HYDROLOGIC INVESTIGATION OF THE NRCS CURVE NUMBER FOR TEXAS WATERSHEDS USING HISTORICAL RECORDS OF RAINFALL AND RUNOFF

by DAVID McLENDON, B.A. A THESIS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

Approved

Dean of the Graduate School December, 2002

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1 want to thank my family for the motivational support they have given me through this enduring process. I want to thank the Texas Department of Transportation for funding this research project. I also want to extend my sincere appreciation to Dr. David B. Thompson and Ken A. Rainwater for all of the positive mentoring throughout my academic career at Texas Tech University. Finally, I want to thank Shiva Kalyan and Kirt Harle for all of their ideas and hard work towards the completion of this research project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 Background Objectives Development of the NRCS Curve Number 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4 2 Derivation of the Rimoff Equation NRCS Curve Number Prediction

vi xi xiii 1 1 1 2 3 7 7 9 9 10 14 18 21 23

Digital Data for Predicting Curve Numbers

LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Curve Nvunber Method's Vague Origin Problems Associated with AMCII Asymptotic Determination of Observed Curve Numbers Curve Number Adjustments in Texas Use of Landsat for calculation of CNII

METHODOLOGY

iii

3.1

Data Acquisition and Processing 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 USGS Stream Gages Landsat Data Soils Data

23 23 24 24 25 26 27 29

3.2

CV//Computational Procedures Using GIS Arc/Info 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 Watershed Digitization Procedures Data Extraction Process Curve Number Calculation 3.2.3.1 Codes 3.2.3.2 Relate Soils and LULC to Calculate Curve Numbers 3.2.4 Automation Scripts

Lookup Table Generation for LULC Classification 29 30 31 32 33 33 34 37

3.3

Observed Curve Number Determination

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Presentation of Observed CN and CM/Results 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 Discussion of CM/Results Discussion of Watershed Observed Curve Niraibers Difference Between Observed Curve Number and

Predicted CM/ 4.2 Comparison with Hailey and McGill's results iv

38 42

CONCLUSIONS

48 53 53

LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES APPENDIX A B C METADATA FOR USGS LANDUSE AND LAND COVER DATABASE MAPUNIT IDENTIFICATION RESOLVED INTO PERCENT HSG PERCENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAND DELINEATED AND USGS REPORTED AREAS D E F G NRCS CURVE NUMBER TABLES LOOKUP TABLES FOR EACH GEOGRAPHIC REGION IN TEXAS AML AUTOMATION SCRIPTS

55 75

89 95 100 119

REGIONAL COMPARISONS BETWEEN OBSERVED CURVE NUMBER AND PREDICTED CM/ 124

LIST OF TABLES

2.1: Runoff curve numbers for land cover delineations defined from Landsat (Ragan and Jackson, 1980) 3.1. Percent difference between STATSGO and SSURGO calculations (after Atkinson, 2001) 4.1: Statewide statistical summary of curve number results 4.2: Comparison between Hailey and McGill (1983) observed CN and asymptotic determined observed CN for watershed study matches Bl: Texas MUID's resolved into HSG components Bl: Texas MUID's resolved into HSG components CI: Comparison of hand delineated areas to USGS reported areas CI: Comparison of hand delineated areas to USGS reported areas Dl: Runoffcurvenimibers for urban areas (fromTxDOT, 1997) D2: Rimoff curve numbers for cultivated agricultural land (from TxDOT, 1997) D3: Rxmoff curve numbers for other agricultural lands (from TxDOT, 1997)

22

25 36

45 76 76 90 90 96 97 98

D4: Rimoff curve numbers for arid and semi-arid rangelands (from TxDOT, 1997).... 99 El: Lookup table for Abilene region E2: Lookup table for Alpine region E3: Lookup table for Austin region E4: Lookup table for Bangs region E5: Lookup table for Coolidge region E6: Lookup table for Dallas region E7: Lookup table for Dublin region E8: Lookup table for Elmondorf region vi 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108

E9: Lookup table for Fairmount region ElO: Lookup table for Freemound region E l l : Lookup table for Frelsburg region E12: Lookup table for Lenz region El3: Lookup table for Marilee region E14: Lookup table for Moody region E15: Lookup table for San Antonio region E16: Lookup table for Sugar Land region E17: Lookup table for Tme region E18: Lookup table for Weston region G.l: Comparison between predicted CN and observed CN for Austin G.2: Comparison between predicted CN and observed CN for Dallas G.3: Comparison between predicted CN and observed CN for Ft. Worth G.4: Comparison between predicted CN and observed CN for San Antonio G.5: Comparison between predicted CN and observed CN for rural watersheds

109 110 Ill 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 125 126 127 127 128

vu

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1: Standard watershed response (from Hawkins, 1993) 2.4: Adjustment weighting indices for Texas curve numbers, after Hailey and McGill (1983) 3.1: Digitized watershed boundary near Dublin, Texas 3.2: Extracted Landsat data for a watershed near Dublin, Texas 3.3: Extracted soils data for a watershed near Dublin, Texas 3.4: Combined polygon coverage with computed CN' s near Dublin, Texas 4.1: Distribution of CM/values in Texas watersheds 4.2: Standard, violent and complacent watershed responses 4.3: Distribution of observed CN values in Texas watersheds 4.4: Distribution of computed CN differences in Texas watersheds 4.4: Distribution of computed CN differences in Texas watersheds 4.5: Distribution of mean annual rainfall in Texas 4.6: Computed difference between observed CN and the procedure of Hailey and McGill (1983)

16

20 27 28 28 31 35 39 40 43 43 44

46

viu

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) engineers currently use the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) curve number method to size hydraulic stmctures and then estimate the peak discharge from a watershed for a given design storm frequency. Curve number calculations currently implemented by TxDOT only account for soil textural classifications and land use and land cover (LULC). Because of the extensive geographic variations in Texas annual rainfall, other factors in the curve number method needed to be studied, such as the antecedent moisture condition (AMC) and design recurrence interval of the curve number computed from rainfall and mnoff data.

1.2

Objectives

This study of NRCS curve numbers represents the second phase in a more extensive project for TxDOT. The main project, TxDOT Project Number 0-2104, Climatic Adjustments of Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Runoff Cun'e Numbers, was conducted to investigate the need (or lack thereof) for developing a standard adjustment procedure to the current method of computing a NRCS curve number. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to refine and implement an automation method to compute the NRCS curve number for any watershed in Texas.

Using available records of rainfall and runoff for select watersheds in Texas, a secondary task of this study was to compute the deviations between the observed curve number (calculated from rainfall-mnoff data) and the NRCS curve number (or predicted curve number) for each of the select watersheds. The computed deviations were then analyzed with respect to geographic location of the study watersheds in Texas. This comparison is important because the observed curve number for a watershed approximates the actual curve number for similar locations near the study watershed (Hawkins, 1979). The final task of this study was to compare the observed curve numbers, computed from rainfall and mnoff data, to an informal curve number adjustment mechanism used by some TxDOT hydraulic design engineers. This mechanism was traced back to the work of Hailey and McGill (1983).

1.3

Development of the NRCS Curve Number

The curve number method was originally developed by the NRCS, fonnerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), in 1954 to estimate the direct mnoff from a single precipitafion event on a small agricultural watershed (NRCS, 1997). A detailed derivation of the curve number method is presented in the NRCS Nafional Engineering Handbook Part 630: Hydrology (NEH-630) (NRCS, 1997). The curve number method is an infiltration loss model, although it may account for interception and surface storage losses through its initial abstraction feature (Ponce and Hawkins, 1996).

1.3.1 Derivation of the Runoff Equation Records of natural rainfall and runoff were collected and plotted by NRCS researchers. These data were plotted against each other on graph paper. Runoff was observed to begin somefime after precipitation began, which became the basis for "initial abstraction." The double mass curve plot was observed to become asymptofic to a 45degree straight line (NRCS, 1997). Using an example of a simplisfic stonn, the linear relationship between precipitation, mnoff and watershed retention (precipitation not converted to mnoff) can be expressed as Equation 1.1:

^ - ^ S P

(Ll)

where:

F = actual watershed retenfion after mnoff begins (in.) S = maximum potential retention after mnoff begins iS>F) (in.) Q = direct watershed mnoff (in.), and P = precipitation iP>Q) (in.).

For a given stonn, S will remain constant because it is the maximum retention that can occur given the exisfing watershed characterisfics. F, however, is variable because it is the difference between P and Q as presented in Equafion 1.2:

F = P-Q.

(1.2)

Subsfituting this relationship into Equation 1.1, Equation 1.3 can be written as:

P-Q

_Q

(1.3)

Solving Equation 1.3 for Q yields Equation 1.4 expressed as:

P^ Q= P+S (1.4)

When inifial abstracfion {la) greater than zero is taken into consideration, the amount of precipitafion available for direct mnoff can be quantified by P-Ia. Using this relafionship in Equafion 1.1 through Equafion 1.4, respecfively, the equivalent equafions become Equafion 1.5, Equafion 1.6, Equation 1.7 and Equafion 1.8, respecfively:

^ =^ S P-I

(1.5)

F = {P-IJ-Q

(1.6)

{P-I Q={P-IJ

V "-^. +S

(1.8)

Equation 1.8 represents the relationship between precipitafion and runoff when initial abstracfion is quantified. The mnoff curve number method was originally developed as a lumped model (spatial and temporal) to convert precipitation depth to direct runoff volume. A lumped model is a practical way to account for the complex variability in hydrologic processes. la lumps interception and depression storage together. Additional abstractions, such as detention storage and infiltration, are represented by the difference between rainfall and mnoff (Ponce and Hawkins, 1996). The empirical relafionship for 4 was developed from rainfall-mnoff records from a series of experimental watersheds generally less than 10 ac in surface area. The empirical relafionship is expressed as Equation 1.9: /=0.25. (1.9)

When Equafion 1.9 is subsfituted into Equation 1.8, the NRCS rainfall-mnoff relationship is given as Equafion 1.10:

(p-a2^ P + 0.85

,1,0)

The potential maximum retention S is dependent on the soil textural classification, the land cover and soil cultivation practice and the antecedent moisture condition (Hjelmfelt, 1980). The runoff relationship was simplified by the introduction of the dimensionless curve number (CN) parameter. The CA^parameter was developed to estimate the variability in the land cover, cultivation practice, and the soil textural classificafion. NRCS (1997) has a list compiled of CN-values for many different combinafions of LULC and HSG. Equafion 1.11 relates this parameter to S, expressed as:

CN The CA/^ parameter simplifies the rainfall-mnoff relationship by having defined limits of 100 > CA^ > 0. At the lower bound of
CJV=

0, S = <x>{a completely pervious

surface), and all incoming precipitafion is abstracted. At the upper bound of CA^= 100, 5 = 0 (a completely impervious surface), and all incoming precipitation becomes runoff. If Equafion 1.11 is subsfituted into Equafion 1.10, then the resulfing rainfall-mnoff relationship can be expressed as Equafion 1.12:

[CN{P +2)-200f CN[CNiP-S)+ S00]'

With a measured precipitafion event and an average CN value for a watershed, application of Equafion 1.12 results in the calculation of direct mnoff Equafion 1.12 is bounded by the limits of P > {200/CN) - 2 and g = 0 (Ponce and Hawkins, 1996).

Furthennore, CA^ is dependent on soil wetness at the beginning of the event. That is, stonn events preceding the event in question can impact CN. This effect can be estimated by considering the antecedent rainfall during the previous 5 days. This parameter is called the AMC. The average condifion CN is referenced by an AMCII value. AMC I and AMC III represent the upper and lower bounds of CA^, respectively. The dry, average and wet conditions are represented by CNI, CNII, and CM//, respectively.

1.3.2 NRCS Curve Number Prediction Predicfion of a watershed C7V parameter is based on hydrologic soil groups (HSG) and LULC. The predicted curve number is the CM/value for the average moisture condition. NRCS has also provided adjustment tables so that CM and CM// can be determined from CNII. CNI and CM// values are necessary to account for the varying site moisture.

1.4

Digital Data for Predicting Curve Numbers

Because of the recent advancements in satellite imagery and digital data, HSG and LULC data are now available in digital format for the state of Texas. Given the accessibility of digital databases, a geographical informafion system (GIS) was chosen to automate computation of CNII for any location in Texas. Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc. (1990) defines a GIS as "an organized collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data and personnel designed to efficiently capture, store.

update, manipulate, analyze and display all fonns of geographically referenced infonnafion." A GIS was implemented because of the software's ability to reference spafial data and associate infonnation with the data (Chrisman, 1997). Atkinson (2001) developed a computafional tool for estimating CNII using GIS/ArcInfo 8.0.2. The GIS procedure was implemented by digitizing a watershed boundary to extract LULC and HSG data specific to the watershed's boundary and geographic location. Both of the extracted data sets were combined to form a representative composite of the watershed. Curve numbers were then calculated for each of the intersecting polygons. A weighted average CN-was then computed using a grid cell size of 30 meters square. The weighted average CV represented the predicted curve number for the watershed.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1

Curve Number Method's Vague Origin

A significant amount of research was perfonned during the last two decades to validate the curve number procedure using observations of rainfall and mnoff data. Ponce and Hawkins (1996) suggested that the NRCS curve number method was primarily a procedural document intended to simplify calculafion of mnoff from an ungaged watershed. The design intent of the NRCS curve number method was to simplify the rainfall-mnoff process by lumping complex hydrologic processes into a single dimensionless parameter. Because of the method's authoritative origin, it was never subjected to the intensive criticism of peer review (Ponce and Hawkins, 1996). Furthermore, Hjelmfelt (1980) indicated that verificafion of curve number method results had not been published extensively, which brings to quesfion the validity of the curve number method. Ponce and Hawkins (1996) studied the curve number method with four objectives: (1) to clarify its conceptual and empirical basis, (2) to delineate its capabilities, (3) limitations and uses and (4) to identify areas of potential research. Their findings resulted in a list of perceived advantages and perceived disadvantages. Their findings are listed as follows:

Advantages of the curve number method: Simplicity, Repeatability, Predictability, Stability, Reliance on only one parameter, Responsiveness to major runoff-producing watershed properties (soil type, land use/treatment, surface condifion and antecedent condition). Disadvantages of the cwve number method: Marked sensitivity to the choice of curve number, Absence of clear guidance on how to vary antecedent moisture, Method's varying accuracy for different biomes, and Initial Abstraction equals 0.2S.

2.2

Problems Associated with AMCII

Hjelmfelt (1991) studied the ambiguous definition of AMCII. In their documents, NRCS defined the AMCII condition as the five-day precipitafion total prior to the CNII calculafion of a watershed (NRCS, 1997). Hjelmfelt (1980) concluded that computation of the curve number from measurements of rainfall and runoff provided the best estimates of the parameter, given the uncertainties associated with estimation of watershed-specific curve numbers.

Schaake (1967) pioneered afi-equencyranking approach with rainfall and runoff data using the rational method. Application of the frequency ranking approach produced a frequency transfonnation between the rainfall intensity and the runoff intensity. The assumption was that the transfonnation function (in Schaake's case the rational method) served to map the frequency distribution of rainfall intensity into the frequency distribution of mnoff intensity. That is, the rational method mnoff coefficient, commonly denoted C, serves to map one frequency distribufion into another. Operationally, this mapping was accomplished by ranking the maximum rainfall intensity from largest to smallest, then ranking the mnoff intensity from largest to smallest and finally computing the mnoff coefficient from ranked pairs. This process was contrary to the standard approach of treating pairs of rainfall intensity and mnoff intensity on an event (or occurrence) basis. Similarly, Hjelmfelt (1980) worked extensively with the NRCS mnoff curve number method as a frequency transformation between rainfall and runoff data. Hjelmfelt (1980) chose this approach because it is commonly assumed that the design peak mnoff occurs with the same frequency as the design peak rainfall volume. The frequency transformafion approach applied to curve number calculations was a significant variation from the traditional calculations. Event-based calculations were determined by calculating CVfrom paired rainfall and mnoff volumes as the events were recorded and averaging the results to determine the observed watershed CN. In contrast to this approach, and following logic similar to Schaake's, the data were split into two independent sets, one of rainfall and one of mnoff. The rainfall and

11

runoff data were ranked in descending order and plotted on lognormal coordinates. The method of moments was used to detennine the distribution parameters for a lognonnal distribution. Values of precipitation were chosen from the fitted lognonnal distribution, and then were converted to runoff using a predicted curve number value for their study watersheds. For watersheds in the more humid central, eastern central and eastem United States, Hjelmfelt (1980) reported that the frequency transfonnation process worked reasonably well. However, for one watershed located in the semi-arid southwest region of the United States (Sonoita Creek, Arizona), Hjelmfelt's procedure had pooriy correlated results. Renard (1981) suggested that the poor results observed at Sonoita Creek could result from partial source area mnoff from the watershed. Partial source area mnoff is mnoff generated from an impervious feature within the watershed such as a lake or forested coverage (Hawkins, 1979). Another possible explanation offered by Renard (1981), was the spatial distribution of rainfall on the watershed. For example, a stonn might be observed to record a substantial amount of precipitation at the recording station, but then, because the watershed is larger in surface area than the storm only a fraction of the mnoff is recorded at the gaging station. Transmissive losses were offered as another explanation for the poor correlative results at Sonoita Creek. Transmissive losses in the watershed occur as mnoff moves from the precipitation source area over the dry alluvial streambeds associated with arid watersheds. Daly (1981) suggested that the curve number method might be inappropriate for semi-arid climatic regions, as the application of the method tends to over predict mnoff

12

fi-om larger precipitation events. Hjelmfelt (1980) also described the relation between / and S as tenuous at best and that fixation of/ to 0.25 may be inappropriate for the semiarid regions. Furthennore, several watersheds in this research study located in far west Texas have semi-arid characteristics. In a later paper, Hjelmfelt (1982) computed the values of watershed maximum potential retention, 5. for each event. A lognonnal distribution was fitted to the computed values of 5. The mean logarithm, that is, the logarithm with a 50 percent exceedance probability, was associated with AMCII. From the lognonnal distribufion of S, values were detennined for the 10 percent and the 90 percent exceedance probabilities. From these estimates, values of curve number were computed by solving Equation 1.11. The estimates of curve number so derived approximated the values published in the NRCS documents for AMCI and AMCIII soil conditions. The lognormal relationship reasonably described AMCI and AMCIII as the 90 percent and 10 percent exceedance probabilities, respectively. This observation implied that only 10 percent of precipitation events will produce mnoff at the ^MC/level and 90 percent of the precipitation events will produce mnoff at the AMCIII level based on the site moisture levels prior to the storm. Antecedent moisture condition categories were observed to have a strong correlation with variations in watershed site moisture (Hjelmfelt, 1982). The sources of site moisture variation could include rainfall intensity, spatial variability of watershed or storm properties, or shortcomings in the stmcture coefficients in the mnoff equafion (Hawkins et al., 1985). They also suggested a precipitafion threshold for calculafing a

13

curve number for a watershed with known data. Based on experience and judgment, only stonns with P > 0.4565 should be used. The precipitation threshold eliminates precipitation events that are sufficiently close to the initial abstraction threshold that computation of curve number from these events is subject to significant uncertainty. Hawkins et al. (1985) computed curve numbers from measurements of rainfallmnoff data. The runoff model, Equation 1.10, can be solved using the quadratic fonnula for S given known depths of rainfall and mnoff Therefore, the resulting solution is expressed as Equation 2.1:

S = 5{P + 2Q-^AQ'+SPQ). The minus sign in the solution was required to maintain the identity of P = g at S=0, which accounts for the condition of an impervious surface (Hawkins, 1993). Hawkins et al. (1985) observed that implementation of Equation 2.1 with the

(2.1)

precipitation exceeding 0.456 times the maximum potential retention P > 0.456S tended to produce lower curve number values with the paired data because of the reduced biasing towards the smaller precipitation events that produce no runoff. Finally, application of the threshold value reduces calculation bias by minimizing the effective sample size, hence, increasing uncertainty.

2.3

Asymptotic Detennination of Observed Curve Numbers

During the last two decades, an extensive amount research has been performed to develop a better method to estimate an observed curve number for a watershed using

14

rainfall and runoff data. Hawkins (1993) worked extensively with recorded rainfall and mnoff data sets. The frequency matching approach of Schaake (1967), used in calibration of rational method runoff coefficients, was by used by Hawkins to equate the retum periods (or exceedance probabilities) of both rainfall and mnoff volume events. The frequency matching approach was applied by rank-ordering the data and computing S for each paired event according to Equation 2.1. The calculated curve number for each paired event was then displayed on a scatter plot as a function of precipitation volumes. Depending on the watershed responses to precipitation, the resulting plots fell into one of three categories. These three categories were identified as standard, violent, and complacent. The standard response illustrates a decreasing curve number as

precipitation increases as shown in Figure 2.1. The curve number decreases until an asymptotic behavior is observed for larger, more extreme precipitation events. The violent response was observed in a watershed with an increasing curve number as precipitation increases as shown in Figure 2.2. The curve number increases until an asymptotic behavior is observed at the larger, more extreme precipitation events. The complacent behavior was noted to be the most ambiguous of the three responses. Asymptotic behavior was not observed from the graphs of the complacent response as shown in Figure 2.3. Hawkins (1993) concluded that eighty percent of the watersheds fall into the standard and violent categories.

15

100 n

Runoff Curve Number

90-

80-

A_

70-

60 rrtMn^i^i r ^ ^ * -

SO-

^..^....
J.

40-

C >

Figure 2.1. Standard watershed response (from Hawkins, 1993).

lOO" 95<1> jQ 9085 80 \

--

^
1-

-*.

E
2 <1> =3

| /

if'

--

o i ce

\i r
vo6560C > > ^ \

fF

iI

Figure 2.2. Violent watershed response (from Hawkins, 1993).

16

lOOn

Runoff Curve Number

90-

80-

:*^_

70-

* ^
-*-

60-

50-

40-

>

o'.s

1.5

2.5

Rainfall - Inches

Figure 2.3. Complacent watershed response (from Hawkins, 1993).

The procedure for the asymptotic determination of observed watershed curve numbers is presented as follows (Hawkins, 1993): 1. Rank the rainfall and mnoff depths, independently, in descending order 2. Calculate curve numbers for each ordered pair. 3. Plot the resulting curve numbers with respect to the conesponding precipitations. 4. Define the curve number from the asymptofic behavior as standard, violent or complacent.

17

2.4

Curve Number Adjustments in Texas

Hailey and McGill (1983) perfonned a curve number study on a set of experimental watersheds located in Texas. A simple water yield model previously developed by Williams and LaSeur (1976) was used to compute an average watershed curve number based on annual rainfall-mnoff event data. Their obsei-ved curve numbers were then compared to the CM/values for each watershed. Hailey and McGill (1983) related the observed curve number to the predicted curve number by the following set of relations. When the observed CN<AMCII, then observed CN = AMCI + X (AMCIIAMCI). When the observed CN>AMCII, then observed CA^ = AMCII + X (AMCIII) AMCII). The weighting factor X represents a fraction to adjust the observed curve number up or down. Hailey and McGill developed a climate index to study the relation between curve number and Texas climate. The climatic index (C,) used by Hailey and McGill is presented as Equafion 2.2: ^ 100^. C, = j^-

(2.2)

where:

Pa is the average annual precipitation (in), and Ta is the average annual temperature (F).

Hailey and McGill (1983) used the climafic index to develop a series of isopleths for the state of Texas. The isopleths that represented C, = 1 was designated the AMCII condition. The climatic indices that were equal to or less than 0.5 were designated the AMCI condition. Based on careful observation, Hailey and McGill (1983) drew isopleths

to match the climatic index contours. Weighting factors were then assigned incrementally to adjust CNII to approximate the value of the observed curve number computed for their study watersheds. Hailey and McGill's curve number adjustment illustration is shown in Figure 2.4. Hailey and McGill (1983) concluded that AMC conditions in Texas are highly variable due to the extreme variations in annual precipitation. The researchers also concluded that a transmissive loss adjustment might be necessary for the drier regions of Texas to account for mnoff volume loss in the channel streambed. The variable climatic index seemed to provide a relatively good adjustment to the curve numbers in Texas based on the curve number research at the time the study was perfonned.

19

I +,ao (ii~i>
l-i-.S3 (II-I)

I +. cri-i)
I +.33 <II-I)

figure

AVERAGE CONDITION R U N O F F CURVE NUMBERS

Figure 2.4. Adjustment weighting indices for Texas curve numbers, after Hailey andMcGill (1983).

20

2.5

Use of Landsat for calculation of CNII

Ragan and Jackson (1980) explored computation of CNII using land cover estimates derived from Landsat imagery on an experimental watershed located in the Anacostia River basin near Washington, D.C. The Landsat images were originally collected in analog fonnat using multispectral scanner data for estimating land cover distributions. The data were then converted to digital fonnat based on the light-reflective characteristics of the earth's surface. Six distinct categories of Landsat data emerged from the surface characteristics. The Landsat categories are listed as follows: forested land, grassed open space, highly impervious surface, residential, bare ground, and cultivated. The Landsat data classifications were then assigned CM/values for each HSG from the standard NRCS table. The condensed CM/table for the study watershed is presented in Table 2.1. Ragan and Jackson (1980) then used available soils data to compute CNII for the watershed. Results of CNII generated using Landsat data and the NRCS procedure were not significantly different. In comparison with the standard approach for computation of CM/, use of derived land cover estimates from Landsat data significantiy reduced the amount of time to compute a watershed curve number.

21

Table 2.1. Runoff curve numbers for land cover delineations defined from Landsat (Ragan and Jackson, 1980). Land Cover Description Forest land Grassed open space Highly impervious (parking lot, commercial) Residenfial Bare ground CN for Hydrologic Soil Group A 25 36 90 60 72 B 55 60 93 74 82 C 70 73 94 83 88 D 77 78 95 87 90

The NRCS curve number procedure does require land use in addition to land cover. Land use represents the cultivation and land development practices on the surface. Atkinson (2001) illustrated the need for land use by observing the seasonal variations in the vegetal coverage. For example, consider a residential neighborhood that has a stand of oak trees. If the Landsat data were collected in the early summer, the land classificafion would most likely show up as a forested coverage rather than a residential neighborhood. Ragan and Jackson (1980) already had the land use data for the experimental watershed study. Ragan and Jackson (1980) demonstrated that determination of CM/for a watershed using Landsat data is more efficient and equally accurate as the traditional NRCS method. The new Landsat data are now available with seven classifications in a 30-meter cell size. Because of the technological advancement in Landsat data, more precise calculations of CNII associated with Landsat imagery will result.

22

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the procedures for calculating CNII values using GIS and obsei-ved cui-ve numbers for watersheds with historical records of rainfall and mnoff in Texas. The computation of CM/values was necessary so that comparisons could by made with the observed curve number calculated from the actual rainfall and mnoff data collected from the watershed.

3.1 3.1.1 USGS Stream Gages

Data Acquisition and Processing

The USGS supplied geographic coordinates and watershed drainage areas associated with 207 streamgage locations across Texas. Ninety-nine of the stream gages were selected because of the availability of both precipitation and mnoff data. The geographic coordinates were previously input into the GIS as a point coverage in decimal degree format (Atkinson, 2001). This point coverage was then overlaid on a polygon coverage that represented l-Vi minute USGS topographical quadrangle (quad) sheets for the entire state of Texas. This procedure associated each geographic stream gage location with its appropriate quadrangle map sheet. The maps were then obtained in paper form so that each of the watersheds could be delineated.

23

3.1.2 Landsat Data As discussed in Chapter 1, the NRCS cui-ve number method requires land use, land cover and the soil textural classifications. The LULC were obtained in digital fonnat as Landsat data. The Landsat classification codes were obtained from USGS within the Land Use and Land Cover digital database (Anderson et al., 1976). LULC data, in the fonn of 50 polygons, were downloaded from the Texas Natural Resources Infonnation System (TNRIS) data catalog web site (http://www.tnris.state.tx.us/DigitalData/data cat.htm). Each polygon represented a 1:250,000-scale quadrangle sheet. Metadata for the LULC database are presented in Appendix A. The 50 polygons were then joined, using a GIS, into one polygon coverage representing the entire state of Texas. The resulfing polygon coverage was then converted to an Albers Equal Area projection.

3.1.3 Soils Data The soils classification data were then obtained from the NRCS website (http://www.statiab.iastate.edu/soils/nsdaf/) and converted to an Albers Equal Area projection. NRCS maintains the soil classificafions in two GIS databases. The State Soil Geographic Database (STASGO) contains data as a polygon coverage of the general county soil maps for Texas. The Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) is a more detailed soils database, but is only available for a limited number of counties. Atkinson (2001) demonstrated that use of the more general STATSGO in place of the SSURGO data produced no significant difference in CNII, as shown in Table 3.1. The STATSGO

24

data were the only soils data used in this study because of the comprehensive soils representation of the entire state. Table 3.1. Percent difference between STATSGO and SSURGO calculations (after Atkinson, 2001). USGS Gage ID 8083420 8093400 8116400 8159150 8160800 8436520 8435660 STATSGO CN 84.7 88.0 82.9 83.7 67.8 86.4 86.7 SSURGO CN 85.0 87.6 82.8 84.9 66.6 86.7 87.2 %Difference 0.4 0.5 0.1 1.4 1.8 0.3 0.6

The STATSGO data is categorized by map unit identificafion (MUID) codes that contain the HSG components. Because the watersheds often contain more than one HSG, the MUID classificafions were resolved into the percent HSG using an advanced tabular procedure in GIS Arc/Info. The soils classificafion table is presented in Appendix B.

3.2

CNII Computafional Procedure Using GIS Arc/Info

A GIS was developed to automate the computafion of CNII for any geographic locafion in Texas. GIS Arc/Info was chosen because of the program's ability to clip, extract, and analyze spafially relevant data with shared polygon topology.

25

3.2.1 Watershed Digitization Procedures Once the delineation process was complete, each watershed was digitized into the GIS as a boundaiy coverage according to the following steps. 1. Digitize four tic marks from the quad sheet located in each of the corners. 2. From tables, change the X-coordinate to represent the appropriate longitude and the Y-coordinate to represent the latitude in decimal degrees. Repeat for all four tic locations. 3. Convert the tic coverage from decimal degrees to an Albers Equal Area projection using the appropriate Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone obtained from the quad sheet. 4. Create a new coverage and digitize the watershed boundary. 5. Transfonn the watershed boundary coverage to the previously converted Albers Equal Area projection. This step is used to spatially reference the digitized watershed boundary to a common projection with the digital data. 6. Clean and build the transformed boundary coverage to give it polygon topology. A sample of a digitized watershed boundary is presented in Figure 3.1. 7. Calculate the area of the watershed in units of square miles. Areas were calculated so that a comparison could be made with the USGS reported area for each watershed. Of the watersheds studied, 83 percent had less than ten percent

deviation from the USGS reported areas. All of the watersheds that had drainage areas that deviated by more than ten percent from USGS-reported values were carefully

26

inspected to ensure conect delineation. A complete list of watershed area comparisons is presented in Appendix C.

^N^
i

,1>
- - . _

V ^ v..

L-^g^rtd 1 1 V - V a t e r s H e d B o u n d at-y

Figure 3.1. Digitized watershed boundary near Dublin, Texas.

3.2.2 Data Extraction Process The watershed polygon boundaries were then used like a "cookie cutter" to abstract the Landsat and soils data as presented in the following steps. 1. Clip the Landsat coverage using the watershed polygon boundary to fonn a new coverage as shown in Figure 3.2. This action populates the watershed polygon with the LULC classification codes that are spatially relevant to the watershed. 2. Clip the soils data (STATSGO) using the watershed polygon boundary to form a new coverage as shown in Figure 3.3. This populates the watershed polygon with the MUID codes that are spatially relevant to the watershed.

27

/<fc^

Io g r i d l_LJI_C-GODe
1 I

Figure 3.2. Extracted Landsat data for a watershed near Dublin, Texas.

Figure 3.3. Extracted soils data for a watershed near Dublin, Texas.

28

3.2.3 Curve Number Calculation The newly created soils and Landsat coverage were then merged into a single polygon coverage that contained both LULC classification codes and MUID codes. The combined coverage was then populated with a "CN" field so that curve numbers could be calculated for each of the newly created polygons within the watershed. Curve numbers were detemiined for each watershed according to the following process.

3.2.3.1 Lookup Table Generation for LULC Classificafion Codes The LULC codes were related to CN values through the creation of lookup tables. Because the Landsat data resolution was not as refined as the NRCS curve number tables, lookup tables were created for each geographic region in spreadsheet format using the NRCS curve number tables in Appendix D. Curve number values for each hydrologic soil group were assigned for each LULC classification code based on engineering judgment. Assumpfions were made about the culfivafion pracfices based on the amount of relief in the topography. For example, if the tenain was very hilly then contour culfivafion pracfices were assumed. The vegetal coverage was categorized as a good, fair or poor condition based on the mean annual rainfall for each geographic region. All residenfial classifications were assumed to be !4 ac. lots. The lookup tables for each geographic region are presented in Appendix E.

29

3.2.3.2 Relate Soils and LULC to Calculate Curve Numbers The soils table was then related to the lookup table to establish a relationship between the percentage of each HSG and the LULC classification code. This procedure was accomplished using the RELATE feature of Arc/Info. Curve number values were then calculated for each polygon according to Equation 3.1, expressed as:

CA^ - {%A){CN - A) + {%B)iCN -B) + {%C){CN-C) + {%D)iCN - D), where: ''oA = Percentage of HSG A, %B = Percentage of HSG B, %C = Percentage of HSG C, %D - Percentage of HSG D, CN-A = Curve number for HSG A from the lookup table, CN-B = Curve number for HSG B from the lookup table, CA^-C = Curve number for HSG C from the lookup table, and CN-D = Curve number for HSG D from the lookup table.

(3.1)

A sample of the combined polygon coverage with computed curve numbers for each polygon is presented in Figure 3.4.

30

Figure 3.4. Combined polygon coverage with computed CNs near Dublin, Texas. The weighted average curve number was then calculated for each watershed boundary by implementation of the POLYGRID command. This process overlaid the watershed with a grid of cells. A CN value was assigned to each cell based on the overall value of the cell area. The cell size chosen for this procedure was 30 by 30 meters square, based on the Landsat resolution (Atkinson, 2001). The weighted average curve number is representative of the predicted CM/value for each watershed.

3.2.4 Automation Scripts Because of the large number of study watersheds. Arc Macro Language (AML) scripts were developed to expedite many of the procedures. AML scripts were organized by combining many repetitive tasks into one code. The watershed boundaries were organized into groups according to the geographic region. Loops were embedded within 31

the codes so that the procedure could be applied to many watershed boundai-y coverages at one time. A complete list of the AML scripts is presented in Appendix F.

3.3

Observed Curve Number Determination

The observed curve numbers were detennined from plots of rainfall and mnoff data provided by USGS. Rainfall data were obtained from either USGS project raingages, or from precipitation gages maintained by the National Weather Service. Runoff data were collected at the stream gage locations by the USGS equipment and personnel. Because baseflow is a relatively small component of mnoff from small watersheds, particulariy in arid or semi-arid climes, baseflow was not separated from mnoff. The observed curve number was determined by Dr. David Thompson for each watershed and was re-validated by the researchers in this study. The rainfall and mnoff data were then ranked and paired. Curve numbers were then calculated according to Hawkins' asymptotic approach, described in Chapter II. The watershed observed curve number was determined asymptofically from the event plots of CN on the ordinate and precipitafion on the abscissa. Once the observed curve number values were determined, comparisons between the CNII values and observed values were performed. These comparisons were necessary to determine if climatic adjustments to the NRCS cui-ve number method need to be made. Specific results from this process of the project are presented in the next chapter.

32

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The purpose of this chapter is to present the results of the analysis perfonned as a part of the TxDOT curve number research project. A complete synthesis and comparison of observed cui-ve number and CNII is presented in this chapter. The observed curve numbers were also compared with the infonnal curve number adjustment mechanism developed by Hailey and McGill (1983).

4.1

Presentation of Observed CN and CNII Results

As described in Chapter 3, the GIS procedure was implemented to calculate predicted curve numbers {CNII) for 207 watersheds. The prediction of CNII curve numbers is the design intent of NRCS. CNII is the standard design value for use in the NRCS rainfall-mnoff procedure. Asquith (2002) from USGS provided plots of sorted rainfall and mnoff data so that observed curve number values could be detennined for 99 of the 207 watersheds. The observed curve numbers were calculated according to Hawkins' asymptotic approach, as described in Chapter II. Comparison between watershed observed curve number and corresponding CNII values was performed for each watershed region. The watershed regions were 1) Austin, 2) Dallas, 3) Fort Worth, 4) San Antonio and 5) mral network. The mral watershed data were tabulated into a single table because many of the

33

rural areas contained only one observed curve number per watershed cluster. The comparisons for each region are presented in Appendix G.

4.1.1 Discussion of CNII Results The geographic distribution of CM/values computed from the GIS procedure was most neariy unifonn, as shown on Figure 4.1. These data represent the average value of all CNII and all observed curve numbers for each geographic region and rural city. All of the mral watersheds, with the exception of Alpine, had only one observed curve number. These data also exhibited the least amount of standard deviation and range of values as shown in Table 4.1. Urbanized areas were observed to have slightly higher CM/values because of the percentage of impervious surface assumed when the land use and land coverage tables were produced. Impervious surface has the highest mnoff potential. CNII values of the mral watersheds were mostly affected by crop cultivation practices and natural rangelands, which have lower mnoff producing potential than impervious areas. The CM/values were more sensitive to combinations of land use and the soil textural classificafion present in the watershed. For example, the Dallas area watersheds had a mean predicted CM/value of 84.5. Further invesfigafion of soils in the Dallas area indicated that the most prominent hydrologic soil groups on Dallas-area watersheds are Type D. The watershed located near Fainnount had a CM/value of 55.4. In contrast to the Dallas-area watersheds, soil associations present on the Fainnount watershed were principally in HSG A, which is consistent with the low value for CNII.

34

u
\-J-J--\

True 86

Abilene 85 Bangs 76 Placid 74

Muenster... ^ ^'^ 79 Marilee \/./=M-> 84 vVei1uri Senate ''^ 63 , Fort Wortti, Dates 36 84 Abt-jot Coolldcie 79 " - tvloody 80

Dublin 79

CafTieron_

Austin Pfiucierviile 78 "84 Fiscl'ier 74 68 Sujar Land ^

Miles 110 CoordiatUe System; GCS Mottli Atiienc.3j"i 1927 Datum NAD 1927

Figure 4.1. Distribution of CNII values in Texas watersheds.

35

-4

-4

C/3

ca
(U (U
1/1

-a
(U

C/3

ca

CNII Statistics Observed CN Statistics Std Dev Range Std Dev 7.3 -37.3 to 4.2 -26.5 to 7.1 -19.3 to -10.3 3.4 9.5 -29.2 to -6.4 64.5 62.8 11.3 -38.7 to 9.1 67.6 10.8 -38.7 to 9.1 48 to 90 49 to 79 64.7 Mean Range 7.5

1
Deviation Statistics

Station
Mean 77.9 Mean -13.2 Std Dev 8.3

Range

Austin

67.2 to 89.1 84.5 2.9 60 to 90 79.5 7.2

Dallas

79.1 to 90.3 85.6 65 to 74 70.3 3.2

-4.9

8.0

36 83.1 4.5 50 to 78
00

Ft. Worth

82.3 to 91.2

-15.3

3.4

r^

San Antonio
oo

78.2 to 92.3 76.8 48 to 88

-18.5

Rural Watersheds
o
00

55.4 to 88.1 5.9

-14.5

12.2

Entire State

55.4 to 92.3

-12.4

10.1

4.1.2 Discussion of Watershed Observed Curve Numbers As described in Chapter II, Hawkins (1993) observed three characteristic behaviors in plots of obsei-ved curve number versus precipitation depth. They were called the standard, violent, and complacent behaviors. All three of these behaviors were observed in plots of cui-ve number data. A sample of the three watershed responses is presented in Figure 4.2. Of the three behavior types, 85 percent of the watershed data plots were observed to have the standard response. The standard response of a watershed means that the curve number decreases as precipitation increases until an asymptotic curve number value is reached at the more extreme precipitation events. The standard response was mostly observed in watersheds located in the east central and deep east Texas regions. Five watersheds located in north central Texas (near Gunter, Muenster, McKinney, and Weston) were observed to have the violent response. With this response, the observed CN values rise abmptly and approach an asymptotic value with increasing precipitation depths. Hawkins (1993) indicated that the violent response could result from a precipitation threshold phenomenon at achieved at some critical depth during a precipitation event. The dominant soil group present on these watersheds was HSG D. Watersheds located in west central Texas had the lowest observed cui-ve numbers. Several of the watersheds displayed complacent behavior. Hawkins (1993) indicated that the complacent behavior was the most ambiguous of the three watershed responses, and makes it very difficult to determine an asymptotic curve number. Renard (1981) mentioned that this behavior could result from partial source area contribufion from

37

precipitation events (watershed not fully contributing), or transmission losses in the channel as water moves across the dry alluvial streambeds (not all runoff reaches the outfall station). Precipitation events in the semi-arid regions tend to be isolated and very concentrated, hence, enhancing the possibility of partial watershed contribution. A statistical summary of the observed data is presented in Table 4.1. Observed

curve numbers exhibited a wider range of values and greater standard deviations than the predicted CNII values calculated for each watershed. In particular, 93 percent of the observed curve numbers were less than predicted CM/values for the same watersheds. The range of obsei-ved cui-ve numbers was from 48 to 90. The standard deviation for the observed CN data was 10.8. Clearly, this observation validates the original assertion of TxDOT analysts that predicted curve numbers for Texas watersheds result in overprediction of mnoff volumes. The observed CN tended to be lower in the westem parts of Texas as shown in Figure 4.3.

4.1.3 Difference Between Observed Curve Number and Predicted CNII The difference between the observed CN and CNII was calculated for each watershed where observed data were available. A summary of the statewide deviations is presented in Table 4.1. The standard procedure for calculating curve numbers can be validated by computing the difference between the observed CN and CNII. If CNII is computed correctly, then differences between observed CN and CNII should vary about zero. A deviation in the difference from zero would indicate that CNII is not the best approximation for design purposes.

38

Staiiai-d Response near Faiinioimt, TX

100
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

0
3 4

Precipitation (in)

Violent Response n e a r McKinney, TX

95 n 90 85 80 Z " 75 70 65 60

^^*ii'''
%M. j - J ^ ^

'

^^4jf^

()

Precipitation (in)

Complacent Response near Placid, TX

'^'M^'^^W 65

_.

Precipitation (in)

Figure 4.2. Standard, violent and complacent watershed responses.

39

n
fvluenster^ N/ -\sTrue, ^^ l1aiilee. .-,-, Rn 77 '.'.'?.tun Senate 83 53 . FortWortli, ['alia: 70 t!i.i Bangs . 52 Placid 58 Dublin 60 Abbot 61 tvloody 62 idtie

Cameron 77

Alpine 64

i.uitin Pflugerville 65 55 Fisctier 51 an Antonio , 59 , tvlaitinez 52 Ftel:buii;i 56 -,

'm Land\F-

50

Ivliles 100

200

Coordinate Systeiia; GCS North American 1927 Datum NAD 1927

Figure 4.3. Distribution of observed CN values in Texas watersheds.

40

From Table 4.1, mean deviations between observed CN and CNII ranged from -4.9 to -18.5. Cleariy, there is a negative bias in the difference between observed CN and CNII. This indicates that the standard table value for curve number in general exceeds the value estimated from observations of rainfall and runoff from known runoffproducing stonns. This observation supports the assertion that standard values result in overestimation of mnoff for significant portions of the state. Careful observation of the curve number deviations best illustrates the method's inconsistencies across the state of Texas as shown in Figure 4.4. Further investigation of the curve number differences revealed that the standard method for estimating curve number method produced the widest range and greatest standard deviation in the mral watershed network. This observation clearly suggests that the curve number method is sensitive to the mean annual rainfall distribution observed in Texas. The deviation of mral watershed values ranged from -38.7 to 0.4 and the standard deviation was 12.2. The method was least consistent in approximating the observed curve number in far west and west central Texas. These deviations were obsei-ved to become greater with respect to geographic location from east to west. The deviations begin to become greater at a mean annual precipitation less than or equal to 35 in. This observation occurs near the Interstate 35 corridor. The deviations appear to be the greatest at a mean annual precipitation depth of 28 in. Clearly, this observation results from the wide distribution of mean annual precipitation values from eastem to westem Texas as shown in Figure 4.5. Furthermore, the lower mean annual precipitation volumes are directly related to lower AMC conditions experienced in the westem two-thirds of

41

Texas. This supports the idea that the runoff producing characteristics of soils in central and west Texas tend to be reduced, similar to an AMCI condition. Use of an AMCII curve number in these regions will generally result in an over prediction of runoff depth.

4.2

Comparison with Hailev and McGill's results

Hailey and McGill (1983) perfonned a curve number study in Texas to detennine if adjustments were necessai-y for the range of climatic conditions that exist in Texas. They calculated observed curve numbers from 88 watersheds in Texas and compared calculations to the predicted curve numbers determined from the NRCS curve number tables. It is important to note that their work predated that of Hawkins, Hjelmfelt and others by 10 years. Hailey and McGill (1983) used two methods to calculate observed curve number, however, they did not report how the mean observed curve numbers were tabulated and which of the two methods were used. Furthennore, Hailey and McGill tried to establish a relation between curve number and temperature, when no apparent relationship exists. Fourteen of the watersheds studied by Hailey and McGill (1983) were the same watersheds analyzed in this study. The results from Hailey and McGill's procedure were compared with the observed curve numbers computed in this study for these watersheds. The observed curve numbers, as reported by Hailey and McGill (1983) were then compared to the observed curve numbers calculated using Hawkins' asymptotic approach. All but two of the common watersheds had observed curve numbers (as computed by Hawkins asymptotic approach) that were less than the adjusted

42

True -26

fvluenstei^ '^ ' Maiilee.,,,,^ Senate -' FortWortti, -15 Dallas -5 f- oolidge ' -9

AiDllene

-20 Bangs, -24 Placid -15

Dublin -19

Afcbot. -27

,Moody Cameron -3 * Austin ^dugerviile -13 -29 Fischer -23 Frelsburg p^

50

Miles 100

200

Coordinate System GCS North American 1927 Datum HAD 1927

Figure 4.4. Distribution of computed CN differences in Texas watersheds.

43

Rainfall (inches)
' - - . . . . . . ' ^ -

12

'-'Z--^
',

'2 -20
30 -40 -50 -70
"^y^

' ^ ^ ' 2 0 -30

^>-
^ ^ 0

.Muenste;^ Tru?// '^!?l'Ws/estoti .2B '(Senate 4 ! ''^ . D'all54 . "-; Fort Worth -5 Abilene ; '"' -is

"2

butlin Abbot,

Bangs, -'^^"] 2'' toolidge ,, . , ( Moodj* -9 Placid ,\ , 1 -18 15 \ -' "CatTiercin AustirL Pflugetville -13 ' -39 , Fischer ''3 ', F re 1 ? burg )2 Sugar Land -13

2*^5#*=^

Coordinate System' GCS North Ameiic^in 1927 Datum: NAD 1927

Figure 4.5. Distribution of mean annual rainfall in Texas.

44

cui-ve numbers computed with Hailey and McGill's adjustment procedure. The mean deviation was - 7 . The range of deviations was from -20.4 to 8.6. A comparison of the results of the two approaches is presented in Table 4.2. Finally, an illustration was made comparing the deviations between Hawkins asymptotic approach and the adjustment procedure of Hailey and McGill (1983) as shown in Figure 4.6. Table 4.2. Comparison between Hailey and McGill (1983) observed CN and asymptotic detennined observed CN for watershed study matches. H&M Asymptotic Asymptotic Curve Observed Observed Location Number less H&M Curve Curve Curve Number Number Number 8058000 Weston 81.7 86 4.3 8057500 Weston 83 80 -3.0 8052700 Aubrey 78.1 74 -4.1 8063200 Coolidge 74 70 -4.0 8098300 Rosebud 79.4 88 8.6 8108200 Yarrelton 79.2 77 -2.2 8050200 Freemound 82.6 80 -2.6 8096800 Bmceville 62 72.3 -10.3 8042700 Lynn Creek 50 70.4 -20.4 8187000 Lenz 53 59.6 -6.6 8187900 63 Kenedy 63.8 -0.8 8136900 Bangs West 51 69.7 -18.7 8137000 Bangs West 52 72 -20.0 8137500 53 Trickham 69.6 -16.6 Range 59.6 to 82.6 51 to 86 -20.4 to 8.6 Mean 73.96 67.07 -6.89 Standard Deviation 7.11 13.87 9.09 USGS Gage ID

45

n
u^^
IvIuenTtei. -' f^larilee iWeston -4 7 Senate Fort W o r t h , -10 Dublin Bangs, -10 Abbc^. Dallas -1 ^Coolidge -6

, r^oody -15 L airier un 0 * Austin , Priugerville -6 * -23 ,Fisctier -12 Frpr^hi San Antnnio , -15 ^ fvlartinez -20 Placid 1

x
10

<

Sugar Land -13

ffl

'^^^y^

50

Miles 100

200

Coordinate System: GCS North American 1927 Datum NAD 1927

Figure 4.6. Computed difference between observed curve number and the procedure of Hailey and McGill (1983).

46

The predicted CNII values are believed to be an accurate computation for all of the study watersheds. Implementation of Hawkins asymptotic approach has been proven to be a reliable method of calculating an observed curve number from actual data. Clearly, if the Hailey and McGill (1983) curve number adjustment procedure is compared with obsei-ved curve numbers, more reduction in values could be applied. That is, application of their procedure does result in a reduction of the design curve number, but still overestimates the observed curve number. Therefore, the procedure fails to adequately approximate the observed curve number for that particular region. A continuation of this study would most likely result in a regional curve number adjustment procedure for the semi-arid regions of Texas.

47

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS

The primaiy objective of this study was to refine and implement a method to compute the predicted cui-ve number for Texas watersheds. A secondary task in this study was to compute the deviations between the observed curve number and the predicted curve number (refened to as CM/) for each of the study watersheds and display the deviations with respect to geographic location. Finally, the observed cui-ve numbers computed fi-om study watersheds and the design curve numbers computed for study watersheds were compared with the curve numbers obtained by the adjustment procedure previously developed by Hailey and McGill (1983). The effort was part of a larger project conducted for TxDOT by personnel of Texas Tech University and the U.S. Geological Survey to develop a procedure to adjust the NRCS curve number for use in TxDOT drainage design activifies. The study watersheds were unique because of the historical rainfall and mnoff data that were collected by the U.S. Geological Survey. Because of the extensive number of watersheds in the curve number study, development of an automated curve number computation procedure was necessary. The availability of Landsat and state soils data in digital fonnat encouraged the development of a GIS to compute a predicted CM/value. This set of algorithms was an extension of earlier work by Atkinson (2001). Study watersheds were selected by Texas Tech University, USGS and TxDOT personnel based on drainage area and availability of rainfall and mnoff data.

48

The watersheds were hand-delineated on USGS topographic quadrangle maps and then digitized as a boundary coverage in GIS. The digitized boundary was then used as a "cookie cutter" to extract soils and Landsat data. A curve number lookup table was then created for each geographic region of Texas that represented the curve number values for each hydrologic soil group using the Landsat classification codes. The two data sets were joined together to compute a cui-ve number for each overiapping polygon within the watershed boundary. Once the curve numbers were calculated for each polygon, the arithmetic mean curve number was calculated for each watershed. Ragan and Jackson (1980) demonstrated that use of Landsat data was an efficient and reliable method for predicting CNII values for a watershed. One limitation of the Landsat data is the time increment between the imagery collecfion date and implementation of the GIS procedure. The most recent Landsat data were collected in 1995. For a developing watershed, one would need to acquire updated land use. Fortunately, many urban developments now have existing and ultimately developed land use classifications in digital format. The availability of data enhances the GIS as a method to accurately predict CNII values for any geographic locafion that has digital soils data and land use data. The observed curve number values were calculated for the study watersheds using available rainfall and mnoff data from measured storm events. The observed curve number values were determined using the asymptotic approach developed by Hawkins (1993), described in Chapter II. The pair-wise ranking and frequency matching of the rainfall-mnoff events was used to equate the retum period of both rainfall and mnoff

49

data. Curve numbers were then calculated for each pair. Implementation of this procedure yields more representative results from the watershed because of the design recurrence interval of the observed curve number. The precipitation threshold described by Hawkins et al. (1985) was used to eliminate events that were too close to the initial abstraction thi-eshold where curve number is exceptionally sensitive to small errors in rainfall or mnoff depth. Application of Hawkins' asymptotic approach produced curve numbers that were lower than 93 percent of the CM/values detennined for each watershed. The curve number method seems to predict CNII values most accurately in the eastem third of Texas where mean annual rainfall generally exceeds 35 inches of rain annually. The predicted CM/values begin to deviate slighfiy between annual rainfall amounts 28 and 35 inches annually. The greatest differences between CM/and observed curve numbers occurred in areas where the mean annual precipitation is less than 28 inches. It is hypothesized that soils in the dryer regions of Texas approach an AMCI condition. This observation is consistent with the hypothesis that runoff is cunentiy being overestimated when computed using a CNII value in the semi-arid regions of Texas. Observed curve numbers were compared to the estimates calculated from Hailey and McGill (1983). Application of their procedure adjusted CM/values to a lower value by application of a weighting factor derived from climatic index contours. Although estimates of curve number determined by application of their adjustment procedure lowered the curve number, the resulting estimates were still greater than curve numbers

50

observed in the current study by 6 to 22 points. Hawkins' asymptotic approach was developed and refined ten years after publication of the work of Hailey and McGill; therefore they were not able to take advantage of the understanding of the work of Hawkins and Hjelmfelt (and others). Cleariy, the work of Hailey and McGill, while important, results in adjustments (reductions) to the design curve numbers that are conservative. That is, there is justification for a further reduction of the design curve number beyond that suggested by the Hailey and McGill procedure. The differences between observed curve numbers and CNII clearly demonstrate the need for a regional adjustment procedure in Texas. Despite the immense amount of work performed in this study, there are gaps in the geographic distribution of watersheds with drainage areas between 200 acres and 20 square miles. In particular, areas outside the Interstate 35 corridor are underrepresented by contemporaneous measurements of rainfall and mnoff. Therefore, a data collection program should be designed and implemented to collect the data required for an extension of this study. One area of interest might include the analysis of rainfall-runoff data for the few Agricultural Research Service watersheds in extreme westem Texas. The additional data analysis would greafiy increase the confidence level in a fonnal CN adjustment procedure in the westem portion of Texas. Another area of research interest would be possibility of adjusting CM/values based on annual precipitation values and mean relative humidity, or other meteorological variables. The relative humidity would directly relate atmospheric moisture levels with temperature.

51

In conclusion, GIS can now be used as a reliable tool to generate predicted CNII values for any watershed in Te.xas. Enough data have been analyzed in this study to implement some fomi of regional adjustment procedure to the predicted CM/values in west central Texas. It is believed that more data collected in locations west of the Interstate 35 coiridor will further refine our original assertions that CNII results in over prediction of runoff The direct benefit from lower runoff prediction would be more representative designs of hydraulic stmctures at a reduced cost.

52

LIST OF REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R., Hardy, E. E., Roach, J. T., and Witmer, R. E. 1976. A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Chrisman, N. 1997. Exploring geographic information systems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New ^'ork. New York. 298 p. Daly, M., 1981. Discussion of "Empirical investigation of curve number technique," A. T. Hjelmfelt, Jr., Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE 107(HY5), 651-653. Enviromnental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 1990. Understanding GIS, the Arclnfo method. ESRI Inc., Redlands, Califomia. 478 p. Hailey, J. L. and McGill, H. N., 1983. "Runoff curve number based on soil-cover complex and climatic factors," Proceedings 1983 Summer Meeting ASAE, Montana State Hawkins, R. H., 1979b. "Runoff curve numbers from partial area watersheds," Joumal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE 105(IR4), 375-389. Hawkins, R. H. 1981. Discussion of Empirical Investigation of Curve Number Technique. J. Hydraulics Div., ASCE, 107(5), 953-954. Hawkins, R. H., Hjelmfelt, A. T., and Zevenbergen, A. W., 1985. "Runoff probability, storm depth, and curve numbers," Joumal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE, 111(4), 330-340. Hawkins, R. H., 1993. "Asymptotic determination of mnoff curve numbers from data," Joumal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE, 119(2), 334-345. Hjelmfelt, A. T. 1980. Empirical Investigation of Curve Number Technique. Proc, ASCE J. Hydraulics Div., ASCE, New York, New York, Vol. 106 (HY9), 1471 1476. Hjelmfelt, A. T., Jr., 1982. Closure to "Empirical investigation of curve number technique," Joumal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE 108(HY4).NRCS

53

Hjelmfelt, A. T., Jr., 1991. "Investigation of curve number procedure," Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE 117(6), 725-737. National Engineering Handbook. 1997. Part 630: Hydrology. Natural Resource Conservation Service, US DA, Washington, D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service, undated. "Emergency spillway and freeboard hydrograph development," Texas engineering technical note, number 210-18-TX5. Ponce, V. M. and Hawkins, R. H. 1996. Runoff Curve Number: Has it Reached Maturity? J. Hydro. Eng., ASCE, 1(1), 11-19. Ragan, R. M. and Jackson, T. J. 1980. Runoff Synthesis Using Landsat and SCS Model. Proc, ASCE J. Hydraulics Div., ASCE, New York, New York, Vol. 106 (HY5), 667-678. Renard, K. G. 1981. Discussion of Empirical Investigation of Curve Number Technique. J. Hydraulics Div., ASCE, 107(HY5), 651-653. Schaake, J. C , Jr., Geyer, J. C , and Knapp, J. W., 1967. "Experimental examination of the rational method," Joumal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE 93(HY6), 353-370. Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 1997. Design Division: Hydraulic Design Manual, forth edition. Austin, Texas. Williams, J. R. and LaSeur, W. U., 1976. "Water yield model using SCS curve numbers," Joumal of the HydrauHcs Division, ASCE, 102(HY9), 1241-1253.

54

APPENDIX A METADATA FOR USGS LANDUSE AND LAND COVER DATABASE

55

NOTE: This dataset was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency, projected by TNRIS to geographic coordinates using Arc/Info and exported. Projection infonnation can be found in the section of the metadata entitled "Spatial_Reference_lnfomiation".

Identificafion_Infoi-mation:

Citation: Citationlnformation: Originator: James R. Anderson, Emest E. Hardy, John T. Roach, and Richard E. Witmer PublicationDate: 1976 Title: A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data Publicafionlnformafion: Publication_Place: Reston, Virginia Publisher: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964 Online_Linkage: ftp://nmdpow9.er.usgs.gov/public/lulcpp964 Citation_Infonnation: Originator: U.S. Geological Survey Publication Date: 1990

56

Title: USGeoData 1:250,000 and 1:100,000 Scale Land Use and Land Cover and Associated Maps Digital Data Publicationlnfonnation: PublicationPlace: Reston, Virginia Publisher: U.S. Geological Survey OnlineLinkage: ftp://nindpow9.er.usgs.gov/public/lulcguide

Description: This is land use/ land cover digital data collected by USGS and converted to ARC/INFO by the EPA. This data is usefial for environmental assessment of land use pattems with respect to water quality analysis, growth management, and other types of enviromnental impact assessment. Use may be limited due to currency.

Abstract: Land use and land cover data LU/LC collected by the USGS NMD is useful for environmental assessment of land use pattems with respect to water quality analysis, growth management, and other types of environmental impact assessment. Data are meant to be used by quadrangle, or among adjacent quadrangles where temporally contiguous. Can be used in any geographic application where intennediate scale land use data are appropriate and the dates are representative. Each quadrangle of land use data has a different representative date. Date ranges from mid 1970s to early 1980s are common. When joined together these quadrangles will

57

not likely match along edges due to differences in interpretation and time coverage. Edges of each map file were manually digitized and may not join neighboring maps. If GIRASNEAT program has been applied (see LOG at end) then edges have been mathematically recalculated to join without overiap or gaps in coverage with adjacent maps. The GIRAS series can include several themes of spatial data. The most common, described here, is the land use and land cover data. Land use was mapped and coded using the Anderson classification system (Anderson others, 1976) which is a hierarchical system of general (level 1) to more specific (level 2) characterization. Some agencies have taken this to a level 3 classification ~ but this has not been done in the GIRAS series. The salient attribute managed for this polygon data set in the polygon attribute table (PAT) is the column named LUCODE containing the Anderson level 2 classification. The first digit represents the level one value and the second digit (ones place) represents the subdivision of the level 1 or level 2 value.

The Anderson land use codes are: I Urban or built-up land II Residental 12 Commercial and services 13 Industrial 14 Transportation, communication, utilities

58

15 Industrial and commercial complexes 16 Mixed urban or built-up land 17 Other urban or built-up land 2 Agricultural land 21 Cropland and pasture 22 Orchards, groxes, vineyards, nurseries, and ornamental horticultural 23 Confined feeeding operations 24 Other agricultural land 3 Rangeland 31 Herbaceous rangeland 32 Shmb and bmsh rangeland 33 Mixed rangeland 4 Forest land 41 Deciduous forest land 42 Evergreen forest land 43 Mixed forest land 5 Water 51 Streams and canals 52 Lakes 53 Reservoirs 54 Bays and estuaries 6 Wetiand

59

61 Forested wetland 62 Nonforested wetland 7 Banen land 71 D17 salt flats 72 Beaches 73 Sandy areas not beaches 74 Bare exposed rock 75 Strip mines, quarries, gravel pits 76 Transitional areas 8 Tundra 81 Shi-ub and bmsh tundra 82 Herbaceous tundra 83 Bare ground 84 Wet timdra 85 Mixed tundra 9 Perennial snow or ice 91 Perennial snowfields 92 Glaciers

GIRAS files are received by the USGS in 9-track ASCII format, one file per quadrangle. Files are loaded onto the hard disk of the computer from tape. Data are then processed with the GIRAS ARC2 program written in Arc Macro Language, part of the

60

ARC/INFO geographic infonnation system. This program was written by the USGS Water Resources Division to process the data into a consistent ARC/INFO format with a minimum of intervenfion.

This GIRASARC2 AML (ftp://ftp.epa.gov/pub/spdata/EPAGIRAS/meta/girasarc2.ainl) program does the following: - Converts the GIRAS data to ARC/INFO - Reconstmcts topology, creating line and polygon features - Transforms the coverage into UTM and then, optionally into Albers Equal Area, using the registration points listed in the GIRAS file - Notes transformation enor, writing it to the bottom of the narrative file. ~ Generates a synthetic neatline based on the mathematically-detennined comers of the map - Loads available documentafion into a series of companion documentation files with each data set. - Data may then be clipped against or extended to the synthefic neatline for ease in merging adjacent maps at a later date

A GIRASNEAT AML (ftp://ftp.epa.gov/pub/spdata/EPAGIRAS/meta/girasneat.aml) program does the following:

61

standardize processing of coverages after use of gii-asarc2 AML, -clips in-cover with neatline cover, dissolves polygon boundaries between polygon with the same item attribute -snaps exterior arcs to the arcs of the neatline cover with a tolerance of 40 meters

Original conversion from GIRAS to ARC (see LOG for date and user ID). Data are reviewed visually by the user responsible for executing the GIRASARC2 program. The GIRASARC2 and GIRASNEAT programs were executed in Arc Macro Language to create this data set. The DOCUMENT AML (version 1.0) was used to manage the documentation and create this metadata file.

Purpose: To convert the GIRAS data into EPA's standard Geographic Information System (GIS) called ARC/INFO software from ESRI.

Time_Period_of_Content: Time_Period_Information: Range_of_Dates/Times: Beginning_Date: 1977 Ending_Date: eariy 1980s Currentness_Reference: publication date

62

Status: Progress: complete Maintenance_and_Update_Frequency: unknown

SpatialDomain: BoundingCoordinates: West_Bounding_Coordinate: -125.0000 East_Bounding Coordinate: -66.0000 North_Bounding_Coordinate: 50.0000 South_Bounding_Coordinate: 24.0000

Keywords: Theme: Theme_Keyword_Thesaums: none Theme_Keyword: land Theme_Keyword: landuse Theme_Keyword: landcover ThemeKeyword: GIRAS Theme_Keyword: digital Theme_Keyword: geographic Place: Place_Keyword_Thesaums: none

63

PlaceKeyword: United States (US) (USA) PlaceKeyword: conterminous United States (CONUS)

Access_Contraints: none UseContraints: none. Acknowledgement of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would be appreciated.

BrowseGraphic: Browse_Graphic_File_Naine: http://www.epa.gov/nsdi/quadsusa.gif Browse_Graphic_File_Description: This graphic shows the outline of CONUS and the outiine of the 450 plus 1:250,000 scale (1 degree latitude by 2 degrees longitude) land use/land cover quadrangles. Browse_Graphic_File_Type: GIF Browse_Graphic_FiIe_Name: http://www.epa.gov/nsdi/thiefgif BrowseGraphicFileDescription: This graphic shows the outline of the land use/land cover classification polygons for the Thief River Falls quadrangle in northwestem Minnesota. Browse_Graphic_File_Type: GIF Browse_Graphic_File_Naine: http://www.epa.gov/nsdi/lucode.gif Browse_Graphic_File_Descripfion: This graphic shows the outline of the land use/land cover classificafion polygons and the classification code identifying each polygon.

64

BrowseGraphicFilc Type: GIF

Native_Data_Set_Environinent: GIRAS files were received from the USGS on 9-track ASCII fonnafted tape, one file per quadrangle. These tape files were transfened to an IBM390 computer with several gigabytes of magnetic disk. Each quadrangle file was then transfened using file transfer protocol (FTP) on the Intemet to a Data General 5240 UNIX server to be processed. The processing was done with the GIS software ARC/INFO version 6. The processed datasets were then FTP transferred to a Data General 9500 server for public access using a WWW server Mosaic version 2.1 software.

Data_Quality_Infonnation:

LogicalConsistencyReport: Polygon and chain-node topology present.

Completeness_Report: See Data Set Description Section

Lineage: Example of the GIS process for the Kenora Quadrangle. ProcessStep: Process_Descripfion: GIRASARC KENORA TMPCOV Process_Date: 19930426 Process Time: 1124

65

ProccssDescription: BUILD TMPCOV POL^' Process Date: 19930426 Process_Tiine: 1124 ProccssDescription: CREATE KENLL ProcessDate: 19930426 Process_Tiine: 1124 ProccssDescription: PROJECT COVER KENLL /EXDISK2/ED/GIRASNEW/W0RK/KEN Process_Date: 19930426 ProcessTime: 1125 ProccssDescription: TRANSFORM TMPCOV /EXDISK2/ED/GIRASNEW/W0RK/KEN ProcessDate: 19930426 ProcessTime: 1125 ProccssDescription: RENAME KEN KENU Process_Date: 19930426 ProcessTime: 1125 ProccssDescription: PROJECT COVER KENU KEN Process_Date: 19930426 Process_Time: 1126 ProccssDescription: BUILD KEN POLY Process Date: 19930426

66

ProcessTime: 1126 ProccssDescription: GIRASDOCUMENT KEN ED Process_Date: 19930426 ProcessTime: 1127 Process_Description: GIRASARC2 KENORA KEN ALBERS -96 00 00 ED Process_Date: 19930426 ProcessTime: 1127 ProccssDescription: CLIP KEN KENNL XXCOV POLY 1 ProcessDate: 19930426 Process_Time: 1133 ProccssDescription: GIRASARC KENORA TMPCOV ProcessDate: 19930426 Process_Time: 1124 ProccssDescription: BUILD TMPCOV POLY Process_Date: 19930426 Process_Time: 1124 ProccssDescription: CREATE KENLL ProcessDate: 19930426 ProcessTime: 1124 Process_Description: PROJECT COVER KENLL /EXDISK2/ED/GIRASNEW/W0RK/KEN Process Date: 19930426

67

ProcessTime: 1125 ProccssDescription: TRANSFORM TMPCOV /EXDISK2/ED/GIRASNEW/WORI<;7KEN ProcessDate: 19930426 Process_Time: 1125 Process Description: RENAME KEN KENU ProcessDate: 19930426 Process_Tiine: 1125 ProccssDescription: PROJECT COVER KENU KEN ProcessDate: 19930426 ProcessTime: 1126 ProccssDescription: BUILD KEN POLY Process_Date: 19930426 Process_Time: 1126 Process_Description: GIRASDOCUMENT KEN ED Process_Date: 19930426 ProcessTime: 1127 Process_Description: GIRASARC2 KENORA KEN ALBERS -96 00 00 ED Process_Date: 19930426 ProcessTime: 1127 ProccssDescription: CLIP KEN KENNL XXCOV POLY 1 Process Date: 19930426

68

ProcessTime: 1133 Process Description: COPY XXCOV LKE49094 Process_Date: 19930426 Process_Tiine: 1133 ProccssDescription: BUILD LKE49094 LINE Process_Date: 19930426 ProcessTime: 1134 ProccssDescription: ARCEDIT /EXDISK2/ED/GIRASNEW/WORKVLKE49094 ProcessDate: 19930426 ProcessTime: 1140 Process_Description: BUILD LKE49094 POLY ProcessDate: 19930426 Process_Time: 1140 Process_Description: GIRASNEAT KEN LKE49094 KENNL # SNAP ED Process_Date: 19930426 Process_Time: 1140

Spatial_Reference_Infonnation:

HorizonalCoordinateSystemDcfinition: Planar: Map_Projection:

69

MapProjectionName: Geographic Units of measure: GcodeticModel: HorizontalDatumName: North American Datum of 1983 decimal degrees

EntityandAttributelnfonnation:

DetailedDescription: EntityType: EntityTypeLabel: name.PAT where "name" is a user supplied character string. Entity_Type_Definifion: Standard ARC/INFO polygon attribute table. Enfity_Type_Definition_Source: GIRAS digital data Attribute: AttributcLabel: AREA AttributeDefinition: Area of polygons Attribute_Definition_Source: computed AttributeDomainValues: Range_Domain: Range_Domain_Minimum: positive real number almost zero but not zero Range_Domain_Maximum: positive real number but no larger than the

70

area of the quadrangle in square meters. Aftributc_Units_of_Measure: square meters AttributcLabel: PERIMETER Attribute Definition: Perimeter of polygons AftributeDcfinitionSource: computed AttributeDomainValues: Range_Domain: RangeDomainMinimum: positive real number almost zero but not zero Range_Domain_Maximum: positive real number but no larger than the perimeter of the quadrangle in meters. Attribute_Units_of_Measure: meters Attribute_Label: name# where "name" is user supplied character string Attribute_Definition: Intemal database feature number Attribute_Definition_Source: computed AttributeDomainValues: RangcDomain: Range_Domain_Miniinum: zero Range_Domain_Maximum: unique positive integer Attribute_Units_of_Measure: none Attribute_Label: name-ID where "name" is user supplied character string Attribute_Definition: User assign polygon idenfification number Attribute_Definition_Source: computed

71

AttributeDomain Values: RangcDomain: Range_Domain_Minimum: one RangcDomainMaximum: unique positive integer Attribute_Units_of_Measure: none Attribute Label: LUCODE AttributeDefinition: Land use classification code number AttributcDefinitionSource: GIRAS AttributeDomainValues: CodesetDomain: Codeset_Name: Anderson land use classification codes CodesetSource: see Publicafionlnfonnation U.S.G.S. paper 964

Distributionlnformation:

Standard_Transfer_Options: DigitalForm: Digital_Transfer_Information: FormatName: ARCE File_Decoinpression_Technique: GNU utility gzip Digital_Transfer_Option:

72

OnlineOption: Computer Contact Infonnation: NetworkAdress: NetworkResourceName: <URL:ftp://ftp.epa.gov/pub/spdata/EPAGIRAS> Fees: The online option is available at no charge.

Metadata_Reference_Infonnation:

MetadataDate: 7/11/96 Metadata_Contact: Contactlnformation: Contact_Person_Primary: ContactPerson: Edward Partington Contact_Organization: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contact_Organization_Primary: Contact_Position: Computer Specialist Contact Address: Address_Type: mailing address Address: mailcode 3408, 401 M St. SW City: Washington, DC

73

State: DC Postal_Code: 20460 Country: USA Contact_Voice_Telephone: (202) 260-3106 ContactFacsimile Telephone: (202) 401-8390 Contact_Electronic_Mail_Address: Partington.ed(^epamail.epa.gov MetadataStandardName: FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata Metadata Standard Version: 6/8/94

74

APPENDIX B MAPUNIT IDENIFICATION RESOLVED INTO PERCENT HSG

75

Table Bl. Texas MUID's resolved into HSG components.

Record MUID 1 TXW 2 TXOOl 3 TX002 4 TX003 5 TX004 6 TX005 7 TX006 8 TX007 9 TX008 10 TX009 11 TXOlO 12 TXOll 13 TX012 14 TX013 15 TX014 16 TX015 17 TX016 18 TX017 19 TX018 20 TX019 21 TX020 22 TX021 23 TX022 24 TX023 25 TX024 26 TX025 27 TX026 28 TX027 29 TX028 30 TX029 31 TX030 32 TX031 33 TX032 34 TX033 35 TX034 36 TX035 37 TX036 38 TX037 39 TX038 40 TX039 41 TX040 42 TX041 43 TX042 44 TX043 45 TX044 46 TX045 47 TX046 48 TX047 49 TX048 PCT A PCT B PCT C PCT D PCT w; 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 0.0 85.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 89.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 9.0 41.0 0.0 0.0 54.0 46.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 36.0 49.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 67.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 66.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 53.0 47.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 95.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 45.0 15.0 0.0 84.0 1.0 13.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 95.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 30.0 30.0 0.0 3.0 93.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 89.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 82.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 93.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 70.0 16.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 94.0 0.0 4.0 34.0 59.0 3.0 0.0 9.0 85.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 22.0 59.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 95.0 0.0 0.0 54.0 10.0 36.0 0.0 0.0 49.0 0.0 51.0 0.0 0.0 98.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 35.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 85.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 34.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 35.0 15.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 47.0 53.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 55.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 71.0 0.0 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 98.0 7.0 0.0 7.0 56.0 30.0 0.0 18.0 33.0 22.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 78.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 80.0 16.0 0.0 11.0 66.0 7.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 79.0 17.0 0.0 9.0 35.0 40.0 16.0 0.0 5.0 95.0 0.0 0.0

76

Table B1. Continued

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 TX049 TX050 TX051 TX052 TX053 TX054 TX055 TX056 TX057 TX058 TX059 TX060 TX061 TX062 TX063 TX064 TX065 TX066 TX067 TX068 TX069 TX070 TX071 TX072 TX073 TX074 TX075 TX076 TX077 TX078 TX079 TX080 TX081 TX082 TX083 TX084 TX085 TX086 TX087 TX088 TX089 TX090 TX091 TX092 TX093 TX094 TX095 TX096 TX097 TX098 TX099 TXlOO 2. 0 48. 0 40. 0 37. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 81.,0 0, ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0, ,0 0. ,0 1, ,0 4, ,0 0, ,0 0. .0 0. .0 0. .0 0, .0 0. .0 .0 0, 0, .0 0, .0 .0 0, 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0. .0 .0 0, 0 .0 2 .0 7 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0, .0 62. 0 25. 0 33. 0 0. 0 0. 0 8. 0 95. 0 0. 0 9. ,0 13. ,0 2. ,0 9. ,0 23, ,0 3. ,0 10, ,0 2. ,0 10, ,0 91, ,0 43, ,0 62, ,0 2, ,0 1, .0 3, .0 33, ,0 19, ,0 88, .0 92, .0 12, .0 17, .0 .0 3, .0 85, 0, .0 .0 0, 0, .0 34 .0 27 .0 42 .0 37 .0 67 .0 85 .0 5 .0 39 .0 9 .0 5 .0 50 .0 2 .0 13 .0 15 .0 26 .0 65 .0 83 .0 18 .0 0. 0 36. 0 25. 0 2. 0 10. 0 17. ,0 41. 0 22.,0 76. 0 24. 0 92. 0 0. 0 5. 0 0. ,0 50. 0 50. ,0 9. 0 82. ,0 69. 0 18. .0 68. .0 30. ,0 0. ,0 10. ,0 60. .0 17. ,0 84. ,0 13. ,0 55. ,0 35, ,0 69. ,0 29. ,0 35, ,0 55. ,0 3, ,0 5. ,0 53, .0 0, ,0 38, .0 0, .0 84, ,0 14, .0 44, .0 55, .0 54, ,0 43, ,0 0, .0 67, ,0 ,0 0, ,0 81, ,0 12, ,0 0, 0, .0 8, ,0 ,0 0, ,0 88, .0 83, .0 0, .0 13, .0 84, 4, .0 11, .0 0, ,0 100, .0 ,0 0, .0 100, .0 0, ,0 100, .0 39, .0 27, .0 55, .0 16, .0 .0 51, 0, 27, .0 36 .0 .0 18, .0 15, 0 .0 15 .0 44 .0 51 .0 10 .0 51 .0 44 .0 47 .0 27 .0 68 .0 40 .0 10 .0 3 .0 95 .0 82 .0 5 .0 84 .0 1 .0 4 .0 70 .0 6 .0 29 .0 0 .0 17 .0 8 .0 74 .0 0. ,0 0. .0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. 0 0. .0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0, ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, ,0 0, ,0 ,0 0, 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, ,0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

77

Table B1. Continued

102 TX102 103 TX103 104 TX104 105 TX105 106 TX106 107 TX107 108 TX108 109 TX109 110 TXllO 111 TXlll 112 TX112 113 TX113 114 TX114 115 TX115 116 TX116 117 TX117 118 TX118 119 TX119 120 TX120 121 TX121 122 TX122 123 TX123 124 TX124 125 TX125 126 TX126 127 TX127 128 TX128 129 TX129 130 TX130 131 TX131 132 TX132 133 TX133 134 TX134 135 TX135 136 TX136 137 TX137 138 TX138 139 TX139 140 TX140 141 TX141 142 TX142 143 TX143 144 TX144 145 TX145 146 TX146 147 TX147 148 TX148 149 TX149 150 TX150 151 TX151 152 TX152 153 TX153 0 .0 48 .0 0 .0 58 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 69 .0 6 .0 0 .0 18 .0 0 .0 88 .0 0 .0 93 .0 0 .0 94 .0 0 .0 78 .0 0 .0 33 .0 0 .0 65 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 5 .0 0 .0 19 .0 7 .0 9 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 4 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 9, .0 0 .0 53, .0 0 .0 50, .0 1 .0 98, .0 0, .0 88, .0 23, .0 77, .0 0, .0 5, ,0 0, ,0 3, ,0 0, ,0 9, ,0 29, .0 50, ,0 6, .0 10. .0 34, .0 11. ,0 0, ,0 49, ,0 81, ,0 19, ,0 0, ,0 5. ,0 0. ,0 0. 0 0. ,0 3. 0 0. ,0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 41. 0 0. 0 0. 0 15. 0 80. 0 0. 0 24. 0 5. 0 0. 0 0. 0 20. 0 0. 0 54. 0 8. 0 84. 0 2. 0 36. 0 0. 0 54. 0 0. 0 11. 0 0. 0 2. 0 0. 0 25. 0 0. 0 9. 0 39 .0 39 .0 11 .0 28 .0 25 .0 7 .0 4 .0 7 .0 6 .0 22 .0 42 .0 34 .0 7 .0 28 .0 7 .0 36 .0 0 .0 0 .0 4 .0 0 .0 47 .0 50 .0 1, .0 12, .0 0, .0 65, ,0 87, .0 3, ,0 18, ,0 73, ,0 55, .0 0, ,0 0. ,0 20.,0 31.,0 30. 0 22. 0 10. 0 33. 0 15. 0 5. 0 3. 0 61. 0 43. 0 13. 0 8. 0 62. 0 45. 0 53. 0 33. 0 18. 0 0. 0 13 .0 3 .0 89 .0 72 .0 0 .0 75 .0 8 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 25 .0 1 .0 93 .0 67 .0 74 .0 48 .0 100 .0 96 .0 96 .0 91, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, ,0 30, ,0 10, .0 88, .0 3, ,0 11. ,0 0. ,0 51. ,0 0. ,0 75. 0 69. 0 67. 0 78. 0 90. 0 26. 0 85. 0 0. 0 73. 0 34. 0 37. 0 33. 0 0. 0 0. 0 1. 0 36. 0 65. 0 57. 0 91. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

78

Table B1. Continued

154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 TX154 TX155 TX156 TX157 TX158 TX159 TX160 TX161 TX162 TX163 TX164 TX165 TX166 TX167 TX168 TX169 TX170 TX171 TX172 TX173 TX174 TX175 TX176 TX177 TX178 TX179 TX180 TX181 TX182 TX183 TX184 TX185 TX186 TX187 TX188 TX189 TX190 TX191 TX192 TX193 TX194 TX195 TX196 TX197 TX198 TX199 TX200 TX201 TX202 TX203 TX204 TX205 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 65.0 0.0 7.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.0 66.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 16.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 16.0 1.0 28.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 95.0 60.0 0.0 70.0 97.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 0.0 94.0 7.0 1.0 0.0 10.0 24.0 21.0 100.0 43.0 99.0 45.0 71.0 27.0 75.0 57.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 53.0 0.0 59.0 3.0 23.0 24.0 11.0 21.0 2.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 56.0 51.0 9.0 1.0 0.0 26.0 15.0 3.0 25.0 30.0 4.0 31.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 11.0 11.0 0.0 2.0 75.0 88.0 0.0 35.0 11.0 11.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 51.0 0.0 23.0 25.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 55.0 5.0 8.0 27.0 0.0 95.0 48.0 76.0 89.0 79.0 94.0 74.0 85.0 62.0 72.0 100.0 100.0 42.0 47.0 91.0 1.0 0.0 74.0 15.0 0.0 61.0 0.0 92.0 42.0 95.0 100.0 91.0 85.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 15.0 9.0 100.0 45.0 65.0 68.0 0.0 37.0 1.0 4.0 27.0 50.0 0.0 36.0 44.0 34.0 2.0 95.0 39.0 69.0 25.0 2.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

79

Table B1. Continued

206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 TX206 TX207 TX208 TX209 TX210 TX211 TX212 TX213 TX214 TX215 TX216 TX217 TX218 TX219 TX220 TX221 TX222 TX223 TX224 TX225 TX226 TX227 TX228 TX229 TX230 TX231 TX232 TX233 TX234 TX235 TX236 TX237 TX238 TX239 TX240 TX241 TX24 2 TX243 TX244 TX245 TX24 6 TX247 TX248 TX24 9 TX250 TX251 TX252 TX253 TX254 TX255 TX256 TX257 0. 0 60. 0 0. 0 40. 0 2. 0 0. 0 73. 0 25. 0 8. 0 92. 0 0. 0 0. 0 10. 0 89. 0 1. 0 0. 0 0. 0 4. 0 28. 0 68. 0 0. 0 19. 0 0. 0 81. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 100. 0 0. 0 64. 0 29. 0 7. 0 0. 0 16. 0 47. 0 37. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 100. 0 18. 0 79. 0 3. 0 0. 0 0. 0 80. 0 0. 0 20. 0 0. 0 9. 0 0. 0 91. 0 0. 0 9. ,0 0. 0 91. 0 0. 0 0. ,0 0. 0 100. 0 0. ,0 0, ,0 100. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 3, ,0 94. ,0 3. ,0 75. ,0 25, ,0 0, ,0 0. ,0 86. ,0 14, ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 4, .0 65, .0 8, ,0 23, ,0 ,0 0, ,0 3, ,0 97, .0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 11, ,0 89, 0, .0 87, ,0 0, ,0 13, .0 8, ,0 0, ,0 92, .0 0, ,0 5, ,0 5, ,0 0, .0 90, .0 .0 8, ,0 4, .0 12, ,0 76, .0 45, ,0 1, .0 32, .0 22, .0 30, .0 .0 49, .0 21, 0, .0 0, .0 0, 0, .0 100, .0 .0 .0 84, .0 0, .0 16, 0, .0 4, ,0 96, 0 .0 0 .0 2, .0 .0 16 .0 42 .0 40, 0, .0 100 .0 0 .0 0 .0 7 .0 0 .0 78 .0 15 .0 6 .0 6 .0 71 .0 17 .0 0 .0 71 .0 12 .0 17 .0 2 .0 0 .0 98 .0 0 .0 4 .0 62 .0 0 .0 34 .0 0 .0 5 .0 6 .0 89 .0 4 .0 8 .0 88 .0 0 .0 5 .0 17 .0 78 .0 0 .0 0 .0 18 .0 19 .0 63 .0 7 .0 87 .0 6 .0 0 .0 0 .0 100 .0 0 .0 0 .0 2 .0 96 .0 2 .0 0 .0 0 .0 95 .0 5 .0 0 .0 3 .0 43 .0 54 .0 0 .0 4 .0 96 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 31 .0 69 .0 0 .0 9 .0 0 .0 87 .0 4 .0 95 .0 5 .0 .0 0 0 .0 46 .0 16 .0 19 .0 19 .0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. .0 .0 0. 0, .0 0, ,0 ,0 0, 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, .0 0, .0 .0 0, 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0

80

Table B1. Continued

258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 TX258 TX259 TX260 TX261 TX262 TX263 TX264 TX265 TX267 TX268 TX269 TX270 TX271 TX272 TX273 TX274 TX275 TX276 TX277 TX278 TX279 TX280 TX281 TX282 TX283 TX284 TX285 TX28 6 TX287 TX288 TX289 TX290 TX291 TX292 TX293 TX294 TX295 TX296 TX297 TX298 TX299 TX300 TX301 TX302 TX303 TX304 TX305 TX306 TX307 TX308 TX309 TX310 100. 0 31. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 4. 0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0, ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, .0 0, .0 2, ,0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 34, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 .0 0, 0, .0 0, .0 57, .0 5, .0 .0 0, 22, .0 37, .0 12, .0 60, .0 .0 53, 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 .0 0, 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 .0 0, .0 16, 0, .0 0. 0 28. 0 50. 0 0. 0 5. 0 74. 0 34. 0 28.,0 0. ,0 5. ,0 5. ,0 59. ,0 48. ,0 3. .0 43. ,0 45, ,0 15, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 1, ,0 45, .0 64, .0 24, .0 4, .0 0, .0 6, .0 2, .0 10, .0 2, .0 14, .0 17, .0 13, .0 5, .0 18, .0 24, .0 57, .0 10, .0 57, ,0 .0 59, 21, ,0 25, .0 32, ,0 .0 0, 3, .0 30, .0 .0 5, 15, ,0 12, .0 22, .0 33, .0 14, .0 2, ,0 0. ,0 0, ,0 13. ,0 28, ,0 10. ,0 40, ,0 38.,0 62, ,0 37.,0 58, ,0 7. ,0 19, ,0 45, ,0 17, ,0 3. ,0 69, .0 59, .0 41, ,0 40, ,0 55, ,0 10, .0 85, ,0 0, .0 41, .0 0, .0 52, ,0 72, ,0 25, .0 40, .0 17, ,0 0, ,0 55, ,0 10, ,0 75, ,0 0, ,0 100, .0 0, ,0 100, ,0 4, .0 93, ,0 14, .0 41, ,0 0, ,0 36, ,0 17, .0 59, ,0 19, .0 43, ,0 21, ,0 79, ,0 22, ,0 .0 72, 25, ,0 73, ,0 ,0 55, .0 35, 13, ,0 .0 85, ,0 45, .0 41, 34, .0 49, ,0 28, .0 59, .0 30, .0 65, .0 82, ,0 0, .0 .0 0, .0 19, 0, .0 38, .0 37, .0 53, ,0 21, .0 0, ,0 .0 4, .0 0, 33, .0 34, .0 5, .0 10, .0 0, ,0 15, .0 .0 0, .0 100, 67, ,0 ,0 30, .0 0, .0 70, ,0 5, .0 90, .0 7, .0 78, ,0 12, .0 76, .0 24, .0 54, 17, .0 .0 50, .0 60, ,0 10, .0 71, .0 27, 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, .0 0, ,0 0, .0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, ,0 0. ,0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, ,0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 ,0 0, 0, .0 0, .0 0, ,0 ,0 0, 0, .0 ,0 0, ,0 0, 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, .0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, .0

81

Table B1. Continued

310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 TX311 TX312 TX313 TX314 TX315 TX316 TX317 TX318 TX319 TX320 TX321 TX322 TX323 TX324 TX325 TX326 TX327 TX328 TX329 TX330 TX331 TX332 TX333 TX334 TX335 TX336 TX337 TX338 TX340 TX341 TX342 TX343 TX344 TX345 TX34 6 TX347 TX348 TX349 TX350 TX351 TX352 TX353 TX354 TX355 TX356 TX357 TX358 TX359 TX360 TX361 TX362 TX363 0, .0 0. .0 5, .0 0, .0 0, .0 1, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 1, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 15, .0 2, .0 0, .0 0, .0 8, .0 0, .0 0, .0 .0 0, 15, .0 0, .0 6, ,0 9, ,0 0, ,0 0, .0 ,0 0, ,0 5, ,0 0. 0. ,0 ,0 0. 7. ,0 ,0 0. 0. ,0 0. 0 0. 0 5. 0 0. 0 9. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 1 .0 31 .0 8 .0 78 .0 85 .0 9 .0 34 .0 43 .0 6 .0 7 .0 6 .0 9 .0 1 .0 91 .0 63, .0 75 .0 63 .0 12, .0 3, .0 100, .0 5, .0 85, .0 84, .0 100, .0 86, .0 75, .0 100, .0 100, .0 52, .0 85, .0 100, .0 57, ,0 66, ,0 17, .0 0, .0 25, .0 87. ,0 3. .0 0. ,0 1. ,0 0. ,0 100. ,0 23.,0 76. ,0 1. ,0 ,0 0. 0. 0 26. 0 32. 0 2. 0 0. 0 36. 0 1 .0 40 .0 6 .0 22 .0 15 .0 59 .0 66 .0 50 .0 10 .0 52 .0 77 .0 81 .0 65, .0 6, .0 37, .0 0, ,0 19, .0 0, .0 92, .0 0, .0 44, .0 0, .0 6, .0 0, .0 5, ,0 17, ,0 0, .0 0, ,0 37, .0 0, ,0 0, ,0 36, ,0 24, .0 53, ,0 9, ,0 39, ,0 8. ,0 27.,0 22.,0 37.,0 80. 0 0. ,0 44. 0 13. 0 3. 0 78. 0 5. 0 5. 0 37. 0 73. 0 5. 0 62. 0 98 .0 29 .0 81 .0 0 .0 0 .0 31 .0 0 .0 7 .0 84 .0 41 .0 17 .0 10 .0 34 .0 3 .0 0, .0 25, .0 17, .0 88, .0 5, .0 0, .0 51, .0 0, .0 8, ,0 0, .0 9, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 11, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 1, ,0 1, .0 30, ,0 91, ,0 36, ,0 0. ,0 70.,0 78.,0 62. ,0 13. .0 0. ,0 33. ,0 11. 0 96. 0 17. 0 95. 0 60. 0 31. 0 25. 0 95. 0 2. 0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, ,0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, .0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, .0 0, .0 0, ,0 0. ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 0, ,0 ,0 0. 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. ,0 0. 0 0. ,0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

82

able B1. Continued

362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413
TX364 TX365 TX366 TX367 TX368 TX369 TX370 TX371 TX372 TX373 TX374 TX375 TX376 TX377 TX378 TX379 TX380 TX381 TX382 TX383 TX384 TX385 TX386 TX387 TX388 TX389 TX390 TX391 TX392 TX393 TX394 TX395 TX396 TX397 TX398 TX399 TX400 TX401 TX402 TX403 TX404 TX405 TX406 TX407 TX408 TX4 0 9 TX410 TX411 TX412 TX413 TX414 TX415 18.0 34.0 44.0

3.0
10.0

0.0
48.0 23.0

9.0 7.0
52.0 71.0 43.0 65.0 44.0 60.0 16.0

70.0 56.0 47.0 78.0

9.0 0.0 0.0

15.0

0.0 6.0
54.0

0.0 6.0 5.0

40.0

0.0 0.0 3.0

29.0

0.0
51.0

0.0
74.0 71.0 65.0 35.0 51.0 15.0 70.0 20.0 37.0 10.0

6.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
45.0 30.0 39.0

0.0 0.0 4.0

21.0

7.0
30.0 60.0 46.0 41.0

5.0 5.0 3.0

44.0 25.0 80.0 63.0 90.0

5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

92.0 68.0 82.0

0.0
32.0

8.0 0.0

0.0 3.0
45.0 60.0 61.0 95.0 78.0 68.0 85.0

0.0 18.0 0.0 100.0

18.0 10.0 78.0

5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 35.0 0.0 42.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 31.0 0.0 100.0
35.0 28.0 60.0 68.0 19.0 39.0

6.0 0.0 0.0

22.0 22.0

0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

10.0 15.0 65.0 52.0

0.0
30.0 39.0 83.0 60.0 51.0 42.0 81.0 69.0

0.0 5.0 7.0

53.0

0.0 5.0 4.0

25.0 59.0 89.0 57.0 57.0 48.0 37.0

3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

56.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

14.0

6.0
43.0 18.0 34.0 36.0 42.0 15.0

2.0 5.0 0.0

25.0 18.0 13.0 58.0

0.0
80.0

0.0 0.0

5.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

83

Table B1. Continued

414 TX416 415 TX417 416 TX418 417 TX419 418 TX420 419 TX421 420 TX422 421 TX423 422 TX424 423 TX425 424 TX426 425 TX427 426 TX428 427 TX429 428 TX430 429 TX431 430 TX432 431 TX433 432 TX434 433 TX435 434 TX436 435 TX437 436 TX438 437 TX439 438 TX4 4 0 439 TX4 41 440 TX442 441 TX443 442 TX444 443 TX4 4 5 444 TX4 4 6 445 TX4 4 8 446 TX4 4 9 447 TX450 448 TX451 449 TX452 450 TX453 451 TX454 452 TX455 453 TX456 454 TX457 455 TX458 456 TX459 457 TX460 458 TX461 459 TX462 460 TX463 461 TX464 462 TX465 463 TX466 464 TX467 465 TX468 77. 0 0. 0 2. 0 72. 0 14. 0 63. 0 50. 0 50. 0 0. 0 12. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 5. 0 0. 0 75. 0 0. 0 11. 0 0. 0 90. 0 0. 0 95. 0 4. 0 79. 0 8. 0 30. 0 3. 0 8. 0 0. 0 36. .0 0. 0 34. ,0 0. .0 44. ,0 0. ,0 36, ,0 0. ,0 0, .0 0, ,0 92, .0 0, .0 8, ,0 0, ,0 8, ,0 0, ,0 5, ,0 .0 0, ,0 0, 0, ,0 9, .0 .0 8, .0 0, 3, .0 0, ,0 .0 36, .0 61, 0 .0 53, .0 0, .0 50 .0 0, .0 53 .0 0 .0 52 .0 0 .0 40 .0 0 .0 40 .0 10 .0 83 .0 0 .0 0 .0 7 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 92 .0 0 .0 75 .0 3 .0 20 .0 26 .0 22 .0 0 .0 51 .0 0 .0 16 .0 0 .0 88 .0 0 .0 87 .0 8 .0 69 .0 2 .0 56 .0 0 .0 72 .0 7 .0 0 .0 0 .0 55 .0 23. 0 23. 0 11. 0 0. 0 33. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 10. 0 11. 0 9. 0 0. 0 9. 0 31. 0 70. 0 55. 0 47. 0 52. 0 55. 0 35. ,0 8. ,0 1. ,0 5, ,0 15, ,0 0, ,0 44, ,0 15, ,0 ,0 8, 2, .0 47, .0 45, .0 6, .0 39, .0 55 .0 60 .0 7 .0 14 .0 40 .0 80 .0 3 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 5 .0 8 .0 13 .0 31 .0 28 .0 15 .0 10 .0
0. 0 3. 0 12. 0 0. 0 55. 0 100. 0 100. 0 95. 0 15. 0 78. 0 1. 0 5. 0 8. 0 31. 0 19. 0 9. 0 19. 0 4. 0 9. 0 65. 0 0. .0 91. ,0 87. ,0 ,0 80. 100.,0 47, .0 77, .0 89, .0 1, ,0 0, .0 5, .0 41, .0 9, .0 5, .0 0, .0 0 .0 86 .0 53 .0 20 .0 5 .0 25 .0 77 .0 52 .0 49 .0 84 .0 7.0 5 .0 10 .0 11 .0 0 .0 78 .0 35 .0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

84

Table B1. Continued

466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 TX469 TX470 TX471 TX472 TX473 TX474 TX475 TX476 TX477 TX478 TX479 TX480 TX481 TX482 TX483 TX484 TX485 TX486 TX487 TX488 TX489 TX490 TX491 TX492 TX493 TX494 TX495 TX496 TX497 TX498 TX499 TX500 TX501 TX502 TX503 TX504 TX505 TX506 TX507 TX508 TX509 TX510 TX511 TX512 TX513 TX514 TX515 TX516 TX517 TX518 TX519 TX520 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 11.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 21.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.0 84.0 83.0 72.0 10.0 13.0 6.0 16.0 48.0 17.0 4.0 45.0 0.0 11.0 24.0 30.0 32.0 23.0 22.0 0.0 67.0 30.0 19.0 39.0 15.0 55.0 43.0 14.0 20.0 2.0 0.0 34.0 5.0 32.0 58.0 0.0 6.0 64.0 8.0 11.0 0.0 64.0 56.0 23.0 24.0 37.0 41.0 71.0 35.0 9.0 5.0 4.0 23.0 0.0 6.0 25.0 79.0 79.0 48.0 0.0 26.0 0.0 92.0 53.0 9.0 80.0 55.0 62.0 63.0 65.0 15.0 73.0 23.0 5.0 53.0 59.0 85.0 45.0 55.0 75.0 75.0 65.0 8.0 43.0 22.0 0.0 18.0 0.0 8.0 9.0 73.0 61.0 19.0 0.0 42.0 17.0 16.0 3.0 15.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 16.0 4.0 3.0 0.0 7.0 46.0 84.0 5.0 83.0 4.0 2.0 91.0 9.0 21.0 8.0 5.0 12.0 2.0 27.0 10.0 65.0 28.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 11.0 5.0 33.0 92.0 23.0 73.0 0.0 24.0 94.0 86.0 13.0 19.0 28.0 81.0 34.0 2.0 60.0 60.0 48.0 44.0 8.0 51.0 88.0 55.0 76.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

85

Table B1. Continued

518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 TX521 TX522 TX523 TX524 TX525 TX526 TX527 TX528 TX529 TX530 TX531 TX532 TX533 TX534 TX535 TX536 TX537 TX538 TX539 TX540 TX541 TX542 TX543 TX544 TX545 TX546 TX547 TX548 TX549 TX550 TX551 TX552 TX553 TX554 TX555 TX557 TX558 TX559 TX560 TX561 TX562 TX563 TX564 TX565 TX566 TX567 TX568 TX569 TX570 TX571 TX572 TX573 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 6.0 81.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.0 89.0 75.0 95.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 15.0 17.0 65.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 95.0 68.0 76.0 15.0 13.0 30.0 0.0 10.0 13.0 74.0 70.0 5.0 9.0 16.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 5.0 2.0 18.0 91.0 7.0 0.0 52.0 43.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 15.0 59.0 18.0 28.0 15.0 11.0 22.0 5.0 0.0 2.0 54.0 0.0 70.0 77.0 40.0 15.0 36.0 41.0 55.0 40.0 45.0 11.0 72.0 0.0 35.0 40.0 58.0 25.0 74.0 3.0 97.0 5.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 15.0 9.0 0.0 85.0 12.0 75.0 33.0 37.0 0.0 100.0 84.0 6.0 42.0 45.0 19.0 6.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 95.0 0.0 91.0 65.0 19.0 2.0 98.0 5.0 93.0 5.0 95.0 29.0 66.0 11.0 87.0 14.0 64.0 0.0 3.0 7.0 5.0 1.0 98.0 18.0 30.0 0.0 57.0 7.0 93.0 38.0 59.0 67.0 28.0 80.0 5.0 0.0 41.0 34.0 48.0 3.0 69.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 32.0 68.0 49.0 49.0 29.0 17.0 0.0 11.0 21.0 4.0 8.0 10.0 60.0 0.0 35.0 50.0 4.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

86

Table B1. Continued

570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 TX574 TX575 TX576 TX577 TX578 TX579 TX580 TX581 TX582 TX583 TX584 TX585 TX586 TX587 TX588 TX589 TX590 TX591 TX592 TX593 TX594 TX595 TX596 TX597 TX598 TX599 TX600 TX601 TX602 TX603 TX604 TX605 TX606 TX607 TX608 TX609 TX610 TX611 TX612 TX613 TX614 TX615 TX616 TX617 TX618 TX619 TX620 TX621 TX622 TX623 TX624 TX625 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 45.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 77.0 15.0 90.0 58.0 25.0 38.0 53.0 0.0 6.0 46.0 8.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 28.0 9.0 45.0 44.0 37.0 52.0 88.0 57.0 60.0 40.0 15.0 4.0 5.0 96.0 95.0 63.0 80.0 6.0 4.0 14.0 30.0 77.0 84.0 26.0 7.0 18.0 15.0 5.0 7.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 19.0 10.0 0.0 90.0 18.0 0.0 25.0 60.0 5.0 5.0 40.0 2.0 72.0 3.0 48.0 14.0 27.0 20.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 94.0 0.0 54.0 91.0 1.0 3.0 87.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 16.0 77.0 3.0 97.0 43.0 18.0 76.0 14.0 44.0 11.0 0.0 56.0 52.0 11.0 7.0 41.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 38.0 14.0 26.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 96.0 70.0 25.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 37.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 94.0 0.0 96.0 43.0 43.0 63.0 7.0 0.0 23.0 16.0 0.0 49.0 6.0 49.0 44.0 63.0 19.0 76.0 9.0 18.0 12.0 29.0 55.0 12.0 88.0 14.0 62.0 12.0 88.0 11.0 70.0 61.0 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

87

Table Bl. Continued

622 623

624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631

TX626 TX627 TX628 TX629 TX633 TX634 TX636 TX637 TX638 TX639

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0

63.0

0.0 11.0 15.0 54.0

7.0 77.0

9.0
16.0

9.0
78.0 37.0

0.0
17.0

93.0 12.0 76.0 30.0 91.0

3.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0
97.0 90.0 56.0

0.0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 10.0 44.0

88

APPENDIX C PERCENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAND DELINEATED AND USGS REPORTED AREAS

89

Table CI . Comparison o f hand delineated areas to IISGS reported areas

Gage ID Quadrangle Sheet Name USGS Area mi^ Hand Deliniated Area mi^ Difference 8025307 8083420 8088100 8093400 8116400 8159150 8160800 8167600 8436520 8435660 8154700 8155200 8155300 8155550 8156650 8156700 8156750 8156800 8157000 8157500 8158050 8158100 8158200 8158400 8158500 8158600 8158700 8158800 8158810 8158820 8158825 8158840 8158860 8158880 8158920 8158930 8158970 8159150 8055580 FAIRMOUNT ABILENE EAST TRUE ABBOTT SUGAR LAND PFLUGERVILLE EAST FRELSBURG FISCHER ALPINE SOUTH ALPINE SOUTH AUSTIN WEST BEE CAVE OAK HILL AUSTIN WEST AUSTIN EAST AUSTIN EAST AUSTIN EAST AUSTIN EAST AUSTIN EAST AUSTIN EAST AUSTIN EAST PFLUGERVILLE WEST AUSTIN EAST AUSTIN EAST AUSTIN EAST AUSTIN EAST DRIFTWOOD BUDA SIGNAL HILL OAK HILL OAK HILL SIGNAL HILL OAK HILL OAK HILL OAK HILL OAK HILL MONTOPOLIS PFLUGERVILLE EAST GARLAND 17.60 13.00 11.80 12.40 8.65 4.61 17.30 10.90 18.10 11.30 22.30 89.70 116.00 3.12 3.19 7.03 7.56 12.80 2.31 4.13 13.10 12.60 26.20 5.57 12.10 51.30 124.00 166.00 12.20 24.00 21.00 8.24 23.10 3.58 6.30 19.00 27.60 4.61 1.94 17,80 12,52 11.39 12.42 8.35 4,37 17.18 10.98 17.98 10.20 22.98 89.50 116.37 2.80 3.02 6.73 7.21 12.56 2.17 3.88 12.45 12.64 26.31 5.21 11.87 50.84 123.50 165.38 12.17 24.44 21.05 8.72 23.37 3.64 6.25 18.66 27.43 4.37 1,80 1.12 -3.83 -3,60 0.16 -3.59 -5.49 -0.70 0.73 -0.67 -10,78 2.96 -0.22 0.32 -11.43 -5.63 -4.46 -4.85 -1.91 -6.45 -6.44 -5.22 0.32 0.42 -6.91 -1.94 -0.90 -0.40 -0.37 -0,25 1.80 0.24 5.50 1.16 1.65 -0.80 -1.82 -0.62 -5.49 -7.78 %

90

8055600 8055700 8056500 8057020 8057050 8057120 8057130 8057140 8057160 8057320 8057415 8057418 8057420 8057425 8057435 8057440 8057445 8061620 8061920 8061950 8048520 8048530 8048540 8048550 8048600 8048820 8048850 8177600 8177700 8178300 8178555 8178600 8178620 8178640 8178645 8178690 8178736 8181000 8181400 8181450 8098300 8108200

DALLAS DALLAS DALLAS DALLAS OAK CLIFF ADDISON ADDISON ADDISON ADDISON WHITE ROCK LAKE HUTCHINS OAK CLIFF OAK CLIFF OAK CLIFF OAK CLIFF HUTCHINS HUTCHINS GARLAND MESQUITE SEAGOVILLE FORT WORTH FORT WORTH COVINGTON HALTOM CITY HALTOM CITY HALTOM CITY HALTOM CITY CASTLE HILLS SAN ANTONIO WEST SAN ANTONIO WEST SOUTHTON CAMP BULLIS LONGHORN LONGHORN LONGHORN LONGHORN SAN ANTONIO EAST HELOTES HELOTES SAN ANTONIO WEST ROSEBUD YARRELTON

7.51 10.00 7.98 4.75 9,42 6.77 1.22 8.50 4.17 6.92 1,25 7.65 13.20 11.50 5.91 2.53 9.03 8.05 13.40 23.00 17.70 0.97 1.35 1.08 2.15 5.64 12.30 0.33 21.20 3.26 2.43 9.54 4.05 2.45 2.33 0.26 0.45 5.57 15.00 1.19 22.20 48.60

5.59 9.42 7.25 4.59 9,59 6.87 1.14 8.84 4.23 6.70 1.30 7.56 14.21 10.14 5.77 2.54 8.88 7.70 12.74 21.88 17,97 0.95 1.48 1.09 2.20 5,83 12.48 0.32 21.34 3.16 2.34 9.61 4.10 2.51 2.31 0.24 0.48 5.75 14.87 1.12 22.26 44.48

-34.35 -6.16 -10.07 -3.49 1.77 1.46 -7.02 3.85 1.42 -3.28 3.85 -1.19 7.11 -13.41 -2.43 0.39 -1.69 -4.55 -5.18 -5.12 1.50 -2.11 8.78 0.92 2.27 3.26 1.44 -3.13 0.66 -3.16 -3.85 0.73 1.22 2.39 -0.87 -8.33 6.25 3.13 -0.87 -6,25 0.27 -9.26

91

8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8096800 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8097000 8094000 8094500 8094500 8094500 8094500 8094500 8094500 8094500 8094500 8136900 8137000 8137500 8137500 8137500 8137500 8137500 8139000

BRUCEVILLE MOODY MOODY MOODY LEON JUNCTION BRUCEVILLE BRUCEVILLE LORENA SOUTH BOSQUE SOUTH BOSQUE SOUTH BOSQUE SOUTH BOSQUE LORENA MOODY MOODY MOODY MOODY MOODY MOODY MOODY BRUCEVILLE BRUCEVILLE BRUCEVILLE BRUCEVILLE BRUCEVILLE BUNYAN ALEXANDER BUNYAN BUNYAN BUNYAN BUNYAN DUBLIN DUBLIN DUBLIN BANGS WEST BANGS WEST TRICKHAM SANTA ANNA SANTA ANNA SANTA ANNA BANGS WEST PLACID

85,00 1.51 4.40 1.40 3.48 1.99 5.47 1.69 2.84 0.87 0.75 0.59 1.51 0.79 0.79 0.46 1.00 0.65 0.97 0.39 0.68 0.68 1.16 0.90 2.03 3,34 45.50 2.65 1.53 1.74 2.09 1.50 3.25 6.03 21.80 4,02 70.00 3.33 2.95 3.19 1.78 3.42

85.56 1.54 4,09 1.49 3.45 1.99 5.45 1.68 2.76 0.79 0.73 0.54 1.38 0.80 0.76 0.44 0.91 0.64 1.07 0.38 0.70 0.62 1.07 1.01 1.86 3.35 46.71 2.52 1.59 1.89 2.23 1.40 3.14 6.56 21.23 4.09 68.98 3.39 3.06 3.22 1.88 3.04

0.65 1.95 -7.58 6.04 -0.87 0.00 -0.37 -0.60 -2.90 -10.13 -2.74 -9.26 -9.42 1.25 -3.95 -4.55 -9.89 -1.56 9.35 -2.63 2.86 -9.68 -8.41 10.89 -9.14 0,30 2.59 -5.16 3.77 7.94 6.28 -7.14 -3.50 8.08 -2.68 1.71 -1.48 1.77 3.59 0.93 5.32 -12.50

92

8139500 8140000 8140500 8140500 8140500 8140500 8140500 8182400 8182500 8182500 8182500 8182500 8182500 8182500 8182500 8182500 8182500 8182500 8187000 8187500 8187500 8187500 8187500 8187500 8187500 8187500 8187500 8187500 8187500 8187900 8050200 8050300 8050300 8050300 8050300 8050300 8050300 8050300 8050300 8050300 8050300 8050300

MERCURY MERCURY MERCURY PLACID PLACID PLACID HALL MARTINEZ ELMENDORF ELMENDORF ELMENDORF ELMENDORF ELMENDORF MARTINEZ MARTINEZ ELMENDORF ELMENDORF ELMENDORF LENZ KENEDY LENZ LENZ LENZ LENZ LENZ LENZ LENZ LENZ LENZ KENEDY FREEMOUND FREEMOUND MUENSTER WEST MUENSTER WEST MUENSTER WEST MUENSTERWEST MUENSTER WEST MUENSTER WEST MUENSTERWEST FREEMOUND FREEMOUND FREEMOUND

43.90 4.32 8.31 9.19 0.79 1.22 5.27 7,01 77.20 5.48 5.43 4.99 1.36 7.01 2.83 2.39 1.46 6.13 3.29 72.40 2.69 4.78 6.24 1.48 2.29 2.12 3.95 6.90 2.75 8.43 0.77 46.00 4.06 3.34 3.84 1.88 12.50 0.77 1.20 1.12 0.78 0.74

57.08 4.12 7.58 8.98 0.93 1,25 3.17 7.05 79.14 5.93 4.55 2.76 1.45 7.05 2.55 2,13 1.14 6.60 3.24 80.54 2.62 4.50 6.30 1.33 2.25 1.92 3.82 6.88 2.80 8.64 0.88 48.82 3.63 3.22 3.66 1.86 12.30 0.68 1.05 1.06 0.78 0.83

23.09 -4.85 -9.63 -2.34 15.05 2.40 -66.25 0.57 2.45 7.59 -19.34 -80.80 6.21 0.57 -10.98 -12.21 -28.07 7.12 -1.54 10.11 -2.67 -6.22 0.95 -11.28 -1.78 -10.42 -3.40 -0.29 1.79 2.43 12.50 5.78 -11.85 -3.73 -4.92 -1.08 -1.63 -13.24 -14.29 -5.66 0.00 10.84

93

8050300 8050300 8050300 8057500 8058000 8058500 8058500 8058500 8058500 8058500 8058500 8058500 8058500 8058500 8058500 8058500 8052630 8052650 8052700 8052700 8052700 8052700 8052700 8052700 8052700 8052700 8052700 8052700 8052700 8052700 8052700 8052700 8052700 8052700 8042650 8042700 8042700 8042700 8042700 8042700 8063200

FREEMOUND FREEMOUND FREEMOUND WESTON WESTON WESTON WESTON WESTON WESTON WESTON WESTON GUNTER WESTON WESTON WESTON WESTON MARILEE CELINA AUBREY PILOT POINT MARILEE MARILEE MARILEE MARILEE MARILEE MARILEE MARILEE MARILEE MARILEE MARILEE CELINA CELINA CELINA CELINA SENATE LYNN CREEK SENATE SENATE LYNN CREEK LYNN CREEK COOLIDGE

0.56 1.22 0.75 2.14 1.26 39.00 0.91 2.10 1.46 1.93 1.45 3.96 2.18 1.37 1.25 0.89 2.10 46.70 75.50 3.40 3.95 7.27 3.33 0.50 1.99 1.28 1.25 0.58 1.17 1.62 2.17 1.05 2.01 2.06 6.82 21.60 5.47 1.39 1.41 1,20 17.60

0.45 1.11 0.75 2.21 1.22 38.29 1.03 2.29 1.39 1.93 1.42 3.66 2.00 1.31 1.35 0.84 2.09 46.30 72.68 1.48 5.09 14.36 3.06 1.62 1.69 1.14 0.84 0.30 0.57 1.06 1.51 0.40 2.15 2.39 6.54 23.94 5.10 1.38 1.37 1.18 16.54

-24.44 -9,91 0.00 3.17 -3.28 -1.85 11.65 8.30 -5.04 0.00 -2.11 -8.20 -9.00 -4.58 7.41 -5.95 -0.48 -0.86 -3.88 -129.73 22.40 49.37 -8.82 69.14 -17.75 -12.28 -48.81 -93.33 -105.26 -52.83 -43.71 -162.50 6.51 13.81 -4.28 9.77 -7.25 -0.72 -2.92 -1.69 -6.41

94

APPENDIX D NRCS CURVE NUMBER TABLES

95

Table DI. Runoff curve numbers for urban areas (from TxDOT, 1997)
Average percent impervious area A

Cover type and hydrologic condition Open space (lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries) Poor condition (grass cover < 50%) Fair condition (grass cover 50% to 75%) Good condition (grass cover > 75%) Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways, etc. (excluding right-of-way) Streets and roads: Paved; curbs and storm drains (excluding row) Paved; open ditches (including right-of-way) Gravel (including right-of-way) Dirt (including right-of-way) Hard surface (including right-of-way) Western desert urban areas: Natural desert landscaping (pervious areas only) Artificial desert landscaping (impervious weed barrier, desert shrub with 1- to 2-inch sand or gravel mulch and basin borders) Urban districts: Commercial and business Industrial Residential districts by average lot size: 1/8 acre or less (town houses) 1/4 acre 1/3 acre 1/2 acre 1 acre 2 acres Developing urban areas Newly graded areas (pervious areas only, no veg.)

68 49 39 98

79 69 61 98

86 79 74 98

89 84 80 98

98 83 76 72 74

98 89 85 82 84

98 92 89 87 90

98 93 91 89 92

63 96

77 96

85 96

88 96

85 72

89 81

92 88

94 91

95 93

65 38 30 25 20 12

77 61 57 54 51 46

85 75 72 70 68 65

90 83 81 80 79 77

92 87 86 85 84 82

77

86

91

94

96

Table D2. Runoff curve numbers for cultivated agricultural land (fromTxDOT, 1997).
Cover type Fallow Treatment Bare soil Crop residue cover (CR) Hydrologic condition A 77 76 74 72 67 71 64 70 65 69 64 66 62 65 61 65 63 64 60 63 61 62 60 61 59 60 58 66 58 64 55 63 51 B 86 85 83 81 78 80 75 79 75 78 74 74 71 73 70 76 75 75 72 74 73 73 72 72 70 71 69 77 72 75 69 73 67 C 91 90 88 88 85 87 82 84 82 83 81 80 78 79 77 84 83 83 80 82 81 81 80 79 78 78 77 85 81 83 78 80 76 D 94 93 90 91 89 90 85 88 86 87 85 82 81 81 80 88 87 86 84 85 84 84 83 82 81 81 80 89 85 85 83 83 80

Poor Good

Row crops

Straight row (SR) Poor Good ^oor SR + CR Good Poor Contoured (C) Good Poor C + CR Good Poor Contoured & terraced (C & T) Good Poor C&T + CR Good SR SR + CR C C + CR C&T C&T + CR Poor Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Good

Small grain

SR Close-seeded or broadcast legumes C or Rotation meadow C&T

97

Table D3. Runoff curve numbers for other agricultural lands (fi-om TxDOT, 1997).
Cover type Pasture, grassland, or rangecontinuous forage for grazing Hydrologic condition Poor Fair Good Poor Fair Good A D

68 49 39
47 25 6 30

79 69 61
67 59 35 58

86 79 74 81 75 70 71

89 84 80 88 83 79
78

Pasture, grassland, or rangecontinuous forage for grazing with contours

Meadow-continuous grass, protected from grazing and generally mowed for hay Brush-brush-weed-grass mixture, with brush the major element

Good

Poor Fair

Good
Woods-grass combination (orchard or tree farm) Poor Fair

48 35 30 57 43 32 45 36 30

67 56 48 73 65 58 66 60 55 74

77 70 65 82 76 72 77 73 70 82

83 77 73

Good Woods
Poor Fair

86 82 79 83 79 77
86

Good
Farmsteads-buildings, lanes, driveways, and surrounding lots

59

98

Tabic D4. Runoff curve numbers for arid and semi-arid rangelands (fromTxDOT, 1997).
Cover type Herbaceous-mixture of grass, weeds, and low-growing brush, with brush the minor element Oak-aspen-mountain brush mixture of oak brush, aspen, mountain mahogany, bitter brush, maple, and other brush Pinyon-juniper-pinyon, juniper, or both; grass understory Hydrologic condition Poor Fair Good Poor Fair Good Poor Fair Good Poor Fair Good Poor Fair Good 63 55 49 A B 80 71 62 66 48 30 75 58 41 67 51 35 77 72 68 C 87 81 74 74 57 41 85 73 61 80 63 47 85 81 79 D 93 89 85 79 63 48 89 80 71 85 70 55 88 86 84

Sagebrush with grass understory

saltbush, greasewood, creosote-bush, blackbrush, bursage, palo verde, mesquite, and cactus

99

APPENDIX E LOOKUP TABLES FOR EACH GEOGRAPHIC REGION IN TEXAS

100

f a b l e E 1 . Lookup table for Abilene repion. LULC-Code HSG-A HSG-B HSG-C HSG-D 11 60 74 83 87 12 89 92 94 95 13 81 88 91 93 14 83 89 92 93 15 84 90 92 94 16 77 86 94 91 17 77 86 94 91 21 70 80 87 90 22 32 58 72 79 23 80 85 89 94 24 51 67 76 80 31 35 59 73 79 32 30 48 65 73 33 55 72 81 86 41 45 66 77 83 42 32 58 72 79 43 32 58 72 79 51 100 100 100 100 52 100 100 100 100 53 100 100 100 100 54 100 100 100 100 95 95 61 95 95 62 95 95 95 95 54 71 40 45 49 72 30 35 38 50 37 41 47 28 73 93 96 74 89 91 0 0 0 0 75 67 77 83 48 76 85 80 71 75 77

101

fable E2. Lookup table for Alpine region

LULC-Code 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 41 42 43 51 52 53 54 61 62 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 HSG-A 60 89 81 83 84 77 77 59 32 80 51 35 63 55 45 32 32 100 100 100 100 95 95 40 30 28 89 0 48 71 HSG-B 74 92 88 89 90 86 86 70 58 85 67 59 77 72 66 58 58 100 100 100 100 95 95 45 35 37 91 0 67 75 HSG-C 83 94 91 92 92 91 91 78 72 89 76 73 85 81 77 72 72 100 100 100 100 95 95 49 38 41 93 0 77 80 HSG-D 87 95 93 93 94 94 94 81 79 94 80 79 88 86 83 79 79 100 100 100 100 95 95 54 50 47 96 0 83 85

102

Fable E3. Lookup table for Au.stin repion

LULC-Code 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 41 42 43 51 52 53 54 61 62 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 HSG-A 61 89 81 98 84 77 77 62 32 80 51 35 30 35 30 30 30 100 100 100 100 95 95 40 30 28 89 0 75 71 HSG-B 75 92 88 98 90 86 86 71 58 85 67 59 48 55 48 58 53 100 100 100 100 95 95 45 35 37 91 0 77 75 HSG-C 83 94 91 98 92 91 91 78 72 89 76 73 65 70 57 73 66 100 100 100 100 95 95 49 38 41 93 0 82 80 HSG-D 87 95 93 98 94 94 94 81 79 94 80 79 73 76 63 80 71 100 100 100 100 95 95 54 50 47 96 0 89 85

103

Fable E4. LookuD tab e for Ban gs region. LULC-Code HSG-A HSG-B HSG-C 11 61 75 83 12 89 92 94 13 81 88 91 14 98 98 98 15 84 90 92 16 77 86 91 17 77 86 91 21 60 71 78 22 43 65 76 23 80 85 89 24 51 67 76 31 49 69 79 32 35 56 70 33 42 62 75 41 50 66 74 42 50 58 73 43 50 62 73 51 100 100 100 52 100 100 100 53 100 100 100 54 100 100 100 61 95 95 95 62 95 95 95 49 71 40 45 72 30 35 38 41 37 73 28 93 74 89 91 0 0 0 75 82 80 11 76 83 79 78 77

HSG-D 87 95 93 98 94 94 94 81 82 94 80 84 77 80 79 80 80 100 100 100 100 95 95 54 50 47 96 0 90 87

104

Table E5. Lookup tabl e for Coo idge region.

LULC-Code 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 41 42 43 51 52 53 54 61 62 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 HSG-A 61 89 81 98 84 77 77 62 32 80 51 35 30 35 25 30 27 100 100 100 100 95 95 40 30 28 89 0 68 71 HSG-B 75 92 88 98 90 86 86 71 58 85 67 59 48 55 30 41 34 100 100 100 100 95 95 45 35 37 91 0 72 75 HSG-C 83 94 91 98 92 91 91 78 72 89 76 73 65 70 41 45 43 100 100 100 100 95 95 49 38 41 93 0 75 80 HSG-D 87 95 93 98 94 94 94 81 79 94 80 79 73 76 48 52 50 100 100 100 100 95 95 54 50 47 96 0 80 85

105

Table E6. Lookup tab e for Dallas region.

LULC-Code 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 41 42 43 51 52 53 54 61 62 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 HSG-A 100 61 89 81 98 84 77 77 62 32 80 51 35 30 33 25 30 27 100 100 100 100 95 95 40 30 28 89 0 60 62 HSG-B 100 75 92 88 98 90 86 86 71 58 85 67 59 48 56 30 41 36 100 100 100 100 95 95 45 35 37 91 0 65 64 HSG-C 100 83 94 91 98 92 91 91 78 72 89 76 71 65 68 41 61 51 100 100 100 100 95 95 49 38 41 93 0 70 70 HSG-D 100 87 95 93 98 94 94 94 81 79 94 80 79 73 76 48 71 60 100 100 100 100 95 95 54 50 47 96 0 74 71

106

Fable E7. Lookup tab e for Dub in region

LULC-Code 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 41 42 43 51 52 53 54 61 62 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 HSG-A 61 89 81 98 84 77 77 65 43 80 65 35 30 33 35 48 41 100 100 100 100 95 95 40 30 28 89 0 70 71 HSG-B 75 92 88 98 90 86 86 75 65 85 75 59 48 56 48 58 53 100 100 100 100 95 95 45 35 37 91 0 73 75 HSG-C 83 94 91 98 92 91 91 82 76 89 82 71 65 68 57 73 65 100 100 100 100 95 95 49 38 41 93 0 79 80 HSG-D 87 95 93 98 94 94 94 86 82 94 86 79 73 76 63 80 71 100 100 100 100 95 95 54 50 47 96 0 80 84

107

fable E8. Lookup tabl e for Elmondorf region.

LULC-Code 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 41 42 43 51 52 53 54 61 62 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 HSG-A 61 89 81 98 84 77 77 67 32 80 65 49 42 45 30 48 41 100 100 100 100 95 95 40 30 28 89 0 70 71 HSG-B 75 92 88 98 90 86 86 78 58 85 75 69 63 67 48 58 53 100 100 100 100 95 95 45 35 37 91 0 73 75 HSG-C 83 94 91 98 92 91 91 85 72 89 82 79 75 76 57 73 65 100 100 100 100 95 95 49 38 41 93 0 79 80 HSG-D 87 95 93 98 94 94 94 89 79 94 86 84 81 82 63 80 71 100 100 100 100 95 95 54 50 47 96 0 80 84

108

Table E9. Lc)okup table for Fainnount region.

LULC-Code 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 41 42 43 51 52 53 54 61 62 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 HSG-A 61 89 81 98 84 77 77 39 32 80 51 35 30 35 30 32 32 100 100 100 100 95 95 40 30 28 89 0 32 71 HSG-B 75 92 88 98 90 86 86 61 58 85 67 59 48 55 48 58 58 100 100 100 100 95 95 45 35 37 91 0 58 75 HSG-C 83 94 91 98 92 91 91 74 72 89 76 73 65 70 57 72 72 100 100 100 100 95 95 49 38 41 93 0 72 80 HSG-D 87 95 93 98 94 94 94 80 79 94 80 79 73 76 63 79 79 100 100 100 100 95 95 54 50 47 96 0 79 85

109

f a b l e ElO. ^ookup ta 3le for Freemound r egion. LULC-Code HSG-A HSG-B HSG-D HSG-C 11 61 75 87 83 12 89 92 94 95 13 81 88 91 93 14 98 98 98 98 15 84 90 92 94 16 11 86 94 91 17 11 86 91 94 21 62 71 78 81 22 32 58 72 79 23 80 85 94 89 24 51 67 80 76 31 35 59 71 79 32 30 48 73 65 33 33 56 76 68 41 25 30 41 48 42 30 41 71 61 43 27 36 51 60 51 100 100 100 100 52 100 100 100 100 53 100 100 100 100 54 100 100 100 100 95 61 95 95 95 62 95 95 95 95 54 49 71 40 45 50 38 72 30 35 41 47 37 28 73 93 96 91 74 89 0 0 0 0 75 74 70 65 60 76 71 70 64 62 11

10

Fable E l 1.1..ookup ta Die for Frelsburg region. LULC-Code HSG-A HSG-B HSG-D HSG-C 11 60 74 83 87 12 89 92 94 95 13 81 88 91 93 14 83 89 92 93 15 84 90 92 94 16 11 86 94 91 17 11 86 91 94 21 59 70 81 78 22 32 58 72 79 23 80 94 85 89 24 51 67 76 80 31 35 59 73 79 32 30 73 48 65 33 55 72 81 86 41 45 66 77 83 42 32 58 72 79 43 32 58 72 79 51 100 100 100 100 52 100 100 100 100 53 100 100 100 100 54 100 100 100 100 95 95 61 95 95 95 62 95 95 95 49 54 45 71 40 38 50 72 30 35 41 47 37 73 28 93 96 91 74 89 0 0 0 0 75 11 83 67 48 76 85 75 80 71 11

11

Fable E l 2 . 1-^ookup ta 3le for Lenz region. LULC-Code HSG-A HSG-B HSG-C 11 61 75 83 12 89 92 94 13 81 88 91 14 98 98 98 15 84 90 92 16 77 86 91 17 77 86 91 21 67 78 85 22 32 58 72 23 80 85 89 24 65 75 82 31 49 69 79 32 42 63 75 33 45 67 76 41 30 48 57 42 48 58 73 43 41 53 65 51 100 100 100 52 100 100 100 100 53 100 100 100 54 100 100 95 95 61 95 95 95 62 95 49 45 71 40 38 30 35 72 41 28 37 73 93 89 91 74 0 0 0 75 79 73 70 76 80 71 75 77

HSG-D 87 95 93 98 94 94 94 89 79 94 86 84 81 82 63 80 71 100 100 100 100 95 95 54 50 47 96 0 80 84

112

"able El3. Lookup table for Marilee region.

LULC-Code 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 41 42 43 51 52 53 54 61 62 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 HSG-A 39 89 81 83 84 77 77 64 32 74 51 39 30 35 30 30 30 100 100 100 100 50 60 35 35 28 89 77 52 71 HSG-B 61 92 88 89 90 86 86 75 58 83 67 61 48 55 55 55 55 100 100 100 100 60 68 40 40 37 91 86 60 75 HSG-C 74 94 91 92 92 91 91 82 72 88 76 74 65 70 70 70 70 100 100 100 100 75 79 45 45 41 93 91 69 80 HSG-D 80 95 93 93 93 94 94 85 79 90 80 80 73 76 77 77 77 100 100 100 100 83 86 50 50 47 96 94 78 85

113

Fable El4. -ookup ta ?le for Moody region.

LULC-Code 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 41 42 43 51 52 53 54 61 62 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 HSG-A 61 89 81 98 84 77 77 62 32 80 51 35 30 35 25 30 27 100 100 100 100 95 95 40 30 28 89 0 68 71 HSG-B 75 92 88 98 90 86 86 71 58 85 67 59 48 55 30 41 34 100 100 100 100 95 95 45 35 37 91 0 72 75 HSG-C 83 94 91 98 92 91 91 78 72 89 76 73 65 70 41 45 43 100 100 100 100 95 95 49 38 41 93 0 75 80 HSG-D 87 95 93 98 94 94 94 81 79 94 80 79 73 76 48 52 50 100 100 100 100 95 95 54 50 47 96 0 80 85

114

f a b l e E l 5 . Lookup table for San Antonio region. LULC-Code HSG-A HSG-B HSG-C HSG-D 11 61 75 87 83 12 89 92 94 95 13 81 88 91 93 14 98 98 98 98 15 84 90 92 94 16 77 86 91 94 17 77 94 86 91 21 67 78 85 89 22 32 58 72 79 23 80 94 85 89 24 65 75 86 82 31 49 84 69 79 32 42 81 63 75 33 82 45 67 76 41 30 48 57 63 42 80 48 58 73 71 43 41 65 53 100 51 100 100 100 100 52 100 100 100 100 100 53 100 100 100 100 54 100 100 95 95 95 61 95 95 95 62 95 95 54 49 40 45 71 50 38 35 72 30 47 41 37 28 73 93 96 91 74 89 0 0 0 0 75 80 79 73 70 76 84 80 75 71 77

115

Fable El6.1^ookup ta )le for Sui^ar Land region.

LULC-Code 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 41 42 43 51 52 53 54 61 62 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 HSG-A 60 89 81 83 84 77 77 59 32 80 51 35 30 55 45 32 32 100 100 100 100 95 95 40 30 28 89 0 48 71 HSG-B 74 92 88 89 90 86 86 70 58 85 67 59 48 72 66 58 58 100 100 100 100 95 95 45 35 37 91 0 67 75 HSG-C 83 94 91 92 92 91 91 78 72 89 76 73 65 81 11 72 72 100 100 100 100 95 95 49 38 41 93 0 77 80 HSG-D 87 95 93 93 94 94 94 81 79 94 80 79 73 86 83 79 79 100 100 100 100 95 95 54 50 47 96 0 83 85

16

Fable El7.1-ookup ta lie for True region.

LULC-Code 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 41 42 43 51 52 53 54 61 62 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 HSG-A 60 89 81 83 84 77 77 70 32 80 51 35 30 55 45 32 32 100 100 100 100 95 95 40 30 28 89 0 48 71 HSG-B 74 92 88 89 90 86 86 80 58 85 67 59 48 72 66 58 58 100 100 100 100 95 95 45 35 37 91 0 67 75 HSG-C 83 94 91 92 92 91 91 87 72 89 76 73 65 81 77 72 72 100 100 100 100 95 95 49 38 41 93 0 77 80 HSG-D 87 95 93 93 94 94 94 90 79 94 80 79 73 86 83 79 79 100 100 100 100 95 95 54 50 47 96 0 83 85

17

Table E l 8 . -ookup ta Die for Weston region. LULC-Code HSG-A HSG-B HSG-C HSG-D 11 61 75 83 87 12 89 92 94 95 13 81 88 91 93 14 98 98 98 98 15 84 90 92 94 16 77 86 91 94 17 77 86 91 94 21 62 71 78 81 22 32 58 72 79 23 80 85 89 94 24 51 67 76 80 31 35 59 71 79 32 30 48 65 73 33 33 56 68 76 41 25 30 41 48 42 30 41 61 71 43 27 36 51 60 51 100 100 100 100 52 100 100 100 100 53 100 100 100 100 54 100 100 100 100 61 95 95 95 95 62 95 95 95 95 71 40 45 49 54 72 30 35 38 50 73 28 37 41 47 74 89 91 93 96 75 0 0 0 0 74 76 60 65 70 77 62 64 70 71

118

APPENDIX F AML AUTOMATION SCRIPTS

119

/* Macro to digitize tlie quadrangle slieet tic locations and transform the tics to an Albers Equal Area /* David W . McLendon T X D O T 0-2104 &SV h = [response 'enter the watershed group'] &SV i = [response 'enter new quad coverage name'] &stat 9999 &stat dig ae coordinate digitizer create e:\david\%h%\quads\%i%-tic save create e:\david\%h%\quads\%i%-atic e:\david\%h%\quads\%i%-tic coordinate digitizer default save q

copy e:\david\%h%\quads\%i%-atic Sworkspace e:\david\%h%\quads tables

select %i%-dd.tic update 1 xtic = [response 'xtic'] ytic = [response 'ytic'] 2 xtic = [response 'xtic'] ytic = [response 'ytic'] 3 xtic = [response 'xtic'] ytic = [response 'ytic'] 4 xtic = [response 'xtic'] ytic = [response 'ytic']

e:\david\%h%\quads\%i%-dd

list q &workspace e:\david\macros projectdefine cover e:\david\%h%\quads\%i%-dd projection geographic datum nad27 zone [response 'enter utm zone #'] units dd parameters . ,,, ,\o,o i i project cover e:\david\%h%\quads\%i%-dd e:\david\%h%\quads\%i*-alb output projection albers datum nad27 units meters parameters 27 36 22

120

34 43 58 -100 4 35 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 end &return

/* Macro written to digitize tlie waterslied boundary and transform the boundary to the projected quadrangle sheet. /* David ^^. McLendon TXDOT 0-2104 &SV i = [response ' e n t e r watershed g r o u p ' ] &SV j = [ r e s p o n s e ' e n t e r quad c o v e r a g e ' ] &SV k = [response ' e n t e r t h e watershed i d # ' ] copy e : \ d a v i d \ % i % \ q u a d s \ % j % - a t i c e:\david\%i%\tics\ws%k%-atic &workspace e : \ d a v i d \ % i % \ t i c s ae coordinate digitizer ec ws%k%-atic ef arc add save q Sworkspace e:\david\%i%\watershed create ws%ki-ws02 e:\david\%i%\quads\%j%-alb transform e:\david\%i%\tics\ws%k%-atic ws%k%-ws02 clean ws%k%-ws02 build ws%k%-ws02 poly ae ec ws%k%-ws02 de all draw &sv z = [response 'please enter q to quit']
^Z^

{(Workspace e:\david\macros Sreturn

/* Macro written to clip LULC and SOILS and join together. /* David W. McLendon TXDOT 0-2104 &SV j = [response 'enter the watershed group'] &sv b = [response 'enter the WS# from?'] &SV c = [response 'enter the WS# to?'] &do I = %h% &to %c% clip e:\david\soils\soils02 e : \david\% j %\watershed\ws%i?^,-ws02 e:\david\%j%\soil\ws%i%-soil &workspace e:\david\lulc

121

clip e:\david\lulc\lulc-tx05 e:\david\%j%\watershed\ws%i%-ws02 e:\david\%j%\lulc\ws%i%-lulc Sworkspace e:\david\%j%\cn01 union e:\david\%j%\lulc\ws%i%-lulc e:\david\%j%\soil\ws%i%-soil ws%i^ cnOl # join &workspace e:\david\macros &end Sreturn

/* Macro written to add field en to each new polygon /* David W. McLendon TXDOT 0-2104 &SV i = [response 'enter the watershed coverage'] &sv a = [response 'from #'] &SV b = [response 'to #'] &workspace e:\david\%i%\cn01 &do J = %a% &to %b% tables select ws%j%-cn01.pat additem ws%j%-cnOl.pat CN 5 5 N 1 q &end

{.workspace e : \ d a v i d \ m a c r o s &return

/* Macro to add an attribute field for square miles /* David W. McLendon TXDOT 0-2104 &SV i = [response 'enter watershed group'] &SV j = [response 'enter watershed id#'] Sworkspace e:\david\%i%\watershed tables sel ws%j%-ws02.pat additem ws%j%-ws02.pat sq-miles 6 6 n 2 resel area > 0 calculate sq-miles = area / 4046.87 / 640 select ws%j%-ws02.pat list quit &workspace e:\david\macros &return

/* Macro written to establish a relation between soils and lulc /* also calculates the area weighted en for each watershed /* David W. McLendon TXDOT 0-2104 &SV h = [response 'Enter the lookuptable'] &SV i = [response 'Enter the Watershed Group:'] &SV a = [response 'Enter the Watershed from number'] &sv b = [response 'Enter the Watershed to number']

122

&sys copy E:\lookup\%h%.dbf E:\david\%i%\cn01\%h%.dbf createworkspace e:\david\%i%\curve {.workspace E: \David\%i%\CN01 dbaseinfo %h%.dbf %h%.lut copyinfo E:\watersheds\pct-hsg.dat E: \david\%i%\cn01\pct-hsg.dat relate add soil pct-hsg.dat info muid muid linear rw lulc %h%.lut info lulc-code lulc-code linear rw relate save %h%.rel relate drop soil lulc &do k = %a% &to %b% tables relate restore %h%.rel select ws%k%-cn01.pat resel area > 0 calculate CN = ( soil//pct_a * lulc//hsg-a / 100 ) + ( soil//pct_b lulc//hsg-b / 100 ) + ( soil//pct_c * lulc//hsg-c / 100 ) + ( soil//pct_d * lulc//hsg-d / 100 ) + ( soil//pct_water * 100 ) relate drop soil lulc q infodbase ws%k%-cn01.pat e:\david\%i%\curve\ws%k%-cn01.dbf copy ws%k%-cn01 e:\david\%i%\wsgrid\ws%k%-cn02 {.workspace e: \david\%i%\wsgrid grid ws%k%-gd30 = p o l y g r i d {ws%k%-cn02, en, #, #, 30)
q

i n f o d b a s e ws%k%-gd30.sta e:\david\%i%\curve\ws%k%-gd30.dbf {iworkspace E: \david\%i%\cn01 Send {.workspace e : \ d a v i d \ m a c r o s {.return

123

APPENDIX G REGIONAL COMPARISONS BETWEEN OBSERVED CURVE NUMBER AND PREDICTED CNII

124

Table G.l. Comparison between predicted CN and observed CN for Austin. Gage ID Quad Sheet Name ObsCN Project CN Difference

8154700 Austin west 8155200 Bee cave 8155300 Oak hill 8155550 Austin west 8156650 Austin east 8156700 Austin east 8156750 Austin east 8156800 Austin east 8157000 Austin east 8157500 Austin east 8158050 Austin east 8158100 Pflugerville west 8158200 Austin east 8158400 Austin east 8158500 Austin east 8158600 Austin east 8158700 Driftwood Buda 8158800 Signal hill 8158810 Oak hill 8158820 Oak hill 8158825 Signal hill 8158840 Oak hill 8158860 Oak hill 8158880 Oak hill 8158920 Oak hill 8158930 Montopolis 8158970 Pflugerville east 8159150 Range of values Mean value Standard Deviation

59 68.9 -9.9 65 70.7 -5.7 64 69.8 -5.8 50 87.3 -37.3 60 83.6 -23.6 78 86.6 -8.6 66 86.8 -20.8 66 87 -21 68 88.3 -20.3 67 89.1 -22.1 71 83.9 -12.9 60 72.6 -12.6 62 75.6 -13.6 79 88.9 -9.9 71 85.6 -14.6 73 76.7 -3.7 69 74.5 -5.5 64 73.3 -9.3 64 69.8 -5.8 60 67.9 -7.9 67.2 -18.2 49 74 4.2 69.8 -8 60 68 79.4 -12.4 67 -6.5 77.5 71 75.2 -19.2 56 77.7 -21.7 56 78.8 -15.8 63 49 to 79 67.2 to 89.1 0.2 to 26.5 -13.2 77.9 64.7 8.3 7.5 7.3 125

Table G.2. Comparison between predicted CN and observed CN for Dallas. Gage ID Quad Sheet Name Difference ObsCN Project CN 85 85.2 -0.2 82 86.1 -4.1 73 85.5 -12.5 85 85.8 -0.8 75 85.5 -10.5 75 85.7 -10.7 77 80.2 -3.2 89 82.9 6.1 78 86.8 -8.8 80 90.3 -10.3 85 85.7 -0.7 73 87.8 -14.8 85 79.1 5.9 80 81 -1 90 7.1 82.9 82 81.1 0.9 -12.1 67 79.1 86.5 -26.5 60 82 85 -3 -1 85 86 82 85.3 -3.3 60 to 90 79.1 to 90.3 0.2 to 26.5 79.5 84.5 -4.9 8.0 7.2 2.9

8055580 Garland 8055600 Dallas 8055700 Dallas 8056500 Dallas 8057020 Dallas 8057050 Oak cliff 8057120 Addison 8057130 Addison 8057140 Addison 8057160 Addison 8057320 White rock lake 8057415 Hutchins 8057418 Oak cliff 8057420 Oak cliff 8057425 Oak cliff 8057435 Oak cliff 8057440 Hutchins 8057445 Hutchins Garland 8061620 Mesquite 8061920 Seagoville 8061950 Range of values Mean value Standard Deviation

126

Table G.3. Comparison between predicted CN and observed CN for Ft. Worth. Gage ID 8048520 8048530 8048540 8048550 8048600 8048820 8048850 Quad Sheet Name ObsCN Project CN Fort worth Fort worth Covington Haltom city Haltom city Haltom city Haltom city Range of values Mean value Standard Deviation 10.3 69 86.7 -17.7 73 88 15 74 91.2 17.2 65 84.3 19.3 67 83.4 16.4 72 83 -11 65 to 74 82.3 to 91.2 10.3 to 19.3 70.3 85.6 15.3
3.4 3.2 3.4

Difference
72
82.3

Table G.4. Comparison between predicted CN and observed CN for San Antonio. Gage ID Quad Sheet Name ObsCN Project CN Difference

8177600 Castle hills 70 84.8 -14.8 8178300 San antonio west 72 85.7 -13.7 8178555 Southton 75 84.2 -9.2 8178600 Camp buUis 60 79.7 -19.7 Longhom 8178640 56 78.4 -22.4 8178645 Longhom 59 78.2 -19.2 8178690 Longhom 78 84.4 -6.4 74 8178736 San antonio east 92.3 -18.3 79.2 Helotes 50 -29.2 8181000 56 79.8 8181400 Helotes -23.8 60 87.3 -27.3 8181450 SAN ANTONIO WEST Range of values 50 to 78 78.2 to 92.3 6.4 to 29.2 83.1 -18.5 Mean value 64.5 9.5 4.5 7.1 Standard Deviation 127

Table G.5. Comparison between predicted CN and observed CN for rural watersheds.
Gage ID 8025307 8083420 8088100 8093400 8116400 8159150 8160800 8167600 8436520 8435660 8098300 8108200 8096800 8094000 8136900 8137000 8137500 8139000 8140000 8182400 8187000 8187900 8050200 8057500 8058000 8052630 8052700 8042650 8042700 8042700 8042700 8063200 Quadrangle Sheet Name Obs CN Fainnount 53 Abilene east 65 True 60 Abbott 61 Sugar land 70 Pflugerville east 55 Frelsburg 56 Fischer 51 Alpine south 64 Alpine south 48 Rosebud 88 Yarrelton 77 Bmceville 62 Bunyan 60 Bangs west 51 Bangs west 52 Trickham 53 Placid 53 Mercui"y 63 Martinez 52 Lenz 53 63 Kenedy Freemound 80 Weston 80 86 Weston 80 Marilee 74 Aubrey 59 Senate 50 Lynn creek 56 Senate 65 Senate 70 Coolidge Range of values 48 to 88 Mean value 62.8 11.3 Standard Deviation Project CN 55.4 84.7 85.9 88.1 82.9 83.7 67.8 74.3 86.4 86.7 80.5 79.9 80 78.4 75.8 74.5 76.5 74.6 74.4 80 83.8 73.3 79.6 78.2 80.1 85.4 84.1 63.4 62.5 62 55.9 79.4 55.4 to 88.1 2.0 8.8 Difference -2.4 -19.7 -25.9 -27.1 -12.9 -28.7 -11.8 -23.3 -22.4 -38.7 7.5 -2.9 -18 -18.4 -24.8 -22 5 -23.5 -21.6 -11.4 -28 -30.8 -10.3 0.4 1.8 5.9 -5.4 -10.1 -4.4 -12.5 -6 9.1 -9.4 0.4 to 38.7 -14.5 12.2

128

PERMISSION TO COPY

In presentmg this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I agree that the Library and my major department shall make it fireely available for research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholariy purposes may be granted by the Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that any copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my ftirther written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright mfi-ingement.

Agree (Permission is granted.)

Student Signature

Date

Disagree (Permission is not granted.)

Student Signature

Date