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

Hiii Infiltration-excess overland flow only 

^H Saturation-excess overland flow only 

Hi Infiltration- and saturation-excess

overland flows 

L I Noncontributing area

 Boundary of major river basin

- Subbasin boundary

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 saturationexcess 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

inch (in.)

inch per hour (in/hr)

kilometer (km)

meter (m)

mile (mi)

square kilometer (km2)

square mile (mi )

By

2.54

2.54

0.6214

3.281

1.609

0.3861

2.59

To obtain

centimeter

centimeter per hour

mile

foot

kilometer

square mile

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

Digital topographic and soil information was 

used to estimate potential runoff-contributing 

areas throughout Kansas. The results then were 

used to compare 91 selected subbasins representing soil, slope, and runoff variability. Potential 

runoff-contributing areas were estimated collectively for the processes of infiltration-excess and 

saturation-excess overland flow using a set of 

environmental conditions that represented very 

high, high, moderate, low, very low, and 

extremely low potential runoff. For infiltrationexcess overland flow, various rainfall-intensity 

and soil-permeability values were used. For saturation-excess overland flow, antecedent soil-moisture conditions and a topographic wetness index 

were used.

Results indicated that very low potentialrunoff conditions provided the best ability to distinguish the 91 selected subbasins as having relatively high or low potential runoff. The majority 

of the subbasins with relatively high potential runoff are located in the eastern half of the State 

where soil permeability generally is less and precipitation typically is greater. The ability to distinguish the subbasins as having relatively high or 

low potential runoff was possible mostly due to 

the variability of soil permeability across the 

State.

INTRODUCTION

The State of Kansas is required by the Federal 

Clean Water Act of 1972 to develop a total maximum

daily load (TMDL) for basins throughout the State. A 

TMDL is an estimate of the maximum pollutant load 

(material transported during a specified time period) 

from point and nonpoint sources that a receiving water 

can accept without exceeding water-quality standards 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991). Requisite for the development of TMDL's is an understanding of potential source areas of storm runoff that 

are the most likely contributors of nonpoint-source 

pollution within a basin.

A study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in 

cooperation with the Kansas Department of Health 

and Environment, was begun in 1999 to estimate the 

spatial extent and pattern of potential runoff-contributing areas in Kansas (fig. 1). The specific study objectives were to:

(1) Estimate potential runoff-contributing areas resulting from infiltration-excess and saturation-excess 

overland flows; and

(2) Compare potential runoff among major river basins

and selected subbasins throughout the State. 

The purpose of this report is to present the results 

of the study to estimate the spatial extent and pattern 

of potential runoff-contributing areas in Kansas. The 

methods presented in this report may be applicable 

nationwide as related to the development of TMDL's 

and the targeting and implementation of best-management practices (BMP's). This study is a statewide 

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-contributing areas in the Kansas-Lower Republican River 

Basin in Kansas. This study was made possible in part 

by support from the Kansas State Water Plan Fund.

Introduction
Upper Republican 

River Basin

m(Af 

0>5'

3Dc 3 o^

6 o

3c 5'u3

(Q

O

T3 

O

<£> 

3-a3; '3a

W O

0) 5'3

.102'

Solomon River 

Basin

Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin

MissouriRiver

Basin

Smoky 

Hill-Saline 

River Basin Kansas

Maraisdes

 gvl Cygnes %-' River

Basin

NeoshoRiverBasin

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2.000,000,1994 Albers Conic Equal-Area projection,Standard parallels 29°30 and 45°30', central meridian 96° Lower Arkansas River Basin Walnut River Basin Verdigris River Basin

EXPLANATION

Boundary of major river basinSubbasin boundary 

@ Subbasin number

Subbasin boundaries from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (1997)

25 50 MILES

25 50 KILOMETERS
Cimarron River Basin

(7) Cavalry Creek 

(2) Crooked Creek

Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin

(a) Big Blue River upstream from Turtle Creek Lake

(4) Black Vermillion River

© Buffalo Creek

© Clarks Creek

(7) Delaware River upstream from Muscotah

(5) Fancy Creek

(£) Grasshopper Creek

® Little Blue River upstream from Barnes

© Mill Creek (Wabaunsee County)

© Mill Creek (Washington County)

® Republican River between Concordia and Clay Center

@ Republican River upstream from Concordia

©Soldier Creek

® Stranger Creek

© Vermillion Creek (Pottawatomie County)

® Wakarusa River downstream from Clinton Lake

® Wakarusa River upstream from Clinton Lake

@ White Rock Creek

© Wildcat Creek

Lower Arkansas River Basin

@ Bluff Creek

@ Cow Creek

@ Cowskin Creek

@ Grouse Creek

© Little Arkansas River upstream from Alta Mills

@ Medicine Lodge River and Elm Creek upstream from

Medicine Lodge 

@ Mule Creek 

(29) North Fork Ninnescah River upstream from Cheney

Reservoir

® Sand and Emma Creeks 

© Sandy and Little Sandy Creeks 

@ South Fork Ninnescah River from confluence with

North Fork Ninnescah River upstream to Kingman 

® Sun and Turkey Creeks

EXPLANATION (continued) 

Subbasins selected for analysis

Marais des Cygnes River Basin

@ Big Bull Creek upstream from Hillsdale Lake

© Dragoon Creek upstream from Pomona Lake

© Hundred and Ten Mile Creek upstream from Pomona

Lake

© Little Osage River 

(38) Marais des Cygnes River upstream from Melvern

Lake

(§) Marmaton River 

@ Pottawatomie Creek 

© Salt Creek

Missouri River Basin

@ Blue River

® Indian and Tomahawk Creeks

@ South Fork Big Nemaha River

® Walnut Creek

® Wolf River

Neosho River Basin

© Cherry Creek

@ Diamond Creek

® Doyle Creek

® Labette Creek

© Neosho River between John Redmond Reservoir

and Chanute

© Neosho River upstream from Council Grove Lake 

(S) South Cottonwood River

Smoky Hill-Saline River Basin

@ Big Creek

© Chapman Creek

© Elkhorn and Bullfoot Creeks

© Hackberry Creek

® Ladder Creek

® Lyon Creek

® Mulberry Creek

© Saline River upstream from Wilson Lake

© Smoky Hill River between Cedar Bluff Reservoir and

Kanopolis Lake

© Smoky Hill River upstream from Cedar Bluff Reservoir 

@ Spillman Creek

Solomon River Ba

© Beaver Creek

© Bow Creek

© Limestone Creek (J

@ North Fork Solomo

and Waconda La

© Oak Creek 

® Pipe Creek 

© Salt Creek

© Solomon River dow

© South Fork Solomo

and Waconda La

© South Fork Solomo

Reservoir

Upper Arkansas R

© Buckner Creek 

© Pawnee River 

© Walnut Creek

Upper Republican 

® Beaver Creek 

@ Prairie Dog Creek 

® Sappa Creek

Verdigris River Ba

© Big Hill Creek

® Drum Creek

® Elk River upstream 

© Fall River upstream 

® Onion Creek

© Pumpkin Creek

© Verdigris River ups

Walnut River Basi

© Little Walnut River

® Timber Creek

® Walnut River upstr

© Whitewater River

Figure 1. Location of major river basins and selected subbasins in Kansas.
Land surface

Water table

B

Land surface

Water table

Background

Runoff-contributing areas within 

river basins primarily are the result of 

two processes, both of which produce 

overland flow. The first process is infiltration-excess overland flow (fig. 2A), 

which occurs when precipitation intensity exceeds the rate of water infiltration 

into the soil. This process may be dominant in basins where the land surface has 

been disturbed (for example, plowed 

cropland) or where natural vegetation is 

sparse. The second process is saturationexcess overland flow (fig. 2B), which 

occurs when precipitation falls on temporarily or permanently saturated landsurface areas that have developed from 

"outcrops" of the water table at the land 

surface (Hornberger and others, 1998). 

A temporary water table can develop 

during a storm when antecedent soilmoisture conditions in a basin are high. 

The saturated areas where saturationexcess overland flow develops expand 

during a storm and shrink during 

extended dry periods (Dunne and others, 

1975).

Historically, infiltration-excess overland flow has 

been assumed to be the most important runoff process 

in Midwestern agricultural areas. More recently, saturation-excess overland flow has been considered an 

important runoff process and is the subject of ongoing 

research.

Both runoff processes would be expected to affect 

the load of water-quality constituents in streams, 

although possibly in different ways due to different 

flow paths. The identification of potential runoff-contributing areas in a basin can provide guidance for the 

targeting of BMP's to reduce runoff and meet TMDL 

requirements. Implementation of BMP's within potential runoff-contributing areas is likely to be more 

effective at reducing constituent loads compared to 

areas less likely to contribute runoff.

The spatial extent and pattern of runoff-contributing areas are affected by climate, soil, and terrain characteristics. Contributing areas of infiltration-excess 

overland flow are determined by the combined effect 

of rainfall intensity and soil permeability. The leastpermeable soils in a basin are the most likely to

Saturated surface layer

Infiltration-excess 

overland flow

Saturated subsurface zone

Saturation-excess 

overland flow

Saturated subsurface zone

Figure 2. Schematic diagrams illustrating (A) infiltration-excess overland flow 

and (B) saturation-excess overland flow.

contribute infiltration-excess overland flow. As rainfall 

intensity increases, areas with more moderate permeability also may contribute overland flow.

Contributing areas of saturation-excess overland 

flow are determined by the combined effect of basin 

topography and antecedent soil-moisture conditions. 

The effect of topography on saturation-excess overland flow can be quantified by an index called the 

topographic wetness index (TWI) (Wolock and 

McCabe, 1995). The TWI is computed as In (a/S) for 

all points in a basin, where "In" is the natural logarithm, "a" is the upslope area per unit contour length, 

and "5"' is the slope at that point. The locations in a 

basin with the highest TWI values (large upslope areas 

and gentle slopes) are the most likely to contribute saturation-excess overland flow. When antecedent soilmoisture conditions are dry, only areas with the highest TWI values may be saturated and potentially contribute overland flow. When antecedent soil-moisture 

conditions are wet, areas with lower TWI values may 

be saturated and potentially contribute overland flow.

4 Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information
Description of Kansas

r\

Kansas encompasses an area of about 82,000 mi . Major river basins in Kansas include the Cimarron, 

Kansas-Lower Republican, Lower Arkansas, Marais 

des Cygnes, Missouri, Neosho, Smoky Hill-Saline, 

Solomon, Upper Arkansas, Upper Republican, Verdigris, and Walnut (fig. 1). Numerous Federal reservoirs 

are located throughout the eastern two-thirds of the 

State. Land use is predominantly agricultural, with 

cropland, grassland, and woodland accounting for 

53.0, 42.7, and 2.5 percent of the State, respectively. 

Urban land use accounts for about 1 percent of the 

State (Kansas Applied Remote Sensing 

Program, 1993).

Terrain varies throughout Kansas and includes flat 

plains, rolling hills, sandhills, and steep slopes 

(Moody and others, 1986). Soil permeability ranges 

from about 0.3 to 12.5 in/hr (fig. 3), with a mean of 

about 1.6 in/hr. The highest soil-permeability values 

occur in the Cimarron and Upper and Lower Arkansas 

River Basins of southwest and south-central Kansas. 

Soil permeability also is generally higher in the western half of the State. Across the State, soil permeability is typically higher in the flood plains of the major 

rivers and streams (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

1993). Mean annual precipitation ranges from about 

15 in. or less in extreme western Kansas to about 

40 in. in the southeast (Paulson and others, 1991).

ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL RUNOFFCONTRIBUTING AREAS

Within the State, 91 subbasins representing soil, 

slope, and runoff variability were selected for analysis 

(fig. 1). The selected subbasin boundaries were 

obtained from a statewide data base of 11- and 14- 

digit hydrologic unit (basin) boundaries that was 

developed at a scale of 1:24,000 (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

1997). For all selected subbasins, potential runoff-contributing areas were estimated collectively for the processes of infiltration-excess and saturation-excess 

overland flow. Geographic-information-system (GIS) 

techniques and available digital data were used to perform the spatial analyses required to estimate potential 

runoff-contributing areas. All analyses were done 

using the GRID module of the Arclnfo GIS software 

package. The digital data used in the analyses were in 

a grid (raster) format with a grid-cell size of 1 km2 .

The digital data included the U.S. Department of Agriculture's l:250,000-scale State soils geographic data 

base (STATSGO) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

1993) and the USGS 1-km-resolution digital elevation 

model (DEM) (Verdin and Greenlee, 1996). These two 

digital data sets are suitable for comparing potential 

runoff among basins hundreds of square miles in size. 

Thus, in this study emphasis was placed on a comparison of potential runoff-contributing areas between, 

rather than within, individual subbasins.

The potential for infiltration-excess overland flow 

was estimated using STATSGO-derived soilpermeability digital data. In the STATSGO data set, 

soil permeability represents the infiltration rate when 

the soil is saturated (Soil Survey Staff, 1997). In general, there is an inverse relation between soil permeability and the potential for infiltration-excess 

overland flow. Using GIS techniques and digital maps 

of State and subbasin boundaries, the soil-permeability data were extracted from the STATSGO data base 

for the State and each subbasin (fig. 3). The mean soil 

permeability then was computed for each subbasin.

An equal-interval approach was used to select six 

threshold soil-permeability values that represent the 

rainfall intensity at which infiltration-excess overland 

flow would occur. In Kansas, soil permeability ranges 

from about 0.3 to 12.5 in/hr. However, because about 

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-permeability values, representing very high, high, moderate, 

low, very low, and extremely low rainfall intensity, 

were set at 3.38, 2.76, 2.14, 1.52, 0.90, and 0.45 in/hr, 

respectively. The extremely low threshold value was 

adjusted upward from 0.28 to 0.45 in/hr because the 

original value was less than the range of soil-permeability values for the State. In general, the lower rainfall intensities occur more frequently than the higher 

rainfall intensities. The higher soil-permeability 

thresholds imply a more intense storm during which 

areas with higher soil permeability potentially may 

contribute infiltration-excess overland flow. The 

threshold soil-permeability values were used to compare the selected subbasins on the basis of the percentage of each subbasin with soil-permeability values that 

were less than or equal to the threshold value and thus 

potentially contribute infiltration-excess overland flow.

The potential for saturation-excess overland flow 

was estimated using DEM-derived TWI digital data. 

In general, there is a direct relation between TWI and

Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas 5
Upper Republican 

River Basin

mu>fi>o

TJO

33c

3 O=s6 o

CTC

CQ 

>CJ 3 U) m w

C

O 

TJ 

O 

(Q

Otu a

w o

-i

Solomon River 

Basin

Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin

95°

Missouri

RiverBasin

Smoky

Hill-SalineRiver

Basin 39° L

I Upper Arkansas 

River Basin

r Balsih*iv j ^-ti 1* <

Marais

desCygnesRiverBasin

Neosho

RiverBasin

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1 ZOOO.OOO. 19! Albers Conic Equal-Area projection, Standard parallels 29°30rand 45°30', central meridian 96° Lower Arkansas River Basin Walnut River Basin

EXPLANATION 

Range in soil permeability Boundary of major river basin

I I High 12.5 inches per hour czi 

Verdigris River Basin

Subbasin boundaries from U.S Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (1997)

Subbasin boundary Subbasin number

Low 0.3 inch per hour
i

</>

a

Buckner Creek Pawnee RiverWalnut Creek

Basin River 

3

Republii Upper 

©©©

&)

Beaver Creek

Crei Prairie Dog 

Sappa Creek

©©©

.S 

£

&

Verdigris River

from ElkCity 

from FallLake River 

from Lake Toronto tream 

EC S. SiHiSi iillltl J- C DC "-> O c -O fiii2<§!i ©®®®©®©

S%

Walnut RiverB

*

Little WalnutRiv

®

Timber Creek

®

from ElDorado Lake earn 

%

Walnut Riverup

®i

wWhitewater Rive

©

.2

I

!

Q) 

1

<d 

| 

en

Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas
the potential for saturation-excess overland flow. Derivation of the TWI digital data followed the approach 

described by Wolock and McCabe (1995). Elevation 

differences among the grid cells in the DEM were 

compared and used to create a flow-direction grid 

(Jenson and Domingue, 1988). The flow-direction grid 

was used to derive a flow-accumulation grid by computing the number of upslope cells that drain into each 

cell. The upslope area per unit contour length (a) for 

each cell in the flow-accumulation grid was computed 

as:

a = (number of upslope cells + 0.5) x (grid-cell 

length). (1)

Using the DEM and the flow-direction grid, the 

magnitude of the slope (S) was computed for each cell 

as:

S = (change in elevation between neighboring 

grid cells) / (horizontal distance between 

centers of neighboring grid cells). (2)

The resultant slope (gradient) grid then was used 

in combination with the flow-accumulation grid to 

compute TWI for each cell as:

TWI =ln (a /S). (3)

Using GIS techniques and digital maps of State 

and subbasin boundaries, the TWI grid data were 

extracted for the State and each subbasin (fig. 4). The 

mean TWI was computed for each subbasin. An equalinterval approach was used to select six threshold TWI 

values that represented a range of wet-to-dry antecedent soil-moisture conditions. In Kansas, the TWI 

ranges from 8.6 to 28.7. However, because about 

95 percent of the State has a TWI of 19 or less, the 

effective range used in this study was 8.6 to 19. Thus, 

the threshold TWI values, representing very wet, wet, 

moderate, dry, very dry, and extremely dry antecedent 

soil-moisture conditions, were set at 10.4, 12.1, 13.8, 

15.6, 17.3, and 19.0, respectively. The lower TWI 

thresholds imply wetter antecedent soil-moisture conditions during which areas with lower TWI values 

potentially may contribute saturation-excess overland 

flow. The threshold TWI values were used to compare 

the selected subbasins on the basis of the percentage of 

each subbasin that had TWI values greater than or 

equal to the threshold value and thus potentially contribute saturation-excess overland flow.

The combined potential for runoff in Kansas and 

the selected subbasins due to infiltration-excess and 

saturation-excess overland flows was estimated by 

merging the previously described hypothetical conditions. A very high potential-runoff condition was

created by combining very high rainfall intensity (soil 

permeability less than or equal to 3.38 in/hr) with very 

wet antecedent soil-moisture (TWI greater than or 

equal to 10.4) conditions. A high potential-runoff condition was created by combining high rainfall intensity 

(soil permeability less than or equal to 2.76 in/hr) with 

wet antecedent soil-moisture (TWI greater than or 

equal to 12.1) conditions. A moderate potential-runoff 

condition was created by combining moderate rainfall 

intensity (soil permeability less than or equal to 

2.14 in/hr) with moderate antecedent soil-moisture 

(TWI greater than or equal to 13.8) conditions. A low 

potential-runoff condition was created by combining 

the low rainfall intensity (soil permeability less than or 

equal to 1.52 in/hr) with dry antecedent soil-moisture 

(TWI greater than or equal to 15.6) conditions. A very 

low potential-runoff condition was created by combining the very low rainfall intensity (soil permeability 

less than or equal to 0.90 in/hr) with very dry antecedent soil-moisture (TWI greater than or equal to 17.3) 

conditions. An extremely low potential-runoff condition was created by combining the extremely low rainfall intensity (soil permeability less than or equal to 

0.45 in/hr) with extremely dry antecedent soilmoisture (TWI greater than or equal to 19.0) conditions. The combined conditions were used to compare 

the selected subbasins on the basis of the percentage of 

each subbasin that potentially contributes runoff by 

one or both overland-flow processes.

POTENTIAL RUNOFF-CONTRIBUTING 

AREAS

For very high potential-runoff conditions (soil permeability less than or equal to 3.38 in/hr, TWI greater 

than or equal to 10.4), 89 of 91 (98 percent) subbasins 

had potential contributing areas in greater than 90 percent of each subbasin (table 1). Thus, this set of environmental conditions was not useful for the purpose of 

distinguishing subbasins as having relatively high or 

low potential runoff. The spatial extent and pattern of 

combined potential contributing and noncontributing 

areas for very high potential-runoff conditions are 

shown in figure 5.

For high potential-runoff conditions (soil permeability less than or equal to 2.76 in/hr, TWI greater 

than or equal to 12.1), 85 of 91 (93 percent) subbasins 

had potential contributing areas in greater than 90 percent of each subbasin (table 1). Thus, with two exceptions, 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 

having relatively high or low potential runoff. The two 

exceptions were within the Cimarron and Lower 

Arkansas River Basins (fig. 1). In the Cimarron Basin, 

Cavalry Creek (subbasin 1, 73.8 percent) had substantially less potential contributing area than Crooked 

Creek (subbasin 2, 96.4 percent). In the Lower Arkansas Basin, potential contributing areas ranged from 

71.6 percent of the subbasin for Mule Creek (subbasin 

28) to 100 percent for Sun and Turkey Creeks (subbasin 33). Of the 12 subbasins in the Lower Arkansas 

Basin, 5 (42 percent) had potential contributing areas 

between 70 and 90 percent. The spatial extent and pattern of combined potential contributing and noncontributing areas for high potential-runoff conditions are 

shown in figure 6.

Potential contributing areas were greater than 

90 percent for 82 of 91 (90 percent) subbasins for 

moderate potential-runoff conditions (soil permeability less than or equal to 2.14 in/hr, TWI greater than or 

equal to 13.8). The ability to distinguish subbasins as 

having relatively high or low potential runoff again 

was restricted to the Cimarron and Lower Arkansas 

River Basins. In the Cimarron Basin, Cavalry Creek 

(subbasin 1, 54.9 percent) again had substantially less 

potential contributing area than Crooked Creek (subbasin 2, 86.9 percent). In the Lower Arkansas Basin, 

potential contributing areas ranged from 63 percent of 

the subbasin for Mule Creek (subbasin 28) to 100 percent for Sun and Turkey Creeks (subbasin 33). Of the 

12 subbasins in the Lower Arkansas Basin, 5 (42 percent) had potential contributing areas between 70 and 

90 percent, and 2 (17 percent) had potential contributing areas less than 70 percent (table 1). In the remaining 10 major river basins, all subbasins had potential 

contributing areas greater than 90 percent. The spatial 

extent and pattern of combined potential contributing 

and noncontributing areas for moderate potential runoff conditions are shown in figure 7.

For low potential-runoff conditions (soil permeability less than or equal to 1.52 in/hr, TWI greater 

than or equal to 15.6), 75 of 91 (82 percent) subbasins 

had potential contributing areas in greater than 90 percent of each subbasin (table 1). Therefore, the ability 

to distinguish subbasins as having relatively high or 

low potential runoff was still limited. Again, the best 

ability to distinguish subbasins was observed in the 

Cimarron and Lower Arkansas River Basins. In the 

Cimarron Basin, the difference in potential contributing area between Cavalry Creek (subbasin 1,

44.2 percent) and Crooked Creek (subbasin 2, 

82.9 percent) remained substantial. In the Lower 

Arkansas Basin, potential contributing areas ranged 

from 24.1 percent of the subbasin for the North Fork 

Ninnescah River upstream from Cheney Reservoir 

(subbasin 29) to 100 percent for Sun and Turkey 

Creeks (subbasin 33). Of the 12 subbasins in the 

Lower Arkansas Basin, 4 (33 percent) had potential 

contributing areas of between 70 and 90 percent, and 5 

(42 percent) had potential contributing areas of 

between 20 and 60 percent.

Across the State, subbasins with potential contributing areas less than 90 percent were observed in three 

other major basins for low potential-runoff conditions. 

In the Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin, the 

Republican River upstream from Concordia (subbasin 

14) had a potential contributing area of 85.3 percent of 

the subbasin. In the Smoky Hill-Saline River Basin, 

the Saline River upstream from Wilson Lake (subbasin 

61) and the Smoky Hill River upstream from Cedar 

Bluff Reservoir (subbasin 63) had respective potential 

contributing areas of 82.1 and 77.9 percent. Finally, in 

the Solomon River Basin, Bow Creek (subbasin 66) 

and the South Fork Solomon River upstream from 

Webster Reservoir (subbasin 74) had respective potential contributing areas of 79.5 and 76.1 percent. The 

spatial extent and pattern of combined potential contributing and noncontributing areas for low potentialrunoff conditions are shown in figure 8.

Overall, the best statewide ability to distinguish 

subbasins was observed for the very low potential-runoff conditions (soil permeability less than or equal to 

0.90 in/hr, TWI greater than or equal to 17.3). Of the 

91 subbasins, 32 (35 percent) had potential contributing areas in greater than 90 percent of each subbasin, 

14 (15 percent) had potential contributing areas 

between 70 and 90 percent, 5 (5 percent) had potential 

contributing areas between 50 and 70 percent, 7 

(8 percent) had potential contributing areas between 

30 and 50 percent, 16(18 percent) had potential contributing areas between 10 and 30 percent, and 17 

(19 percent) had potential contributing areas less than 

10 percent (table 1). The spatial extent and pattern of 

combined potential contributing and noncontributing 

areas for very low potential-runoff conditions are 

shown in figure 9.

For extremely low potential-runoff conditions 

(soil permeability less than or equal to 0.45, TWI 

greater than or equal to 19.0), the ability to distinguish 

subbasins varied by major river basin. Of the

Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas
Upper Republican 

River Basin

m

Ulsi 

o3TJ Ore

30coCTC5'

10

n> fit ui01

3 

V) 

D> (AC u'

OO0) 3 D.(A O

S1

3

.102

Solomon River

Basin

Kansas-Lower Republican 

River Basin

MissouriRiverBasin

Smoky Hill-Saline Jj 

River 

Basin 39° t;

Marais

desCygnesRiver

Basin

NeoshoRiverBasin

B^V^F^=«M^MHHa.

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2.000,000,199-1 Albers Conic Equal-Area projection,Standard parallels 29°30 and 45°30', central meridian 96° Lower Arkansas River Basin Walnut River Basin

EXPLANATION 

Range in topographic wetness index 

High 28.7 (dimensionless) i __ Low 8.6 (dimensionless)

Boundary of major river basin 

Subbasin boundary 

@ Subbasin number

Verdigris River Basin

Subbasin boundaries from U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (1997)

25 50 MILES 

___________1_______________|

25 50 KILOMETERS
S c js 2 13 a> o fl

c^l

Sl| w n ° " ^

^111

6 |

(0 3 C

IcS I

1 I

§ s g s

I « V O.

S £

C

O) i> u

113 i

^ ^ 10 ^ 

lcBl<^

. 0 JliSI

CJ CJ ^ £ .CTJ -c ^

-S 3.&13"o 2 - ^ o3 19 S Q°" 3r^

O Cu (/) c/5 c/) </)

e

©@©

®©@

1

Ba Missouri Rive

1 

I

CJ 

1

Blue River

and Tomaha Indian 

1

(0

1

South ForkBig Nei 

Walnut Creek

Wolf River

£

Neosho Bas River 

©@®®®

Creek Cherry Creek Diamond Doyle Creek Creek Labette 

ohn Redmond Re:

-3

V 

V

betw NoshoRiver Chanute and 

©@®®@

from Council Gro

(0 

Q>

Neosho River upsn

©i

1 

£

Cottonwood South 

®

£ 

% CQ

1

Smoky Hill-Saline

V)

Jl

S CQ

ll

CJ ^ 1

l|l^ if 13 

!|ll|||||l ScjmxJ^s^l

®©©©@©®©©

CQ

Q.

Smoky Hill Riveru] 

Spillman Creek

/c^/5\ \<s/\£/

g

<§

Qu

Cimarron Rivei

7) Cavalry Creek T) Crooked Creek

-2"c

Q)

J

CJ

^ "1 

jc 0 s J .2!

e 8 -c ? 'E ^.§J 

1 ^ ^ 1 5 § f 1 § Ji i i 15 ^a

11 1 IIIJI Hi

1 1 i ill i S 111

22§J -fa ^>^"&"WD. °§"K

0) "to r? Q- "mCLRc-O3 ^- O D. _v»

Otf CL ^^ 3 Q> ^ in 'p! t. t, o« "O D ft) iiini.tiiiijijjiiji Jsl^5ial|1lii^^iil2

1 s-gj.2 | &|?^^tt| cell^l 

a .ffJlJl-Sg BBSS &g-^£ Ulil

X CQCQCQCJQl£OI3S2aDCc/)t/)>^^^^ 

^^(^©^^^(S)^^©©©©^©©^^

S

o * "I °

5 3 0) iS <U

* o I 8 3|S

CQ CJ CJ O Zl S

®®®©©(§)

ca

T3

X

0) a

c

V) (/)

0)

c 

c5

o 

!c

Q. 

CO

O)

o

CL

o

D 

D)

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 potentialrunoff conditions

Subbasin 

number 

(fig-1)

1

2

Mean P

3.7

1.7

Mean 

TWI

12.9

13.8

Very high 

potential High potenrunoff1 tial runoff2

91.6

99.2

Moderate 

potential Low potential 

runoff3 runoff4

Cimarron River Basin

73.8 54.9

96.4 86.9

44.2

82.9

Very low 

potential 

runoff5

8.5

45.8

Extremely low 

potential 

runoff6

2.8

5.0

Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

.6

.4

1.1

.5

.4

.7

.4

.8

.5

.9

1.2

1.4

.6

0.5

.6

.8

.6

1.3

.6

12.7

12.5

12.9

12.6

12.7

12.3

12.4

12.8

12.0

12.6

13.0

13.0

12.7

12.8

12.2

12.9

12.6

12.7

12.4

97.4

100

100

100

100

99.9

100

99.7

100

100

99.8

98.2

100

100

98.9

99.3

96.2

98.5

100

97.4

100

99.5

100

100

99.9

100

99.7

100

100

97.7

94.8

100

100

97.0

99.3

96.2

98.5

100

97.4

100

99.4

99.5

100

99.9

100

99.7

99.8

100

93.9

91.5

97.0

100

95.3

99.3

96.2

98.5

98.1

97.4

100

96.5

99.5

100

99.9

100

99.7

99.8

100

92.3

85.3

95.7

99.9

94.8

98.4

96.2

91.7

97.3

93.4

99.6

20.8

99.5

95.9

98.8

93.0

82.7

96.2

69.9

70.4

50.0

84.0

93.7

94.6

84.0

88.2

8.8

96.5

37.1

90.8

3.9

40.2

95.7

2.9

91.8

5.8

13.5

3.7

4.6

5.2

83.4

66.4

77.9

18.8

38.6

4.3

3.5

Lower Arkansas River Basin

22

23

24

25

26

1.5

1.8

2.1

.5

2.8

13.5

13.6

14.1

12.7

13.4

99.9

99.3

100

99.9

99.8

97.2

95.0

98.0

99.9

92.0

95.5

89.8

90.0

99.9

85.4

75.6

79.3

83.0

99.9

82.0

40.4

14.5

10.2

99.9

74.4

4.9

5.4

2.2

21.7

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 potentialrunoff conditions

Subbasin 

number 

(fig.1)

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Mean P

2.5

2.9

5.1

.9

3.6

3.0

.8

Mean 

TWI

12.4

12.3

13.7

13.9

13.1

13.4

13.7

Very high 

potential 

runoff1

High potential runoff2

Moderate 

potential 

runoff3

Lower Arkansas River Basin Continued

89.8 78.2 73.1

88.2

98.4

100

97.5

99.2

100

71.6

85.3

99.1

86.0

88.9

100

63.0

69.5

98.8

76.5

83.1

100

Low potential 

runoff4

52.2

54.1

24.1

98.8

56.2

26.5

100

Very low 

potential 

runoff5

26.4

21.1

13.2

98.4

10.7

21.5

100

Extremely low 

potential 

runoff6

3.2

3.8

3.7

5.7

2.7

6.0

5.3

Marais des Cygnes River Basin

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

0.6

.5

.5

 .7

.4

.9

.6

.5

12.6

12.7

12.5

12.9

12.7

12.7

12.9

12.9

100

99.0

98.7

100

98.4

100

100

100

100

99.0

98.7

100

98.4

100

100

100

100

99.0

98.7

100

98.4

100

100

100

100

99.0

98.7

100

98.4

96.8

100

100

92.2

92.7

89.9

75.7

95.6

37.8

93.6

93.6

23.4

79.0

44.3

9.4

83.5

5.9

42.1

63.4

Missouri River Basin

42

43

44

45

46

.6

.7

.4

.5

.9

12.1

12.3

12.5

12.7

12.6

100

100

95.5

97.4

100

100

100

95.5

97.4

100

100

100

95.5

97.4

100

100

100

95.5

97.4

100

98.0

88.0

93.1

96.1

36.1

1.0

1.1

89.0

71.9

31.4

Neosho River Basin

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

1.1

.5

.6

.8

.6

.4

.7

13.6

12.5

12.9

13.1

13.2

12.6

13.1

100

100

100

99.3

100

98.5

99.7

100 ~100

100

99.3

100

98.5

99.7

100

100

100

99.3

100

98.5

99.7

100

100

100

99.3

99.9

98.5

99.7

11.5

95.6

91.5

84.2

81.6

94.9

76.4

5.4

32.1

18.3

4.5

48.6

48.2

9.1

54 1.2 12.9 100

Smoky Hill-Saline River Basin

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 potentialrunoff conditions

Subbasin 

number 

(fig.1)

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

Mean P

1.0

1.2

1.3

1.4

.5

1.1

1.4

1.5

1.7

1.1

Mean 

TWI

12.5

12.1

12.9

13.1

12.7

12.5

12.7

12.9

12.7

12.6

Very high 

potential 

runoff1

High potential runoff2

Moderate 

potential 

runoff3

Smoky Hill-Saline River Basin Continued 

99.9 99.8 95.4

100

99.9

98.7

100

100

99.5

99.6

98.7

100

100

99.9

98.2

100

100

99.5

98.3

97.7

100

100

99.9

98.0

100

100

99.5

97.1

97.2

100

Low potential 

runoff4

94.3

99.5

99.7

92.0

100

100

82.1

91.4

77.9

96.0

Very low 

potential 

runoff5

64.1

5.3

10.6

9.8

100

16.6

9.2

10.2

8.4

8.4

Extremely low 

potential 

runoff6

4.3

1.5

5.9

5.9

14.2

3.4

5.4

4.9

5.3

3.1

Solomon River Basin

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

1.3

1.5

1.2

1.3

1.2

.9

1.1

1.1

1.3

1.5

12.5

12.9

12.7

12.7

12.6

12.8

12.4

13.2

12.6

12.8

99.6

99.5

100

99.8

100

100

100

98.5

99.9

99.6

99.6

97.4

100

99.8

100

100

100

98.1

99.9

97.8

99.6

97.1

100

99.8

100

100

100

97.8

99.9

97.1

94.9

79.5

96.2

90.7

95.1

100

100

96.5

90.3

76.1

9.5

10.9

8.5

8.9

8.4

76.6

12.0

30.4

7.8

8.6

3.8

4.6

2.7

417

3.7

5.7

3.8

4.9

4.5

4.3

Upper Arkansas River Basin., . " \

75

76

77

1.1

1.1

1.2

13.0

13.2

13.1

100

100

100

100

99.8

99.9

98.8

98.9

98.9

92.9

98.7

95.2

35.2

19.7

9.3

4.1

4.3

4.5

Upper Republican River Basin

78

79

80

1.3

1.4

1.4

12.9

12.9

12.9 -

99.9

99.6

99.8

99.3

98.5

97.9

99.0

98.0

97.4

91.4

93.8

97.0

9.8

8.8

9.6

5.6

4.8

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 potentialrunoff conditions

Subbasin 

number 

(fig. 1) MeanP

Mean 

TWI

Very high 

potential 

runoff1

High potential runoff2

Moderate 

potential 

runoff3

Low potential 

runoff4

Very low 

potential 

runoff5

Extremely low 

potential 

runoff6

81

82

83

84

85

13.2

12.8

12.8

12.3

12.5

Verdigris River Basin

100

100

100

99.9

98.3

100

100

100

99.9

98.3

100

100

100

99.9

98.3

100

100

95.0

99.8

98.3

58.5

61.7

84.7

95.1

49.7

7.3

5.5

26.6

29.7

28.8

86

87 .5

13.2

12.8

100

99.6

100

99.6

100

99.6

100

99.6

91.1

90.7

5.6 

44.4

Walnut River Basin

88

89

90

91

.5

.5

.5

.5

12.8

13.3

13.2

13.4

100

100

99.1

100.0

100

100

99.1

100

100

100

99.1

100

100

100

99.1

100

93.6

100

95.9

92.5

37.7

31.9

94.5

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 

contributing areas greater than 90 percent of each subbasin, 7 (8 percent) had potential contributing areas 

between 70 and 90 percent, 2 (2 percent) had potential 

contributing areas between 50 and 70 percent, 12 

(13 percent) had potential contributing areas between 

30 and 50 percent, 9 (10 percent) had potential contributing areas between 10 and 30 percent, and 57 

(63 percent) had potential contributing areas less than 

10 percent (table 1). The spatial extent and pattern of 

combined potential contributing and noncontributing 

areas for extremely low potential-runoff conditions are 

shown in figure 10.

Using very low potential-runoff conditions, the 

major river basins were categorized as having either 

relatively high or relatively low potential runoff. The 

very low potential-runoff conditions are meaningful 

because they provide the best ability to distinguish 

subbasins and because the 0.90-in/hr rainfall intensity 

occurs more frequently than the higher rainfall intensities. A basin was categorized as having relatively high 

potential runoff if the majority of its subbasins (those 

selected for analysis) had potential contributing areas 

greater than 70 percent of each subbasin. A basin was 

categorized as having relatively low potential runoff if 

the majority of its subbasins (those selected for analysis) had potential contributing areas less than 30 percent of each subbasin. The major basins having 

relatively high potential runoff were the Kansas-Lower 

Republican (15 of 19 subbasins had potential contributing areas greater than 70 percent of each subbasin), 

Marais des Cygnes (7 of 8 subbasins), Missouri (4 of 

5 subbasins), Neosho (6 of 7 subbasins), Verdigris (4 

of 7 subbasins), and Walnut (4 of 4 subbasins). The 

major basins having relatively low potential runoff 

were the Cimarron (1 of 2 subbasins had potential contributing areas less than 30 percent of each subbasin), 

Lower Arkansas (7 of 12 subbasins), Smoky HillSaline (9 of 11 subbasins), Solomon (8 of

Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas 15
m (/>

I

3) c3 

O6O

5' 

in

ui 5' 

inT3 

O 

IQ

3a 

w

O-*o'3

Upper Republican River Basin Solomon River 

Basin

Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin

MissouriRiverBasin

Smoky Hill-Saline 

River 

Basin 39

MaraisdesCygnesRiver

Basin

NeoshoRiverBasin

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000,1994

Albers Conic Equal-Area projection.

Standard parallels 29°30 and 45°30', central meridian 96°

Lower Arkansas River Basin Walnut River Basin Verdigris River Basin

Subbasin boundaries from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (19971

EXPLANATION 25 50 MlfES

Potential contributing area

I 1 Infiltration-excess overland flow only (iiS''; Saturation-excess overland flow only ^H Infiltration- and saturation-excess

overland flows 

I 1 Noncontributing area

Boundary of major river basin 

Subbasin boundary 

Subbasin number
.S

Solomon RiverBasi

1 1 & -g

? , * £ 1 -a to e

J x §1 <0 -* 1c

c 5 c E 0) 0) J>

51 E | |

r -2 O j5 1/> ..

50) vt Q) Q. .£ 

Q J3 p -O 3 «)

vJ co (0 co co OQ

1 

g

1 

c co 

Ills

c c co c 3

213 | §3 1 "5 o> .2 <o ;; .2 (0 .2 5 ^

 s c3<8§ 1^1^. i 1 M 

^Illlllllll HP

liJppyiHl Mil

CQCQJ2 Oa.c^t/)t/) t>) D CO CL 5

©©©© ©©©©© © ©©©

11

1

Z

0

EXPLANATI

1

2

S»2

V

tJAt

Subbasins sell

.S1OQv*

Marais desCygnes Rive

§1 A . £ft)

<U 5

33J 

(0 1C

|i| £

X £ a 1

t

jS co

m 5>

vt ~ g; 3 co cc

E !<-> S <3 J

ill i - i il 

!*s li ^J « *l

111 t! I| 1 I* §!L!!Jfi!jn i a|-iS » I* g J u S! * %-S cnSS-JCfl-Jioo-S .i2 3^52 Sax US S c£ $ S 5 c <£

©©© ©@ ©@© ©@®(

.§

§

Q) O

Walnut Creek

Wolf River

Neosho RiverBasin

g)®

.S

Upper Republican I

Creek Beaver 

S

Creek Prairie Dog 

Sappa Creek

Verdigris River Basi

©@®

Cherryreek Diamond Creek

©@

3 1 1

.S <§

m».

S

Cimarron Ri

~ u

ft^) 4

 S ^ "S c

J

u s i £ jj b> E ^3

IE E 1 ft 1

CO 2 ^ 3 3 U

§

"* *- ^ o *v c

O ^ CO

"sSco § ^|l|

ai> -S _v:«^fta5 

-SJSSD^ a co§-3.£-° B5§-_ 3 SjPs-cjr, ^^Sfc.i^ & c & J J J coco s Si == "S-^S_« l-^SsD£

so JgeSs^la^SSg ^i i j^iliillll "§0 »CQ-i5j2-|luK!co <-)(J'3 

w2 (3.SPJ2'3JS'aiSSti = =co

ou ifi cacacQCJQtSojSSa:

P)(3> \_j\zy (^(^(^(^(^(^(^(^(^(^(^ ^^\^\^\^\!zsv:y\zj>\zy\;i>\^>

.2

o

^

o

**-s

^

(0

1

Q.

^

CO _^

Republican R Soldier CreelStranger Cre

\fv\ftn\fto\

_j

c

*5\ c "^o

o 8

U E 

co o

5 E

"Jo g

> u

s 1

£ 1 ^ "O

CO >-? 

CO CO

Vermillion CWakarusa Ri\

fr^\fea\

.b:

y

C£

 o 

o

1

ji

Doyle Creek Labette Creek

Neosho Riverbetween Jc

__J /" !..i____ 

'©®©

CO ^

i '

O

t:

D 

E

^-

E<0 

CO

"o- ^:

3 Q)

CO ^ ^

Wakarusa Ri\White Rock(Wildcat Cree!

Elk City

Fall RiverLake i 

from Lake Toronto i

EC fc 

o 2 <°

^ "E ^ 

11 -S ?

01 2 * ^ 'c | fe 

fi Q UJ LJL O CL >

©@@®©®©

^

_J

iO

u -S

^ to _^ 2 . "S

aiiu v_iidHULe 

Neosho fiRiver upstream South Cottonwood River Smoky Hill-Saline Rivei

Creek Big 

Chapman Creek 

Bullfoot Elkhorn andCre<

(§)© @©@i

M |

^ 1

§ ^

</) J5 o.

< j

E $

J: CJ

^M 

J8 

j 

S H-^

ji> C

1 > 3 u CO 2 ^ -S

tf) (*Y* ^*

§ "w ^ IS "' ^ ^ ^ ^ s s 3 ' % §J g ^ CJ | ».

S o o ^ | < | 

©©©©©©

Walnut RiverBasin Little WalnutRiver

b 

!§

o

1=

Timber Creek

Walnut Riverupstrea 

Whitewater River

©©©©

Hackberry Creek 

Ladder Creek

Creek Lyon 

f^\/»\/m^ Un^\K^Un^

>i 0)

CO

U

E

«-fc

§

1

U

S

£

«

cn r*

'B £

Medicine LMule Creek North Fk1^

©@

"S

(C

o

8i

CO

^ Qu

c 55

J *

§§

Mulberry Creek 

frc SalineRiver upstream Smoky Hill betweei River

Kanopolis Lake

1®©©

j-

;^2

«

1

§

0

E

CO CO * " >

</! £

g -o -5

CJ J *

3

E 5 -S

i_

1

S

DC

i

1

g0

T

Smoky Hill Riverupstreai 

Spillman Creek

®@

c

EM

|

0

£

u

1

Sj~

1 "i

^ 2

C ^ '

2 g*

fl^l^i £ c (0 u. j= -a CO (0 -,, -H C 

CO TJ -U 5 0 «

©(§)© ®

0)

O 

Q.

0)

CO 

CO

C 

CO

\f

f~

flows overland i

CO 

CO 

(U

0

X

0)

c

0

"ro

-t_^

CO 

CO

c

CO

c

0

2

=

of combined inareas 

*w

O)

c

"5

.9

"c

o

o

c

0

c

T3

c

CO

O)

.Q

,H

c

0

o

19

C </)

SI °"1

in o

0) ° 

^ 3= 

3 0 O) C

il E

Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas 17
Si- s'

TJo

 33C D O6oCTC5' 

in

0 

T3

3; o'UD

a(/>o

513" -*

Upper Republican River Basin Solomon River 

Basin

Kansas-Lower 

Republican River Basin

«.,/ \

MissouriRiverBasin

SmokyHill-Saline

River

Basin 39

C(A3'

1C

H 0 s Cimarron River Basin

**affe.

Base map from U S Geo'u i 1 : ..,- ,, ..,;, u,nd i z.uu

Albers Conic Equal-Area projection,

Standard parallels 29°30 and 45°3D' r central meridian 96'

/

Lower Arkansas River Basin Walnut River Basin

Potential contributing area

I 1 Infiltration-excess overland flow only 

Saturation-excess overland flow only 

BH Infiltration- and saturation-excess

overland flows 

I Noncontributing area

EXPLANATION

Boundary of major river basin

i 

Verdigris River Basin

Subbasin boundaries from U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service {1997)

0 25 50 MILES 

I______________I ____________l

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

Subbasin boundary

@ Subbasin number
Potential Runoff-Contributing Areais 19
20 Estimation of Potential Runoff-Contributing Areas in Kansas Using Topographic and Soil Information
.j &~ §?|^§1

O E c/) c/) j) </>

/m\ /S\ /^\ /^\ /r»?\ /S\

lij 

Jli

©©©©© ® ©©© ©©© ©©©©©©© ®@©©

"8

u 

££

1^&-s-3?§|.s I 251^351^ ©©©©©©©©©

c

0)

o

CL

5

2 

o>

TJ

o

E

CO

I-a 

_co 

QJ 

o

CO CO 

Q)

o

X

Q)

c 

o

CO 

CO

 o

c

CO

£1 

O

combined

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

N>

m

VI

0>

-oo(Bc

O3!6oCTC5'

IQ

Upper Republican River Basin

0) T3

w o

O3

Solomon River 

Basin

Kansas-Lower 

Republican 

River Basin

96°

95°

MissouriRiverBasin

Smoky Hill-Saline 

River 

Basin 39

I' -Upper Arkansas , :. [? 

River Basin _ -1»-

Marais

desCygnesRiver

Basin

Base map from US. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,000,1994

Albers Conic Equal-Area projection,

Standard parallels 29°30 and 45°30', central meridian 96°

Potential contributing area[_I] Infiltration-excess overland flow only r'^'-l Saturation-excess overland flow only BH Infiltration- and saturation-excess

overland flows 

f I Noncontributing area

Lower Arkansas River Basin Walnut River Basin

EXPLANATION

 - Boundary of major river basin

Verdigris River Basin

Subbasin boundaries from U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service (1997)

50 KltOMETERS

®

Subbasin boundary 

Subbasin number
o

5'

(Q

Cimarron River Basin

© Cavalry Creek 

© Crooked Creek

Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin

® Big Blue River upstream from Turtle Creek Lake

© Black Vermillion River

© Buffalo Creek

© Clarks Creek

@ Delaware River upstream from Muscotah

© Fancy Creek

©Grasshopper Creek

® Little Blue River upstream from Barnes

© Mill Creek (Wabaunsee County)

@ Mill Creek (Washington County)

® Republican River between Concordia and Clay Center

@ Republican River upstream from Concordia

©Soldier Creek

© Stranger Creek

© Vermillion Creek (Pottawatomie County)

® Wakarusa River downstream from Clinton Lake

© Wakarusa River upstream from Clinton Lake

©White Rock Creek

©Wildcat Creek

Lower Arkansas River Basin

©Bluff Creek

©Cow Creek

@ Cowskin Creek

© Grouse Creek

© Little Arkansas River upstream from Alta Mills

@ Medicine Lodge River and Elm Creek upstream from

Medicine Lodge 

@ Mule Creek 

® North Fork Ninnescah River upstream from Cheney

Reservoir

® Sand and Emma Creeks 

© Sandy and Little Sandy Creeks 

® South Fork Ninnescah River from confluence with

North Fork Ninnescah River upstream to Kingman 

® Sun and Turkey Creeks

EXPLANATION (continued) 

Subbasins selected for analysis

Marais des Cygnes River Basin

@ Big Bull Creek upstream from Hillsdale Lake

© Dragoon Creek upstream from Pomona Lake

® Hundred and Ten Mile Creek upstream from Pomona

Lake

© Little Osage River 

® Marais des Cygnes River upstream from Melvern

Lake

® Marmaton River 

@ Pottawatomie Creek 

@ Salt Creek

Missouri River Basin

@ Blue River

® Indian and Tomahawk Creeks

@ South Fork Big Nemaha River

© Walnut Creek

® Wolf River

Neosho River Basin

® Cherry Creek

® Diamond Creek

® Doyle Creek

® Labette Creek

© Neosho River between John Redmond Reservoir

and Chanute

@ Neosho River upstream from Council Grove Lake 

© South Cottonwood River

Smoky Hill-Saline River Basin

® Big Creek

® Chapman Creek

® Elkhorn and Bullfoot Creeks

@ Hackberry Creek

® Ladder Creek

® Lyon Creek

® Mulberry Creek

@ Saline River upstream from Wilson Lake

® Smoky Hill River between Cedar Bluff Reservoir and

Kanopolis Lake

® Smoky Hill River upstream from Cedar Bluff Reservoir 

@ Spillman Creek

Solomon River B

® Beaver Creek

© Bow Creek

© Limestone Creek 

® North Fork Solom

and Waconda L

® Oak Creek 

® Pipe Creek 

© Salt Creek

@ Solomon River do

® South Fork Solom

and Waconda L

© South Fork Solom

Reservoir

Upper Arkansas 

© Buckner Creek 

® Pawnee River 

© Walnut Creek

Upper Republica

@ Beaver Creek 

@ Prairie Dog Creek 

® Sappa Creek

Verdigris River B

® Big Hill Creek

® Drum Creek

® Elk River upstream 

@ Fall River upstrea

© Onion Creek

® Pumpkin Creek

© Verdigris River up

Walnut River Ba

® Little Walnut Rive

® Timber Creek

® Walnut River ups

© Whitewater River

Figure 8. Potential contributing and noncontributing areas of combined infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flow

runoff conditions.
Upper Republican 

River Basin

m 

wo o-*. o o3°Lc o^6 o3ITC3 

ID

<D 

B> W

7; 0)

C (n3' 

(Q

"§

a>

T3

3a

S"

-1

fl)

40° 102'

Solomon River Basin

Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin

MissouriRiverBasin

Smoky Hill-Saline 

River 

Basin 39'

Neosho 

.. j River 

" j/_ Basin

Base map from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:2,000,OGO, 1994

Albers Conic Equal-Area projection.

Standard parallels 29°30 and 45°3G", central meridian 9 Lower Arkansas River Basin Walnut River Basin

EXPLANATION

Potential contributing area

I I Infiltration-excess overland flow only BIB Saturation-excess overland flow only ^H Infiltration- and saturation-excess

overland flows 

I I Noncontributing area

Boundary of major river basinSubbasin boundary 

@ Subbasin number

Verdigris River Basin

Subbasin boundaries from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (1997}

25 50 MILES

25 50 KILOMETERS
3 

ID

Cimarron River Basin

© Cavalry Creek 

©Crooked Creek

Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin

© Big Blue River upstream from Turtle Creek Lake

@ Black Vermillion River

© Buffalo Creek

© Clarks Creek

© Delaware River upstream from Muscotah

® Fancy Creek

® Grasshopper Creek

® Little Blue River upstream from Barnes

© Mill Creek (Wabaunsee County)

@ Mill Creek (Washington County)

@ Republican River between Concordia and Clay Center

@ Republican River upstream from Concordia

@ Soldier Creek

@ Stranger Creek

® Vermillion Creek (Pottawatomie County)

® Wakarusa River downstream from Clinton Lake

@ Wakarusa River upstream from Clinton Lake

@ White Rock Creek

©Wildcat Creek

Lower Arkansas River Basin

©Bluff Creek

©Cow Creek

@ Cowskin Creek

© Grouse Creek

® Little Arkansas River upstream from Alta Mills

@ Medicine Lodge River and Elm Creek upstream from

Medicine Lodge 

@ Mule Creek 

® North Fork Ninnescah River upstream from Cheney

Reservoir

® Sand and Emma Creeks 

© Sandy and Little Sandy Creeks 

© South Fork Ninnescah River from confluence with

North Fork Ninnescah River upstream to Kingman 

® Sun and Turkey Creeks

EXPLANATION (continued) 

Subbasins selected for analysis

Marais des Cygnes River Basin

® Big Bull Creek upstream from Hillsdale Lake

© Dragoon Creek upstream from Pomona Lake

© Hundred and Ten Mile Creek, upstream from Pomona

Lake

© Little Osage River 

® Marais des Cygnes River upstream from Melvern

Lake

® Marmaton River 

® Pottawatomie Creek 

© Salt Creek

Missouri River Basin

@ Blue River

@ Indian and Tomahawk Creeks

@ South Fork Big Nemaha River

@ Walnut Creek

® Wolf River

Neosho River Basin

@ Cherry Creek

® Diamond Creek

® Doyle Creek

® Labette Creek

© Neosho River between John Redmond Reservoir

and Chanute

© Neosho River upstream from Council Grove Lake 

® South Cottonwood River

Smoky Hill-Saline River Basin

® Big Creek

® Chapman Creek

© Elkhorn and Bullfoot Creeks

® Hackberry Creek

® Ladder Creek

® Lyon Creek

® Mulberry Creek

© Saline River upstream from Wilson Lake

© Smoky Hill River between Cedar Bluff Reservoir and

Kanopolis Lake

© Smoky Hill River upstream from Cedar Bluff Reservoir 

@ Spillman Creek

Solomon River B

© Beaver Creek

© Bow Creek

© Limestone Creek (

(68) North Fork Solom

and Waconda La

(69) Oak Creek

(TO) Pipe Creek

© Salt Creek

@ Solomon River dow

@ South Fork Solom

and Waconda La

@ South Fork Solom

Reservoir

Upper Arkansas R

© Buckner Creek 

© Pawnee River 

@ Walnut Creek

Upper Republican 

@ Beaver Creek 

© Prairie Dog Creek 

(5>) Sappa Creek

Verdigris River B

© Big Hill Creek

© Drum Creek

© Elk River upstream 

@ Fall River upstream 

© Onion Creek

® Pumpkin Creek

© Verdigris River ups

Walnut River Bas

(8) Little Walnut River

® Timber Creek

(5o) Walnut River upstr

@ Whitewater River

Figure 9. Potential contributing and noncontributing areas of combined infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flows 

potential-runoff conditions.
m </>

u 5'D

TJ 

O

3SL33C 3CTC

id

in a uiC u> 5'

ID

oin-T33; f)'

Q.

w o

0)

Upper Republican River Basin

,102°

Solomon River Basin

Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin

 "Ft, Missouri 

_4 River 

Basin

Smoky

Hill-SalineRiver

Basin 39° L,

Marais des

I Cygnes 

River 

Basin

NeoshoRiverBasin

Base map from U.S. Geological Suivey digital data, 1:2,000,000,1994

Albers Conic Equal-Area projection. Standard parallels 29°30 and 45°30', central meridian 96° Lower Arkansas River Basin 

EXPLANATION

Walnut River Basin

Potential contributing area Boundary of major river basin

f I Infiltration-excess overland flow only

Saturation-excess overland flow only Subbasin boundary Infiltration- and saturation-excess 

overland flows

Verdigris River Basin

Subbasin boundaries from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service {1997)

25 50 MILES

25 50 KILOMETERS

EZI Noncontributing area Subbasin number
3J

c

3 

O 

=8

6 

o

2

cr

c

5' 

to

Cirnarron River Basin

@ Cavalry Creek 

© Crooked Creek

Kansas-Lower Republican River Basin

© Big Blue River upstream from Turtle Creek Lake

© Black Vermillion River

© Buffalo Creek

© Clarks Creek

© Delaware River upstream from Muscotah

® Fancy Creek

® Grasshopper Creek

@ Little Blue River upstream from Barnes

© Mill Creek (Wabaunsee County)

@ Mill Creek (Washington County)

@ Republican River between Concordia and Clay Center

@ Republican River upstream from Concordia

©Soldier Creek

@ Stranger Creek

@ Vermillion Creek (Pottawatomie County)

@ Wakarusa River downstream from Clinton Lake

© Wakarusa River upstream from Clinton Lake

©White Rock Creek

© Wildcat Creek

Lower Arkansas River Basin

©Bluff Creek

©Cow Creek

@ Cowskin Creek

© Grouse Creek

© Little Arkansas River upstream from AJta Mills

@ Medicine Lodge River and Elm Creek upstream from

Medicine Lodge 

@ Mule Creek 

@ North Fork Ninnescah River upstream from Cheney

Reservoir

® Sand and Emma Creeks 

© Sandy and Little Sandy Creeks 

@ South Fork Ninnescah River from confluence with

North Fork Ninnescah River upstream to Kingman 

© Sun and Turkey Creeks

EXPLANATION (continued) 

Subbasins selected for analysis

Marais des Cygnes River Basin

@ Big Bull Creek upstream from Hillsdale Lake

© Dragoon Creek upstream from Pomona Lake

© Hundred and Ten Mile Creek upstream from Pomona

Lake

® Little Osage River 

® Marais des Cygnes River upstream from Melvern

Lake

® Marmaton River 

® Pottawatomie Creek 

@ Salt Creek

Missouri River Basin

@ Blue River

® Indian and Tomahawk Creeks

@ South Fork Big Nemaha River

© Walnut Creek

© Wolf River

Neosho River Basin

@ Cherry Creek

@ Diamond Creek

® Doyle Creek

® Labette Creek

© Neosho River between John Redmond Reservoir

and Chanute

© Neosho River upstream from Council Grove Lake 

© South Cottonwood River

Smoky Hill-Saline River Basin

@ Big Creek

© Chapman Creek

® Elkhorn and Bullfoot Creeks

© Hackberry Creek

® Ladder Creek

® Lyon Creek

® Mulberry Creek

© Saline River upstream from Wilson Lake

© Smoky Hill River between Cedar Bluff Reservoir and

Kanopolis Lake

© Smoky Hill River upstream from Cedar Bluff Reservoir 

(5) Spillman Creek

Solomon River B

© Beaver Creek

® Bow Creek

@ Limestone Creek (

® North Fork Solom

and Waconda La

® Oak Creek 

@ Pipe Creek 

© Salt Creek

© Solomon River dow

@ South Fork Solom

and Waconda La

® South Fork Solom

Reservoir

Upper Arkansas 

© Buckner Creek 

© Pawnee River 

© Walnut Creek

Upper Republican 

@ Beaver Creek 

© Prairie Dog Creek 

© Sappa Creek

Verdigris River B

© Big Hill Creek

® Drum Creek

© Elk River upstream 

® Fall River upstream 

® Onion Creek

© Pumpkin Creek

© Verdigris River ups

Walnut River Bas

® Little Walnut River

® Timber Creek

® Walnut River upstr

© Whitewater River

Figure 10. Potential contributing and noncontributing areas of combined infiltration- and saturation-excess overland flow

potential-runoff conditions.
10 subbasins), Upper Arkansas (2 of 3 subbasins), and 

Upper Republican (3 of 3 subbasins).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Digital topographic and soil information was used 

to estimate and compare potential runoff-contributing 

areas for 91 selected subbasins in Kansas. Potential 

contributing areas were estimated collectively for the 

processes of infiltration-excess and saturation-excess 

overland flow using a set of environmental conditions 

that represented very high, high, moderate, low, very 

low, and extremely low potential runoff. For infiltration-excess overland flow, various rainfall-intensity 

and soil-permeability values were used. For saturation-excess overland flow, antecedent soil-moisture 

conditions and a topographic wetness index were used.

Results indicated that nearly all subbasins had 

large percentages of potential runoff-contributing area 

for the low to very high potential-runoff conditions. 

Thus, the ability to distinguish subbasins as having relatively high or low potential runoff for those conditions was very limited. The best statewide ability to 

distinguish subbasins as having relatively high or low 

potential runoff was provided by the very low potential-runoff conditions. Within the major river basins, 

the ability to distinguish subbasins as having relatively 

high or low potential runoff varied. For the Smoky 

Hill-Saline and Upper Arkansas River Basins, the very 

low potential-runoff conditions provided the best ability to distinguish subbasins. For the Kansas-Lower 

Republican, Missouri, Neosho, and Verdigris River 

Basins, good ability to distinguish subbasins was provided by both the very low and extremely low potential-runoff conditions. For the Lower Arkansas and 

Solomon River Basins, the best ability to distinguish 

subbasins was provided by the low and very low 

potential-runoff conditions. The extremely low potential-runoff conditions provided the best ability to distinguish subbasins for the Marais des Cygnes and 

Walnut River Basins. In the Cimarron River Basin, 

good ability to distinguish subbasins was provided by 

the high, moderate, low, and very low potential-runoff 

conditions.

The major river basins having relatively high 

potential runoff were the Kansas-Lower Republican, 

Marais des Cygnes, Missouri, Neosho, Verdigris, and 

Walnut. These basins are located in eastern Kansas 

where soil permeability generally is less and precipitation typically is greater. The major river basins having

relatively low potential runoff were the Cimarron, 

Lower Arkansas, Smoky Hill-Saline, Solomon, Upper 

Arkansas, and Upper Republican. These basins are 

located in western Kansas where soil permeability 

generally is higher and precipitation typically is less.

The ability to distinguish the subbasins as having 

relatively high or low potential runoff was possible 

mostly due to the variability of soil permeability 

across the State. Due to this variability, the subbasins 

had a wide range of potential contributing areas for 

infiltration-excess overland flow, particularly for very 

low potential-runoff conditions. In contrast, the topographic wetness index had a relatively uniform distribution across the State. Thus, the subbasins had a 

narrow range of potential contributing areas for saturation-excess overland flow. The results presented in 

Juracek (1999) provide an example of the relative 

importance of the two overland flow processes for estimating and comparing potential contributing areas 

within a basin.

Under low potential-runoff conditions characterized by low antecedent soil-moisture content and low 

rainfall intensity, potentially contributing areas for 

infiltration-excess and saturation-excess overland 

flows are limited to areas of lower soil permeability 

and saturated areas adjacent to rivers and streams, 

respectively (fig. 10). As antecedent soil-moisture content and rainfall intensity increase, the potential contributing areas for both infiltration-excess and 

saturation-excess overland flow processes increase. 

Under high potential-runoff conditions characterized 

by high antecedent soil-moisture content and high 

rainfall intensity, the distinction between infiltrationexcess and saturation-excess overland flow becomes 

less meaningful as the ground becomes increasingly 

saturated and the potential contributing areas for both 

runoff processes coalesce (fig. 5).

This study had some limitations. First, the digital 

data sets used were only suitable for use in a comparison of areas hundreds of square miles in size. Thus, 

the analysis emphasized a comparison of potential 

runoff-contributing areas between, rather than within, 

individual subbasins. Improved results will be possible 

with more spatially detailed digital topographic and 

soil data sets. Such data sets are currently (1999) being 

developed and will include the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture's l:24,000-scale soil survey geographic 

data base (SSURGO) and the USGS 30-m-resolution 

DEM. When available, these data sets will enable a 

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 

areas within individual subbasins will be possible. As 

a result, the spatial extent and pattern of potential contributing areas for infiltration- and saturation-excess 

overland flows will provide guidance for the implementation of BMP's within individual subbasins.

In addition, the estimation of potential runoff-contributing areas was limited in this study in that only 

topographic and soil characteristics were considered. 

The incorporation of additional factors such as land 

use and climatic variability may improve the results. 

For example, an overlay analysis to determine the 

location of cropland with respect to potential contributing areas may identify the most likely source areas 

of certain nonpoint-source pollutants within a subbasin. Such information may provide additional guidance for the targeting of BMP's.

REFERENCES

Dunne, Thomas, Moore, T.R., and Taylor, C.H., 1975, Recognition and prediction of runoff-producing zones in 

humid regions: Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, v. 20, 

p. 305-327.

Hornberger, G.M., Raffensperger, J.P., Wiberg, P.L., and 

Eshleman, K.N., 1998, Elements of physical hydrology: Baltimore, MD, The Johns Hopkins University 

Press, 302 p.

Jenson, S.K., and Domingue, J.D., 1988, Extracting topographic structure from digital elevation data for 

geographic information system analysis: Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 54, 

p. 1593-1600.

Juracek, K.E., 1999, Estimation of potential runoffcontributing areas in the Kansas-Lower Republican 

River Basin, Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 99-4089, 24 p.

Kansas Applied Remote Sensing Program, 1993, Kansas 

land cover data base, 1:100,000 scale: Kansas Data 

Access and Support Center data available on the World

Wide Web, accessed December 9, 1998, at URL 

http://ksgis.kgs.ukans.edu/kanview/kanview.html

Moody, D.W., Chase, E.B., and Aronson, D.A., compilers, 

1986, National water summary 1985 hydrologic 

events and surface-water resources: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2300, 506 p.

Paulson, R.W., Chase, E.B., Roberts, R.S., and Moody, 

D.W., compilers, 1991, National water summary 

1988-89 hydrologic events and floods and droughts: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2375, 

591 p.

Soil Survey Staff, 1997, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI: 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 

December 1997, available on the World Wide Web, 

accessed November 20, 1998, at URL 

http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/nssh/

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1993, State soils geographic data base (STATSGO) users guide: Soil Conservation Service Miscellaneous Publication 1492, 

88 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1997, 11- and 14-digit hydrologic unit 

boundaries for Kansas, 1:24,000 scale: Kansas Data 

Access and Support Center data available on the World 

Wide Web, accessed August 11, 1998, at URL 

http://ksgis.kgs.ukans.edu/dasc.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991, Guidance of 

water quality-based decisions the TMDL process: 

Washington, D.C., Office of Water, EPA440/4-91-001, 

59 p.

Verdin, K.L., and Greenlee, S.K., 1996, Development of 

continental scale digital elevation models and extraction of hydrographic features, in Proceedings, Third 

International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS 

and Environmental Modeling, Sante Fe, New Mexico, 

January 21-26, 1996: Santa Barbara, CA, National 

Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, 

available on compact disk.

Wolock, D.M., and McCabe, G.J., 1995, Comparison of single and multiple flow-direction algorithms for computing topographic parameters in TOPMODEL: Water 

Resources Research, v. 31,- p. 1315-1324.

References 29
I

i.

B) I

frI

ffn

01

C/9

Printed on recycled paper