JWARP  Vol.9 No.1 , January 2017
Improving Curve Number Runoff Estimates Using Dual Hydrologic Soil Classification and Potential Contributing Source Areas Delineation Methods
Abstract: Runoff models such as the Curve Number (CN) model are dependent upon land use and soil type within the watershed or contributing area. In regions with internal drainage (e.g. wetlands) watershed delineation methods that fill sinks can result in inaccurate contributing areas and estimations of runoff from models such as the CN model. Two methods to account for this inaccuracy have been 1) to adjust the initial abstraction value within the CN model; or 2) to improve the watershed delineation in order to better account for internal drainage. We used a combined approach of examining the watershed delineation, and refining the CN model by the incorporating of dual hydrologic soil classifications. For eighteen watersheds within Wisconsin, we compared the CN model results of three watershed delineation methods to USGS gaged values. We found that for large precipitation events (>100 mm) the CN model estimations are closer to observed values for watershed delineations that identify the directly connected watershed and use the undrained hydrologic soil classification.
Cite this paper: Miller, K. and Clancy, K. (2017) Improving Curve Number Runoff Estimates Using Dual Hydrologic Soil Classification and Potential Contributing Source Areas Delineation Methods. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 9, 20-39. doi: 10.4236/jwarp.2017.91003.

[1]   McCuen, R. (2004) Hydrologic Analysis and Design. 3rd Edition, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, 888 p.

[2]   Ponce, V. and Hawkins, R. (1996) Runoff Curve Number: Has It Reached Maturity? Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 1, 11-19.

[3]   Garen, D.C. and Moore, D.S. (2005) Curve Number Hydrology in Water Quality Modeling: Uses, Abuses, and Future Directions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41, 377-388.

[4]   US Department of Agriculture and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (2009) Part 630 Hydrology National Engineering Handbook. Chapter 7, Hydrologic Soil Groups.

[5]   Golding, B.C. (1984) DABRO-Drainage Basin Runoff Model—Acomputer Program, Hieldebrand Software 8992. Islesworth Court, Orlando.

[6]   Mishra, S.K. and Singh, V.P. (2006) A Relook at NEH-4 Curve Number Data and Antecedent Moisture Condition Criteria. Hydrological Processes, 20, 2755-2768.

[7]   Troolin, W. and Clancy, K. (2016) Comparison of Three Delineation Methods Using the Curve Number Method to Model Runoff. Journal of Water Resources and Protection, 8, 945-964.

[8]   Hughes, R. and Omernik, J. (1981) Use and Misuse of the Terms Watershed and Stream Order. In: Krumholz, L.A., Ed., Warm Water Stream Symposium: A National Symposium on Fisheries Aspects of Warmwater Streams, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, 320-326.

[9]   USGS (US Geological Survey) (2001) NED (National Elevation Data) 2011 Elevation. SDE Raster Digital Data.

[10]   Jenson, S. (1984) Automated Derivation of Hydrological Basin Characteristics from Digital Elevation Data. US Geological Survey Report 14-08-0001-20129, 10 p.

[11]   Jenson, S. and Domingue, J. (1998) Extracting Topographic Structure from Digital Elevation Data for Geographic Information System Analysis. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 54, 1593-1600.

[12]   Khan, A., Richards, K., Parker, G., McRobie, A. and Mukhopadhyay, B. (2014) How Large Is the Upper Indus Basin? The Pitfalls of Auto-Delineation Using DEMs. Journal of Hydrology, 509, 442-453.

[13]   Richards, P. and Brenner, A. (2004) Delineating Source Areas for Runoff in Digressional Landscapes: Implications for Hydrologic Modeling. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 30, 9-21.

[14]   Macholl, J., Clancy, K. and McGinley, P. (2011) Using a GIS Model to Identify Internally Drained Areas and Runoff Contribution in a Glaciated Watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 47, 114-125.

[15]   Troolin, W. (2015) Impacts of Delineation Methods on Modeled Runoff in Watersheds Containing Non-Contributing Internal Drainage. MSc Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point.

[16]   WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) (2007) 24,000 Hydrography Data. Version 6.

[17]   NCDC (National Climate Data Center) (2014) NCDC Surface Data: Daily. US High Resolution-Cooperative, NWS.

[18]   Homer, C., Dewitz, J., Fry, J., Coan, M., Hossain, N., Larson, C., Herold, N., McKerrow, A., Van Driel, J.N. and Wickham, J. (2007) Completion of the 2001 Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 73, 337-341.

[19]   Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service and United States Department of Agriculture (2003) Soil Surge Geographic (SSURGO) Database.

[20]   USGS (US Geological Survey) (2013) Geological Survey, National Water Information System: Web Interface, Surface Water for Wisconsin.

[21]   Sloto, R. and Crouse, M. (1996) HYSEP: A Computer Program for Streamflow Hydrograph Separation and Analysis. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report.

[22]   Lim, K., Engel, B., Tang, Z., Choi, J., Kim, K., Muthukrishnan, S. and Tripathy, D. (2005) Automated Web GIS Based Hydrograph Analysis Tool, WHAT. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41, 1407-1416.