1 / 38

LTHIA and Online Watershed Delineation - Tale of a DEM consumer

LTHIA and Online Watershed Delineation - Tale of a DEM consumer. Larry Theller ,Bernie Engel, and Tong Zhai Purdue University Agricultural and Biological Engineering Dept. theller@purdue.edu. March 13, 2007 Indiana GIS conference Workshops. Presentation Overview.

keiko-gill
Download Presentation

LTHIA and Online Watershed Delineation - Tale of a DEM consumer

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LTHIA and Online Watershed Delineation- Tale of a DEM consumer Larry Theller ,Bernie Engel, and Tong Zhai Purdue University Agricultural and Biological Engineering Dept. theller@purdue.edu March 13, 2007 Indiana GIS conference Workshops

  2. Presentation Overview • L-THIA (Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment) model • WWW watershed delineation • Behind the scenes for Region 5 • Issues encountered

  3. L-THIA Based on the rainfall – land cover – runoff analysis method already used in many communities (TR55) Input: Land Use + Soils Information Process: Daily Runoff and Pollutant Loading Calculations (30 years of local rainfall) Output: Average Annual Runoff and NPS loads for each specific land use pattern

  4. Watershed delineation • DEM comes into play to determine the contributing area • Use “watershed” to categorize the landuse and soil • Each landuse-soil combination has a specific impact on runoff chemistry • Calculate NPS effects based on curve numbers

  5. Click this button. • Click along a stream segment. + Turn on aerial photos.

  6. 288 acre watershed

  7. Selected characteristics available as tables for viewing or map layers. Includes tools to download raster layers of land use, hydrologic soil, curve number, and shapefile of watershed boundary.

  8. Program reformats characteristics of the watershed as needed for several models

  9. Click “Online Digitizing” button to start edit session.

  10. Edit landuse category or apply a BMP to change curve number method.

  11. Watershed Characteristics are prepared as inputs to several models, using original and edited as separate scenarios.

  12. Results include tables and graphics of runoff volume and characteristics.

  13. Behind the scenes • Math is too slow without prepared layers • Flow direction, flowpath precalculated. • Large rasters (landuse, soils) are tiled to speed access • 8 –digit watersheds chosen as tile size

  14. Need DEM, Soil, Landuse, Water features, Highways,

  15. Calculate Flow Direction, Accumulation, Flowpath

  16. Flowpath as vector, for visualizing catchment area.

  17. Region 5 EPA provided funds to extend LTHIA to whole region

  18. For each 8-digit watershed an Arc Info script clips landuse, soils, DEM then burns-in streams, runs delineation to get flow direction, flow accumulation, flowpath, and does miscellaneous reformat and cleanup.

  19. Issues with DEMs and Delineations • “Noise” in data, particularly Indiana • Water in features vs DEM low spots • Tiger 95 / Census 2000 water versus NHD • “Water” in landuse vs in STATSGO Soil

  20. Original USGS NED DEM

  21. Original USGS NED DEM

  22. Major area of unreported “Glacial Grooves?” Original USGS NED DEM and Hillshade

  23. Add quadrangles and note exact fit. Original USGS NED DEM and Hillshade

  24. Note sharp edge along quad lines. Original USGS NED DEM

  25. Flowpath of water will follow the “grooves.” 2003 Orthophotos and Hillshade

  26. Without funding to repair the USGS NED DEM, our approach was to warn users that in some areas the watershed calculated from the DEM was not reliable.

  27. Indiana Geological Survey revised NED DEM

  28. “Noise” is gone! Indiana Geological Survey revised NED DEM

  29. Burning Issues… • DEMS can be so detailed that they cause problems. • In flat areas it is critical to “burn in” physical path to get correct logical flow

  30. Area 1 Our Calculated Flow (black arrows) runs backwards along Calumet SAG channel. This impacts all the way to Area 1 in Illinois

  31. We discovered that the IGS DEM has road embankments in it which are not being fully cut when the streams are burned-in. One acting like a dam on the flat SAG channel backs water up into Indiana from Illinois.

  32. This area shows the problem, as lakes east of the Interstate flow wrong way, to the north.

  33. The Interstate clearly forms a “dam” (dotted lines) in the DEM. Original model flow depicted.

  34. Flow from the east side is blocked by the interstate and forced to go north to the lake. Aerials clearly show flow passing under the bridge going to west. Stream layer was edited to burn a channel into the east lakes and the bridge was “pitted” to also cut the embankment. Flow shown is BEFORE repairs, and goes east.

  35. After adding the hydraulic connection under the Interstate the lakes all drain to the west. Final flow depicted.

  36. Thanks • Questions?

More Related