HEC-HMS for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study

Transcription

1 US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center HEC-HMS for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study Appendix D August 2001 Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited. PR-46a

2 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate ( ). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE August 2001 Project Report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE HEC-HMS Models for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. GRANT NUMBER Appendix D 6. AUTHOR(S) Chris Dunn, Marilyn Hurst, Harry Dotson, Matt McPherson, James Doan, Tom Evans 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) US Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) 609 Second Street Davis, CA SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) US Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5F. WORK UNIT NUMBER 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER PR-46a 10. SPONSOR/ MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/ MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) 14. ABSTRACT The Sacramento District was directed by the U.S. House of Representatives to develop comprehensive flood control plans and develop hydrologic and hydraulic models of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers after flooding that occurred during the 1980s and 1990s. The Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) helped to develop of the hydrologic models. HEC used the Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) software and introduced the HEC-GeoHMS software to perform the hydrologic study. HEC developed and calibrated 33 individual HEC-HMS models for the major tributaries and portions of the valley floors of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin/Tulare Lake Bed Basins. The snowmelt portion of the study was performed by the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL). CRREL used their Distributed Snow Process Model (DSPM) to create a gridded snowmelt/precipitation for the study. Appendix D is a separate document (PR-46a) and contains the calibrated HEC-HMS models for thirty-three basins. 15. SUBJECT TERMS HEC-HMS, calibration, basins, Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, Tulare Lake Bed, HEC-GeoHMS, DEM, subbasin, rivers, reservoirs, lakes, drainage area, events, 1995, 1997, modeling, gages, Clark, Muskingum, junction, flow lengths, slopes, basin shape factors 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE OF OF ABSTRACT PAGES U U U 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER UU 404 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18

3 HEC-HMS Models for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study Appendix D HEC-HMS Models (Calibration Results for Thirty-Three Basins) August 2001 Prepared for: US Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA Prepared by: US Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources Hydrologic Engineering Center 609 Second Street Davis, CA (530) (530) FAX PR-46a

4

5 Appendix D HEC-HMS Models (Calibration Results for 33 Basins) Table of Contents Description Page Overview of Appendix D: Detailed HEC-HMS Model Descriptions and Results...D-1 Nineteen (19) Study Basins in the Sacramento Watershed: Upper Sacramento River...D-3 Clear Creek...D-21 Cottonwood Creek...D-29 Red Bank Creek...D-39 Elder Creek...D-45 Thomes Creek...D-53 Stony Creek...D-61 Cache Creek...D-69 Putah Creek...D-81 Cow Creek...D-89 Battle Creek...D-97 Middle Sacramento River (Valley)...D-105 Big Chico Creek...D-121 Butte Creek...D-129 Cherokee Canal...D-137 Feather River...D-145 Yuba River...D-165 Bear River...D-181 American River...D-193 Ten (10) Study Basins in the San Joaquin Watershed: Upper San Joaquin River...D-213 Fresno River...D-233 Chowchilla River...D-243 Merced River...D-251 Tuolumne River...D-263 Stanislaus River...D-283 Calaveras River...D-305 Mokelumne River...D-313 Dry Creek at Galt...D-331 Cosumnes River...D-339 D-i

6 Description Page Four (4) Study Basins in the Tulare Lake Bed Watershed: Kern River...D-351 Tule River...D-365 Kaweah River...D-377 Kings River...D-387 D-ii

7 Overview of Appendix D: Detailed HEC-HMS Model Descriptions and Results This appendix provides the details for each of the HEC-HMS basin models developed for the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake Bed Basins. Model descriptions, figures, and results are given. The details and description of each basin model are provided in the following order: 1. A figure depicting each of the basins. The figure was captured from the HEC- GeoHMS results. Each figure includes the underlying DEM, basin and subbasin delineations as developed using HEC-GeoHMS, rivers, and significant reservoirs or lakes. The basin and subbasin delineations and subsequent subbasin and reach connectivity were then imported into HEC-HMS. 2. A written description for each basin model. The description includes a summary of the modeling decisions. It provides the drainage area and the number of subbasins and reaches for each basin. A brief comparison of the 1995 and 1997 events is made. The gages and the Clark TC and R values used for the modeling and calibration are provided. The description also indicates whether generic or basin specific criteria were used to compute the Muskingum K and X values. If HMS Sources and Sinks are used in the model, their purposes are described. Finally, a discussion of the 1995 and 1997 event calibrations is provided. 3. The HEC-HMS basin schematic displaying the subbasin, reach, and junction names. 4. Subbasin parameters are given in spreadsheet form. Drainage areas, flow lengths, slopes, the computed basin shape factors, and calculated TC and R values are given. The physical characteristics were developed in HEC-GeoHMS. 5. Reach parameters are given in spreadsheet form. Reach lengths, slopes, cumulative drainage areas, and calculated river reach parameters are provided. Estimates of the physical characteristics were calculated in GeoHMS. If the lag routing method was used instead of the Muskingum method, it is noted in the table and the lag time is given. The table also indicates whether generic routing criteria was used or if a river specific equation was used to compute the hydraulic radius for that reach. If a specific equation was used, the Manning's n value and channel velocity are also given. 6. For the 1995 and 1997 events, the following information is provided: A. HEC-HMS Summary of Results Table. This table provides the computed peak discharge, time of peak, volume, and cumulative drainage area to each subbasin, reach and junction. The event modeling time window is also given. B. A comparison plot of the observed and computed hydrographs at all calibration points. If a calibration point was not used for a given basin, the computed D-1

8 hydrograph at the basin outlet is displayed. The figures start with the most downstream calibration point and proceed upstream. At times, two computed hydrographs overlap, and therefore only one of the two hydrographs is displayed in the hydrograph comparison plots. C. A table which provides the baseflow and loss parameters for each of the subbasins that were used to calibrate the models. D-2

9 Upper Sacramento River Basin Sacramento River Mt. Shasta McCloud River Big Sage Reservoir Pit River Lake Shasta Hat Creek HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-3

10 Upper Sacramento River The Upper Sacramento River HMS Model consists of a 6,400 square mile basin above Shasta Dam, located in the northern-most portion of the Sacramento Watershed. The basin is divided into 27 subbasins and connected with 17 routing reaches. Diverse hydrologic features exist in the subbasins. Several existing studies (20-40 years old) were available for Hat Creek, Burney Creek, and North Fork Pit River at Alturas, but they were not used extensively. The HEC-HMS models produced computed peak inflows into Lake Shasta of 188,939 cfs for the 1997 event and 114,358 cfs for the 1995 event. The subbasins in the Upper Sacramento River, McCloud River, Burney Creek, and Ash Creek followed the suggested parameter methodology for estimating TC and R. The Pit River, Hat Creek, and Fall River subbasins followed the guidelines also, but with one significant modification. Calibration along the Pit River using the generalized values proved impossible. The volcanic soils and frequent small lakes delayed the runoff for days. Several hourly gages are located on the mainstem of the Pit River. Therefore, the incremental contributions and timing could be identified, but the majority of the Pit River flow arrived much too late to substantially influence the peak inflow into the lake. Reasonable calibration of the 1997 event resulted from multiplying the TC values determined from the generalized procedure by a factor of 8. The value of R was set equal to 1.5TC. The peaks of the inflow hydrograph at Shasta were driven by the Upper Sacramento and McCloud Rivers. Neither river exhibited the very slow, percolating drainage characteristics of the Pit River. Both are well-gaged basins, with historical flows measured at their confluence with Shasta. Unfortunately, several inconsistencies between the LWASS data and the observed hydrographs made calibration difficult (as described in the main report in Section 5.2.4, Distributed Snow Process Model Operation, and in Section 6.6.1, Losses ). Therefore, HMS source elements were implemented for the Pit River, McCloud River, and Sacramento River to replace the inadequate computed runoff from the upstream basins. For the 1997 event, initial baseflow values ranged between 0.7 and 5 cfs per square mile. Initial losses for the 1997 event were generally 1.5 inches, except for the Sacramento River and lower McCloud River, which were set to lower values. Constant loss rates were generally set to 0.05 inches/hour, except for the lava bed subbasins (0.25 inches/hour) and the Sacramento River and lower McCloud subbasins (0.001 inches/hour). All recession constants were set to 0.8, with 0.2 for the ratio-to-peak. The 1995 event parameters were not modified from those in the detailed model for the 1997 event. The same tendencies arose: good calibration for the upper Sacramento River; mixed results on the McCloud and Pit Rivers; and, a huge volume of runoff required in the Shasta local drainage area (however, setting the loss rates to very low values for the Shasta local drainage area provided for a good fit with the observed hydrograph). D-4

11 Specific modeling efforts for the 1997 and 1995 events are described in the following paragraphs: US3R Tule Lake: No reservoir information was found, but the behavior of the gage at Likely indicates no water was released during the 1997 event. Parameters were developed to store almost all of the water. US5R West Valley Reservoir: No reservoir information was found, but the behavior of the gage at Likely indicates no water was released during the 1997 event. A storage-outflow relationship was developed to generate flows that resembled those at the gage at Likely. US11R Big Sage Reservoir: No reservoir information was found. Assumed no water was released during the 1997 event because the other headwaters reservoirs had similar behavior. A storage-outflow relationship was developed to release a minimal flow. US17 Pit River at Canby (and all subbasins upstream): This subbasin represents the first calibration point on the Pit River. The areas upstream are volcanic with numerous hot springs. The river drops between a series of wide, flat valleys at feet elevation, where it meanders in multiple shallow braids. The observed hydrograph for the 1997 event showed a highly attenuated peak arriving almost exactly three days after the rain ended. The generic loss rates (initial loss of 1.5 inches and constant loss ratesof 0.05 inches/hour) and baseflow parameters effectively modeled the response. Good calibration was achieved by multiplying Group 2 TC values for subbasins upstream of Canby by 8, and setting R equal to 1.5TC. As a recommendation, an excellent fit of the observed hydrograph could probably have been achieved by dividing the 740 square miles along the Pit River into more than two subbasins, and/or by revising the routing and recession parameters. US18 Ash Creek above Adin: This hourly gage shows a much faster response than in other parts of the basin. It is suspected that the LWASS hyetograph for the 1997 prevented an exact calibration, but an adequate fit was achieved using reasonable loss parameters with TC computed according to the Group 2 equation and R set equal to 4.0TC. The initial baseflow was set to 2 cfs per square mile. US20 Ash Creek between Adin and Confluence with the Pit River: The same parameters as US18 were used. US17-US23 Pit River above Ash Creek and US23-US25 Pit River above Bieber: The observed hydrographs at US17 (Canby) and US25 (Pit River at Muck Valley Diversion) had a substantial lag between them. The timing issues were resolved by: disconnecting the river at Canby (using the records from the observed gage as a source); reducing the runoff from the subbasins between US17 and US25 by using very high loss rates; and, adjusting water velocity in the spreadsheet until the routing parameters matched the peaks. A flow velocity of 1 foot per second provided a good fit between the observed hydrograph at D-5

12 Bieber and the observed hydrograph routed from Canby. The river was reconnected and the source at Canby was removed. US22 Pit River above Ash Creek and US24 Pit River at Muck Valley Diversion: After determining the routing parameters, the Pit River basin parameters were set between Canby and Bieber using the generic losses and multiplier of 8 for the TC values. US25-US29 Pit River above Fall River and US29-US31 Pit River above No 1 Powerplant: The observed hydrographs at US25 (Bieber) and US31 (Pit River at No 1 Powerplant) have substantial lag between them. The timing issues were resolved by: disconnecting the river at Bieber (using the gage as a source); reducing the runoff from the subbasins between US25 and US31 by using very high loss rates; and, adjusting water velocity in the spreadsheet until the routing parameters matched the peaks. A flow velocity of 1.5 feet per second provided a good fit between the observed hydrograph at Powerplant No 1 and the observed hydrograph routed from Bieber. The river was reconnected and the source at Bieber was removed. US26 Fall River, US28 Pit River above Fall River, US30 Hat Creek, and US32 Pit River above Hat Creek (above Powerhouse No 1): After determining routing parameters as previously described, parameters for these areas were set using the multiplier of 8 for the TC value. Most of this area is lava beds so high constant loss rates of 0.25 inches/hour were chosen. US34 Burney Creek above Burney and US36 Burney Creek above Confluence with Pit River: The hourly gage showed a much faster response than in other parts of the basin. An adequate fit was achieved by using reasonable loss parameters with the TC computed according to the Group 2 equation and R set equal to 4.0TC. US38 Pit River above Confluence with Burney Creek (Lake Britton) and US40 Pit River above Big Bend: The runoff was no longer dominated by the lava beds, but the soils were still volcanic. Parameters were set for these subbasins using a multiplier of 8 for the TC, and the generic losses were used. Initial storage for Lake Britton was roughly estimated, but the reservoir had insufficient capacity to significantly influence the hydrograph. The model calibrated decently at US41 (Big Bend). US42 Pit River above Dam No 6 and US44 Pit River above Dam No 7 (Montgomery Creek): Parameters for these subbasins were set using a multiplier of 8 for the TC, and the generic losses were used. Initial storage for reservoirs at dams 6 and 7 were roughly estimated, but the reservoirs had insufficient capacity to significantly influence the hydrograph. The model calibrated well at US45 (Dam No 7), except that the observed hydrograph showed about 10,000 cfs of initial baseflow appearing somewhere between US41 and US45. Most of the 10,000 cfs was likely due to diversions from the McCloud River and upper Pit River returning to the basin. D-6

13 US46 McCloud River at McCloud: Parameters were set according to regression results (Group 2, with R = 4.0TC), but the LWASS data were not consistent with the timing of the observed flows. The closest fit to the observed data was found using losses of 1.5 inches of initial loss and 0.25 inches/hour of constant loss. This subbasin is adjacent to the lava-dominated Fall River basin. Available maps didn t show any lava beds in these headwaters, but the volume greatly exceeded the observed hydrograph; therefore, high loss values were used. Initial baseflow was set to 3 cfs per square mile. Reach US47-US49 McCloud River above Ah-Di-Na and Reservoir US47R Lake McCloud: The routing for this reach was converted from Muskingum (1.0/0.4/1) to the lag method (10 minutes) because most of reach is covered by Lake McCloud. Storage in this lake is insufficient to noticeably attenuate the 1997 event, so a node representing a simple junction (instead of a reservoir) was used. An elevation-storage-outflow curve (that delayed the flow routed from US46) was used. As a result, the modeled peak reservoir outflow occurred at approximately the same time as the observed. Losses of 1.5 inches and 0.05 inches/hour were used for the initial and constant losses, respectively, and the initial baseflow was set to 5 cfs per square mile. US50 McCloud above Shasta: This subbasin required a reduction of the initial loss to 0.5 inches and a minimization of the constant loss rate to inches/hour. The initial baseflow was set to 5 cfs per square mile. US52 Sacramento River at Delta (confluence with Shasta): A good calibration was achieved by using the suggested Group 1 TC, with R set equal to 4.0TC. For this subbasin, minimal losses were used. The initial baseflow was set to 5 cfs per square mile. US54 Shasta Lake Local Drainage: Not enough water was available in the LWASS hyetograph to match the observed inflows. The timing appeared good, using suggested Group 1 TC, with R set equal to 4.0TC. Each of the tributaries to Shasta has observed flows available. The observed flows for the Pit River, McCloud River and Sacramento River were implemented as HMS source elements and a downstream sink element was established as a summation point. Even when these sources were combined, their flows were initially 20,000 cfs below the observed Shasta inflow at the beginning of the event and about 100,000 cfs at the peak. Therefore, to compensate for this difference in observed peaks and volumes, the losses for the local drainage area were reduced to nearly zero and the baseflows were set to 30 cfs per square mile to match the Shasta inflows. The same behavior occurred for the 1995 event. D-7

14 Upper Sacramento River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic D-8

15 Upper Sacramento River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Final TC Final R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC 1.67(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) US2 TuleLk/CedarCr US4 SFkPitR AbLikely US6 NFkPitR AtAltura US8 SFkPitR AbCf US10 Big Sage US12 Rattlesnake Cr US14 PitR AtRatlSnak US16 PitR AbCanby US18 Ash Cr AbAdin US20 Ash Cr AbCf US22 PitR AtAshCr US24 Pit R At MuckDv US26 Fall R US28 PitR AtFallR US30 Hat Cr US32 PitR NrPH US34 Burney Cr Ab Bu US36 Burney Cr AbCf US38 PitR AtBurneyCr US40 PitR At BigBend US42 PitR Ab No6Dam US44 PitR AtMontgmCr US46 McCloudR AtMCld US48 McCloudR Ab AhD US50 McCloudR AbShas US52 SacR AtDelta US54 SacR AtShasta Upper Sacramento River Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 SR 1.47 LR / 1.5VR or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) SR (ft/ft) VR (fps) K (Hr) 60 US49-US51 McClabSha US43-US45 PR ab Shas US3-US5 SFPR ablikly US15-US17 PR abcanb US35-US39 Burney Cr US33-US39 PR ab Burn US47-US49 McCldabAHD US23-US25 PR atbiebr US39-US41 PR abbigbn US41-US43 PR ab No US11-US15 RtlsnkCr US9-US15 Pit abrtlsn US5-US US17-US23 PR abashcr US19-US21 Ash Cr US25-US US29-31 PR ab No 1 PP D-9

16 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Upper Sacramento River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : UpSac Run Name : March 1995 Event Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : UpSac95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : 1995 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : 1995 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) Sacramento Gaged Inf Mar McCloud Gaged Inflow Mar Pit Gaged Inflow Mar Gaged Shasta Inflow Mar US52 SacR AtDelta Mar US53 Sac R at Delta Mar US46 McCloudR AtMCld Mar US47 McCldR at McCld Mar US47-US49 McCldabAHD Mar US48 McCloudR Ab AhD Mar US49R Lake McCloud Mar US49 McCld at AhDiNa Mar US49-US51 McCldabSha Mar US50 McCloudR AbShas Mar US51 McCloud abshast Mar US34 Burney Cr Ab Bu Mar US35 Burney Cr at Bu Mar US35-US39 Burney Cr Mar US18 Ash Cr AbAdin Mar US19 Ash Cr at Adin Mar US19-US21 Ash Cr Mar US10 Big Sage Mar US11R Big Sage Res Mar US11-US15 RtlsnkCr Mar US2 TuleLk/CedarCr Mar US3R Tule Lake Mar US3-US5 SFPR ablikly Mar US4 SFkPitR AbLikely Mar US5R West Valley Res Mar US5 SF PR at Likely Mar US5-US Mar US8 SFkPitR AbCf Mar US6 NFkPitR AtAltura Mar Continued... D-10

17 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Upper Sacramento River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : UpSac Run Name : March 1995 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) US9 Cf SF & NF Pit R Mar US9-US15 Pit abrtlsn Mar US14 PitR AtRatlSnak Mar US12 Rattlesnake Cr Mar US15 PR at Ratlsnk Mar US15-US17 PR abcanb Mar US16 PitR AbCanby Mar US17 Pit R at Canby Mar US17-US23 PR abashcr Mar US22 PitR AtAshCr Mar US20 Ash Cr AbCf Mar US23 Pit R at Ash Cr Mar US23-US25 PR abbiebr Mar US24 Pit R At MuckDv Mar US25 Pit at Muck Mar US25-US Mar US26 Fall R Mar US28 PitR AtFallR Mar US29 Pit R at Fall R Mar US29-31 PR abno 1 PP Mar US32 PitR NrPH Mar US31 Pit bl No 1 PP Mar US30 Hat Cr Mar US33 Pit R at Hat Cr Mar US33-US39 PR ab Burn Mar US36 Burney Cr AbCf Mar US38 PitR AtBurneyCr Mar US39R Lake Britton Mar US39-US41 PR abbigbn Mar US40 PitR At BigBend Mar US41 Pit at Big Bend Mar US41-US43 PR ab No Mar US42 PitR Ab No6Dam Mar US43R Pit No Mar US43 Pit No Mar US43-US45 PR ab Shas Mar US44 PitR AtMontgmCr Mar US45R Pit No Mar US45 Pit at MontgomC Mar US54 SacR AtShasta Mar US55 Lake Shasta Mar US55R Shasta Lake Mar Sink Mar D-11

18 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Upper Sacramento River Basin March 1995 Event US55 Lake Shasta US53 Sacramento River at Delta D-12

19 US51 McCloud RiverAbove Shasta US45 Pit River at Montgomery Creek D-13

20 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Upper Sacramento River Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) US12 Rattlesnake Cr US14 PitR AtRatlSnak US16 PitR AbCanby US26 Fall R US22 PitR AtAshCr US46 McCloudR AtMCld US4 SFkPitR AbLikely US28 PitR AtFallR US50 McCloudR AbShas US20 Ash Cr AbCf US54 SacR AtShasta US32 PitR NrPH US30 Hat Cr US44 PitR AtMontgmCr US52 SacR AtDelta US10 Big Sage US38 PitR AtBurneyCr US36 Burney Cr AbCf US6 NFkPitR AtAltura US8 SFkPitR AbCf US18 Ash Cr AbAdin US48 McCloudR Ab AhD US2 TuleLk/Cedar Cr US24 Pit R At MuckDv US34 Burney Cr Ab Bu US40 PitR At BigBend US42 PitR Ab No6Dam D-14

21 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Upper Sacramento River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : UpSac Run Name : Jan 1997 Event Start of Run : 28Dec Basin Model : UpSac97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : 1997 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : 1997 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) Sacramento Gaged Inf Jan McCloud Gaged Inflow Jan Pit Gaged Inflow Jan Gaged Shasta Inflow Jan US52 SacR AtDelta Jan US53 Sac R at Delta Jan US46 McCloudR AtMCld Dec US47 McCldR at McCld Dec US47-US49 McCldabAHD Dec US48 McCloudR Ab AhD Dec US49R Lake McCloud Jan US49 McCld at AhDiNa Jan US49-US51 McCldabSha Jan US50 McCloudR AbShas Jan US51 McCloud abshast Jan US34 Burney Cr Ab Bu Dec US35 Burney Cr at Bu Dec US35-US39 Burney Cr Dec US18 Ash Cr AbAdin Dec US19 Ash Cr at Adin Dec US19-US21 Ash Cr Dec US10 Big Sage Jan US11R Big Sage Res Jan US11-US15 RtlsnkCr Jan US2 TuleLk/CedarCr Jan US3R Tule Lake Jan US3-US5 SFPR ablikly Jan US4 SFkPitR AbLikely Jan US5R West Valley Res Jan US5 SF PR at Likely Jan US5-US Jan US8 SFkPitR AbCf Jan US6 NFkPitR AtAltura Jan Continued... D-15

22 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Upper Sacramento River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : UpSac Run Name : Jan 1997 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) US9 Cf SF & NF Pit R Jan US9-US15 Pit abrtlsn Jan US14 PitR AtRatlSnak Jan US12 Rattlesnake Cr Jan US15 PR at Ratlsnk Jan US15-US17 PR abcanb Jan US16 PitR AbCanby Jan US17 Pit R at Canby Jan US17-US23 PR abashcr Jan US22 PitR AtAshCr Jan US20 Ash Cr AbCf Dec US23 Pit R at Ash Cr Jan US23-US25 PR abbiebr Jan US24 Pit R At MuckDv Dec US25 Pit at Muck Jan US25-US Jan US26 Fall R Jan US28 PitR AtFallR Dec US29 Pit R at Fall R Jan US29-31 PR abno 1 PP Jan US32 PitR NrPH Dec US31 Pit bl No 1 PP Jan US30 Hat Cr Jan US33 Pit R at Hat Cr Jan US33-US39 PR ab Burn Jan US36 Burney Cr AbCf Dec US38 PitR AtBurneyCr Jan US39R Lake Britton Jan US39-US41 PR abbigbn Jan US40 PitR At BigBend Jan US41 Pit at Big Bend Jan US41-US43 PR ab No Jan US42 PitR Ab No6Dam Jan US43R Pit No Jan US43 Pit No Jan US43-US45 PR ab Shas Jan US44 PitR AtMontgmCr Jan US45R Pit No Jan US45 Pit at MontgomC Jan US54 SacR AtShasta Jan US55 Lake Shasta Jan US55R Shasta Lake Dec Sink Jan D-16

23 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Upper Sacramento River Basin December January 1997 Event US55 Lake Shasta US53 Sacramento River at Delta D-17

24 US51 McCloud River Above Shasta US45 Pit River at Montgomery Creek D-18

25 US41 Pit River at Big Bend US31 Pit River Below No. 1 Powerplant D-19

26 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Upper Sacramento River Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) US12 Rattlesnake Cr US14 PitR AtRatlSnak US16 PitR AbCanby US26 Fall R US22 PitR AtAshCr US46 McCloudR AtMCld US4 SFkPitR AbLikely US28 PitR AtFallR US50 McCloudR AbShas US20 Ash Cr AbCf US54 SacR AtShasta US32 PitR NrPH US30 Hat Cr US44 PitR AtMontgmCr US52 SacR AtDelta US10 Big Sage US38 PitR AtBurneyCr US36 Burney Cr AbCf US6 NFkPitR AtAltura US8 SFkPitR AbCf US18 Ash Cr AbAdin US48 McCloudR Ab AhD US2 TuleLk/Cedar Cr US24 Pit R At MuckDv US34 Burney Cr Ab Bu US40 PitR At BigBend US42 PitR Ab No6Dam D-20

27 Clear Creek Basin Clear Creek Whiskeytown Reservoir HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-21

28 Clear Creek The Clear Creek HMS model consists of a 251 square mile basin located in the northwest portion of the Sacramento Watershed above the confluence with the Sacramento River just south of Redding, CA. The model is included as part of the MidSac_West HMS Project and the basin is divided into 4 subbasins and connected with 3 routing reaches. The observed hydrographs are represented by the inflow into the Whiskeytown Reservoir (daily), and a hourly gage at Igo, CA ( ) downstream of the reservoir. The computed peak inflow into Whiskeytown Reservoir for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (13,920 cfs vs. 4,836 cfs). Using the adopted TC and R (Group 1), the initial Muskingum routing parameters and the elevation-storage-outflow relationship provided by the district (for Whiskeytown Reservoir), the HMS model was calibrated. Because daily (not hourly) observed flows were available at the Whiskeytown Reservoir, the computed hydrographs (representing both the 1997 and 1995 events) were not as good as they were at Igo. The initial and constant loss values were lower for the 1997 event than they were for the 1995 event, but all of the loss values were in the normal modeling range. Calibration of the 1995 Event: The initial observed spike at the Igo gage was matched well for the 1995 event; however, the subsequent spikes were not matched. Perhaps the actual reservoir operations varied from the elevation-storage-outflow relationship. The reservoir reduced the peak flow substantially for the 1995 event. The flow was reduced from approximately 22,000 cfs into the reservoir to about 5,500 cfs at the Igo gage. Initial and constant loss rates of 1.5 inches and 0.05 inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 2.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. Calibration of the 1997 Event: The computed hydrograph for the 1997 event at the Igo gage matched the observed hydrograph very well. The reservoir appeared to have less of an influence on the 1997 event than it did for the 1995 event. The flow was reduced from 20,000 cfs at the reservoir to roughly 15,000 cfs at Igo. Initial and constant loss rates of 1.00 inch and 0.01 inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 2.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. D-22

29 Clear Creek Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic Clear Creek Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) LCA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) CLR4 Whiskeytown Res CL8 ClearCr Out CL2 ClearCr Hdwtr CL Clear Creek Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 S R 1.47 L R / 1.5V R or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) V R (fps) K (Hr) 60 CL7-CL CL3-CL CL5-CL D-23

30 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Clear Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Project : MidSac_West Run Name : ClearCr95 Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : ClearCr95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CL Mar CL Mar CL3-CL Mar CL Mar Whiskeytown Mar CL5-CL Mar CL Mar CL Mar CL7-CL Mar CL Mar CL Mar D-24

31 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Clear Creek Basin March 1995 Event CL7 Clear Creek at Igo HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Clear Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) CL CL CL CL D-25

32 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Clear Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : MidSac_West Run Name : ClearCr97 Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : ClearCr97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan97 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CL Jan CL Jan CL3-CL Jan CL Jan Whiskeytown Jan CL5-CL Jan CL Jan CL Jan CL7-CL Jan CL Jan CL Jan D-26

33 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Clear Creek Basin December January 1997 Event CL7 Clear Creek at Igo HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Clear Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) CL CL CL CL D-27

34 D-28

35 Cottonwood Creek Basin North Fork Cottonwood Creek Middle Fork Cottonwood Creek South Fork Cottonwood Creek HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-29

36 Cottonwood Creek The Cottonwood Creek HMS model consists of a 945 square mile basin located in the northwest portion of the Sacramento Watershed, south of the Clear Creek basin and just above the confluence with the Sacramento River near Cottonwood, CA. The model is included as part of the MidSac_West HMS Project and the basin is divided into 14 subbasins and connected with 11 routing reaches. The only observed hydrograph used for this model is located at Cottonwood, CA ( ). The 1997 and 1995 events produced essentially identical peak flows at the basin outlet of 39,700 cfs for the 1997 event and 38,200 cfs for the 1995 event. Using the adopted TC and R (Group 1) and the initial Muskingum parameters, the computed hydrographs for the 1997 and 1995 events matched the observed hydrographs reasonably well. The main peaks were matched; however, additional peaks were not. The initial and constant loss values were in the low end of the normal modeling range for both events. Calibration of the 1995 Event: While the computed and observed peaks matched reasonably well, the observed hydrograph included several spikes after the peak flow that were not included with the computed hydrograph. The use of the constant loss rate probably precluded the computed hydrograph from developing the additional spikes in the hydrograph. Initial and constant loss rates of 0.8 inches and 0.08 inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 1.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. Calibration of the 1997 Event: The computed peak matched the observed peak for the 1997 event very well. However, the computed hydrograph included several spikes preceding the peak which were not included with the observed hydrograph. Perhaps some of the precipitation actually fell as snowfall, was stored in the snowpack, and was not immediately converted to runoff. A thorough review of the snowmelt in this area could be performed. Initial and constant loss rates of 1.0 inch and 0.05 inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 1.0 cfs per square mile, 0.7 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. D-30

37 Cottonwood Creek Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic D-31

38 Cottonwood Creek Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LL CA /S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Cottonwood Creek Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 S R 1.47 L R / 1.5V R or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) V R (fps) K (Hr) 60 CO5-CO CO11-CO CO27-CO CO9-CO CO19-CO CO15-CO CO17-CO CO3-CO CO23-CO CO25-CO CO13-CO D-32

39 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Cottonwood Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Project : MidSac_West Run Name : CottonwoodCr95 Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : CottonwoodCr95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CO Mar CO Mar CO Mar CO9-CO Mar CO Mar CO Mar CO3-CO Mar CO Mar CO Mar CO5-CO Mar CO Mar CO Mar CO11-CO Mar CO Mar CO Mar CO15-CO Mar CO Mar CO Mar CO17-CO Mar CO Mar CO Mar CO Mar CO23-CO Mar CO Mar CO Mar CO25-CO Mar CO Mar CO Mar CO19-CO Mar CO Mar Continued... D-33

40 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Cottonwood Creek Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : MidSac_West Run Name : CottonwoodCr95 Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : CottonwoodCr95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CO Mar CO13-CO Mar CO Mar CO Mar CO27-CO Mar CO Mar CO Mar D-34

41 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Cottonwood Creek Basin March 1995 Event CO29 Cottonwood Creek Near Cottonwood Subbasin Name HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Cottonwood Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO D-35

42 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Cottonwood Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : MidSac_West Run Name : CottonwoodCr97 Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : CottonwoodCr97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan97 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CO Jan CO Jan CO Jan CO9-CO Jan CO Jan CO Jan CO3-CO Jan CO Jan CO Jan CO5-CO Jan CO Jan CO Jan CO11-CO Jan CO Jan CO Jan CO15-CO Jan CO Jan CO Jan CO17-CO Jan CO Jan CO Jan CO Jan CO23-CO Jan CO Jan CO Jan CO25-CO Jan CO Jan CO Jan CO19-CO Jan CO Jan Continued... D-36

43 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Cottonwood Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : MidSac_West Run Name : CottonwoodCr97 Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : CottonwoodCr97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan97 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CO Jan CO13-CO Jan CO Jan CO Jan CO27-CO Jan CO Jan CO Jan D-37

44 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Cottonwood Creek Basin December January 1997 Event CO29 Cottonwood Creek Near Cottonwood HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Cottonwood Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO D-38

45 Red Bank Creek Basin Red Bank Creek HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-39

46 Red Bank Creek The Red Bank Creek HMS model consists of a 94 square mile basin located in the midwest portion of the Sacramento Watershed, south of the Cottonwood Creek basin and above the confluence with the Sacramento River near Red Bluff, CA. The model is included along with the Elder Creek and Thomes Creek basins as part of the MidSac_West HMS Project and SouthwestCr Basin Model. The Red Bank Creek basin model is comprised of 1 subbasin. No observed data were available for this basin. The computed peak flow at the HMS basin model outlet for the 1995 event was larger than the 1997 event (6,949 cfs vs. 5,994 cfs). The initial and constant loss rates were set relatively low for both events to be consistent with the Elder Creek and Thomes Creek models. The baseflow parameters were in the normal range for this study. Calibration of the 1995 Event: Initial and constant loss rates of 0.5 inches and inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 2.0 cfs/square mile, 0.8, and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to develop a computed hydrograph. Calibration of the 1997 Event: Initial and constant loss rates of 1.0 inch and inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 2.0 cfs per square mile, 0.7 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to develop a computed hydrograph. D-40

47 Red Bank Creek Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic Included in Southwest Creeks Basin Model (with Elder and Thomes Creeks) within MidSac_West HMS Project Red Bank Creek Basin Red Bank Creek (Mid-Sacramento Southwest Creeks) Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LL CA /S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) RB Red Bank Creek (Mid-Sacramento Southwest Creeks) Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 SR 1.47 LR / 1.5VR or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) SR (ft/ft) VR (fps) K (Hr) 60 NO ROUTING REACHES D-41

48 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Red Bank Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Project : MidSac_West Run Name : SouthwestCr95 Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : SouthwestCr95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) RB Mar RB Mar RB3 Red Bank Creek at Outlet Subbasin Name HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Red Bank Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Imperviousness Loss Rate (%) (in/hr) RB D-42

49 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Red Bank Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : MidSac_West Run Name : SouthwestCr97 Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : SouthwestCr97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan97 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) RB Jan RB Jan RB3 Red Bank Creek at Outlet HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Red Bank Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Imperviousness Loss Rate (%) (in/hr) RB D-43

50 D-44

51 Elder Creek Basin Elder Creek HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-45

52 Elder Creek The Elder Creek HMS model consists of a 140 square mile basin located in the mid-west portion of the Sacramento Watershed, south of the Red Bank Creek basin and above the confluence with the Sacramento River near Gerber, CA. The model is included along with the Red Bank Creek and Thomes Creek basins as part of the MidSac_West HMS Project and SouthwestCr Basin Model. The Elder Creek basin model is divided into 2 subbasins and connected with 1 routing reach. One observed hydrograph, Elder Creek near Paskenta, CA ( ), was used to calibrate this model. The computed peak flow at the basin outlet for the 1995 event was larger than the 1997 event (10,508 cfs vs. 9,453 cfs). Using the adopted TC and R (Group 1) and Muskingum parameters, the computed hydrographs did a fair job of matching the observed hydrograph s shape and multiple peaks. The initial and constant loss rates were set relatively low for both events to be able to calibrate the model. The baseflow parameters were all in the normal range for this study. Calibration of the 1995 Event: The computed and observed hydrographs had approximately the same shape even when the observed hydrograph appeared to switch from hourly data to daily data in the middle of the event. Multiple peaks were matched and the general trend of the daily values was approximated. Initial and constant loss rates of 0.5 inches and inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 2.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8, and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. Calibration of the 1997 Event: The computed hydrograph did a reasonable job in approximating the observed hydrograph. The peak of the observed hydrograph is a very sharp spike of minimal duration, which the computed hydrograph was unable to match. Otherwise, the general shapes of the two hydrographs were similar. Initial and constant loss rates of 1.0 inch and inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 2.0 cfs per square mile, 0.7 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. D-46

53 Elder Creek Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic Included in Southwest Creeks Basin Model (with Thomes and Red Bank Creeks) within MidSac_West HMS Project Elder Creek Basin Elder Creek (Mid-Sacramento Southwest Creeks) Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LL CA /S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) EL EL Elder Creek (Mid-Sacramento Southwest Creeks) Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 SR 1.47 LR / 1.5VR or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) SR (ft/ft) VR (fps) K (Hr) 60 EL3-EL D-47

54 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Elder Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Project : MidSac_West Run Name : SouthwestCr95 Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : SouthwestCr95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) EL Mar EL Mar EL3-EL Mar EL Mar EL Mar D-48

55 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Elder Creek Basin March 1995 Event EL2 Elder Creek Near Paskenta Subbasin Name HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Elder Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) EL EL D-49

56 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Elder Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : MidSac_West Run Name : SouthwestCr97 Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : SouthwestCr97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan97 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) EL Jan EL Jan EL3-EL Jan EL Jan EL Jan D-50

57 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Elder Creek Basin December January 1997 Event EL2 Elder Creek Near Paskenta HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Elder Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) EL EL D-51

58 D-52

59 Thomes Creek Basin Thomes Creek HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-53

60 Thomes Creek The Thomes Creek HMS model consists of a 297 square mile basin located in the midwest portion of the Sacramento Watershed, south of the Elder Creek basin and above the confluence with the Sacramento River near Richfield, CA. The model is included along with the Red Bank Creek and Elder Creek basins as part of the MidSac_West HMS Project and SouthwestCr Basin Model. The Thomes Creek basin model is divided into 3 subbasins and connected with 2 routing reaches. One observed hydrograph, Thomes Creek at Paskenta, CA ( ), was used to calibrate this model. The computed peak flow at the basin outlet for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (29,872 cfs vs. 19,337 cfs). Using the adopted TC and R (Group 1) and Muskingum parameters, the computed hydrographs did a good job of matching the 1997 observed hydrograph s shape and multiple peaks. The initial and constant loss rates were set relatively low for both events to be able to calibrate the model. The baseflow parameters were all in the normal range for this study. Calibration of the 1995 Event: The observed peak for the 1995 event appeared to be missing; therefore, a cfs per square mile comparison was performed using the results from other models to calibrate the Thomes Creek model. Otherwise, the observed and computed hydrographs appeared to follow the same trend. Initial and constant loss rates of 0.6 inches and 0.08 inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 2.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8, and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. Calibration of the 1997 Event: Even with multiple peaks, the computed hydrograph did a good job of representing the observed event. The initial computed spike was greater than the observed; therefore, additional losses may have reduced the computed spike. Initial and constant loss rates of 1.0 inch and inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 2.0 cfs per square mile, 0.7 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. D-54

61 Thomes Creek Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic Included in Southwest Creeks Basin Model (with Elder and Red Bank Creeks) within MidSac_West HMS Project Thomes Creek Basin Thomes Creek (Mid-Sacramento Southwest Creeks) Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LL CA /S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) TH TH TH Thomes Creek (Mid-Sacramento Southwest Creeks) Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 SR 1.47 LR / 1.5VR or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) SR (ft/ft) VR (fps) K (Hr) 60 TH5-TH TH3-TH D-55

62 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Thomes Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Project : MidSac_West Run Name : SouthwestCr95 Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : SouthwestCr95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) TH Mar TH Mar TH3-TH Mar TH Mar TH Mar TH5-TH Mar TH Mar TH Mar D-56

63 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Thomes Creek Basin March 1995 Event TH5 Thomas Creek at Paskenta HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Thomes Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) TH TH TH D-57

64 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Thomes Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : MidSac_West Run Name : SouthwestCr97 Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : SouthwestCr97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan97 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) TH Jan TH Jan TH3-TH Jan TH Jan TH Jan TH5-TH Jan TH Jan TH Jan D-58

65 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Thomes Creek River Basin December January 1997 Event TH5 Thomas Creek at Paskenta HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Thomes Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) TH TH TH D-59

66 D-60

67 Stony Creek Basin North Fork Stony Creek Black Butte Lake Grindstone Creek Middle Fork Stony Creek East Park Reservoir Little Stony Creek HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-61

68 Stony Creek The Stony Creek HMS model consists of a 735 square mile basin above Black Butte Dam located in the southwest portion of the Sacramento Watershed, south of the Thomes Creek basin. The basin model is divided into 12 subbasins, connected with 9 routing reaches, and in addition to Black Butte Lake, it includes the Stony Gorge and East Park Reservoirs. The inflow into Black Butte Lake was the only observed hydrograph used for calibration. The computed peak inflow into Black Butte Lake for the 1995 event proved larger than the 1997 event (44,791 cfs vs. 35,977 cfs). Using the adopted TC and R (Group 1) and initial Muskingum routing parameters, the computed hydrographs matched the observed hydrographs for both the 1995 and 1997 events. The peaks and the number of peaks matched well, although the timing of the computed peaks for the 1997 event arrived earlier than the observed peaks. The Muskingum K values for two routing reaches were reduced at the Black Butte Lake to match the observed inflows. Even though this basin has three reservoirs, it is a completely connected model with the elevationstorage-outflow relationships obtained from the Sacramento District for both the East Park and Stony Gorge reservoirs incorporated into the model. The relationships and starting conditions were used to calibrate the model. The loss and baseflow parameters varied between the two events but they stayed within reasonable bounds. The losses for the 1995 event were set lower than for the 1997 event in order to match the observed flows. Twenty-five percent imperviousness was used for the Black Butte Lake and East Park Reservoir subbasins and twenty percent imperviousness was used for the Stony Gorge Reservoir subbasin. Calibration of the 1995 Event: The peak, timing, and volume of the initial and dominant spike of the observed and computed hydrographs matched very well. Subsequent spikes did not match as well; however, with two reservoirs upstream, it is not surprising. Initial and constant loss rates of 0.5 inches and inches/hour, respectively, were used for most of the basin. A constant loss rate of 0.1 inches/hour was used for a few of the lower subbasins. The baseflow values of 3.0 cfs per square mile, 0.7 and 0.15 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. Calibration of the 1997 Event: The peaks and volumes of the observed and computed hydrographs matched very well. Unfortunately the timing was off by several hours; however, again the flood must travel through two reservoirs first, so it is not surprising that they are not exact. Initial and constant loss rates of 1.0 inch and inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 2.0 cfs per square mile, 0.7 and 0.15 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. D-62

69 Stony Creek HEC-HMS Model Schematic D-63

70 Stony Creek Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) LCA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) ST14 Grindstone CR ST24 Black Butte LK ST16 Grinstn Ab St ST18 Stony Ab Gr Cr ST12 Stony Grg Res ST8 M&S FK Stony Cr ST6 E Park Res ST4 Indian Cr ST10 Stony ab Res ST2 L Stony Cr ST20 Ab Black B LK ST22 NF Stony Cr Stony Creek Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 SR 1.47 LR / 1.5VR K Used or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) VR (fps) K (Hr) (Hr) 60 ST21-ST ST23-ST ST15-ST ST13-ST ST11-ST ST5-ST ST3-ST ST9-ST ST19-ST D-64

71 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Stony Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Project : StonyCr Run Name : Mar95 Calibration Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : StonyCr95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : 1995 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : 1995 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) ST14 Grindstone CR Mar JST15-ST Mar ST15-ST Mar ST2 L Stony Cr Mar AbEastParkRes Mar ST3-ST Mar ST4 Indian Cr Mar JST5-ST Mar ST5-ST Mar ST6 E Park Res Mar East Park Reservoir Mar ST8 M&S FK Stony Cr Mar JST9-ST Mar ST9-ST Mar ST10 Stony ab Res Mar StonyGorgeIF Mar ST11-ST Mar ST12 Stony Grg Res Mar Stony Gorge Res Mar JST13-ST Mar ST13-ST Mar ST18 Stony Ab Gr Cr Mar ST16 Grinstn Ab St Mar JST19-ST Mar ST19-ST Mar ST20 Ab Black B LK Mar AbBlButteRes Mar ST21-ST Mar ST22 NK Stony Ct Mar UserPoint Mar ST23-ST Mar ST24 Black Butte LK Mar StonyOut Mar D-65

72 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Stony Creek Basin March 1995 Event Stony Creek Inflow into the Black Butte Reservoir HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Stony Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) ST14 Grindstone CR ST24 Black Butte LK ST16 Grinstn Ab St ST18 Stony Ab Gr Cr ST12 Stony Grg Res ST8 M&S FK Stony Cr ST6 E Park Res ST4 Indian Cr ST10 Stony ab Res ST2 L Stony Cr ST20 Ab Black B LK ST22 NK Stony Ct D-66

73 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Stony Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : StonyCr Run Name : Jan97 Calibration Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : StonyCr97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : 1997 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : 1997 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) ST14 Grindstone CR Jan JST15-ST Jan ST15-ST Jan ST2 L Stony Cr Jan AbEastParkRes Jan ST3-ST Jan ST4 Indian Cr Jan JST5-ST Jan ST5-ST Jan ST6 E Park Res Jan East Park Reservoir Jan ST8 M&S FK Stony Cr Jan JST9-ST Jan ST9-ST Jan ST10 Stony ab Res Jan StonyGorgeIF Jan ST11-ST Jan ST12 Stony Grg Res Jan Stony Gorge Res Jan JST13-ST Jan ST13-ST Jan ST18 Stony Ab Gr Cr Jan ST16 Grinstn Ab St Jan JST19-ST Jan ST19-ST Jan ST20 Ab Black B LK Jan AbBlButteRes Jan ST21-ST Jan ST22 NK Stony Ct Jan UserPoint Jan ST23-ST Jan ST24 Black Butte LK Jan StonyOut Jan D-67

74 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Stony Creek Basin December January 1997 Event Stony Creek Inflow into the Black Butte Reservoir HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Stony Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) ST14 Grindstone CR ST24 Black Butte LK ST16 Grinstn Ab St ST18 Stony Ab Gr Cr ST12 Stony Grg Res ST8 M&S FK Stony Cr ST6 E Park Res ST4 Indian Cr ST10 Stony ab Res ST2 L Stony Cr ST20 Ab Black B LK ST22 NK Stony Ct D-68

75 Cache Creek Basin Scotts Creek North Fork Cache Creek Clear Lake Bear Creek Adobe Creek Cache Creek Kelsey Creek HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-69

76 Cache Creek The Cache Creek HMS model consists of a 1,145 square mile basin located in the southwest portion of the Sacramento Watershed, south of the Stony Creek basin and above Yolo, CA. The basin model is divided into 14 subbasins, connected with 11 routing reaches and includes the Indian Valley Reservoir, Clear Lake and the Grigsby Riffles (which is a natural control for Clear Lake). Six observed hydrographs were used to assist with the calibration: Kelsey Creek near Kelseyville ( ); Cache Creek at Rumsey; Indian Valley Reservoir hourly inflow ( Daily); Cache Creek at Yolo ( ); Cache Creek near Lower Lake ( ); and, North Fork Cache Creek at Hough Springs ( ). Not all of the gages had records for both events, but if a gage had records for one of the events, it was still used for calibration purposes. Additionally, hourly records were not available at all gages; therefore, if daily gages were used, instantaneous peaks were collected, if possible, to assist with the calibration. Like other basins on the west side of the Sacramento valley, the 1995 event proved larger than the 1997 event (36,040 cfs vs. 25,442 cfs for the computed peak flow at the basin outlet). Using the adopted TC and R (Group 1) and Muskingum parameters, the computed hydrograph at Yolo matched the observed hydrograph reasonably well for both events. The routing times for five of the reaches were reduced due to the fact that they traveled through lakes (Clear Lake and the Indian Valley Reservoir). The routing technique for these reaches was changed to the lag method due to their short routing times. Two other routing reaches, the two most downstream reaches, had their travel times reduced to calibrate the timing of the peak. Two gages were used as part of the optimization process: Kelsey Creek near Kelseyville ( ) and North Fork Cache Creek at Hough Springs ( ). The loss rates for both events were within the guidelines set for the study, with the losses for the 1995 event being higher than for the 1997 event. Impervious surfaces were used for the subbasins that included Clear Lake (40%) and the Indian Valley Reservoir (30%). The baseflow values used were also within the guidelines with the 1997 event baseflow values higher than those used for the 1995 event. The model is connected through Clear Lake with an elevation-storage-outflow relationship used at the Grigsby Riffles. The reservoir relationship was obtained from the Sacramento District. The Grigsby Riffles is a natural constriction that has had a rating curve developed for it and controls the flows from Clear Lake. The Grigsby relationship and starting conditions were used to calibrate the model. For this modeling effort, rather than attempt to predict how the Indian Valley Reservoir was operated, the source and sink tools available in HMS were implemented. This technique allowed the observed hydrograph at the outlet of the Indian Valley Reservoir to be passed downstream. As pointed out in Section 6.6.5, Reservoir Modeling in the main report, HMS is fairly limited in how it models releases from reservoirs. Calibration of the 1995 Event: For the 1995 event, all of the observed hydrographs were reasonably matched by the computed hydrographs. Even the gages that only reported daily had their general trends reflected by the computed hydrographs. The initial loss varied between 1.0 and 3.0 with the D-70

77 majority of the values being set to 2.0 inches. The constant loss rates varied between and 0.15 with the majority being set to 0.15 inches/hour. The baseflow values of 1.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. Calibration of the 1997 Event: The computed hydrograph reasonably matched the observed hydrograph at Yolo, CA. The computed hydrograph had several smaller peaks preceding the main peak. While the observed hydrograph had several peaks as well, they were much smaller in magnitude. This discrepancy is difficult to explain given that the subbasins contributing to the hydrograph at Yolo all had similar spikes as the computed hydrograph, and the precipitation seems to validate the peaks. The other computed hydrographs, except the one below the Grigsby Riffles, matched the observed values reasonably well. The gage below the Grigsby Riffles provided daily records and, although the computed hydrograph resembled the observed hydrograph, neither came close to approximating the instantaneous peak. The initial loss varied between 1.0 and 3.0 with the majority being set to 1.5 inches. The constant loss rates varied between and 0.07 with the majority being set to 0.05 inches/hour. The baseflow values of 3.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. Cache Creek HEC-HMS Model Schematic D-71

78 Cache Creek Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) LCA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) CA2 Scotts CR AB CL CA14 Indian Vly Res CA12 NF Cache Cr CA16 NF Ab Cache Cr CA10 Clear Lake CA22 Bear Cr Ab Rum CA18 Cache at Rapids CA24 Cache ab Rum CA6 Kelsey Cr Nr Kel CA20 Cache Bl NF CA8 Kelsey Cr AB Lk CA4 Adobe Cr AB Lk CA26 Cache ab Capay CA28 Cache Cr ab Yol Cache Creek Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 SR 1.47 LR / 1.5VR Used or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) VR (fps) K (Hr) (Hr) 60 CA3-CA CA5-CA CA9-CA CA15-CA CA19-CA CA21-CA CA13-CA CA11-CA CA7-CA CA25-CA CA27-CA D-72

79 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Cache Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Project : CacheatYolo Run Name : March 95 Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Yolo95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : March 1995 Execution Time : 08Nov Control Specs. : Mar 95 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CA12 NF Cache Cr Mar JCA Mar CA13-CA Mar CA14 Indian Vly Res Mar Indian Valley Res Mar Sink Mar CA2 Scotts CR AB CL Mar JCA Mar CA3-CA Mar CA4 Adobe Cr ab CL Mar Adobe Cr Mar CA5-CA Mar CA6 Kelsey Cr Nr Kel Mar JCA Mar CA7-CA Mar CA8 Kelsey Cr ab CL Mar Kelsey Cr Mar CA9-CA Mar CA10 Clear Lake Mar Grigsby Riffles Mar CA11-CA Mar CA18 Cache at Rapids Mar GageBlDam Mar CA19-CA Mar IndianVlyOut Mar CA15-CA Mar CA16 NF ab Cache Cr Mar CA20 Cache Bl NF Mar JCA Mar CA21-CA Mar CA22 Bear Cr ab Rum Mar CA24 Cache ab Rum Mar Cache Cr Ab Rumsey Mar CA25-CA Mar CA26 Cache ab Capay Mar JCA Mar CA27-CA Mar CA28 Cache Cr ab Yol Mar Yolo Mar D-73

80 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Cache Creek Basin March 1995 Event Cache Creek above Yolo, CA Cache Creek above Rumsey, CA D-74

81 Cache Creek at gage below the Clear Lake Dam CA6 Kelsey Creek near Kelseyville, CA D-75

82 CA12 North Fork Cache Creek near Hough Springs, CA HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Cache Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) CA2 Scotts CR AB CL CA16 NF ab Cache Cr CA18 Cache at Rapids CA20 Cache Bl NF CA24 Cache ab Rum CA4 Adobe Cr ab CL CA26 Cache ab Capay CA22 Bear Cr ab Rum CA8 Kelsey Cr ab CL CA28 Cache Cr ab Yol CA12 NF Cache Cr CA14 Indian Vly Res CA6 Kelsey Cr Nr Kel CA10 Clear Lake D-76

83 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Cache Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : CacheatYolo Run Name : Jan 1997 Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : Yolo97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan 1997 Execution Time : 28Nov Control Specs. : Jan 97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CA12 NF Cache Cr Jan JCA Jan CA13-CA Jan CA14 Indian Vly Res Jan Indain Valley Res Jan Sink Jan CA2 Scotts CR AB CL Jan JCA Jan CA3-CA Jan CA4 Adobe Cr ab CL Jan Adobe Cr Jan CA5-CA Jan CA6 Kelsey Cr Nr Kel Dec JCA Dec CA7-CA Dec CA8 Kelsey Cr ab CL Dec Kelsey Cr Dec CA9-CA Dec CA10 Clear Lake Jan Grigsby Riffles Jan CA11-CA Jan CA18 Cache at Rapids Dec GageBlDam Jan CA19-CA Jan IndianVlyOut Jan CA15-CA Jan CA16 NF ab Cache Cr Jan CA20 Cache Bl NF Jan JCA Jan CA21-CA Jan CA22 Bear Cr ab Rum Jan CA24 Cache ab Rum Jan Cache Cr Ab Rumsey Jan CA25-CA Jan CA26 Cache ab Capay Dec JCA Jan CA27-CA Jan CA28 Cache Cr ab Yol Dec Yolo Jan D-77

84 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Cache Creek Basin December January 1997 Event Cache Creek above Yolo, CA Cache Creek above Rumsey, CA D-78

85 Cache Creek at gage below the Clear Lake Dam North Fork Cache Creek Inflow into Indian Valley Reservoir D-79

86 CA12 North Fork Cache Creek near Hough Springs, CA HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Cache Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) CA2 Scotts CR AB CL CA16 NF ab Cache Cr CA18 Cache at Rapids CA20 Cache Bl NF CA24 Cache ab Rum CA4 Adobe Cr ab CL CA26 Cache ab Capay CA22 Bear Cr ab Rum CA8 Kelsey Cr ab CL CA28 Cache Cr ab Yol CA12 NF Cache Cr CA14 Indian Vly Res CA6 Kelsey Cr Nr Kel CA10 Clear Lake D-80

87 Putah Creek Basin Hunting Creek Adams Creek Putah Creek Pope Creek Lake Berryessa HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-81

88 Putah Creek The Putah Creek HMS model consists of a 560 square mile basin above Lake Berryessa located in the southwestern-most portion of the Sacramento Watershed, south of the Cache Creek basin. The basin model is divided into 9 subbasins and connected with 7 routing reaches. The inflow into Lake Berryessa was the only observed hydrograph used for calibration. Given that daily records were available and multiple peaks were witnessed, the calibrations did not do very well. The computed peak inflow into Lake Berryessa for the 1995 event proved larger than the 1997 event (63,288 cfs vs. 53,106 cfs). Using the adopted TC (Group 1) and a R value equal to 2.33TC and Muskingum parameters, hydrographs were computed. The revision to the R value was made to approximate the values and shape of the observed hydrographs. The routing times for three of the reaches were reduced due to the fact that they traveled through Lake Berryessa. The routing technique for these reaches was changed to the lag method due to their short routing times. The loss rates for both events were nearly identical with the constant losses slightly smaller for the 1995 event. An impervious surface of 20 percent was used for the subbasin that included Lake Berryessa. Calibration of the 1995 Event: While the observed and computed hydrographs did not appear to line up very well, a possible cause could be that the observed hydrograph was the discharge from Lake Berryessa and the computed hydrograph was the inflow into the lake. Additionally, the observed records were daily values. The computed hydrograph followed the trend of the observed hydrograph. Initial and constant loss rates of 2.3 inches and inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 3.0 cfs per square mile, 0.65 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. Calibration of the 1997 Event: While the observed and computed hydrographs did not appear to line up very well, a possible cause could be that the observed hydrograph was the discharge from Lake Berryessa and the computed hydrograph was the inflow into the lake. Additionally, the observed records were daily values. Initial and constant loss rates of 2.3 inches and 0.04 inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 1.0 cfs per square mile, 0.65 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. D-82

89 Putah Creek Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic Putah Creek Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) PU10 Putah Cr PU4 Ab Soda Cr PU18 Lk Berryessa PU2 Bl Middletown PU14 Adams Cr PU16 Pope Cr PU12 Putah ab Lake PU8 ab Hunting Cr PU6 at Hunting Cr Putah Creek Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 SR 1.47 LR / 1.5VR or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) SR (ft/ft) VR (fps) K (Hr) 60 PU3-PU PU9-PU PU11-PU PU5-PU PU13-Out PU15-Out PU17-Out D-83

90 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Putah Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Project : PutahCr Run Name : Mar95 Calibration Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Putah95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : 1995 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : 1995 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) PU16 Pope Cr Mar JPU Mar PU17-Out Mar PU2 Bl Middletown Mar JPU Mar PU3-PU Mar PU4 Ab Soda Cr Mar JPU Mar PU5-PU Mar PU8 ab Hunting Cr Mar PU6 at Hunting Cr Mar JPU Mar PU9-PU Mar PU10 Putah Cr Mar JPU Mar PU11-PU Mar PU12 Putah ab Lake Mar JPU Mar PU13-Out Mar PU14 Adams Cr Mar JPU Mar PU15-out Mar PU18 Lk Berryessa Mar PutahOut Mar D-84

91 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Putah Creek Basin March 1995 Event PutahOut Lake Berryessa HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Putah Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) PU10 Putah Cr PU4 Ab Soda Cr PU18 Lk Berryessa PU2 Bl Middletown PU14 Adams Cr PU16 Pope Cr PU12 Putah ab Lake PU8 ab Hunting Cr PU6 at Hunting Cr D-85

92 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Putah Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : PutahCr Run Name : Jan97 Calibration Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : Putah97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : 1997 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : 1997 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) PU16 Pope Cr Dec JPU Dec PU17-Out Dec PU2 Bl Middletown Dec JPU Dec PU3-PU Dec PU4 Ab Soda Cr Jan JPU Dec PU5-PU Dec PU8 ab Hunting Cr Jan PU6 at Hunting Cr Jan JPU Jan PU9-PU Jan PU10 Putah Cr Dec JPU Jan PU11-PU Jan PU12 Putah ab Lake Dec JPU Jan PU13-Out Jan PU14 Adams Cr Dec JPU Dec PU15-out Dec PU18 Lk Berryessa Dec PutahOut Dec D-86

93 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Putah Creek Basin December January 1997 Event PutahOut Lake Berryessa HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Putah Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) PU10 Putah Cr PU4 Ab Soda Cr PU18 Lk Berryessa PU2 Bl Middletown PU14 Adams Cr PU16 Pope Cr PU12 Putah ab Lake PU8 ab Hunting Cr PU6 at Hunting Cr D-87

94 D-88

95 Cow Creek Basin Little Cow Creek Old Cow Creek South Cow Creek Cow Creek HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-89

96 Cow Creek The Cow Creek HMS model consists of a 425 square mile basin located in the northeast portion of the Sacramento Watershed above the confluence with the Sacramento River near Millville, CA. The model is included as part of the MidSac_East HMS Project and the basin is divided into 8 subbasins and connected with 5 routing reaches. One observed hydrograph, Cow Creek near Millville, CA ( ), was used to calibrate this model. The computed peak flow at the basin outlet for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (25,082 cfs vs. 22,008 cfs). Using the adopted TC and R (Group 1) and Muskingum parameters, the computed hydrograph for the 1997 event matched the timing of the multiple peaked observed hydrograph. The initial losses for the 1995 and 1997 events were low, but the constant loss rates were close to or within the modeling guidelines. The baseflow parameters for both events were within the modeling guidelines. Calibration of the 1995 Event: The calibration of the 1995 event was not without its challenges. While the initial computed peak matched the observed peak very closely, the observed hydrograph had a secondary peak on March 15, which was not matched by the computed hydrograph. In order to match the second peak, the modeling window should have been cropped around March 13 th or 14 th. Given that all the other basins had their peak flows reported around March 9 th, the effort to calibrate to the peak on the 15 th was not performed. Initial and constant loss rates of inches and 0.12 inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 2.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. Calibration of the 1997 Event: While the timing of the computed spikes match the timing of the observed spikes, the two hydrographs did not match. The initial spikes for the computed hydrograph were greater than the observed hydrograph, but the peak flow of the observed hydrograph far exceeded the peak of the computed hydrograph. Additionally, the peak of the observed hydrograph occurred on January 2, 1997 even though the peak precipitation fell on or before January 1, The computed hydrograph shows the main peak falling on January 1 st which is consistent with the timing and amount of rainfall. Why the peak of the observed runoff is more than a day removed from the peak precipitation is unclear. The basin is not that large and the routing times are reasonable. One possible explanation may be that the initial precipitation fell as snowfall and was stored in the snowpack until the temperatures warmed enough to melt the snow and release the volume of runoff necessary to generate the peak flow witnessed by the observed gage. A thorough review of the snowmelt model would have to be performed to determine what might have happened. Initial and constant loss rates of 0.4 inches and 0.06 inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 2.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. D-90

97 Cow Creek Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic Cow Creek Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) LCA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) CW10 SCowCr Hdwtr CW8 OldCowCr Ab S CW CW12 CloverCr Confl CW6 OldCowCr Hdwtr CW2 LtlCowCr Hdwtr CW14 OakRunCr Confl CW4 LtlCowCr Ab CW CW16 CowCr Out Cow Creek Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 S R 1.47 L R / 1.5V R or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) V R (fps) K (Hr) 60 CW3-CW15 LittleCowCr CW15-CW CW7-CW9 OldCowCr CW9-CW CW15-CW17 CowCr D-91

98 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Cow Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Project : MidSac_East Run Name : CowCr95 Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : CowCr95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CW6 OldCowCr Hdwtr Mar CW7 OldCowCr Ga Mar CW7-CW9 OldCowCr Mar CW8 OldCowCr Ab S CW Mar CW10 SCowCr Hdwtr Mar CW Mar CW9-CW Mar CW12 CloverCr Confl Mar CW Mar CW13-CW Mar CW2 LtlCowCr Hdwtr Mar CW Mar CW3-CW15 LittleCowCr Mar CW4 LtlCowCr Ab CW Mar CW14 OakRunCr Confl Mar CW Mar CW15-CW17 CowCr Mar CW16 CowCr Out Mar CW17 Cow Cr Ga Mar D-92

99 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Cow Creek Basin March 1995 Event CW17 Cow Creek Gage HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Cow Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) CW10 SCowCr Hdwtr CW8 OldCowCr Ab S CW CW12 CloverCr Confl CW6 OldCowCr Hdwtr CW2 LtlCowCr Hdwtr CW14 OakRunCr Confl CW4 LtlCowCr Ab CW CW16 CowCr Out D-93

100 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Cow Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : MidSac_East Run Name : CowCr97 Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : CowCr97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan97 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CW6 OldCowCr Hdwtr Jan CW7 OldCowCr Ga Jan CW7-CW9 OldCowCr Jan CW8 OldCowCr Ab S CW Jan CW10 SCowCr Hdwtr Jan CW Jan CW9-CW Jan CW12 CloverCr Confl Jan CW Jan CW13-CW Jan CW2 LtlCowCr Hdwtr Jan CW Jan CW3-CW15 LittleCowCr Jan CW4 LtlCowCr Ab CW Jan CW14 OakRunCr Confl Jan CW Jan CW15-CW17 CowCr Jan CW16 CowCr Out Jan CW17 Cow Cr Ga Jan D-94

101 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Cow Creek River Basin December January 1997 Event CW17 Cow Creek Gage HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Cow Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) CW10 SCowCr Hdwtr CW8 OldCowCr Ab S CW CW12 CloverCr Confl CW6 OldCowCr Hdwtr CW2 LtlCowCr Hdwtr CW14 OakRunCr Confl CW4 LtlCowCr Ab CW CW16 CowCr Out D-95

102 D-96

103 Battle Creek Basin North Fork Battle Creek Battle Creek South Fork Battle Creek HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-97

104 Battle Creek The Battle Creek HMS model consists of a 362 square mile basin located in the northeast portion of the Sacramento Watershed, below the Cow Creek basin and above the confluence with the Sacramento River near Cottonwood, CA. The model is included as part of the MidSac_East HMS Project and the basin is divided into 6 subbasins and connected with 5 routing reaches. One observed hydrograph, Battle Creek below Coleman Fish Hatchery ( ), was used to calibrate this model. The computed peak flow at the basin outlet for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (17,474 cfs vs 10,762 cfs). Using the adopted TC and R (Group 1) and Muskingum parameters, the computed hydrographs for both events matched the observed hydrographs very well. The initial loss for the 1997 event was somewhat low, but the constant loss rate was within the model guidance. Calibration of the 1995 Event: The observed and computed peak flows were very close; however, subsequent peaks were not. It appears that the constant loss rate may have been too great as the observed hydrograph exceeds the computed hydrograph for the period after the peak flow. Initial and constant loss rates of 2.5 inches and inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow parameters were in the normal range for this study: 2.0 cfs per square mile for the initial baseflow, 0.8 for the recession ratio and 0.15 for the threshold flow peak ratio. Calibration of the 1997 Event: The computed and observed volume, timing, and peaks of this multiple peaked event matched very closely. Initial and constant loss rates of 1.1 inches and inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow parameters were in the normal range for this study: 2.0 cfs per square mile for the initial baseflow, 0.8 for the recession ratio and 0.15 for the threshold flow peak ratio. D-98

105 Battle Creek Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic Battle Creek Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) BT6 NFk BattleCr BT10 NFk SFk Confl BT12 Battle Cr Out BT2 NFk Ab Macumber BT4 Manzanita Cr BT8 SFk Hdwtr Battle Creek Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 S R 1.47 L R / 1.5V R or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) V R (fps) K (Hr) 60 BT5-BT7 NFk BT7-BT11 NFk BT15-BT BT9-BT11 SFk BT3-BT5 NFk D-99

106 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Battle Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Project : MidSac_East Run Name : BattleCr95 Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : BattleCr95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) BT2 NFk Ab Macumber Mar BT3 NFk Macumber Ga Mar BT3-BT5 NFk Mar BT4 Manzanita Cr Mar BT5 NFk Bl Div Ga Mar BT5-BT7 NFk Mar BT6 NFk BattleCr Mar BT Mar BT7-BT11 NFk Mar BT8 SFk Hdwtr Mar BT9 SFk Ga Mar BT9-BT11 SFk Mar BT10 NFk SFk Confl Mar BT Mar BT15-BT Mar BT12 Battle Cr Out Mar BT17 ColemanFish Ga Mar D-100

107 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Battle Creek Basin March 1995 Event BT17 - Battle Creek Below Coleman Fish Hatchery Gage HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Battle Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) BT6 NFk BattleCr BT10 NFk SFk Confl BT12 Battle Cr Out BT2 NFk Ab Macumber BT4 Manzanita Cr BT8 SFk Hdwtr D-101

108 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Battle Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : MidSac_East Run Name : BattleCr97 Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : BattleCr97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan97 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) BT2 NFk Ab Macumber Jan BT3 NFk Macumber Ga Jan BT3-BT5 NFk Jan BT4 Manzanita Cr Jan BT5 NFk Bl Div Ga Jan BT5-BT7 NFk Jan BT6 NFk BattleCr Jan BT Jan BT7-BT11 NFk Jan BT8 SFk Hdwtr Jan BT9 SFk Ga Jan BT9-BT11 SFk Jan BT10 NFk SFk Confl Jan BT Jan BT15-BT Jan BT12 Battle Cr Out Jan BT17 ColemanFish Ga Jan D-102

109 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Battle Creek Basin December January 1997 Event BT17 Battle Creek Below Coleman Fish Hatchery Gage HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Battle Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) BT6 NFk BattleCr BT10 NFk SFk Confl BT12 Battle Cr Out BT2 NFk Ab Macumber BT4 Manzanita Cr BT8 SFk Hdwtr D-103

110 D-104

111 Middle Sacramento River (Valley) Basin Lake Shasta Sacramento River Paynes Creek Antelope Creek Deer Creek Mill Creek HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-105

112 Middle Sacramento River Valley The Middle Sacramento River Valley HMS model consists of a 1,872 square mile basin located in the Sacramento Watershed and extends from the Shasta Reservoir outflow, below the Vina Bridge near Hamilton City, CA to the confluence with Burch Creek. Burch Creek enters the Sacramento River just above the Sacramento River and Stony Creek confluence. The basin model is divided into 22 subbasins and connected with 30 routing reaches. Eight sources are used to introduce upstream flows into the model. Since this model is a valley model, the results from the upstream HMS models, or gaged information, were used as inflow sources into the valley model. The eight sources were: 1.) Upper Sacramento below Shasta; 2.) Clear Creek; 3.) Cottonwood Creek; 4.) Red Bank Creek; 5.) Elder Creek; 6.) Thomes Creek; 7.) Cow Creek; and 8.) Battle Creek. The observed hydrographs used to calibrate this model were: Sacramento River at Keswick Reservoir ( ); Sacramento River at Bend Bridge near Red Bluff ( ); Sacramento River at Vina Bridge near Corning, CA ( ); Mill Creek near Los Molinos ( ); and Deer Creek near Vina ( ). The computed peak flow at the downstream end of the basin model for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (152,464 cfs vs. 123,318 cfs). Using the adopted TC and R (Group 1) the computed hydrographs on the Sacramento River matched the observed hydrographs for the 1997 event reasonably well and the 1995 event adequately. However, for the headwater hydrographs ( and ) this was not true. Even with the losses reduced to minimal values, the computed volumes and peaks for the two events could not match the observed hydrographs. The Muskingum routing approach was adjusted significantly for this model. Rather than use the general equation to compute the Muskingum routing values, the Sacramento District s Hydrology and Hydraulics group provided average velocities for the Sacramento River through the basin model. These velocities were used along with the routing reach lengths to develop the travel time (Muskingum K) for each reach. The Muskingum X was still set to 0.4, while the number of steps was approximated by dividing the Muskingum K by the one-hour time step. The timing of the observed and computed hydrographs matched well when using this method. For this modeling effort, rather than attempt to predict how the Keswick Reservoir was operated, the source and sink tools available in HMS were implemented. This technique allowed the observed hydrograph at the outlet of the Keswick Reservoir to be passed downstream. As pointed out in Section 6.6.5, Reservoir Modeling of the main report, HMS is fairly limited in how it models releases from reservoirs. Of course, the computed hydrograph at Keswick matched the observed well because a source was used as the inflow to the subbasin. The initial and constant losses were reasonable for the 1997 event. To approximate the shape and volume of the observed hydrographs, the losses for the 1995 event were set very low. Baseflow for both events was set within the modeling guidelines. D-106

113 Calibration of the 1995 Event: As expected, the observed and computed hydrographs for the Keswick Reservoir matched reasonably well. Since it is just downstream (one reach length from a source) it is a bit puzzling that the computed and observed volumes are not closer. The hydrograph at the Bend Bridge gage was also missing some volume. The multiple peaks, timing, and shape were all very close to the observed hydrograph, but some volume was missing. The missing volume would not have been due to the missing volume at the Keswick Reservoir gage because the observed outflow from Keswick was used as a source to route the outflow hydrograph downstream. The computed hydrograph at the Vina Bridge gage had the same shape as the observed hydrograph too, but, again, volume was missing as well. Part of the missing volume may be attributed to the fact that several of the major headwater streams, Mill Creek and Deer Creek, did not contribute as much flow as observed. For the headwater hydrographs ( and ), even with the losses reduced to minimal values, the computed volumes and peaks did not match the observed hydrographs. These reduced flows were then passed downstream, thus leading to the volume problem at the Vina Bridge. To check this theory, the two observed hydrographs were then inserted as sources into the model. The extra volume was noticeable at the Vina Bridge gage, but even this extra contribution was not sufficient. The thought was that the LWASS was not large enough to generate the observed volumes; not only for the two headwater hydrographs (Mill Creek and Deer Creek), but perhaps for some other headwater subbasins as well. The LWASS issue has been a problem in other basins as well. The timing at the Vina Bridge gage appeared to be consistent with the observed hydrograph, but the volume and peak were not. Initial and constant loss rates of 0.1 inches and inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 2.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. Calibration of the 1997 Event: As expected, the observed and computed hydrographs for the Keswick Reservoir matched very well. It is just downstream (one reach length from a source) so it was not difficult to match that hydrograph. The hydrograph at the Bend Bridge gage also matched very well. The multiple peaks, timing, shape and volume were all very close to the observed hydrograph. The computed hydrograph at the Vina Bridge gage was reasonably close to the observed values, but some of the volume was missing. It is suspected that the loss of volume can be attributed to the fact that several of the major headwater streams (Mill Creek and Deer Creek) did not contribute as much flow as observed. For the headwater hydrographs ( and ), even with the losses reduced to minimal values, the computed volumes and peaks did not match the observed hydrographs. These reduced flows were then passed downstream thus leading to the volume problem at the Vina Bridge. To check this theory, the two observed hydrographs were then inserted as sources into the model. The extra volume was noticeable at the Vina Bridge gage, but even this extra contribution was not sufficient. The thought was that the LWASS was not large enough to generate the observed volumes; not only for the two headwater hydrographs (Mill Creek and Deer Creek), but perhaps for some other headwater subbasins as well. The LWASS issue has been a problem in other basins as well. The timing at the Vina Bridge gage appeared to be consistent with the observed hydrograph, but the volume and peak were not. Initial and constant loss rates of 1.5 inches and 0.01 inches/hour, respectively, were used. The D-107

114 baseflow values of 2.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. Middle Sacramento River (Valley Floor) HEC-HMS Schematic D-108

115 Middle Sacramento River (Valley Floor) Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) MS10 Bear Cr Confl MS4 MS Ab Clear Cr MS6 Churn Cr Confl MS8 Cow Cr Confl MS12 MS Ab CO MS40 Deer Cr Confl MS14 Battle Cr Confl MS18 Paynes Cr Confl MS24 Antelope Cr Hdw MS20 Reeds Cr Confl MS32 Mill Cr Confl MS26 Antelope Cr Con MS22 RedBankCr Confl MS28 MS Bl Antelope MS34 MS Bl Elder Cr MS36 MS Bl Thomes Cr MS44 Burch Cr Confl MS42 Burch Cr Hdwtr MS2 MS Bl Shasta Res MS16 Paynes Cr Hdwtr MS30 Mill Cr Hdwtr MS38 Deer Cr Hdwtr D-109

116 Middle Sacramento River (Valley Floor) Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 S R 1.47 L R / 1.5V R or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) V R (fps) K (Hr) 60 MS3-CL CL9-MS CW29-MS MS7-MS MS9-MS MS11-CO CO29-MS BT17-MS MS17-MS MS15-MS MS19-MS MS21-MS MS23-MS RB3-MS MS27-MS MS25-MS MS29-MS MS31-MS MS35-MS Elder Creek MS33-EL EL5-TH TH7-MS MS37-MS MS39-MS MS45-MS MS43-MS US41-MS MS13-MS MS41-MS D-110

117 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Middle Sacramento River (Valley) Basin: March 1995 Event Project : MidSac_Valley Run Name : MidSacVal95 Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : MidSacVal95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) UpsacIn Mar US41-MS Mar MS2 MS Bl Shasta Res Mar Keswick Reservoir Mar Keswick In Mar MS42 Burch Cr Hdwtr Mar MS Mar MS45-MS Mar ElderCrIn Mar Elder Creek Mar RedBankCrIn Mar RB3-MS Mar KeswickOut Mar MS3-CL Mar ClearCrInflow Mar MS4 MS Ab Clear Cr Mar CL9 Clear Cr In Mar CL9-MS Mar MS6 Churn Cr Confl Mar MS Mar MS7-MS Mar CowCrIn Mar CW29-MS Mar MS8 Cow Cr Confl Mar MS Mar MS9-MS Mar MS10 Bear Cr Confl Mar MS Mar MS11-CO Mar CottonwoodCrIn Mar MS12 MS Ab CO Mar Continued... D-111

118 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Middle Sacramento River (Valley) Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : MidSac_Valley Run Name : MidSacVal95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CO29 CottonwoodCr In Mar CO29-MS Mar BattleCrIn Mar BT17-MS Mar MS Mar MS13-MS Mar MS14 Battle Cr Confl Mar MS15 Bend Bridge Ga Mar MS15-MS Mar MS16 Paynes Cr Hdwtr Mar MS Mar MS17-MS Mar MS18 Paynes Cr Confl Mar MS Mar MS19-MS Mar MS20 Reeds Cr Confl Mar MS Mar MS21-MS Mar MS Mar MS23-MS Mar MS22 RedBankCr Confl Mar JMS25-MS Mar MS25-MS Mar MS24 Antelope Cr Hdw Mar MS Mar MS27-MS Mar MS26 Antelope Cr Con Mar MS Mar MS29-MS Mar MS28 MS Bl Antelope Mar MS Mar MS31-MS Mar MS30 Mill Cr Hdwtr Mar MS35 Mill Cr Ga Mar MS35-MS Mar MS Mar MS33-EL Mar MS32 Mill Cr Confl Mar Continued... D-112

119 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Middle Sacramento River (Valley) Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : MidSac_Valley Run Name : MidSacVal95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) EL Mar EL5-TH Mar MS34 MS Bl Elder Cr Mar ThomesCrIn Mar TH7 Thomes Cr In Mar TH7-MS Mar MS36 MS Bl Thomes Cr Mar MS Mar MS37-MS Mar MS38 Deer Cr Hdwtr Mar MS39 Deer Cr Ga Mar MS39-MS Mar MS Mar MS41-MS Mar MS40 Deer Cr Confl Mar MS43 Vina Bridge Ga Mar MS43-MS Mar MS44 Burch Cr Confl Mar MS47 Out Mar D-113

120 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Middle Sacramento River (Valley) Basin March 1995 Event MS43 Sacramento River at the Vina Bridge Gage MS15 Sacramento River at the Bend Bridge Gage D-114

121 Sacramento River Inflow into the Keswick Reservoir HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Middle Sacramento River (Valley) Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) MS10 Bear Cr Confl MS4 MS Ab Clear Cr MS6 Churn Cr Confl MS8 Cow Cr Confl MS12 MS Ab CO MS40 Deer Cr Confl MS14 Battle Cr Confl MS18 Paynes Cr Confl MS24 Antelope Cr Hdw MS20 Reeds Cr Confl MS32 Mill Cr Confl MS26 Antelope Cr Con MS22 RedBankCr Confl MS28 MS Bl Antelope MS34 MS Bl Elder Cr MS36 MS Bl Thomes Cr MS44 Burch Cr Confl MS42 Burch Cr Hdwtr MS2 MS Bl Shasta Res cfs MS16 Paynes Cr Hdwtr MS30 Mill Cr Hdwtr MS38 Deer Cr Hdwtr D-115

122 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Middle Sacramento River (Valley) Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : MidSac_Valley Run Name : MidSacVal97 Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : MidSacVal97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan97 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) UpsacIn Jan US41-MS Jan MS2 MS Bl Shasta Res Dec Keswick Reservoir Jan Keswick In Jan MS42 Burch Cr Hdwtr Jan MS Jan MS45-MS Jan ElderCrIn Jan Elder Creek Jan RedBankCrIn Jan RB3-MS Jan KeswickOut Jan MS3-CL Jan ClearCrInflow Jan MS4 MS Ab Clear Cr Dec CL9 Clear Cr In Jan CL9-MS Jan MS6 Churn Cr Confl Jan MS Jan MS7-MS Jan CowCrIn Jan CW29-MS Jan MS8 Cow Cr Confl Jan MS Jan MS9-MS Jan MS10 Bear Cr Confl Jan MS Jan MS11-CO Jan CottonwoodCrIn Jan MS12 MS Ab CO Jan Continued... D-116

123 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Middle Sacramento River (Valley) Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : MidSac_Valley Run Name : MidSacVal97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CO29 CottonwoodCr In Jan CO29-MS Jan BattleCrIn Jan BT17-MS Jan MS Jan MS13-MS Jan MS14 Battle Cr Confl Jan MS15 Bend Bridge Ga Jan MS15-MS Jan MS16 Paynes Cr Hdwtr Jan MS Jan MS17-MS Jan MS18 Paynes Cr Confl Jan MS Jan MS19-MS Jan MS20 Reeds Cr Confl Jan MS Jan MS21-MS Jan MS Jan MS23-MS Jan MS22 RedBankCr Confl Dec JMS25-MS Jan MS25-MS Jan MS24 Antelope Cr Hdw Jan MS Jan MS27-MS Jan MS26 Antelope Cr Con Dec MS Jan MS29-MS Jan MS28 MS Bl Antelope Jan MS Jan MS31-MS Jan MS30 Mill Cr Hdwtr Jan MS35 Mill Cr Ga Jan MS35-MS Jan MS Jan MS33-EL Jan MS32 Mill Cr Confl Jan Continued... D-117

124 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Middle Sacramento River (Valley) Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : MidSac_Valley Run Name : MidSacVal97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) EL Jan EL5-TH Jan MS34 MS Bl Elder Cr Jan ThomesCrIn Jan TH7 Thomes Cr In Jan TH7-MS Jan MS36 MS Bl Thomes Cr Dec MS Jan MS37-MS Jan MS38 Deer Cr Hdwtr Jan MS39 Deer Cr Ga Jan MS39-MS Jan MS Jan MS41-MS Jan MS40 Deer Cr Confl Jan MS43 Vina Bridge Ga Jan MS43-MS Jan MS44 Burch Cr Confl Jan MS47 Out Jan D-118

125 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Middle Sacramento (Valley) River Basin December January 1997 Event MS43 Sacramento River at the Vina Bridge Gage MS15 Sacramento River at the Bend Bridge Gage D-119

126 Sacramento River Inflow into the Keswick Reservoir HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Middle Sacramento River (Valley) Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) MS10 Bear Cr Confl MS4 MS Ab Clear Cr cfs MS6 Churn Cr Confl MS8 Cow Cr Confl MS12 MS Ab CO MS40 Deer Cr Confl MS14 Battle Cr Confl MS18 Paynes Cr Confl MS24 Antelope Cr Hdw MS20 Reeds Cr Confl MS32 Mill Cr Confl MS26 Antelope Cr Con MS22 RedBankCr Confl MS28 MS Bl Antelope MS34 MS Bl Elder Cr MS36 MS Bl Thomes Cr MS44 Burch Cr Confl MS42 Burch Cr Hdwtr MS2 MS Bl Shasta Res 3000 cfs MS16 Paynes Cr Hdwtr MS30 Mill Cr Hdwtr MS38 Deer Cr Hdwtr D-120

127 Big Chico Creek Basin Big Chico Creek HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-121

128 Big Chico Creek The Big Chico Creek HMS model consists of a 72.4 square mile basin located in the mideast portion of the Sacramento Watershed. The basin model is divided into 2 subbasins and connected with 1 routing reach. There was no observed hydrograph available for either the 1995 or 1997 event; however, the computed peak flow at the basin outlet for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (14,500 cfs vs. 3,890 cfs). Using the adopted TC and R (Group 1) and Muskingum parameters, a hydrograph was computed using parameters based on the Butte Creek HMS model. To validate the model, the average peak flow rate per square mile of the Butte Creek basin was used to approximate an appropriate average peak flow rate per square mile of the Big Chico Creek basin (since the basins are adjoining and have similar land use and precipitation). Calibration of the 1995 Event: By using a constant loss rate of inches/hour and a high initial loss of 4.2 inches, the model produced a peak flow consistent with the average peak flow rate per square mile of the Butte Creek basin. A recession ratio of 0.8 and a peak ratio of 0.2 defined the recession limb of the hydrograph. An initial baseflow of 3 cfs per square mile was used. Calibration of the 1997 Event: By using a constant loss rate of 0.02 inches/hour and an initial loss of 2.2 inches, the model produced a peak flow consistent with the average peak flow rate per square mile of the Butte Creek basin. A recession ratio of 0.8 and a peak ratio of 0.2 defined the recession limb of the hydrograph. An initial baseflow of 3 cfs per square mile was used. D-122

129 Big Chico Creek Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic Big Chico Creek Basin Parameters Subbasin Area Total Flow Length to Slope Basin Inital TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R Name Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC DA (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LL CA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) BC BC Big Chico Creek Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 S R 1.47 L R / 1.5V R or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) V R (fps) K (Hr) 60 BC3-OUT D-123

130 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Big Chico Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Project : BChicoCr Run Name : Mar95 Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : BChico95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Execution Time : 13Dec Control Specs. : Mar95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) BC Mar BC Mar BC3-BChicoOut Mar BC Mar BChicoOut Mar D-124

131 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Big Chico Creek Basin March 1995 Event Big ChicoCreek Outlet (No Gage at Location) HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Big Chico Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) BC BC D-125

132 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Big Chico Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : BChicoCr Run Name : Jan97 Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : BChicoCr97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan97 Execution Time : 11Dec Control Specs. : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) BC Jan BC Jan BC3-BChicoOut Jan BC Jan BChicoOut Jan D-126

133 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Big Chico Creek Basin December January 1997 Event Big ChicoCreek Outlet (No Gage at Location) HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Big Chico Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) BC BC D-127

134 D-128

135 Butte Creek Basin Butte Creek HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-129

136 Butte Creek The Butte Creek HMS model consists of a 147 square mile basin located in the mid-east portion of the Sacramento Watershed above the gage near Chico, CA ( ). The basin model is divided into 5 subbasins and connected with 2 routing reaches. Although subbasin BU10 is only one grid cell in area (0.01 square miles), it was included to add in the drainage area below the confluence of the streams from BU6 and BU8. There is one observed hydrograph at the gage near Chico. The computed peak flow at the Chico gage for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (33,390 cfs vs. 9,390 cfs). Using the adopted TC and R (Group 1) and Muskingum parameters for the two longest reaches, the computed hydrograph matched the observed hydrograph well. Since the travel time was less than an hour for the third very short reach, the lag method was used with a lag time of 1 minute. Calibration of the 1995 Event: By using a constant loss rate of inches/hour and a high initial loss of 4.2 inches, the model calibrated well to the observed hydrograph. A recession ratio of 0.8 and a peak ratio of 0.2 defined the recession limb of the hydrograph. An initial baseflow of 3.5 cfs per square mile was used. Calibration of the 1997 Event: By using a constant loss rate of 0.02 inches/hour and an initial loss of 2.2 inches, the model calibrated well to the observed hydrograph. A recession ratio of 0.8 and a peak ratio of 0.2 defined the recession limb of the hydrograph. An initial baseflow of 3 cfs per square mile was used. D-130

137 Butte Creek Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic Butte Creek Basin Parameters Subbasin Area Total Flow Length to Slope Basin Inital TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R Name Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC DA (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LL CA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) BU BU BU BU BU Butte Creek Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 S R 1.47 L R / 1.5V R or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) V R (fps) K (Hr) 60 BU3-BU BU5-BU D-131

138 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Butte Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Project : ButteCrk Run Name : Mar95 Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : ButteCrk95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Execution Time : 15Dec Control Specs. : Mar95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) BU Mar BU Mar BU3-BU Mar BU Mar BU Mar BU5-BU Mar BU Mar BU Mar BU Mar BU Mar D-132

139 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Butte Creek Basin March 1995 Event BU9 Butte Creek Near Chico HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Butte Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) BU BU BU BU BU D-133

140 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Butte Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : ButteCrk Run Name : Jan97Cal Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : ButteCrk End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan97 Execution Time : 11Dec Control Specs. : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) BU Jan BU Jan BU3-BU Jan BU Jan BU Jan BU5-BU Jan BU Jan BU Jan BU Jan BU Jan D-134

141 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Butte Creek Basin December January 1997 Event BU9 Butte Creek Near Chico HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Butte Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) BU BU BU BU BU D-135

142 D-136

143 Cherokee Canal Basin Cherokee Canal HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-137

144 Cherokee Canal The Cherokee Canal HMS model consists of a 104 square mile basin located in the mideast portion of the Sacramento Watershed above the gage near Richvale, CA ( ). The basin model is divided into 5 subbasins and connected with 2 routing reaches. There is one observed hydrograph at the gage at Richvale. The computed peak flow at the Richvale gage for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (8,200 cfs vs. 7,350 cfs). Using the adopted TC and R (Group 1) and Muskingum parameters, the computed hydrograph matched the observed hydrograph well. Calibration of the 1995 Event: By using a constant loss rate of 0.05 inches/hour and an initial loss of 0.8 inches, the model calibrated well to the observed hydrograph. A recession ratio of 0.8 and a peak ratio of 0.2 defined the recession limb of the hydrograph. An initial baseflow of 0.9 cfs per square mile was used. Calibration of the 1997 Event: By using a constant loss rate of 0.06 inches/hour and an initial loss of 0.05 inches, the model calibrated well to the observed hydrograph. A recession ratio of 0.6 and a peak ratio of 0.2 defined the recession limb of the hydrograph. An initial baseflow of 1 cfs per square mile was used. D-138

145 Cherokee Canal Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic Cherokee Canal Basin Parameters Subbasin Area Total Flow Length to Slope Basin Inital TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R Name Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC DA (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LL CA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) CC CC CC CC CC Cherokee Canal Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 S R 1.47 L R / 1.5V R or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) V R (fps) K (Hr) 60 CC CC D-139

146 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Cherokee Canal Basin: March 1995 Event Project : CherCanl Run Name : Mar95 Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : CherCanl95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Execution Time : 11Dec Control Specs. : Mar95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CC Mar CC Mar CC Mar CC5-CC Mar CC Mar CC Mar CC Mar CC9-CCOut Mar CC Mar CherOut Mar D-140

147 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Cherokee Canal Basin March 1995 Event CherOut Cherokee Canal Outlet HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Cherokee Canal Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) CC CC CC CC CC D-141

148 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Cherokee Canal Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : CherCanl Run Name : Jan97 Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : CherCanl End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan97 Execution Time : 11Dec Control Specs. : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CC Jan CC Jan CC Jan CC5-CC Jan CC Jan CC Jan CC Jan CC9-CCOut Jan CC Jan CherOut Jan D-142

149 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Cherokee Canal Basin December January 1997 Event CherOut Cherokee Canal Outlet HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Cherokee Canal Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) CC CC CC CC CC D-143

150 D-144

151 Feather River Basin Mountain Meadows Res East Branch North Fork Feather River Lake Almanor North Fork Feather River Lake Davis Frenchman Lake West Branch North Fork Feather River Lake Oroville Feather River Little Grass Valley Lake Sly Creek Res. South Fork Feather River Middle Fork Feather River HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-145

152 Feather River The Feather River HMS model consists of a 3,665 square mile basin located in the eastern portion of the Sacramento Watershed above the gage near Gridley, CA. The basin model is divided into 44 subbasins and connected with 40 routing reaches. The observed hydrographs are the computed inflow into Lake Oroville, a gage on the North Fork at Grizzly, and a gage on the North Fork at Rock Creek. The computed peak inflow into Lake Oroville for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (160,000 cfs vs. 86,000 cfs). The adopted TC and R (Group 1) values were used. The generic equation to compute the reach travel time (Muskingum K) was not used because the reach travel times were too short; thus, causing the computed peaks to occur too early. Instead, the reach travel time (K) was computed knowing the reach length and average velocity. The average velocity was computed using Manning s equation. The Manning s n value was estimated with Jarrett s equation, and the hydraulic radius was estimated from the Feather River equation, which was developed from a regression of field data. Of the 40 routing reaches, 13 reaches used the Muskingum routing technique. The other 27 reaches used the lag method since the travel time within each of those reaches was less than the one-hour time step used by the Muskingum method. For this modeling effort, rather than attempt to predict how the Oroville, Little Grass Valley, Lake Almanor, and Bucks Lake reservoirs were operated, the source and sink tools available in HMS were implemented. This technique allowed the observed hydrograph at the outlet of each of the reservoirs to be passed downstream. As pointed out in Section 6.6.5, Reservoir Modeling of the main report, HMS is fairly limited in how it models releases from reservoirs. Calibration efforts required different loss and baseflow parameters for different subbasins. Ten to fifteen percent impervious area was assumed for the subbasins that included lakes. Calibration of the 1995 Event: Calibration was not performed for the North Fork at Rock Creek gage (due to insufficient data) but was performed for the Lake Oroville inflow and the North Fork at Grizzly gage. By using constant loss rates between 0.03 and 1.0 inches/hour and high initial losses between 2.0 and 8.0 inches (most subbasins about 5 inches), the model calibrated well to observed hydrographs at Grizzly and Lake Oroville. A recession ratio of 0.7 and a peak ratio of 0.35 defined the recession limb of the hydrograph. An initial baseflow of 3 cfs per square mile was assumed. The event featured two peaks, with the second peak being the highest. The model calibrated well to both peaks. Calibration of the 1997 Event: The model calibrated well for the North Fork at Grizzly gage, the North Fork at Rock Creek gage, and inflow into Lake Oroville. The event featured two peaks, with the second peak being highest. The generalized parameters for TC and R (Group 1) fit the observed hydrograph. The baseflow recession parameters of 0.7 for the constant and 0.35 for the peak ratio worked best. The subbasins used constant loss rates between 0.01 and 0.33 inches/hour, and initial losses between 0.5 and 3.5 inches, with most initial losses set to 1.0 inch. D-146

153 Feather River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic D-147

154 Feather River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Flow Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Final TC Final R DA Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LL CA/S 1/2 (Hr) (Hr) (Hr) FE30 Indian Cr FE28 Lights Cr Hdwtr FE24 Indian Cr Bl An FE38 NFk E Br FE16 NFk Ab E Br FE20 Red Clover Cr FE40 NFk Bl E Br FE36 Spanish Cr FE26 Indian Cr FE60 MFk Bl Frenchmn FER84 Lake Oroville FE56 Smithneck Cr FE54 Cold Stream FE88 Feather Out FE50 Hendricks Div D FE34 Spanish Cr FER2 Mtn Meadow Res FE48 NFk Nr Pulga FER74 Lt Grass Valle FE80 SFk Bl Lt Grass FE82 SFk Bl Lost Cr FER42 Bucks Lake FE66 MFk Nr Portola FE70 MFk Nr Quincy FE72 MFk Ab Oroville FE86 Bl Lk Oroville FE44 Bucks Cr FE46 NFk Bl Storrie FE52 WBr Bl Hendrick FER58 Frenchman Lk FER64 Lake Davis FE62 MFk Bl Smithnec FER22 Antelope Lk FER76 SlyCr Res FE78 Lost Cr Bl Sly FE6 NFk Ab Almanor FE10 ButtCr Hdwtr FER12 ButtValley Res FE4 HamiltnCr Ab Alm FER8 Lake Almanor FE14 NFk Bl Almanor FE18 Last Chance Cr FE32 Spanish Cr Hdwt FE68 MFk Nr Blairsdn D-148

155 Feather River Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Reach Cum Drainage Area Feather River Field Jarrett's Manning's Travel Time Length Slope (from GeoHms) Reg. Eqa Equation Velocity K Lag L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) A (Sq. Mi.) R = A n =.39S.38 R -.16 v (ft/s)=1.49r 2/3 S 1/2 /n Hrs (Min) FE11-FE13 Butt Val R FE13-FE15 ButtCr FE15-FE39 NFk Ab EBr FE19-FE25 LastChanc FE23-FE25 Indian Cr FE25-FE29 Indian Cr FE29-FE37 Indian Cr FE33-FE35 Spanish Cr FE35-FE37 Spanish Cr FE37-FE39 NFk EBr FE39-FE41 NFk FE3-FE5 Hamilton Cr FE41-FE45 NFk FE43-FE45 Bucks Cr FE45-FE47 NFk FE47-FE49 NFk FE49-FE87 Oroville Use 30 min FE51-FE53 WBr FE53-FE87 Oroville Use 10 min FE57-FE61 Smithneck FE59-FE61 MFk FE5-FE9 Almanor Use 10 min FE61-FE63 MFk FE63-FE67 MFk FE65-FE63 Grizzly C FE67-FE69 MFk FE69-FE71 MFk FE71-FE73 MFk FE73-FE89 Oroville Use 30 min FE75-FE81 SFk FE77-FE79 Lost Cr FE79-FE81 Lost Cr FE7-FE9 Almanor Use 10 min FE81-FE83 SFk FE83-FE85 SFk FE85-FE89 Oroville Use 30 min FE87-FE89 Oroville Use 30 min FE89-FE91 Feather* FE91-FE93 Feather* FE9-FE15 NFk Ab Butt Routing parameters based on field observations and regression analysis. (Dec 1996 Event) D-149

156 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Feather River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : Feather River Run Name : Mar 1995 Event Start of Run : 07Mar Basin Model : Feather95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar 95 Event Execution Time : 15Feb Control Specs. : Mar 95 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) Oroville Outflow Mar FE89-FE91 Feather Mar FE86 Bl Lk Oroville Mar FE91 Oroville Ga Mar FE91-FE93 Feather Mar FE88 Feather Out Mar FE93 Gridley Ga Mar FE50 Hendricks Div D Mar FE51 Hendricks Ga Mar FE51-FE53 WBr Mar FE52 WBr Bl Hendrick Mar FE Mar FE53-FE87 Oroville Mar FE10 ButtCr Hdwtr Mar FE11 Butt Cr Ga Mar FE11-FE13 Butt Val R Mar FER12 ButtValley Res Mar FER13 Butt Valley Mar FE13-FE15 ButtCr Mar L Almanor Out Mar FE9-FE15 NFk Ab Butt Mar FE14 NFk Bl Almanor Mar FE15 Belden Ga Mar FE15-FE39 NFk Ab EBr Mar FE32 Spanish Cr Hdwt Mar FE Mar FE33-FE35 Spanish Cr Mar FE34 Spanish Cr Mar FE35 Spanish Cr Ga Mar FE35-FE37 Spanish Cr Mar FER22 Antelope Lk Mar FER23 Antelope Lk Mar FE23-FE25 Indian Cr Mar Continued... D-150

157 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Feather River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : Feather River Run Name : Mar 95 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) FE18 Last Chance Cr Mar FE Mar FE19-FE25 LastChanc Mar FE24 Indian Cr Bl An Mar FE20 Red Clover Cr Mar FE Mar FE25-FE29 Indian Cr Mar FE28 Lights Cr Hdwtr Mar FE26 Indian Cr Mar FE Mar FE29-FE37 Indian Cr Mar FE36 Spanish Cr Mar FE30 Indian Cr Mar FE Mar FE37-FE39 NFk EBr Mar FE16 NFk Ab E Br Mar FE38 NFk E Br Mar FE Mar FE39-FE41 NFk Mar FE40 NFk Bl E Br Mar FE41 Rock Cr Ga Mar FE41-FE45 NFk Mar Bucks Lake Outflow Mar FE43-FE45 Bucks Cr Mar FE44 Bucks Cr Mar FE Mar FE45-FE47 NFk Mar FE46 NFk Bl Storrie Mar FE47 NFk Grizzly Ga Mar FE47-FE49 NFk Mar FE48 NFk Nr Pulga Mar FE49 Pulga Ga Mar FE49-FE87 Oroville Mar FE Mar FE87-FE89 Oroville Mar FER76 SlyCr Res Mar FER77 Sly Ck Res Mar FE77-FE79 Lost Cr Mar FE78 Lost Cr Bl Sly Mar Continued... D-151

158 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Feather River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : Feather River Run Name : Mar 95 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) FE79 Lost Cr Ga Mar FE79-FE81 Lost Cr Mar L Grass V Out Mar FE75-FE81 SFk Mar FE80 SFk Bl Lt Grass Mar FE Mar FE81-FE83 SFk Mar FE83 Forbestown Ga Mar FE83-FE85 SFk Mar FE82 SFk Bl Lost Cr Mar FE85 Miners Ranch Mar FE85-FE89 Oroville Mar FER64 Lake Davis Mar FER65 Lk Davis Mar FE65-FE63 Grizzly C Mar FE54 Cold Stream Mar FE56 Smithneck Cr Mar FE Mar FE57-FE61 Smithneck Mar FER58 Frenchman Lk Mar FER59 Frenchman Lk Mar FE59-FE61 MFk Mar FE60 MFk Bl Frenchmn Mar FE Mar FE61-FE63 MFk Mar FE62 MFk Bl Smithnec Mar FE Mar FE63-FE67 MFk Mar FE66 MFk Nr Portola Mar FE Mar FE67-FE69 MFk Mar FE68 MFk Nr Blairsdn Mar FE Mar FE69-FE71 MFk Mar FE70 MFk Nr Quincy Mar FE Mar FE71-FE73 MFk Mar FE72 MFk Ab Oroville Mar FE Mar FE73-FE89 Oroville Mar Continued... D-152

159 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Feather River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : Feather River Run Name : Mar 95 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) FER84 Lake Oroville Mar Oroville Inflow Mar FE6 NFk Ab Almanor Mar FE Mar FE7-FE9 Almanor Mar FER2 Mtn Meadow Res Mar FER3 Mtn Meadow Mar FE3-FE5 Hamilton Cr Mar FE4 HamiltnCr Ab Alm Mar FE Mar FE5-FE9 Almanor Mar FER8 Lake Almanor Mar L Almanor Inflow Mar FER74 Lt Grass Valle Mar L Grass V Inflow Mar FER42 Bucks Lake Mar Bucks lake inflow Mar FER75 Lt Grass Vally Mar FER9 Lk Almanor Mar FER43 Bucks Lk Mar FER89 Oroville Lk Mar D-153

160 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Feather River Basin March 1995 Event Oroville Inflow Lake Oroville Inflow FE47 North Fork Below Grizzly Creek Gage D-154

161 FE41 Rock Creek Gage D-155

162 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Feather River Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) FE30 Indian Cr FE28 Lights Cr Hdwtr FE24 Indian Cr Bl An FE38 NFk E Br FE16 NFk Ab E Br FE20 Red Clover Cr FE40 NFk Bl E Br FE36 Spanish Cr FE26 Indian Cr FE60 MFk Bl Frenchmn FER84 Lake Oroville FE56 Smithneck Cr FE54 Cold Stream FE88 Feather Out FE50 Hendricks Div D FE34 Spanish Cr FER2 Mtn Meadow Res FE48 NFk Nr Pulga FER74 Lt Grass Valle FE80 SFk Bl Lt Grass FE82 SFk Bl Lost Cr FER42 Bucks Lake FE66 MFk Nr Portola FE70 MFk Nr Quincy FE72 MFk Ab Oroville FE86 Bl Lk Oroville FE44 Bucks Cr FE46 NFk Bl Storrie FE52 WBr Bl Hendrick FER58 Frenchman Lk FER64 Lake Davis FE62 MFk Bl Smithnec FER22 Antelope Lk FER76 SlyCr Res FE78 Lost Cr Bl Sly FE6 NFk Ab Almanor FE10 ButtCr Hdwtr FER12 ButtValley Res FE4 HamiltnCr Ab Alm FER8 Lake Almanor FE14 NFk Bl Almanor FE18 Last Chance Cr FE32 Spanish Cr Hdwt FE68 MFk Nr Blairsdn D-156

163 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Feather River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : Feather River Run Name : Jan 97 Event Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : Feather97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan 97 Event Execution Time : 15Feb Control Specs. : Jan 97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) Oroville Outflow Jan FE89-FE91 Feather Jan FE86 Bl Lk Oroville Jan FE91 Oroville Ga Jan FE91-FE93 Feather Jan FE88 Feather Out Jan FE93 Gridley Ga Jan FE50 Hendricks Div D Jan FE51 Hendricks Ga Jan FE51-FE53 WBr Jan FE52 WBr Bl Hendrick Jan FE Jan FE53-FE87 Oroville Jan FE10 ButtCr Hdwtr Jan FE11 Butt Cr Ga Jan FE11-FE13 Butt Val R Jan FER12 ButtValley Res Jan FER13 Butt Valley Jan FE13-FE15 ButtCr Jan L Almanor Out Jan FE9-FE15 NFk Ab Butt Jan FE14 NFk Bl Almanor Jan FE15 Belden Ga Jan FE15-FE39 NFk Ab EBr Jan FE32 Spanish Cr Hdwt Jan FE Jan FE33-FE35 Spanish Cr Jan FE34 Spanish Cr Jan FE35 Spanish Cr Ga Jan FE35-FE37 Spanish Cr Jan FER22 Antelope Lk Jan FER23 Antelope Lk Jan FE23-FE25 Indian Cr Jan Continued... D-157

164 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Feather River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : Feather River Run Name : Jan 97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) FE18 Last Chance Cr Jan FE Jan FE19-FE25 LastChanc Jan FE24 Indian Cr Bl An Jan FE20 Red Clover Cr Jan FE Jan FE25-FE29 Indian Cr Jan FE28 Lights Cr Hdwtr Jan FE26 Indian Cr Jan FE Jan FE29-FE37 Indian Cr Jan FE36 Spanish Cr Jan FE30 Indian Cr Jan FE Jan FE37-FE39 NFk EBr Jan FE16 NFk Ab E Br Jan FE38 NFk E Br Jan FE Jan FE39-FE41 NFk Jan FE40 NFk Bl E Br Jan FE41 Rock Cr Ga Jan FE41-FE45 NFk Jan Bucks Lake Outflow Jan FE43-FE45 Bucks Cr Jan FE44 Bucks Cr Jan FE Jan FE45-FE47 NFk Jan FE46 NFk Bl Storrie Jan FE47 NFk Grizzly Ga Jan FE47-FE49 NFk Jan FE48 NFk Nr Pulga Jan FE49 Pulga Ga Jan FE49-FE87 Oroville Jan FE Jan FE87-FE89 Oroville Jan FER76 SlyCr Res Jan FER77 Sly Ck Res Jan FE77-FE79 Lost Cr Jan FE78 Lost Cr Bl Sly Jan Continued... D-158

165 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Feather River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : Feather River Run Name : Jan 97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) FE79 Lost Cr Ga Jan FE79-FE81 Lost Cr Jan L Grass V Out Jan FE75-FE81 SFk Jan FE80 SFk Bl Lt Grass Jan FE Jan FE81-FE83 SFk Jan FE83 Forbestown Ga Jan FE83-FE85 SFk Jan FE82 SFk Bl Lost Cr Jan FE85 Miners Ranch Jan FE85-FE89 Oroville Jan FER64 Lake Davis Jan FER65 Lk Davis Jan FE65-FE63 Grizzly C Jan FE54 Cold Stream Jan FE56 Smithneck Cr Jan FE Jan FE57-FE61 Smithneck Jan FER58 Frenchman Lk Jan FER59 Frenchman Lk Jan FE59-FE61 MFk Jan FE60 MFk Bl Frenchmn Jan FE Jan FE61-FE63 MFk Jan FE62 MFk Bl Smithnec Jan FE Jan FE63-FE67 MFk Jan FE66 MFk Nr Portola Jan FE Jan FE67-FE69 MFk Jan FE68 MFk Nr Blairsdn Jan FE Jan FE69-FE71 MFk Jan FE70 MFk Nr Quincy Jan FE Jan FE71-FE73 MFk Jan FE72 MFk Ab Oroville Jan FE Jan FE73-FE89 Oroville Jan Continued... D-159

166 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Feather River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : Feather River Run Name : Jan 97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) FER84 Lake Oroville Jan Oroville Inflow Jan FE6 NFk Ab Almanor Jan FE Jan FE7-FE9 Almanor Jan FER2 Mtn Meadow Res Jan FER3 Mtn Meadow Jan FE3-FE5 Hamilton Cr Jan FE4 HamiltnCr Ab Alm Jan FE Jan FE5-FE9 Almanor Jan FER8 Lake Almanor Jan L Almanor Inflow Jan FER74 Lt Grass Valle Jan L Grass V Inflow Jan FER42 Bucks Lake Jan Bucks lake inflow Jan FER75 Lt Grass Vally Dec FER9 Lk Almanor Dec FER43 Bucks Lk Dec FER89 Oroville Lk Dec D-160

167 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Feather River Basin December January 1997 Event Oroville Inflow Lake Oroville Inflow FE47 North Fork Below Grizzly Creek Gage D-161

168 FE41 Rock Creek Gage D-162

169 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Feather River Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) FE30 Indian Cr FE28 Lights Cr Hdwtr FE24 Indian Cr Bl An FE38 NFk E Br FE16 NFk Ab E Br FE20 Red Clover Cr FE40 NFk Bl E Br FE36 Spanish Cr FE26 Indian Cr FE60 MFk Bl Frenchmn FER84 Lake Oroville FE56 Smithneck Cr FE54 Cold Stream FE88 Feather Out FE50 Hendricks Div D FE34 Spanish Cr FER2 Mtn Meadow Res FE48 NFk Nr Pulga FER74 Lt Grass Valle FE80 SFk Bl Lt Grass FE82 SFk Bl Lost Cr FER42 Bucks Lake FE66 MFk Nr Portola FE70 MFk Nr Quincy FE72 MFk Ab Oroville FE86 Bl Lk Oroville FE44 Bucks Cr FE46 NFk Bl Storrie FE52 WBr Bl Hendrick FER58 Frenchman Lk FER64 Lake Davis FE62 MFk Bl Smithnec FER22 Antelope Lk FER76 SlyCr Res FE78 Lost Cr Bl Sly FE6 NFk Ab Almanor FE10 ButtCr Hdwtr FER12 ButtValley Res FE4 HamiltnCr Ab Alm FER8 Lake Almanor FE14 NFk Bl Almanor FE18 Last Chance Cr FE32 Spanish Cr Hdwt FE68 MFk Nr Blairsdn D-163

170 D-164

171 Yuba River Basin North Yuba River Slate Creek Middle Yuba River New Bullards Bar Reservoir Lake Fordyce Merle Collins Reservoir Dry Creek Yuba River South Yuba River Deer Creek Lake Spaulding HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-165

172 Yuba River The Yuba River HMS model consists of a 1,339 square mile basin located in the southeast portion of the Sacramento Watershed above the gage near Marysville, CA. The basin model is divided into 24 subbasins and connected with 24 routing reaches. The observed hydrographs are computed inflows into the Engelbright and New Bullards Bar Reservoirs and at gages at Jones Bar and on the Middle Fork near Our House. The computed peak inflow into Engelbright Reservoir for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (133,391 cfs vs. 38,626 cfs). The adopted TC and R (Group 1) values were used. The generic equation to compute the reach travel time (Muskingum K) was not used because the reach travel times were too short; thus, causing the computed peaks to occur too early. Instead, the reach travel time (K) was computed knowing the reach length and average velocity. The average velocity was computed using Manning s equation. The Manning s n value was estimated with Jarrett s equation, and the hydraulic radius was estimated from the Yuba River equation, which was developed from a regression of field data. Of the 24 routing reaches, 7 reaches used the Muskingum routing technique. The other 17 reaches used the lag method since the travel time within each of those reaches was less than the one-hour time step used by the Muskingum method. For this modeling effort, rather than attempt to predict how the Jackson Meadows, Bowman, Spaulding, New Bullards Bar, and Englebright reservoirs were operated, the source and sink tools available in HMS were implemented. This technique allowed the observed hydrograph at the outlet of each of the reservoirs to be passed downstream. As pointed out in Section 6.6.5, Reservoir Modeling of the main report, HMS is fairly limited in how it models releases from reservoirs. Calibration efforts required different loss and baseflow parameters for different subbasins. Another reason the observed reservoir outflows were used as sources was to replace the inadequate computed runoff from the upstream basins. Even with the losses reduced to minimal values, the computed volumes and peaks for the 1997 event could not match the observed hydrographs. The thought was that the LWASS was not large enough to generate the observed volumes. The timing appears consistent with the observed hydrograph, but the volume and peak are not. This has been a problem in other basins as well. For the 1995 event, the observed and computed hydrographs matched very well. Ten percent impervious area was assumed for the New Bullards Bar Reservoir subbasin. Calibration of the 1995 Event: By using constant loss rates between 0.02 and 0.1 inches/hour and initial losses between 2 and 4 inches (most subbasins about 3 inches), the model calibrated well to observed hydrographs. A recession ratio of 0.8 and a peak ratio of 0.15 defined the recession limb of the hydrograph. An initial baseflow of 6 cfs per square mile was assumed. The event featured two peaks, with the second peak being the highest. The model calibrated well to both peaks. D-166

173 Calibration of the 1997 Event: The model calibrated well for the computed inflows into the Engelbright and New Bullards Bar Reservoirs, but gage data were not available at the two other gages for calibration. The baseflow recession parameters of 0.8 for the constant and 0.15 for the peak ratio worked best. The subbasins used low constant loss rates between and 0.01 inches/hour, and an initial loss of 1.0 inch (except for 1.5 inches in the Oregon Creek headwater subbasin). An initial baseflow of 3 cfs per square mile was assumed. Yuba River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic D-167

174 Yuba River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Final TC Final R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LL CA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (Hr) YU10 NYU Ab NwBullrd YU16 MYU Ab OregonCr YU18 OregonCr Hdwtr YU2 Slate Cr Hdwtr YU20 N and MYU Confl YU24 Fordyce Cr YU26 SYU Hdwtr YU32 SYU At CanyonCr YU34 SYU Ab JonesBar YU36 SYU Ab Englebrt YU4 NYU Hdwtr YU42 Deer Cr Ab YU YU46 YU At DryCr YU48 YU Out YU6 Downie R YU8 NYU Ab GoodyrBr YUR12 NwBullardsBar YUR14 JacksonMeadows YUR22 Lake Fordyce YUR28 Lake Spaulding YUR30 Bowman Lake YUR38 EnglebrightRes YUR40 ScottsFlatRes YUR44 MCollinsRes Yuba River Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Reach Cum Drainage Area Yuba River Field Jarrett's Manning's Travel Time Length Slope (from GeoHms) Reg. Eqa Equation Velocity K Lag L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) A (Sq. Mi.) R = 4.13Ln(A) n =.39S.38 R -.16 v (ft/s)=1.49r 2/3 S 1/2 /n Hrs (Min) YU21-YU23 MYU YU25-YU37 YU YU35-YU37 SYU YU39-YU47 YU YU43-YU47 Deer Cr YU45-YU49 Dry Cr YU47-YU49 YU YU49-YU51 YU Out YU27-YU29 Spaulding YUR23-YU YU29-YU33 SYU YU31-YU33 CanyonCr YU7-YU9 NYU YU9-YU5 NYU YU3-YU5 Slate Cr YU5-YU11 NYU YU15-YU17 MYU YU17-YU21 MYU YU19-YU21 Oregon Cr YU11-YU13 NYU YU33-YU35 SYU YU41-YU43 Deer Cr YU37-YU39 Englebrt YU23-YU25 YU Final routing parameters based on field observations and regression analysis. (Dec 1996 D-168

175 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Yuba River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : Yuba River Run Name : Mar 95 Event Start of Run : 06Mar Basin Model : Yuba95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar 95 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar 95 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) YUR44 MCollinsRes Mar YUR45 MCollinsRes Mar YU45-YU49 Dry Cr Mar Eng Out Mar YU39-YU47 YU Mar YUR40 ScottsFlatRes Mar YUR41 ScottsFlatRes Mar YU41-YU43 Deer Cr Mar YU42 Deer Cr Ab YU Mar YU43 Deer Cr Ga Mar YU43-YU47 Deer Cr Mar YU47 Deer Cr Index Mar YU47-YU49 YU Mar YU46 YU At DryCr Mar YU Mar YU49-YU51 YU Out Mar YU48 YU Out Mar YU51 Marysville Ga Mar YUR22 Lake Fordyce Mar YUR23 Lake Fordyce Mar YUR23-YU Mar YU24 Fordyce Cr Mar YU26 SYU Hdwtr Mar YU Mar YU27-YU29 Spaulding Mar YUR28 Lake Spaulding Mar Spaulding Inf Mar YU2 Slate Cr Hdwtr Mar YU3 Slate Cr Ga Mar YU3-YU5 Slate Cr Mar YU6 Downie R Mar YU4 NYU Hdwtr Mar Continued... D-169

176 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Yuba River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : Yuba River Run Name : Mar 95 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) YU Mar YU7-YU9 NYU Mar YU8 NYU Ab GoodyrBr Mar YU9 Goodyrs Bar Ga Mar YU9-YU5 NYU Mar YU Mar YU5-YU11 NYU Mar YU10 NYU Ab NwBullrd Mar YU Mar YU11-YU13 NYU Mar YUR12 NwBullardsBar Mar NB Bar Inf Mar YU18 OregonCr Hdwtr Mar YU19 Oregon Cr Ga Mar YU19-YU21 Oregon Cr Mar Jack Med Out Mar YU15-YU17 MYU Mar YU16 MYU Ab OregonCr Mar YU21 MYU Bl OurHs Ga Mar YU17-YU21 MYU Mar YU Mar YU21-YU23 MYU Mar NB Bar Out Mar JYU23-YU25 YU Mar YU23-YU25 YU Mar YU20 N and MYU Confl Mar YU Mar YU25-YU37 YU Mar Bowman Out Mar YU31-YU33 CanyonCr Mar Spaulding Out Mar YU29-YU33 SYU Mar YU32 SYU At CanyonCr Mar YU Mar YU33-YU35 SYU Mar YU34 SYU Ab JonesBar Mar YU35 SYU At JnsBr Ga Mar YU35-YU37 SYU Mar YU36 SYU Ab Englebrt Mar Continued... D-170

177 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Yuba River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : Yuba River Run Name : Mar 95 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) YU Mar YU37-YU39 Englebrt Mar YUR38 EnglebrightRes Mar Eng Inf Mar YUR14 JacksonMeadows Mar Jack Med Inf Mar YUR30 Bowman Lake Mar Bowman Inf Mar YUR15 JcksonMeadows Mar YUR31 Bowman Lake Mar YUR29 Lake Spaulding Mar YUR13 NewBullardsBar Mar YUR39 Englebright Mar D-171

178 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Yuba River Basin March 1995 Event YU51 Marysville Gage Englebright Reservoir Inflow D-172

179 YU35 South Yuba At Jones Bar Gage YU21 Middle Yuba Below Our House Gage D-173

180 Subbasin Name HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Yuba River Basin: March 1995 Event Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) New Bullards Bar Inflow Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) YU6 Downie R YU4 NYU Hdwtr YUR38 EnglebrightRes YU46 YU At DryCr YU36 SYU Ab Englebrt YU48 YU Out YUR14 JacksonMeadows YUR28 Lake Spaulding YUR22 Lake Fordyce YU24 Fordyce Cr YU26 SYU Hdwtr YUR30 Bowman Lake YU8 NYU Ab GoodyBr YU2 Slate Cr Hdwtr YU10 NYU Ab NwBullrd YU16 MY Ab OregonCr YU18 OregonCr Hdwtr YUR12 NwBullardsBar YUR40 ScottsFlatRes YUR44 McollinsRes YU42 Deer Cr Ab YU YU34 SYU Ab JonesBar YU32 SYU At CanyonCr YU20 N and MY Confl D-174

181 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Yuba River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : Yuba River Run Name : Jan 97 Event Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : Yuba97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan 97 Event Execution Time : 04Dec Control Specs. : Jan 97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) YUR44 MCollinsRes Jan YUR45 MCollinsRes Jan YU45-YU49 Dry Cr Jan Eng Out Jan YU39-YU47 YU Jan YUR40 ScottsFlatRes Jan YUR41 ScottsFlatRes Jan YU41-YU43 Deer Cr Jan YU42 Deer Cr Ab YU Jan YU43 Deer Cr Ga Jan YU43-YU47 Deer Cr Jan YU47 Deer Cr Index Jan YU47-YU49 YU Jan YU46 YU At DryCr Jan YU Jan YU49-YU51 YU Out Jan YU48 YU Out Jan YU51 Marysville Ga Jan YUR22 Lake Fordyce Jan YUR23 Lake Fordyce Jan YUR23-YU Jan YU24 Fordyce Cr Jan YU26 SYU Hdwtr Jan YU Jan YU27-YU29 Spaulding Jan YUR28 Lake Spaulding Jan Spaulding Inf Jan YU2 Slate Cr Hdwtr Jan YU3 Slate Cr Ga Jan YU3-YU5 Slate Cr Jan YU6 Downie R Jan YU4 NYU Hdwtr Jan Continued... D-175

182 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Yuba River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : Yuba River Run Name : Jan 97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) YU Jan YU7-YU9 NYU Jan YU8 NYU Ab GoodyrBr Jan YU9 Goodyrs Bar Ga Jan YU9-YU5 NYU Jan YU Jan YU5-YU11 NYU Jan YU10 NYU Ab NwBullrd Jan YU Jan YU11-YU13 NYU Jan YUR12 NwBullardsBar Jan NB Bar Inf Jan YU18 OregonCr Hdwtr Jan YU19 Oregon Cr Ga Jan YU19-YU21 Oregon Cr Jan Jack Med Out Jan YU15-YU17 MYU Jan YU16 MYU Ab OregonCr Jan YU21 MYU Bl OurHs Ga Jan YU17-YU21 MYU Jan YU Jan YU21-YU23 MYU Jan NB Bar Out Jan JYU23-YU25 YU Jan YU23-YU25 YU Jan YU20 N and MYU Confl Jan YU Jan YU25-YU37 YU Jan Bowman Out Dec YU31-YU33 CanyonCr Dec Spaulding Out Jan YU29-YU33 SYU Jan YU32 SYU At CanyonCr Jan YU Jan YU33-YU35 SYU Jan YU34 SYU Ab JonesBar Jan YU35 SYU At JnsBr Ga Jan YU35-YU37 SYU Jan YU36 SYU Ab Englebrt Jan Continued... D-176

183 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Yuba River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : Yuba River Run Name : Jan 97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) YU Jan YU37-YU39 Englebrt Jan YUR38 EnglebrightRes Jan Eng Inf Jan YUR14 JacksonMeadows Jan Jack Med Inf Jan YUR30 Bowman Lake Jan Bowman Inf Jan YUR29 Lake Spaulding Dec YUR13 NewBullardsBar Dec YUR39 Englebright Dec YUR31 Bowman Lake Dec YUR15 Jackson Mead Dec D-177

184 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Yuba River Basin December January 1997 Event YU51 Marysville Gage Englebright Reservoir Inflow D-178

185 Subbasin Name HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Yuba River Basin: December January 1997 Event Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) New Bullards Bar Inflow Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) YU6 Downie R YU4 NYU Hdwtr YUR38 EnglebrightRes YU46 YU At DryCr YU36 SYU Ab Englebrt YU48 YU Out YUR14 JacksonMeadows YUR28 Lake Spaulding YUR22 Lake Fordyce YU24 Fordyce Cr YU26 SYU Hdwtr YUR30 Bowman Lake YU8 NYU Ab GoodyBr YU2 Slate Cr Hdwtr YU10 NYU Ab NwBullrd YU16 MY Ab OregonCr YU18 OregonCr Hdwtr YUR12 NwBullardsBar YUR40 ScottsFlatRes YUR44 McollinsRes YU42 Deer Cr Ab YU YU34 SYU Ab JonesBar YU32 SYU At CanyonCr YU20 N and MY Confl D-179

186 D-180

187 Bear River Basin Greenhorn Creek Dry Creek Camp Far West Reservoir Bear River Yankee Slough HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-181

188 Bear River The Bear River HMS model consists of a 451 square mile basin located in the southeast portion of the Sacramento Watershed, south of the Yuba River basin and above the confluence with the Feather River near Wheatland, CA. The basin model is divided into 13 subbasins and connected with 14 routing reaches. Three observed hydrographs were used to calibrate this model: Bear River near Wheatland, CA ( ); Bear River below the Dutch Flat Afterbay ( ); and, the outflow from Rollins Reservoir ( ). The computed peak flow at the HMS basin model outlet for the 1997 event was nearly twice as large as the 1995 event (37,383 cfs vs. 18,943 cfs). Using the adopted TC and R (Group 1) and Muskingum parameters, the computed hydrograph at the Wheatland gage matched the observed hydrograph reasonably well for the 1997 event and very well for the 1995 event. For this modeling effort, rather than attempt to predict how the Rollins Reservoir was operated, the source and sink tools available in HMS were implemented. This technique allowed the observed hydrograph at the outlet of the Rollins Reservoir to be passed downstream. As pointed out in Section 6.6.5, Reservoir Modeling of the main report, HMS is fairly limited in how it models releases from reservoirs. The gage at the Dutch Flats Afterbay only provided daily records that were difficult to simulate with the hourly model. The initial losses were reasonable for the two events. To approximate the volume in the observed hydrographs, the constant loss rates were set fairly low. Imperviousness was set at ten percent for the two subbasins that included the larger reservoirs: BER8 (Rollins Reservoir) and BER14 (Camp Far West). The baseflow values were within the modeling guidelines. Calibration of the 1995 Event: The observed and computed hydrographs at the Wheatland gage were almost coincident. They matched volumes, peaks, shape and timing. The gage at the headwaters ( ) reported only daily information, but its general trend was similar to the computed hydrograph. Initial and constant loss rates of 1.0 inch and 0.02 inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 6.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. Calibration of the 1997 Event: The observed and computed hydrographs at the Wheatland gage followed the same general shape. The constant losses were set to inches; however, the observed peak was still not duplicated. Given the shape of the observed and computed hydrographs, it appeared that a different R/(TC + R) ratio could have been used to better approximate the shape of the observed hydrograph. The gage at the headwaters ( ) reported only daily information, but its general trend was approximated by the computed hydrograph. However, even with the losses set to a minimal value, the volume of the computed hydrograph was below the observed hydrograph. Initial and constant loss rates of 1.5 inches and inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 3.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. D-182

189 Bear River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic D-183

190 Bear River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) BER8 Rollins Res BE6 Greenhorn Cr BE4 Steephollow Cr BE20 Dry Cr Ab Hwy BE12 BE Ab CampFarW BE16 BE Bl CampFarW BE22 BE Dry Cr Confl BE26 BE Yankee Confl BE24 Yankee Sl BE18 Dry Cr Hdwtr BE10 BE Ab LkCombie BER14 CampFarW Res BE2 BE Hdwtr Bear River Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 S R 1.47 L R / 1.5V R or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) V R (fps) K (Hr) 60 BE3-BE5 Bear R BE7-BE9 GreenhornCr BE5-BE9 Bear R BE23-BE25 Dry Cr BE19-BE25 Bear R BE29-BE27 Yankee Sl BE27-BE31 Bear R Out BE9-BE11 Rollins Res BE15-BE17 CampFarW BE13-B15 Bear R BE21-BE23 Dry Cr BE17-BE19 Bear R BE25-BE27 Bear R BE11-BE13 Bear R D-184

191 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Bear River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : Bear River Run Name : Mar95 Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Bear95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar1995 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar1995 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) BE18 Dry Cr Hdwtr Mar BE Mar BE21-BE23 Dry Cr Mar BE20 Dry Cr Ab Hwy Mar BE23 DryCr at Hwy Mar BE23-BE25 Dry Cr Mar Rollins Res Mar BE11-BE13 Bear R Mar BE10 BE Ab LkCombie Mar BE Mar BE13-B15 Bear R Mar BE12 BE Ab CampFarW Mar BE Mar BE15-BE17 CampFarW Mar BER14 CampFarW Res Mar BER17 CampFarW Res Mar BE17-BE19 Bear R Mar BE16 BE Bl CampFarW Mar BE19 Wheatland Ga Mar BE19-BE25 Bear R Mar BE Mar BE25-BE27 Bear R Mar BE24 Yankee Sl Mar BE29 Yankee Sl Mar BE29-BE27 Yankee Sl Mar BE22 BE Dry Cr Confl Mar BE27 DryCr Loc Mar BE27-BE31 Bear R Out Mar BE26 BE Yankee Confl Mar BE Mar BE6Greenhorn Cr Mar Continued... D-185

192 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Bear River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : Bear River Run Name : Mar95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) BE Mar BE7-BE9 GreenhornCr Mar BE2 BE Hdwtr Mar BE3 Dutch Flat Ga Mar BE3-BE5 Bear R Mar BE4 Steephollow Cr Mar BE Mar BE5-BE9 Bear R Mar BE Mar BE9-BE11 Rollins Res Mar BER8 Rollins Res Mar BER11 Rollins Res Mar Sink Mar D-186

193 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Bear River Basin March 1995 Event BE19 Wheatland Gage BE2 Bear River Headwater D-187

194 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Bear River Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) BER8 Rollins Res BE6 Greenhorn Cr BE4 Steephollow Cr BE20 Dry Cr Ab Hwy BE12 BE Ab CampFarW BE16 BE Bl CampFarW BE22 BE Dry Cr Confl BE26 BE Yankee Confl BE24 Yankee Sl BE18 Dry Cr Hdwtr BE10 BE Ab LkCombie BER14 CampFarW Res BE2 BE Hdwtr D-188

195 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Bear River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : Bear River Run Name : Jan97 Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : Bear97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan1997 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Jan1997 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) BE18 Dry Cr Hdwtr Jan BE Jan BE21-BE23 Dry Cr Jan BE20 Dry Cr Ab Hwy Jan BE23 DryCr at Hwy Jan BE23-BE25 Dry Cr Jan Rollins Res Jan BE11-BE13 Bear R Jan BE10 BE Ab LkCombie Jan BE Jan BE13-B15 Bear R Jan BE12 BE Ab CampFarW Jan BE Jan BE15-BE17 CampFarW Jan BER14 CampFarW Res Jan BER17 CampFarW Res Jan BE17-BE19 Bear R Jan BE16 BE Bl CampFarW Jan BE19 Wheatland Ga Jan BE19-BE25 Bear R Jan BE Jan BE25-BE27 Bear R Jan BE24 Yankee Sl Jan BE29 Yankee Sl Jan BE29-BE27 Yankee Sl Jan BE22 BE Dry Cr Confl Jan BE27 DryCr Loc Jan BE27-BE31 Bear R Out Jan BE26 BE Yankee Confl Jan BE Jan BE6 Greenhorn Cr Jan Continued... D-189

196 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Bear River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : Bear River Run Name : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) BE Jan BE7-BE9 GreenhornCr Jan BE2 BE Hdwtr Jan BE3 Dutch Flat Ga Jan BE3-BE5 Bear R Jan BE4 Steephollow Cr Jan BE Jan BE5-BE9 Bear R Jan BE Jan BE9-BE11 Rollins Res Jan BER8 Rollins Res Jan BER11 Rollins Res Jan Sink Jan D-190

197 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Bear River Basin December January 1997 Event BE19 Wheatland Gage BE2 Bear River Headwater D-191

198 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Bear River Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) BER8 Rollins Res BE6 Greenhorn Cr BE4 Steephollow Cr BE20 Dry Cr Ab Hwy BE12 BE Ab CampFarW BE16 BE Bl CampFarW BE22 BE Dry Cr Confl BE26 BE Yankee Confl BE24 Yankee Sl BE18 Dry Cr Hdwtr BE10 BE Ab LkCombie BER14 CampFarW Res BE2 BE Hdwtr D-192

199 American River Basin North Fork American River Hell Hole Reservoir Middle Fork American River Rubicon River Union Valley Reservoir Ice House Reservoir Adler Creek Folsom Lake Dry Creek South Fork American River Silver Fork HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-193

200 American River The American River HMS model consists of a 1,861 square mile basin above Folsom Reservoir located in the southeastern-most portion of the Sacramento Watershed. It is divided into 57 subbasins and connected with 38 routing reaches. The observed hydrographs are the computed inflow into Folsom Reservoir and at gages on the South Fork near Placerville and near Lotus and on the Middle Fork near Forest Hill. The computed peak inflow into Folsom Reservoir for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (275,000 cfs vs. 75,000 cfs). The adopted TC and R (Group 1) values were used. The generic equation to compute the reach travel time (Muskingum K) was not used because the reach travel times were too short; thus, causing the computed peaks to occur too early. Instead, the reach travel time (K) was computed knowing the reach length and average velocity. The average velocity was computed using Manning s equation. The Manning s n value was estimated with Jarrett s equation, and the hydraulic radius was estimated from the American River equation, which was developed from a regression of field data. Of the 38 routing reaches, 13 reaches used the Muskingum routing technique. The other 25 reaches used the lag method since the travel time within each of those reaches was less than the one-hour time step used by the Muskingum method. For this modeling effort, rather than attempt to predict how the French Meadows, Hell Hole, North Fork, and Loon Lake reservoirs were operated, the source and sink tools available in HMS were implemented. This technique allowed the observed hydrograph at the outlet of each of the reservoirs to be passed downstream. As pointed out in Section 6.6.5, Reservoir Modeling of the main report, HMS is fairly limited in how it models releases from reservoirs. Calibration efforts required different loss and baseflow parameters for different subbasins. Another reason the observed reservoir outflows were used as sources was to replace the inadequate computed runoff from the upstream basins. Even with the losses reduced to minimal values, the computed volumes and peaks for the 1997 event could not match the observed hydrographs. The thought was that the LWASS was not large enough to generate the observed volumes. The timing appears consistent with the observed hydrograph, but the volume and peak are not. This has been a problem in other basins as well. For the 1995 event, the observed and computed hydrographs matched very well. Ten percent impervious area was used for the Folsom Lake subbasin, and twelve percent impervious area was used for the Loon Lake subbasin. Calibration of the 1995 Event: Calibration was not performed for the Middle Fork near Forest Hill (due to insufficient data) but was performed for the other locations listed above. By using constant loss rates between 0.01 and 0.05 inches/hour and initial losses between 1.5 and 2.75 inches (most subbasins about 2 inches), the model calibrated well to observed hydrographs. A recession ratio of 0.8 and a peak ratio of 0.15 defined the recession limb of the hydrographs. An initial baseflow of 5 to 8 cfs per square mile was assumed (most initial baseflows were set to 5 cfs per square mile). D-194

201 Calibration of the 1997 Event: Calibration was not performed for the gages on the South Fork near Placerville and near Lotus (due to insufficient data) but was performed for the other locations listed above. By using a constant loss rate of inches/hour and an initial loss of 2.0 inches, the model calibrated well to the observed hydrograph (the inflow to Folsom Reservoir). Only daily data were available at the gage on the Middle Fork near Forest Hill, so the model was calibrated to fit an observed peak and the daily data reasonably well. The baseflow recession parameters of 0.8 for the constant and 0.15 for the peak ratio worked best. An initial baseflow of 5 cfs per square mile was used. American River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic D-195

202 American River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Ave Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Final TC Final R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) LCA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (Hr) AM10 NF at NF Lk Ga AM12 MF Ab Fr Md Ga AM18 MF Ab Rubicon AM26 Hell Hole Loc AM30 SF Rub Georg Ga AM30A Loon Lake HW AM36 Rub Ab Pilot Cr AM36A Pilot Ab SM Ga AM36B Pilot Bl SM AM36C Rub Ab MF AM48 SF Silv B IH Ga AM52 Sil B Camino Ga AM58A Silver Lk HW AM60A Caples Lake HW AM80 SF Nr Placvl Ga AM6 NF Ab Pagge Cr AM4 NF NF Nr Baxter AM2 NF HW Ab Baxter AM22 Five Lakes Cr AM16 Duncan Canyon AM14 MF Ab Ducan Cr AM20 NF MF at FH Ga AM8 Pagge Creek AM24 Rub Ab Hell Hol AM28 Rubicon Ab SFk AM34 Long Cr Ab Rub AM10A Clipper Cr HW AM32 SF Rub Ab Rub AM38 MF at Mouth AM42 B Silver Ab UV AM46 L Silver Bl UV AM88 Greenwood HW AM44 Jones Fk Silver AM78 Bear Cr HW AM84 Dutch Cr HW AM76 Rock Cr Ab Bear AM54 Silver at Mouth AM74 Slab Cr HW AM50 SF Silver At Mo AM90 SF Ab Weber Cr AM68 SF Ab Silver C AM86 SF Ab Greenwood AM70 SF Bb Slab Cr AM82 SF Above Dutch AM40 AR Ab SFk at F AM72 SF Ab Rock Cr AM62 Sil F Ab Kyburz AM64 SF Ab Adler Cr AM56 SF Amer R HW AM96 Weber Bl Dry C AM58 Sil Fk Ab Cable AM100 Folsom Res Loc AM98 SF at Folsom Re AM92 Weber Ab Dry Cr AM60 Cables Ab Sil F AM66 Adler Cr HW AM94 Dry Cr HW D-196

203 American River Reach Parameters Reach Reach Reach Cum Drainage Area American River Field Jarrett's Manning's Travel Time Name Length Slope (from GeoHms) Reg. Eqa Equation Velocity K Lag L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) A (Sq. Mi.) R = A n =.39S.38 R -.16 v (ft/s) Hrs (Min) AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM Use 20 min AM AM AM AM AM AM AM Use 0 min AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM33A-33B AM33B AM61A AM61B AM31A Routing parameters based on field observations and regression analysis. (Dec 1996 Event) D-197

204 HEC-HMS Summary of Results American River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : American River Run Name : Mar 1995 Event Start of Run : 06Mar Basin Model : American95 End of Run : 17Mar Met. Model : Mar 95 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar 95 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) AM4 NF NF Nr Baxter Mar AM2 NF HW Ab Baxter Mar AM5 NF Nr Baxter Mar AM Mar AM6 NF Ab Pagge Cr Mar AM8 Pagge Creek Mar AM9 NF Bl Pagge Cr Mar AM Mar AM10 NF at NF Lk Ga Mar AMR10 NF Dam Mar AM11 NF bl NF Dam Mar AM Mar AM36A Pilot Ab SM Ga Mar AMR36D Stumpy Mead Mar AM33A pilot Bl SM Mar AM33A-33B Mar Hell Hole Out Mar Am27 Rub Bl HH Ga Mar AM Mar Loon Out Mar AM31A Mar AM31A Mar AM30 SF Rub Georg Ga Mar Am31 SF Rub N Geo Ga Mar AM Mar AM32 SF Rub Ab Rub Mar AM28 Rubicon Ab SFk Mar AM33 Rub Bl SF Rub Mar AM Mar AM36B Pilot Bl SM Mar AM36 Rub Ab Pilot Cr Mar AM33B Rub Bl Pilot Mar AM33B Mar AM34 Long Cr Ab Rub Mar Continued... D-198

205 HEC-HMS Summary of Results American River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : American River Run Name : Mar 1995 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) AM35 Rub Bl long Cr Mar AM Mar FM Outflow Mar AM13 MF At F Med Ga Mar AM Mar AM14 MF Ab Duncan Cr Mar AM15 MF Ab Duncan Mar AM Mar AM16 Duncan Canyon Mar AM17 MF Ab MF PH Ga Mar AM Mar AM36C Rub Ab MF Mar AM18 MF Ab Rubicon Mar AM37 MF Bl Rubicon Mar AM Mar AM20 NF MF Ab FH Ga Mar AM39 MF Bl NF MF Mar AM Mar AM41 MF Nr FH Gage Mar AM Mar AM10A Clipper Cr HW Mar AM38 MF at Mouth Mar AM43 AR Bl MF & SF Mar AM Mar AM94 Dry Cr HW Mar AM92 Weber Ab Dry Cr Mar AM95 Weber Bl Dry Cr Mar AM Mar AM76 Rock Cr Ab Bear Mar AM77 Rock Cr Ab Bear Mar AM Mar Union Val Out Mar AM45 Silver Bl U Val Mar AM Mar AM48 SF Silv B IH Ga Mar AMR48A Ice House Mar AM49 SF Sil Bl IH Ga Mar AM Mar AM46 L Silver Bl UV Mar AM50 SF Silver At Mo Mar Continued... D-199

206 HEC-HMS Summary of Results American River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : American River Run Name : Mar 1995 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) AM51 Sil Bl SF Mar AM Mar AM52 Sil B Camino Ga Mar AM53 Sil B Camino Ga Mar AM Mar AM58A Silver Lk HW Mar AMR58B Silver Lake Mar AM61B Silver Lk Out Mar AM61B Mar AM60A Caples Lake HW Mar AMR60B Caples Lake Mar AM61A Caples Lk Out Mar AM61A Mar AM58 Sil Fk Ab Cable Mar AM60 Cables Ab Sil F Mar AM61 Sil Fk B Cables Mar AM Mar AM62 Sil F Ab Kyburz Mar AM56 SF Amer R HW Mar AM63 SF Ab Silver Fk Mar AM Mar AM65 SF Nr Kyburz Ga Mar AM Mar AM64 SF Ab Adler Cr Mar AM66 Adler Cr HW Mar AM67 SF Bl Adler Cr Mar AM Mar AM54 Silver at Mouth Mar AM68 SF Ab Silver C Mar AM69 Sf Bl Silver Cr Mar AM Mar AM74 Slab Cr HW Mar AM70 SF Ab Slab Cr Mar AM75 SF Bl Slab Cr Mar AMR75A Slab Cr Dam Mar AM Mar AM78 Bear Cr HW Mar AM72 SF Ab Rock Cr Mar AM79 SF Bl Rock Cr Mar AM Mar AM80 SF Nr Placvl Ga Mar Continued... D-200

207 HEC-HMS Summary of Results American River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : American River Run Name : Mar 1995 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) AM81 SF Nr Placvl Ga Mar AM Mar AM84 Dutch Cr HW Mar AM82 SF Above Dutch Mar AM85 SF Bl Dutch Cr Mar AM Mar AM88 Greenwood HW Mar AM86 SF Ab Greenwood Mar AM87 SF Nr Lotus Ga Mar AM Mar AM90 SF Ab Weber Cr Mar AM96 Weber Bl Dry C Mar AM97 SF Bl Weber Cr Mar AM Mar AM40 AR Ab SFk at F Mar AM98 SF at Folsom Re Mar AM99 AR abv Folsom Mar AM Mar AM100 Folsom Res Loc Mar AM101 AR at Folsom Mar Folsom Res Mar AM22 Five Lakes Cr Mar AM24 Rub Ab Hell Hol Mar AM Mar AM Mar AM26 Hell Hole Loc Mar Hell Hole Inflow Mar AM42 B Silver Ab UV Mar AM44 Jones Fk Silver Mar Union val inf Mar AM12 MF Ab Fr Md Ga Mar FM Inflow Mar French Meadows Mar Hell Hole Res Mar AM30A Loon Lake HW Mar Loon Inf Mar AMR44A Union Valley Mar AMR30B Loon Lake Mar D-201

208 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs American River Basin March 1995 Event AM101 American River at Folsom AM87 South Fork Near Lotus Gage D-202

209 AM81 South Fork Near Placerville Gage D-203

210 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters American River Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) AM6 NF Ab Pagge Cr AM4 NF Nr Baxter AM2 NF NF HW Ab Baxter AM22 Five Lakes Cr AM16 Duncan Canyon AM14 MF Ab Duncan Cr AM20 NF MF Ab FH Ga AM8 Pagge Cr AM24 Rub Ab Hell Hol AM28 Rubicon Ab SFk AM34 Long Cr Ab Rub AM10A Clipper Cr HW AM32 SF Rub Ab Rub AM38 MF at Mouth AM42 B Silver Ab UV AM46 L Silver Bl UV AM88 Greenwood HW AM44 Jones Fk Silver AM78 Bear Cr HW AM84 Dutch Cr HW AM76 Rock Cr Ab Bear AM54 Silver at Mouth AM74 Slab Cr HW AM50 SF Silver At Mo AM90 SF Ab Weber Cr AM68 SF Ab Silver C AM86 SF Ab Greenwood AM70 SF Ab Slab Cr AM82 SF Above Dutch AM40 AR Ab SFk at F AM72 SF Ab Rock Cr AM62 Sil F Ab Kyburz AM64 SF Ab Adler Cr AM56 SF Amer R HW AM96 Weber Bl Dry C AM58 Sil Fk Ab Cable AM100 Folsom Res Loc AM98 SF at Folsom AM92 Weber Ab Dry Cr AM60 Cables Ab Sil F AM66 Adler Cr HW AM94 Dry Cr HW AM10 NF at NF Lk Ga AM52 Sil B Camino Ga AM80 SF Nr Placvl Ga AM48 SF Silv B IH Ga Continued D-204

211 Subbasin Name HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters American River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) AM30 SF Rub Georg Ga AM12 MF Ab Fr Md Ga AM26 Hell Hole Loc AM18 MF Ab Rubicon AM36 Rub Ab Pilot Cr AM60A Caples Lake HW AM58A Silver Lk HW AM30A Loon Lake HW AM36A Pilot Ab SM Ga AM36B Pilot Bl SM AM36C Rub Ab MF D-205

212 HEC-HMS Summary of Results American River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : American River Run Name : Jan 1997 Event Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : American97 End of Run : 10Jan Met. Model : Jan 97 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Jan 97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) AM11B NF Out Jan AM11 NF bl NF Dam Jan AM Jan AM36A Pilot Ab SM Ga Jan AMR36D Stumpy Mead Jan AM33A pilot Bl SM Jan AM33A-33B Jan Hell Hole Out Jan Am27 Rub Bl HH Ga Jan AM Jan Loon Out Jan AM31A Jan AM31A Jan AM30 SF Rub Georg Ga Jan Am31 SF Rub N Geo Ga Jan AM Jan AM32 SF Rub Ab Rub Jan AM28 Rubicon Ab SFk Jan AM33 Rub Bl SF Rub Jan AM Jan AM36B Pilot Bl SM Jan AM36 Rub Ab Pilot Cr Jan AM33B Rub Bl Pilot Jan AM33B Jan AM34 Long Cr Ab Rub Jan AM35 Rub Bl long Cr Jan AM Jan Fr Med Out Jan AM13 MF At F Med Ga Jan AM Jan AM14 MF Ab Duncan Cr Jan AM15 MF Ab Duncan Jan AM Jan AM16 Duncan Canyon Jan Continued... D-206

213 HEC-HMS Summary of Results American River Basin: December 1996-January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : American River Run Name : Jan 97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) AM17 MF Ab MF PH Ga Jan AM Jan AM36C Rub Ab MF Jan AM18 MF Ab Rubicon Jan AM37 MF Bl Rubicon Jan AM Jan AM20 NF MF Ab FH Ga Jan AM39 MF Bl NF MF Jan AM Jan AM41 MF Nr FH Gage Jan AM Jan AM10A Clipper Cr HW Jan AM38 MF at Mouth Jan AM43 AR Bl MF & SF Jan AM Jan AM94 Dry Cr HW Jan AM92 Weber Ab Dry Cr Jan AM95 Weber Bl Dry Cr Jan AM Jan AM76 Rock Cr Ab Bear Jan AM77 Rock Cr Ab Bear Jan AM Jan AM42 B Silver Ab UV Jan AM44 Jones Fk Silver Jan AMR44A Union Valley Jan AM45 Silver Bl U Val Jan AM Jan AM48 SF Silv B IH Ga Jan AMR48A Ice House Jan AM49 SF Sil Bl IH Ga Jan AM Jan AM46 L Silver Bl UV Jan AM50 SF Silver At Mo Jan AM51 Sil Bl SF Jan AM Jan AM52 Sil B Camino Ga Jan AM53 Sil B Camino Ga Jan AM Jan AM58A Silver Lk HW Jan AMR58B Silver Lake Jan Continued... D-207

214 HEC-HMS Summary of Results American River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : American River Run Name : Jan 97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) AM61B Silver Lk Out Jan AM61B Jan AM60A Caples Lake HW Jan AMR60B Caples Lake Jan AM61A Caples Lk Out Jan AM61A Jan AM58 Sil Fk Ab Cable Jan AM60 Cables Ab Sil F Jan AM61 Sil Fk B Cables Jan AM Jan AM62 Sil F Ab Kyburz Jan AM56 SF Amer R HW Jan AM63 SF Ab Silver Fk Jan AM Jan AM65 SF Nr Kyburz Ga Jan AM Jan AM64 SF Ab Adler Cr Jan AM66 Adler Cr HW Jan AM67 SF Bl Adler Cr Jan AM Jan AM54 Silver at Mouth Jan AM68 SF Ab Silver C Jan AM69 Sf Bl Silver Cr Jan AM Jan AM74 Slab Cr HW Jan AM70 SF Ab Slab Cr Jan AM75 SF Bl Slab Cr Jan AMR75A Slab Cr Dam Jan AM Jan AM78 Bear Cr HW Jan AM72 SF Ab Rock Cr Jan AM79 SF Bl Rock Cr Jan AM Jan AM80 SF Nr Placvl Ga Jan AM81 SF Nr Placvl Ga Jan AM Jan AM84 Dutch Cr HW Jan AM82 SF Above Dutch Jan AM85 SF Bl Dutch Cr Jan AM Jan AM88 Greenwood HW Jan Continued... D-208

215 HEC-HMS Summary of Results American River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : American River Run Name : Jan 97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) AM86 SF Ab Greenwood Jan AM87 SF Nr Lotus Ga Jan AM Jan AM90 SF Ab Weber Cr Jan AM96 Weber Bl Dry C Jan AM97 SF Bl Weber Cr Jan AM Jan AM40 AR Ab SFk at F Jan AM98 SF at Folsom Re Jan AM99 AR abv Folsom Jan AM Jan AM100 Folsom Res Loc Jan AM101 AR at Folsom Jan Folsom Res Jan AM4 NF NF Nr Baxter Jan AM2 NF HW Ab Baxter Jan AM5 NF Nr Baxter Jan AM Jan AM6 NF Ab Pagge Cr Jan AM8 Pagge Creek Jan AM9 NF Bl Pagge Cr Jan AM Jan AM10 NF at NF Lk Ga Jan Am11A NF Dam Inf Jan AM22 Five Lakes Cr Jan AM24 Rub Ab Hell Hol Jan AM Jan AM Jan AM26 Hell Hole Loc Jan Hell Hole Inf Jan AM12 MF Ab Fr Md Ga Jan FrMed Inf Jan French Meadows Dec Hell Hole Res Dec AM30A Loon Lake HW Dec Loon Inf Dec AMR30B Loon Lake Dec AMR10 NF Dam Dec D-209

216 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs American River Basin December January 1997 Event AM101 American River at Folsom AM41 Middle Fork Near Forest Hill Gage D-210

217 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters American River Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) AM6 NF Ab Pagge Cr AM4 NF Nr Baxter AM2 NF NF HW Ab Baxter AM22 Five Lakes Cr AM16 Duncan Canyon AM14 MF Ab Duncan Cr AM20 NF MF Ab FH Ga AM8 Pagge Cr AM24 Rub Ab Hell Hol AM28 Rubicon Ab SFk AM34 Long Cr Ab Rub AM10A Clipper Cr HW AM32 SF Rub Ab Rub AM38 MF at Mouth AM42 B Silver Ab UV AM46 L Silver Bl UV AM88 Greenwood HW AM44 Jones Fk Silver AM78 Bear Cr HW AM84 Dutch Cr HW AM76 Rock Cr Ab Bear AM54 Silver at Mouth AM74 Slab Cr HW AM50 SF Silver At Mo AM90 SF Ab Weber Cr AM68 SF Ab Silver C AM86 SF Ab Greenwood AM70 SF Ab Slab Cr AM82 SF Above Dutch AM40 AR Ab SFk at F AM72 SF Ab Rock Cr AM62 Sil F Ab Kyburz AM64 SF Ab Adler Cr AM56 SF Amer R HW AM96 Weber Bl Dry C AM58 Sil Fk Ab Cable AM100 Folsom Res Loc AM98 SF at Folsom AM92 Weber Ab Dry Cr AM60 Cables Ab Sil F AM66 Adler Cr HW AM94 Dry Cr HW AM10 NF at NF Lk Ga AM52 Sil B Camino Ga AM80 SF Nr Placvl Ga AM48 SF Silv B IH Ga Continued D-211

218 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters American River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) AM30 SF Rub Georg Ga AM12 MF Ab Fr Md Ga AM26 Hell Hole Loc AM18 MF Ab Rubicon AM36 Rub Ab Pilot Cr AM60A Caples Lake HW AM58A Silver Lk HW AM30A Loon Lake HW AM36A Pilot Ab SM Ga AM36B Pilot Bl SM AM36C Rub Ab MF D-212

219 Upper San Joaquin River Basin Granite Creek North Fork San Joaquin River Middle Fork San Joaquin River South Fork San Joaquin River Mammoth Lake Lake Thomas A Edison Bass Lake Fine Gold Creek Huntington Lake Florence Lake Shaver Lake Millerton Lake San Joaquin River HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-213

220 Upper San Joaquin River The Upper San Joaquin River HMS model consists of a 1,638 square mile basin above Millerton Lake (Friant Dam) located in the southeastern-most portion of the San Joaquin Watershed. The basin model is divided into 36 subbasins and connected with 18 routing reaches. The computed peak inflow into Millerton Lake was approximately 83,600 cfs for the 1997 event and approximately 39,700 cfs for the 1995 event. Calibration of the 1995 Event: As noted for other basins, the observed discharge at the headwater reservoirs was difficult to match because of insufficient LWASS. The LWASS hyetographs allowed for a better match of the observed hydrographs in the lower reaches; however, only one good calibration resulted in the upper area (at the mouth of Willow Creek). The other observed hydrographs in the lower reaches were along the mainstem of the San Joaquin River where storage capacity in the chain of dams above Millerton Lake was sufficient to make them difficult to calibrate to without substantial knowledge of the regulation of the individual reservoirs. No releases were made at Mammoth Pool, while the hydrographs at Kerckhoff and Redinger consisted of a sequence of large, abrupt changes. Although revising the loss rates allowed a match of the observed flood volume, calibrating to the peak inflow to Millerton Lake required successful calibrations at Redinger and Kerckhoff, (which wasn t possible with the limited knowledge of the reservoir regulations). Calibration of the 1997 Event: The 1997 event completely overwhelmed the San Joaquin River reservoirs above Millerton Lake and provided good calibrations at Bear Creek, Mammoth Pool, and Millerton Lake. Insufficient LWASS led to discrepancies between the computed and observed hydrographs at Willow Creek and Pitman/Big Creek. These subbasins had little effect on downstream flows. The simulation period was set to begin 01Jan1997, rather than 29Dec1996, so that the small burst of rainfall a few days prior to the main event was ignored. Using the earlier simulation date made it difficult to reconcile the observed initial level of the Mammoth Pool reservoir with realistic loss rates. Achieving a good calibration at Millerton Lake required a good calibration at the Mammoth Pool Dam. All subbasins used the generalized TC and R parameters (Group 2) derived from regression analysis. Good calibrations resulted at Bear Creek, Mammoth Pool, and Millerton Lake, although revising the parameters for a slightly sharper response could improve results somewhat. Calibrations at Pitman Creek, and Big Creek were limited by inconsistencies between the observed hydrographs and the shape and timing of the LWASS hyetographs. Lack of runoff volume seemed to be the main problem for calibration at Willow Creek and other (mostly headwater) subbasins. Losses were assigned according to how far upstream the subbasin was located (which D-214

221 generally coincided with elevation). The three elevation zones that were used were as follows: 1. Florence Lake, Bear Creek, Lake T. A. Edison, Mono Creek had the highest losses (1.5 inches initial, 0.85 inches/hour constant). These values were determined by calibration at Bear Creek. 2. The area between South Fork San Joaquin River at Mono Creek to Mammoth Dam used smaller losses (1.0 inches initial, 0.44 inches/hour constant). These values were determined by calibration at the Mammoth Pool Dam. 3. The area between Friant Dam and the Mammoth Pool Dam used the smallest losses (0.75 inches initial, 0.01 inches/hour constant). These values were determined by calibration at Friant Dam. Specific modeling efforts for the 1997 and 1995 events are described in the following paragraphs: SJ5R Florence Lake: The drainage area to this location is approximately 173 square miles. Reservoir levels for Florence Lake are given at gage One diversion, Ward Tunnel (gage ), diverts cfs from Florence Lake to Huntington Lake. Hourly flows below the reservoir were available for the 1995 event at gage This gage includes 13 square miles of area below the reservoir. It appeared that the peak flows were likely the result of the local drainage rather than reservoir releases. Gage records implied that the reservoir filled during the 1995 and 1997 events. Southern California Edison (SCE) provided elevation-storageoutflow data, but it s not clear how the datums related. Since it doesn t appear the reservoir releases much water, an artificial outflow curve ranging from cfs was used. Calibrated outflow data does not exist. SJ13R Lake Thomas A. Edison: The drainage area to this location is approximately 92 square miles. Reservoir levels for the lake are given at gage A diversion below the lake at Mono Diversion Dam sends small amounts of flow to Ward tunnel, which in turn goes to Huntington Lake. Gage records imply that the reservoir reduced outflow from cfs to about 25 cfs during the 1995 and 1997 events. SCE provided elevation-storage-outflow data, but since it doesn t appear the reservoir releases much water, an artificial outflow curve ranging from cfs was used. SJ8 Bear Creek: This 52 square mile subbasin served as an optimization point, and fit the 1997 observed data extremely well (no hourly data were available for 1995). By adjusting the losses slightly and using the generalized values, the calibration provided an acceptable fit with only a slight difference in timing. D-215

222 SJ4 Florence Lake, SJ6 South Fork San Joaquin above Bear Creek, SJ10 South Fork San Joaquin above Mono Creek, SJ12 Lake Thomas A. Edison, and SJ14 Mono Creek: The losses used for Bear Creek were also applied to the other subbasins in the vicinity. The two lakes (Florence and Thomas A. Edison) released almost no water during the two events, while the three other subbasins were very small (totaling 56 square miles). SJ43R Mammoth Pool Reservoir: The drainage area to this location is approximately 1000 square miles. The reservoir levels are given at gage One diversion, Ward Tunnel (gage ), diverts cfs from Florence Lake to Huntington Lake. This reservoir is the most upstream of a chain of reservoirs along the mainstem San Joaquin above Millerton. The drainage area above the reservoir consists of many subbasins and routing reaches. About 30% of the area is gaged, but most of this area occurs at outflows from Lake TA Edison and Florence Lake. These lakes released little water during the flood events. Only the 52 square miles of Bear Creek above gage provided any indication of the hydrologic response in the drainage area above Mammoth Pool. In addition to being sparsely gaged, the valleys above Mammoth Pool vary greatly regarding elevation and orientation. Mammoth Pool is the first point along the mainstem San Joaquin offering calibration data. Hourly flow data below the reservoir is available at gage , although the 1997 flood overwhelmed the gage. Therefore, the data for this flood consists of most of the rising limb and an estimated peak (80,000 cfs). Flow to Mammoth Pool Powerhouse (gage ) bypasses the outflow gage for reservoir. Daily averages for these flows seem to remain steady at about 1100 cfs for the March 1995 event. They generally fluctuate between cfs for the 1997 event with a daily mean on Jan 2 nd of 1420 cfs. SCE provided elevation-storageoutflow data; starting storage is published online. Calibration issues for the 1997 event: According to the SCE data, a recorded peak reservoir level of 3,338 feet on 02Jan97 should have yielded less than 30,000 cfs outflow. However, an instantaneous peak of 80,000 cfs was observed at the gage downstream of dam. So, the storage-outflow relationship was extended. Little is known for sure about the actual peak. The shape of the partial observed hydrograph implies that the highest hourly outflow could be substantially less than this instantaneous value, possibly around 60,000-65,000 cfs. Additionally, calibration to the observed hourly inflows at Millerton Lake was sensitive to the shape and timing of the hydrograph coming out of Mammoth Pool. Adjusting the initial losses to an intermediate value (between those used for the lower subbasins close to Millerton and those used for the most upstream subbasins around Florence and T.A. Edison Lakes) resulted in a modeled peak hourly flow of around 70,000 cfs. This reasonably matched available observed data at the outlet of Mammoth Pool and provided a good fit to the observed data at Millerton. D-216

223 SJ47R Huntington Lake: The drainage area to Huntington Lake is about 80 square miles. Reservoir levels are given at gage Observed outflows are given at gage Diversions from the South Fork San Joaquin River and Ward Tunnel come into the reservoir. A diversion to Shaver Lake leaves Huntington (Shaver conduit seems to remain within cfs). Gage records show that little water left Huntington Lake during the 1995 and 1997 events. The SCE provided elevation-storage-outflow data, but since it doesn t appear the reservoir releases much water, an artificial outflow curve ranging from 2-30 cfs was used. SJ50 Pitman Creek below Tamarack Creek ( ): The drainage area for this subbasin is about 23 square miles. Partial hourly data were available, but it didn t include the peak flow of 5500 cfs on 02Jan97. LWASS data favors a twopeak hydrograph, but the observed data shows only one. There appears to be a possible problem with the LWASS data. SJ53G Big Creek near Mouth, above San Joaquin River ( ): The drainage area to this location is about 131 square miles, although most of it is behind Huntington Lake (which released little water during the events). The hourly data reflects the same problem as seen at SJ50: Observed hydrograph is a single sharp spike that modeled data can t replicate. There appears to be a problem in the LWASS data. SJ65R Crane Valley Storage Reservoir (Bass Lake): The drainage area is about 50 square miles. Reservoir levels are given at gage Observed hourly flow data below the reservoir is available at gage During the winter months, Soquel Ditch diverts up to 50 cfs above the reservoir into the Fresno River basin. Brown s Creek Canal (gage ) diverts up to 80 cfs from South Fork Willow Creek into Bass Lake (but cut back diversion flows to only 1-2 cfs during a flood event). Conduit #3 (gage ) diverts cfs from Bass Lake to the Kerckhoff Reservoir, bypassing the gage at the outlet. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provided elevation-storage-outflow data adequate for modeling. Calibration issues for 1997 event: The drainage area above the reservoir consists of a single subbasin (SJ64). The elevation-storage-outflow relationship and initial storage data closely matched initial observed flows downstream of dam. After routing through the reservoir, the shape and timing of the modeled hydrograph resembled observed data, but the volume was too low (even with loss parameters reduced to almost zero). SJ69 Willow Creek at Mouth, near Auberry (Gage ): The drainage area is about 130 square miles. Observed flows are given at gage During the winter months, Soquel Ditch diverts up to 50 cfs above Bass Lake into the Fresno River basin. Conduit #3 (gage ) diverts cfs from Bass Lake to the Kerckhoff Reservoir, bypassing the gage at the outlet. D-217

224 Calibration issues for 1997 event: The gage data were unusable since the gage was inundated by backwater from the San Joaquin River. Also, outflow from Bass Lake accounted for almost all of the pre-storm flow at this station, making it necessary to set initial baseflow to 0.01 cfs per square mile for subbasins SJ66 and SJ68. SJ63-SJ71 Redinger Lake: Because this entire routing reach is covered by the lake, the lag method was used and the time was set to one minute. Because little storage exists in this lake, a junction was used instead of a reservoir. SJ71-SJ73 Kerckhoff Lake: Because most of this reach is covered by the lake, the Muskingum routing method (K=1.8 hr; X=0.4; subreaches=2) was changed to the lag method (24 minutes). Because little storage exists in this lake, a junction was used instead of a reservoir. SJ73-SJ75 Millerton Lake: Because most of this reach is covered by the lake, the routing technique was changed from the Muskingum method (K=1.5; X=0.4; subreaches=2) to the lag method (18 minutes). SJ75 Inflow to Millerton Lake: Reservoir inflows computed from change-in-storage were provided from DSS pathname: /SJ HILLS FERRY/FRIANT/FLOW-RES IN//1HOUR/PHASE1/. Calibration issues for 1997 event: Reduced initial losses to 0.5 inches for the subbasins close to Millerton Lake (below Mammoth Pool Dam) to reproduce the small rise in the hydrograph that occurred late on 01Jan97. The sharp spikes likely reflect precipitation on or close to the water surface in the chain of lakes. Smaller initial losses in the lower reaches of the overall basin were used to generate the high baseflows occurring prior to the 1997 event. Runoff from a smaller antecedent storm was still influencing the system. Additionally, the calibration to the observed hourly inflows at Millerton Lake was very sensitive to the shape and timing of the hydrograph coming out of Mammoth Pool. Adjusting the initial losses to an intermediate value (a value between that used for the lower subbasins close to Millerton and those used for the most upstream subbasins around Florence and T.A. Edison Lakes) resulted in a modeled peak hourly flow of approximately 70,000 cfs. This reasonably matched available observed data at the outlet of Mammoth Pool and provided a good fit to the observed data at Millerton. D-218

225 Upper San Joaquin River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic D-219

226 Upper San Joaquin River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Final TC Final R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 1.67(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) LCA (Mi) S (ft/ft) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) SJ4 Florence Lk SJ6 SFSJ ab Bear Cr SJ8 Bear Cr SJ10 SFSJ ab Mono Cr SJ12 Lk TA Edison SJ14 Mono Cr SJ16 SFSJ ab SJR SJ20 M Fk SJR SJ22 N Fk SJR SJ24 SJR ab GranitCr SJ26 Granite Cr SJ28 SJR ab SFk SJR SJ30 SJR ab Mammoth SJ32 Jackass Cr SJ34 Chiquito Cr SJ36 Kaiser Cr SJ38 Mammoth Pool LD SJ44 SJR ab Big Cr SJ46 Huntington Lk SJ48 Big C ab Pitman SJ50 Pitman Cr SJ52 Big Cr at SJR SJ56 SJR ab Stvnson SJ54 Shaver Lake SJ58 Stevenson Cr SJ60 Jose Cr SJ62 SJR ab Jose Cr SJ70 Redinger Lk SJ64 Bass Lake SJ66 N Fk Willow Cr SJ68 Willow Cr ab SJ SJ72 Kerchoff Lake SJ74 SJR ab Millerto SJ76 Big Sandy Cr SJ78 Fine Gold Cr SJ80 Millerton Lake D-220

227 Upper San Joaquin River Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 SR 1.47 LR / 1.5VR or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) SR (ft/ft) VR (fps) K (Hr) 60 SJ5-SJ9 SFSJ ab Bear SJ9-SJ15 SFSJ abmono SJ13-SJ15 Mono Cr SJ15-SJ29 SFSJ ab SJ SJ23-SJ27 SJR ab Gra SJ27-SJ29 SJR ab Sfk SJ29-SJ31 SJR ab Mam SJ47-SJ51 Big ab Pit SJ51-SJ53 Big ab SJR SJ43-SJ53 SJR ab Dam SJ55-SJ59 Stvnsn Cr SJ53-SJ59 SJR ab Stv SJ59-SJ63 SJR abjose SJ65-SJ67 NF Willow SJ67-SJ69 Willow Cr SJ63-SJ71 Redinger L SJ71-SJ73 Kerchoff L SJ73-SJ75 SJR ab Mil D-221

228 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Upper San Joaquin River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : SanJoaquin Run Name : March95 Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : SanJoaquin95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : 1995 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : 1995 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) SJ64 Bass Lake Mar SJ65R Bass Lake Mar SJ65 NFk WC b BassLk Mar SJ65-SJ67 NF Willow Mar SJ66 N Fk Willow Cr Mar JSJ67-SJ71 Willow Cr Mar SJ67-SJ69 Willow Cr Mar SJ68 Willow Cr ab SJ Mar SJ Mar SJ22 N Fk SJR Mar SJ20 M Fk SJR Mar SJ23 Cf NFk & MFk SJ Mar SJ23-SJ27 SJR ab Gra Mar SJ26 Granite Cr Mar SJ24 SJR ab GranitCr Mar SJ27 Cf Granite Cr Mar SJ27-SJ29 SJR ab SFk Mar SJ4 Florence Lk Mar SJ5R Florence Lake Mar SJ5-SJ9 SFSJ ab Bear Mar SJ6 SFSJ ab Bear Cr Mar SJ8 Bear Cr Mar SJ9 Cf SFSJ & BearCr Mar SJ9-SJ15 SFSJ abmono Mar SJ12 Lk TA Edison Mar SJ13R Lk TA Edison Mar Mono Cr Bl Thomas Ed Mar SJ13-SJ15 Mono Cr Mar SJ10 SFSJ ab Mono Cr Mar SJ14 Mono Cr Mar SJ15 Cf SFJR &MonoCr Mar SJ15-SJ29 SFSJ absjr Mar SJ28 SJR ab SFk SJR Mar SJ16 SFSJ ab SJR Mar Continued D-222

229 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Upper San Joaquin River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : SanJoaquin Run Name : March95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) SJ29 Cf SJR & SFkSJR Mar SJ29-SJ31 SJR ab Mam Mar SJ30 SJR ab Mammoth Mar SJ31 SJR ab Mammoth Mar SJ34 Chiquito Cr Mar SJ32 Jackass Cr Mar SJ38 Mammoth Pool LD Mar SJ36 Kaiser Cr Mar SJ43R Mammoth Pool Mar SJ43 SJR bl Mammoth Mar SJ43-SJ53 SJR abdam Mar SJ46 Huntington Lk Mar SJ47R Huntington Lk Mar SJ47 Big Cr bl Hntng Mar SJ47-SJ51 Big ab Pit Mar SJ48 Big C ab Pitman Mar SJ50 Pitman Cr Mar SJ51 Cf Big & Pitman Mar SJ51-SJ53 Big ab SJ Mar SJ52 Big Cr at SJR Mar SJ53G Big Cr ab SJR Mar SJ44 SJR ab Dam Mar SJ53 Dam Mar SJ53-SJ59 ab Stevnsn Mar SJ56 SJR ab Stvnson Mar SJ57 SJR ab Stvnsn C Mar SJ54 Shaver Lake Mar SJ55R Shaver Lake Mar SJ55 Shaver Lake Mar SJ55-SJ59 Stvnsn Cr Mar SJ58 Stevenson Cr Mar SJ59 Cf Stevenson Cr Mar SJ59-SJ63 SJ ab Jose Mar SJ62 SJR ab Jose Cr Mar SJ60 Jose Cr Mar SJ63 Cf Jose Cr Mar SJ63-SJ71 RedingerLk Mar SJ70 Redinger Lk Mar SJ71G SJR abwillowc Mar SJ71 Cf Willow Cr Mar Continued D-223

230 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Upper San Joaquin River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : SanJoaquin Run Name : March95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) SJ71-SJ73 Kerckhoff Mar SJ72 Kerckhoff Lake Mar SJ73 Kerchoff Dam Mar SJ73-SJ75 SJR ab Mlr Mar SJ78 Fine Gold Cr Mar SJ80 Millerton Lake Mar SJ74 SJR ab Millerto Mar SJ76 Big Sandy Cr Mar SJ75 Millertn Inflow Mar SJ75R Millerton Lk Mar SJR below Friant Mar HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Upper San Joaquin River Basin March 1995 Event SJ75 Millerton Lake Inflow D-224

231 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Upper San Joaquin River Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousnes s (%) SJ20 M Fk SJR SJ22 N Fk SJR SJ24 SJR ab GranitCr SJ26 Granite Cr SJ28 SJR ab SFk SJR SJ38 Mammoth Pool LD SJ10 SFSJ ab Mono Cr SJ14 Mono Cr SJ16 SFSJ ab SJR SJ36 Kaiser Cr SJ8 Bear Cr SJ66 N Fk Willow Cr SJ4 Florence Lk SJ56 SJR ab Stvnson SJ6 SFSJ ab Bear Cr SJ62 SJR ab jose Cr SJ58 Stevenson Cr SJ68 Willow Cr ab SJ SJ70 Redinger Lk SJ60 Jose Cr SJ80 Millerton Lake SJ12 Lk TA Edison SJ34 Chiquito Cr SJ32 Jackass Cr SJ30 SJR ab Mammoth SJ64 Bass Lake SJ78 Fine Gold Cr SJ74 SJR ab Millerto SJ76 Big Sandy Cr SJ46 Huntington Lk SJ44 SJR ab Dam SJ48 Big C ab Pitman SJ50 pitman Cr SJ52 Big Cr at SJR SJ54 Shaver Lake SJ72 Kerckhoff Lake D-225

232 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Upper San Joaquin River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : SanJoaquin Run Name : Jan97 Start of Run : 31Dec Basin Model : SanJoaquin97 End of Run : 04Jan Met. Model : Jan97 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) SJ64 Bass Lake Jan SJ65R Bass Lake Jan SJ65 NFk WC b BassLk Jan SJ65-SJ67 NF Willow Jan SJ66 N Fk Willow Cr Jan JSJ67-SJ71 Willow Cr Jan SJ67-SJ69 Willow Cr Jan SJ68 Willow Cr ab SJ Jan SJ Jan SJ22 N Fk SJR Jan SJ20 M Fk SJR Jan SJ23 Cf NFk & MFk SJ Jan SJ23-SJ27 SJR ab Gra Jan SJ26 Granite Cr Jan SJ24 SJR ab GranitCr Jan SJ27 Cf Granite Cr Jan SJ27-SJ29 SJR ab SFk Jan SJ4 Florence Lk Jan SJ5R Florence Lake Jan SJ5-SJ9 SFSJ ab Bear Jan SJ6 SFSJ ab Bear Cr Jan SJ8 Bear Cr Jan SJ9 Cf SFSJ & BearCr Jan SJ9-SJ15 SFSJ abmono Jan SJ12 Lk TA Edison Jan SJ13R Lk TA Edison Jan Mono Cr Bl Thomas Ed Jan SJ13-SJ15 Mono Cr Jan SJ10 SFSJ ab Mono Cr Jan SJ14 Mono Cr Jan SJ15 Cf SFJR &MonoCr Jan SJ15-SJ29 SFSJ absjr Jan SJ28 SJR ab SFk SJR Jan SJ16 SFSJ ab SJR Jan Continued D-226

233 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Upper San Joaquin River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : SanJoaquin Run Name : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) SJ29 Cf SJR & SFkSJR Jan SJ29-SJ31 SJR ab Mam Jan SJ30 SJR ab Mammoth Jan SJ31 SJR ab Mammoth Jan SJ34 Chiquito Cr Jan SJ32 Jackass Cr Jan SJ38 Mammoth Pool LD Jan SJ36 Kaiser Cr Jan SJ43R Mammoth Pool Jan SJ43 SJR bl Mammoth Jan SJ43-SJ53 SJR abdam Jan SJ46 Huntington Lk Jan SJ47R Huntington Lk Jan SJ47 Big Cr bl Hntng Jan SJ47-SJ51 Big ab Pit Jan SJ48 Big C ab Pitman Jan SJ50 Pitman Cr Jan SJ51 Cf Big & Pitman Jan SJ51-SJ53 Big ab SJ Jan SJ52 Big Cr at SJR Jan SJ53G Big Cr ab SJR Jan SJ44 SJR ab Dam Jan SJ53 Dam Jan SJ53-SJ59 ab Stevnsn Jan SJ56 SJR ab Stvnson Jan SJ57 SJR ab Stvnsn C Jan SJ54 Shaver Lake Jan SJ55R Shaver Lake Jan SJ55 Shaver Lake Jan SJ55-SJ59 Stvnsn Cr Jan SJ58 Stevenson Cr Jan SJ59 Cf Stevenson Cr Jan SJ59-SJ63 SJ ab Jose Jan SJ62 SJR ab Jose Cr Jan SJ60 Jose Cr Jan SJ63 Cf Jose Cr Jan SJ63-SJ71 RedingerLk Jan SJ70 Redinger Lk Jan SJ71G SJR abwillowc Jan SJ71 Cf Willow Cr Jan Continued D-227

234 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Upper San Joaquin River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : SanJoaquin Run Name : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) SJ71-SJ73 Kerckhoff Jan SJ72 Kerckhoff Lake Jan SJ73 Kerchoff Dam Jan SJ73-SJ75 SJR ab Mlr Jan SJ78 Fine Gold Cr Jan SJ80 Millerton Lake Jan SJ74 SJR ab Millerto Jan SJ76 Big Sandy Cr Jan SJ75 Millertn Inflow Jan SJ75R Millerton Lk Dec SJR below Friant Dec D-228

235 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Upper San Joaquin River Basin December January 1997 Event SJ75 Millerton Lake Inflow SJ53G Big Creek Above San Joaquin River D-229

236 SJ43 San Joaquin River Below Mammoth SJ8 Gage , Bear Creek D-230

237 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Upper San Joaquin River Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) SJ20 M Fk SJR SJ22 N Fk SJR SJ24 SJR ab GranitCr SJ26 Granite Cr SJ28 SJR ab SFk SJR SJ38 Mammoth Pool LD SJ10 SFSJ ab Mono Cr SJ14 Mono Cr SJ16 SFSJ ab SJR SJ36 Kaiser Cr SJ8 Bear Cr SJ66 N Fk Willow Cr SJ4 Florence Lk SJ56 SJR ab Stvnson SJ6 SFSJ ab Bear Cr SJ62 SJR ab jose Cr SJ58 Stevenson Cr SJ68 Willow Cr ab SJ SJ70 Redinger Lk SJ60 Jose Cr SJ80 Millerton Lake SJ12 Lk TA Edison SJ34 Chiquito Cr SJ32 Jackass Cr SJ30 SJR ab Mammoth SJ64 Bass Lake SJ78 Fine Gold Cr SJ74 SJR ab Millerto SJ76 Big Sandy Cr SJ46 Huntington Lk SJ44 SJR ab Dam SJ48 Big C ab Pitman SJ50 pitman Cr SJ52 Big Cr at SJR SJ54 Shaver Lake SJ72 Kerckhoff Lake D-231

238 D-232

239 Fresno River Basin Fresno River Coarse Gold Creek HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-233

240 Fresno River The Fresno River HMS model consists of a 236 square mile basin above Hensley Lake (Hidden Dam) located in the southeast portion of the San Joaquin Watershed. The basin model is divided into 6 subbasins and connected with 3 routing reaches. The observed hydrographs include computed inflow into Hensley Lake and a gage in the headwaters at Oakhurst (33 square miles). The computed peak flow at the HMS basin model outlet for the 1995 event was larger than the 1997 event (22,000 cfs vs. 14,000 cfs). Using the adopted TC and R (Group 2) and Muskingum parameters, the computed hydrograph matched the observed hydrograph. The gage at Oakhurst was used as one of optimization models. The 1995 hydrograph comparison (observed vs. computed) suggests that a gage malfunction must have taken place. One-hour duration spikes provide the peaks for the 1997 hydrograph. Calibration efforts at Oakhurst required loss and baseflow parameters that differed from the other Fresno River subbasins. The flow from the Oakhurst subbasin had little effect at Hensley Lake. Calibration of the 1995 Event: By using a constant loss rate of 0.06 inches/hour and initial losses of 1.9 inches (in the upper subbasins) and 1.5 inches (in the lower subbasins), the model calibrated well to the observed hydrograph at Hensley Lake. A recession ratio of 0.7 and a peak ratio of 0.1 defined the recession limb of the hydrograph. All the parameters for the area upstream of Oakhurst retained the values from optimization analysis. Calibration of the 1997 Event: As noted for other basins, the observed discharge for this event was difficult to match because of insufficient LWASS. The event featured three peaks, with the third peak being highest. The generalized parameters for TC and R (Group 2) fit the observed hydrograph. The baseflow recession parameters of 0.8 for the constant and 0.1 for the peak ratio worked best. All of the subbasins (except that above Oakhurst) used a constant loss rate of inches/hour, and an initial loss of 2.1 inches. D-234

241 Fresno River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic Fresno River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Final TC Final R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC 1.67(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LL CA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) FR2 Ab Oakhurst FR4 Crooks Cr FR6 ab Coarse Au Cr FR8 Coarse Gold Cr FR12 Hensley Lk LD FR10 FR ab Hensley L Fresno River Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 SR 1.47 LR / 1.5VR or LAG (Min) Time Step= LR (Mi) SR (ft/ft) VR (fps) K (Hr) 60 FR3-FR5 Cf Crooks Cr FR5-FR9 Cf Coarse Au FR9-FR11 Cf Hensley L D-235

242 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Fresno River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : Fresno Run Name : March95 Event Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Fresno95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : 1995 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : 1995 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) FR2 Ab Oakhurst Mar FR3 Oakhurst Mar FR3-FR5 Cf Crooks C Mar FR4 ab Crooks Cr Mar FR5 Cf Crooks Cr Mar FR5-FR9 Cf CoarseAu Mar FR6 ab Coarse Au Cr Mar FR8 Coarse Gold Cr Mar FR9 Cf Coarse Au Cr Mar FR9-FR11 Cf Hensley Mar FR10 FR ab Hensley L Mar FR11 ab Hensley Lk Mar FR12 Hensley Lk LD Mar Hensley Lake Inflow Mar Hidden Dam Mar D-236

243 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Fresno River Basin March 1995 Event Hensley Lake Inflow FR3 - Fresno River at Oakhurst D-237

244 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Fresno River Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) FR4 ab Crooks Cr FR6 ab Coarse Au Cr FR8 Coarse Gold Cr FR12 Hensley Lk LD FR10 FR ab Hensley L FR2 Ab Oakhurst D-238

245 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Fresno River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : Fresno Run Name : Jan97 Event Start of Run : 31Dec Basin Model : Fresno97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : 1997 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : 1997 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) FR2 Ab Oakhurst Jan FR3 Oakhurst Jan FR3-FR5 Cf Crooks C Jan FR4 ab Crooks Cr Jan FR5 Cf Crooks Cr Jan FR5-FR9 Cf CoarseAu Jan FR6 ab Coarse Au Cr Jan FR8 Coarse Gold Cr Jan FR9 Cf Coarse Au Cr Jan FR9-FR11 Cf Hensley Jan FR10 FR ab Hensley L Jan FR11 ab Hensley Lk Jan FR12 Hensley Lk LD Dec Hensley Lake Inflow Jan Hidden Dam Dec D-239

246 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Fresno River Basin December January 1997 Event Hensley Lake Inflow FR3 Fresno River at Oakhurst D-240

247 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Fresno River Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) FR4 ab Crooks Cr FR6 ab Coarse Au Cr FR8 Coarse Gold Cr FR12 Hensley Lk LD FR10 FR ab Hensley L FR2 Ab Oakhurst D-241

248 D-242

249 Chowchilla River Basin West Fork Chowchilla River East Fork Chowchilla River Chowchilla River HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-243

250 Chowchilla River The Chowchilla River HMS model consists of a 235 square mile basin above H. V. Eastman Lake (Buchanan Dam) located in the southeast portion of the San Joaquin Watershed. The basin is divided into 2 subbasins and connected with 1 routing reach. The subbasin delineation was based on an existing model obtained from the Sacramento District. The only observed hydrograph is the computed inflow into Eastman Lake. The computed peak inflow into Eastman Lake for the 1995 event was larger than the 1997 event (20,000 cfs vs. 15,000 cfs). When using the study s adopted values for the Muskingum routing method (K=3.3; X=0.4, subreaches=3), the computed peak arrived two hours after the observed peak. However, when the Muskingum values from the Sacramento District s existing model were used (K=1.0; X=0.5; subreaches=2), the timing of the two hydrographs coincided. Therefore, the values from the District s model were used. Calibration of the 1995 Event: The generalized parameters for TC and R (Group 2) fit the observed hydrograph well, with the loss rates and initial baseflow value within the recommended ranges. A recession ratio of 0.7 and a peak ratio of 0.1 defined the recession limb of the hydrograph. Calibration of the 1997 Event: As noted for other basins, the observed discharge for this event was difficult to match because of insufficient LWASS. The event featured three peaks, with the third peak being highest. Beginning the simulation at midnight on New Year s Eve helped match the peaks. To model the third peak, the computation window was shortened so the rainfall for December was ignored. Additionally, the initial baseflow rates were raised and the initial losses reduced to compensate for the different antecedent conditions. Whether starting the simulation on 29Dec96 or 01Jan97, loss rates between the upper and lower subbasins were revised to achieve calibration. The generalized parameters for TC and R (Group 2) fit the observed hydrograph. The observed hydrograph (computed from storage change) tended toward sharper peaks than the computed hydrograph. A recession ratio of 0.7 and a peak ratio of 0.2 defined the recession limb of the hydrograph. D-244

251 Chowchilla River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic Chowchilla River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Final TC Final R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC 1.67(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) LCA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) CH2 ab Cf E&W Fk CH4 Eastman Lake Chowchilla River Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 SR 1.47 LR / 1.5VR or LAG (Min) Time Step= LR (Mi) SR (ft/ft) VR (fps) K (Hr) 60 CH2-CHR5 Cf West Fk D-245

252 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Chowchilla River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : Chowchilla Run Name : March 95 Event Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Chowchilla95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : 1995 Event Execution Time : 13May Control Specs. : 1995 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CH2 ab Cf E&W Fks Mar CH3 Cf E&F Fks Mar CH3-CH5 Cf E&F Fks Mar CH4 Eastman Lake LD Mar CH5K Eastman Lk Mar Buchanan Dam Mar D-246

253 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Chowchilla River Basin March 1995 Event CH5K Eastman Lake HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Chowchilla River Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) CH2 ab Cf E&W Fks CH4 Eastman Lake LD D-247

254 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Chowchilla River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : Chowchilla Run Name : Jan 97 Event Start of Run : 31Dec Basin Model : Chowchilla97 End of Run : 05Jan Met. Model : 1997 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : 1997 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CH2 ab Cf E&W Fks Jan CH3 Cf E&F Fks Jan CH3-CH5 Cf E&F Fks Jan CH4 Eastman Lake LD Jan CH5K Eastman Lk Jan Buchanan Dam Dec D-248

255 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Chowchilla River Basin December January 1997 Event CH5K Eastman Lake HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Chowchilla River Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) CH2 ab Cf E&W Fks CH4 Eastman Lake LD D-249

256 D-250

257 Merced River Basin North Fork Merced River Middle Fork Merced River Yosemite Creek Tenaya Creek Lake McClure Illilouette Creek Merced River Devil Gulch South Fork Merced River HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-251

258 Merced River The Merced River HMS model consists of a 1,036 square mile basin above Lake McClure (New Exchequer Dam) located in the mid-east portion of the San Joaquin Watershed. The basin model is divided into 24 subbasins and connected with 11 routing reaches. The observed hydrographs are the computed inflow into Lake McClure and at gages at the confluence of Illilouette Creek and Bridalveil Creek. The computed peak inflow into Lake McClure for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (95,700 cfs vs. 74,100 cfs). While the adopted value for TC was computed using the Group 2 equations, the value of R was set to 3.1TC. This revision was made so the shape of the computed hydrograph would better resemble the observed hydrograph. The generic equation to compute the reach travel time (Muskingum K) was not used because the reach travel times were too short; thus, causing the computed peaks to occur too early. Instead, the reach travel time (K) was computed knowing the reach length and average velocity. The average velocity was computed using Manning s equation. The Manning s n value was estimated with Jarrett s equation, and the hydraulic radius was estimated from the Yuba River equation, which was developed from a regression of field data (the Yuba River equation was used because it was felt that it would represent the Merced system the best). Of the 15 routing reaches, 11 reaches used the Muskingum routing technique. The other 4 reaches used the lag method since the travel time within each of those reaches was less than the one-hour time step used by the Muskingum method. Twenty-five percent impervious area was used for the Exchequer subbasin, and five percent impervious area was used for the subbasin containing the upstream end of the reservoir. Calibration of the 1995 Event: By using constant loss rates between 0.02 and 0.05 inches/hour and an initial loss of 2 inches, the model calibrated reasonably well to the observed hydrographs. A recession ratio of 0.6 and a peak ratio of 0.25 defined the recession limb of the hydrographs. An initial baseflow of 1.8 cfs per square mile was assumed. Calibration of the 1997 Event: By using constant loss rates between 0.02 and 0.05 inches/hour and initial losses of 2-3 inches, the model calibrated reasonably well to the observed hydrographs at Illilouette Creek and Bridalveil Creek and very well to the observed hydrograph at Exchequer. The baseflow recession parameters of 0.6 for the constant and 0.25 for the peak ratio worked best. Initial baseflows of 12 cfs per square mile were used to fit a smaller time window around the peak, with 3 cfs per square mile in the headwater subbasins. D-252

259 Merced River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic D-253

260 Merced River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Flow Length to Ave Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Final TC Final R DA Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 1.67(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) LCA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (Hr) ME08 Tenaya Cr ME02 ME Heasdwaters ME12 Yosemite Cr ME10 YosemiteVillage ME16 Bridalveil Cr ME06 Sentinel Dome ME40 Lower NFk ME ME38 Upper NFk ME ME14 El Capitain Halls Gulch ME36 Bull Cr ME48 Exchequer Bsn ME18 El Portal ME04 illilouette Cr ME30 Lower South Fk ME22 Lower Big Cr ME44 Exchequer ME26 Middle SFk ME ME28 Devil Gulch ME24 Upper SFk ME Salomon Gulch ME46 Maxwell Cr Briceburg ME20 Upper Big Cr Merced River Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Reach Cum Drainage Area Yuba River Field Jarret's Manning's Travel Time Remarks Length Slope (from GeoHms) Reg. Eqa Equation Velocity K Lag L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) A (Sq. Mi.) R = 4.13*LN(A)-6.4 n =.39S.38 R -.16 v (ft/s) Hrs (Min) ME05-ME ME09-ME ME13-ME ME17-ME Musk K=1hr ME21-ME ME25-ME Musk K=1hr ME29-ME ME31-ME ME33-ME ME39-ME ME Routing parameters based on field observations and regression analysis. D-254

261 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Merced River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : Merced Run Name : Mar95 Calibration Start of Run : 09Mar Basin Model : Merced95 End of Run : 13Mar Met. Model : March 95 Execution Time : 16Feb Control Specs. : Mar 95 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) ME38 Upper NFk ME Mar ME36 Bull Cr Mar JME Mar ME39-ME Mar ME20 Upper Big Cr Mar JME21-ME Mar ME21-ME Mar ME22 Lower Big Cr Mar ME24 Upper SFk ME Mar JME25-ME Mar ME25-ME Mar ME28 Devil Gulch Mar ME26 Middle SFk ME Mar JME Mar ME29-ME Mar ME04 illilouette Cr Mar ME02 ME Heasdwaters Mar JME Mar ME05-ME Mar ME06 Sentinel Dome Mar ME08 Tenaya Cr Mar JME Mar ME09-ME Mar ME12 Yosemite Cr Mar ME10 YosemiteVillage Mar JME Mar ME13-ME Mar ME14 El Capitain Mar ME16 Bridalveil Cr Mar JME Mar ME17-ME Mar ME30 Lower South Fk Mar ME18 El Portal Mar JME Mar Continued... D-255

262 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Merced River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : Merced Run Name : Mar95 Calibration Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) ME31-ME Mar Briceburg Mar JME Mar ME33-ME Mar ME40 Lower NFk ME Mar Halls Gulch Mar JME Mar ME Mar Salomon Gulch Mar JME Mar ME43-ME Mar ME44 Exchequer Mar JME Mar Exchequer Mar ME46 Maxwell Cr Mar JME Mar ME Mar ME48 Exchequer Bsn Mar JME Mar D-256

263 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Merced River Basin March 1995 Event JME47 Exchequer JME17 Bridalveil Creek D-257

264 Subbasin Name HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Merced River Basin: March 1995 Event Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) JME05 Below Illilouette Creek Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) ME08 Tenaya Cr ME02 ME Heasdwaters ME12 Yosemite Cr ME10 YosemiteVillage ME16 Bridalveil Cr ME06 Sentinel Dome ME40 Lower NFk ME ME38 Upper NFk ME ME14 El Capitain Halls Gulch ME36 Bull Cr ME48 Exchequer Bsn ME18 El Portal ME04 illilouette Cr ME30 Lower South Fk ME22 Lower Big Cr ME44 Exchequer ME26 Middle SFk ME ME28 Devil Gulch ME24 Upper SFk ME Salomon Gulch ME46 Maxwell Cr Briceburg ME20 Upper Big Cr D-258

265 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Merced River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : Merced Run Name : Jan97 Calibration Start of Run : 31Dec Basin Model : Merced97 End of Run : 09Jan Met. Model : Jan 97 Execution Time : 16Feb Control Specs. : Jan 97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) ME38 Upper NFk ME Jan ME36 Bull Cr Jan JME Jan ME39-ME Jan ME20 Upper Big Cr Jan JME21-ME Jan ME21-ME Jan ME22 Lower Big Cr Jan ME24 Upper SFk ME Jan JME25-ME Jan ME25-ME Jan ME28 Devil Gulch Jan ME26 Middle SFk ME Jan JME Jan ME29-ME Jan ME04 illilouette Cr Jan ME02 ME Heasdwaters Jan JME Jan ME05-ME Jan ME06 Sentinel Dome Jan ME08 Tenaya Cr Jan JME Jan ME09-ME Jan ME12 Yosemite Cr Jan ME10 YosemiteVillage Jan JME Jan ME13-ME Jan ME14 El Capitain Jan ME16 Bridalveil Cr Jan JME Jan ME17-ME Jan ME30 Lower South Fk Jan ME18 El Portal Jan JME Jan Continued... D-259

266 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Merced River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : Merced Run Name : Jan97 Calibration Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) ME31-ME Jan Briceburg Jan JME Jan ME33-ME Jan ME40 Lower NFk ME Jan Halls Gulch Jan JME Jan ME Jan Salomon Gulch Jan JME Jan ME43-ME Jan ME44 Exchequer Jan JME Jan Exchequer Jan ME46 Maxwell Cr Jan JME Jan ME Jan ME48 Exchequer Bsn Jan JME Jan D-260

267 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Merced River Basin December January 1997 Event JME47 Exchequer JME17 Bridalveil Creek D-261

268 JME05 Below Illilouette Creek HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Merced River Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) ME08 Tenaya Cr ME02 ME Heasdwaters ME12 Yosemite Cr ME10 YosemiteVillage ME16 Bridalveil Cr ME06 Sentinel Dome ME40 Lower NFk ME ME38 Upper NFk ME ME14 El Capitain Halls Gulch ME36 Bull Cr ME48 Exchequer Bsn ME18 El Portal ME04 illilouette Cr ME30 Lower South Fk ME22 Lower Big Cr ME44 Exchequer ME26 Middle SFk ME ME28 Devil Gulch ME24 Upper SFk ME Salomon Gulch ME46 Maxwell Cr Briceburg ME20 Upper Big Cr D-262

269 Tuolumne River Basin Sullivan Creek Turnback Creek Cherry Creek Cherry Lake Falls Creek Rancheria Creek Return Creek Hetch Hetchy Lake Tuolumne River Moccasin Creek Don Pedro Lake South Fork Tuolumne River Middle Fork Tuolumne River Lyell Fork HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-263

270 Tuolumne River The Tuolumne River HMS model consists of a 1,534 square mile basin above Don Pedro Lake located in the mid-east portion of the San Joaquin Watershed. The basin model is divided into 40 subbasins and connected with 15 routing reaches. The observed hydrographs are the computed inflows into Cherry Lake, Lake Eleanor, and Don Pedro Lake and at gages at Mather and at the confluences with Upper Big Creek and Cherry Creek. The computed peak inflow into Don Pedro Lake for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (120,000 cfs vs. 90,000 cfs). While the adopted value for TC was computed using the Group 1 equations, the value of R was set to 2.3TC. This revision was made so the shape of the computed hydrograph would better resemble the observed hydrograph. The generic equation to compute the reach travel time (Muskingum K) was not used because the reach travel times were too short; thus, causing the computed peaks to occur too early. Instead, the reach travel time (K) was computed knowing the reach length and average velocity. The average velocity was computed using Manning s equation. The Manning s n value was estimated with Jarrett s equation, and the hydraulic radius was estimated from the American River equation, which was developed from a regression of field data (the American River equation was used because it was felt that it would represent the Tuolumne system the best). Of the 15 routing reaches, only 2 reaches used the Muskingum routing technique. The other 13 reaches used the lag method since the travel time within each of those reaches was less than the one-hour time step used by the Muskingum method. For this modeling effort, rather than attempt to predict how the Hetch Hetchy, Lake Eleanor, and Cherry Lake reservoirs were operated, the source and sink tools available in HMS were implemented. This technique allowed the observed hydrograph at the outlet of each of the reservoirs to be passed downstream. As pointed out in Section 6.6.5, Reservoir Modeling of the main report, HMS is fairly limited in how it models releases from reservoirs. Calibration efforts required different loss and baseflow parameters for different subbasins. Thirty-five percent impervious area was used for the Hetch Hetchy subbasin, thirty percent impervious area was used for the Cherry Lake subbasin, twenty-five percent impervious area was used for the Don Pedro Lake subbasin, and ten percent impervious area was used for the Tuolumne Canyon subbasin. Calibration of the 1995 Event: Calibration was performed on all six gages listed above. By using constant loss rates between 0.03 and 0.10 inches/hour and initial losses between 1.5 and 2.5 inches, the model calibrated reasonably well to the observed hydrographs. A recession ratio of 0.6 and a peak ratio of 0.27 defined the recession limb of the hydrographs. An initial baseflow of 3 cfs per square mile was used for the entire basin. Calibration of the 1997 Event: Calibration was performed on all six gages listed above. By using low constant loss rates between and 0.04 inches/hour and initial losses between 0.5 and 2.5 inches, the model calibrated reasonably well to observed hydrographs. The model calibrated the best at the inflow D-264

271 to Don Pedro Lake. The baseflow recession parameters of 0.6 for the constant and 0.27 for the peak ratio worked best. An initial baseflow of 15 cfs per square mile was assumed to fit a smaller time window around the peak; 2 cfs per square mile baseflows were used in the headwater subbasins. Tuolumne River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic D-265

272 Tuolumne River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Flow Length to Ave Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Final TC Final R DA Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LL CA /S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (Hr) TO76 Woods Cr TO28 WFk CherryCr TO26 EFk Cherry Cr Mather TO12 Piute Cr TO52 UpperClavey Cr TO22 HetchHetchy Bsn TO54 Reed Cr TO08 Return Cr TO34 CherryCr Bl Lk TO38 Eleanor Cr TO68 Cr TO66 Turnback Cr TO64 TO@NFk Hunter TO40 TO TO74 Sullivan Cr TO10 Upper TO Cyn TO56 Lower ClaveyCr TO58 TO@BigHumbug TO78 Bl Cf Wds/Sul TO42 Coral Cr TO06 Tuolumne Falls JawboneRdg TO72 TO Ab DonPedro TO04Dana Fk TO44 Middle Fk TO TO48 N/M/S Fk TO TO62 Lower Big Cr TO46 South Fk TO TO02 Lyell Fk TO70 Moccasin Cr TO60 Upper Big Cr TO20 Falls Cr TO16 Rancheria Cr TO18 Tiltill Cr TO14 Tuolumne Cyn TO32 Cherry Lk Bsn TO36 Eleanor Lk Bsn TO30 Cherry Cr Ab Lk TO80 Don Pedro Bsn D-266

273 Tuolumne River Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Cum Drainage Area American River Field Jarret's Manning's Travel Time (from GeoHms) Reg. Eqa Equation Velocity K Lag L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) A (Sq. Mi.) R = A n =.39S.38 R -.16 v (ft/s) Hrs (Min) TO05-TO TO09-TO TO23-TO TO29-TO TO33-TO TO37-TO TO39-TO TO41-TO TO47-TO TO49-TO TO55-TO TO57-TO TO61-TO TO63-TO TO67-TO Routing parameters based on field observations and regression D-267

274 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Tuolumne River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : Tuolumne Run Name : Mar95 Calibration Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Tuolumne95 End of Run : 13Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) TO76 Woods Cr Mar TO74 Sullivan Cr Mar JTO Mar TO77-TO Mar TO60 Upper Big Cr Mar TO61-TO Mar TO46 South Fk TO Mar TO44 Middle Fk TO Mar JTO Mar TO47-TO Mar H-Hetchy Obs Mar TO23-TO Mar Mather Mar JTO Mar Cherry Lk Obs Mar TO33-TO Mar Lk Elanor Obs Mar TO37-TO Mar TO34 CherryCr Bl Lk Mar TO38 Eleanor Cr Mar JTO Mar TO39-TO Mar TO40 TO Mar JTO41a Mar JTO41b Mar TO41-TO Mar TO48 N/M/S Fk TO Mar TO42 Coral Cr Mar JTO Mar TO49-TO Mar TO52 UpperClavey Cr Mar TO54 Reed Cr Mar JTO Mar TO55-TO Mar Continued D-268

275 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Tuolumne River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : Tuolumne Run Name : Mar95 Calibration Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) JawboneRdg Mar TO56 Lower ClaveyCr Mar JTO Mar TO57-TO Mar TO62 Lower Big Cr Mar TO58 BigHumbug Mar JTO Mar TO63-TO Mar TO64 TO@NFk Hunter Mar TO66 Turnback Cr Mar JTO Mar TO67-TO Mar TO68 Cr Mar TO70 Moccasin Cr Mar JTO Mar TO71-TO Mar TO78 Bl Cf Wds/Sul Mar TO72 TO Ab DonPedro Mar JTO Mar TO79-TO Mar TO80 Don Pedro Bsn Mar Don Pedro Inflow Mar TO28 WFk CherryCr Mar TO26 EFk Cherry Cr Mar JTO Mar TO29-TO Mar TO30 Cherry Cr Ab Lk Mar JTO Mar TO31-TO Mar TO32 Cherry Lk Bsn Mar JTO Mar Cherry Lake Mar Sink Mar TO02 Lyell Fk Mar TO04Dana Fk Mar JTO Mar TO05-TO Mar TO08 Return Cr Mar TO06 Tuolumne Falls Mar Continued D-269

276 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Tuolumne River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : Tuolumne Run Name : Mar95 Calibration Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) JTO Mar TO09-TO Mar TO12 Piute Cr Mar TO10 Upper TO Cyn Mar JTO Mar TO13-TO Mar TO14 Tuolumne Cyn Mar JTO Mar TO22 HetchHetchy Bsn Mar TO20 Falls Cr Mar TO18 Tiltill Cr Mar TO16 Rancheria Cr Mar JR Mar H-Hetchy In Mar TO36 Eleanor Lk Bsn Mar Lake Eleanor Mar Sink Mar D-270

277 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Tuolumne River Basin March 1995 Event Don Pedro Reservoir Inflow TO60 Upper Big Creek D-271

278 JT041a Gage , Cherry Creek Near Early Intake JT025 Gage , Tuolumne River Below Early Intake Near Mather, CA D-272

279 Lake Eleanor Cherry Lake D-273

280 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Tuolumne River Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) TO76 Woods Cr TO28 WFk CherryCr TO26 EFk Cherry Cr Mather TO12 Piute Cr TO52 UpperClavey Cr TO22 HetchHetchy Bsn TO54 Reed Cr TO08 Return Cr TO34 CherryCr Bl Lk TO38 Eleanor Cr TO68 Cr TO66 Turnback Cr TO64 Hunter TO40 TO TO74 Sullivan Cr TO10 Upper TO Cyn TO56 Lower ClaveyCr TO TO78 Bl Cf Wds/Sul TO42 Coral Cr TO06 Tuolumne Falls JawboneRdg TO72 TO Ab DonPedro TO04 Dana Fk TO44 Middle Fk TO TO48 N/M/S Fk TO TO62 Lower Big Cr TO46 South Fk TO TO02 Lyell Fk TO70 Moccasin Cr TO60 Upper Big Cr TO20 Falls Cr TO16 Rancheria Cr TO18 Tiltill Cr TO14 Tuolumne Cyn TO32 Cherry Lk Bsn TO36 Eleanor Lk Bsn TO30 Cherry Cr Ab Lk TO80 Don Pedro Bsn D-274

281 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Tuolumne River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : Tuolumne Run Name : Jan97 Calibration Start of Run : 31Dec Basin Model : Tuolumne97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan97 Execution Time : 14Jan Control Specs. : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) TO76 Woods Cr Jan TO74 Sullivan Cr Jan JTO Jan TO77-TO Jan TO60 Upper Big Cr Jan TO61-TO Jan TO46 South Fk TO Jan TO44 Middle Fk TO Jan JTO Jan TO47-TO Jan H-Hetchy Obs Jan TO23-TO Jan Mather Jan JTO Jan Cherry Lk Obs Jan TO33-TO Jan Lk Elanor Obs Jan TO37-TO Jan TO34 CherryCr Bl Lk Jan TO38 Eleanor Cr Jan JTO Jan TO39-TO Jan TO40 TO Jan JTO41a Jan JTO41b Jan TO41-TO Jan TO48 N/M/S Fk TO Jan TO42 Coral Cr Jan JTO Jan TO49-TO Jan TO52 UpperClavey Cr Jan TO54 Reed Cr Jan JTO Jan TO55-TO Jan Continued D-275

282 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Tuolumne River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : Tuolumne Run Name : Jan97 Calibration Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) JawboneRdg Jan TO56 Lower ClaveyCr Jan JTO Jan TO57-TO Jan TO62 Lower Big Cr Jan TO58 BigHumbug Jan JTO Jan TO63-TO Jan TO64 TO@NFk Hunter Jan TO66 Turnback Cr Jan JTO Jan TO67-TO Jan TO68 Cr Jan TO70 Moccasin Cr Jan JTO Jan TO71-TO Jan TO78 Bl Cf Wds/Sul Jan TO72 TO Ab DonPedro Jan JTO Jan TO79-TO Jan TO80 Don Pedro Bsn Jan Don Pedro Inflow Jan TO28 WFk CherryCr Jan TO26 EFk Cherry Cr Jan JTO Jan TO29-TO Jan TO30 Cherry Cr Ab Lk Jan JTO Jan TO31-TO Jan TO32 Cherry Lk Bsn Jan JTO Jan Cherry Lake Jan Sink Jan TO02 Lyell Fk Jan TO04Dana Fk Jan JTO Jan TO05-TO Jan TO08 Return Cr Jan TO06 Tuolumne Falls Jan Continued D-276

283 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Tuolumne River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : Tuolumne Run Name : Jan97 Calibration Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) JTO Jan TO09-TO Jan TO12 Piute Cr Jan TO10 Upper TO Cyn Jan JTO Jan TO13-TO Jan TO14 Tuolumne Cyn Jan JTO Jan TO22 HetchHetchy Bsn Jan TO20 Falls Cr Jan TO18 Tiltill Cr Jan TO16 Rancheria Cr Jan JR Jan H-Hetchy In Jan TO36 Eleanor Lk Bsn Jan Lake Eleanor Jan Sink Jan D-277

284 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Tuolumne River Basin December January 1997 Event Don Pedro Reservoir Inflow TO60 Upper Big Creek D-278

285 JT041a Gage , Cherry Creek Near Early Intake JT025 Gage , Tuolumne River Below Early Intake Near Mather, CA D-279

286 Lake Eleanor Cherry Lake D-280

287 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Tuolumne River Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) TO76 Woods Cr TO28 WFk CherryCr TO26 EFk Cherry Cr Mather TO12 Piute Cr TO52 UpperClavey Cr TO22 HetchHetchy Bsn TO54 Reed Cr TO08 Return Cr TO34 CherryCr Bl Lk TO38 Eleanor Cr TO68 Cr TO66 Turnback Cr TO64 Hunter TO40 TO TO74 Sullivan Cr TO10 Upper TO Cyn TO56 Lower ClaveyCr TO TO78 Bl Cf Wds/Sul TO42 Coral Cr TO06 Tuolumne Falls JawboneRdg TO72 TO Ab DonPedro TO04 Dana Fk TO44 Middle Fk TO TO48 N/M/S Fk TO TO62 Lower Big Cr TO46 South Fk TO TO02 Lyell Fk TO70 Moccasin Cr TO60 Upper Big Cr TO20 Falls Cr TO16 Rancheria Cr TO18 Tiltill Cr TO14 Tuolumne Cyn TO32 Cherry Lk Bsn TO36 Eleanor Lk Bsn TO30 Cherry Cr Ab Lk TO80 Don Pedro Bsn D-281

288 D-282

289 Stanislaus River Basin North Fork Stanislaus River Highland Creek Clark Fork Griswold Creek Black Creek New Melones Reservoir Rose Creek Middle Fork Stanislaus River South Fork Stanislaus River Kennedy Creek Stanislaus River Tulloch Reservoir HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-283

290 Stanislaus River The Stanislaus River HMS model consists of a 986 square mile basin above Tulloch Reservoir located in the mid-east portion of the San Joaquin Watershed on the east side of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The basin model is divided into 34 subbasins and connected with 17 routing reaches. The Stanislaus River basin has five headwater reservoirs and four reservoirs in the middle and lower portion of the basin. The observed hydrographs are: computed Inflows into Relief Reservoir, Donnell Reservoir, Beardsley Reservoir, New Melones Lake, Strawberry Reservoir, Union Reservoir, New Spicer Meadows Reservoir, and Tulloch Reservoir; and, at a gage on the South Fork near Long Barn. The computed peak inflow into New Melones Lake for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (78,400 cfs vs. 31,700 cfs). Using the adopted TC and R (Group 1) and Muskingum parameters, the computed hydrographs matched the observed hydrographs reasonably well. For reaches with a travel time of less than one hour, the lag method was used for routing. Muskingum was used for 9 routing reaches and lag was used for 8 routing reaches. For this modeling effort, rather than attempt to predict how the Donnell, Beardsley, New Melones, Tulloch, and Relief reservoirs were operated, the source and sink tools available in HMS were used. This technique allowed the observed outflow hydrographs from the three reservoirs to be passed downstream. As pointed out in Section 6.6.5, Reservoir Modeling of the main report, HMS is fairly limited in how it models releases from reservoirs. Calibration efforts at the nine reservoir locations required different loss and baseflow parameters for different subbasins. Ten percent impervious area was assumed for the subbasins that included lakes. Calibration of the 1995 Event: Calibration was not performed due to insufficient data for the Relief Reservoir inflow, but was performed for the other locations listed above. By using constant loss rates between and 0.17 inches/hour and initial losses between 0.25 and 2.5 inches (most subbasins about 2 inches), the model calibrated well to observed hydrographs at Donnell Reservoir and Beardsley Reservoir. Only daily data were available for the observed inflow into the New Spicer Meadows Reservoir, Strawberry Reservoir and New Melones Reservoir and at the South Fork Near Long Barn gage, so the model was calibrated to fit the daily data reasonably well. An observed instantaneous peak was obtained to calibrate the model. The computed inflow into the Union Reservoir did not fit the observed data very well. The computed inflow showed two peaks around March 15, but the observed data showed no peak at all. At the inflow gage to the Tulloch Reservoir, the computed peak was close in magnitude to the observed peak, but off in time by about six hours. A recession ratio of 0.8 and a peak ratio of 0.2 defined the recession limb of the hydrograph. An initial baseflow of 1-3 cfs per square mile was assumed (most initial flows at 3 cfs per square mile). D-284

291 Calibration of the 1997 Event: By using constant loss rates between 0.01 and 0.17 inches/hour and initial losses between 1.5 and 2.5 inches (most subbasins about 1.5 inches), the model calibrated well to observed hydrographs at the Donnell Reservoir and Beardsley Reservoir. Only daily data were available for the observed inflow into the Relief Reservoir, New Spicer Meadows Reservoir, Strawberry Reservoir and New Melones Reservoir and at the South Fork Near Long Barn gage, so the model was calibrated to fit the daily data reasonably well. An observed instantaneous peak was obtained to calibrate the model. The computed inflow into the Union Reservoir fit the first observed peak well in magnitude, but was off in timing by about four hours. The generalized parameters for TC and R (Group 1) fit the observed hydrograph. The baseflow recession parameters of 0.8 for the constant and 0.2 for the peak ratio worked best. An initial baseflow of 1 to 3 cfs per square mile was assumed (most initial flows at 3 cfs per square mile). D-285

292 Stanislaus River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic D-286

293 Stanislaus River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Flow Slope Basin Inital TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R Flow Length LFP Factor 1.4(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC DA (Sq Mi) L (Mi) S (ft/mi) LL CA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) SLR2 Lk Alpine SL8 NFk Cfl Highland SL26 Clark Fk SL30 Darnelles Cr SL28 MFk Ab Donnell SLR34 Donnell Res SL24 MFk Bl Relief SLR38 Beardsley Res SL32 Niagra Cr SL16 Griswold Cr SL22 Kennedy Cr SL14 NFk Bl Avery SL12 Beaver Cr SL52 SFk Nr LngBarn SLR20 Relief Res SLR50 Strawberry Res SL18 NFk Ab MFk SL40 MFk Bl Beardsly SL42 Nr Clark Flat SL44 Rose Cr SL46 Ab SFk SL54 SFk Ab SL SLR58 NewMelones SL62 Black Cr SLR64 Tulloch Res SL60 Bl NewMelones SL68 Bl Tulloch Res SL66 Green Spring Rn SLR6 NewSpicer SLR4 Union Res SL10 NFk Ab Avery SL36 MFk Bl Donnell SL56 Ab NewMelones SL48 SFk A Strawberry Stanislaus River Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 SR 1.47 LR / 1.5VR or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) SR (ft/ft) VR (fps) K (Hr) 60 SL45-SL55, NEW MELONES SL11-SL13 S SL13-SL SL17-SL SL23-SL SL27-SL SL33-SL SL39-SL SL3-SL SL41-SL SL51-SL SL53-SL SL5-SL SL59-SL SL7-SL SL9-SL SL67-SL65, TULLOCH RES D-287

294 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Stanislaus River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : Stanislaus Run Name : Mar95Calib Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Stanis95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Execution Time : 16Feb Control Specs. : Mar95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) Tulloch-Out Mar SL Mar SL56 Ab NewMelones Mar SL Mar SLR4 Union Res Mar SL Mar SL5-SL Mar SLR2 Lk Alpine Mar SL Mar SL3-SL Mar SLR6 NewSpicer Mar SL Mar SL7-SL Mar SL8 NFk Cfl Highland Mar SL Mar SL9-SL Mar SL10 NFk Ab Avery Mar SL Mar SL11-SL Mar SL12 Beaver Cr Mar SL Mar SL13-SL Mar SL14 NFk Bl Avery Mar SL16 Griswold Cr Mar SL Mar SL17-SL Mar BRD-out Mar SL Mar SL39-SL Mar SL18 NFk Ab MFk Mar SL40 MFk Bl Beardsly Mar SL Mar SL41-SL Mar Continued... D-288

295 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Stanislaus River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : Stanislaus Run Name : Mar95Calib Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) SL42 Nr Clark Flat Mar SL44 Rose Cr Mar SL Mar SL45-SL Mar SL48 SFk A Strawberr Mar SLR50 Strawberry Res Mar SL Mar SL51-SL Mar SL52 SFk Nr LngBarn Mar SL Mar SL53-SL Mar SL46 Ab SFk Mar SL54 SFk Ab SL Mar SL Mar SLR58 NewMelones Mar NML-In Mar Relief-OUT Mar SL22 Kennedy Cr Mar SL Mar SL23-SL Mar SL26 Clark Fk Mar SL24 MFk Bl Relief Mar SL Mar SL27-SL Mar SL30 Darnelles Cr Mar SL28 MFk Ab Donnell Mar SL Mar SLR34 Donnell Res Mar Donnell-In Mar Donnell-Out Mar SL32 Niagra Cr Mar SL Mar SL33-SL Mar SL36 MFk Bl Donnell Mar SL Mar SLR38 Beardsley Res Mar BRD-In Mar SLR20 Relief Res Mar Relief-IN Mar NML-Out Mar Continued... D-289

296 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Stanislaus River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : Stanislaus Run Name : Mar95Calib Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) SL Mar SL59-SL Mar SL60 Bl NewMelones Mar SL66 Green Spring Rn Mar SL Mar SL67-SL Mar SL62 Black Cr Mar SLR64 Tulloch Res Mar SL Mar SL68 Bl Tulloch Res Mar Tulloch-In Mar D-290

297 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Stanislaus River Basin March 1995 Event SL69 Below Tulloch Reservoir Tulloch-In Tulloch Reservoir Inflow D-291

298 NML-In New Melones Reservoir Inflow SL53 South Fork Near Long Barn D-292

299 SL51 Strawberry Reservoir BRD-In Beardsley Reservoir Inflow D-293

300 Donnell-In Donnell Reservoir Inflow SL5 Union Reservoir Inflow D-294

301 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Stanislaus River Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) SLR2 Lk Alpine SL8 NFk Cfl Highland SL26 Clark Fk SL30 Darnelles Cr SL28 MFk Ab Donnell SLR34 Donnell Res SL24 MFk Bl Relief SLR38 Beardsley Res SL32 Niagra Cr SL16 Griswold Cr SL22 Kennedy Cr SL14 NFk Bl Avery SL12 Beaver Cr SL52 SFk Nr LngBarn SLR20 Relief Res SLR50 Strawberry Res SL18 NFk Ab MFk SL40 MFk Bl Beardsly SL42 Nr Clark Flat SL44 Rose Cr SL46 Ab SFk SL54 SFk Ab SL SLR58 NewMelones SL62 Black Cr SLR64 Tulloch Res SL60 Bl NewMelones SL68 Bl Tulloch Res SL66 Green Spring Rn SLR6 NewSpicer SLR4 Union Res SL10 NFk Ab Avery SL36 MFk Bl Donnell SL56 Ab NewMelones SL48 SFk A Strawberr D-295

302 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Stanislaus River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : Stanislaus Run Name : Jan97Calib Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : Stanis97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan97 Execution Time : 16Feb Control Specs. : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) Tulloch-Out Jan SL Jan SL56 Ab NewMelones Jan SL Jan SLR4 Union Res Jan SL Jan SL5-SL Jan SLR2 Lk Alpine Jan SL Jan SL3-SL Jan SLR6 NewSpicer Jan SL Jan SL7-SL Jan SL8 NFk Cfl Highland Jan SL Jan SL9-SL Jan SL10 NFk Ab Avery Jan SL Jan SL11-SL Jan SL12 Beaver Cr Jan SL Jan SL13-SL Jan SL14 NFk Bl Avery Jan SL16 Griswold Cr Jan SL Jan SL17-SL Jan BRD-out Jan SL Jan SL39-SL Jan SL18 NFk Ab MFk Jan SL40 MFk Bl Beardsly Jan SL Jan SL41-SL Jan Continued... D-296

303 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Stanislaus River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : Stanislaus Run Name : Jan97Calib Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) SL42 Nr Clark Flat Jan SL44 Rose Cr Jan SL Jan SL45-SL Jan SL48 SFk A Strawberr Jan SLR50 Strawberry Res Jan SL Jan SL51-SL Jan SL52 SFk Nr LngBarn Jan SL Jan SL53-SL Jan SL46 Ab SFk Jan SL54 SFk Ab SL Jan SL Jan SLR58 NewMelones Jan NML-In Jan SLR20 Relief Res Jan SL22 Kennedy Cr Jan SL Jan SL23-SL Jan SL26 Clark Fk Jan SL24 MFk Bl Relief Jan SL Jan SL27-SL Jan SL30 Darnelles Cr Jan SL28 MFk Ab Donnell Jan SL Jan SLR34 Donnell Res Jan Donnell-In Jan Donnell-Out Jan SL32 Niagra Cr Jan SL Jan SL33-SL Jan SL36 MFk Bl Donnell Jan SL Jan SLR38 Beardsley Res Jan BRD-In Jan NML-Out Jan Continued... D-297

304 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Stanislaus River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : Stanislaus Run Name : Jan97Calib Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) SL Jan SL59-SL Jan SL60 Bl NewMelones Jan SL66 Green Spring Rn Jan SL Jan SL67-SL Jan SL62 Black Cr Jan SLR64 Tulloch Res Jan SL Jan SL68 Bl Tulloch Res Jan Tulloch-In Jan D-298

305 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Stanislaus River Basin December January 1997 Event SL69 Below Tulloch Reservoir NML-In New Melones Reservoir Inflow D-299

306 SL53 South Fork Near Long Barn SL51 Strawberry Reservoir D-300

307 BRD-In Beardsley Reservoir Inflow Donnell In Donnell Reservoir Inflow D-301

308 SLR20 Relief Reservoir Inflow SL7 New Spicer Reservoir D-302

309 SL5 Union Reservoir Inflow D-303

310 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Stanislaus River Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) SLR2 Lk Alpine SL8 NFk Cfl Highland SL26 Clark Fk SL30 Darnelles Cr SL28 MFk Ab Donnell SLR34 Donnell Res SL24 MFk Bl Relief SLR38 Beardsley Res SL32 Niagra Cr SL16 Griswold Cr SL22 Kennedy Cr SL14 NFk Bl Avery SL12 Beaver Cr SL52 SFk Nr LngBarn SLR20 Relief Res SLR50 Strawberry Res SL18 NFk Ab MFk SL40 MFk Bl Beardsly SL42 Nr Clark Flat SL44 Rose Cr SL46 Ab SFk SL54 SFk Ab SL SLR58 NewMelones SL62 Black Cr SLR64 Tulloch Res SL60 Bl NewMelones SL68 Bl Tulloch Res SL66 Green Spring Rn SLR6 NewSpicer SLR4 Union Res SL10 NFk Ab Avery SL36 MFk Bl Donnell SL56 Ab NewMelones SL48 SFk A Strawberr D-304

311 Calaveras River Basin North Fork Calaveras River Calaveritas Creek Cosgrove Creek San Antonio Creek Calaveras River NewHogan Reservoir South Fork Calaveras River HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-305

312 Calaveras River The Calaveras River HMS model consists of a 378 square mile basin above Cosgrove Creek, just below the New Hogan Reservoir located in the northeast portion of the San Joaquin Watershed on the east side of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The basin model is divided into 10 subbasins and connected with 6 routing reaches. There is one observed hydrograph at a gage at the confluence of Cosgrove Creek. The computed peak flow at the Cosgrove Creek gage for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (25,000 cfs vs. 20,000 cfs). Using the adopted TC and R (Group 1) and Muskingum parameters, the computed hydrograph matched the observed hydrograph well. For reaches with a travel time of less than one hour, the lag method was used for routing. Muskingum was used for three routing reaches and lag was used for three routing reaches. Calibration efforts required different loss and baseflow parameters for different subbasins. Ten percent impervious area was assumed for the New Hogan Reservoir subbasin. Calibration of the 1995 Event: By using a constant loss rate of 0.06 inches/hour and an initial loss of 1.7 inches, the model calibrated well to the observed hydrograph. A recession ratio of 0.75 and a peak ratio of 0.18 defined the recession limb of the hydrograph. An initial baseflow of 1.5 cfs per square mile was used. Calibration of the 1997 Event: By using a constant loss rate of 0.04 inches/hour and an initial loss of 1.0 inch, the model calibrated well to the observed hydrograph. A recession ratio of 0.75 and a peak ratio of 0.18 defined the recession limb of the hydrograph. An initial baseflow of 4 cfs per square mile was used. D-306

313 Calaveras River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic Calaveras River Basin Parameters Subbasin Area Total Flow Length to Slope Basin Inital TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R Name Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC DA (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) CV2 NFk Headwater CV4 Ab SFk CV20 Cosgrove Cr CV14 SFk Ab Confl CV12 Calaveritas CV18 Bl New Hogan CVR16 New Hogan Res CV8 SanAntonio CV10 SFk Headwater CV6 SanAntonio Hdwtr Calaveras River Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 S R 1.47 L R / 1.5V R or LAG (Min) Time Step= L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) V R (fps) K (Hr) 60 CV15-CV CV17-CV CV3-CV CV13-CV CV11-CV CV7-CV D-307

314 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Calaveras River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : Calaveras Run Name : Mar95Calib Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Calaveras95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Execution Time : 04May Control Specs. : Mar95 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CV2 NFk Headwater Mar CV Mar CV3-CV Mar CV6 SanAntonio Hdwtr Mar CV Mar CV7-CV Mar CV10 SFk Headwater Mar CV8 SanAntonio Mar CV Mar CV11-CV Mar CV12 Calaveritas Mar CV Mar CV13-CV Mar CV14 SFk Ab Confl Mar CV4 Ab SFk Mar CV Mar CV15-CV Mar CVR16 New Hogan Res Mar CV Mar CV17-CV Mar CV18 Bl New Hogan Mar CV20 Cosgrove Cr Mar CV Mar D-308

315 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Calaveras River Basin March 1995 Event CV21 Calaveras River Below New Hogan Dam HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Calaveras River Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) CV2 NFK Headwater CV4 Ab SFk CV20 Cosgrove Cr CV14 SFk Ab Confl CV12 Calaveritas CV18 Bl New Hogan CVR16 New Hogan Res CV8 SanAntonio CV10 SFk Headwater CV6 SanAntonio Hdwtr D-309

316 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Calaveras River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : Calaveras Run Name : Jan97Calib Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : Calaveras97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan97 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Jan97 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CV2 NFk Headwater Jan CV Jan CV3-CV Jan CV6 SanAntonio Hdwtr Jan CV Jan CV7-CV Jan CV10 SFk Headwater Jan CV8 SanAntonio Jan CV Jan CV11-CV Jan CV12 Calaveritas Jan CV Jan CV13-CV Jan CV14 SFk Ab Confl Jan CV4 Ab SFk Jan CV Jan CV15-CV Jan CVR16 New Hogan Res Jan CV Jan CV17-CV Jan CV18 Bl New Hogan Jan CV20 Cosgrove Cr Jan CV Jan D-310

317 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Calaveras River Basin December January 1997 Event CV21 Calaveras River Below New Hogan Dam HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Calaveras River Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) CV2 NFK Headwater CV4 Ab SFk CV20 Cosgrove Cr CV14 SFk Ab Confl CV12 Calaveritas CV18 Bl New Hogan CVR16 New Hogan Res CV8 SanAntonio CV10 SFk Headwater CV6 SanAntonio Hdwtr D-311

318 D-312

319 Mokelumne River Basin Lower Bear Reservoir Salt Springs Reservoir Mokelumne River Camanche Reservoir Pardee Reservoir HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-313

320 Mokelumne River The Mokelumne River HMS model consists of a 625 square mile basin above the Camanche Reservoir located in the northeast portion of the San Joaquin Watershed. The basin model is divided into 22 subbasins and connected with 18 routing reaches. Ten observed hydrographs were used to calibrate the model including: the inflow into Camanche, the inflow and outflow from the Pardee Reservoir, and the outflow from the Salt Springs Reservoir. The computed peak inflow into Camanche Reservoir for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (36,459 cfs vs. 23,136 cfs). The adopted TC and R (Group 1) values were used. The generic equation to compute the reach travel time (Muskingum K) was not used because the reach travel times were too short; thus, causing the computed peaks to occur too early. Instead, the reach travel time (K) was computed knowing the reach length and average velocity. The average velocity was computed using Manning s equation. The Manning s n value was estimated with Jarrett s equation, and the hydraulic radius was estimated from the Feather River equation, which was developed from a regression of field data (the Feather River equation was used because it was felt that it would represent the Mokelumne system the best). Of the 18 routing reaches, only 3 reaches used the Muskingum routing technique. The other 15 reaches used the lag method since the travel time within each of those reaches was less than the one-hour time step used by the Muskingum method. Three gages were used as part of the optimization process: Middle Fork Mokelumne at West Point ( ); South Fork Mokelumne near West Point ( ); and, Forest Creek ( ). For the most part, the 1995 and 1997 computed hydrographs reasonably matched the observed hydrographs. Forty and fifty percent imperviousness were used for the subbasins that included the Camanche and Pardee reservoirs, respectively. The Pardee outflow and the Camanche inflow hydrographs were nearly the same, since the Camanche is directly downstream of the Pardee reservoir. For this modeling effort, rather than attempt to predict how the Salt Springs and Pardee reservoirs were operated, the source and sink tools available in HMS were used. This technique allowed the observed outflow hydrographs from the Salt Springs and Pardee reservoirs to be passed downstream. As pointed out in Section 6.6.5, Reservoir Modeling of the main report, HMS is fairly limited in how it models releases from reservoirs. Another reason the observed reservoir outflows were used as sources was to replace the inadequate computed runoff from the upstream basins. Even with the losses reduced to minimal values, the computed volumes and peaks for the 1997 event could not match the observed inflow hydrograph. The thought was that the LWASS was not large enough to generate the observed volumes. This has been a problem in other basins as well. Calibration of the 1995 Event: For the most part, the observed and computed hydrographs matched reasonably well. The only real exception was at the Pardee Reservoir inflow where neither the observed volume nor the observed peak could be matched. Interestingly, the computed and observed volumes and the peaks for the headwater basins matched relatively well. For the 1995 event, the initial losses were set to either 1.7 or 2.0 inches, except for the Cole Creek and Forest Creek subbasins, where they were set to 0.3 and 1.5 inches, respectively. The constant losses varied from basin to basin; D-314

321 however, they were all in the normal range for constant losses. The initial baseflow values varied from 2 to 5 cfs per square mile, depending on the subbasin. The recession ratio and the threshold flow were 0.75 and 0.25, respectively. Calibration of the 1997 Event: For most cases, the observed and the computed hydrographs matched very well. Where there were problems were in the headwater basins where there wasn t enough runoff/snowmelt to produce the peaks or the volumes to match the observed hydrograph. In some cases where the observed hydrograph was based on daily records or some of the data were missing, the instantaneous peaks were obtained from the USGS to calibrate the model. In order to arrive at the 1997 observed flows, the majority of the initial losses were set to 2.5 inches. For subbasins that had an observed hydrograph, the initial losses were adjusted to match the locally observed hydrograph. For most subbasins, the constant losses were reduced to the minimal value of inches/hour. The initial baseflow value was 5.0 cfs per square mile, the recession ratio of 0.8 and the threshold flow of 0.2 were used to calibrate the model. Mokelumne River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic D-315

322 Mokelumne River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) LCA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) MO4 Bl Salt Spr MO14 Bear Ab NFk MO16 NFK Ab Blue Cr MO10 NFk Ab Bear MO8 NFk Bl Cole Cr MO32 MFk Bl SFk MO26 MFk Bl Forest MO18 Blue Cr MO22 NFk AB MFk MO34 MFk Ab NFk MO44 Camanche Res MO40 Pardee Res MO36 Mo R Nr Mo Hil MO30 SFk Nr West Pt MO28 MFk At West Pt MO24 Forest Cr MO6 Cole Cr Gage MO12 Bl Lo Bear Res MO20 NFk Ab Tiger Cr MO42 Mo R Ab Cam Res MO38 Mo R Ab Pardee MO2 Ab Salt Spr Mokelumne River Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Reach Cum Drainage Area Feather River Field Jarrett's Manning's Travel Time Length Slope (from GeoHms) Reg. Eqa Equation Velocity K Lag L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) A (Sq. Mi.) R =0.0043A n =.39S.38 R -.16 v (ft/s) Hrs (Min) MO7-MO MO5-MO MO13-MO MO9-MO MO15-MO MO25-MO MO27-MO MO19-MO MUSK MO33-MO MO31-MO MO43-MO MO39-MO MO35-MO MUSK MO27-MO MO3-MO MO19-MO MUSK MO41-MO MO37-MO D-316

323 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Mokelumne River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : Mokelumne Run Name : Mar95Calib Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Mokel95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : March 1995 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar 95 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) MO2 Ab Salt Spr Mar MO3-MO Mar MO4 Bl Salt Spr Mar JMO Mar Sink Mar MO30 SFk Nr West Pt Mar MO31-MO Mar MO24 Forest Cr Mar MO25-MO Mar MO26 MFk Bl Forest Mar MO27-MO Mar MO28 MFk At West Pt Mar JMO Mar MO27-MO Mar MO32 MFk Bl SFk Mar MO33-MO Mar MO12 Bl Lo Bear Res Mar MO13-MO Mar SaltSprRes Mar MO5-MO Mar MO6 Cole Cr Gage Mar MO7-MO Mar MO8 NFk Bl Cole Cr Mar MO9-MO Mar MO14 Bear Ab NFk Mar MO10 NFk Ab Bear Mar MO15-MO Mar MO16 NFK Ab Blue Cr Mar MO18 Blue Cr Mar MO19-MO Mar MO20 NFk Ab Tiger Cr Mar JMO Mar MO19-MO Mar MO34 MFk Ab NFk Mar MO22 NFk AB MFk Mar MO35-MO Mar Continued D-317

324 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Mokelumne River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : Mokelumne Run Name : Mar95Calib Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) MO36 Mo R Nr Mo Hil Mar JMO Mar MO37-MO Mar MO38 Mo R Ab Pardee Mar MO39-MO Mar MO40 Pardee Res Mar JMO Mar PardeeInflow Mar Pardeeout Mar MO41-MO Mar MO42 Mo R Ab Cam Res Mar MO43-MO Mar MO44 Camanche Res Mar Camanche Dam Mar D-318

325 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Mokelumne River Basin March 1995 Event Inflow into Camanche Reservoir JMO41 Inflow into Pardee Reservoir D-319

326 JMO37 Mokelumne River near Mokelumne Hill JMO29 Middle Fork Mokelumne River at West Point D-320

327 MO30 South Fork Mokelumne River near West Point MO24 Forest Creek D-321

328 JMO21 Middle Fork Mokelumne River above Tiger Creek MO6 Cole Creek D-322

329 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Mokelumne River Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) MO4 Bl Salt Spr MO14 Bear Ab NFk MO16 NFk Ab Blue Cr MO10 NFk Ab Bear MO8 NFk Bl Cole Cr MO32 MFk Bl SFk MO26 MFk Bl Forest MO18 Blue Cr MO22 NFk AB MFk MO34 MFk Ab NFk MO44 Camanche Res MO40 Pardee Res MO36 Mo R Nr Mo Hil MO30 SFk Nr West Pt MO28 MFk At West Pt MO24 Forest Cr MO6 Cole Cr Gage MO12 Bl Lo Bear Res MO20 NFk Ab Tiger Cr MO42 Mo R Ab Cam Res MO38 Mo R Ab Pardee MO2 Ab Salt Spr D-323

330 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Mokelumne River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : Mokelumne Run Name : Jan97Calib Start of Run : 29Dec Basin Model : Mokel97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : January 1997 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Jan 97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) MO2 Ab Salt Spr Jan MO3-MO Jan MO4 Bl Salt Spr Jan Salt Springs Res Jan Sink Jan MO30 SFk Nr West Pt Jan MO31-MO Jan MO24 Forest Cr Jan MO25-MO Jan MO26 MFk Bl Forest Jan MO27-MO Jan MO28 MFk At West Pt Jan JMO Jan MO27-MO Jan MO32 MFk Bl SFk Jan MO33-MO Jan MO12 Bl Lo Bear Res Jan MO13-MO Jan SaltSprRes Jan MO5-MO Jan MO6 Cole Cr Gage Jan MO7-MO Jan MO8 NFk Bl Cole Cr Jan MO9-MO Jan MO14 Bear Ab NFk Jan MO10 NFk Ab Bear Jan MO15-MO Jan MO16 NFK Ab Blue Cr Jan MO18 Blue Cr Jan MO19-MO Jan MO20 NFk Ab Tiger Cr Jan JMO Jan MO19-MO Jan MO34 MFk Ab NFk Jan MO22 NFk AB MFk Jan MO35-MO Jan Continued D-324

331 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Mokelumne River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : Mokelumne Run Name : Jan97Calib Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) MO36 Mo R Nr Mo Hil Jan JMO Jan MO37-MO Jan MO38 Mo R Ab Pardee Jan MO39-MO Jan MO40 Pardee Res Jan JMO Jan Inflow to Pardee Jan Pardee Reservoir Jan MO41-MO Jan MO42 Mo R Ab Cam Res Jan MO43-MO Jan MO44 Camanche Res Jan Camanche Dam Jan Lower Bear River Res Dec D-325

332 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Mokelumne River Basin December January 1997 Event Inflow into Camanche Reservoir JMO41 Inflow into Pardee Reservoir D-326

333 JMO37 Mokelumne River near Mokelumne Hill JMO29 Middle Fork Mokelumne River at West Point D-327

334 MO30 South Fork Mokelumne River near West Point MO24 Forest Creek D-328

335 JMO21 Middle Fork Mokelumne River above Tiger Creek MO6 Cole Creek D-329

336 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Mokelumne River Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) MO4 Bl Salt Spr MO14 Bear Ab NFk MO16 NFk Ab Blue Cr MO10 NFk Ab Bear MO8 NFk Bl Cole Cr MO32 MFk Bl SFk MO26 MFk Bl Forest MO18 Blue Cr MO22 NFk AB MFk MO34 MFk Ab NFk MO44 Camanche Res MO40 Pardee Res MO36 Mo R Nr Mo Hil MO30 SFk Nr West Pt MO28 MFk At West Pt MO24 Forest Cr MO6 Cole Cr Gage MO12 Bl Lo Bear Res MO20 NFk Ab Tiger Cr MO42 Mo R Ab Cam Res MO38 Mo R Ab Pardee MO2 Ab Salt Spr D-330

337 Dry Creek Basin Dry Creek Dry Creek Sutter Creek Jackson Creek HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-331

338 Dry Creek at Galt The Dry Creek HMS model consists of a 325 square mile basin located in the northeast portion of the San Joaquin Watershed above Galt, CA and is situated between the Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers. The basin model is divided into 6 subbasins and connected with 3 routing reaches. With no observed flows in the basin, calibration could not be performed. Interestingly, the computed peak flow at the HMS basin model outlet for the 1995 event was greater than the 1997 event (8,578 cfs vs. 7,737 cfs); whereas, for the Cosumnes and Mokelumne basins, just the opposite was true. The headwater basins for Dry Creek do not extend as high in elevation as either of the two larger river basins, so perhaps Dry Creek is not receiving as much snowmelt as the other two river basins. Using the adopted TC and R (Group 1) and initial Muskingum parameters, the HMS model was constructed. The initial and constant losses were kept at 1.5 inches and 0.05 inches/hour for both the 1995 and 1997 events. The baseflow values were also within the modeling guidelines. Calibration of the 1995 Event: With no observed gage to calibrate to, the initial and constant loss rates of 1.5 inches and 0.05 inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 3.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to develop a flow at Galt, CA. Calibration of the 1997 Event: With no observed gage to calibrate to, the initial and constant loss rates of 1.5 inches and 0.05 inches/hour, respectively, were used. The baseflow values of 3.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8 and 0.2 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to develop a flow at Galt, CA. D-332

339 Dry Creek at Galt Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic Dry Creek at Galt Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 0.68(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) LCA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) DG2 Dry Bl Horse DG4 Dry Ab Sutter DG6 Sutter Ab Dry Cr DG8 Dry Ab Jackson C DG10 Jackson Ab Dry DG12 Dry nr Galt Dry Creek at Galt Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps 1/2 80 SR 1.47 LR / 1.5VR or LAG (Min) Time Step= LR (Mi) SR (ft/ft) VR (fps) K (Hr) 60 DG3-DG7 Dry Cr DG7-DG11 Dry Cr DG11-DG13 Dry Cr D-333

340 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Dry Creek (at Galt) Basin: March 1995 Event Project : Dry_Galt Run Name : Mar95Calib Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Dry_Galt95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : March 1995 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : March 1995 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) DG2 Dry Bl Horse Mar JDG3-DG7 Dry Cr Mar DG3-DG7 Dry Cr Mar DG4 Dry Ab Sutter Mar DG6 Sutter Ab Dry Cr Mar JDG7-DG11 Dry Cr Mar DG7-DG11 Dry Cr Mar DG8 Dry Ab Jackson C Mar DG10 Jackson Ab Dry Mar JDG11-DG13 Dry Cr Mar DG11-DG13 Dry Cr Mar DG12 Dry nr Galt Mar Dry Cr at Galt Mar D-334

341 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Dry Creek (at Galt) Basin March 1995 Event Dry Creek at Galt HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Dry Creek Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) DG2 Dry Bl Horse DG4 Dry Ab Sutter DG6 Sutter Ab Dry Cr DG8 Dry Ab Jackson C DG10 Jackson Ab Dry DG12 Dry nr Galt D-335

342 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Dry Creek (at Galt) Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : Dry_Galt Run Name : Jan97Calib Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : Dry_Galt97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Jan 1997 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Jan 1997 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) DG2 Dry Bl Horse Jan JDG3-DG7 Dry Cr Jan DG3-DG7 Dry Cr Jan DG4 Dry Ab Sutter Jan DG6 Sutter Ab Dry Cr Jan JDG7-DG11 Dry Cr Jan DG7-DG11 Dry Cr Jan DG8 Dry Ab Jackson C Jan DG10 Jackson Ab Dry Jan JDG11-DG13 Dry Cr Jan DG11-DG13 Dry Cr Jan DG12 Dry nr Galt Jan Dry Cr at Galt Jan D-336

343 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Dry Creek (at Galt) Basin December January 1997 Event Dry Creek at Galt HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Dry Creek Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) DG2 Dry Bl Horse DG4 Dry Ab Sutter DG6 Sutter Ab Dry Cr DG8 Dry Ab Jackson C DG10 Jackson Ab Dry DG12 Dry nr Galt D-337

344 D-338

345 Cosumnes River Basin Big Canyon Creek North Fork Cosumnes River Jenkinson Lake Camp Creek Deer Creek South Fork Cosumnes River Middle Fork Cosumnes River Cosumnes River HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-339

346 Cosumnes River The Cosumnes River HMS model consists of a 726 square mile basin located in the northeastern-most portion of the San Joaquin Watershed above the Highway 99 Bridge. The basin is divided into 18 subbasins and connected with 11 routing reaches. Two observed hydrographs were used to assist with the calibration: Camp Creek near Somerset ( ), which includes the releases from the Sly Park Reservoir, and Cosumnes River above Michigan Bar ( ). The computed peak flow at the HMS basin model outlet for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (45,291 cfs vs. 27,719 cfs). While the adopted value for TC was computed using the Group 2 equations, the value of R was set to 3.0TC. This revision was made so the shape of the computed hydrograph would better resemble the observed hydrograph. The generic equation to compute the reach travel time (Muskingum K) was not used because the reach travel times were too short; thus, causing the computed peaks to occur too early. Instead, the reach travel time (K) was computed knowing the reach length and average velocity. The average velocity was computed using Manning s equation. The Manning s n value was estimated with Jarrett s equation, and the hydraulic radius was estimated from the Feather River equation, which was developed from a regression of field data (the Feather River equation was used because it was felt that it would represent the Cosumnes system the best). Of the 11 routing reaches, 6 reaches used the Muskingum routing technique. The other 5 reaches used the lag method since the travel time within each of those reaches was less than the one-hour time step used by the Muskingum method. For this modeling effort, rather than attempt to predict how the Sly Park Reservoir was operated, the source and sink tools available in HMS were implemented. This technique allowed the observed hydrograph at Camp Creek, which included outflow from the Sly Park Reservoir, to be passed downstream. As pointed out in Section 6.6.5, Reservoir Modeling of the main report, HMS is fairly limited in how it models releases from reservoirs. Another reason the observed reservoir outflows were used as sources was to replace the inadequate computed runoff from the upstream basins. Even with the losses reduced to minimal values, the computed volumes and peaks for the 1997 event could not match the observed hydrographs. The thought was that the LWASS was not large enough to generate the observed volumes. The timing appears consistent with the observed hydrograph, but the volume and peak are not. This has been a problem in other basins as well. For the 1995 event, the observed and computed hydrographs matched very well. Calibration of the 1995 Event: With the losses set to typical values (1.5 inches for initial losses and 0.01 inches/hour for constant losses), the observed and computed hydrographs matched very well at both gages. The timing, volume, and peaks all matched. The baseflow values of 3.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8 and 0.22 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. D-340

347 Calibration of the 1997 Event: As mentioned above, the observed and computed hydrograph peaks and volumes did not match for either gage. Even with the initial loss rates set to 0.1 or 0.5 inches and a constant loss rate of inches/hour, the model could not produce enough volume. Better calibration of the snowmelt model would have to be performed for this basin. The baseflow values of 5.0 cfs per square mile, 0.8 and 0.22 for the initial flow, recession ratio, and the threshold flow, respectively, were also used to calibrate the model. Cosumnes River Basin HEC-HMS Schematic D-341

348 Cosumnes River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Flow Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regresssion TC Regression R DA Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 1.67(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) LCA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) CN16 MFk Ab SFk CN10 NFk Ab Camp Cr CN12 NFk Ab Martinez CN34 Deer Ab Cos CN24 Cos Ab B Canyon CN14 NFk Ab MFk CN22 B Indian Ab Cos CN20 MFk Ab NFk CN32 Deer Ab Carson CN26 B Canyon Ab Cos CN18 SFk Ab MFk CN30 Cos Ab Deer Cr CN36 Cos Ab McConnel CN28 Cos Ab Mich Bar CN4 Sly Conf CN2 Ab Jenkinson Lk CN8 Camp NFk CN6 Camp Sly P Cosumnes River Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Reach Cum Drainage Area Feather River Field Jarrett's Manning's Travel Time Length Slope (from GeoHms) Reg. Eqa Equation Velocity K Lag L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) A (Sq. Mi.) R =0.0043A n =.39S.38 R -.16 v (ft/s) Hrs (Min) CN3-CN7 Sly Park Cr CN7-CN11 Camp Cr CN11-CN13 NFk Cos MUSK CN13-CN21 NFk Cos MUSK CN19-CN21 MFk Cos CN21-CN23 Cos R CN23-CN27 Cos R MUSK CN33-CN35 Deer Cr MUSK CN29-CN35 Cos R MUSK CN35-CN37 Cos R MUSK CN27-CN29 Cos R D-342

349 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Cosumnes River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : Cosumnes Run Name : Mar95Calib Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Cosum95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : March 1995 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : March 1995 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CN32 Deer Ab Carson Mar JCN Mar CN33-CN35 Deer Cr Mar CN18 SFk Ab MFk Mar CN16 MFk Ab SFk Mar JCN Mar CN19-CN21 MFk Cos Mar Res Out Mar CN10 NFk Ab Camp Cr Mar JCN Mar CN11-CN13 NFk Cos Mar CN12 NFk Ab Martinez Mar JCN Mar CN13-CN21 NFk Cos Mar CN14 NFk Ab MFk Mar CN20 MFk Ab NFk Mar JCN Mar CN21-CN23 Cos R Mar CN22 B Indian Ab Cos Mar JCN Mar CN23-CN27 Cos R Mar CN26 B Canyon Ab Cos Mar CN24 Cos Ab B Canyon Mar JCN Mar CN27-CN29 Cos R Mar CN28 Cos Ab Mich Bar Mar JCN Mar CN29-CN35 Cos R Mar CN34 Deer Ab Cos Mar CN30 Cos Ab Deer Cr Mar Continued D-343

350 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Cosumnes River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : Cosumnes Run Name : Mar95Calib Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Cosum95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : March 1995 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : March 1995 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) JCN Mar CN35-CN37 Cos R Mar CN36 Cos Ab McConnel Mar Cosumnes at HY Mar CN2 Ab Jenkinson Lk Mar CN3-CN7 Sly Park Cr Mar CN4 Sly Conf Mar CN6 Camp Sly P Mar JCN Mar CN7-CN11 Camp Cr Mar CN8 Camp NFk Mar JCN11a Mar Sink Mar Sly Park Dam Mar D-344

351 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Cosumnes River Basin March 1995 Event JNC29 Cosumnes River above Michigan Bar JNC11a Camp Creek at North Fork Cosumnes River D-345

352 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Cosumnes River Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) CN16 MFk Ab SFk CN10 NFk Ab Camp Cr CN12 NFk Ab Martinez CN34 Deer Ab Cos CN24 Cos Ab B Canyon CN14 NFk Ab MFk CN22 B Indian Ab Cos CN20 MFk Ab NFk CN32 Deer Ab Carson CN26 B Canyon Ab Cos CN18 SFk Ab MFk CN30 Cos Ab Deer Cr CN36 Cos Ab McConnel CN28 Cos Ab Mich Bar CN4 Sly Conf CN2 Ab Jenkinson Lk CN8 Camp NFk CN6 Camp Sly P D-346

353 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Cosumnes River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : Cosumnes Run Name : Jan97Calib Start of Run : 30Dec Basin Model : Cosum97 End of Run : 06Jan Met. Model : January 1997 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : January 1997 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) CN32 Deer Ab Carson Jan JCN Jan CN33-CN35 Deer Cr Jan CN18 SFk Ab MFk Jan CN16 MFk Ab SFk Jan JCN Jan CN19-CN21 MFk Cos Jan Res Out Jan CN10 NFk Ab Camp Cr Jan JCN Jan CN11-CN13 NFk Cos Jan CN12 NFk Ab Martinez Jan JCN Jan CN13-CN21 NFk Cos Jan CN14 NFk Ab MFk Jan CN20 MFk Ab NFk Jan JCN Jan CN21-CN23 Cos R Jan CN22 B Indian Ab Cos Jan JCN Jan CN23-CN27 Cos R Jan CN26 B Canyon Ab Cos Jan CN24 Cos Ab B Canyon Jan JCN Jan CN27-CN29 Cos R Jan CN28 Cos Ab Mich Bar Jan JCN Jan CN29-CN35 Cos R Jan CN34 Deer Ab Cos Jan CN30 Cos Ab Deer Cr Jan Continued D-347

354 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Cosumnes River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : Cosumnes Run Name : Jan97Calib Start of Run : 30Dec Basin Model : Cosum97 End of Run : 06Jan Met. Model : January 1997 Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : January 1997 Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) JCN Jan CN35-CN37 Cos R Jan CN36 Cos Ab McConnel Jan Cosumnes at HY Jan CN2 Ab Jenkinson Lk Jan CN3-CN7 Sly Park Cr Jan CN4 Sly Conf Jan CN6 Camp Sly P Jan JCN Jan CN7-CN11 Camp Cr Jan CN8 Camp NFk Jan JCN11a Jan Sink Jan Sly Park Dam Dec D-348

355 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Cosumnes River Basin December January 1997 Event JNC29 Cosumnes River above Michigan Bar JNC11a Camp Creek at North Fork Cosumnes River D-349

356 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Cosumnes River Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) CN16 MFk Ab SFk CN10 NFk Ab Camp Cr CN12 NFk Ab Martinez CN34 Deer Ab Cos CN24 Cos Ab B Canyon CN14 NFk Ab MFk CN22 B Indian Ab Cos CN20 MFk Ab NFk CN32 Deer Ab Carson CN26 B Canyon Ab Cos CN18 SFk Ab MFk CN30 Cos Ab Deer Cr CN36 Cos Ab McConnel CN28 Cos Ab Mich Bar CN4 Sly Conf CN2 Ab Jenkinson Lk CN8 Camp NFk CN6 Camp Sly P D-350

357 Kern River Basin Golden Trout Creek Little Kern River South Fork Kern River Kern River Chimney Creek Canebral Creek Isabella Lake Kelso Creek HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-351

358 Kern River The Kern River HMS model consists of a 2,055 square mile basin above Isabella Lake located in the southeastern-most portion of the Tulare Lake Bed Watershed. The basin model is divided into 22 subbasins and connected with 17 routing reaches. The observed hydrographs are the computed inflow into Isabella Lake and at gages near Onyx, Fairview and Kernville. The computed peak inflow into Isabella Lake for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (7,900 cfs vs. 5,500 cfs). The adopted TC and R (Group 2) values and Muskingum parameters were used, and the model calibrated reasonably well to observed hydrographs. For reaches with a travel time of less than one hour, the lag method was used for routing. Muskingum was used for 16 routing reaches and lag was used for 1 routing reach. Calibration of the 1995 Event: The 1995 model was calibrated to all hydrographs listed above except the gage near Onyx. By using constant loss rates between 0.05 and 0.2 inches/hour and initial losses of between 0.05 and 0.20 inches, the model calibrated reasonably well to observed hydrographs. A recession ratio of 0.8 and a peak ratio of 0.2 defined the recession limb of the hydrographs. An initial baseflow of 1 cfs per square mile was assumed for most subbasins. An initial baseflow of 0.2 cfs per square mile was assumed for the headwater subbasins. Calibration of the 1997 Event: By using constant loss rates between 0.12 and 0.90 inches/hour and high initial losses of 4-6 inches, the model calibrated reasonably well to all observed hydrographs. However, the computed peak was higher than the observed peak for the inflow into Isabella Lake and for the gage near Kernville (despite the high initial losses). The baseflow recession parameters of 0.8 for the constant and 0.1 to 0.3 for the peak ratio worked best. Initial baseflows of 0.1 to 1 cfs per square mile were used, with smaller initial baseflows at the headwaters. D-352

359 Kern River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic D-353

360 Kern River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 1.67(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) KE10 Kern Ab Ninemil KE12 Rattlesnake KE14 Lt Kern HW KE16 Low Lt Kern KE18 Sand Hill KE2 Kern R HW KE20 Fairview KE22 Tobias Cr KE24 Salmon Cr KE26 Kernville KE28 SFk Kern R HW KE30 SFk Kern Ab Fis KE32 SFk Kern Nr Ony KE34 Canebrake KE36 Onyx KE38 Kelso HW KE4 Kern R Ab Gld Tr KE40 Low Kelso KE42 Fay Cr KE44 Isabella Loc KE6 Gldn Trout HW KE8 Low Gldn Trout Kern River Reach Parameters Reach Reach Reach Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps Name Length Slope 1/2 80 S R 1.47 L R / 1.5V R or LAG (Hr) Time Step= L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) V R (fps) K (Hr) 60 KE11-KE KE15-KE KE17-KE KE19-KE KE21-KE KE25-KE KE27-KE KE29-KE KE31-KE KE35-KE KE39-KE KE3-KE KE41-KE KE43-KE KE45-KER KE7-KE KE9-KE D-354

361 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Kern River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : Kern Run Name : Kern95 Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Kern95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar95 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) KE14 Lt Kern HW Mar KE Mar KE15-KE Mar KE2 Kern R HW Mar KE Mar KE3-KE Mar KE6 Gldn Trout HW Mar KE7 ( ) Mar KE7-KE Mar KE4 Kern R Ab Gld Tr Mar KE8 Low Gldn Trout Mar KE Mar KE9-KE Mar KE10 Kern Ab Ninemil Mar KE Mar KE11-KE Mar KE16 Low Lt Kern Mar KE12 Rattlesnake Mar KE Mar KE17-KE Mar KE18 Sand Hill Mar KE Mar KE19-KE Mar KE20 Fairview Mar KE21 Gage Mar KE21-KE Mar KE22 Tobias Cr Mar KE24 Salmon Cr Mar KE Mar KE25-KE Mar KE26 Kernville Mar Continued D-355

362 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Kern River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : Kern Run Name : Mar95 Event Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Kern95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar95 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) KE27 Gage Mar KE27-KE Mar KE38 Kelso HW Mar KE39 ( ) Mar KE39-KE Mar KE28 SFk Kern R HW Mar KE29 ( ) Mar KE29-KE Mar KE30 SFk Kern Ab Fis Mar KE Mar KE31-KE Mar KE32 SFk Kern Nr Ony Mar KE33 ( ) Mar KE34 Canebrake Mar KE Mar KE35-KE Mar KE40 Low Kelso Mar KE36 Onyx Mar KE Mar KE41-KE Mar KE42 Fay Cr Mar KE Mar KE43-KE Mar KE Mar KE45-KER Mar KE44 Isabella Loc Mar KER45 Isabella Lake Mar Sink Mar D-356

363 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Kern River Basin March 1995 Event KER45 Isabella Lake KE27 Gage , At Kernville D-357

364 KE21 Gage , Near Kernville Subbasin Name HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Kern River Basin: March 1995 Event Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) KE10 Kern Ab Ninemil KE12 Rattlesnake KE14 Lt Kern HW KE16 Low Lt Kern KE18 Sand Hill KE2 Kern R HW KE20 Fairview KE22 Tobias Cr KE24 Salmon Cr KE26 Kernville KE28 SFk Kern R HW KE30 SFk Kern Ab Fis KE32 SFk Kern Nr Ony KE34 Canebrake KE36 Onyx KE38 Kelso HW KE4 Kern R Ab Gld Tr KE40 Low Kelso KE42 Fay Cr KE44 Isabella Loc KE6 Gldn Trout HW KE8 Low Gldn Trout D-358

365 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Kern River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : Kern Run Name : Kern97 Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : Kern97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Dec96Jan97 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Dec96Jan97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) KE14 Lt Kern HW Jan KE Jan KE15-KE Jan KE2 Kern R HW Jan KE Jan KE3-KE Jan KE6 Gldn Trout HW Jan KE7 ( ) Jan KE7-KE Jan KE4 Kern R Ab Gld Tr Jan KE8 Low Gldn Trout Jan KE Jan KE9-KE Jan KE10 Kern Ab Ninemil Jan KE Jan KE11-KE Jan KE16 Low Lt Kern Jan KE12 Rattlesnake Jan KE Jan KE17-KE Jan KE18 Sand Hill Jan KE Jan KE19-KE Jan KE20 Fairview Jan KE21 Gage Jan KE21-KE Jan KE22 Tobias Cr Jan KE24 Salmon Cr Jan KE Jan KE25-KE Jan KE26 Kernville Jan Continued D-359

366 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Kern River Basin: December January 1997 Event (Continued) Project : Kern Run Name : Kern97 Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : Kern97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Dec96Jan97 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Dec96Jan97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) KE27 Gage Jan KE27-KE Jan KE38 Kelso HW Dec KE39 ( ) Dec KE39-KE Dec KE28 SFk Kern R HW Jan KE29 ( ) Jan KE29-KE Jan KE30 SFk Kern Ab Fis Jan KE Jan KE31-KE Jan KE32 SFk Kern Nr Ony Jan KE33 Gage Jan KE34 Canebrake Jan KE Jan KE35-KE Jan KE40 Low Kelso Dec KE36 Onyx Dec KE Jan KE41-KE Jan KE42 Fay Cr Jan KE Jan KE43-KE Jan KE Jan KE45-KER Jan KE44 Isabella Loc Jan KER45 Isabella Lake Jan Sink Jan D-360

367 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Kern River Basin December January 1997 Event KER45 Isabella Lake KE33 Gage , South Fork Near Onyx D-361

368 KE27 Gage , At Kernville KE21 Gage , Near Kernville D-362

369 HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Kern River Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) KE10 Kern Ab Ninemil KE12 Rattlesnake KE14 Lt Kern HW KE16 Low Lt Kern KE18 Sand Hill KE2 Kern R HW KE20 Fairview KE22 Tobias Cr KE24 Salmon Cr KE26 Kernville KE28 SFk Kern R HW KE30 SFk Kern Ab Fis KE32 SFk Kern Nr Ony KE34 Canebrake KE36 Onyx KE38 Kelso HW KE4 Kern R Ab Gld Tr KE40 Low Kelso KE42 Fay Cr KE44 Isabella Loc KE6 Gldn Trout HW KE8 Low Gldn Trout D-363

370 D-364

371 Tule River Basin North Fork Tule River Bear Creek Tule River Success Lake Middle Fork Tule River South Fork Tule River HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-365

372 Tule River The Tule River HMS model consists of a 392 square mile basin above Success Lake located in the mid-east portion of the Tulare Lake Bed Watershed. The basin model is divided into 12 subbasins and connected with 10 routing reaches. The observed hydrographs are the computed inflow into Success Lake and at gages near Camp Wishon, Camp Nelson and Springville and on the South Fork of the Tule River near Success Lake. The computed peak inflow into Success Lake for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (41,100 cfs vs. 9,640 cfs). The adopted TC and R (Group 2) values and Muskingum parameters were used, and the model calibrated reasonably well to observed hydrographs. For reaches with a travel time of less than one hour, the lag method was used for routing. Muskingum was used for 4 routing reaches and lag was used for 6 routing reaches. Calibration of the 1995 Event: By using constant loss rates between 0.08 and 0.20 inches/hour and initial losses of to 0.03 inches, the model calibrated reasonably well to observed hydrographs. Since the gage near Camp Wishon was a daily gage, the model was calibrated to the average daily flows with a known instantaneous peak. A recession ratio of 0.8 and a peak ratio of 0.2 defined the recession limb of the hydrographs. An initial baseflow of 1 cfs per square mile was assumed. Calibration of the 1997 Event: By using constant loss rates between 0.01 and 0.20 inches/hour and initial losses of 0.01 to 2.2 inches, the model calibrated reasonably well to all observed hydrographs. Since the gage near Camp Wishon was a daily gage, the model was calibrated to the average daily flows with a known instantaneous peak. Baseflow recession parameters of 0.7 to 0.8 for the constant and 0.1 to 0.2 for the peak ratio worked best. An initial baseflow of 1 cfs per square mile was used. D-366

373 Tule River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic D-367

374 Tule River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Length to Slope Basin Initial TC Initial R Regression TC Regression R DA Flow Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 1.67(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC (Sq Mi) L (Mi) LCA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (cfs/hr) TU10 Mtn Home TU12 Camp Wishon TU14 Camp Nelson TU16 MFk Tule TU18 Low MFk Tule TU2 Milo TU20 Springville TU22 SFk Tule TU24 Success-Loc TU4 Bear Cr TU6 Rancheria Cr TU8 Buckeye Tule River Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Reach Ave Reach Vel Initial K Musk X N steps Length Slope 1/2 80 S R 1.47 L R / 1.5V R or LAG Time Step= L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) V R (fps) K (Hr) (Min) 60 TU11-TU TU13-TU TU15-TU TU17-TU TU19-TU TU21-TU TU23-TU TU25-TUR TU5-TU TU7-TU D-368

375 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Tule River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : Tule Run Name : Tule95 Calibration Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Tule95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar95 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar95 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) TU25-TUR Mar TU4 Bear Cr Mar TU Mar TU5-TU Mar TU2 Milo Mar TU6 Rancheria Cr Mar TU Mar TU7-TU Mar TU10 Mtn Home Mar TU11 NF of MF Tule R Mar TU11-TU Mar TU12 Camp Wishon Mar TU13 Gage Mar TU13-TU Mar TU14 Camp Nelson Mar TU15 Gage Mar TU15-TU Mar TU16 MFk Tule Mar TU Mar TU17-TU Mar TU8 Buckeye Mar TU18 Low MFk Tule Mar TU Mar TU19-TU Mar TU20 Springville Mar TU21 Gage Mar TU21-TU Mar TU22 SFk Tule Mar TU23 SF TuleNrSucces Mar TU23-TU Mar TU Mar TU24 Success-Loc Mar TUR25 Success Lake Mar Sink Mar D-369

376 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Tule River Basin March 1995 Event TUR25 Success Lake TU23 South Fork Near Success D-370

377 TU21 Gage , Near Springville TU15 Gage , Middle Fork Below Intake Above Springville D-371

378 TU13 Gage , North Fork of Middle Fork Near Springville HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Tule River Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) TU10 Mtn Home TU12 Camp Wishon TU14 Camp Nelson TU16 MFk Tule TU18 Low MFk Tule TU2 Milo TU20 Springville TU22 SFk Tule TU24 Success-Loc TU4 Bear Cr TU6 Rancheria Cr TU8 Buckeye D-372

379 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Tule River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : Tule Run Name : Tule97 Calibration Start of Run : 25Dec Basin Model : Tule97 End of Run : 08Jan Met. Model : Dec96Jan97 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Dec96Jan97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) TU25-TUR Dec TU4 Bear Cr Jan TU Jan TU5-TU Jan TU2 Milo Jan TU6 Rancheria Cr Jan TU Jan TU7-TU Jan TU10 Mtn Home Jan TU11 NF of MF Tule R Jan TU11-TU Jan TU12 Camp Wishon Jan TU13 Gage Jan TU13-TU Jan TU14 Camp Nelson Jan TU15 Gage Jan TU15-TU Jan TU16 MFk Tule Jan TU Jan TU17-TU Jan TU8 Buckeye Jan TU18 Low MFk Tule Jan TU Jan TU19-TU Jan TU20 Springville Jan TU21 Gage Jan TU21-TU Jan TU22 SFk Tule Jan TU23 SF TuleNrSucces Jan TU23-TU Jan TU Jan TU24 Success-Loc Jan TUR25 Success Lake Jan Sink Jan D-373

380 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Tule River Basin December January 1997 Event TUR25 Success Lake TU23 South Fork Near Success D-374

381 TU21 Gage , Near Springville TU15 Gage , Middle Fork Below Intake Above Springville D-375

382 TU13 Gage , North Fork of Middle Fork Near Springville HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Tule River Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) TU10 Mtn Home TU12 Camp Wishon TU14 Camp Nelson TU16 MFk Tule TU18 Low MFk Tule TU2 Milo TU20 Springville TU22 SFk Tule TU24 Success-Loc TU4 Bear Cr TU6 Rancheria Cr TU8 Buckeye D-376

383 Kaweah River Basin Marble Fork Middle Fork Kaweah River North Fork Kaweah River Lake Kaweah East Fork Kaweah River South Fork Kaweah River HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation D-377

384 Kaweah River The Kaweah River HMS model consists of a 560 square mile basin above Lake Kaweah (Terminus Dam) located in the mid-east portion of the Tulare Lake Bed Watershed. The basin model is divided into 10 subbasins and connected with 5 routing reaches. The observed hydrographs are the computed inflow into Lake Kaweah and at gages at Three Rivers and on the Marble Fork at Potwish. The computed peak inflow into Lake Kaweah for the 1997 event was much larger than the 1995 event (57,257 cfs vs. 13,333 cfs). The adopted TC and R (Group 1) values were used. The generic equation to compute the reach travel time (Muskingum K) was not used because the reach travel times were too short; thus, causing the computed peaks to occur too early. Instead, the travel time (K) for the reach was computed knowing the reach length and average velocity. The average velocity was computed using Manning's equation. The Manning's n value was estimated with Jarrett s equation, and the hydraulic radius was estimated from the Yuba River equation, which was developed from a regression of field data (the Yuba River equation was used because it was felt that it would represent the Kaweah system the best). Because each of the reaches had a travel time of less than one hour, the lag method was used to route the flows through all 5 reaches. Ten percent impervious area was assumed for the reservoir subbasin. Calibration of the 1995 Event: By using constant loss rates of 0.02 to 0.1 inches/hour and initial losses of 0.8 to 2.0 inches, the model calibrated well to observed hydrographs. Since no data were available for the 1995 event at the Marble Fork at Potwish gage, no calibration was performed at this location. A recession ratio of 0.7 and a peak ratio of 0.2 defined the recession limb of the hydrographs. An initial baseflow of 2 cfs per square mile was assumed. Calibration of the 1997 Event: By using constant loss rates of 0.2 to 0.35 inches/hour and an initial loss of 1.0 inch, the model calibrated reasonably well to all observed hydrographs. Since no data were available at the Three Rivers gage, no calibration was performed at this location. Baseflow recession parameters of 0.7 for the constant and 0.15 for the peak ratio worked best. An initial baseflow of 2 cfs per square mile was used. D-378

385 Kaweah River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic Kaweah River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Flow Length to Slope Basin Shape Initial TC Initial R Final TC Final R Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LLCA/S 1/2 ) TC 1.67(LL CA /S 1/2 ) TC DA (Sq Mi) L (Mi) LCA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LLCA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (Hr) KA14 NF Kaweah KA4 Marble Fk Potw G KA2 MF Nr Potw GA KA6 MF Ab EF KA16 Kaw Ab SF KA12 Kaw Nr 3Riv GA KA10 EF Ab MF KA22 Kaweah Res Loc KA20 SF Kaweah KA8 EF Nr 3Riv GA Kaweah River Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Cum Drainage Area Yuba Field Jarrett's Manning's Travel Time (from GeoHms) Reg. Eqa Equation Velocity K Lag L R (Mi) S R (ft/ft) A (Sq. Mi.) R=4.13Ln(A) n =.39S.38 R -.16 v (ft/s) Hrs (Min) KA5-KA KA7-KA KA9-KA KA13-KA KA21-KA Routing parameters based on field observations and regression analysis. D-379

386 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Kaweah River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : Kaweah Run Name : March 95 Event Start of Run : 06Mar Basin Model : Kaweah95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar 95 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar 95 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) KA4 Marble Fk Potw G Mar Marble Fk At Potwish Mar KA2 MF Nr Potw GA Mar Ka5a MF Nr Potwisha Mar KA5 Kaweah Bl MF Mar KA5-KA Mar KA8 EF Nr 3Riv GA Mar EF Nr Three Riv Ga Mar KA9-KA Mar KA6 MF Ab EF Mar KA10 EF Ab MF Mar KA7 Bl EF Mar KA7-KA Mar KA14 NF Kaweah Mar KA12 Kaw Nr 3Riv GA Mar KA13 Three Rives Ga Mar KA13-KA Mar KA16 Kaw Ab SF Mar KA20 SF Kaweah Mar KA21 Bl SF Mar KA21-KA Mar KA22 Kaweah Res Loc Mar KA32 Term Res Ga Mar D-380

387 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Kaweah River Basin March 1995 Event KA32 Terminus Reservoir Gage KA13 Three Rivers Gage D-381

388 Marble Fork At Potwish HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Kaweah River Basin: March 1995 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) KA14 NF Kaweah KA4 Marble Fk Potw G KA2 MF Nr Potw GA KA6 MF Ab EF KA16 Kaw Ab SF KA12 Kaw Nr 3Riv GA KA10 EF Ab MF KA22 Kaweah Res Loc KA20 SF Kaweah KA8 EF Nr 3Riv GA D-382

389 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Kaweah River Basin: December January 1997 Event Project : Kaweah Run Name : Jan 97 Event Start of Run : 31Dec Basin Model : Kaweah97 End of Run : 05Jan Met. Model : Jan 97 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Jan 97 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) KA4 Marble Fk Potw G Jan Marble Fk At Potwish Jan KA2 MF Nr Potw GA Jan Ka5a MF Nr Potwisha Jan KA5 Kaweah Bl MF Jan KA5-KA Jan KA8 EF Nr 3Riv GA Jan EF Nr Three Riv Ga Jan KA9-KA Jan KA6 MF Ab EF Jan KA10 EF Ab MF Jan KA7 Bl EF Jan KA7-KA Jan KA14 NF Kaweah Jan KA12 Kaw Nr 3Riv GA Jan KA13 Three Rives Ga Jan KA13-KA Jan KA16 Kaw Ab SF Jan KA20 SF Kaweah Jan KA21 Bl SF Jan KA21-KA Jan KA22 Kaweah Res Loc Jan KA32 Term Res Ga Jan D-383

390 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Kaweah River Basin December January 1997 Event KA32 Terminus Reservoir Gage KA13 Three Rivers Gage D-384

391 Marble Fork At Potwish HEC-HMS Subbasin Parameters Kaweah River Basin: December January 1997 Event Subbasin Name Initial Flow (cfs/sq mi) Baseflow Parameters Recession Ratio Threshold Flow (peak ratio) Initial Loss (in) Losses Constant Loss Rate (in/hr) Imperviousness (%) KA14 NF Kaweah KA4 Marble Fk Potw G KA2 MF Nr Potw GA KA6 MF Ab EF KA16 Kaw Ab SF KA12 Kaw Nr 3Riv GA KA10 EF Ab MF KA22 Kaweah Res Loc KA20 SF Kaweah KA8 EF Nr 3Riv GA D-385

392 D-386

393 Kings River Basin Big Creek Courtright Lake Wishon Lake Pine Flat Lake Kings River North Fork Kings River Middle Fork Kings River South Fork Kings River HEC-GeoHMS Subbasin Delineation Roaring River D-387

394 Kings River The Kings River HMS model consists of a 1,541 square mile basin above Pine Flat Lake located in the northeastern-most portion of the Tulare Lake Bed Watershed. The basin model is divided into 24 subbasins and connected with 13 routing reaches. The observed hydrographs are the computed inflow into Pine Flat Lake and at gages below Balch Diversion Dam and below the North Fork of the Kings River. The computed peak inflow into Pine Flat Lake for the 1997 event was larger than the 1995 event (90,259 cfs vs. 37,194 cfs). The adopted TC and R values (Group 2) were used. Since the reaches had a travel time of less than one hour, the lag method was used to route the flow through all reaches. For this modeling effort, rather than attempt to predict how the Courtright and Wishon reservoirs were operated, the source and sink tools available in HMS were used. This technique allowed the observed outflow hydrographs from the reservoirs to be passed downstream. As pointed out in Section 6.6.5, Reservoir Modeling of the main report, HMS is fairly limited in how it models releases from reservoirs. Twenty percent impervious area was assumed for the Pine Flat subbasin, five percent was assumed for the subbasin at the upstream end of Pine Flat Lake and five percent was assumed for the subbasin above Big Creek. Calibration of the 1995 Event: By using a constant loss rate of 0.01 inches/hour and an initial loss of 1.5 inches, the model calibrated well to observed hydrographs. Since the gage below the North Fork was a daily gage, the model was calibrated to the average daily flows with a known instantaneous peak. A recession ratio of 0.7 and a peak ratio of 0.2 defined the recession limb of the hydrographs. An initial baseflow of 3 cfs per square mile was assumed. Calibration of the 1997 Event: By using constant loss rates between 0.02 and 0.25 inches/hour and initial losses of 1 to 2.2 inches, the model calibrated reasonably well to all observed hydrographs. Baseflow recession parameters of 0.7 for the constant and 0.18 for the peak ratio worked best. An initial baseflow of 1 cfs per square mile was used. D-388

395 Kings River Basin HEC-HMS Model Schematic D-389

396 Kings River Basin Parameters Subbasin Name Area Total Flow Length to Slope Basin Shape Initial TC Initial R Final TC Final R Length Centroid LFP Factor 1.4(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC 1.67(LL CA/S 1/2 ) TC DA (Sq Mi) L (Mi) L CA (Mi) S (ft/mi) LL CA/S 1/2 (Hr) (cfs/hr) (Hr) (Hr) KI2 UP MF KI28 Upr NF KI30 Helms Bl CR Ga KI32 NF Bl Wishon Ga KI34 NF Bl Balch Ga KI4 Goddard Cr KI6 MF Ab Crown KI8 Crown Cr KI38 Dinkey Cr KI46 Sycamore Ab PNF KI36 NF Ab Dinkey Ga KI44 Big Cr Ab PNF KI12 SF Ab Woods Cr KI40 NF Bl Dinkey G KI42 Kings Ab Big Cr KI10 MF Ab Kings KI48 PNF local KI16 SF Ab Babbs KI14 Woods Cr KI20 SF Ab Roaring R KI26 Kings Ab NF KI24 SF Ab MF KI18 Babbs Cr KI22 Roaring R Kings River Reach Parameters Reach Name Reach Length Reach Slope Cum Drainage Area Yuba Field Jarret's Manning's Travel Time (from GeoHms) Reg. Eqa Equation Velocity K Lag LR (Mi) SR (ft/ft) A (Sq. Mi.) R=4.13Ln(A) n =.39S.38 R -.16 v (ft/s) Hrs (Min) KI35-KI KI37-KI KI27-KI KI11-KI KI7-KI KI43-KI KI19-KI KI21-KI KI31-KI KI33-KI KI5-KI KI15-KI KI43-KI Routing parameters based on field obsevations and regression analysis. D-390

397 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Kings River Basin: March 1995 Event Project : Kings Run Name : Mar 1995 Event Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Kings95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar 1995 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar 1995 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) KI32A Wishon Out Mar KI33 NF Bl Wishon Ga Mar KI33-KI Mar KI34 NF Bl Balch Ga Mar KI35 NF Bl Balch Ga Mar KI35-KI Mar KI38 Dinkey Cr Mar KI36 NF Ab Dinkey Ga Mar KI37 NF Bl Dinkey Ga Mar KI37-KI Mar KI4 Goddard Cr Mar KI2 UP MF Mar KI Mar KI5-KI Mar KI6 MF Ab Crown Mar KI Mar KI8 Crown Cr Mar KI7-KI Mar KI12 SF Ab Woods Cr Mar KI14 Woods Cr Mar KI Mar KI15-KI Mar KI16 SF Ab Babbs Mar KI18 Babbs Cr Mar KI Mar KI19-KI Mar KI22 Roaring R Mar KI20 SF Ab Roaring R Mar KI Mar KI21-KI Mar KI10 MF Ab Kings Mar Continued D-391

398 HEC-HMS Summary of Results Kings River Basin: March 1995 Event (Continued) Project : Kings Run Name : Mar 1995 Event Start of Run : 08Mar Basin Model : Kings95 End of Run : 15Mar Met. Model : Mar 1995 Event Execution Time : 31May Control Specs. : Mar 1995 Event Hydrologic Element Discharge (cfs) Time of Volume (ac-ft) Drainage Area (sq mi) KI24 SF Ab MF Mar KI Mar KI11-KI Mar KI40 NF Bl Dinkey G Mar KI26 Kings Ab NF Mar KI27 Bl NF Ga Mar KI27-KI Mar KI44 Big Cr Ab PNF Mar KI42 Kings Ab Big Cr Mar KI Mar KI43-KI Mar KI46 Sycamore Ab PNF Mar KI Mar KI49-KI Mar KI48 PNF local Mar KI51 Kings Bl PNF Mar KI30 Helms Bl CR Ga Mar KI30A CR Inflow Mar KI30A CR Outflow Mar KI Mar KI28 Upr NF Mar KI31-KI Mar KI32 NF Bl Wishon Ga Mar KI32A Wishon Inflow Mar KIR30A Courtright Mar KIR32A Wishon Mar D-392

399 HEC-HMS: Comparison of Observed vs. Computed Hydrographs Kings River Basin March 1995 Event KI51 Kings River Below Pine Flat Reservoir KI27 Below North Fork Gage D-393