GeoResources Institute

INFLUENCE OF ELEVATION
DATASET ON WATERSHED
DELINEATION OF THREE
CATCHMENTS IN MISSISSIPPI
Vladimir J. Alarcon*
Chuck OHara*
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 Models
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:

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

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

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)

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

Alligator
Creek

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

Murder Creek

0.62

-61.92

0.37

0.25

-3.88

-31.08

28.33

-0.58

Crane Creek

6.45

-67.52

3.82

2.53

-9.56

-2.87

-3.45

-8.29

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

East Branch Luxapallila Creek

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

Yellow Creek

4.91

-50.18

2.92

1.93

-5.27

11.63

-2.47

-0.10

Cut Bank Creek

0.73

-60.27

0.44

0.29

-5.71

26.16

-2.78

1.97

Wilson Creek

0.06

-55.01

0.04

0.02

10.05

24.01

-2.57

4.03

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

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.

GeoResources Institute