Prepared in cooperation with the KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information
Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4242
EXPLANATION Potential contributing area Boundary of major river basin Hiii Infiltration-excess overland flow only ^H Saturation-excess overland flow only - Subbasin boundary Hi Infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows L I Noncontributing area
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey
Estimation of Potential Runoff Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information
By KYLE E. JURACEK
Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4242
Prepared in cooperation with the KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
Lawrence, Kansas 1999 U.S. Department of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, Secretary
U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director
Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey.
For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from:
U.S. Geological Survey District Chief Information Services U.S. Geological Survey Building 810, Federal Center 4821 Quail Crest Place Box 25286 Lawrence, KS 66049-3839 Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS
Abstract...... ^ 1 Introduction ...... ^ 1 Background...... ^ 4 Description of Kansas...... 5 Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas...... 5 Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas...... 8 Summary and Conclusions...... 28 References ...... 29
FIGURES
1. Map showing location of major river basins and selected subbasins in Kansas ...... 2 2. Schematic diagrams illustrating infiltration-excess overland flow and saturation-excess overland flow ...... 4 3-4. Maps showing: 3. Soil permeability in Kansas...... 6 4. Topographic wetness index data for Kansas...... 10 5-10. Maps showing potential contributing and noncontributing areas of combined infiltration- and saturation- excess overland flows in Kansas for: 5. Very high potential-runoff conditions...... 16 6. High potential-runoff conditions ...... 18 7. Moderate potential-runoff conditions...... 20 8. Low potential-runoff conditions...... 22 9. Very low potential-runoff conditions...... 24 10. Extremely low potential-runoff conditions...... 26
TABLE
1. Potential contributing areas for combined infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows for selected subbasins in Kansas ...... 12
Contents III CONVERSION FACTORS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND VERTICAL DATUM
Multiply By To obtain inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter inch per hour (in/hr) 2.54 centimeter per hour kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile meter (m) 3.281 foot mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer square kilometer (km2) 0.3861 square mile square mile (mi ) 2.59 square kilometer
Sea level: In this report, "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of the United States and Canada, formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929.
IV Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information
By Kyle E. Juracek
Abstract daily load (TMDL) for basins throughout the State. A TMDL is an estimate of the maximum pollutant load Digital topographic and soil information was (material transported during a specified time period) used to estimate potential runoff-contributing from point and nonpoint sources that a receiving water areas throughout Kansas. The results then were can accept without exceeding water-quality standards used to compare 91 selected subbasins represent (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991). Req ing soil, slope, and runoff variability. Potential uisite for the development of TMDL's is an under runoff-contributing areas were estimated collec tively for the processes of infiltration-excess and standing of potential source areas of storm runoff that saturation-excess overland flow using a set of are the most likely contributors of nonpoint-source environmental conditions that represented very pollution within a basin. high, high, moderate, low, very low, and A study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in extremely low potential runoff. For infiltration- cooperation with the Kansas Department of Health excess overland flow, various rainfall-intensity and Environment, was begun in 1999 to estimate the and soil-permeability values were used. For satu spatial extent and pattern of potential runoff-contribut ration-excess overland flow, antecedent soil-mois ing areas in Kansas (fig. 1). The specific study objec ture conditions and a topographic wetness index tives were to: were used. (1) Estimate potential runoff-contributing areas result Results indicated that very low potential- ing from infiltration-excess and saturation-excess runoff conditions provided the best ability to dis overland flows; and tinguish the 91 selected subbasins as having rela (2) Compare potential runoff among major river basins tively high or low potential runoff. The majority and selected subbasins throughout the State. of the subbasins with relatively high potential run The purpose of this report is to present the results off are located in the eastern half of the State of the study to estimate the spatial extent and pattern where soil permeability generally is less and pre of potential runoff-contributing areas in Kansas. The cipitation typically is greater. The ability to distin methods presented in this report may be applicable guish the subbasins as having relatively high or nationwide as related to the development of TMDL's low potential runoff was possible mostly due to and the targeting and implementation of best-manage the variability of soil permeability across the ment practices (BMP's). This study is a statewide State. expansion of a recently completed study by Juracek (1999) in which the same type of data and similar methods were used to estimate potential runoff-con INTRODUCTION tributing areas in the Kansas-Lower Republican River The State of Kansas is required by the Federal Basin in Kansas. This study was made possible in part Clean Water Act of 1972 to develop a total maximum by support from the Kansas State Water Plan Fund.
Introduction Upper Republican Kansas-Lower River Basin Solomon River Republican River Basin m .102' Basin (A f 0> Missouri 5' River Basin
Smoky Hill-Saline River Kansas c3D Basin 3 o^ 6 o 3
c 5' Marais des gvl Cygnes %-' River Basin
u 3
(Q O T3 O Neosho <£> River -a3 Basin 3; ' Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2.000,000,1994 Albers Conic Equal-Area projection, Lower Arkansas River Basin Verdigris River Basin Standard parallels 29°30 and 45°30', central meridian 96° Walnut River Basin 3 Subbasin boundaries from U.S. Department of Agriculture, a Natural Resources Conservation Service (1997) W O EXPLANATION 25 50 MILES 25 50 KILOMETERS Boundary of major river basin Subbasin boundary 0) 5' @ Subbasin number 3 EXPLANATION (continued)
Subbasins selected for analysis
Cimarron River Basin Marais des Cygnes River Basin Solomon River Basin (7) Cavalry Creek @ Big Bull Creek upstream from Hillsdale Lake © Beaver Creek (2) Crooked Creek © Dragoon Creek upstream from Pomona Lake © Bow Creek © Hundred and Ten Mile Creek upstream from Pomona © Limestone Creek (Jewell County) Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin Lake @ North Fork Solomon River between Kirwin Reservoir (a) Big Blue River upstream from Turtle Creek Lake © Little Osage River and Waconda Lake (4) Black Vermillion River (38) Marais des Cygnes River upstream from Melvern © Oak Creek © Buffalo Creek Lake ® Pipe Creek © Clarks Creek (§) Marmaton River © Salt Creek (7) Delaware River upstream from Muscotah @ Pottawatomie Creek © Solomon River downstream from Waconda Lake (5) Fancy Creek © Salt Creek © South Fork Solomon River between Webster Reservoir (£) Grasshopper Creek Missouri River Basin and Waconda Lake ® Little Blue River upstream from Barnes © South Fork Solomon River upstream from Webster © Mill Creek (Wabaunsee County) @ Blue River Reservoir ® Indian and Tomahawk Creeks © Mill Creek (Washington County) Upper Arkansas River Basin ® Republican River between Concordia and Clay Center @ South Fork Big Nemaha River © Buckner Creek @ Republican River upstream from Concordia ® Walnut Creek © Pawnee River ©Soldier Creek ® Wolf River © Walnut Creek ® Stranger Creek Neosho River Basin © Vermillion Creek (Pottawatomie County) © Cherry Creek Upper Republican River Basin ® Wakarusa River downstream from Clinton Lake @ Diamond Creek ® Beaver Creek ® Wakarusa River upstream from Clinton Lake ® Doyle Creek @ Prairie Dog Creek @ White Rock Creek ® Labette Creek ® Sappa Creek © Wildcat Creek © Neosho River between John Redmond Reservoir Verdigris River Basin Lower Arkansas River Basin and Chanute © Neosho River upstream from Council Grove Lake © Big Hill Creek @ Bluff Creek (S) South Cottonwood River ® Drum Creek @ Cow Creek ® Elk River upstream from Elk City @ Cowskin Creek Smoky Hill-Saline River Basin © Fall River upstream from Fall River Lake @ Grouse Creek @ Big Creek ® Onion Creek © Little Arkansas River upstream from Alta Mills © Chapman Creek © Pumpkin Creek @ Medicine Lodge River and Elm Creek upstream from © Elkhorn and Bullfoot Creeks © Verdigris River upstream from Toronto Lake Medicine Lodge © Hackberry Creek Walnut River Basin @ Mule Creek ® Ladder Creek (29) North Fork Ninnescah River upstream from Cheney ® Lyon Creek © Little Walnut River Reservoir ® Mulberry Creek ® Timber Creek ® Sand and Emma Creeks © Saline River upstream from Wilson Lake ® Walnut River upstream from El Dorado Lake © Sandy and Little Sandy Creeks © Smoky Hill River between Cedar Bluff Reservoir and © Whitewater River @ South Fork Ninnescah River from confluence with Kanopolis Lake North Fork Ninnescah River upstream to Kingman © Smoky Hill River upstream from Cedar Bluff Reservoir ® Sun and Turkey Creeks @ Spillman Creek
Figure 1. Location of major river basins and selected subbasins in Kansas. Background Saturated surface layer Runoff-contributing areas within Infiltration-excess overland flow river basins primarily are the result of Land surface two processes, both of which produce overland flow. The first process is infil tration-excess overland flow (fig. 2A), Water table which occurs when precipitation inten sity exceeds the rate of water infiltration Saturated subsurface zone into the soil. This process may be domi nant in basins where the land surface has been disturbed (for example, plowed cropland) or where natural vegetation is sparse. The second process is saturation- excess overland flow (fig. 2B), which B Saturation-excess occurs when precipitation falls on tem overland flow porarily or permanently saturated land- Land surface surface areas that have developed from "outcrops" of the water table at the land Water table surface (Hornberger and others, 1998). A temporary water table can develop during a storm when antecedent soil- Saturated subsurface zone moisture conditions in a basin are high. The saturated areas where saturation- excess overland flow develops expand during a storm and shrink during Figure 2. Schematic diagrams illustrating (A) infiltration-excess overland flow extended dry periods (Dunne and others, and (B) saturation-excess overland flow. 1975). Historically, infiltration-excess overland flow has contribute infiltration-excess overland flow. As rainfall been assumed to be the most important runoff process intensity increases, areas with more moderate perme in Midwestern agricultural areas. More recently, satu ability also may contribute overland flow. ration-excess overland flow has been considered an Contributing areas of saturation-excess overland important runoff process and is the subject of ongoing flow are determined by the combined effect of basin research. topography and antecedent soil-moisture conditions. Both runoff processes would be expected to affect The effect of topography on saturation-excess over the load of water-quality constituents in streams, land flow can be quantified by an index called the although possibly in different ways due to different topographic wetness index (TWI) (Wolock and flow paths. The identification of potential runoff-con McCabe, 1995). The TWI is computed as In (a/S) for tributing areas in a basin can provide guidance for the all points in a basin, where "In" is the natural loga targeting of BMP's to reduce runoff and meet TMDL rithm, "a" is the upslope area per unit contour length, requirements. Implementation of BMP's within poten and "5"' is the slope at that point. The locations in a tial runoff-contributing areas is likely to be more basin with the highest TWI values (large upslope areas effective at reducing constituent loads compared to and gentle slopes) are the most likely to contribute sat areas less likely to contribute runoff. uration-excess overland flow. When antecedent soil- The spatial extent and pattern of runoff-contribut moisture conditions are dry, only areas with the high ing areas are affected by climate, soil, and terrain char est TWI values may be saturated and potentially con acteristics. Contributing areas of infiltration-excess tribute overland flow. When antecedent soil-moisture overland flow are determined by the combined effect conditions are wet, areas with lower TWI values may of rainfall intensity and soil permeability. The least- be saturated and potentially contribute overland flow. permeable soils in a basin are the most likely to
4 Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information Description of Kansas The digital data included the U.S. Department of Agri culture's l:250,000-scale State soils geographic data r\ Kansas encompasses an area of about 82,000 mi . base (STATSGO) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Major river basins in Kansas include the Cimarron, 1993) and the USGS 1-km-resolution digital elevation Kansas-Lower Republican, Lower Arkansas, Marais model (DEM) (Verdin and Greenlee, 1996). These two des Cygnes, Missouri, Neosho, Smoky Hill-Saline, digital data sets are suitable for comparing potential Solomon, Upper Arkansas, Upper Republican, Verdi runoff among basins hundreds of square miles in size. gris, and Walnut (fig. 1). Numerous Federal reservoirs Thus, in this study emphasis was placed on a compari are located throughout the eastern two-thirds of the son of potential runoff-contributing areas between, State. Land use is predominantly agricultural, with rather than within, individual subbasins. cropland, grassland, and woodland accounting for The potential for infiltration-excess overland flow 53.0, 42.7, and 2.5 percent of the State, respectively. was estimated using STATSGO-derived soil- Urban land use accounts for about 1 percent of the permeability digital data. In the STATSGO data set, State (Kansas Applied Remote Sensing soil permeability represents the infiltration rate when Program, 1993). the soil is saturated (Soil Survey Staff, 1997). In gen Terrain varies throughout Kansas and includes flat eral, there is an inverse relation between soil perme plains, rolling hills, sandhills, and steep slopes ability and the potential for infiltration-excess (Moody and others, 1986). Soil permeability ranges overland flow. Using GIS techniques and digital maps from about 0.3 to 12.5 in/hr (fig. 3), with a mean of of State and subbasin boundaries, the soil-permeabil about 1.6 in/hr. The highest soil-permeability values ity data were extracted from the STATSGO data base occur in the Cimarron and Upper and Lower Arkansas for the State and each subbasin (fig. 3). The mean soil River Basins of southwest and south-central Kansas. permeability then was computed for each subbasin. Soil permeability also is generally higher in the west An equal-interval approach was used to select six ern half of the State. Across the State, soil permeabil threshold soil-permeability values that represent the ity is typically higher in the flood plains of the major rainfall intensity at which infiltration-excess overland rivers and streams (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1993). Mean annual precipitation ranges from about flow would occur. In Kansas, soil permeability ranges from about 0.3 to 12.5 in/hr. However, because about 15 in. or less in extreme western Kansas to about 40 in. in the southeast (Paulson and others, 1991). 93 percent of the State has a soil permeability of 4.0 in/hr or less, the effective range used in this study was 0.3 to 4.0 in/hr. Thus, the threshold soil-perme ability values, representing very high, high, moderate, ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL RUNOFF- low, very low, and extremely low rainfall intensity, CONTRIBUTING AREAS were set at 3.38, 2.76, 2.14, 1.52, 0.90, and 0.45 in/hr, Within the State, 91 subbasins representing soil, respectively. The extremely low threshold value was slope, and runoff variability were selected for analysis adjusted upward from 0.28 to 0.45 in/hr because the (fig. 1). The selected subbasin boundaries were original value was less than the range of soil-perme obtained from a statewide data base of 11- and 14- ability values for the State. In general, the lower rain digit hydrologic unit (basin) boundaries that was fall intensities occur more frequently than the higher developed at a scale of 1:24,000 (U.S. Department of rainfall intensities. The higher soil-permeability Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, thresholds imply a more intense storm during which 1997). For all selected subbasins, potential runoff-con areas with higher soil permeability potentially may tributing areas were estimated collectively for the pro contribute infiltration-excess overland flow. The cesses of infiltration-excess and saturation-excess threshold soil-permeability values were used to com overland flow. Geographic-information-system (GIS) pare the selected subbasins on the basis of the percent techniques and available digital data were used to per age of each subbasin with soil-permeability values that form the spatial analyses required to estimate potential were less than or equal to the threshold value and thus runoff-contributing areas. All analyses were done potentially contribute infiltration-excess overland flow. using the GRID module of the Arclnfo GIS software The potential for saturation-excess overland flow package. The digital data used in the analyses were in was estimated using DEM-derived TWI digital data. a grid (raster) format with a grid-cell size of 1 km2. In general, there is a direct relation between TWI and
Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas 5 Upper Republican Kansas-Lower River Basin Solomon River Republican m Basin River Basin u> 95° fi> Missouri River o Basin
TJ O Smoky Hill-Saline River 33 c Basin 39° L 3 O=s 6 o Marais des CT C Cygnes River CQ Basin > I Upper Arkansas River Basin
CJ 3 mU) w C
O TJ r Balsih*iv j O Neosho (Q ^-ti 1* < River Basin
O Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1 ZOOO.OOO. 19! Albers Conic Equal-Area projection, Lower Arkansas River Basin Verdigris River Basin tu Standard parallels 29°30rand 45°30', central meridian 96° Walnut River Basin Subbasin boundaries from U.S Department of Agriculture, a Natural Resources Conservation Service (1997) w o EXPLANATION Range in soil permeability Boundary of major river basin -i I I High 12.5 inches per hour czi Subbasin boundary
Subbasin number Low 0.3 inch per hour fromLakeTorontotream fromElDoradoLakeearn fromFallLakeRiveri fromElkCity BasinRiveri
i .S £ S 3 &) & EC S. % * % w- RepubliiUpper CreiPrairieDog VerdigrisRiver WalnutRiverB LittleWalnutRiv WalnutRiverup WhitewaterRive BucknerCreek PawneeRiver WalnutCreek BeaverCreek SappaCreek SiHiSi TimberCreek iillltlJ- C DC "-> O c -O a fiii2<§!i ©©© ©©© ©®®®©®© ® ® ®i©
.2 I
! Q)
1
Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas the potential for saturation-excess overland flow. Deri created by combining very high rainfall intensity (soil vation of the TWI digital data followed the approach permeability less than or equal to 3.38 in/hr) with very described by Wolock and McCabe (1995). Elevation wet antecedent soil-moisture (TWI greater than or differences among the grid cells in the DEM were equal to 10.4) conditions. A high potential-runoff con compared and used to create a flow-direction grid dition was created by combining high rainfall intensity (Jenson and Domingue, 1988). The flow-direction grid (soil permeability less than or equal to 2.76 in/hr) with was used to derive a flow-accumulation grid by com wet antecedent soil-moisture (TWI greater than or puting the number of upslope cells that drain into each equal to 12.1) conditions. A moderate potential-runoff cell. The upslope area per unit contour length (a) for condition was created by combining moderate rainfall each cell in the flow-accumulation grid was computed intensity (soil permeability less than or equal to as: 2.14 in/hr) with moderate antecedent soil-moisture a = (number of upslope cells + 0.5) x (grid-cell (TWI greater than or equal to 13.8) conditions. A low length). (1) potential-runoff condition was created by combining Using the DEM and the flow-direction grid, the the low rainfall intensity (soil permeability less than or magnitude of the slope (S) was computed for each cell equal to 1.52 in/hr) with dry antecedent soil-moisture as: (TWI greater than or equal to 15.6) conditions. A very S = (change in elevation between neighboring low potential-runoff condition was created by combin grid cells) / (horizontal distance between ing the very low rainfall intensity (soil permeability centers of neighboring grid cells). (2) less than or equal to 0.90 in/hr) with very dry anteced ent soil-moisture (TWI greater than or equal to 17.3) The resultant slope (gradient) grid then was used conditions. An extremely low potential-runoff condi in combination with the flow-accumulation grid to tion was created by combining the extremely low rain compute TWI for each cell as: fall intensity (soil permeability less than or equal to TWI =ln (a /S). (3) 0.45 in/hr) with extremely dry antecedent soil- Using GIS techniques and digital maps of State moisture (TWI greater than or equal to 19.0) condi and subbasin boundaries, the TWI grid data were tions. The combined conditions were used to compare extracted for the State and each subbasin (fig. 4). The the selected subbasins on the basis of the percentage of mean TWI was computed for each subbasin. An equal- each subbasin that potentially contributes runoff by interval approach was used to select six threshold TWI one or both overland-flow processes. values that represented a range of wet-to-dry anteced ent soil-moisture conditions. In Kansas, the TWI ranges from 8.6 to 28.7. However, because about POTENTIAL RUNOFF-CONTRIBUTING 95 percent of the State has a TWI of 19 or less, the AREAS effective range used in this study was 8.6 to 19. Thus, the threshold TWI values, representing very wet, wet, For very high potential-runoff conditions (soil per moderate, dry, very dry, and extremely dry antecedent meability less than or equal to 3.38 in/hr, TWI greater soil-moisture conditions, were set at 10.4, 12.1, 13.8, than or equal to 10.4), 89 of 91 (98 percent) subbasins 15.6, 17.3, and 19.0, respectively. The lower TWI had potential contributing areas in greater than 90 per thresholds imply wetter antecedent soil-moisture con cent of each subbasin (table 1). Thus, this set of envi ditions during which areas with lower TWI values ronmental conditions was not useful for the purpose of potentially may contribute saturation-excess overland distinguishing subbasins as having relatively high or flow. The threshold TWI values were used to compare low potential runoff. The spatial extent and pattern of the selected subbasins on the basis of the percentage of combined potential contributing and noncontributing each subbasin that had TWI values greater than or areas for very high potential-runoff conditions are equal to the threshold value and thus potentially con shown in figure 5. tribute saturation-excess overland flow. For high potential-runoff conditions (soil perme The combined potential for runoff in Kansas and ability less than or equal to 2.76 in/hr, TWI greater the selected subbasins due to infiltration-excess and than or equal to 12.1), 85 of 91 (93 percent) subbasins saturation-excess overland flows was estimated by had potential contributing areas in greater than 90 per merging the previously described hypothetical condi cent of each subbasin (table 1). Thus, with two excep tions. A very high potential-runoff condition was tions, this set of environmental conditions was not 8 Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information useful for the purpose of distinguishing subbasins as 44.2 percent) and Crooked Creek (subbasin 2, having relatively high or low potential runoff. The two 82.9 percent) remained substantial. In the Lower exceptions were within the Cimarron and Lower Arkansas Basin, potential contributing areas ranged Arkansas River Basins (fig. 1). In the Cimarron Basin, from 24.1 percent of the subbasin for the North Fork Cavalry Creek (subbasin 1, 73.8 percent) had substan Ninnescah River upstream from Cheney Reservoir tially less potential contributing area than Crooked (subbasin 29) to 100 percent for Sun and Turkey Creek (subbasin 2, 96.4 percent). In the Lower Arkan Creeks (subbasin 33). Of the 12 subbasins in the sas Basin, potential contributing areas ranged from Lower Arkansas Basin, 4 (33 percent) had potential 71.6 percent of the subbasin for Mule Creek (subbasin contributing areas of between 70 and 90 percent, and 5 28) to 100 percent for Sun and Turkey Creeks (subba (42 percent) had potential contributing areas of sin 33). Of the 12 subbasins in the Lower Arkansas between 20 and 60 percent. Basin, 5 (42 percent) had potential contributing areas Across the State, subbasins with potential contrib between 70 and 90 percent. The spatial extent and pat uting areas less than 90 percent were observed in three tern of combined potential contributing and noncon- other major basins for low potential-runoff conditions. tributing areas for high potential-runoff conditions are In the Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin, the shown in figure 6. Republican River upstream from Concordia (subbasin Potential contributing areas were greater than 14) had a potential contributing area of 85.3 percent of 90 percent for 82 of 91 (90 percent) subbasins for the subbasin. In the Smoky Hill-Saline River Basin, moderate potential-runoff conditions (soil permeabil the Saline River upstream from Wilson Lake (subbasin ity less than or equal to 2.14 in/hr, TWI greater than or 61) and the Smoky Hill River upstream from Cedar equal to 13.8). The ability to distinguish subbasins as Bluff Reservoir (subbasin 63) had respective potential having relatively high or low potential runoff again contributing areas of 82.1 and 77.9 percent. Finally, in was restricted to the Cimarron and Lower Arkansas the Solomon River Basin, Bow Creek (subbasin 66) River Basins. In the Cimarron Basin, Cavalry Creek and the South Fork Solomon River upstream from (subbasin 1, 54.9 percent) again had substantially less Webster Reservoir (subbasin 74) had respective poten potential contributing area than Crooked Creek (sub- tial contributing areas of 79.5 and 76.1 percent. The basin 2, 86.9 percent). In the Lower Arkansas Basin, spatial extent and pattern of combined potential con potential contributing areas ranged from 63 percent of tributing and noncontributing areas for low potential- the subbasin for Mule Creek (subbasin 28) to 100 per runoff conditions are shown in figure 8. cent for Sun and Turkey Creeks (subbasin 33). Of the Overall, the best statewide ability to distinguish 12 subbasins in the Lower Arkansas Basin, 5 (42 per subbasins was observed for the very low potential-run cent) had potential contributing areas between 70 and off conditions (soil permeability less than or equal to 90 percent, and 2 (17 percent) had potential contribut 0.90 in/hr, TWI greater than or equal to 17.3). Of the ing areas less than 70 percent (table 1). In the remain 91 subbasins, 32 (35 percent) had potential contribut ing 10 major river basins, all subbasins had potential ing areas in greater than 90 percent of each subbasin, contributing areas greater than 90 percent. The spatial 14 (15 percent) had potential contributing areas extent and pattern of combined potential contributing between 70 and 90 percent, 5 (5 percent) had potential and noncontributing areas for moderate potential run contributing areas between 50 and 70 percent, 7 off conditions are shown in figure 7. (8 percent) had potential contributing areas between For low potential-runoff conditions (soil perme 30 and 50 percent, 16(18 percent) had potential con ability less than or equal to 1.52 in/hr, TWI greater tributing areas between 10 and 30 percent, and 17 than or equal to 15.6), 75 of 91 (82 percent) subbasins (19 percent) had potential contributing areas less than had potential contributing areas in greater than 90 per 10 percent (table 1). The spatial extent and pattern of cent of each subbasin (table 1). Therefore, the ability combined potential contributing and noncontributing to distinguish subbasins as having relatively high or areas for very low potential-runoff conditions are low potential runoff was still limited. Again, the best shown in figure 9. ability to distinguish subbasins was observed in the For extremely low potential-runoff conditions Cimarron and Lower Arkansas River Basins. In the (soil permeability less than or equal to 0.45, TWI Cimarron Basin, the difference in potential contribut greater than or equal to 19.0), the ability to distinguish ing area between Cavalry Creek (subbasin 1, subbasins varied by major river basin. Of the Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas Upper Republican Kansas-Lower River Basin Solomon River Republican Basin River Basin m .102 Ul si Missouri o River 3 Basin TJ O re Smoky Hill-Saline Jj River 30 c Basin 39° t; o Marais des CT C Cygnes 5' River 10 Basin n> fit ui 01 3 V) D> (A C u' O Neosho River Basin B^V^F^=«M^MHHa. O Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2.000,000,199-1 Albers Conic Equal-Area projection, Verdigris River Basin 0) Lower Arkansas River Basin Walnut River Basin 3 Standard parallels 29°30 and 45°30', central meridian 96° D. Subbasin boundaries from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (1997) (A O EXPLANATION 25 50 MILES ______1______| S1 Range in topographic wetness index Boundary of major river basin 25 50 KILOMETERS High 28.7 (dimensionless) 3 i __ Subbasin boundary @ Subbasin number Low 8.6 (dimensionless) 1 I § s Ig «s V O. S £ O) S c js C i> u 2 13 113 i a> o fl ^ ^ 10 ^ c^l lcBl<^ 6w n| °Sl| " ^ e CJ. CJ0 ^JliSI £ .CTJ -c ^ ^111(0 3 C 3.&13"o-S 2 - ^ o3 19S Q°"3r^ IcS I O Cu (/) c/5 c/) V) ohnRedmondRe: CQ fromCouncilGroi Jl S CQ £ % ll 1 CQ I 1 CJ (0 -3 1 CJ ^ 1 V (0 £ 1 1 1 £ V Q> 1 Q. SmokyHillRiveru] SouthForkBigNei NeoshoBasRiver betwNeoshoRiver SmokyHill-Saline BaMissouriRiver andTomahaIndian Chanuteand NeoshoRiverupsn CottonwoodSouth CreekDiamond l|l^ if 13 SpillmanCreek WalnutCreek CreekCherry DoyleCreek CreekLabette BlueRiver WolfRiver ScjmxJ^s^l!|ll|||||l /c^/5\ ®©@ ©@®®® ©@®®@ ©i® ®©©©@©®©© \ ca T3 -2"c Q) CJ ^ "1 J X jc 0 s J .2! 0)a e 8 -c ? 'E ^.§J c 1 ^ ^ 1 5 § f 1 § V) (/) Ji i i 15 ^a c0) 11 1 IIIJI Hi c5 o 1 1 i ill i S 111 !c g Q. <§ 22§J -fa ^>^"&"WD. °§"K CO Qu 0) "to r? Q- "mCLRc-O3 ^- O D. _v» O) Otf CL ^^ 3 Q> ^ in 'p! t. t, o« "O D ft) o CimarronRivei CL T)CrookedCreek o 7)CavalryCreek iiini.tiiiijijjiiji o * Jsl^5ial|1lii^^iil2 "IS ° 1 s-gj.2 | &|?^^tt| cell^l 5 3 0) iS ^^^^ CQ CJ CJ O Zl S D) ^^(^©^^^(S)^^©©©©^©©^^ ®®®©©(§) Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas 11 Table 1. Potential contributing areas for combined infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows for selected subbasins in Kansas [P, soil permeability, in inches per hour; TWI, topographic wetness index] Potential contributing area, in percentage of subbasin, for selected potential- runoff conditions Extreme Subbasin Very high Moderate Very low ly low number Mean potential High poten- potential Low potential potential potential (fig-1) Mean P TWI runoff1 tial runoff2 runoff3 runoff4 runoff5 runoff6 Cimarron River Basin 1 3.7 12.9 91.6 73.8 54.9 44.2 8.5 2.8 2 1.7 13.8 99.2 96.4 86.9 82.9 45.8 5.0 Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin 3 .6 12.7 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 93.4 37.1 4 .4 12.5 100 100 100 100 99.6 90.8 5 1.1 12.9 100 99.5 99.4 96.5 20.8 3.9 6 .5 12.6 100 100 99.5 99.5 99.5 40.2 7 .4 12.7 100 100 100 100 95.9 95.7 8 .7 12.3 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 98.8 2.9 9 .4 12.4 100 100 100 100 93.0 91.8 10 .8 12.8 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 82.7 5.8 11 .5 12.0 100 100 99.8 99.8 96.2 13.5 12 .9 12.6 100 100 100 100 69.9 3.7 13 1.2 13.0 99.8 97.7 93.9 92.3 70.4 4.6 14 1.4 13.0 98.2 94.8 91.5 85.3 50.0 5.2 15 .6 12.7 100 100 97.0 95.7 84.0 83.4 16 0.5 12.8 100 100 100 99.9 93.7 66.4 17 .6 12.2 98.9 97.0 95.3 94.8 94.6 77.9 18 .8 12.9 99.3 99.3 99.3 98.4 84.0 18.8 19 .6 12.6 96.2 96.2 96.2 96.2 88.2 38.6 20 1.3 12.7 98.5 98.5 98.5 91.7 8.8 4.3 21 .6 12.4 100 100 98.1 97.3 96.5 3.5 Lower Arkansas River Basin 22 1.5 13.5 99.9 97.2 95.5 75.6 40.4 4.9 23 1.8 13.6 99.3 95.0 89.8 79.3 14.5 5.4 24 2.1 14.1 100 98.0 90.0 83.0 10.2 2.2 25 .5 12.7 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 21.7 26 2.8 13.4 99.8 92.0 85.4 82.0 74.4 4.3 12 Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information Table 1. Potential contributing areas for combined infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows for selected subbasins in Kansas Continued Potential contributing area, in percentage of subbasin, for selected potential- runoff conditions Extreme Subbasin Very high Moderate Very low ly low number Mean potential High poten potential Low potential potential potential (fig.1) Mean P TWI runoff1 tial runoff2 runoff3 runoff4 runoff5 runoff6 Lower Arkansas River Basin Continued 27 2.5 12.4 89.8 78.2 73.1 52.2 26.4 3.2 28 2.9 12.3 88.2 71.6 63.0 54.1 21.1 3.8 29 5.1 13.7 98.4 85.3 69.5 24.1 13.2 3.7 30 .9 13.9 100 99.1 98.8 98.8 98.4 5.7 31 3.6 13.1 97.5 86.0 76.5 56.2 10.7 2.7 32 3.0 13.4 99.2 88.9 83.1 26.5 21.5 6.0 33 .8 13.7 100 100 100 100 100 5.3 Marais des Cygnes River Basin 34 0.6 12.6 100 100 100 100 92.2 23.4 35 .5 12.7 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 92.7 79.0 36 .5 12.5 98.7 98.7 98.7 98.7 89.9 44.3 37 .7 12.9 100 100 100 100 75.7 9.4 38 .4 12.7 98.4 98.4 98.4 98.4 95.6 83.5 39 .9 12.7 100 100 100 96.8 37.8 5.9 40 .6 12.9 100 100 100 100 93.6 42.1 41 .5 12.9 100 100 100 100 93.6 63.4 Missouri River Basin 42 .6 12.1 100 100 100 100 98.0 1.0 43 .7 12.3 100 100 100 100 88.0 1.1 44 .4 12.5 95.5 95.5 95.5 95.5 93.1 89.0 45 .5 12.7 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 96.1 71.9 46 .9 12.6 100 100 100 100 36.1 31.4 Neosho River Basin 47 1.1 13.6 100 11.5 100 ~100100 100 5.4 48 .5 12.5 100 100 100 95.6 32.1 49 .6 12.9 100 100 100 100 91.5 18.3 50 .8 13.1 99.3 99.3 99.3 99.3 84.2 4.5 51 .6 13.2 100 100 100 99.9 81.6 48.6 52 .4 12.6 98.5 98.5 98.5 98.5 94.9 48.2 53 .7 13.1 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 76.4 9.1 Smoky Hill-Saline River Basin 54 1.2 12.9 100 100 100 95.0 21.4 6.2 Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas 13 Table 1. Potential contributing areas for combined infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows for selected subbasins in Kansas Continued Potential contributing area, in percentage of subbasin, for selected potential- runoff conditions Extreme Subbasin Very high Moderate Very low ly low number Mean potential High poten potential Low potential potential potential (fig.1) Mean P TWI runoff1 tial runoff2 runoff3 runoff4 runoff5 runoff6 Smoky Hill-Saline River Basin Continued 55 1.0 12.5 99.9 99.8 95.4 94.3 64.1 4.3 56 1.2 12.1 100 100 100 99.5 5.3 1.5 57 1.3 12.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.7 10.6 5.9 58 1.4 13.1 98.7 98.2 98.0 92.0 9.8 5.9 59 .5 12.7 100 100 100 100 100 14.2 60 1.1 12.5 100 100 100 100 16.6 3.4 61 1.4 12.7 99.5 99.5 99.5 82.1 9.2 5.4 62 1.5 12.9 99.6 98.3 97.1 91.4 10.2 4.9 63 1.7 12.7 98.7 97.7 97.2 77.9 8.4 5.3 64 1.1 12.6 100 100 100 96.0 8.4 3.1 Solomon River Basin 65 1.3 12.5 99.6 99.6 99.6 94.9 9.5 3.8 66 1.5 12.9 99.5 97.4 97.1 79.5 10.9 4.6 67 1.2 12.7 100 100 100 96.2 8.5 2.7 68 1.3 12.7 99.8 99.8 99.8 90.7 8.9 417 69 1.2 12.6 100 100 100 95.1 8.4 3.7 70 .9 12.8 100 100 100 100 76.6 5.7 71 1.1 12.4 100 100 100 100 12.0 3.8 72 1.1 13.2 98.5 98.1 97.8 96.5 30.4 4.9 73 1.3 12.6 99.9 99.9 99.9 90.3 7.8 4.5 74 1.5 12.8 99.6 97.8 97.1 76.1 8.6 4.3 Upper Arkansas River Basin., . " \ 75 1.1 13.0 100 100 98.8 92.9 35.2 4.1 76 1.1 13.2 100 99.8 98.9 98.7 19.7 4.3 77 1.2 13.1 100 99.9 98.9 95.2 9.3 4.5 Upper Republican River Basin 78 1.3 12.9 99.9 99.3 99.0 91.4 9.8 5.6 79 1.4 12.9 99.6 98.5 98.0 93.8 8.8 4.8 80 1.4 12.9 - 99.8 97.9 97.4 97.0 9.6 5.4 14 Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information Table 1. Potential contributing areas for combined infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows for selected subbasins in Kansas Continued Potential contributing area, in percentage of subbasin, for selected potential- runoff conditions Extreme Subbasin Very high Moderate Very low ly low number Mean potential High poten potential Low potential potential potential (fig. 1) MeanP TWI runoff1 tial runoff2 runoff3 runoff4 runoff5 runoff6 Verdigris River Basin 81 13.2 100 100 100 100 58.5 7.3 82 12.8 100 100 100 100 61.7 5.5 83 12.8 100 100 100 95.0 84.7 26.6 84 12.3 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 95.1 29.7 85 12.5 98.3 98.3 98.3 98.3 49.7 28.8 86 13.2 100 100 100 100 91.1 5.6 87 .5 12.8 99.6 99.6 99.6 99.6 90.7 44.4 Walnut River Basin 88 .5 12.8 100 100 100 100 93.6 37.7 89 .5 13.3 100 100 100 100 100 31.9 90 .5 13.2 99.1 99.1 99.1 99.1 95.9 94.5 91 .5 13.4 100.0 100 100 100 92.5 77.2 1 Very high potential runoff = soil permeability less than or equal to 3.38 inches per hour and topographic wetness index greater than or equal to 10.4. High potential runoff = soil permeability less than or equal to 2.76 inches per hour and topographic wetness index greater than or equal to 12.1. 3 Moderate potential runoff = soil permeability less than or equal to 2.14 inches per hour and topographic wetness index greater than or equal to 13.8. 4 Low potential runoff = soil permeability less than or equal to 1.52 inches per hour and topographic wetness index greater than or equal to 15.6. 5 Very low potential runoff = soil permeability less than or equal to 0.90 inch per hour and topographic wetness index greater than or equal to 17.3. 6 Extremely low potential runoff = soil permeability less than or equal to 0.45 inch per hour and topographic wetness index greater than or equal to 19.0. 91 subbasins statewide, 4 (4 percent) had potential ties. A basin was categorized as having relatively high contributing areas greater than 90 percent of each sub- potential runoff if the majority of its subbasins (those basin, 7 (8 percent) had potential contributing areas selected for analysis) had potential contributing areas between 70 and 90 percent, 2 (2 percent) had potential greater than 70 percent of each subbasin. A basin was contributing areas between 50 and 70 percent, 12 categorized as having relatively low potential runoff if (13 percent) had potential contributing areas between the majority of its subbasins (those selected for analy 30 and 50 percent, 9 (10 percent) had potential con sis) had potential contributing areas less than 30 per tributing areas between 10 and 30 percent, and 57 cent of each subbasin. The major basins having (63 percent) had potential contributing areas less than relatively high potential runoff were the Kansas-Lower 10 percent (table 1). The spatial extent and pattern of Republican (15 of 19 subbasins had potential contrib combined potential contributing and noncontributing uting areas greater than 70 percent of each subbasin), areas for extremely low potential-runoff conditions are shown in figure 10. Marais des Cygnes (7 of 8 subbasins), Missouri (4 of Using very low potential-runoff conditions, the 5 subbasins), Neosho (6 of 7 subbasins), Verdigris (4 major river basins were categorized as having either of 7 subbasins), and Walnut (4 of 4 subbasins). The relatively high or relatively low potential runoff. The major basins having relatively low potential runoff very low potential-runoff conditions are meaningful were the Cimarron (1 of 2 subbasins had potential con because they provide the best ability to distinguish tributing areas less than 30 percent of each subbasin), subbasins and because the 0.90-in/hr rainfall intensity Lower Arkansas (7 of 12 subbasins), Smoky Hill- occurs more frequently than the higher rainfall intensi Saline (9 of 11 subbasins), Solomon (8 of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas 15 Upper Republican Kansas-Lower River Basin Solomon River Republican Basin River Basin m (/> I Missouri River Basin Smoky Hill-Saline River 3) c Basin 39 3 O 6 O Marais des Cygnes 5' River in Basin 5'ui in T3 O Neosho IQ River Basin Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000,1994 Albers Conic Equal-Area projection. Lower Arkansas River Basin Walnut River Basin Verdigris River Basin Standard parallels 29°30 and 45°30', central meridian 96° 3 Subbasin boundaries from U.S. Department of Agriculture, a Natural Resources Conservation Service (19971 w O EXPLANATION 25 50 MlfES Potential contributing area Boundary of major river basin -* I 1 Infiltration-excess overland flow only (iiS''; Saturation-excess overland flow only Subbasin boundary o' ^H Infiltration- and saturation-excess 3 overland flows I 1 Noncontributing area Subbasin number 0) O Q. 1 1 & -g ? 1 -a, to* £e J §1 1 fromLakeTorontoi b 0) xc 5<0 -*c cE FallRiverLakei !§ 0) 0) J> 51 E | | .S ElkCityi r -2 O j5 1/> .. CO 50) vt Q) Q. .£ CO Q J3 p -O 3 «) C vJ co (0 co co OQ o CO \f EC fc 1= .S 1g 1c co Illsc c co c 3 S o 2 <° f~ ^ "E ^ SolomonRiverBasi 213 | §3 1 "5 UpperRepublicanI VerdigrisRiverBasi WalnutRiverupstrea flowsoverlandir o> .2 Sax US S c£ $ S 5 c <£ *w f^\/»\/m^ ©©© ©@ ©@© ©@®(g)® ©@'©®© (§)© @©@iUn^\K^Un^1®©© ®@ O) "5c .9 "c .§ >i c 0) j- § M| ;^2 E o Q) O CO M o c ^ 1 U « 0 3 1 _j1 CO | c ~ u .2 ^ § ^ E 0 ft^) 4 c i ' E ^3 o o 8 t: E $ § 0 O) U E co o D J: CJ E E 1 1 .Q IE E 1 ft 1 **-s U CO 2 ^ 3 3 U 5 E ^- J8 S H CO CO ,H "* *- ^ o *v c ^ "Jo g ^M j -^ S * " > S c O ^ CO (0 > u E ji> C 1 u3 CO ai> -S _v:«^fta5 Q. m -SJSSD^ a co§-3.£-° £ 1 "o- ^: 2 ^ -S « CJ J * ^ 2 19 3 C ^ ' ». B5§-_ 3 SjPs-cjr, ^ ^ "O 3 Q) tf) (*Y* ^* cn r* C -? S ^^Sfc.i^ & c & J J J CO CO CO ^ ^ § "w ^ IS "''B £ E 5 -S 2 g* coco s Si == "S-^S_« l-^SsD£ WhiteRock( MedicineL SI CimarronRi so JgeSs^la^SSg RepublicanR SoldierCreel StrangerCre VermillionCi WakarusaRi\ WakarusaRi\ WildcatCree! ^ ^ ^ ^ s s 3 ' MuleCreek NorthFork1^ °"1 % §J g ^ CJ | ». fl^l^i£ c (0 u. j= -a CO (0 -,, -H C in o ^i i j^iliillll S o o ^ | < | 0) ° "§0 »CQ-i5j2-|luK!co <-)(J'3 CO TJ -U 5 0 « w2 (3.SPJ2'3JS'aiSSti = =co ^ 3= 3 0 ou ifi cacacQCJQtSojSSa: O) C \fv\ftn\fto\ fr^\fea\ \_j\zyP)(3> ^^\^\^\^\!zsv:y\zj>\zy\;i>\^>(^(^(^(^(^(^(^(^(^(^(^ ©©©©©© ©@ ©(§)© ® il E Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas 17 Upper Republican Kansas-Lower River Basin Solomon River Republican Basin River Basin «.,/ \ Missouri s'Si River Basin TJ o Smoky Hill-Saline 33 River C Basin 39 D O 6 o CT C5' in C (A3' 1C H Cimarron 0s River Basin **affe. 0 T3 3; o' Base map from U S Geo'u i 1 : ..,- ,, ..,;, u,nd i z.uu / i Albers Conic Equal-Area projection, Lower Arkansas River Basin Walnut River Basin Verdigris River Basin U Standard parallels 29°30 and 45°3D' r central meridian 96' D Subbasin boundaries from U.S. Department of Agriculture, a Natural Resources Conservation Service {1997) (/> EXPLANATION o 0 25 50 MILES I______I ______l 51 Potential contributing area Boundary of major river basin 3" 0 25 50 KILOMETERS -* I 1 Infiltration-excess overland flow only Saturation-excess overland flow only Subbasin boundary BH Infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows I Noncontributing area @ Subbasin number Potential Runoff-Contributing Areais 19 20 Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information c 0) o CL 5 2 o> TJo E CO I-a lij _co .j &~ §?|^§1 QJ O E c/) c/) j) Jli o CO /m\ /S\ /^\ /^\ /r»?\ /S\ CO ©©©©© ® ©©© ©©© ©©©©©©© ®@©© Q) o X Q) c o CO "8 COo c CO £1 O combined u ££ I1^&-s-3?§|.s 251^351^ O) ©©©©©©©©© c D .Q O O C CO 0) C 0-2 o-| r^ o a> ° S 3= 3 O O) C ;r P Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas 21 to Upper Republican Kansas-Lower N> River Basin Solomon River Republican m Basin River Basin VI 96° 95° 0> Missouri River Basin -o o (B Smoky Hill-Saline River c Basin 39 O 3! 6 o Marais des CT C Cygnes 5' River IQ Basin I' -Upper Arkansas , :. [? River Basin _ -1»- 0) T3 Base map from US. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000,1994 Albers Conic Equal-Area projection, Lower Arkansas River Basin Walnut River Basin Verdigris River Basin Standard parallels 29°30 and 45°30', central meridian 96° Subbasin boundaries from U.S. Department of Agriculture. w EXPLANATION Natural Resources Conservation Service (1997) o Potential contributing area - Boundary of major river basin 50 KltOMETERS O [_I] Infiltration-excess overland flow only 3 r'^'-l Saturation-excess overland flow only Subbasin boundary BH Infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows f I Noncontributing area ® Subbasin number EXPLANATION (continued) Subbasins selected for analysis Cimarron River Basin Marais des Cygnes River Basin Solomon River Basin © Cavalry Creek @ Big Bull Creek upstream from Hillsdale Lake ® Beaver Creek © Crooked Creek © Dragoon Creek upstream from Pomona Lake © Bow Creek ® Hundred and Ten Mile Creek upstream from Pomona © Limestone Creek (Jewell County) Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin Lake ® North Fork Solomon River between Kirwin Reservoir ® Big Blue River upstream from Turtle Creek Lake © Little Osage River and Waconda Lake © Black Vermillion River ® Marais des Cygnes River upstream from Melvern ® Oak Creek © Buffalo Creek Lake ® Pipe Creek © Clarks Creek ® Marmaton River © Salt Creek @ Delaware River upstream from Muscotah @ Pottawatomie Creek @ Solomon River downstream from Waconda Lake © Fancy Creek @ Salt Creek ® South Fork Solomon River between Webster Reservoir ©Grasshopper Creek Missouri River Basin and Waconda Lake ® Little Blue River upstream from Barnes © South Fork Solomon River upstream from Webster © Mill Creek (Wabaunsee County) @ Blue River Reservoir ® Indian and Tomahawk Creeks @ Mill Creek (Washington County) Upper Arkansas River Basin @ South Fork Big Nemaha River ® Republican River between Concordia and Clay Center © Buckner Creek @ Republican River upstream from Concordia © Walnut Creek ® Wolf River ® Pawnee River ©Soldier Creek © Walnut Creek © Stranger Creek Neosho River Basin Upper Republican River Basin © Vermillion Creek (Pottawatomie County) ® Cherry Creek ® Wakarusa River downstream from Clinton Lake ® Diamond Creek @ Beaver Creek © Wakarusa River upstream from Clinton Lake ® Doyle Creek @ Prairie Dog Creek ©White Rock Creek ® Labette Creek ® Sappa Creek ©Wildcat Creek © Neosho River between John Redmond Reservoir Verdigris River Basin Lower Arkansas River Basin and Chanute @ Neosho River upstream from Council Grove Lake ® Big Hill Creek ©Bluff Creek © South Cottonwood River ® Drum Creek ©Cow Creek ® Elk River upstream from Elk City @ Cowskin Creek Smoky Hill-Saline River Basin @ Fall River upstream from Fall River Lake © Grouse Creek ® Big Creek © Onion Creek © Little Arkansas River upstream from Alta Mills ® Chapman Creek ® Pumpkin Creek @ Medicine Lodge River and Elm Creek upstream from ® Elkhorn and Bullfoot Creeks © Verdigris River upstream from Toronto Lake Medicine Lodge @ Hackberry Creek Walnut River Basin @ Mule Creek ® Ladder Creek ® North Fork Ninnescah River upstream from Cheney ® Lyon Creek ® Little Walnut River Reservoir ® Mulberry Creek ® Timber Creek ® Sand and Emma Creeks @ Saline River upstream from Wilson Lake ® Walnut River upstream from El Dorado Lake o © Sandy and Little Sandy Creeks ® Smoky Hill River between Cedar Bluff Reservoir and © Whitewater River ® South Fork Ninnescah River from confluence with Kanopolis Lake North Fork Ninnescah River upstream to Kingman ® Smoky Hill River upstream from Cedar Bluff Reservoir 5' ® Sun and Turkey Creeks @ Spillman Creek (Q Figure 8. Potential contributing and noncontributing areas of combined infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows in Kansas for low potential- runoff conditions. Upper Republican Kansas-Lower River Basin Solomon River Republican m 102' Basin River Basin w 40° Missouri o River Basin o -*.o o 3 Smoky °L Hill-Saline River c Basin 39' o^ 6 o 3 IT C 3 ID C 3'(n (Q "§ Neosho .. j River a> T3 " j/_ Basin Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,OGO, 1994 Albers Conic Equal-Area projection. Lower Arkansas River Basin Walnut River Basin Verdigris River Basin Standard parallels 29°30 and 45°3G", central meridian 9 a3 Subbasin boundaries from U.S. Department of Agriculture, EXPLANATION Natural Resources Conservation Service (1997} 25 50 MILES Potential contributing area Boundary of major river basin S" 25 50 KILOMETERS -1 I I Infiltration-excess overland flow only BIB Saturation-excess overland flow only Subbasin boundary fl) ^H Infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows I I Noncontributing area @ Subbasin number EXPLANATION (continued) Subbasins selected for analysis Cimarron River Basin Marais des Cygnes River Basin Solomon River Basin © Cavalry Creek ® Big Bull Creek upstream from Hillsdale Lake © Beaver Creek ©Crooked Creek © Dragoon Creek upstream from Pomona Lake © Bow Creek Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin © Hundred and Ten Mile Creek, upstream from Pomona © Limestone Creek (Jewell County) Lake (68) North Fork Solomon River between Kirwin Reservoir © Big Blue River upstream from Turtle Creek Lake © Little Osage River and Waconda Lake @ Black Vermillion River ® Marais des Cygnes River upstream from Melvern (69) Oak Creek © Buffalo Creek Lake (TO) Pipe Creek © Clarks Creek ® Marmaton River © Salt Creek © Delaware River upstream from Muscotah ® Pottawatomie Creek @ Solomon River downstream from Waconda Lake ® Fancy Creek © Salt Creek @ South Fork Solomon River between Webster Reservoir ® Grasshopper Creek Missouri River Basin and Waconda Lake ® Little Blue River upstream from Barnes @ South Fork Solomon River upstream from Webster © Mill Creek (Wabaunsee County) @ Blue River Reservoir @ Indian and Tomahawk Creeks @ Mill Creek (Washington County) Upper Arkansas River Basin @ Republican River between Concordia and Clay Center @ South Fork Big Nemaha River © Buckner Creek @ Republican River upstream from Concordia @ Walnut Creek © Pawnee River @ Soldier Creek ® Wolf River @ Walnut Creek @ Stranger Creek Neosho River Basin ® Vermillion Creek (Pottawatomie County) @ Cherry Creek Upper Republican River Basin ® Wakarusa River downstream from Clinton Lake ® Diamond Creek @ Beaver Creek @ Wakarusa River upstream from Clinton Lake ® Doyle Creek © Prairie Dog Creek @ White Rock Creek ® Labette Creek (5>) Sappa Creek ©Wildcat Creek © Neosho River between John Redmond Reservoir Verdigris River Basin Lower Arkansas River Basin and Chanute © Neosho River upstream from Council Grove Lake © Big Hill Creek ©Bluff Creek ® South Cottonwood River © Drum Creek ©Cow Creek © Elk River upstream from Elk City @ Cowskin Creek Smoky Hill-Saline River Basin @ Fall River upstream from Fall River Lake © Grouse Creek ® Big Creek © Onion Creek ® Little Arkansas River upstream from Alta Mills ® Chapman Creek ® Pumpkin Creek @ Medicine Lodge River and Elm Creek upstream from © Elkhorn and Bullfoot Creeks © Verdigris River upstream from Toronto Lake Medicine Lodge ® Hackberry Creek Walnut River Basin @ Mule Creek ® Ladder Creek ® North Fork Ninnescah River upstream from Cheney ® Lyon Creek (8) Little Walnut River Reservoir ® Mulberry Creek ® Timber Creek ® Sand and Emma Creeks © Saline River upstream from Wilson Lake (5o) Walnut River upstream from El Dorado Lake © Sandy and Little Sandy Creeks © Smoky Hill River between Cedar Bluff Reservoir and @ Whitewater River © South Fork Ninnescah River from confluence with Kanopolis Lake North Fork Ninnescah River upstream to Kingman © Smoky Hill River upstream from Cedar Bluff Reservoir ® Sun and Turkey Creeks 3 @ Spillman Creek ID Figure 9. Potential contributing and noncontributing areas of combined infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows in Kansas for very low potential-runoff conditions. Upper Republican Kansas-Lower River Basin Solomon River Republican Basin River Basin m ,102° u "Ft, Missouri 5' _4 River D Basin TJ O 3 Smoky SL Hill-Saline 33 River C Basin 39° L, 3 Marais des CT C I Cygnes River id Basin in a ui C 5'u> ID o Neosho in- River T3 Basin f)'3; Base map from U.S. Geological Suivey digital data, 1:2,000,000,1994 Albers Conic Equal-Area projection. Lower Arkansas River Basin Walnut River Basin Verdigris River Basin Standard parallels 29°30 and 45°30', central meridian 96° Q. Subbasin boundaries from U.S. Department of Agriculture, w EXPLANATION Natural Resources Conservation Service {1997) o 25 50 MILES Potential contributing area Boundary of major river basin 25 50 KILOMETERS f I Infiltration-excess overland flow only Saturation-excess overland flow only Subbasin boundary 0) Infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows EZI Noncontributing area Subbasin number EXPLANATION (continued) Subbasins selected for analysis Cirnarron River Basin Marais des Cygnes River Basin Solomon River Basin @ Cavalry Creek @ Big Bull Creek upstream from Hillsdale Lake © Beaver Creek © Crooked Creek © Dragoon Creek upstream from Pomona Lake ® Bow Creek @ Limestone Creek (Jewell County) Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin © Hundred and Ten Mile Creek upstream from Pomona Lake ® North Fork Solomon River between Kirwin Reservoir © Big Blue River upstream from Turtle Creek Lake ® Little Osage River and Waconda Lake © Black Vermillion River ® Marais des Cygnes River upstream from Melvern ® Oak Creek © Buffalo Creek Lake @ Pipe Creek © Clarks Creek ® Marmaton River © Salt Creek © Delaware River upstream from Muscotah ® Pottawatomie Creek © Solomon River downstream from Waconda Lake ® Fancy Creek @ Salt Creek @ South Fork Solomon River between Webster Reservoir ® Grasshopper Creek Missouri River Basin and Waconda Lake @ Little Blue River upstream from Barnes ® South Fork Solomon River upstream from Webster © Mill Creek (Wabaunsee County) @ Blue River Reservoir ® Indian and Tomahawk Creeks @ Mill Creek (Washington County) Upper Arkansas River Basin @ South Fork Big Nemaha River @ Republican River between Concordia and Clay Center © Buckner Creek @ Republican River upstream from Concordia © Walnut Creek © Wolf River © Pawnee River ©Soldier Creek © Walnut Creek @ Stranger Creek Neosho River Basin @ Vermillion Creek (Pottawatomie County) @ Cherry Creek Upper Republican River Basin @ Wakarusa River downstream from Clinton Lake @ Diamond Creek @ Beaver Creek © Wakarusa River upstream from Clinton Lake ® Doyle Creek © Prairie Dog Creek ©White Rock Creek ® Labette Creek © Sappa Creek © Wildcat Creek © Neosho River between John Redmond Reservoir Verdigris River Basin Lower Arkansas River Basin and Chanute © Neosho River upstream from Council Grove Lake © Big Hill Creek ©Bluff Creek © South Cottonwood River ® Drum Creek ©Cow Creek © Elk River upstream from Elk City @ Cowskin Creek Smoky Hill-Saline River Basin ® Fall River upstream from Fall River Lake © Grouse Creek @ Big Creek ® Onion Creek © Little Arkansas River upstream from AJta Mills © Chapman Creek © Pumpkin Creek @ Medicine Lodge River and Elm Creek upstream from ® Elkhorn and Bullfoot Creeks © Verdigris River upstream from Toronto Lake Medicine Lodge © Hackberry Creek Walnut River Basin 3J @ Mule Creek ® Ladder Creek c ® Little Walnut River 3 @ North Fork Ninnescah River upstream from Cheney ® Lyon Creek O Reservoir =8 ® Mulberry Creek ® Timber Creek 6 ® Sand and Emma Creeks ® Walnut River upstream from El Dorado Lake o © Saline River upstream from Wilson Lake © Sandy and Little Sandy Creeks © Smoky Hill River between Cedar Bluff Reservoir and © Whitewater River 2 @ South Fork Ninnescah River from confluence with cr Kanopolis Lake c North Fork Ninnescah River upstream to Kingman © Smoky Hill River upstream from Cedar Bluff Reservoir 5' © Sun and Turkey Creeks to (5) Spillman Creek Figure 10. Potential contributing and noncontributing areas of combined infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows in Kansas for extremely low potential-runoff conditions. 10 subbasins), Upper Arkansas (2 of 3 subbasins), and relatively low potential runoff were the Cimarron, Upper Republican (3 of 3 subbasins). Lower Arkansas, Smoky Hill-Saline, Solomon, Upper Arkansas, and Upper Republican. These basins are located in western Kansas where soil permeability SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS generally is higher and precipitation typically is less. The ability to distinguish the subbasins as having Digital topographic and soil information was used relatively high or low potential runoff was possible to estimate and compare potential runoff-contributing mostly due to the variability of soil permeability areas for 91 selected subbasins in Kansas. Potential across the State. Due to this variability, the subbasins contributing areas were estimated collectively for the had a wide range of potential contributing areas for processes of infiltration-excess and saturation-excess infiltration-excess overland flow, particularly for very overland flow using a set of environmental conditions low potential-runoff conditions. In contrast, the topo that represented very high, high, moderate, low, very graphic wetness index had a relatively uniform distri low, and extremely low potential runoff. For infiltra bution across the State. Thus, the subbasins had a tion-excess overland flow, various rainfall-intensity narrow range of potential contributing areas for satura and soil-permeability values were used. For satura tion-excess overland flow. The results presented in tion-excess overland flow, antecedent soil-moisture Juracek (1999) provide an example of the relative conditions and a topographic wetness index were used. importance of the two overland flow processes for esti Results indicated that nearly all subbasins had mating and comparing potential contributing areas large percentages of potential runoff-contributing area within a basin. for the low to very high potential-runoff conditions. Thus, the ability to distinguish subbasins as having rel Under low potential-runoff conditions character atively high or low potential runoff for those condi ized by low antecedent soil-moisture content and low tions was very limited. The best statewide ability to rainfall intensity, potentially contributing areas for distinguish subbasins as having relatively high or low infiltration-excess and saturation-excess overland potential runoff was provided by the very low poten flows are limited to areas of lower soil permeability tial-runoff conditions. Within the major river basins, and saturated areas adjacent to rivers and streams, the ability to distinguish subbasins as having relatively respectively (fig. 10). As antecedent soil-moisture con high or low potential runoff varied. For the Smoky tent and rainfall intensity increase, the potential con Hill-Saline and Upper Arkansas River Basins, the very tributing areas for both infiltration-excess and low potential-runoff conditions provided the best abil saturation-excess overland flow processes increase. ity to distinguish subbasins. For the Kansas-Lower Under high potential-runoff conditions characterized Republican, Missouri, Neosho, and Verdigris River by high antecedent soil-moisture content and high Basins, good ability to distinguish subbasins was pro rainfall intensity, the distinction between infiltration- vided by both the very low and extremely low poten excess and saturation-excess overland flow becomes tial-runoff conditions. For the Lower Arkansas and less meaningful as the ground becomes increasingly Solomon River Basins, the best ability to distinguish saturated and the potential contributing areas for both subbasins was provided by the low and very low runoff processes coalesce (fig. 5). potential-runoff conditions. The extremely low poten This study had some limitations. First, the digital tial-runoff conditions provided the best ability to dis data sets used were only suitable for use in a compari tinguish subbasins for the Marais des Cygnes and son of areas hundreds of square miles in size. Thus, Walnut River Basins. In the Cimarron River Basin, the analysis emphasized a comparison of potential good ability to distinguish subbasins was provided by runoff-contributing areas between, rather than within, the high, moderate, low, and very low potential-runoff individual subbasins. Improved results will be possible conditions. with more spatially detailed digital topographic and The major river basins having relatively high soil data sets. Such data sets are currently (1999) being potential runoff were the Kansas-Lower Republican, developed and will include the U.S. Department of Marais des Cygnes, Missouri, Neosho, Verdigris, and Agriculture's l:24,000-scale soil survey geographic Walnut. These basins are located in eastern Kansas data base (SSURGO) and the USGS 30-m-resolution where soil permeability generally is less and precipita DEM. When available, these data sets will enable a tion typically is greater. The major river basins having comparison of potential contributing areas for areas 28 Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information tens of square miles in size. Then, a comparison of Wide Web, accessed December 9, 1998, at URL areas within individual subbasins will be possible. As http://ksgis.kgs.ukans.edu/kanview/kanview.html a result, the spatial extent and pattern of potential con Moody, D.W., Chase, E.B., and Aronson, D.A., compilers, tributing areas for infiltration- and saturation-excess 1986, National water summary 1985 hydrologic overland flows will provide guidance for the imple events and surface-water resources: U.S. Geological mentation of BMP's within individual subbasins. Survey Water-Supply Paper 2300, 506 p. Paulson, R.W., Chase, E.B., Roberts, R.S., and Moody, In addition, the estimation of potential runoff-con D.W., compilers, 1991, National water summary tributing areas was limited in this study in that only 1988-89 hydrologic events and floods and droughts: topographic and soil characteristics were considered. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2375, The incorporation of additional factors such as land 591 p. use and climatic variability may improve the results. Soil Survey Staff, 1997, Natural Resources Conservation For example, an overlay analysis to determine the Service, National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI: location of cropland with respect to potential contrib Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, uting areas may identify the most likely source areas December 1997, available on the World Wide Web, of certain nonpoint-source pollutants within a subba- accessed November 20, 1998, at URL sin. Such information may provide additional guid http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/nssh/ ance for the targeting of BMP's. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1993, State soils geo graphic data base (STATSGO) users guide: Soil Con servation Service Miscellaneous Publication 1492, 88 p. REFERENCES U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conser vation Service, 1997, 11- and 14-digit hydrologic unit Dunne, Thomas, Moore, T.R., and Taylor, C.H., 1975, Rec boundaries for Kansas, 1:24,000 scale: Kansas Data ognition and prediction of runoff-producing zones in Access and Support Center data available on the World humid regions: Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, v. 20, Wide Web, accessed August 11, 1998, at URL p. 305-327. http://ksgis.kgs.ukans.edu/dasc.html Hornberger, G.M., Raffensperger, J.P., Wiberg, P.L., and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991, Guidance of Eshleman, K.N., 1998, Elements of physical hydrol water quality-based decisions the TMDL process: ogy: Baltimore, MD, The Johns Hopkins University Washington, D.C., Office of Water, EPA440/4-91-001, Press, 302 p. 59 p. Jenson, S.K., and Domingue, J.D., 1988, Extracting topo Verdin, K.L., and Greenlee, S.K., 1996, Development of graphic structure from digital elevation data for continental scale digital elevation models and extrac geographic information system analysis: Photogram- tion of hydrographic features, in Proceedings, Third metric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 54, International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS p. 1593-1600. and Environmental Modeling, Sante Fe, New Mexico, Juracek, K.E., 1999, Estimation of potential runoff- January 21-26, 1996: Santa Barbara, CA, National contributing areas in the Kansas-Lower Republican Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, River Basin, Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey Water- available on compact disk. Resources Investigations Report 99-4089, 24 p. Wolock, D.M., and McCabe, G.J., 1995, Comparison of sin Kansas Applied Remote Sensing Program, 1993, Kansas gle and multiple flow-direction algorithms for comput land cover data base, 1:100,000 scale: Kansas Data ing topographic parameters in TOPMODEL: Water Access and Support Center data available on the World Resources Research, v. 31,- p. 1315-1324. References 29 I i. B) I fr I ff n 01 C/9 Printed on recycled paper