Using WMS for GSSHA Sediment Transportation:

Methods, Issues, and a Case Study

John E. McCarthy

A project write up submitted to the faculty of

Brigham Young University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

E. James Nelson, Chair

A. Woodruff Miller
Norm L. Jones

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Brigham Young University

August 2012

Copyright © 2012 John E. McCarthy

All Rights Reserved

 ABSTRACT

Using WMS for GSSHA Sediment Transportation:

Methods, Issues, and a Case Study

John E. McCarthy
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, BYU
Master of Science

The Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) sediment transport

capabilities are largely untested. The purpose of this report is to outline the methods and issues
involved with using Watershed Modeling System (WMS) to develop a GSSHA sediment
transportation model. Furthermore, a case study is presented in which the GSSHA sediment
transportation capabilities are demonstrated for the Aguacate watershed in the Dominican
Republic.

Keywords: John E. McCarthy, GSSHA, sediment transportation

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... ix

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 General GSSHA Background ......................................................................................... 1

1.2 General Sediment Transportation Background.............................................................. 3

1.3 GSSHA Sediment Transportation Background .............................................................. 4

2 GSSHA Sediment Transportation Methods and Issues .................................................... 7

2.1 Develop a Calibrated Hydrologic Model ........................................................................ 7

2.1.1 Long Term Simulation ................................................................................................ 7

2.1.2 Grid Cell Size .............................................................................................................. 8

2.1.3 Stream Network .......................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Transport Capacity Methods ......................................................................................... 10

2.3 Adjust Elevation Card ................................................................................................... 13

2.4 Overland Soil Erosion Parameters ................................................................................ 13

2.4.1 Runoff Detachment Parameters ................................................................................ 13

2.4.2 Raindrop Detachment Parameter .............................................................................. 14

2.4.3 Model Calibration Parameter .................................................................................... 15

2.4.4 Sediment Fractions .................................................................................................... 16

2.4.5 Parameter Sensitivities .............................................................................................. 16

2.5 Channel Erosion Setup.................................................................................................. 18

2.6 Areas of Unusually High Erosion ................................................................................. 20

2.7 Calibration Methods ..................................................................................................... 21

2.7.1 Using Empirical Equations or Bathymetric Surveys in Calibration ......................... 22

2.7.2 Accounting for the Sediment Discharge Ramp-up Period in Calibration................. 22

v
 2.7.3 Calibrating with the SED_K Parameter .................................................................... 23

2.8 Verification ................................................................................................................... 25

2.9 Modifying Land Use ..................................................................................................... 25

3 Aguacate Case Study .......................................................................................................... 29

3.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 29

3.2 GSSHA Model Construction ........................................................................................ 30

3.3 Hydrologic Calibration ................................................................................................. 31

3.4 Sediment Transport Initialization ................................................................................. 32

3.5 Selecting a Transport Capacity Equation...................................................................... 32

3.6 Soil Erosion Mapping Table Setup ............................................................................... 33

3.7 Channel Erosion Parameters Setup ............................................................................... 34

3.8 Examining Areas of High Erosion ................................................................................ 36

3.9 Sediment Calibration .................................................................................................... 37

3.9.1 Accounting for the Ramp-Up Period During Calibration ......................................... 38

3.9.2 The Calibration Process ............................................................................................ 39

3.10 Results ........................................................................................................................... 41

3.10.1 Rerunning with the Slope and Unit Discharge and Generic Sediment Fractions ..... 43

3.11 Modeling Land Use Changes ........................................................................................ 44

3.11.1 Deforestation and Agricultural Development ........................................................... 44

3.11.2 Connecting Land Use Changes to a Stream Arc ....................................................... 50

3.11.3 Modeling a Channel Buffer Zone ............................................................................. 52

3.12 Modeling a Hurricane ................................................................................................... 53

4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 57

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 61

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................. 63

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: Total wash-load outlet discharge results with various transport capacity equations for
previously calibrated model ...................................................................................................11

Table 2-2: Soil erodibility factor for the detachment by rainfall impact ...........................................15

Table 2-3: Sensitivity analysis washload discharge results for soil erosion parameters ...................17

Table 2-4: Sensitivity analysis sand discharge results for soil erosion parameters ...........................17

Table 2-5: Soil erosion with varying max erosion depths .................................................................18

Table 2-6: Sensitivity analysis for three channel erosion parameters................................................19

Table 2-7: Soil erodibility factor (K) .................................................................................................24

Table 2-8: Cropping management factor (C) .....................................................................................24

Table 2-9: Conservation practice factor (P) .......................................................................................24

Table 3-1: Calibration run results ......................................................................................................40

Table 3-2: GSSHA sediment discharge results ..................................................................................41

Table 3-3: Sediment discharge results for land use modification scenarios .....................................49

Table 3-4: Change in sediment discharge for connected and disconnected scenarios ......................51

Table 3-5: Normalized sediment discharges for hurricane and 1983 models ....................................55

Table A-1: Values of overland flow roughness coefficient ..............................................................63

vii
viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: GSSHA 2D overland flow grid and stream interaction. ...................................................3

Figure 2-1: Net sediment accumulation [tons/ha] with different cell sizes . .......................................9

Figure 2-2 Spatial distribution for the net sed. transfer for each transport capacity equation. ..........12

Figure 2-3: Example area of high erosion (blue is deposition and red is erosion). ...........................20

Figure 3-1: Aguacate dam and reservoir. ...........................................................................................30

Figure 3-2: GSSHA finite difference grid for the Aguacate watershed.............................................31

Figure 3-4: GSSHA Overland soil erosion properties window .........................................................33

Figure 3-5: Soil erosion mapping table Aguacate model...................................................................34

Figure 3-6: GSSHA channel routing parameters ...............................................................................35

Figure 3-7: Max erosion parameter in the arc properties window .....................................................36

Figure 3-8: Areas of high erosion (red) and deposition (blue) ..........................................................37

Figure 3-9: Sedograph for uncalibrated Kilinc-Richardson GSSHA sediment model ......................39

Figure 3-10: Log scale sedograph comparison of GSSHA model results .........................................42

Figure 3-11: Spatial distribution of erosion and deposition with both GSSHA models ....................43

Figure 3-12: Land use index maps before and after alterations .........................................................46

Figure 3-13: Soil erosion parameters for new deforested area ..........................................................48

Figure 3-14: Spatial variations of net sediment transfer for different LU scenarios .........................49

Figure 3-15: Connected to stream arc and disconnected to stream LU index maps ..........................50

Figure 3-16: Spatial variation in erosion/deposition for connected/disconnected LU scenarios .......51

Figure 3-17: Stream buffer zone land use index map ........................................................................53

Figure 3-18: Comparison of the net sed. transfer for hurricane and 1983 models ............................55

ix
x
1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to outline the methods and issues involved with using the

Watershed Modeling System (WMS) to develop a Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic

Analysis (GSSHA) sediment transport model. Furthermore, a case study is presented in which

the GSSHA sediment transport capabilities are demonstrated for the Aguacate watershed in the

Dominican Republic.

1.1 General GSSHA Background

The GSSHA model is a reformulation and enhancement of the distributed runoff model

Cascade of Planes in Two Dimensions (CASC2D) (Ogden 2000). GSSHA is a physically based,

two-dimensional model in which the watershed is discretized into a finite difference grid of any

size.

Processes that occur before, during, and after a rainfall event are calculated for each grid

cell and then the response from individual grid cells are integrated to produce the watershed

response. GSSHA is capable of simulating a long-term or an event simulation, sediment and

nutrient transport, groundwater surface-water interaction, wetland simulation, and lumped and

distributed rainfall by solving the finite difference equations. The model solves transport

equations using finite difference and finite volume techniques and it uses 2D diffusive-wave

overland flow routing and 1D diffusive-wave channel routing (Downer et al., 2002).

1
 GSSHA is a process-based model with an option to select the specific processes to be

modeled for a particular application. Among the processes that can be simulated are precipitation

distribution, snowfall accumulation and melting, precipitation interception by vegetation, surface

water retention, infiltration, overland flow runoff, overland erosion and deposition, channel

routing of water, channel routing of sediments, channel routing of conservative contaminants,

unsaturated groundwater flow (vadose zone modeling), saturated groundwater flow, stream

recharge/discharge to groundwater, exfiltration of groundwater to land surface, and

evapotranspiration (Hunter et al., 2002; GSSHAwiki, 2009a; Downer et al., 2008).

During an event, rainfall is spatially and temporally distributed over the watershed.

Rainfall may be intercepted by vegetation before reaching the land surface. Once an initial

interception demand is reached, a fraction of the precipitation will reach the land surface. Upon

reaching the land surface, precipitation may infiltrate due to gravity and capillary forces. Water

remaining on the land surface may runoff as 2D overland flow, after a specified retention depth

representing micro-topography has been reached (see Figure 1-1). This water may eventually

enter a stream and be routed to the watershed outlet as 1D channelized flow. Between

precipitation events, soil moisture accounting, evapotranspiration, and 2D lateral groundwater

flow can be simulated. When precipitation falls in the form of snowfall, the water equivalent

volume remains on the land surface and is released as melted water according to an energy

budget calculation (Downer et al., 2002; Downer et al., 2008; Wiki, 2009).

2
 Figure 1-1: GSSHA 2D overland flow grid and stream interaction.

1.2 General Sediment Transportation Background

Many methods exist for predicting sediment transportation and watershed erosion. The

most common methods often involve empirical equations such as the Universal Soil Loss

Equation (USLE) or one of its modified variants. These empirical equations develop a

watershed’s sediment yield from a variety of factors including rainfall, land use, soil type,

ground cover, topography, runoff, drainage area, and sediment characteristics. However, because

the equations are lumped empirical models of erosion, they do not account for spatial variation in

rainfall, land use, topography, and soil type. Furthermore, the empirical equations are often

based on certain watersheds and the applicability of such equations is often limited to watersheds

with similar characteristics. Many distributed processed-based models that contain both

empirical and physically based components, including GSSHA, have been developed to account

for spatial variability and to understand watershed evolution (Yang et al, 2006).

3
1.3 GSSHA Sediment Transportation Background

The sediment transport process in GSSHA originated from the CASC2D model.

Investigations by Ogden and Heilig (2001) and later by Kalin and Hantush (2006) found

problems with the sediment transport methods used by GSSHA. Many of the concerns have

since been addressed by the developers of GSSHA (Downer 2010). Currently the sediment

transport capabilities in GSSHA are still under development and refinement. The build of

GSSHA that was used throughout this report was GSSHA 5.7s.

The sediment transport methodologies used in GSSHA allow for the modeling of any

particles smaller than gravel with a specific gravity greater than zero. The basic process used in

GSSHA to model sediment transport is first, the detachment of the particles either though

raindrops or surface runoff, and second, the calculation of the transport capacity. The amount of

sediment that is transported is calculated by comparing the detached sediment with the transport

capacity. Furthermore, the transported particles are treated as either wash load or bed load,

depending on their size.

The following is a detailed examination of the process of sediment transport in GSSHA

(Downer 2010).

First, the user must define the soil types, the size and density of the particles in the flow

plane, and the soils’ fractional composition for each particle type. As GSSHA runs, it will store

the sediment data in three bins: parent soil, suspended sediment, and deposited material.

The sediment is detached in a rainfall event either through the splash of raindrops or

through overland flow. The detachment due to raindrops is a function of rainfall intensity and it

is calculated following a similar approach as presented by Wicks and Bathurst (1996). Some of

the parameters needed to calculate the detachment due to rainfall splash are calculated through

4
WMS. The parameters that are not calculated with WMS including the canopy cover, ground

cover, and soil dependent raindrop erodibility factor are multiplied together to create one

aggregate input parameter for each combination of land use and soil type in GSSHA in order to

simplify the calibration process.

The surface runoff detachment follows the method used in the Water Erosion Prediction

Project (WEPP) model which focuses on the shear stress exerted by the runoff on the bonds

between particles and the available sediment transport capacity of the runoff. Through GSSHA

the flow shear stress is calculated. The user must input three parameters, the critical shear stress

and two empirical coefficients. These values can be determined from published WEPP literature.

GSSHA first applies the detachment forces from raindrops and overland flow to the deposited

material. Once all of the remaining deposited sediments are eroded, the parent soil can then be

eroded.

The sediment transport capacity is then calculated. GSSHA allows users to select which

sediment transport capacity equation to use. Currently three equations are ready for use. The

most commonly used and tested equation is the Kilinc-Richardson (1973) sediment transport

equation, as modified by Julien (1995) and Ogden & Heilig (2001). However, this equation

along with the Engelund-Hansen equation is only recommended to be used if sediment

calibration data is available. The Slope and Unit Discharge equation is recommended when

calibration data is not available. To calculate the sediment transport capacity, the user must

define the soil erodibility coefficient. Like the previously mentioned rainfall impact detachment

input parameter, the soil erodibility coefficient is the product of three parameters that can be

determined by referencing land use and soil type. In newer versions of GSSHA this aggregated

parameter is used solely to calibrate models that use the Kilinc-Richardson and Engelund-

5
Hansen transport capacity equations. Models that use the Slope and Unit Discharge transport

equation do not need an input for this parameter. Once the transport capacity is determined, the

available sediment, up to the amount of sediment needed to reach the transport capacity, is then

transported to a downstream cell.

If the suspended sediments exceed the sediment transport capacity, possibly due to a

decrease in velocity, then the sum of the excess sediments will be deposited according to the trap

efficiency. The trap efficiency for the excess suspended sediment is calculated for each particle

size fraction using an equation developed by Johnson et al (2000). The excess sediment that was

neither transported nor deposited will remain in suspension. In a later time step it can be

transported or deposited. Once the overland flow reaches a stream node, the suspended and

deposited materials in the overland flow cell are added to the stream flow.

In the channel the particles are determined if they are washload or bedload, depending on

how the particles sizes compare to the user defined size of sand. If the particles are sand or

larger, they are considered bedload. If the particles are smaller than sand then they are

considered washload. The bedload transport is calculated using Yang’s unit stream power

method (Yang 1973). The most important parameter for the channel erosion is the max erosion

depth of the stream bed. The advection-dispersion equation is used to transport the washload

sediment. The washload sediments are assumed to not settle in the stream. Because it is assumed

that only the stream bed is mobile and the banks are fixed, the only sediments that are detached

in the stream are those with a size of sand or larger. Ultimately this means that the channel is

neither a source nor a sink for fines (GSSHAwiki, 2009c). This is a limitation for watersheds in

which a significant amount of erosion occurs in the banks of the streams.

6
2 GSSHA SEDIMENT TRANSPORTATION METHODS AND ISSUES

The following are common methods and issues associated with sediment modeling with

GSSHA when using the WMS graphical user interface.

2.1 Develop a Calibrated Hydrologic Model

While a detailed description regarding how to develop a calibrated hydrologic model in

GSSHA is not within the scope of this paper, there are a few important aspects to keep in mind

when constructing a model that will ultimately be used for sediment transport.

2.1.1 Long Term Simulation

Spatially distributed 2D erosion models tend to be less accurate at predicting erosion for

single rainfall events. This is likely in part due to the limitations that 2D models have in

capturing watershed complexity and natural variability too small and intricate to be represented

in a model. However, as many events are lumped together into a long term simulation, the

inaccuracies tend to average themselves out (Yang et al, 2006). Furthermore, the generation and

movement of sediment from overland erosion frequently takes more time than would be allotted

in a single event simulation. Often it takes a few months of simulation for the model to build up

to a stable condition. Because of these issues it is recommended that calibrated long term

hydrologic models are constructed before modeling sediment transport. Unlike short term

7
simulations, long term simulations require continuous HMET data for the duration of the

simulation. Another consideration in a long term simulation is the amount of CPU time required

to run the model. The most important factor of the simulation run time is the grid cell size.

2.1.2 Grid Cell Size

According to Rojas et al. (2008), when doing sediment transport the overland erosion is

especially sensitive to the grid cell size. This is due to the reduction in land surface slopes and

changes in the channel network topology. Even if the hydrologic parameters were adjusted for

the models with larger grid cells in order to calibrate to a measured runoff, significant differences

in erosion results remained. Figure 2-1demonstrates how sensitive the erosion can be to different

grid cell sizes.

For the model of interest in the study performed by Rojas et al. (2008) it was determined

that grid cell sizes of 150 meter or more produced inaccurate erosion models. However it should

be noted that the size of the watershed in the study was about 20 square kilometers. While no

suggestions were given for larger watersheds, it may be reasonable to assume that as the

watershed size increases, the allowable cell size will also increase. Nevertheless, it should be

kept in mind that the grid cell size should be small enough to capture the essential features of a

watershed (GSSHAwiki, 2008). For a sediment model this would include the details of land use

and soil type, as well as the channel network topology and land surface slopes.

8
Figure 2-1: Net sediment accumulation [tons/ha] with different cell sizes (Rojas et al.,
2008).

As mentioned above, the grid cell size has a large influence on the simulation run time,

especially when doing long term simulations. In order to create a long term simulation that can

run in a reasonable amount of time, grid cell sizes can be increased. This is in tension with the

importance of having cells small enough to capture important hydrologic details. Each model

will have unique conditions and a good balance between the needed detail and the available time

needs to be decided on a case by case basis.

2.1.3 Stream Network

It is important that a stream network is dense enough to represent the actual channels. Not

only will this help resolve problems associated with digital dams but it will also help stabilize

areas of the model that produce extremely high and unrealistic erosion. The stream network can

9
have a large impact on the sediment discharge results. Generally, as the density of the stream

network increases, there will be less washload discharge and more sand outlet discharge. For

more information see Section 2.6.

2.2 Transport Capacity Methods

GSSHA currently offers five different equations as options for sediment transport capacity.

Of the five equations, the three that are currently ready for modeling are Kilinc-Richardson,

Engelund-Hansen, and Slope and Unit Discharge.

The Kilinc-Richardson equation is the most tested of the transport capacity equations.

Through extensive testing it has been determined that the Kilinc-Richardson equation should

only be used when calibration data are available. The Engelund-Hansen equation is also

recommended to be used with calibrated data. If calibrated data are unavailable the Engelund-

Hansen equation can still be used to get a rough estimate of the erosion. However, in most cases

the Slope and Unit Discharge method is recommend to be used if calibration data are not

available. According to the GSSHA developers, the Slope and Unit Discharge equation was able

to predict sediment runoff volume with +/- 200% of measured sediment volume for a research

watershed. However, the Slope and Unit Discharge method can be sensitive to the sediment

fractions in the soil erosion mapping table. If a GSSHA model with the Slope and Unit

Discharge equation results in unrealistic sediment discharge volumes then it may be a good idea

to use generic values for the sediment fractions.

A sensitivity analysis was performed on the various sediment transport capacity equations

available using the Goodwin Creek long term calibrated sediment GSSHA model provided by

the developers of GSSHA. In the sensitivity analysis a calibrated model with the Kilinc-

10
Richardson equation is compared to uncalibrated Engelund-Hansen and Slope and Unit

Discharge equations. The results can be seen in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Total wash-load outlet discharge results with various transport capacity
equations for previously calibrated model.

Equation Washload Discharge (m3) Sand Discharge (m3)

Kilinc-Richardson 1617 109
Engelund-Hansen 31356 138
Slope and Unit Discharge 2515 138

Since the Kilinc-Richardson equation was used in calibration, the resulting wash-load

outlet discharge was used as a gage to determine the accuracy of the other transport capacity

equations. The washload outlet discharge for the Engelund-Hansen equation was significantly

different than that of the calibrated Kilinc-Richardson equation. This reinforces the suggestion

from the GSSHA developers that the Engelund-Hansen equation is usually only appropriate

when calibration data are available. The Slope and Unit Discharge methods provided much

closer washload discharge results. In fact, when taking into account the uncertainty involved in

sediment models, the magnitude of difference between the calibrated Kilinc-Richardson equation

and the uncalibrated Slope and Unit Discharge equation is surprisingly small. In regards to the

sand outlet discharge, the type of transport capacity equation used does not have much influence.

While some sand is transported through overland erosion, most sand is transported through

channel erosion, which will be discussed in Section 2.5.

Further investigations were done to determine the influence that transport capacity

equations had on the spatial distributions of sediment erosion and deposition. Figure 2-2

11
compares the differences in spatial sediment erosion and deposition for a research sediment

transportation model. Note that red represents erosion and blue represents deposition.

Figure 2-2 Spatial distribution for the net sediment transfer for each transport capacity
equation.

While the magnitude of difference in net sediment transfer between the Engelund-Hansen

and Slope and Unit Discharge equations is significant (see Table 2-1) the spatial distributions as

seen in Figure 2-2 are similar. Both have well distributed erosion at steeper cells and deposition

at cells with mild slopes. However, the net sediment transfer for the calibrated Kilinc-Richardson

model is a little bit less distributed throughout the mode. The sediment erosion and deposition

that does occur seems to be focused in certain areas. Understanding the geomorphic dynamics of

the watershed of interest may help one determine which transport capacity equation is most

appropriate. It may even be appropriate to use each equation to see which sedimentation

distributions best match the geomorphology of the watershed of interest.

12
2.3 Adjust Elevation Card

When choosing which transport capacity equation to use, GSSHA also allows one to use

the adjust elevation card (ADJUST_ELEV). This card tells GSSHA to output the new elevations

for each time step based on the sediment erosion and deposition (GSSHAwiki, 2009b). Including

this card increases the simulation run time. Often the results are not significantly different,

however if one is interested in examining the potential elevation changes, it may be worth the

extra runtime to enable this card.

2.4 Overland Soil Erosion Parameters

The soil erosion mapping table in GSSHA is based off of the combination of land uses

and soil types. This means that a combination land use and soil type index map should be

developed for the soil erosion mapping table.

Currently, GSSHA uses five parameters in its mapping tables for soil erosion plus the soil

composition proportions for each defined soil particle. The soil erosion parameters can be

grouped into three categories; detachment by surface runoff, detachment by raindrops, and

calibration. When the runoff and raindrop detachments summed together they account for all of

the soil detachment (Downer 2010).

2.4.1 Runoff Detachment Parameters

DETACH_CRIT which is label as “Critical rill detachment (Pa)” in the soil erosion map

table is the critical shear stress needed to detach the sediment (Downer 2010). It is

recommended that a value of 3.5 is used for this parameter (GSSHAwiki, 2012).

13
 DETACH_ERODE, which is labeled as “Rill erodibility coefficient (s/m)” in the soil

erosion map table is an empirical coefficient used in the detachment by surface runoff equation.

While not much data is available for this parameter, it is recommended that this value be taken

from the WEPP model documentation which assigns a value of 0.004 for rangeland and a value

of 0.05 for cropland (GSSHAwiki, 2012).

DETACH_EXP, which is labeled as “Rill erodibility exponent (dimensionless)” in the

soil erosion map table is an empirical coefficient used in the detachment by surface runoff

equation. It is recommended that a value of 1 is used for this parameter (Flanagan and Nearing,

1995).

2.4.2 Raindrop Detachment Parameter

SPLASH_K, which is labeled as “Coefficient for detachment by rainfall (1/J)” in the soil

erosion map table is the product of three parameters used in the detachment capacity rate

equation (Downer 2010). The three components of the SPLASH_K parameter are ground cover

factor, the cover management factor, and the soil erodibility factor for detachment by raindrop

impact (Foster, 1982; Wicks and Bathurst, 1996). The soil erodibility factor for detachment by

raindrop impact can be determined by referencing the soil texture to Table 2-2. The ground cover

factor can be found by referencing a land use map, ground cover map, or an aerial photograph. It

is found by subtracting the fraction of ground covered by ground cover from 1.0 (GSSHAwiki,

2012). The cover-management factor can be found by referencing a land use map, canopy cover

map, or a recent aerial photograph. It is found by subtracting the fraction of canopy cover from

1.0 (GSSHAwiki, 2012).

14
 Table 2-2: Soil erodibility factor for the detachment by rainfall impact (Wicks and
Bathhurst, 1996).

Soil Texture Raindrop Erodibility Raindrop Erodibility Raindrop Raindrop Erodibility

Factor Factor Erodibility Factor Factor
KI, J-1 KI, J-1 KI, J-1 KI, J-1
Meyer and Harmon Bradford et al.
Morgan (1985) Verhaegen (1987)
(1984) (1987 a,b)
Clay 19 73.5
Silty Clay 18.2
Silty Clay Loam 16.2 22.2
Silt 29.8
Silt loam 39.8 25.7 24.7
Loam 28.2 30 37.6 23.4
Sandy Loam 32 34.4 30
Sand 62.4

2.4.3 Model Calibration Parameter

SED_K, which is labeled as “Erodibility coefficient (dimensionless)” in the soil erosion

map table is used to calibrate models. Previously this parameter functioned as a product of three

parameters which were the soil erodibility, cropping management factor, and conservation

practice factor. However, because of the difficulty accounting for unknowns, it has recently been

decided by the GSSHA developers that this parameters works better as a calibration dial for both

the Kilinc-Richardson and Engelund-Hansen equations. When using the Soil and Unit Discharge

equation, this parameter is internally hardwired into GSSHA and therefore entering a number in

the mapping table for this parameter will have no effect. As mentioned before, the Engelund-

Hansen equation can be used without calibration, although it is not recommended. In this

circumstance, the SED_K parameter would be given a value of 1. Further discussions about

using SED_K for calibration can be seen in section 2.6.

15
2.4.4 Sediment Fractions

Below the SED_K parameter the sediment fractions for each of the define sediment types

needs to be entered. The total of the sediment fractions should add to 1.0 (GSSHAwiki, 2009b).

While all of the sediment transport equations are sensitive to these values, the Slope and Unit

Discharge equation can be especially sensitive to the sediment fractions. When using the Slope

and Unit Discharge transport capacity equation it may be best to start with generic values for the

sediment fractions if the measured sediment fractions are of questionable accuracy (see Section

3.10.1.).

2.4.5 Parameter Sensitivities

Parameter sensitivities were performed for each of the relevant parameters for each of the

transport capacity equations on the Goodwin Creek research model. Because the

DETACH_CRIT and DETACH_EXP have recommended values, they were not included in the

parameter sensitivity analysis. For the DETACH_ERODE parameter a sensitivity analysis was

done for values 0.004 to 0.05 which are the values provided from the WEPP for rangeland and

cropland, respectively. For the SPLASH_K parameter, the sensitivity analysis spans a range of

commonly used values. For the SED_K parameter, a range of 0.01-1.0 was used to give a basic

understanding of the sensitivity of SED_K for calibration. The results for the washload discharge

can be seen in Table 2-3 and the results for the sand outlet discharge can be seen in Table 2-4. A

positive percent indicates that as the parameter increased so did the sediment discharge. A

negative percent indicates that as the parameter increased the sediment discharge decreased.

16
 Table 2-3: Sensitivity analysis washload discharge results for soil erosion parameters.

Change in Washload Discharge (%)

Parameter Range Kilinc-Richardson Engelund-Hansen Slope and Unit Discharge
DETACH_ERODE 0.004-0.05 9% 118% 8%
SPLASH_K 5-65 1% 4% 5%
SED_K 0.01-1.0 7715% 6885% N/A

Table 2-4: Sensitivity analysis sand discharge results for soil erosion parameters.

Change in Sand Discharge (%)

Parameter Range Kilinc-Richardson Engelund-Hansen Slope and Unit Discharge
DETACH_ERODE 0.004-0.05 -71% -43% -36%
SPLASH_K 5-65 -1% 4% -1%
SED_K 0.01-1.0 207% 1451% N/A

By understanding the sensitivities of each of the parameters one can better understand what

parameters need special attention and what parameters are of less significance. Besides the

DETACH_ERODE parameter for the Engelund-Hansen equation and the SED_K calibration

parameter, the parameters do not have a significant influence on the washload discharge,

especially when taking into account the high level of uncertainty associated with sediment

modeling. However, the DETACH_ERODE parameter had significant influence on the sand

outlet discharge. For the parameters that do not significantly affect the solution, a ballpark

estimate from the available sources is adequate. However, when using the DETACH_ERODE

parameter for the Engelund-Hansen equations or when one is specifically interested in the sand

outlet discharge it may be worth the effort to insure accuracy, especially if no calibration data

exists.

17
2.5 Channel Erosion Setup

GSSHA has the ability to model both overland and channel erosion. What has been

discussed so far has been in regards to the parameters for overland soil erosion. As previously

mentioned, only the particles the size of sand are eroded in the channels. The main parameter

involved in channel erosion is the maximum erosion depth (GSSHAwiki, 2009c) which greatly

affects the sand outlet discharge. A sensitivity analysis was performed on the max erosion depth

parameter (MAX_EROSION) with a GSSHA model developed for a watershed in the

Dominican Republic. The results can be seen in Table 2-5 for a model with a low density stream

network.

Table 2-5: Soil erosion with varying max erosion depths.

Max Erosion Total Wash-Load Outlet Total Sand Outlet

Depth (m) Discharge (m3) Discharge (m3)
0 23354931 255477
0.75 22575555 302396
1.5 24274930 347768
2.25 23382762 392954
3 23773111 429110

While changes to the maximum erosion depth significantly changed the sand outlet

discharge, as expected there were no significant changes to the washload outlet discharge. If the

sand outlet discharge is of great importance in a model, then it is important that the maximum

erosion depth is accurately defined for each of the arcs in the stream network. However, if the

total volume of sediment discharge is important, then it may not be worth the effort to insure

accuracy in the maximum erosion depth if a low density stream network is used. This is due to

the small proportion of total sediment discharge that the sand composes in models that have low

density stream networks. For example, when the total sand outlet discharge in Table 2-5 is

18
compared to the total wash-load outlet discharge, the additional 50000 m3 of sand outlet

discharge for every meter of increased max erosion depth becomes insignificant. In fact the sand

outlet discharge is only about 1-2% of the washload outlet discharge. However, as the density of

the stream network increases, more and more sand is eroded from the channel bottom. As this

happens, the max channel erosion depth parameter becomes more and more influential in the

total sediment discharge.

Besides the maximum erosion parameter, other parameters involved in channel erosion

are sediment porosity, water temperature, and sand size. A sensitivity analysis was performed to

see the importance of each parameter with the Goodwin Creek research GSSHA model with a

low stream network density. The results can be seen in Table 2-6.

Table 2-6: Sensitivity analysis for three channel erosion parameters.

Sand Outlet Discharge (cubic meters)

Parameter Default Minus 50% Default Default Plus 50%
Sediment Porosity 109.6 109.5 109.6
Temp 110.7 109.5 108.7
Sand Size 150.2 109.5 0

The sediment porosity and temperature parameters had minimal impact on the sand outlet

discharge. The sand size had the greatest impact on the results. This is due to the methods that

GSSHA uses to determine what particles are bedload and what particles are washload. The

defined size of sand indicates the minimum particle size that is considered to be bedload

(Downer, 2010).

19
 One of the constraints for channel erosion is that only the erosion of the sand in the bed is

modeled. This means that as the water rises during a flood event the there is no accounting for

the erosion of the fines in the channel bank. Bank erosion is often a major contributor to

sediment runoff. GSSHA may not produce accurate results for streams with unstable channel

banks. Local stream channel conditions should be considered on a case by case basis in order to

determine if GSSHA would be an appropriate model for the watershed of interest.

2.6 Areas of Unusually High Erosion

Often areas of extremely high erosion can occur in a model as seen in Figure 2-3. While

these areas may represent potential scour holes, often these erosion pits are the result of not using

a high enough stream density or not fixing digital dams. Before calibrating a model, it is good to

go through the initial run to see if any areas have unusually high erosion or deposition. If these

problematic areas exist where they should not, then digital dams should be fixed or stream

networks should be extended to the problematic areas. Since streams are neither a source or sink

for fines (GSSHAwiki, 2009c) then extending the stream network to the problematic area will

remove all sediment erosion and deposition except for sand. If the problem persists, then the

SED_K calibration parameter can be adjusted at the problematic area to decreases the erosion.

Figure 2-3: Example area of high erosion (blue is deposition and red is erosion).

20
 All this should be done with consideration of the geomorphic conditions of the watershed

being modeled. Sometimes the net sediment erosion and deposition evens out in these

problematic areas, meaning that most of the eroded soil is deposited in a nearby cell. If one is

only interested in the total sediment discharge for a watershed and if the areas of extremely high

erosion/deposition cancel themselves out, then these problematic areas can be ignored with

reservations. However, while the erosion and deposition may even out in one land use situation,

it does not mean that it will even out in other land use scenarios. A vigilant eye should always be

looking for these problematic areas because they can easily be a source for error in a model.

2.7 Calibration Methods

Since there is often a great deal of uncertainty associated with modeling sediment

transportation, the importance of calibration cannot be stressed enough. Sediment runoff data

exists in a variety of formats, however, when calibrating sediment runoff in GSSHA the most

common target is the total sediment discharge. The total sediment discharge is the sum of the

total sand outlet discharge and the total wash-load outlet discharge, which can both be found in

the GSSHA summary file.

If a low density stream network is used then the sand outlet discharge often only makes up

a very small percent of the total sediment discharge. In those cases, the model can be calibrated

to the washload outlet discharge only. As mentioned before, the SED_K parameter is used as a

dial when calibrating the sediment transport model. Additionally, the max stream bed erosion

depth can be used to further calibrate a model for sand outlet discharge. Currently, WMS does

not offer automatic calibration for sediment transport modeling.

21
2.7.1 Using Empirical Equations or Bathymetric Surveys in Calibration

Often measured sediment data is difficult to obtain. When measured sediment flow data

is unavailable, it has been suggested that yields from empirical equations, such as the USLE, be

used as the target during calibration. Then once the base model has been calibrated different

scenarios can be modeled with GSSHA. This would allow GSSHA to show the relative effect in

sediment discharge for different land use and precipitation scenarios.

Another potential calibration target is the amount of sediment in a reservoir. Often

reservoirs are surveyed to determine how much of the capacity has been lost to sedimentation.

This sediment volume may be used for calibration but it is important to know how much of the

sediment settles in the reservoir and how much passes through. If sand is primarily the only

sediment that settles in the reservoir then only the sand outlet discharge may be calibrated to the

reservoirs settled sediment volume.

2.7.2 Accounting for the Sediment Discharge Ramp-up Period in Calibration

As discussed before, the overland erosion and resulting sediment flow often takes up to a

few months to stabilize. One problem with using the total sediment discharge from the summary

file during calibration is that it includes the sediment discharge that occurred before the sediment

discharge was stabilized. For example, a yearlong simulation may not see sediment discharge for

three months and then it may take another month for it to ramp up to a stable condition. In that

case the total sediment discharge from the summary file would include the sediment runoff for

four months of unstabilized sediment flow. To fix that problem, the total sediment discharge for

only the stable portion of the model can be extracted from the output sedograph. The output

sedograph includes sediment discharge time series data for sediment that originated from

overland erosion for each defined sediment type. It also includes time series data for the sand

22
outlet discharge that initially came from channel erosion. This sediment flow data can be

multiplied out for a discrete period of time to determine the volume of the total sediment

discharge. This resulting total sediment discharge volume can then be temporally normalized for

the stable period of sediment discharge and then compared to measured data for calibration.

2.7.3 Calibrating with the SED_K Parameter

When calibrating with the SED_K parameter it can be difficult to know the initial SED_K

values. Because different land uses and soils erode at different rates, the SED_K value should be

different for each of the land use and soil type combinations. A rough estimate for starting

SED_K values to be used in calibration can be determined by finding the product of three

parameters: soil erodibility factor (K), cropping management factor (C), and conservation

practice factor (P). The value of the soil erodibility factor (K) is dependent on the soil texture and

it can be determined by referencing Table 2-7. The value of the cropping management factor (C)

is dependent on land use and it can be determined by referencing Table 2-8. The value of the

conservation practice factor (P) is dependent on land use and it can be determined by referencing

Table 2-9.

Once the three factors are multiplied together, the resulting values can be used as a starting

point for the SED_K calibration dial. At first, when adjusting the SED_K parameters to get a

rough calibration, it is important to maintain the proportional differences between the SED_K

values for the different land use and soil type combinations. Then, once the model results are

close to the measured total sediment discharge, the SED_K values for individual land use and

soil types combinations can be adjusted to match observed conditions. This can be done by

examining the spatial erosion of certain land uses and soil types and adjusting the corresponding

SED_K values as needed until the desired erosion or deposition depth is reached.

23
 Table 2-7: Soil erodibility factor (K) (Wanielista, 1978).

Soil Texture Erodibility Factor

K
Sand 0.05
Loamy sand 0.12
Sandy loam 0.27
Loam 0.38
Silt loam 0.48
Sandy clay loam 0.27
Silt 0.60
Clay loam 0.28
Silty clay loam 0.37

Table 2-8: Cropping management factor (C) (Wanielista, 1978).

Cover Cropping Factor

C
None (fallow) 1.00
Native vegetation 0.01
Crops 0.08
Pasture 0.01
Forest 0.005
Urban 0.01
Other 1.0

Table 2-9: Conservation practice factor (P) (Wanielista, 1978).

General Land Use Control Practice Factor

P
Crop 0.5
Pasture 1.0
Forest 1.0
Urban 1.0
Other 1.3

24
2.8 Verification

Because of the nature of sediment modeling, verification data is often difficult to obtain.

If the data are available, a common method of verification is to run the calibrated sediment

model for a different period of time to see how the model reacts to different precipitation events.

The resulting sediment runoff can then be compared to measured data to help develop an insight

as to how robust the sediment model is for simulating different periods of time. Anecdotal

evidence from those who have developed GSSHA sediment models suggest that models

calibrated for one set of rainfall events do not always produce accurate results for the same

watershed with a different set of rainfall events. It is recommended that, if possible, calibration

be performed each time that different rainfall events are modeled.

2.9 Modifying Land Use

It is often important to know how increases in anthropogenic development or deforestation

can affect erosion. One of the benefits of modeling sediment transport with GSSHA in WMS is

that the model can easily be modified to account for changes in land use. Furthermore, unlike

popular empirical equations like the USLE, GSSHA can account for spatial variations in land

use.

After developing a calibrated sediment transport base model in GSSHA, one can modify

the existing index maps and mapping tables to account for changes in land use. If the land use for

an area of the model is modified to a type of land use that was already in the model when the

model was calibrated, then no new soil parameters will need to be defined. In that case, only the

index map needs to be updated. However, if a new type of land use is introduced to the model

when modifying land uses, then new index maps and mapping tables will need to be developed

25
to account for the changes. The soil erosion parameters can then be entered in for the new land

uses in the mapping table.

The soil erosion parameters that change based on land use or soil type alterations are the

DETACH_ERODE, SPLASH_K, and SED_K parameters. Alterations to the DETACH_ERODE

and SPLASH_K parameters can be developed from available literature. However, alterations to

the SED_K parameter based on changes to land use are often difficult because the SED_K

parameter is developed through calibration. One possible way to estimate the SED_K value for

uncalibrated land uses is to interpolate from calibrated SED_K values in the model.

Along with modifying the soil erosion mapping table, it is important that the roughness

mapping table is updated as well. One of the most sensitive parameters on soil erosion is shear

stress. This is calculated from the overland flow velocity which is a function of the overland

roughness. Like the SED_K value, the roughness value is often used as a calibration dial when

calibrating runoff. This often results in the roughness values having unrealistically high values. If

this is the case, then the appropriate proportionality in roughness should be maintained for the

new land uses based on roughness tables in the GSSHA wiki (see APPENDIX).

Another factor to consider when modeling land use changes is whether the new land use

is connected to a channel. If the new land use is not connected to a stream arc, then the

influences of the land use change can be dampened. Once the fines from overland erosion enter a

stream, they cannot be deposited and are ultimately discharged from the watershed.

Models that use the Slope and Unit Discharge equation are often not good predictors of

how land use changes affect sediment discharge. This is likely due to the fact that most

parameters are hard wired into the Slope and Unit Discharge equation. The Kilinc-Richardson

26
and Engelund-Hansen equations are more robust at modeling land use changes because of their

higher dependence on user defined soil erosion parameters.

27
28
3 AGUACATE CASE STUDY

3.1 Background

Watersheds in the Dominican Republic are severely affected by sediment erosion and

deposition in reservoirs and in river beds downstream. This is more pronounced due to the

frequent occurrence of hurricanes, tropical storms, and landslides. One single extreme event such

as a category five hurricane like David in 1979 or George in 1998 is capable of exceeding the

average sediment yield predicted by empirical methods like USLE, RUSLE, and MUSLE.

Bathymetric surveys in the major dams reveal that many have volumes of trapped sediments

either close to or above the dead storage. The consequent reduction of the useful life of these

dams stresses the importance of evaluating empirical methods and their predictive accuracy.

The Aguacate reservoir located in central Dominican Republic was constructed in 1992. In

a short period of time, the reservoir capacity dramatically decreased due to sedimentation.

Because of torrential rainfall caused by hurricanes, sedimentation is a problem for many

reservoirs in the Dominican Republic (Ramirez et al., 2003). The Aguacate reservoir as seen in

Figure 3-1 is fed by two main tributaries, one from the north and one from the east. The north

tributary is fed by a dam located a few miles upstream. Because the north tributary passes

through a reservoir, it is assumed that it is not a significant source for sediment. A GSSHA

sediment model was developed for the east tributary (the Mahomita River) to help gain some

understanding as to why the Aguacate reservoir filled up with sediment at such a high rate.

29
 Figure 3-1: Aguacate dam and reservoir.

3.2 GSSHA Model Construction

WMS was used to create a GSSHA model for the Mahomita River in the Aguacate

Watershed. The catchment area for the watershed is approximately 113 km2. A spatially

distributed GSSHA model having a cell resolution of 200 meters was developed to simulate the

hydrologic behavior of the watershed (see Figure 3-2). This cell size is greater than the

recommended maximum cell size of 150 meters (Rojas, 2008). However the Aguacate watershed

size is substantially greater than the 20 km2 watershed used in the cell size study. With a large

watershed being modeled, a 200 meter cell sizes seemed to sufficiently capture the needed

topographic detail and also allowed the model to run in a reasonable amount of time. While

smaller grid cells may have been preferable, time constraints for this project limited the available

simulation run time. Land cover and soil shapefiles were used to derive the surface

30
characteristics and parameters for the model. Four precipitation stations Novillo, Palo Caja,

Valdesia and Recodo are used to define the precipitation data. The inverse distance weighted

method was used to interpolate the precipitation data across the grid cells. The simulation was

run for a one year period starting 1st Jan, 1983 01:00AM to 31st December, 1983 01:00AM.

Figure 3-2: GSSHA finite difference grid for the Aguacate watershed.

3.3 Hydrologic Calibration

Before the model was used in analyzing advanced watershed processes such as sediment

transport and land use change scenario modeling the hydrologic processes have to be calibrated

with the best available data. Since, the model is required to forecast flow in multiple

precipitation event scenarios, it was necessary that the model be calibrated in a continuous

simulation mode. Similarly, selection of a proper set of calibration parameters should be done so

that the convergence of the model can be obtained.

For hydrodynamic calibrations, GSSHA has an automated tool which uses the Shuffle

Complex Evolution (SCE) algorithm to generate parameters. Several manual calibration runs

31
were done before moving on to the automated calibration, which led to an understanding of

sensitivity of the model to different components and parameters. The automated calibration was

run for storms between 1983/03/23 and 1983/08/30.

3.4 Sediment Transport Initialization

After the Aguacate GSSHA model was calibrated to the measured runoff, the sediment

model was then initialized in the GSSHA Job Control by enabling Soil Erosion. When

initializing soil erosion, GSSHA requires a listing of the sediments that will be modeled and their

associated properties as seen in Figure 3-3. Depending on the model, the soil diameter

parameters can be fairly sensitive so it is worth effort to ensure accuracy. To save time when

running the model, the ADJUST_ELEV card was not enabled. To save time when running the

model, the ADJUST_ELEV card was not enabled.

3.5 Selecting a Transport Capacity Equation

While in the Overland soil erosion window, the transport capacity equation was selected.

For this case study, two different models were developed. One model was calibrated with the

Kilinc-Richardson transport capacity equation. The other model was not calibrated and it used

the Slope and Unit Discharge equation. Two transport capacity equations were used because the

available measured data for calibration is of questionable accuracy. The Slope and Unit

Discharge equation was used to give us another point of reference and hopefully give us an

insight to the uncertainty in the results.

32
 Figure 3-3: GSSHA Overland soil erosion properties window.

3.6 Soil Erosion Mapping Table Setup

With the soil erosion enabled in GSSHA, the soil erosion mapping table was set up. Land

use and soil type index maps were used to generate the IDs for the soil erosion mapping table.

Besides the SED_K parameter in the soil erosion mapping table, the parameters used for the

Kilinc-Richardson equation and Slope and Unit Discharge equation can be the same. The soil

fractional compositions for each defined sediment type were entered into the soil erosion

mapping table. Using the methods discussed in Section 2.4 for the soil erosion parameters and

Section 2.7 for the erodibility coefficient (SED_K), the rest of the soil erosion mapping table was

completed as seen in Figure 3-4. The erodibility coefficient (SED_K) was set to 1 for the soil

erosion mapping table used in the models that uses the Slope and Unit Discharge equation.

33
 Figure 3-4: Soil erosion mapping table Aguacate model.

3.7 Channel Erosion Parameters Setup

Next, the channel erosion parameters were setup. The channel erosion parameters are in

the GSSHA Channel Routing Parameters dialog (see Figure 3-5), which can be accessed by

clicking the Edit Parameters… button in the Channel routing computation scheme section of the

GSSHA Job Control window. A sediment porosity of 0.4 and a water temperature of 20 degrees

Celsius were used. As mentioned in Section 2.5, these two parameters are not of much

consequence. However, the sand size can drastically affect the results. We will use a value of

0.45 mm, which means that anything smaller than 0.45 mm will be treated as washload and that

all of the sand in the stream bed has a size of 0.45 mm.

34
 Figure 3-5: GSSHA channel routing parameters.

The maximum erosion depth parameter for channel erosion can be entered for each stream

arc. A depth of 0.5 meters was input for the main channel and a depth of 0.2 meters was input for

the branches that feed into the main channel. The maximum erosion depth for the channel was

entered into the stream arc properties window as seen in Figure 3-6. Later on, these values can be

used to calibrate the model to a desired sand outlet discharge.

35
 Figure 3-6: Max erosion parameter in the arc properties window.

3.8 Examining Areas of High Erosion

Before calibration, it is important to check for problematic areas of unusually high

erosion. Running GSSHA with the uncalibrated initial parameters revealed a few areas of

extremely high erosion and deposition as seen in Figure 3-7. All of the problematic areas occur

at locations where channels likely exist, which means that they could be fixed by extending the

stream network to the areas. By examining the amount of sediment that is eroded and deposited

at each location it was determined that there was not a significant amount of net sediment

transferred from these locations. Most of the eroded soil was deposited in a nearby cell. Were

this case study to be used for purposes besides demonstration, we would go through the extra

effort to extend the stream network to the problematic areas. However, for the sake of this study,

we were satisfied with the minimal influence the areas of high erosion and deposition have and

the total sediment discharge.

36
 Figure 3-7: Areas of high erosion (red) and deposition (blue).

3.9 Sediment Calibration

The Aguacate model using the Slope and Unit Discharge transport capacity equation was

ready to run at this point. However, before that was done, the model using the Kilinc-Richardson

transport capacity equation was calibrated. Because of the lack of availability of measured

sediment data for the Aguacate watershed, the target data that was used for calibration was the

sediment yield from the USLE equation for the Aguacate watershed. While measured sediment

data are preferred as the target when calibrating, reliable measured sediment data is often

difficult to find. This will then allow GSSHA to be a tool for more detailed design where

practices like land use change or extreme event analysis can be analyzed. The analysis of the

Aguacate watershed was part of a larger project comparing the GSSHA sediment results to the

37
USLE results and determining how they can be used in tandem for design purposes. The USLE

results for the nearby watersheds Sabana Yegua and Sabaneta were 33,416 tons/km2/year and

33,351 tons/km2/year, respectively. The USLE result for the Aguacate was 10,000 tons/km2/year.

For the case study of interest the USLE yield for the Aguacate watershed was used. Once the

model is calibrated to the yield, then different land use and rainfall scenarios will be modeled to

determine the relative change in sediment discharge.

3.9.1 Accounting for the Ramp-Up Period During Calibration

The output total sediment discharge needed to be temporally and spatially normalized so

that it could be compared with the calibration data. When determining the amount of time that

should be used to normalize the sediment discharge, the amount of stabilized time of sediment

discharge is usually used. The period of stable sediment flow can be determined by examining

the output sedograph from the initial uncalibrated Kilinc-Richardson run as seen in Figure 3-8.

While there is some sediment transport early in the models, most of it is from channel

erosion and not overland erosion. As mentioned before, it often takes a while for the overland

erosion to ramp up in a model. From Figure 3-9 it looks like the model was still building up to

equilibrium in the first few months of the simulation. However, by examining the input

precipitation data, there is not much precipitation during the first few months of the simulation

which would also cause a decrease in overland erosion. It is difficult to tell if the lower sediment

discharge in the first few months is a result of lower rainfall or because the model is building up

to equilibrium or some combination of both. However, since the early months in the simulation

have substantially less precipitation which would result in very little overland erosion anyway,

for the purpose of this study we assumed that the model ramp up time is neglectable. That means

that we did not have to extract the volume of the sediment discharge from the output sedograph

38
time series data for a subset of the simulated time. Instead we just used the sum of the total

washload and sand outlet discharge from the GSSHA summary file when comparing the

sediment discharge results to the target data.

10

0.1
Total Sediment Discharge (m3/s)

0.01

0.001

0.0001
Outlet Discharge of Silt from Overland Erosion
Outlet Discharge of Clay from Overland Erosion
0.00001
Outlet Discharge of Sand from Overland Erosion
Outlet Discharge of Sand from Channel Erosion
0.000001
1/1 2/20 4/10 5/30 7/19 9/7 10/27 12/16
Date

Figure 3-8: Sedograph for uncalibrated Kilinc-Richardson GSSHA sediment model.

3.9.2 The Calibration Process

With a series of iterative steps the model was calibrated to the target total sediment

discharge within an allowable tolerance. The allowable tolerance for sediment calibration

depends on the uncertainty associated with the model and the available time for calibration. For

39
the Aguacate model using the Kilinc-Richardson equation it was decided that an error tolerance

of 5% would be used. This took five runs and about six hours of simulation time. For each run all

of the SED_K values were multiplied by the same factor until the total sediment discharge was

within the allowable tolerance. The normalized total sediment discharge was calculated by

summing the total washload discharge and the sand discharge in the GSSHA summary file and

then normalizing the results for the watershed area and stable simulated time. The normalized

results for each run can be seen in Table 3-1: Calibration run results.

Table 3-1: Calibration run results.

Run Original SED_K Total Sediment Error

2
Adjustment Factor Discharge (ton/year/km )
1 1.000 1307%
2 0.100 113%
3 0.0285 13%
4 0.020 -10%
5 0.0222 4%

Further calibration can be done on models if local erosion/deposition depth data is

available or to adjust the sand outlet discharge. The sand outlet discharge is calibrated by

adjusting the channel max erosion depth. For the local erosion/deposition data GSSHA can

export an erosion map that shows the total deposition and erosion at each grid cell for each time

step. If the depth of erosion/deposition is known at a certain location and time, then the SED_K

parameters for individual land use and soil type combinations at the location of known

erosion/deposition can be adjusted in the mapping table. This can be done in increments until the

desired erosion/deposition is reached for the location of interest. Since this data is not available

for the Aguacate model, this additional calibration step was not performed.

40
3.10 Results

The spatially and temporally normalized results for the calibrated Kilinc-Richardson

(KR) and uncalibrated Slope and Unit Discharge (SUD) models can be seen in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2: GSSHA sediment discharge results.

Transport Washload Sand Discharge Total Sediment

Capacity Discharge (ton/year/km2) Discharge
Equation (ton/year/km2) (ton/year/km2)
KR 7772 1786 9559
SUD 526758 7705 534463

The model that used Slope and Unit Discharge transport capacity equation produced

about fifty times as much sediment discharge as the calibrated Kilinc-Richardson model. Usually

the Slope and Unit Discharge equation is good at predicting the sediment discharge within +/-

200%; however, for the Aguacate model it drastically over predicts the sediment discharge. This

shows the importance of recognizing unrealistic solutions and not completely relying on the

Slope on Unit Discharge equation when modeling sediment discharge. To get an understanding

of the time variation in sediment discharge in each of the GSSHA models, a total sediment

discharge sedograph was developed from the GSSHA results as seen in Figure 3-9.

The sedograph shows that both equations react similarly to the rainfall events. However,

the Slope and Unit Discharge Equation ramps up to a much higher level of sediment discharge

than the calibrated Kilinc-Richardson equation.

41
 100

SUD
10
Total Sediment Discharge (m3/s)

KR

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001
1-Jan 20-Feb 10-Apr 30-May 19-Jul 7-Sep 27-Oct 16-Dec
Date

Figure 3-9: Log scale sedograph comparison of GSSHA model results.

Along with temporal sediment discharge output, GSSHA can also output spatial

distributions of the erosion and deposition as seen in Figure 3-10. The Kilinc-Richardson

GSSHA model seems to produce spots of extremely high erosion, whereas the Slope and Unit

Discharge GSSHA model has more distributed erosion and deposition. Furthermore, the Slope

and Unit Discharge GSSHA model has a great amount of deposition in the channels.

At this point, if additional precipitation and measured sediment flow data were available

we would attempt to verify the model under different precipitation conditions.

42
 Kilinc-Richardson Slope and Unit Discharge

Figure 3-10: Spatial distribution of erosion and deposition with both GSSHA models.

3.10.1 Rerunning with the Slope and Unit Discharge and Generic Sediment Fractions

As mentioned in Section 2.4.4, the Slope and Unit Discharge equation is highly sensitive

to the sediment fractions from the soil erosion mapping table. Since the sediment fractions in the

soil erosion mapping table for the Aguacate model were of questionable accuracy because of

limited measured data, the mapping table was modified to have more generic values. After

running GSSHA with the modified mapping table the resulting total sediment discharge was

75,415 tons/km2/year which was 689% higher than the calculated USLE yield. While it is still

43
high, it is much more reasonable than the 534,463 tons/km2/year produced via the measured soil

fractions.

3.11 Modeling Land Use Changes

Using the calibrated Kilinc-Richardson model various land use changes were modeled to

explorer the capabilities that GSSHA has for modeling spatial variations in land use.

3.11.1 Deforestation and Agricultural Development

About half of the Aguacate watershed consists of undeveloped forests and grasslands.

The other half is agricultural which is primarily used for coffee production. One of the valuable

capabilities of GSSHA for the Aguacate watershed is that the effects of deforestation can be

modeled. Using the GSSHA model developed with the Kilinc-Richardson and Slope and Unit

Discharge transport capacity equations, two potential land use changes were simulated. When

modeling the different land use scenarios in the Aguacate watershed the Slope and Unit

Discharge equation did not produce significantly different results. Many of the soil erosion

parameters are hardwired into the Slope and Unit Discharge transport capacity equation, which

means that the Slope and Unit Discharge equation can be inaccurate when predicting the effects

of land use changes. While the Slope and Unit Discharge equation can be sensitive to the

fractional soil composition in the soil erosion mapping table, the land use changes did not require

changes in the soil composition. Because of these problems that the Slope and Unit Discharge

equation has with the Aguacate watershed, this case study will focus on the land use change

sediment results produced with the Kilinc-Richardson equation.

The first land use change scenario that was modeled was a complete deforestation of 11.2

km2 in the northeast portion of the watershed, which is about 10% of the total watershed area.

44
For the next land use change scenario the same area would be converted to coffee crop land use.

This common process of land cultivation leaves the land at risk of high amounts of erosion

during the brief period between deforestation and agricultural development.

First, the land use index map and the land use/soil type combination index map were

duplicated. The duplicated index maps were then modified to account for the new land use

scenarios. This was done by assigning an index value of 999 to the cells that overlap the

modified land use in both the land use index map and land use/soil type combination index map

for the deforestation model. The existing and changed land use index maps can be seen in Figure

3-11. Most of the altered land use was forest (red) and grassland (light blue). Because there are

coffee crops in the calibrated base sediment model, the land use IDs for the altered land use area

in the coffee crop scenario model can be given the coffee crop land use ID. The same can be

done for the land use/soil type combination index map in the coffee crop model.

Following the modification of the index maps, the mapping tables for both soil erosion

and roughness were updated to account for the modified index maps in the deforestation model.

The roughness mapping table was changed to reference the modified land use index map and the

soil erosion mapping table was changed to reference the modified combination index map.

To determine the roughness value that should be used for the deforestation scenario, the

suggested roughness value table from the GSSHA wiki was referenced (see APPENDIX).

Sometimes the roughness values in the mapping table are used to calibrate the runoff in a

GSSHA model. This can make the roughness values artificially high as natural storage and other

factors are represented with this parameter. As a result, they may no longer match the suggested

roughness values table in the APPENDIX. In this case it would not make sense to pick a value

from the suggested roughness value table that matches the new land use. However, one can

45
maintain the appropriate proportions as found in the suggested roughness value table when

entering in new roughness values. In this case, the calibrated roughness values are still within

ranges of the suggested roughness values found in the table. Because of that we could use the

roughness value found in the table without further modifications to maintain correct

proportionality. For the deforestation scenario, a bare clay-loam land use was used with the

roughness table to account for the worse possible outcome.

Existing Land Use Modified Land Use

Index Map Index Map

Altered Area

Figure 3-11: Land use index maps before and after alterations.

To determine the roughness value that should be used for the deforestation scenario, the

suggested roughness value table from the GSSHA wiki was referenced (see APPENDIX).

Sometimes the roughness values in the mapping table are used to calibrate the runoff in a

46
GSSHA model. This can make the roughness values artificially high as natural storage and other

factors are represented with this parameter. As a result, they may no longer match the suggested

roughness values table in the APPENDIX. In this case it would not make sense to pick a value

from the suggested roughness value table that matches the new land use. However, one can

maintain the appropriate proportions as found in the suggested roughness value table when

entering in new roughness values. In this case, the calibrated roughness values are still within

ranges of the suggested roughness values found in the table. Because of that we could use the

roughness value found in the table without further modifications to maintain correct

proportionality. For the deforestation scenario, a bare clay-loam land use was used with the

roughness table to account for the worse possible outcome.

Because the coffee crop scenario did not introduce any new land use type, the roughness

mapping tables did not need to be updated for that model.

For the deforestation scenario, the soil erosion mapping table will need to be updated for

the new bare earth on clay soil land use/soil type combination index map. To do this, new values

for SPLASH_K, DETACH_ERODE, and SED_K were developed. While the SPLASH_K and

DETACH_ERODE parameters can be developed with the methods suggested in Section 2.4,

developing the SED_K parameter was more involved. Before sediment calibration the SED_K

parameters were developed by the process discussed in Section 2.7. However, since then the

SED_K parameters have been altered through calibration, the deforestation SED_K factor needs

to be multiplied by the same calibration adjustment factor. The SED_K parameters were

ultimately multiplied by 0.0222 of their original values through the calibration process as seen in

Table 3-1. The new deforested SED_K value for bare earth on clay soil which was developed via

47
the process discussed in Section 2.6 was then multiplied by 0.0222. The resulting new soil

erosion parameters for the bare earth on clay soil are in Figure 3-12.

Because the coffee crop on clay soil land use/soil type combination already exists in the

soil erosion mapping table, no alterations needed to be done to the soil erosion mapping table in

the coffee crop model.

Both modified land use models were then saved and run. The sediment discharge results

are in Table 3-3.

Figure 3-12: Soil erosion parameters for new deforested area.

While the effects of deforestation increased the total runoff by 38%, the coffee crop

model showed that once the deforested area was agriculturally developed the rate of erosion

would be 18% less than what it was before the deforestation due to erosion prevention methods

used during farming.

48
 Table 3-3: Sediment discharge results for land use modification scenarios

Land Use Scenario Washload Sand Total Sed. Increase in Total

Discharge Discharge Discharge Sed. Discharge from
(ton/year/km2) (ton/year/km2) (ton/year/km2) Existing Conditions
Existing conditions 7772 1786 9559 N/A

10% deforestation 11387 1783 13170 38%

Deforested land turned
6090 1782 7872 -18%
into coffee crops

The spatial variation of erosion for the area that underwent the land use changes can be

seen in Figure 3-13. The additional erosion in the deforestation scenario is distinct. The existing

condition compared to the coffee crop scenario shows very minor changes.

Existing Land Use

Net Sediment
Transfer
(m3/grid cell)

Deforested Land Use

Coffee Crop Land Use

Figure 3-13: Spatial variations of net sediment transfer for different LU scenarios.

49
3.11.2 Connecting Land Use Changes to a Stream Arc

If new land uses are not connected to stream arcs then the affects that the land use

changes have on the watershed can be dampened out. To understand the sensitivity that the

model has with hydraulically connecting a land use to a stream arc, two different scenarios were

modeled. First, 5% of the watershed which was connected to a stream arc were given a set of

highly erodible parameters. Second, 5% of the roughly the same area of the watershed but was

not connected to a stream arc was given the same highly erodible parameters. The two different

land use change scenarios can be seen in Figure 3-14. The total sediment discharge results can be

seen in Table 3-4and the spatial variation of results can be seen in Figure 3-15.

Connected Disconnect
Land Use Land Use

Figure 3-14: Connected to stream arc and disconnected to stream LU index maps.

50
 Table 3-4: Change in sediment discharge for connected and disconnected scenarios.

Scenario % Change in Total Sediment

Discharge from Unmodified Model
Connected 25%
Disconnect 8%

Existing
Land Use

Net Sediment
Transfer
(m3/grid cell)

Disconnected
Land Use

Connected
Land Use

Figure 3-15: Spatial variation in erosion/deposition for connected/disconnected LU

scenarios.

51
 The changes in total sediment discharge suggest that cells that are disconnected from

stream arcs have a dampened influence on the total sediment discharge. Furthermore, from

looking at the connected land use in Figure 3-15, it can be seen that most of the erosion and

deposition occurs in the cells adjacent to the stream arc. This could be due to the steeper slopes

that occur next to the channel. For the Aguacate model, this means that were the new land uses

are place in regards to the stream arcs can have a large affected on the sediment discharge

results.

3.11.3 Modeling a Channel Buffer Zone

One of the benefits of using GSSHA for sediment modeling is the ability to model

different erosion control practices to see how they affect the sediment discharge. One way to

model an erosion practice is to create a land use that uses a buffer zone with low edibility near

the channels. One concern with the Aguacate watershed is that there is a substantial amount of

erosion that occurs near the channels. While GSSHA does not model channel bank erosion, one

can decrease the erodibility of the cells next to the channel to simulate more stable conditions for

the area nearby the channel. For the Aguacate watershed, the buffer was placed around 60% of

the main stream for the watershed. The buffer zone land use index map can be seen in Figure

3-16. The soil erosion and roughness mapping tables were updated for the new index map ID. It

was assumed that the buffer zone would have a low erodibility factor similar to that of a dense

forest.

The resulting total sediment discharge of 3089 tons/km2/year was 68% lower than the

original total sediment discharge which shows the effectiveness of the modeled buffer zone.

52
 Figure 3-16: Stream buffer zone land use index map.

3.12 Modeling a Hurricane as an Extreme Event

In September of 1979 Hurricane David, a category five hurricane, passed through the

Dominican Republic. Because of the torrential rain, many areas in the Dominican Republic

experienced the highest flows on record. These high flows resulted in an increase in sediment

flow and caused many landslides. When developing a dam and reservoir in the Dominican

Republic are of interest because the high sediment flows caused by hurricanes can significantly

affect the storage of a reservoir. Using the Aguacate GSSHA model that was calibrated for

sediment discharge, a precipitation event similar to Hurricane David was modeled.

53
 To set up the Aguacate GSSHA model for the hurricane simulation two input files had to

be modified. First, the gage input file that stores the precipitation data was changed. Instead of

modeling an entire year for the hurricane simulation, only 50 days were included. The 50 days

include about 40 days before the hurricane and 10 days during and following the hurricane. The

40 days before the hurricane were used to ramp up the model to equilibrium. For the 40 days

preceding the hurricane, measured precipitation values were used in the gage file. However,

during and after the hurricane no precipitation data were available. Instead of using gage

measured precipitation values a SCS Type II 48-hour storm was used to model the hurricane. A

depth value of 300 mm, which was interpolated from a 48-hour Hurricane David depth contour

map, was used for the SCS storm. Once the gage file was updated with this information, the

precipitation data were reloaded into WMS.

Next the HMET data were updated. To do this the data was modified from its original

length of one full year in 1983 to only 50 days in 1979 spanning from early August to late

September. Because the simulation spans a much shorter time period, the output hydrograph time

step was then decreased to create a higher temporal resolution hydrograph. The model was then

run.

No discharge data existed to calibrate the model due to problems with the flow gage

during the hurricane. However, the resulting peak flow was about 800 cms which seemed within

reason for an extreme storm over a 113 km2 watershed. A side by side comparison of the net

sediment transfer can be seen in Figure 3-17. The spatially normalized sediment discharge along

with the 1983 spatially and temporally normalized sediment discharge can be seen in Table 3-5.

54
 Net Sediment
Transfer
(m3/grid cell) 1983 Hurricane David

Figure 3-17: Comparison of the net sed. transfer for hurricane and 1983 models.

Table 3-5: Normalized sediment discharges for hurricane and 1983 models.

Hurricane David
2
Total wash-load outlet discharge 2708 ton/km
2
Total sand outlet discharge 1782 ton/km
2
Total sediment discharge 4491 ton/km
1983
2
Total sediment discharge 9557 ton/km /year

From examining the spatial erosion and deposition, it looks like the deposition is more

distributed for the hurricane model. The normalized sediment discharge that was modeled for

Hurricane David was 47% of the normalized yearly sediment discharge. While 1983 was a

slightly above average year for precipitation, we can estimate that the sediment runoff from a

large hurricane is about the same as 5-6 months of sediment runoff during a normal water year.

55
56
4 CONCLUSION

The major constraints when using sediment transport in GSSHA include the availability

of sediment calibration data, the amount of simulation time, the accuracy of soil composition

data, the accuracy of particle size data, and the inability of GSSHA to model channel bank

erosion. Furthermore, a calibrated long term GSSHA hydrologic model needs to be constructed

before running GSSHA sediment transport equations.

The basic steps in setting up sediment transportation in GSSHA are:

1) Develop a calibrated long term hydrologic GSSHA model with a cell size small

enough to capture important topographical detail and a well-defined stream network.

2) Define the soil particle types, size, and densities.

3) Decide what transport capacity equation to used. This is based on available

calibration data and the intent of the model. The Kilinc-Richardson equation is best if

sediment calibration data are available and if different land use scenarios will be

modeled. The Slope and Unit Discharge equation is best when no sediment

calibration data is available.

4) Using parameter estimate guidelines from the literature set up the soil erosion

mapping table. Many parameters do not have much effect on the sediment discharge.

The SED_K parameter is primarily used only as a calibration parameter. The

DETACH_ERODE parameter can have a substantial influence on sand outlet

57
 discharge. The fractional soil composition in the soil erosion mapping table has a

substantial influence on the washload outlet discharge, especially for models that use

the Slope and Unit Discharge equation.

5) Define the channel erosion parameters. The two most important parts for channel

erosion include the sand size and maximum channel erosion depth.

6) Run the model with the initial conditions and look for areas of unusually high

erosion. The problematic area can often be fixed by extending the stream network to

the cells or by fixing digital dams.

7) For calibration purposes, determine how long it takes the sediment model to ramp up

to equilibrium conditions. Use the sediment discharge volume for the stable period

for calibration instead of the entire model’s sediment discharge volume.

8) If using the Kilinc-Richardson or Engelund-Hansen transport capacity equations, the

sediment model can then be manually calibrated by incrementally adjusting the

SED_K parameter for the overland erosion and/or the channel max depth parameter

for sand outlet discharge.

9) If measured sediment and precipitation data are available for a different period of

time then the model can be run with new precipitation data to see how well the

sediment results match up with the measured sediment data for verification purposes.

10) Once the model is calibrated, various scenarios can be modeled to see how the

watershed’s sediment runoff is affected by land use changes or different rainfall

events. It is important to remember that cells that are adjacent to cells that contain a

stream arc have greater influence on the sediment discharge results then cells that are

disconnected from the stream arcs.

58
 The sediment transport modeling capabilities of GSSHA, while still in development, can

be a valuable tool when determining the watershed erosion and sediment runoff. Of particular

interested is GSSHA’s ability to model spatial variations in land use and soil type, and both

spatial and temporal variations in precipitation. Generally there is too much uncertainty involved

in developing all of the physical parameters for the GSSHA sediment transport model to not be

used with calibration data. While there is often a lack of credible observed data the USLE

equations are not a bad way to estimate sediment loads for dam design considerations. In these

situations GSSHA could be a good tool for a more detailed design where land use changes or

extreme precipitation events can be considered.

59
60
 REFERENCES

Downer, C. W., Ogden, F. L., Martin, W., and Harmon, R. S. (2002a). “Theory, Development,
and Applicability of the Surface Water Hydrologic Model CASC2D,” Hydrol. Pro. 16,
255-275.

Downer, C. W. (2008). “Demonstration of GSSHA Hydrology at Goodwin Creek Experimental

Watershed”, ERDC-TNSWWRP-08-3

Downer, C.W. (2010). “Improved Soil Erosion and Sediment Transportation in GSSHA.” ERDC
SWWRP Technical Note.

Flanagan, D. C., and M. A. Nearing. (1995). “USDA Water Erosion Prediction Project Hillslope
Profile and Watershed Model Document.” NSERL Report No. 11. USDA-ARS National Soil
Erosion Research Laboratory.

Foster, G. R. (1982). “Modeling of Erosion Process in Hydrologic Modeling of Small

Watersheds.” Hydrologic Modeling of Small Watersheds, ASAE.

GSSHA Wiki. (2008). “Building a Model: Selecting a Grid Size.” USACE.

http://gsshawiki.com/gssha/Building_a_Model:Selecting_a_Grid_Size (Access June 18,
2012)

GSSHA Wiki. (2009a). “GSSHA Primer.” USACE. http://gsshawiki.com/gssha/GSSHA_Primer

(Access June 18, 2012)

GSSHA Wiki. (2009b). “Project File: Soil Erosion - Optional.” USACE.

http://gsshawiki.com/gssha/Project_File:Soil_Erosion_%E2%80%93_Optional (Access
June 18, 2012)

GSSHA Wiki. (2009c) “Soil Erosion: Channel Sediment Transportation Formula.” USACE.
http://gsshawiki.com/gssha/Soil_Erosion:Channel_Sediment_Transport_Formulation
(Access June 18, 2012)

GSSHA Wiki. (2011) “Surface Water Routing: Overland Flow Routing.” USACE.
http://gsshawiki.com/gssha/Surface_Water_Routing:Overland_Flow_Routing (Access
June 18, 2012)

61
GSSHA Wiki. (2012) “Soil Erosion: Simulations with Soil Erosion.” USACE.
http://gsshawiki.com/gssha/Soil_Erosion:Simulations_with_Soil_Erosion (Access June
18, 2012)

Hunter, S., B. Vieux, F. Ogden, J. Niedzialek, C. Downer, J. Addeigo, J. Daraio, (2003). “A Test
of Two Distributed Hydrologic Models with WSR-88D Radar Precipitation Data Input in
Arizona, Proc. 31st International Conf. on Radar Meteorology”, Am. Met. Soc., 6(12)

Julien, P. Y. (1995). Erosion and Sedimentation, Cambridge University Press, 280 pp.
Johnson, B. E. (2000). “Development of a Particulate Transport Algorithm within the Two
Dimensional Rainfall-Runoff Model (CASC2D).” Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center.

Kalin, L., and M. M. Hantush. (2006). “Comparative Assessment of Two Distributed Watershed
Models with Application to a Small Watershed.” Hydrol. Proc. 20(11), 2285-2307.

Kilinc, M., and E. V. Richardson. (1973). “Mechanics of Soil Erosion from Overland Flow
Generated by Simulated Rainfall: Hydrology Paper No. 63”, Colorado State University

Ogden, F., and A. Heilig (2001). “Two-Dimensional Watershed-Scale Erosion Modeling with
CASC2D in Landscape Erosion and evolution Modeling.” Landscape Erosion and
Evolution Modeling, Springer.

Ramirez et al. (2003) “Problematica de la Sedimentacion Del Embalse de Valdesia, Republicad

Domininana.” http://irh-fce.unse.edu.ar/Rios2003/TC/TC_2_5.pdf

Rojas, R. et al. , (2008). “Grid Scale Effect on Watershed Soil Erosion Models.” Journal of
Hydrologic Engineering, 13 (9), 793-802.

Wanielista, M.P. (1978). Stormwater Management: Quantity and Quality, Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Ann Arbor Science, Inc., 412 pp.

Wicks, J. M., and J. C. Bathurst. (1996). “SHESED: A Physically Based, Distributed Erosion
and Sediment Component for the SHE Hydrological Modeling System.” J. Hydrol. 175, 213-
238.

Yang et al. (2006). Erosion and Sediment Modeling, Denver Colorado, Denver, CO: Bureau of
Reclamation

62
APPENDIX A. TABLES

Table A-1: Values of overland flow roughness coefficient (GSSHAwiki, 2011):

Notes: aEngman (1986), bDowner (2002b), cSenarath et al (2000), dHEC (1985).

Land Use or Cover Recommended

Range
n-value
0.01-0.013a
Concrete or asphalt 0.011a
0.05-0.15d
b
Developed/industrial 0.0137 -
a
Bare sand 0.01 0.010-0.016a
Graveled surface 0.02a 0.012-0.03a

Bare clay-loam (eroded) 0.02a 0.012-0.033a

Gullied land - 0.320-0.357c

Bare field – no residue 0.05a 0.006-0.16a
a
Range (natural) 0.13 0.01-0.32a
Range (clipped) 0.10a 0.02-0.24a
Grass and pasture - 0.05 – 0.15a
- 0.235-271c
Pasture
- 0.30-0.40d
Clover - 0.08 – 0.25a
Small grain - 0.1 – 0.4a
Row crops - 0.07 – 0.2a
Cotton/soy - 0.246-0.261c
0.39-0.63a
Grass (bluegrass sod) 0.45a
0.30-0.50d
Short grass prairie 0.15a 0.10-0.20a,d
Dense grass 0.24a 0.17-0.30a
a
Bermuda grass 0.41 0.30-0.48a
Lawns 0.40-0.50d
Forest 0.192b 0.184-198c
Sparsely vegetated 0.150b 0.05-0.13d
Dense Growth 0.40-0.50d

63