delineated a n d channels identified

Assessing water erosion in small (Baffaut et al. 1997). Each hillslope, rep-
resented as a rectangle in WEPP, must
watersheds using WEPP with GIS have a representative length, width, and
slope profile as shown in Figure 1, part 3.
and digital elevation models Hillslopes drain into the top, left side, or
right side of a channel, eventually leading
to the watershed outlet.
TA. Cocbrane and D. C. Flanagan Integration of WEPP with geographi-
cal information systems (GIS) is desirable
ABSTRACT Three different approaches using geographical information systems (GIs) and to facilitate and possibly improve applica-
digital elevation models (DEMs) are described and evaluated for applying the Water Erosion tion of the model. Savabi et al. (1995)
Prediction Project (WEPP) model to assess water erosion in small watersheds. Thefirst approach conducted an initial application of WEPP
describes a typical application of the watershed version of WEPP using GIs only as an aidfor on the Purdue University animal science
construction of required input files. The second approach presents an automated method for the watershed with a GIs. In this study, they
application o f W P P through the extraction of hillslopes and channels fiom DEMs. The third used the GRASS GIS (U.S. Army 1987)
approach uses W P P model simulations on all possible flowpaths within a watershed. The three to obtain some of the physical parameters
method were applied to six research watersheds: one fiom Trqnor, la., two fiom Watkinsville, required by WEPP. However, they did
Ga., and three fiom Holb Springs, Miss. A statistical analysis for all methods and watershed not address the discretization of hill-
compared the predicted us. measured runoff and sediment yieM fiom watershed outlets on an slopes, channels, and representative slope
event- by-event basis for runoff and sediment loss. The results indicate that the automatic hillslope profiles from digital elevation models
method (the second approach) peforms as well as the manual technique (the first approach) for (DEMs).

Copyright © 1999 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
all watershed. A comparison of erosion from onb hillslopesfor all three methods indicates that As illustrated in Figure 1, GIS maps

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(4):678-685 www.swcs.org

the f i w p a t h method (the third approach) is statistically comparable to the other methods. Results can be used to identify the watershed and
of the analysis suggest that, given an accurate DEM and valid input a h a for a simple watershed, extract hillslopes and channels. When
the automatic hillslope method can be used to facilitate the application of the watershed version dealing with small watersheds and rela-
o f WEPR and that predictions shouM be comparable to an expert user; application of WEPI? tively uniform soils and management
practices, t h e p r i m a r y m a p used t o
K q words: DEM, flowpaths, Geographic Information System, hydrology, modeling, r u n 0 8 delineate hillslopes and channels is a
sediment. soil erosion, Water Erosion Prediction Project. topography map. Topography in GIS
usually is represented by a DEM or can
T h e W E P P watershed model is an be converted to a DEM from a triangular

W
atershed erosion is a cause of
nonpoint source pollution that extension of the WEPP hillslope model irregular network (TIN). The most com-
can have an adverse effect on that can be used to estimate watershed mon type of DEM is grid-based, where
downstream and ecosystem water quality. runoff and sediment yield (Ascough et al. each grid point represents a cell of a
Unfortunately, it is very expensive and 1997). T h e application of WEPP to a certain size or resolution. Extraction of
impractical to monitor erosion in all watershed requires that hillslopes be features, such as hillslopes and channels,
watersheds of interest, hence, the need to
predict erosion with modeling.
The Water Erosion Prediction Project
(WEPP) model is a process-based contin-
uous simulation erosion model (Flanagan
'<I
12a. Manual method
Manual discretization of \
hillslopes, channels, and
sentative slope p r o f w
,)
and Nearing 1995). O n e advantage
WEPP has over existing models, such as
the popular Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE), is that deposition of sediment
I 1. GIS Maps I
.. ... -..... - . . .
G),yiEFGiq
also can be predicted (Wischmeier and
Smith 1978). In other words, soil loss on 4 -

a complete continuous hillslope profile

can be calculated.
~~~ ~

Thomas A . Corhrane is a graduate research

assistant at Purdue University, and Dennis C.
Hanagan is an agricultural engineer with the
U.Si)A Agricultural Research Service (USDA- DEM
ARS) h'ationui Soil Erosion Research Soils
Laboratory, West Lafhyette, Ind. Thgv thank ManagemdCrops
scientists lit tlle National Soil Tilth Laboratory, /
esp e cia 1Iji M i L' ha e I R u r ka r t , Da vid / a rn es, Automatic discretization of\
Larty Kramer, ,ind ]O/J?I Layen, for providing 2b. Hillslope method hillslopes. channels, and
w t i v e s l o p e 2 i v"
valuable information and the digital elevation
models (DEMI ,fir the Trrynor Watershed. The
use oj-trade numes does not imply endorsement
by Purdut>Uniiwxip or tbe USDA-ARS. Figure 1. Watershed modeling with GIS and WEPP.
can be performed based on flow-routing
algorithms that determine the steepest
descent direction and gradient between
cells. Examples of flow-routing algo-
rithms are presented in the research of
O’Callaghan and Mark (1984), Jenson
and Domingue (1988), Martz and
Garbrecht (1992), and Zevenbergen and
Thorne (1987). Some of these algorithms
have been used to help integrate erosion
models, such as the USLE, with GIS
(Desmet and Govers 1996). Other mod-
els that use flow-routing algorithms and
GIS maps to predict erosion or runoff
include ANSWERS, AGNPS, and SWAT
(Srinivasan and Arnold 1994). GIS analy-
sis using DEMs is an obvious tool for
parameterization of hillslopes, channels,
a n d representative slope profiles for
WEPP simulations.
T h e purpose of this s t u d y was t o
describe and evaluate three methods of
integrating WEPP and GIs. These meth-
ods will facilitate t h e application of
WEPP with available GIS data; results
then can be compared to each other and
to observed runoff and sediment loss
from monitored watersheds.
Materials and methods
Three methods have been developed to
apply WEPP using G I s : manual, hills-
lope, and flowpath methods. All three
techniques take advantage of tools pro-
vided in the Arc ViewTM3.0 GIS and its
Spatial AnalystTM extension program
(ESRI 1998). Additional algorithms have
been programmed in FORTRAN and
Arc View’s AvenueTM script language.
The hillslope and flowpath methods also
use the TOPographic evaluation, drainage
identification, watershed segmentation
and s u b c at c h m e n t p arAm e t e r i Z a t i o n
(TOPAZ) automated digital landscape
analysis tool ( G a r b r e c h t a n d M a r t z
1997). The three methods were evaluated
using observed data from ARS experi-
mental watersheds a t Treynor, Ia.
(W2), Holly Springs, Miss. (WC1, W C 2
a n d W C 3 ) , a n d Watkinsville, G a .
(PI andP2).
Manlcal method. This method con-
sists of using Arc ViewTMand Spatial An-
alystTMto set up and describe watershed
components (e.g., hillslopes and chan-
nels) for a WEPP watershed model appli-
cation by using tools, such as graphics
drawing and on-screen digitizing, with
the computer‘s mouse. The advantage of
this method is apparent only if the user
has a DEM, as well as soil and manage-
ment data represented in GIS maps.
1 Watershed I
Figure 2. Flowpaths in watershed modeling.
First, the user identifies channels in the
watershed. Their location can either be
represented by on-screen digitizing or
automatically extracted from the D E M
using Spatial AnalystTMor TOPAZ. Para-
meters such as width, shape, depth, and
erodibility must be entered manually for
each channel. Hillslopes are then defined
by digitizing the hillslope boundaries on
the watershed with on-screen digitizing
tools available in Arc ViewTM.The user
can divide the watershed into as many
hillslopes and channels as permitted by
the WEPP watershed model code. A
representative profile for each hillslope is
defined by drawing a line that represents
the location of the profile. This line is
overlaid on the DEM, using features in
Spatial AnalystTM,to obtain an actual ele-
vation profile. The length of the digitized
profile line and the area of the hillslope
are then used to calculate a width of the
hillslope. Soils, management practices,
and crops maps can be used to define the
soil and management properties used for
each hillslope. Technically, this method is
t h e same as manually preparing t h e
WEPP model from paper maps; however,
it saves time in defining the components
of a watershed and it allows the user to
study several configurations more rapidly.
I t also allows the modeling of special
situations and for indispensable human
judgment (intervention) in defining hill-
slopes and channels.
Hillslope method. T h e hillslope
Copyright © 1999 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(4):678-685 www.swcs.org
method consists of automatically defining
the watershed components (hillslopes and
channels). Hillslopes and representative
slope profiles are extracted by using a
D E M of the watershed and algorithms
that simulate the flow of water between
cells in the D E M . T h e coding for the
hillslope and profile creation algorithms
was done in the FORTRAN program-
ming language; the TOPAZ program was
used for the extraction of routing features
in the watershed. Although GIS programs
(e.g., Arc ViewTM)have add-on programs,
such as Spatial AnalystTM,that can handle
grid-based flow routing. T O P A Z was
chosen for its ability to overcome limita-
tions of previous algorithms with respect
to drainage identification in depressions
and over flat surfaces (Garbrecht er al.
1996).
Channel location and lengths are ini-
tially defined by selecting a critical source
area (CSA). T h e CSA represents a
drainage area whose concentrated water
flow defines the beginning of a channel
(Garbrecht a n d Martz 1997). W h e n
using a D E M , t h e CSA represents a
certain number of cells flowing into one
single cell (defined as the starting point of
a channel). Correct identification of
channels may be verified by aerial pho-
tography or field surveys. T h e critical
source area for the two Watkinsville wa-
tersheds was 0.5 ha (1.2 ac). The CSA for
the W C 1 watershed (Holly Springs) also
was 0.5 ha, but for WC2 and WC3 (also
FOURTH Q U A R T E R 1999 679
Holly Springs), the CSA was 0.25 ha
(0.62 ac). The CSA value for the Treynor
watershed was 4 ha (9.9 ac). For these
watersheds, there seemed to be a direct
correlation between the size of the water-
shed and the CSA value representing the
watershed channels. However, the exact
point of channel initiation can be influ-
enced by other factors, such as ground
slope, soil, management, and climatic fac-
tors (Montgomery and Dietrich 1989;
Martz and Garbrecht 1 9 9 2 ) . O t h e r
WEPP channel input parameters, such as
actual width, shape, depth, and erodibili-
ty, must be provided by the user.
Hillslopes are defined as draining to
the left, right, a n d top of the channels
created from the [>EM (Figure 1). A rep-
resentative slope profile is obtained by
weighting all possible flowpaths in the
hillslopes. Flowpaths are defined as the
route water travels flowing from one cell
to the next, starting from a cell where no
other cells flow into it and ending at the
point where a channel is reached (Figure
2). Each hillslope may have a large num-
ber of flowpaths, some that start at the
edge of the watershed and others that
start at points inside the hillslope. Many
flowpaths may eventually intersect as they
reach the channel.
Individual flowpaths on hillslopes were
extracted by analyzing output files of the
TOPAZ program. A representative slope
profile for each hillslope was computed
from all the individual flowpaths within
the hillslope. This was done by weighting
flowpaths according to their area and
length, then comparing each cell length
of a flowpath to all other matching cell
lengths from flowpaths that start from the
channel and move up the hillslope. I t was
assumed that flowpaths with greater area
and longer lengths contributed propor-
tionally more to the representative profile
than the smaller and shorter flowpaths.
Because cells are square, flowpaths that
tnove diagonally across cells are longer
than flowpaths t h a t reach an equal
number of cells, but move horizontally or
vertically. This is why both the area
(number of cells) and flowpath length
were considered in the slope profile. The
following equation illustrates how a rep-
resentative slope profile was computed for
each hillslope:
p - 1
E, = ' [I1
Where
Ei is the weighted slope value for all
flowpaths at a distance i from the chan-
nel;
zpi is slope of flowpath p at distance i
from channel; and
k is a weighting factor for flowpath p .
Tke weighting was done by multiply-
ing the upstream drainage area (ai, area of
cells in the flowpath) by the flowpath
length (ki=ai*li).Because this equation
calculates a profile with a length equal to
the longest flowpath, it also is necessary
to determine the appropriate length of
the profile. For hillslopes draining lateral-
ly i n t o channels, t h e w i d t h o f t h e
hillslope is set equal to the length of the
channel. T h e length of the hillslope is
then calculated by dividing the total hills-
lope area by the width. The representative
profile is then truncated so that it is equal
to the calculated length, starting at the
bottom of the hillslope.
The length of hillslopes that drain into
the top of the channel were determined
by a similar method of weighting all flow-
paths. This is illustrated by the following
equation, presented in Garbrecht et al.
( 1996):
E
p= 1
ar
Where
L is the hillslope length;
I, is the flowpath length;
ap is the area represented by the cells
in the flowpath, and
n is the number of flowpaths in the
hillslope.
The width of the representative hills-
lope profile is then easily calculated by
dividing the total hillslope area by its
length. T h e two main assumptions for
this case are that the flowpaths are the
routes traveled by water, and that larger
and longer flowpaths contribute more
t h a n smaller a n d s h o r t e r flowpaths
(Garbrecht et al. 1996).
It is important to note that additional
variations of this method may create
slightly different representative hillslope
profiles that have not been studied. These
include using average values instead of
weighted values, using different flow-
routing algorithms, and others. However,
it is believed that the method presented
in this paper is the most theoretically
sound and is an adequate representative
of all these possibilities.
Flowpath method. The third method
of applying WEPP to a watershed using
GIS and DEMs is the flowpath method.
In this procedure, WEPP is applied to
all possible flowpaths in the watershed
(Figure 2). T h e problem of interaction
between flowpaths is handled in a unique
way. All points where flowpaths drain
into a channel are identified. Then, for
every one of these points, an average sedi-
ment and runoff discharging into the
channel is calculated.
For example, Figure .3 shows three
flowpaths (1, 2, and 3). At point C, flow-
paths 2 and 3 intersect; at point B, all
three flowpaths intersect. Point A shows
the location where all runoff and sedi-
ment is discharged to the channel from
the three flowpaths. Initially, sediment
loss and runoff from each rainfall event is
calculated for each flowpath indepen-
Copyright © 1999 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
dently by applying WEPP to the actual
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(4):678-685 www.swcs.org
slope profile of the flowpath. The width
used for the WEPP application of the
individual flowpaths is calculated by
dividing the total area of all three flow-
paths (represented in yellow in Figure 3)
by the length of the individual flowpath.
The results of the WEPP application to
each of the three flowpaths are averaged
to obtain sediment and runoff discharge
into the channel at point A.
T h e maximum number of points of
discharge to the channels is the number
of cells that make up the channel multi-
plied by 2 (left and right sides). For each
of these points, a channel segment could
be defined to route the water to the outlet
of the channel. However, since this would
be done on a cell-by-cell basis down the
channel, the current channel processes
used in WEPP may not correctly handle
this situation. Another alternative would
be to add the contribution for all points
Figure 3. Intersecting flowpaths draining
into channel in watershed.
draining laterally in the channel. This Table 1. Research watersheds used for validation of methods.
alternative would require modification of Watershed Years of Area Soils Crops
the current WEPP code to handle chan- (location) simulation (ha)

I
nel routing with unevenly distributed
29 Monona-Ida-Napier Corn
lateral flow to the channel. Since it was w2 la.)
(Treynor, 1985-90 series (Silt loam)
not the i n t e n t i o n o f t h e a u t h o r s to
change the WEPP code, these modifica- P1 1972-75 2.70 Cecil (Sandy loam Wheat, sorghum,
(Watkinsville, Ga.) and SCL) barley, soybean,
tions were not further pursued. T h i s clover
implies that a comparison of the flowpath
P2 1973-75 1.29 Cecil (Sandy loam Corn, bermuda
method to observed soil loss results from (Watkinsville, Ga.) and SCL) grass
the watershed outlets would only be
appropriate if no scouring or deposition WCl 1970-77 1.57 Grenada (Silt loam) Soybean, meadow
(Holly Springs, Miss.)
occurred in t h e channels. However,
erosion from hillslopes can be compared wc2 1970-77 0.59 Grenada (Silt loam) Corn, wheat,
(Holly Springs, Miss.) soybean
between all methods.
For visual assessments of water erosion wc3 1970-77 0.65 Grenada (Silt loam) Corn, wheat,
from small watersheds, detachment or (Holly Springs, Miss.) soybean
deposition values for each grid cell within
a watershed can be estimated by using the
flowpath method in a slightly different 2 - ~ - -----~ - ~-. -
--.--I __"

**/
manner. In this case, the WEPP hillslope 1 I/','
1.8
model is applied to each flowpath using
hillslope method

Copyright © 1999 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
the flowpath's length, width, and slope
--

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(4):678-685 www.swcs.org

h
3 1.6 Linear (manual method)
profile. Values of detachment and deposi- aJ
tion for each cell along each flowpath are aJ
5 1.4
then extracted from the WEPP output. c
Interactions between flowpaths are treat- 2
cn 1.2 ,' y=O73x+U22
ed by weighting the results for each cell -0 R- = o 78
along intersecting flowpaths based o n .Id
c 1 y=a79x+027
length and drainage area of the flowpaths. .-E
Combining all flowpaths creates a visual 3 0.8
representation of the watershed with cn
W
detachment or deposition values for each 0.6
grid cell. .-W
0.4

Application
The three methods were applied to six
research watersheds. The years of simula-
tion, watershed area, and soil and crop
types are presented i n Table 1 . T h e
WEPP data files for the Watkinsville and
Holly Springs watersheds are available via
the Internet at: http://topsoil.nserl.pur-
due. edu/ wep p main/ we p p. h t ml . Addi-
tional information and measured data
from the Watkinsville watersheds were
provided by Smith et al. (1978). Descrip-
tions of the Holly Springs watersheds
were provided by McGregor et al. (1969).
Validation of the WEPP model for these
watersheds was performed by Liu et al.
(1997).
These watershed applications of WEPP
were used as templates for the simulations
with the manual method. Management
and climate data used for the Treynor
watershed simulation was obtained from
a previous application of WEPP to this
watershed by Kramer (1993). However,
the optimized soils and channel parame-
ters used by Kramer (1993) were found
to be uncharacteristic for that region and
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Observed sediment loss (tlhalevent)
Figure 4. Total sediment loss from each watershed (normalized by watershed area and
number of events).
those conditions. Hence, default soil
parameters from the WEPP soils database
were used for the simulations, and appro-
priate channel parameters were chosen to
represent the permanent grass waterways.
The three methods were applied using
W E P P Version 98.4. For these water-
sheds, each hillslope was represented by
o n e soil type a n d crop/management
description. A 1-m resolution was used
for the Watkinsville and Holly Springs
watersheds, and a 5-m resolution was
used for the Treynor watershed. DEMs
from Watkinsville and Holly Springs were
created from field survey contour maps
(0- and 1.524-m contours, respectively,)
which were determined t o be precise
enough for a 1-m grid. Vertical accuracy
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
of these maps is believed to comply with
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) map
accuracy standards, which states that not
more that 10% of points tested shall be in
error by more than one-half the contour
interval. The Treynor watershed was aeri-
al surveyed with ground controls to create
a DEM. Even though a smaller resolution
could be used, the quality of the data and
the size of the Treynor watershed suggest-
ed that a 5-m grid was appropriate for
this modeling exercise.
Analyses
All watershed simulations were con-
ducted with WEPP running in a continu-
ous mode. T h e WEPP event-by-event

FOURTH QUARTER I999 681

o u t p u t from each simulation was
compared to runoff and sediment loss for
each measured event. Total runoff and
sediment loss from the watershed outlet
were defined to be the sum of all events
where measurements were n o t zero.
For comparisons between methods for
hillslope erosion, WEPP total simulation
results were used.
Several analyses were conducted on all
six watersheds to compare the different
methods using predicted vs. measured
results. Event-by-event predictions are im-
portant for assessing a model's ability to
predict the accurate distribution of events
over time. Total runoff and sediment loss
predictions are important for assessing the
long-term effect of watershed soil loss.
This can include the effects of sedimenta-
tion and water quality in downstream
reservoirs and streams, and associated
watershed conservation planning.
Figure 4 shows the results of a compar-
ison between manual and hillslope meth-
ods. The predicted vs. measured runoff
and sediment yield were plotted using a
best-fit regression line as an indicator of
fir. The coefficient of determination, r',
indicates variance from the best-fit line.
The slope and intercept of each regression
line show the bias between predicted and
measured data for the two methods.
Tabular data with statistical analysis of all
simulations are presented in Table 3
for runoff, and Table 5 for sediment
loss. Tabular data showing hillslope and
channel erosion are provided in Table 6.
'Th e N a s h - S u t c I i ffe C o e ffi c i e n t o f
model efficiency, NS, also was used as a
statistical criterion for evaluating hydro-
logic goodness o t tit between measured
and predicted values for each method.
This coefficient is calculated as follows
(Nash and Sutcliffe 1970):
. i
Where
Q are the Ine'iwred values (e.g., sedi-
ment leaving wcitershed) on an event-
by-went basi \.
Q' &ire iiiodel-predicted values on an
even t-by-even t bdsis,
Q is the 'iverdge of measured values
(average of dl1 events), and
?I i 4 t h e number of values. An N S
valuc of I indicarcs a perfect fit between
Table 2. Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficients for event runoff predicted by the
three methods.
I Nash-SutcliffeCoefflclent(NS)
Watershed Manual
Watkinsville, P1
Watkinsville, P2
Holly Springs, WC1
Holly Springs, WC2
Holly Springs, WC3
Treynor, W2
measured and predicted values for all
events. A value of 0 indicates that the fit
is as good as using the average value of all
the measured data for each event. T h e
NS values for each watershed are present-
ed in Tables 2 and 4 for runoff and sedi-
ment loss, respectively.
For long-term comparisons, predicted
vs. measured total runoff or sediment
yield normalized by number of events
were plotted together with a regression
line fit. Another criterion for long-term
assessments of predicted vs. measured
data is the percent deviation of runoff
volume, D,,. This is computed with the
following equation:
Where
Vis the measured runoff volume, and
V" is the predicted runoff volume.
T h e percent deviation of total sedi-
ment loss also can be computed in a simi-
lar fashion. These values are presented as
part of Tables 3 and 5 for total runoff and
sediment loss.
Results and discussion
Run08 Runoff values for all water-
sheds were comparable in all three meth-
ods. T h e predicted watershed outlet
runoff from the manual and hillslope
methods included contributions from
both hillslopes and channels. Simulations
using the flowpath method assumed that
the runoff leaving the watershed was the
summation of all runoff entering the
channel at specific points along the chan-
nel. In other words, we assumed that the
channel was merely a conduit to route the
runoff from the hillslopes to the water-
shed outlet.
T h e Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency
coefficient was calculated for all measured
runoff events for each of the six water-
sheds (Table 2). Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient
~~ ~
Hillslope Flowpath
0.76 0.77 0.76
0.82 0.83 0.80
0.64 0.70 0.69
0.68 0.70 0.68
0.77 0.76 0.76
0.57 0.57 0.58
values ranged from 0.57 to 0.82, indicat-
i n g that all three methods produced
WE P P s i m u la t ions that sat is fac t o r i 1y
predicted runoff for events over time.
T h e r e was little variation i n Nash-
Sutcliffe coefficient values between the
manual, hillslope, and flowpath methods.
T h e percent deviation of runoff vol-
ume also was calculated for all watersheds
Copyright © 1999 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
using the total runoff volume leaving
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(4):678-685 www.swcs.org
each watershed for all measured events
(Table 3 ) . C o m p a r i s o n s o f means
between the three methods showed no
statistical difference, but comparisons to
the observed measurement showed statis-
tical differences for the Holly Springs
(WC1 and WC2) watersheds. Differences
between observed and WEPP-predicted
runoff for t h e Holly Springs (WC2)
watershed also were reported by Liu et al.
(1997). For the Holly Springs (WCI)
watershed, Liu et al. (1 997) did not find
differences between the observed and
predicted means for runoff, but only 237
selected events from the 284 observed
runoff events were analyzed. T h e pres-
ence of some differences in predicted and
observed runoff doesn't necessarily sug-
gest that WEPP performs worse than
other models, but is rather a reinforce-
m e n t o f t h e knowledge that erosion
predictions in general contain large
factors of error (Liu et al. 1997).
Sediment yield. T h e Nash-Sutcliffe
model efficiency coefficients for sediment
loss for all watersheds ranged from -0.63
to 0.87 (Table 4). Total sediment loss and
percent deviation are presented in Table
5 . As expected, the flowpath method
shows great variability in predicting sedi-
ment loss from the watersheds as a result
of not simulating erosion in the channels
as seen by low NS values and high percent
deviations of some watersheds. This effect
can either increase or decrease prediction
rates, depending on whether the channel
is erodible or acts as a sediment trap.
Table 6 shows predicted hillslope
erosion for the three methods and percent
channel deposition for the manual and
Table 3. Runoff and percent deviations of measured events.*
I Runoff in m3, (“7’0 Deviation from observed)
I Observed I Manual I Hillslope I Flowpath
Watkinsville, P1 Total 13530 11050( 18) 12170(10) 11420(15)
36 measured events Mean 376 307 338 317
S.D. 482 406 466 430
Range 29-2202 0-1457 0-1663 0-1557
Watkinsville, P2 Total 6670 4620(31) 4730(29) 441O(34)
55 measured events Mean 121 84 86 80
S.D. 228 169 184 169
Range 16-1151 0-757 0-875 0-815
Holly Springs, WC1 Total 58780 34860(41) 41960(29) 40970(30)
284 measured events Mean 207t 123 148 144
S.D. 257 195 223 215
Range 2-1538 0-1465 0-1674 0-1624
Holly Springs, WC2
257 measured events
Total
Mean 89t
22900 I 58 59
14760(35)
57
S.D.
Range
108
1-787 I 84
0-611 I 87
0-636 1 a4
0-616
Holly Springs, WC3 Total 17370 14500(17) 15130(13) 1451O( 16)
255 measured events Mean 68 57 59 57
S.D. 94 92 93 89
Range 1-667 0-669 0-679 0-652

Copyright © 1999 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
Treynor, W2 Total 59620 50880( 15) 54580(8) 60790(2)

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(4):678-685 www.swcs.org

40 measured events Mean 1490 1272 1365 1520
S.D. 2139 2578 2665 2584
Range 93-11031 0-11935 0-12033 0-11695

* Means were tested using student t-test, Duncan’s, and Tukey’s comparisions of means, all of which gave the same decision results for hypothesis testing at
a = 0.05. The means of the observed and methods are not statistically different at the 95% confidence level unless otherwise marked.
t Observed and method means were statistically different at the 95% confidence level.

Table 4. Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficients for event sediment loss predicted hillslope method. It is apparent that the
by the three methods. three Holly Springs watersheds have
Nash-Sutcliffecoefficient (NS) channels that are in an advanced deposi-
tional mode, whereas, channels in the
Watersheds I Manual I Hillslope I Flowpath
Watkinsville watersheds may not be in
Watkinsville, P1 0.50 0.39 0.48 such a dramatic depositional mode.
Watkinsville, P2 0.67 0.87 0.74 Comparisons of hillslope sediment yield
HoUy Springs, WC1 0.84 0.54 -0.63 between the three methods suggest that
Holly Springs, WC2 0.79 0.79 0.60 they predict similar results; however, a
Holly Springs, WC3 0.23 0.42 0.13 visual observation of Figure 5 suggests
Treynor, W2 0.36 0.40 0.47 t h a t predictions from the flowpath
method are consistently lower than the
hillslope method. This may be due to the
large amount of computational weighting
involved in the flowpath method.
manual method
Sediment yield results are comparable
between the manual and hillslope meth-
ods because channels were modeled in
both methods. Figure 4 shows that both
manual and hillslope methods performed
similarly for total sediment loss in all
watersheds. The regression lines indicate
both a good fit and low variance for the
manual and hillslope methods.
The slope and intercept of the regres-
sion fit show that the hillslope method
predicts slightly higher values than the
manual method. T h e figure also shows
that for lower observed sediment losses,
both methods over-predict; whereas, for
P1 P2 wc 1 WCL wc3 w2 I large sediment losses, the methods under-
watershed
I predict observed values. From the NS
Figure 5. Comparison of hillslope sediment yield between methods (channels excluded). values and percent deviations of watershed

F O U R T H Q U A R T E R 1999 683
Table 5. Sediment yield and percent deviations for measured events.*
I Sediment yield in kg, (% Deviationfrom observed)
I Observed I Manual I Hillslope I Flowpath
Watkinsville, P1 Total 1 84490 137430(26) 161210(13) 100060(46)
36 measured events Mean 5125 3817 4478 2779
S.D. 10645 8779 11314 6676
Range 53-50000 0-41100 0-54300 0-32600
Watkinsville, P2 Total 28640 21690 (24) 28500 ( 4 ) 17050 (40)
48 measured events" Mean 597 452 594 355
S.D. 2051 1043 1688 1167
Range 0-12810 0-5860 0-10651 0-7717
Holly Springs, WC1 Total 104870 108200 (3) 217770(1 1 6) 306270(1 92)
207 measured events" Mean 507 523 1052 1480
S.D. 3803 2830 5192 7805
Range 3-53300 0-35600 0-59900 0-89700
Holly Springs, WC2 Total 40150 6261O(56) 64490 (60) 82930(1 06)
199 measured events** Mean 202 315 324 417
S.D. 1601 1415 1486 2132
Range 1-22152 0-16899 0-17820 0-25646
Holly Springs, WC3 Total 29520 43900(49) 37630 (27) 43770 (48)
187 measured events** Mean 158 235 201 234
S.D. 82 1 1133 929 1170
Range 1-7476 0-13672 0-10871 0-13679

Copyright © 1999 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
Treynor, W2 Total 11 81150 1674140(42)

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(4):678-685 www.swcs.org

1568820(33) 1469590(24)
40 measured events Mean 29529 41853 39220 36740
S.D. 70345 92080 86491 83222
Range 907-333800 0-375753 0-363200 0-366100

Means were tested using student t-test, Duncan's, and Tukey's comparisions of means, all of which gave the same decision results for hypothesis testing at
= 0.05. The means of the observed and methods are not statistically different at the 95% confidence level unless otherwise marked.
"Number of observed sediment yield events from watershed P2, WC1, WC2, and WC3 were less than measured runoff events for the same watersheds.

Table 6. Total WEPP-predicted erosion from hillslopes and channels (kg).' t

I I
Watershed
name
I Hillslopes I Manual method
Channels I %Channel
deposition
II Hillslopes 1
Hillslope method
Channels 7
1 deposition
Flowpath
method
P1 160900 156300 3 118500 182400 -35 107700
P2 37300 30600 22 35700 37500 -5 21900
wc1 300600 164800 82 546300 316800 72 449100
wc2 136700 92800 47 146700 96000 53 122200
wc3 111000 64800 71 81 100 55200 47 64800
w2 2173100 1738800 25 1946100 1635000 19 1547200

Means of hillslopesfor the three methods were tested using student t-test, Duncan's, and Tukey's comparisions of means, all of which gave the same decision
results for hypothesis testing at a = 0.05. The means were not statistically different at the 95% confidence level.
t Total values may be higher than in Table 5 because these include predicted values that were not measured.

WC 1, the manual method seemed to per-
form best; for watersheds P2, WC3, and
W2, the hillslope method appeared to be
best. In other watersheds, both methods
performed equally well. Ir is possible that
the differences in the accuracy of the pre-
diction5 for WCI can be attributed to its
coin pl icated topography and channel
structure, which the manual method
modeled in greater detail. The other wa-
tersheds are either smaller, such as WC2
and WC3, or have less topographical or
channel structure complications.
The Holly Springs watersheds show an
over-prediction of sediment yield (Table
5 ) . This is consistent with observations
made by Liu et al. (19!17), who suggest
that this is due to a n over-prediction bias
for low-ma~nitudt.erosion events, proba-
bly from problems in representing plant
and cover relationships. The channels of
these watersheds also acted as sediment
traps that, together with the over-predic-
tion of small events, would help to ex-
plain large percent deviations of total sed-
iment loss obtained.
O n e of the biggest advantages of the
flowpath method is that hillslope bound-
aries need no delineation, which removes
the burden of defining hillslopes. Another
advantage is the ability to obtain spatially-
distributed results of erosion or deposi-
tion within a watershed, as Figure 6 shows
in the Treynor watershed (W2). These
results can be visually displayed o n an
event-by-event or on a cumulative basis.
T h e visualization approach in t h e
flowpath method can help identify areas
of severe erosion within a watershed.
However, caution should be used when
interpreting quantitative results because
spatially-distributed results within water-
sheds have not been validated (spatially-
distributed erosion measurements for
watersheds over time are not available or
are limited to small data sets). Applica-
tion of the flowpath method has other
limitations, too. O n e is its computational
intensity. Due to the relatively high reso-
lution of DEMS of all watersheds (1 m
for smaller watersheds and 5 m for the
large Treynor watershed), the number of
flowpaths in each watershed also is very
high. For example, the Watkinsville P2
watershed required 4,671 runs of the hill-
slope version of WEPP Other watersheds
required fewer runs, but the number of

Figure 6. Sediment detachment and deposition from flowpath application of WEPP on
Treynor watershed W2 over a 6-yr period.
flowpaths still were several thousand.
Conclusions
T h e manual and hillslope methods
were comparable and produced reason-
able results for most of the watersheds
studied. Simulations of the Holly Springs
(WC1 and WCZ) watersheds produced
mean event runoff values that were not
statistically similar to the observed means;
however, there was no significant differ-
ence between t h e two prediction
methods. No significant differences were
observed between the measured sediment
loss values and those predicted by the two
methods. The Treynor and Watkinsville
watersheds were well simulated with both
methods for runoff and sediment loss.
The main advantage of the hillslope
method over the manual method is that
major components (e.g., hillslopes, chan-
nels, and slope profiles), required for a
WEPP model application, are extracted
automatically from a DEM. This saves
the user valuable time when assessing
water erosion in watersheds and can allow
the user to quickly assess conditions with
different management practices. Howev-
er, for topographically-complicated con-
ditions or watersheds with complicated
channel structures, the manual method
has the flexibility to model these situa-
tions. The main advantages of the hills-
lope method over the flowpath method
are that it is less computationally inten-
sive and it can handle channel erosion.
The flowpath method is comparable to
both the manual and hillslope methods
for hillslope erosion predictions. Howev-
er, application of the flowpath method to
Detacirment (kgt/mA
rn -6 - (-4)
m-3 - (-2)
-4 - 1-31
-2 - (-1)
-1 - 0
l----10- 1
watersheds requires development of an
adequate channel-routing mechanism or
modifications of the original WEPP code
to enable distributed lateral inflow to
channels. Currently, the advantages of
this method over the others are that dis-
cretization of hillslopes is not necessary,
and the flowpath method can more easily
create visual representations of the results
within the watershed than can other
methods.
Ideally, the best system would be to
provide the user with a combination of
the three methods. The hillslope method
facilitates t h e application o f WEPP
through an automated simulation. T h e
manual method allows the user to verify
t h e simulation a n d make p e r t i n e n t
changes. T h e flowpath method can be
used in situations where hillslopes are dif-
ficult to delineate, or when severe erosion
or deposition locations must be identified
inside the watershed. We believe that with
the future availability of more accurate
DEMs using advanced satellites, airborne
laser technology, or high-accuracy GPS
surveying, the advantages of using these
methods will be apparent not only for
research purposes, but for routine land
management and erosion assessments.
REFERENCES CITED
Ascough, J., C. Baffaut, M.A. Nearing, and B.Y.
Liu. 1997. The WEPP watershed model: I. Hy-
drology and erosion. Transactions of the ASAE
40(4):921-933.
Baffaut, C., M.A. Nearing, J.C. Ascough, and B.Y.
Liu. 1997. The WEPP watershed model: 11.
Sensitivity and discretization. Transactions of
the ASAE 40(4):935-943.
Desmet, P.J.J., and G. Govers. 1996. A GIS proce-
dure for automatically calculating the USLE-LS
factor on topographically complex landscape
units. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
5 1(5):427-433.
ESFU. 1998. Arc View 3.0a Users Manual. Environ-
mental Systems Research Institute: Redlands CA.
Flanagan, D.C., and M.A. Nearing. 1995. USDA-
Water Erosion Prediction Project: Hillslope
profile and watershed model documentation.
NSERL Report No. 10. USDA-ARS National
Soil Erosion Research Laboratory: West
Lafayette, IN.
Garbrecht J., and L.W. Martz. 1997. TOPAZ: An
automated digital landscape analysis tool for
topographic evaluation, drainage identification,
watershed segmentation and subcatchment pa-
rameterization: Overview. ARS-NAWQL 95-1,
USDA-ARS: Durant, OK.
Garbrecht J., P.J. Starks, and L.W. Martz. 1996.
New digit a1 1an ds c a p e par am e t e r i z R t i o n
methodologies. In: Proceedings of the 32nd An-
nual Conference and Symposium on CIS and
Water Resources, TPS-96-3. American Water
Resources Association: Herndon, VA.
Jenson, S.K., and J.O. Dominique. 1988. Extracr-
ing topographic structure from digital elevation
data for geographical information system analy-
sis. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing 54(11):1593-1600.
Copyright © 1999 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
Kramer, L. 1993. Application of WEPP 93.005 to
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(4):678-685 www.swcs.org
HEL watershed. Presented a t the 1993 ASAE
Meeting, Paper No. 93-2501. American Sociev
of Agricultural Engineers: St. Joseph, MI.
Liu, B.Y., M.A. Nearing, C. Baffaut, and J.C. As-
cough. 1997. The WEPP Watershed model: 111.
Comparisons to measured data from small water-
sheds. Transactions of the ASAE 40(4):945-952.
Martz, L.W., and J. Garbrecht. 1992. Numerical
definition of drainage network and subcatch-
ment areas from digital elevation models.
Computers and Geoscience 18(6):747-761.
McGregor, K.C., J.D. Greer, G.E. Gurley, and
G.C. Bolton. 1969. Runoff and sediment pro-
duction from North Mississippi loessial soils.
Mississippi State University Agricultural Experi-
ment Station Bulletin 777.
Montgomery, D.R., and W.E. Dietrich. 198').
Source areas, drainage density, and channel initia-
tion. Water Resource Research 25(8):1907- 1918.
Nash, J.E., and J.V. Sutcliffe. 1970. River flow fore-
casting through conceptual models, Part I-A,
discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology
10(3):282-290.
O'Callaghan, J.F., and D.M. Mark. 1984. The
extraction of drainage networks from digital
elevation data. Computer Vision, Graphics, and
Image Processing 28:323-344.
Savabi, M.R., D.C. Flanagan, B. Hebel, and B.A.
Engel. 1995. Application of WEPP and CIS-
GRASS to a small watershed in Indiana. Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation 50(5):477-483.
Smith, C.N., Bailey, G.W., Leonard, R.A., a n d
G.W. Langdale, 1978. Transport of agricultural
chemicals from small upland piedmont water-
sheds. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Report 600/3-78-056.
Srinivasan, R., and J.G. Arnold. 1994. Integration
of a basin-scale water quality model with CIS.
Water Resources Bulletin 30(3):453-462.
U.S. Army. 1987. GRASS-GIS software and refer-
ence manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory:
Champaign, IL.
Wischmeier, W.H., and D.D. Smith. 1978. Pre-
dicting rainfall erosion losses, a guide to conser-
vation planning. U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Agricultural Handbook No. 537.
Zevenbergen, L.W., and C.R. Thorne. 1987. Quan-
titative analysis of land surface topography. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms 1247-56.
FOURTH QUARTER I999 685