| Abstract: | Abstract: The hydrological simulation program – FORTRAN (HSPF) is a comprehensive watershed model that employs depth‐area‐volume‐flow relationships known as the hydraulic function table (FTABLE) to represent the hydraulic characteristics of stream channel cross‐sections and reservoirs. An accurate FTABLE determination for a stream cross‐section site requires an accurate determination of mean flow depth, mean flow width, roughness coefficient, longitudinal bed slope, and length of stream reach. A method that uses regional regression equations to estimate mean flow depth, mean flow width, and roughness coefficient is presented herein. FTABLES generated by the proposed method (Alternative Method) and FTABLES generated by Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) were compared. As a result, the Alternative Method was judged to be an enhancement over the BASINS method. First, the Alternative Method employs a spatially variable roughness coefficient, whereas BASINS employs an arbitrarily selected spatially uniform roughness coefficient. Second, the Alternative Method uses mean flow width and mean flow depth estimated from regional regression equations whereas BASINS uses mean flow width and depth extracted from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Third, the Alternative Method offers an option to use separate roughness coefficients for the in‐channel and floodplain sections of compound channels. Fourth, the Alternative Method has higher resolution in the sense that area, volume, and flow data are calculated at smaller depth intervals than the BASINS method. To test whether the Alternative Method enhances channel hydraulic representation over the BASINS method, comparisons of observed and simulated streamflow, flow velocity, and suspended sediment were made for four test watersheds. These comparisons revealed that the method used to estimate the FTABLE has little influence on hydrologic calibration, but greatly influences hydraulic and suspended sediment calibration. The hydrologic calibration results showed that observed versus simulated daily streamflow comparisons had Nash‐Sutcliffe efficiencies ranging from 0.50 to 0.61 and monthly comparisons had efficiencies ranging from 0.61 to 0.84. Comparisons of observed and simulated suspended sediments concentrations had model efficiencies ranging from 0.48 to 0.56 for the daily, and 0.28 to 0.70 for the monthly comparisons. The overall results of the hydrological, hydraulic, and suspended sediment concentration comparisons show that the Alternative Method yielded a relatively more accurate FTABLE than the BASINS method. This study concludes that hydraulic calibration enhances suspended sediment simulation performance, but even greater improvement in suspended sediment calibration can be achieved when hydrological simulation performance is improved. Any improvements in hydrological simulation performance are subject to improvements in the temporal and spatial representation of the precipitation data. |
