The discharge amount starts to decline as summer begins, and it is at the lowest as the year ends due to decreased precipitation. This data is presented in the graph below: Figure 20: A seasonal analysis of discharge in the 2018 water year. In 2019, the total water discharge recorded at the canyon was 136675436 m3. The water level was the lowest at the beginning of the water year during the winter season, indicating less liquid surface water that was flowing. As spring began, the discharge amount increased and attained the maximum value at the end of the season. This increased discharge during spring could be associated with increased precipitation during the season evident in precipitation analysis. To confirm this, a representative of the three locations is presented in the plot below: Figure 21: A review of the precipitation analysis at the KF location The plot shows that precipitation levels started increasing in spring. This could be the reason why the discharge level seems to increase during the season. The amount started decreasing again with slight increments during summer. For the following months, the water level continued to decline up to the end of the season. This information has been plotted below: Figure 22: A seasonal analysis of discharge in the water year 2019. In 2020, the total water discharge recorded at the canyon in the water was 1812663.896m2. The year began with a constant daily discharge of 4000m2 during fall and winter, rising at the onset of spring to attain the highest amount. The water level started declining during summer, which continued up to the end of the water year. This pattern corresponds with the precipitation analysis, which showed peak precipitation during spring. This data is presented in the graph below: Figure 23: A seasonal analysis of discharge in the water year 2020 From the seasonal analysis of each year, a common discharge pattern was observed. The amount of discharge was lowest during summer, while the highest was during spring. To explain the above phenomenon, we came up with the assumption that the rate of evaporation will be very high; thus, most surface water will evaporate more, hence leading to reduced surface water flowage discharge during summer. We can further deduce that due to low temperatures during winter and fall, the evaporation rate is reduced, which in return increases the discharge. We can assume further that a rise in water levels accompanies the onset of spring. The implication can be gotten from an increase in temperature, which melts more snow that had accumulated on land due to winter. The discharge is also attributed to the increased precipitation during this year, as observed in the region’s precipitation analysis graph, leading to increased river discharge. It is important to note that during this season, peak discharge was attained in all three water years. Runoff ratios per year The total precipitation in the whole area in the three water years was used to determine and calculate the runoff ratio. The analysis assumed an area of 18.7 million m2, which was used in the precipitation analysis. In 2018, the average amount of rainfall recorded was 0.55 m which translates to total precipitation of 10 285,000 m3 and a peak discharge runoff of 2341110m3. In 2019, the average rainfall in three weather stations around the region was 1.05 m which translates to total precipitation of 20,383,000 m3 and a peak discharge runoff of 17530950m3. Lastly, in 2020, the average rainfall recorded was 0.69m which means the total rainfall was 12,903,000m3 and the peak discharge runoff 4711420. Therefore, an estimate of the runoff ratios in the three water years was 0.4 in 2018, 0.2 in 2019, and 0.9 in 2020. A graph illustrating the runoff ratios is presented below: Figure 24: A presentation of the runoff ratios for the three water years Discussion and synthesis [You may focus this section as you wish, but it should be 2-4 solid paragraphs that build on (don’t just reiterate) your results and connect them to the bigger-picture ideas described in your introduction. Try to keep this scientific…in other words, you are free (and encouraged) to be creative and include new or speculative ideas, but you should critically evaluate these using data and logic. They need not be true, but they should 1) make sense, and 2) be testable. For example, if you see that precipitation varies from year to year, it might be reasonable to suggest that the El Niño pattern drives this variability. 1) This could make sense, because El Niño has an atmospheric expression that includes changes in precipitation across much of the western USA, and 2) you could test this by looking up the ENSO conditions for each year. So if you want to include this idea in your discussion, propose it, explain why it’s a reasonable thing to think, and then test the idea and report those results! It would not be useful or appropriate to suggest that precipitation might vary because of earthquakes (unless you can explain why this would make sense) or that it’s just random variation (not testable). It’s also OK to propose ideas that are inherently testable but you don’t have the data to test today…tell us what would need to be done to test that idea in the future. Some leading questions for you to consider: • • • • What is the relationship between precipitation amount and discharge over different timescales, and what does this tell you about how discharge is affected by climate? How does the observed variability in your study period compare with the longer-term historical record, and/or future predictions? What implications does this have for flood control and water storage? Is the runoff ratio of upper RB watershed constant, or does it vary? If the latter, what is the pattern of variation? Do you have any evidence for environmental variables that might drive this variation? How does RBC runoff ratio compare with other watersheds? What factors could explain differences between Red Butte and those other systems? How could the information you’ve gathered and assessed here be used to improve prediction of discharge from RBC and planning for future water-related hazards and risks?] Literature cited [Provide complete bibliography here. Use APA style: https://www.mendeley.com/guides/apa-citationguide] Rubric, final paper 1. Abstract (5) 0. Section missing or content unrelated to assignment 1. – 2. Abstract is incomplete, only presenting one aspect of the work (e.g., methods or results) 3. – 4. Abstract is complete but over length, or is missing one or more of the required types of content (work done, results obtained, and significance) 5. Abstract is complete, concise, and within the length limit 2. Introduction (5) 0. Section missing or content unrelated to assignment 1. – 2. Three elements missing or incomplete/unintelligible 3. – 4. One element missing or incomplete/unintelligible 5. Section includes all of the required elements (presents big-picture idea, identifies a knowledge gap, and briefly describes the study system and approach), one or more pieces of research literature properly cited 3. Methods (15) 0. Section missing or content unrelated to assignment 1. – 2. – 3. – 4. – 5. Most methods or data sources undocumented or inaccurately or unintelligibly documented 6. – 7. – 8. – 9. – 10. Documentation for some methods and data sources is missing, and/or incomplete or unclear 11. – 12. – 13. – 14. – 15. All methods and data sources documented; Presentation is linear and logical 4. Results include robust description of all required elements in each sub-section (15) 0. Section missing or content unrelated to assignment 1. – 2. – 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. – – Two subsections missing, unintelligible, or unrelated to assignment – – – – One subsection missing, unintelligible, or unrelated to assignment – – – – All subsections complete; work includes insightful observations and demonstrates careful attention to and logical evaluation of the data; writing addresses limitations of the data and analysis that might affect results 5. Discussion (10) 0. Section missing or content unrelated to assignment 1. – 2. – 3. – 4. Section is largely a re-iteration of the results and doesn’t add new ideas or discussion 5. – 6. – 7. Section presents and discusses one well-reasoned idea that builds on the results 8. – 9. – 10. Section presents and discusses two or more well-reasoned ideas that build on the observed results; ideas are potentially testable and the logic behind them is clearly explained 6. Bibliography (5) 0. Section missing or content unrelated to assignment 1. – 2. – 3. Bibliography present but incomplete or inconsistent 4. – 5. All sources are professionally recorded in the bibliography 7. Writing is clear, concise, and logical (10) 0. Paper is missing or content unrelated to assignment 1. – 2. – 3. Writing poorly organized and unclear or unintelligible 4. – 5. – 6. – 7. Some inefficient or poorly organized sections; Frequent inconsistencies that detract from readability 8. – 9. – 10. Writing is well organized and logic easy to follow; Terminology is used consistently; Writing is efficient, without extraneous content or redundancy 8. Results are supported by well-composed figures and/or tables (10) 0. No figures or content unrelated to assignment 1. – 2. – 3. Few display items and those presented are indirectly related to content and poorly presented 4. – 5. – 6. – 7. Appropriate display items included but with some presentation problems, for example sloppy presentation, missing captions or legends/descriptions; Over-use of display items (i.e. extraneous or repetitive figures) 8. – 9. – 10. Display items used effectively and judiciously to support the section’s text, e.g., illustrating key observations and/or providing quantitative support for results/conclusions; Display items look professional and are well documented (captions, legends, axis labels, etc) and can be quickly understood [Title] [Author] [Affiliation] Abstract [Summarize the work done, results obtained, and significance in 250 words or less.] Introduction [In 2-3 paragraphs, describe the intellectual context for the work done and introduce the study system and approach Paragraph 1: What is the idea/problem being studied, and why is it important? Reference literature that provides context or previous work on the problem. Paragraph 2: What remains to be known and is being studied here? For your paper, you can decide how to approach this, but it could be 1) about how runoff ratio is not known for the specific watershed/region we’re studying, and why that’s important, or 2) something more fundamental about how runoff ratio might be different in a watershed LIKE RBC in contrast to others that have been studied, and studying RBC helps us learn about those differences. Paragraph 3 (or integrated into the paragraph 2): Introduce the study system and approach. Where is the study watershed? What are the basic steps you take to address the problem and knowledge gap identified in this section? (Save details for the methods section, here you are just preparing and orienting the reader for what comes.)] Methods [In each section, be sure to describe 1) the data sources used, 2) 2) the tools/software used for analysis, 3) 3) all steps used to prepare and analyze the information. Provide citations or URLs for each data source and online tool. Strive for 1) Organization: a. Group like ideas. If you start a paragraph describing how you used the ModelMyWatershed tool, make that the topic for the whole paragraph, and if possible include your complete description of using that tool in that paragraph. Don’t jump around. b. Present your analysis with a logical flow of steps…I did this, then this, then this…that reflects your final analysis. It’s likely that in your real analysis you’ll go in circles, trying one thing out and then backtracking to try something different. We don’t need to know about this, what we want to know if the final sequence of steps that produced your product. 2) Clarity: You’ll need to focus on trying to break down complicated analysis tasks into simple descriptions the reader can follow. Try to present enough of your logic that we can understand both what you did and why you did it. 3) Specificity: a. Try not to make up names for things, find/use their official names so the reader knows what you’re talking about! Be consistent with your language, if you call it elevation in one part of the paper don’t refer to the same thing as altitude elsewhere. Conversely, if your talking about two different things, make sure you’re not using the same term to describe them. b. Provide variable names, numbers and units where relevant. If you removed precipitation measurements with a frequency value less than 1,000 hertz from your dataset, tell us “Twenty-two measurements had frequency values below 1,000 Htz, and these were anomalous compared with neighboring data, and I removed these measurements from the dataset.”] Topographic, geologic, and land surface analysis [Methods for these analyses] Precipitation [Methods for these analyses] Runoff [Methods for these analyses] Results Topographic, land surface and geological context [Results of week 11 work • • Elevation and land cover characteristics o What is the mean and distribution of elevations within the watershed ▪ Include at least 3x profiles o What are the mapped characteristics of the soils and land cover ▪ Types ▪ Patterns of occurrence relative to slopes, aspects Geology and topography o What geological units occur within the watershed o What are the associations between geological and topographic and land cover features ▪ Slopes, ridgelines, drainage divides ▪ Soils and vegetation ▪ Units, faults ] Spatial and temporal precipitation patterns [Results of week 12 work – all precipitation data should be evaluated by Water Year (Oct – Sept) • • ] What are the precipitation patterns in the upper Red Butte watershed? o Seasonal o Elevation o Year to year How did you estimate the total volume of precipitation that fell in the watershed each water year, and what are the results? Upper Red Butte Canyon runoff [Results of week 13 work – all runoff data should be evaluated by Water Year (Oct – Sept) • • Presentation and description of the rating curve o Shape of relationship o How does it match with observed values in the monitoring record? (e.g., is any extrapolation required in time or discharge?) Temporal pattern of discharge o Seasonal o Between years o Relationship with precipitation at both timescales o Runoff ratio for each water year ] Discussion and synthesis [You may focus this section as you wish, but it should be 2-4 solid paragraphs that build on (don’t just reiterate) your results and connect them to the bigger-picture ideas described in your introduction. Try to keep this scientific…in other words, you are free (and encouraged) to be creative and include new or speculative ideas, but you should critically evaluate these using data and logic. They need not be true, but they should 1) make sense, and 2) be testable. For example, if you see that precipitation varies from year to year, it might be reasonable to suggest that the El Niño pattern drives this variability. 1) This could make sense, because El Niño has an atmospheric expression that includes changes in precipitation across much of the western USA, and 2) you could test this by looking up the ENSO conditions for each year. So if you want to include this idea in your discussion, propose it, explain why it’s a reasonable thing to think, and then test the idea and report those results! It would not be useful or appropriate to suggest that precipitation might vary because of earthquakes (unless you can explain why this would make sense) or that it’s just random variation (not testable). It’s also OK to propose ideas that are inherently testable but you don’t have the data to test today…tell us what would need to be done to test that idea in the future. Some leading questions for you to consider: • • • • What is the relationship between precipitation amount and discharge over different timescales, and what does this tell you about how discharge is affected by climate? How does the observed variability in your study period compare with the longer-term historical record, and/or future predictions? What implications does this have for flood control and water storage? Is the runoff ratio of upper RB watershed constant, or does it vary? If the latter, what is the pattern of variation? Do you have any evidence for environmental variables that might drive this variation? How does RBC runoff ratio compare with other watersheds? What factors could explain differences between Red Butte and those other systems? How could the information you’ve gathered and assessed here be used to improve prediction of discharge from RBC and planning for future water-related hazards and risks?] Literature cited [Provide complete bibliography here. Use APA style: https://www.mendeley.com/guides/apa-citationguide]

Do you have a similar assignment and would want someone to complete it for you? Click on the ORDER NOW option to get instant services at essayloop.com. We assure you of a well written and plagiarism free papers delivered within your specified deadline.