RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION ASSESSMENT THROUGH SATELLITE REMOTE SENSING (SRS)

By CENTRAL WATER COMMISSION

NECESSITY FOR SEDIMENTATION SURVEY OF RESERVOIR

The natural processes like erosion in the catchments area movement of sediment and area, its deposition (Silting) in various parts of reservoir reduces the reservoir capacity. Silting occurs in the dead storage as well as live storage. P i di l capacity surveys of reservoir h l Periodical it f i help in assessing the rate of sedimentation and reduction in storage capacity. g p y This information is necessary not only for efficient management of the reservoir, but also h l l helps i in taking a d i i ki decision about b treatment of catchments area.

Zones of reservoir

Methods for Sedimentation Assessment

Hydrographic Survey Technique
Stream flow analysis Capacity survey analysis
Conventional method (Contour) HITECH/HYDAC System

Remote S R t Sensing Technique i T h i

Advantages of SRS over capacity survey

Time period required for carrying out hydrographic survey is 12 to 18 months, which is two month in case of SRS Hydrographic surveys cost more (10-15 lakh) as compared to remote sensing technique (1-2 (1 2 Lakh) C Capacity can b established f earlier years it be t bli h d for li also at desired time intervals.

Limitations of SRS Survey

As the reservoir operates in between MDDL and FRL, the satellite data is available for this region only. The g y satellite remote sensing based reservoir capacity estimation works between MDDL and FRL in live storage. g Remote sensing techniques give accurate estimate for fan shaped reservoir where there is considerable change in water-spread area with change in water level. Less but specialized manpower required with image p processing softwares g

Accuracy of SRS technique

For validating the result of the studies carried out by SRS technique and hydrographic technique, the sedimentation studies of Tilaiya and Konar reservoir have been carried out by CWC during concurrent period of 1997. The result obtained by both the methods were more or less in conformity with each other other. The variation by both the methods to the tune of 3%.

Accuracy of SRS technique-Contd..

Accuracy of SRS technique-Contd..

Flow-Chart
METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED TO ESTIMATE RESERVOIR CAPACITY LOSS
MULTIDATE RS SATELLITE DATA PREVIOUS SEDIMENTATION SURVEY DATA (HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY)

RESERVOIR DATA (GAUGE READING, ORIGINAL STAGE-AREA-CAPACITY CURVE)

GEOREFRENCING OF DATA

EXTRACTION OF SUB-SCENE

DELINEATE MULTI DATE WATER-SPREAD AREA

ESTIMATION OF CAPACITY

ESTIMATION OF CAPACITY LOSS

COMPARISION WITH ORIGINAL SURVEY AND HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY DATA

Methodology-Planning of SRS study

General details of reservoir like; latitude, longitude, FRL,MDDL acquired. , Path and row for IRS 1D & P6, LISS3 sensor calculated. p over the Dates of passes of Satellite reservoir gathered. Water level in the reservoir on the particular dates of satellite passes acquired from project authorities.

Methodology-Planning of SRS study

With browsing facility of NRSC all the dates of g y satellite passes checked for cloud free scenes. Minimum and Maximum Water level achieved with in cloud free scenes sorted out and on its basis covered capacity is calculated. If the covered capacity / live capacity is more then 0.8, reservoir can be under taken for SRS based study.

Methodology-Planning of SRS study

On the basis of difference between FRL and MDDL No. of scenes required calculated
Differenceup to 5 m. 5 to 15 m. beyond 15 m. b d 4 - 5 scenes 6 - 8 scenes 8 - 10 scenes

Cl d f Cloud free scenes at approximately t i t l regular interval selected for the study.

Methodology-Planning of SRS study

Selected scenes of LISS-3 (23.5 x 23.5 m) LISS 3 acquired from NRSC for further p processing. g Following Field Data acquired from project authorities
Original area and capacity Table and Curves Reservoir level on satellite dates of pass Reports of hydrographic survey conducted so far.

Methodology -

Geo-Referencing

Raw Image

Geo-referenced Geo referenced image

MethodologyThe geogeo referenced scenes are further sub-setted to area of interest.

Sub-setting

Methodology- multi date FCC

19th Oct 2007 (RL 410.55 m)

17th Jan 2007 (RL 407.87 m)

01st April 07 (RL 404.18 m)

13th March 2006 (RL 401.88 m)

12th May 2006 (RL 400.34m)

Methodology - Thresholding
NDVI- Normalized
Difference Vegetative Index

NDVI={R-NIR}/{R+NIR}
Creation of NDVI highlights the land water interface so that water pixels can be easily identified.

NDVI Image

Methodology- Mask Creation/Modelling

Using the pixel value of land water interface, model is run to extract BITMAP of water body.

BITMAP of Water Body

Methodology- Overlay of BITMAPS

Overlay of all BITMAPS

Estimation - Water Spread Area

From the BITMAP one can calculate the Nos. of Pixels of the Water Body. Multiplying No. of Pixels with area of No pixel gives Water spread area of the scene (in Case of LISS-3 data pixel size LISS 3 is 23.5 m x 23.5m) I similar manner Water spread Area of In i il W t dA f all the scenes is calculated.

Methodology- Capacity
Using Water spread area of Known Water levels, Water W t spread area at intermediate levels are d ti t di t l l calculated by fitting the best curve. Capacity of reservoir is calculated using Trapezoidal formula Volume = h/3 { A1+A2+Sqrt ( A1*A2 ) } Capacity loss can be calculated by subtracting current capacity from original capacity

Curves

Area= -0.018313h2+15.745 h-3366.11

Curves

Curves

Map of work done by CWC

ZONE 1 Himalayan Region

ZONE 2 Indo Gangetic plain

ZONE 3 East flowing rivers upto Godavari

ZONE 4 Deccan peninsular east flowing rivers ZONE 5 West flowing rivers upto Narmada

ZONE 6 Narmada & Tapi

ZONE 7 West flowing rivers beyond Tapi

Results of Work done by CWC ZONE 1

S. No . Name of Project Name of River Year of Imp p oun dme nt Year of Prese nt Surve y Catch ment Area (Km2) Dead Stora g ge Capac ity (MCM) Live Storage (Original) ( g ) (MCM) Presen t Live Capaci p ty (MCM) Loss in Live Storage g Capacity (MCM) Annual% loss in Capacity p y

(1) 1

(2) Sarda Sagar

(3) Sarda Sagar feader eade Umiam Gumti Beas

(4) 1962

(6) 2001

(8) 127.00

(9) 128.49

(10) 364.67

(11) 298.88

(12) 65.79 ( 8%) (18%) 1.58 (1%) 63.83 (20%) 578.824 (8%) 86.85 (43%)

(13) 0.46

2 3 4

Umiam Gumti Pong

1965 1984 1974

2002 2003 2005

2214 338 12562. 0 570.0

39.40 15.5 1287.0

131.70 312.90 7291.0

130.12 249.07 6712.1 76 112.98

0.03 1.074 0.256

g Nanaksagar

Deoha

1962

2006

9.25

199.83

0.987

Results of Work done by CWC (Zone 2)

S.N o. Name of Project Name of River Year of Impoun dment Year of Present Survey Catchme nt Area (Km2) Dead Storage Capacity (MCM) (9) 1.08 221.0 74.78 244.20 2280 1332.16 Live Storage (Original) (MCM) (10) 15.14 1984.0 199.89 252.25 1566.53 Present Live Capacity (MCM) (11) 14.69 1979.98 138.43 145.91 1720.13 Loss in Live Storage Capacity (MCM) (12) 0.45(3%) 4.02(neg) 61.46(31%) 106.34 (42%) Annual % loss in capacity

(1) 1 2 3 4 5

(2) Urmila Sagar Rajghat Tilaiya Panchet Ranapratap Sagar

(3) Babudhen Betwa Barakar, Damodar D d Damoder Chambal

(4) 1905 2002 1953 1956 1970

(6) 2004 2004 2004 2004 -05 2002

(8) 77.7 16317.0 984.2

(13) 0.0045 0.10 1.20 0.86 Original survey needs to be checked 0.40 0.165 0.626 0.28

6 7 8 9

Parbati Ramsagar Halali Konar

Parbati Bamani Halali Konar (Damodar)

1963 1905 1976 1955

2003 2003 2003 1996-97

786 176 699 997

12.34 1.44 25.90 61.02

102.89 29.39 226.94 220.33

86.40 24.66 188.58 194.83

16.48(16%) 4.73(16%) 38.35(17%) 25.50(12%)

Results of Work done by CWC (Zone 2)

S.No. Name of Project P j t Name of River Ri Year of Impoun I dment Year of Present P t Survey Catchm ent A t Area (Km2) Dead Storage St Capacit y (MCM) (9) 113.30 206.50 236.20 65.21 79.22 21.49 Live Storage St (Origina l) (MCM) (10) 1019.40 607.26 252.25 434.74 465.43 124.58 Present Live Li Capacit y (MCM) (11) 736.02 453.69 149.08 400.34 441.19 59.5 Loss in Live Li Storage Capacit y (MCM) (12) 283.38 (28%) 153.57 (25%) 103.17 (41%) 34.4 (8%) 24.24 (5%) 65.08 (52%) Annual %l loss in capacit y (13) 0.78 0.54 0.91 0.83 0.80 1.41

(1) 11 12 13 14 15 16

(2) Matatila Maithon Panchet Kangsabat i Kumari Chandan

(3) Betwa Barakar Damodar Kangsaba ti i Kangsaba ti Chandan

(4) 1962 1955 1955 1964 1975 1967

(6) 1999 2001 2001 2005 2005 2004

(8) 20720 5306 9314 1606 2020 549

Results of Work done by CWC (Zone 3)

S.No Name of Project Name of River Year of Impo und ment (4) 1988 1955 1964 Year of Presen t Survey Catch ment Area (Km2) Dead Storage Capaci ty (MCM) (9) 18.49 67.65 67 65 4.53 Live Storage (Original ) (MCM) (10) 179.61 547.59 547 59 284.13 Present Live Capacity (MCM) Loss in Live Storage Capacity (MCM) (12) 44.82 (25%) 62.18 62 18 (11%) Annual % loss in capacity

(1) 1 2 3

(2) Sondur Mayurakshi Dudhawa

(3) Sondur Mayurakshi Mahanadi

(6) 2003 2003 2003

(8) 518 1860 625

(11) 134.79 485.41 485 41 284.81

13 1.66 0.236 0 236

Hydrograp hic survey recommen ded

4 5

Rengali Vamsadhara st I

Brahmani Vamsadhara

1983 1977

2001 2004

25250 9731

988

3412 18.742

3217.74 7.229

194.26 (6%) 2.151 (11%) 15.83 (8%) 151.669 (5%) 908.35 (16%)

0.32
Loss due flood embankem ent

6 7 8

Sikasar Minimata Bango Hirakund

Pairi Hasdeo Mahanadi

1977 1990 1957

2003 2005 199495

497.0 6730.0 83395

17.69 370.0 2262.12

198.81 3046.0 5842.88

182.98 2894.331 4934.53

0.31 0.332 0.409

Results of Work done by CWC (Zone 4)

S.N SN o. Name of Project Name of River Year of Impou ndme nt Year of Present Survey Catchme nt Area (Km2) Dead Storage Capacity (MCM) Live Storage (Original) (MCM) Present Live Capacity (MCM) Loss in Live Storage Capacity (MCM) Annual % loss in capacity

(1) 1

(2) Balimela

(3) MachhkundSileru

(4) 1972

(6) 2003

(8) 4908.0

(9) -

(10) 2676.0

(11) 2682.17

(12) -

(13) Hydrograp hic survey recommen ded 0.3

Hemavathy

Cauvery

1980

2005

2810

123.80

926.83

857.07

69.76(8%)

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Bhadra Harangi Malaprabha Thanwar Upper Wainganga Dhom Machhkund

Bhadra Harangi Malaprabha Thanwe Wainganga Krishna Machhkund

1986 1982 1981 1983 1995 1977 1955

2005 2005 2005 2005 2003 2005 2002

1968.4 419.58 2176.0 417 2007.75 217.56 1955

240.69 21.27 132.818 11.79 97 51.17 77.95

1785.18 219.61 1106.839 138.10 409.66 331.05 892.55

1679.36 157.47 977.142 129.64 393.83 313.69 954.23

309.04 (17%) 62.14 (28%) 129.697 (12%) 8.46 (6%) 15.83 (4%) 17.36 (5%) -

0.82 1.23 0.488 0.279 0.48 0.187 Hydrograp hic survey c su ey recommen ded 2.18

10

Almatti

Krishna

2002

2004

35925

346

2986.34

2791.36

194.98 (7%)

Results of Work done by CWC (Zone 4)

S.N o. Name of Project Name of River Year of Impo undm ent Year of Present Survey Catchm ent Area (Km2) Dead Storage Capacit y (MCM) Live Storage (Original) (MCM) Present Live Capacity (MCM) Loss in Live Storage Capacity (MCM) Annual % loss in capacity

(1) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

(2) Isapur Narayanpur N Lower Bhawani Krishnaraja Sagar Srisailam Srisailam Tungabhadra T bh d Tungabhadra Nagarjuna Sagar Sriram Sagar

(3) Penganga Krishna Ki h Bhawani Cauvery Krishna Krishna Tungabhadra T bh d Tungabhadra Krishna Godavari

(4) 1983 1982 1955 1932 1984 1984 1953 1953 1968 1970

(6) 2003 2003 2000 2000 1989 1999 1994-95 1994 95 2000 1996 1997

(8) 4650 47850 4198 10619 206041 206041 28180 28180 215185 91750

(9) 313 205.38 205 38 32.894 124.62 1557 1557 32.83 32 83 32.83 5828 1248.0

(10) 928.26 867.89 867 89 780.55 1275.70 7165.83 7165.85 3718.34 3718 34 3718.34 5733.54 1923.81

(11) 899.63 842.25 842 25 702.03 1215.94 5505.85 5152.50 2817.01 2817 01 2740.58 5544.63 1652.24

(12) 28.62 (3%) 25.64 25 64 (3%) 78.52 (10%) 59.76(5%) 1659.98 (23%) 2013.35 (28%) 901.33 901 33 (24%) 969.00 (26%) 188.91 (3%) 271.57 (14%)

(13) 0.154 0.14 0 14 0.224 0.68 4.6 1.87 0.75 0 75 0.552 0.118 0.523

Results of Work done by CWC (Zone 5)

S.N o. Name of Project Name of River Year of Impo und ment (4) 1976 1984 1964 1959 1986 Year of Presen t Survey (6) 2003 1999 2002 2003 2003 Catch ment Area (Km2) (8) 5540.0 1113 367 4317 1010 Dead Storage Capaci ty (9) 132.0 22.65 14.157 40.58 9.74 Live Storage (Original ) (MCM) (10) 775.89 154.35 223.70 374.83 132.28 Present Live Capacity (MCM) (11) 734.89 134.79 191.74 324.31 175.45 Loss in Live Storage Capacity (MCM) (12) 41.00 (5%) 19.56 ( 13%) 31.96 (14%) 50.53 (15%) Annual % loss in Capacity

(1) 1 2 3 4 5

(2) Sabarmati Watrak Bhadar Palitana Jakham

(3) Sabermati Watrak Bhadar Shetrunji Jakham

(13) 0.196 0.85 0.376 0.31

Hydrographic surve y to be done

6 8 9

Panam Kadana Mahi Bajaj Sagar

Panam Mahi Mahi

1977 1977 1983

2003 2005 2005

2312 25486 6149

48.42 340.0 346.5

689.57 1203 1833.5

660.99 1153.55 1692.288

28.57 (4%) 49.45 (4%) 141.212 (8%)

0.16 0.146 0.35 1.31

10

Dantiwada

Banas

1965

2007

2861.9

19.68

444.71

389.52

55.19 (12%)

Results of Work done by CWC (ZONE 6)

S. No . Name of Project Name of River Year of Impo undm ent Year of Prese nt Surve y (6) 2005 2006 Catch ment Area (Km2) Dead Stora ge Capac ity (MC M) (9) 1418.5 5.00 Live Storage (Origin al) (MCM) Present Live Capacit y (MCM) Loss in Live Storage Capacit y (MCM) (12) 1090 (15%) Annual % loss in capacity

(1) 1 2

(2) Ukai Kolar Tapi Kolar

(3)

(4) 1972 1988

(8) 62225 759.0

(10) 7092.5 265.0

(11) 6002.5 286.66

(13) 0.465
Hydrograp hic surv ey reco mme nded

Sukta

Sukta

1984

2006

468.79

11.32

78.06

73.39

4.67 (6%)

0.212

Results of Work done by CWC (ZONE 7)

S.No. Name of Project Name of River Year of Impou ndme nt Year of Present Survey Catchm ent Area (Km2) Dead Storage Capacit y (MCM) Live Storage (Original) (MCM) Present Live Capacity (MCM) Loss in Live Storage Capacity (MCM) Annual % loss in capacity

(1)
1

(2)
Idukki

(3)
Periyar

(4)
1974

(6)
2003

(8)
649

(9)
536.76

(10)
1461.81

(11)
1464.39

(12)

(13)
Original survey to be checked

g Daman Ganga

Daman Ganga g

1983

2002

1813

65

502

476.13

25.86 (5%) ( )

0.271

3 4 5 6 7 8

Kallada Kyrdem Kulai Malampuzha Aliyar Supa Sholayar

Kallada Umtru Malampuzha Aliyar Kalinadi Sholayar

1985 1983 1955 1962 1985 1972

2003 2002 2005 2005 2005 2007

549 150 147.63 196.83 1057.0 121.68

17 2.4 8.79 419.6 9.60

487.92 3.82 221.17 100.63 3758.4 142.88

376.71 3.41 203.95 99.84 2669.16 134.16

47.25 (10%) 0.41(10%) 17.22 (8%) 0.79 (neg) 1089.26 (29%) 8.72 (6%)

0.62 0.56 0.16 0.02 1.449 0.249

Parambikulam

Parambikulam

1967

2005

228.44

123.65

381.01

373.66

7.35 (2%)

0.05

Action Taken & Future Prospects

The findings are sent to Projects authorities for g j updating their Elevation Capacity curve which is used for reservoir operation Th present methodology using LISS - III i well The h d l i is ll established. At Present only LISS- III data is available at regular Intervals which is being used for the present studies In future high resolution data if available at regular intervals like LISS- IV (5.8 m) then the accuracy of assessment can be further increased

T h a n k s