influence of elevation dataset on watershed delineation of three ...
Recommend Documents
Apr 11, 2011 - International Journal of Watershed Engineering ... 3 Asst.Professor, Centre for Water Resources, IST, Hyderabad - 500 085, ... this manual method can result in accurate delineations, it is a ..... A Text book of hydrology Dr.P.Jaya Ram
natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS .... Alluvial Plain (known locally as the Delta) and the Mississippi. River inside levees, which ..... Or visit the Mississippi Water Science Center Web site at:.
the central and southern Appalachian Mountains ... United States, the family Soricidae is represented by. 9 species of ..... History, Special Publication 18: 1 -458.
Make sure correct versions of Arc Hydro tools are installed on the system.
Information on ... are using this tutorial as a guide for another larger dataset, be
patient!
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU ... MS Excel, MS Access, or a similar data management tool .... The MWD tool uses a medium hydrologic unit, with a buffer to account for any.
influence of elevation dataset on watershed delineation of three ...
Jourdan River, Wolf River and Luxapalilla Creek. ⢠The study focuses in the implications of different delineations (resulting from the use of different DEM data) on ...
GeoResources Institute
INFLUENCE OF ELEVATION DATASET ON WATERSHED DELINEATION OF THREE CATCHMENTS IN MISSISSIPPI Vladimir J. Alarcon* Chuck O’Hara* William McAnally** James Martin** Jairo Diaz** Zhiyong Duan**
* GeoResources Institute, Mississippi State University ** Civil Engineering Department, Mississippi State University
GeoResources Institute
Introduction
• Effects of the quality of Digital Elevation data in hydrological simulations are substantial. • Digital Elevation Model’s grid size, scale affect significantly the calculation of topographic descriptors of catchments slope, catchment area, topographic index, etc. • Topographic parameters are used by hydrological models to estimate runoff, stream flow, base flow and other hydrological indicators.
GeoResources Institute
Objectives
• This paper investigates the effect of DEM characteristics on the delineation of three catchments in Mississippi Jourdan River, Wolf River and Luxapalilla Creek • The study focuses in the implications of different delineations (resulting from the use of different DEM data) on parameter values exported to the HSPF hydrological model.
Study areas
GeoResources Institute
• 2 catchments in Saint Louis Bay Watershed Wolf River
Catchment area: 983 sq. km Average flow: 20.1 cms
Jourdan River:
A
Wolf
Largest contributor of flow to the Saint Louis Bay Catchment area: 882 sq. km Average flow: 24.5 cms
• Luxapalilla watershed
Located in northeastern Mississippi and northwestern Alabama. Catchment area is approximately 1852 sq. km
Jourdan
Methodology
GeoResources Institute
Watershed delineation •
Two elevation datasets were used to delineate the Saint Louis Bay and Luxapalilla watersheds.
EPA-USGS DEM: 300 Meter Resolution, 1-Degree Digital Elevation Models (DEM) that corresponds to 3 arc-second (or 1:250,000-scale) USGS topographic map series. EPA-NED: USGS 30 Meter Resolution, One-Sixtieth Degree National Elevation Dataset.
• •
The watersheds under study were delineated using the automatic delineation option available in BASINS. To compare results, all delineations were performed with:
•
Current studies include 30-m-SRTM and 5-m-IFSAR data. Results will be presented in future reports.
no-flow towards inner cells, 38 sq km threshold area, 31 outlets (1 outlet was manually placed at the location of the USGS 02481510 Station at Landon).
The National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD) for streams was used in all delineation procedures.
GeoResources Institute
Methodology Comparison
• •
BASINS summarizes the topographic information per sub-basin and per stream in two tables: These tables are used to do a comparison (per sub-basin) between the resulting delineations from the different elevation datasets for each of the watersheds under study. BASINS
DELINEATION TABLES Attributes Streams
Attributes Sub-basins
H S P F
Methodology
GeoResources Institute
Comparison tables A BASINS : Attributes of Sub-basins
H S P F
B
Sub-basin area
Sub-basin slope
Stream depth
Stream width
AREA
SLO1
DEP1
WID1
SCHEMATIC
PWAT_PARM2
F-TABLES
F-TABLES
AREA FACTOR
SLSUR
Used as a reference depth to calculate other F-table depth values
Used to calculate mean wet area with depth and length
BASINS : Attributes of Streams
H S P F
Maximum/minimum Elevation
Stream length
MaxEl/MinEl
LEN2
RCHRES-HYDR-PARM2
RCHRES-HYDR-PARM2
Used to calculate DELTH
LEN
GeoResources Institute
BASINS-HSPF variables NSUR WID1
S
am e tr
DEP1
th g n Le
SLSUR
2 N LE
LSUR Max Elev
Min Elev SUB-BASIN AREA
Results
GeoResources Institute
• Jourdan and Wolf Rivers catchments in Saint Louis Bay A
USGS-DEM (250K, 300 m)
B
NED (24K, 30 m)
Results
GeoResources Institute
Percent differences in topographical indicators for Jourdan River PERCENT DIFFERENCES Basin
Sub-basin name 9
Area
Slope1
Wid1
Dep1
Length2
Slo2
Min El
Max El
Hickory Creek
0.51
209.69
0.30
0.20
10.02
77.31
-46.17
10.33
10
White Cypress Creek
0.35
295.51
0.21
0.14
27.20
17.86
-46.28
-14.22
11
Catahoula Creek
-1.25
190.76
-0.75
-0.50
4.08
10.18
-63.29
-9.04
12
Crane Pond Branch
-9.36
209.95
-5.72
-3.84
11.76
8.90
-68.00
-30.63
14
Jourdan River
-16.81
1322.55
-10.46
-7.12
7.26
245.15
-55.00
-8.50
13
Crabgrass Creek
-3.50
238.11
-2.11
-1.42
5.17
218.06
-57.17
1.20
7.39
344.73
4.37
2.91
3.32
39.84
-70.63
-32.25
17 18
Dead Tiger Creek
-11.94
295.71
-7.35
-4.95
-70.46
806.53
-70.88
-44.33
20
Jourdan River
-42.66
508.70
-28.38
-19.96
16.65
-16.31
-75.33
-29.75
• • •
300m-250K-USGS-DEM-calculated overland flow plane slopes (SLO1) are up to 14 times bigger than SLO1 values calculated using 30m-24K-NED. Stream Lengths (LEN2) are slightly bigger Minimum Elevation (Min El) values are slightly smaller
Results
GeoResources Institute
•
Percent differences in topographical indicators for Wolf River PERCENT DIFFERENCES Sub-basin name
Basin 1
Wolf River
2
Alligator Creek
3
• •
Slo1
Wid1
Dep1
Len2
Slo2
MinEl
MaxEl
1.73
-59.57
1.03
0.69
-5.00
-5.06
13.51
2.81
-0.34
-66.70
-0.20
-0.14
-60.96
-42.87
6.98
-11.10
Wolf River
1.09
-67.56
0.65
0.43
-18.87
-22.76
30.04
0.55
4
Murder Creek
0.62
-61.92
0.37
0.25
-3.88
-31.08
28.33
-0.58
5
Crane Creek
6.45
-67.52
3.82
2.53
-9.56
-2.87
-3.45
-8.29
6
Wolf River
-3.99
-65.56
-2.42
-1.61
-18.69
29.84
-0.99
2.12
Wolf River (*)
-1.38
-64.20
-38.21
-27.46
-12.46
-28.25
0.22
-43.65
23
•
Area
300m-250K-USGS-DEM-calculated overland flow plane slopes (SLO1) are half smaller than SLO1 values calculated using 30m-24K-NED. Stream Lengths (LEN2) are slightly smaller Minimum Elevation (Min El) values are slightly bigger
GeoResources Institute
Results
• Luxapalilla watershed A)
USGS-DEM 300 m, 250K
B)
NED 30 m, 24K
Results
GeoResources Institute
•
Percent differences in topographical indicators for Luxapallila watershed PERCENT DIFFERENCES Basin
Sub-basin name 2
Luxapallila Creek
1
East Branch Luxapallila Creek
3
Area
Slo1
Wid1
Dep1
Len2
Slo2
Min El.
Max El.
-0.52
-65.63
-0.31
-0.21
-2.42
-61.33
6.84
-2.78
-10.16
-66.20
-6.23
-4.19
248.39
123.93
6.84
54.57
Luxapallila Creek
2.16
-58.57
1.29
0.87
2.99
37.80
3.69
7.59
6
Yellow Creek
4.91
-50.18
2.92
1.93
-5.27
11.63
-2.47
-0.10
8
Cut Bank Creek
0.73
-60.27
0.44
0.29
-5.71
26.16
-2.78
1.97
9
Wilson Creek
0.06
-55.01
0.04
0.02
10.05
24.01
-2.57
4.03
7
Hells Creek
1.04
-48.65
0.62
0.41
-4.32
50.36
-1.23
11.78
10
Cut Bank Creek
-4.44
-54.26
-2.69
-1.79
-17.37
61.17
3.30
10.73
11
Yellow Creek
-4.33
-53.14
-2.62
-1.75
-13.71
-25.52
-4.42
-15.37
12
Yellow Creek
-2.97
-51.20
-1.79
-1.21
-14.23
-6.72
18.32
8.78
13
Mud Creek
-1.93
-44.25
-1.16
-0.78
-8.78
71.46
-1.70
13.09
6.50
-67.96
3.85
2.56
63.48
36.04
-21.88
2.79
14 15
Yellow Creek
-3.62
-24.03
-2.19
-1.45
-31.63
111.32
-14.85
-6.38
17
Yellow Creek
29.22
-37.24
16.63
10.81
-0.11
-61.07
-14.66
-24.13
21
Luxapallila Creek
6.90
-48.08
4.09
2.71
-15.70
-66.28
-14.85
-22.06
16
Luxapallila Creek
-4.40
-61.89
-2.67
-1.79
-12.26
-79.17
2.79
-13.87
4
Luxapallila Creek
-4.71
-53.21
-2.85
-1.91
-1.24
-15.48
12.11
0.78
22
Luxapallila Creek
20.95
-44.31
12.09
7.87
2.90
-77.07
-2.17
-10.30
-2.52
-47.47
-1.52
-1.02
-4.58
72.21
-14.75
8.98
6.10
-55.62
3.62
2.40
-3.08
19.52
-2.17
6.56
20 19
Magby Creek
GeoResources Institute
• • •
•
•
Conclusions
Resolution of elevation data affects watershed delineation by providing more sub-basins when using coarser datasets. Higher-resolution datasets allow better delineation of flat areas. For flat areas (Jourdan) overland flow plane slope values estimated using the USGS-DEM dataset are bigger than slope values estimated using the NED elevation data. Length of streams are slightly bigger when using USGS-DEM Minimum and maximum elevations values also present noticeable percent differences. For Rougher areas: Luxapallila and Wolf: Overland flow slope values resulting of using the NED dataset are also different (50% in average) than those values calculated using the USGS-EPA dataset. NED-generated sub-basin slope values are bigger than the USGS-EPA generated slopes (for Jourdan this was reversed). This seems to suggest that coarser datasets overestimate sub-basin slopes in flat watersheds and underestimate slopes in roughed terrain.
GeoResources Institute
Potential for research
• Future delineation studies using other elevation data SRTM: 30-meter IFSAR: 5-meter
• Impact on delineation Sub-basins Stream characterization Longitudinal (stream length and slope) Cross sectional (F-tables)
GeoResources Institute
Acknowledgements
• Funding for this research was provided the NASAStennis Space Center grant No. NCC13-99001.
