Tekra (NWDA)_Natural 70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 Annual1987-88 Flow1988-89 (m cu1989-90 m) 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93

Catchment Area Monthly Annual (km2) Period R2 NSE R2 NSE PBIAS ekra 108780 Calib 1971‐72 to 1982‐83 0.95 0.94 0.92 0.88 ‐6 r 070Clb1971 Calib 108780 kra 1971\11 1972\4 Result 1972\9 Catchment 1973\2

(km 1973\7

2 1973\12 )

Area 1974\5 and 1974\10 1975\3 Calibration 1975\8

discussion

‐ 1976\1 72 Period Monthly Flow (cumec)

1976\6 to

1982 1976\11 1977\4 ‐ 309 .409 0.83 0.92 0.94 0.95 83 1977\9 1978\2 R Tekra_SWAT otl Annual Monthly

2 1978\7 1978\12

: S R NSE 1979\5

Tekra 1979\10 1980\3 2 Tekra natural_NWDA 1980\8 1981\1 S PBIAS NSE

1981\6 ‐ 1981\11 ‐

10 1982\4 1982\9 1983\2 Result and discussion : Tekra ‐ Validation

Tekra_SWAT Tekra natural_NWDA 1984\4 1984\9 1985\2 1985\7 1986\5 1987\3 1987\8 1988\1 1988\6 1989\4 1989\9 1990\2 1990\7 1991\5 1992\3 1992\8 1993\1 1983\11 1985\12 1986\10 1988\11 1990\12 1991\10 Monthly Flow (cumec)

Catchment Area Monthly Annual (km2) Period R2 NSE R2 NSE PBIAS kra 108780 Calib 1971‐72 to 1982‐83 0.95 0.94 0.92 0.83 ‐10

V lid 1983 84 t 1992 93 097 093 097 089 12 Validation Results Result and discussion : Kanhargaon

50

CA ‐3515 sq km 40y = 1.0016x R² = 0.9215 Sub‐basin ‐Penganga 30 20

10

Calculated (cumec) 0 050 Observed (cumec) Annual Flow

Kanhargaon-SWAT Kanhargaon-CWC (Natural) 1993\… 1995\… 1996\… 1998\…

1994\4 1994\9 1995\2 1995\7 Monthly1996\5 Flow (cumec)1997\3 1997\8 1998\1 1998\6 1999\4 Monthly Annual Catchment Area (km2) Period R2 NSE R2 NSE PBIAS Bridge 18441 1971 72 to 1982 83 095 095 094 093 7 Result and discussion : Asthi

2500 CA ‐50990 sq km y = 1.0321x 2000 Sub‐basin ‐ Pranhita R² = 0.9002 1500

1000

500 Calculated (cumec) 0 010002000 Observed (cumec) Annual Flow

Asthi-SWAT Asthi-CWC (Natural) 1990\6 1991\4 1991\9 1992\2 1992\7 1993\5 1994\3 1994\8 1995\1 1995\6 1996\4 1996\9 1997\2 1997\7 1998\5 1999\3

1990\11 1992\12 1993\10 Monthly Flow (cumec) 1995\11 1997\12 1998\10 Catchment Area Monthly Annual (km2) Period R2 NSE R2 NSE PBIAS Tekra 108780 Calib 1971‐72 to 1982‐83 095 094 092 083 ‐10 Result and discussion : Keolari

CA – 2970 sq km 140 y = 1.1818x 120 R² = 0.8339 Sub‐basin ‐ Wainganga 100 80 60 40 20 Calculated (cumec) 0 050100150 Observed (cumec) Annual Flow 500 400 Keolari-SWAT Keolari-CWC (Natural) 300 200 100 0 1990\6 1991\4 1991\9 1992\2 1992\7 1993\5 1994\3 1994\8 1995\1 1995\6 1996\4 1996\9 1997\2 1997\7 1998\5 1999\3 1990\11 1992\12 1993\10 Monthly Flow (cumec)1995\11 1997\12 1998\10

Catchment Area Monthly Annual (km2) Period R2 NSE R2 NSE PBIAS Result and discussion : Rajoli

CA – 1900 sq km 80 70 y = 1.1958x R² = 0.9285 Sub‐basin ‐ Pranhita 60 50 40 30 20

Calculated (cumec) 10 0 050 Observed (cumec) Annual Flow

Rajoli-SWAT Rajoli-CWC (Natural) 1999\3 1998\5 1996\4 1996\9 1997\2 1997\7 1994\3 1994\8 1995\1 1995\6 1993\5 1991\4 1991\9 1992\2 1992\7 1990\6 1998\10 1997\12 1995\11 1993\10 1992\12 1990\11 Monthly Flow (cumec) Catchment Area Monthly Annual (km2) Period R2 NSE R2 NSE PBIAS Tk 108780 C lib 1971 72 t 1982 83 095 094 092 083 10 Some low Statistics Result and discussion : Bishnur

CA – 5000 sq km 100 90 Sub‐basin ‐ Wardha 80 y = 1.123x + 7.5751 70 R² = 0.7864 60 50 40 30 20 Calculated (cumec) 10 0 0 20406080 Observed (cumec) Annual Flow

0 0 Bishnur-SWAT 0 Bishnur-CWC (Natural) 0 0 0 1990\6 1991\4 1991\9 1992\2 1992\7 1993\5 1994\3 1994\8 1995\1 1995\6 1996\4 1996\9 1997\2 1997\7 1998\5 1999\3

1990\11 1992\12 1993\10 Monthly Flow (cumec)1995\11 1997\12 1998\10 Catchment Area Monthly Annual (km2) Period R2 NSE R2 NSE PBIAS Result and discussion : Nandgaon

120

100

80  CA – 4580 sq km y = 1.36x 60 R² = 0.9417  Sub‐basin ‐ Wardha 40

Calculated (cumec) 20

0 0 20406080100120 Observed (cumec) Annual Flow

Nandgaon-SWAT Nandgaon-CWC (Natural) 1999\3 1998\5 1996\4 1996\9 1997\2 1997\7 1994\3 1994\8 1995\1 1995\6 1993\5 1991\4 1991\9 1992\2 1992\7 1990\6 1998\10 1997\12 1995\11 1993\10 1992\12 1990\11 Monthly Flow (cumec) Catchment Area Monthly Annual (km2) Period R2 NSE R2 NSE PBIAS ughus 21249 Calib 1971‐72 to 1983‐84 0.92 0.91 0.93 0.88 ‐5 analysis of wetter than normal years and drier than normal years ws that the model gives better results in wetter years than drier years. e monthly NSE’s for TWYLD are 0.95 for the three wet years and 0.67 the four drier years. omparison of the monthly observed and simulated streamflow for the t year with highest peak and dry year with the lowest peak reveal that model tended to overpredict streamflow during the monsoon period heyear.

Flow :Tekra Flow : Tekra 300 80 70 250 60 Observed 200 50 Observ 40 SWAT 150 ed mm 30 100 20 10 50

0

0

\6 \7 \8 \9 \1 \2 \3 \4 \5

10 11 12

2

1

0

6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5

7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8

\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ The SWAT model developed in the study validates how well patially distributed models are able to produce acceptable results using readily available, physically based input parameters in watersheds ranging from small to very large. Given further nformation about the watershed’s physiographic characteristics, better simulation results would be obtained, especially on a monthly temporal scale. The calibrated SWAT model is tested for streamflow. We used annual and monthly streamflow from 16 CWC monitoring gauges o test SWAT and found that SWAT can capture the amount and variability of annual streamflow acceptably well (R2 values range between 0.72 and 0.99 and NSE ranges between 0.94 and 0.54). The low statistics of Bishnur/Nandgaon may be attributed to :  Lack of sufficient information about the utilization details from minor irrigation projects in the upper reaches of Wardha basin, in particular.  Major change in Water utilization due to projects in Wardha post 1990 for which data is not available Overall, the SWAT model can satisfactorily predict hydrologic budget for the ungauged basins in Pranhita with calibration at basin scale. The results further emphasize the importance and prospects of using accurate spatial input data for ungauged flow assessment using the physically based SWAT model . The Simulation is being tested on utilization of time line 1972 to 1993 which is dynamic in nature.  The study also highlights the prospect of simulation of effect of change in landuse on ungauged catchments and their combined effect on basin scale.  The effect of climate change on small ungauged basins  The views expressed by the authors in the presentation are purely individual and do not reflect the views of the organization in any way.  We express gratitude to SWAT Research team to show interest in the findings of studies undertaken by us using SWAT model.  Our thanks to Prof. Subhash Chander to initiate and encourage study in the application of SWAT model.  Arnold, J. G., D. N. Moriasi, P. W. Gassman, K. C. Abbaspour, M. J. White, R. Srinivasan, C. Santhi, R. D. Harmel, A. van Griensven, M. W. Van Liew, N. Kannan, M. K. Jha. 2012 . SWAT Model use, Calibration and Validation. ASABE. 55(4) : 1491‐1508.  Lee T., R. Srinivasan, J. Moon, N. Omani. 2011. Estimation of Fresh Water Inflows to Bays from Gaged and ungauged Watersheds. ASABE. 27(6): 917‐923  Srinivasan, R., X. Zhang, J. Arnold. 2010. SWAT Ungauged : Hydrological Budget and Crop Yield Predictions in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. ASABE. 53(5): 1533‐1546  Water Balance Study of Penganga, NWDA, 1999)  Water Balance Study of Wardha, NWDA,2001)  Water Balance Study of Pranhita, NWDA,2001)