CEM-NRCS
commented
4 years ago - Attribute results from this tool in the past are inconsistent with the similar table results from the Calculate Runoff Curve Number tool in the Watershed Delineation toolset. For example, the subbasin is missing in the RCN detail table.
This tool needs to mine soil data directly from Soil Data Access to ensure the most current soils data is always used. The soil layer would automatically have the Hydrologic Group and MUNAME attributes automatically appended. This should be considered a future update.
The tool needs to directly mine NLCD data from a WFS to ensure the most current year is being used. This should be considered a future update.
Should there be an option on the tool interface to choose between the drained condition (first hydrologic group value) or undrained condition (second Hydrologic group value)? This would avoid users entering into an edit session to choose a value from dual hyrdrologic group values (A/B) after the Prepare Soils and Landuse tool has been executed. The soils portion of the 'prepare soils and landuse' tool could also be removed.
The tool assumed MUNAME was present when checking for mapunit names that contain Pits, Water or Urban to update their HYDGRP values. Should the tool check for other mapunit name attributes i.e. Udorthents to reassign their HYDGRP values? i.e Urban = D; Pit = P
Currently this tool will only take in 1 watershed as opposed to multiple watersheds in the 'Calculate Curve Number' tool. This tool was intended for use on watersheds greater than 1,000 acres or 10-digit or smaller watershed. Should this tool allow for more than 1 watershed to have their RCN values computed?
Given the suggestions above, should the 'Calculate Curve Number' and 'Calculate Curve Number from NLCD' be combined into 1 tool with interface options to distinguish the functionality?