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