View
224
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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.
GeoResources Institute Study areas• 2 catchments in Saint
Louis Bay WatershedWolf River
Catchment area: 983 sq. kmAverage flow: 20.1 cms
Jourdan River:Largest contributor of flow to the Saint Louis BayCatchment area: 882 sq. kmAverage flow: 24.5 cms
• Luxapalilla watershedLocated in northeastern Mississippi and northwestern Alabama.Catchment area is approximately 1852 sq. km
A
Jourdan
Wolf
GeoResources Institute MethodologyWatershed 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.
Current studies include 30-m-SRTM and 5-m-IFSAR data. Results will be presented in future reports.
• The watersheds under study were delineated using the automatic delineation option available in BASINS.
• To compare results, all delineations were performed with: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 InstituteMethodology
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.
AttributesStreams
HSPF
AttributesSub-basins
DELINEATION TABLES
BASINS
GeoResources InstituteMethodology
Comparison tables
BASINS : Attributes of Sub-basins
Sub-basin area
AREA
SCHEMATIC
AREA FACTOR
Sub-basin slope
SLO1
Stream depth
DEP1
PWAT_PARM2
SLSUR
F-TABLES
Used as a reference depth to calculate
other F-table depth values
Stream width
WID1
F-TABLES
Used to calculate mean wet area with
depth and length
BASINS : Attributes of Streams
Maximum/minimum Elevation
MaxEl/MinEl
RCHRES-HYDR-PARM2
Used to calculate DELTH
Stream length
LEN2
RCHRES-HYDR-PARM2
LEN
HSPF
HSPF
A
B
GeoResources Institute
NSUR
DEP1
Stream Len
gth LEN2
SUB-BASIN AREA
SLSUR
LSUR
WID1
BASINS-HSPF variables
Max Elev
Min Elev
GeoResources Institute Results• Jourdan and Wolf Rivers catchments in Saint Louis Bay
A BUSGS-DEM (250K, 300 m)
NED (24K, 30 m)
GeoResources Institute ResultsPercent differences in topographical indicators for Jourdan River
PERCENT DIFFERENCES
Basin Sub-basin name Area Slope1 Wid1 Dep1 Length2 Slo2 Min El Max El
9 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
17 7.39 344.73 4.37 2.91 3.32 39.84 -70.63 -32.25
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
GeoResources Institute Results• Percent differences in topographical indicators for Wolf River
PERCENT DIFFERENCES
BasinSub-basin name Area Slo1 Wid1 Dep1 Len2 Slo2 MinEl MaxEl
1 Wolf River 1.73 -59.57 1.03 0.69 -5.00 -5.06 13.51 2.81
2Alligator Creek -0.34 -66.70 -0.20 -0.14 -60.96 -42.87 6.98 -11.10
3 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
23 Wolf River (*) -1.38 -64.20 -38.21 -27.46 -12.46 -28.25 0.22 -43.65
• 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 B) USGS-DEM 300 m, 250K
) NED 30 m, 24K
GeoResources Institute Results• Percent differences in topographical indicators for Luxapallila watershed
PERCENT DIFFERENCES
Basin Sub-basin name Area Slo1 Wid1 Dep1 Len2 Slo2 Min El. Max El.
2 Luxapallila Creek -0.52 -65.63 -0.31 -0.21 -2.42 -61.33 6.84 -2.78
1 East Branch Luxapallila Creek -10.16 -66.20 -6.23 -4.19 248.39 123.93 6.84 54.57
3 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
14 6.50 -67.96 3.85 2.56 63.48 36.04 -21.88 2.79
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
20 -2.52 -47.47 -1.52 -1.02 -4.58 72.21 -14.75 8.98
19 Magby Creek 6.10 -55.62 3.62 2.40 -3.08 19.52 -2.17 6.56
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-meterIFSAR: 5-meter
• Impact on delineationSub-basinsStream characterization
Longitudinal (stream length and slope)Cross sectional (F-tables)
GeoResources Institute Acknowledgements
• Funding for this research was provided the NASA-Stennis Space Center grant No. NCC13-99001.
GeoResources Institute
Recommended