GIS-BASED HYDROLOGIC MODELING IN THE SANDUSKY WATERSHED USING SWAT

Typically, simulation output generated by computer simulation models is calibrated and validated at the drainage outlet of a watershed. Shortcomings of such an approach include the validation at only one geographic location without explicitly accounting for variable hydrologic patterns within the watershed. Our objective was to conduct a spatially distributed calibration and validation of water flow using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). We simulated surface, groundwater, and total flow in the Sandusky watershed in Ohio, located in the Lake Erie watershed and the Great Lakes basin. The calibration and validation of simulated water flow was conducted concurrently at four subwatersheds and the drainage outlet of the Sandusky watershed. We used measured streamflow data at five U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauge stations from water years 1998 and 1999 for calibration and from water years 2000 and 2001 for validation. The surface water simulations at all monitoring stations were better than the groundwater simulations. The validation of total water flow showed a range in mean error of 0.03 to 4.00 m3 s-1, a root mean square error of 0.06 to 2.56 m3 s-1, correlation coefficients of 0.70 to 0.90, and Nash-Sutcliffe coefficients of 0.40 to 0.73. In conclusion, spatially distributed calibration and validation accounted for hydrologic patterns in the subwatersheds nested within the relatively large Sandusky watershed. Overall, simulations of water flow in the Sandusky watershed and subwatersheds were satisfactory except for winter rainfall-runoff events. This study showed the importance of spatially distributed calibration and validation.

[1]  Steven T. Bednarz,et al.  LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART II: MODEL APPLICATION 1 , 1998 .

[2]  Baxter E. Vieux,et al.  Distributed Hydrologic Modeling Using GIS , 2001 .

[3]  R. Freeze,et al.  Blueprint for a physically-based, digitally-simulated hydrologic response model , 1969 .

[4]  Deva K. Borah,et al.  SWAT Model Background and Application Reviews , 2003 .

[5]  L. F. Huggins,et al.  ANSWERS: A Model for Watershed Planning , 1980 .

[6]  Donald E. Woodward,et al.  Computer Program for Project Formulation: Hydrology (TR-20) Revisited , 2001 .

[7]  Deva K. Borah Watershed Scale Nonpoint Source Pollution Models: Mathematical Bases , 2002 .

[8]  J. Eilers,et al.  WATER QUALITY MODELING OF ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURAL SCENARIOS IN THE U.S. CORN BELT 1 , 2002 .

[9]  J. Arnold,et al.  VALIDATION OF THE SWAT MODEL ON A LARGE RWER BASIN WITH POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCES 1 , 2001 .

[10]  Theo A. Dillaha,et al.  ANSWERS-2000: RUNOFF AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODEL , 1996 .

[11]  John R. Williams,et al.  LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART I: MODEL DEVELOPMENT 1 , 1998 .

[12]  Tammo S. Steenhuis,et al.  Scaling Effects on Runoff and Soil Moisture Content in a GIS-Based, Variable-Source-Area Hydrology Model , 1998 .

[13]  R. D. Black,et al.  An Experimental Investigation of Runoff Production in Permeable Soils , 1970 .

[14]  R. Young,et al.  AGNPS: A nonpoint-source pollution model for evaluating agricultural watersheds , 1989 .

[15]  V. Singh,et al.  Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology , 1995 .

[16]  Ronald L. Bingner,et al.  Runoff simulated from goodwin creek watershed using SWAT , 1996 .

[17]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Comparison of simple versus complex distributed runoff models on a midsized semiarid watershed , 1994 .