Solvang data – first value is non-adjusted flow rate prior to 3/6 The second value is the adjusted value computed on 3/6.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Flood hydrograph A brief explanation-
Advertisements

Hydrologic Analysis Dr. Bedient CEVE 101 Fall 2013.
SECONDARY VALIDATION OF WATER LEVEL DATA (1) PRIMARY VALIDATION: –BASED ON KNOWLEDGE OF INSTRUMENTATION AND METHODS OF MEASUREMENT WITH ASSOCIATED ERRORS.
Supplemental Figure 1 A No. at risk T T T
January 6. January 7 January 8 January 9 January 10.
© Mark Godfrey Brian Richter, Director Global Freshwater Program © Insert Image Credit Environmental Flows for People and Nature.
Applications of the NWS FLDWAV Model. Teton Dam Failure on Snake River.
San Joaquin River Bedload Sampling summary January 4 and 5, 2011 April 1 and 2, 2011 Ledger Island.
Using HEC-1 for Subdivision Runoff Detention Pond Design Stacie Kato April 26, 2004.
Review of Flood Routing
Yellowtail Dam & Bighorn Lake Water Supply & Operations Meeting Billings, Montana October 8, 2009 RECLAMATION Managing Water in the West.
Hydrologic Simulation Models
Aspinall Unit Seasonal Operation Goals Fill Blue Mesa Reservoir before end of runoff. Operate to the 2012 Aspinall ROD at the Whitewater Gage. Meet the.
Hydrology and Hydraulics. Reservoir Configuration.
Flood Recurrence Intervals and the 100 Year Flood Concept Bruce F. Rueger, Department of Geology, Colby College, Waterville, ME
Lecture ERS 482/682 (Fall 2002) Flood (and drought) prediction ERS 482/682 Small Watershed Hydrology.
P247. Figure 9-1 p248 Figure 9-2 p251 p251 Figure 9-3 p253.
Yellowtail Dam & Bighorn Lake Potential Revisions to Draft Criteria Based on Comments and Operating Experience Billings, MT October 13, 2011 RECLAMATION.
Hydrologic Routing Reading: Applied Hydrology Sections 8.1, 8.2, 8.4.
Reading: Applied Hydrology Sections 8.1, 8.2, 8.4
WinTR-20 Advanced Features June WinTR-20 Project Formulation Hydrology Computer Program Advanced Features Presented by: WinTR-20 Development Team.
WinTR-20 SensitivityMarch WinTR-20 Sensitivity to Input Parameters.
Discharge (Q) Define (cfs; m 3 /s or “cumecs”) Why is Q Important? How is it measured?
Introduction to HEC-HMS
The flow or movement of water
Boise River Accounting Liz Cresto February 26, 2013.
Manitoba’s 2011 Flood Mark Lee, M.Sc., P.Eng. Manager, Surface Water Management Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship January 29 th, 2013.
WinTR-20 Advanced Features March WinTR-20 Project Formulation Hydrology Computer Program Advanced Features Presented by: WinTR-20 Development Team.
WinTR-20 Project Formulation Hydrology Computer Program Overview Presented by: WinTR-20 Development Team.
Higher Geography Hydrosphere
1 Given the following data, calculate forecasts for months April through June using a three- month moving average and an exponential smoothing forecast.
Channel Flow Routing Reading: Applied Hydrology Sections 8.4, , 9.7.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Kevin Grode, P.E. Reservoir Regulation Team Lead Missouri Basin Water Management Division, Omaha, NE January.
Modeling Development CRFS—Technical Meeting November 14, 2012.
Yellowtail Dam & Bighorn Lake 2010 Operation Review Billings, MT January 2011 RECLAMATION Managing Water in the West.
USBR Updates: Green River CRFS Meeting March 27, 2014.
Hydrologic Analysis Dr. Phil Bedient Rice University.
Finding the S vs. Q relationship By: Cody Hudson.
Stream Gages CBRFC Stakeholder Forum July 31, 2012.
Yellowtail Dam Modeling Results Brian Marotz Hydropower Mitigation Coordinator.
Yellowtail Dam & Bighorn Lake Water Supply & Operations Meeting Billings, Montana October 9, 2008 RECLAMATION Managing Water in the West.
WinTR-20 SensitivityFebruary WinTR-20 Sensitivity to Input Parameters.
Model Calibration in MarylandJune Model Calibration in Maryland June 12, 2015.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Reservoir Simulation Software “Westfield Sub-basin” Presenter – John Hickey, HEC August 2010.
Natural Hazards Science: Reducing America’s Risk from Floods David Ford David Ford Consulting Engineers.
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Mark Twain Lake Water Control Manual Update Joan Stemler St. Louis District Water Control.
NON-TREATY STORAGE AGREEMENT “Introduction to Operations and the Non Treaty Storage Scenarios” Presenter: Jim Gaspard.
SunSatFriThursWedTuesMon January
Andrea Ryan April 22,2010. Increased imperviousness on the Texas A&M West Campus is damaging the watershed.
FLOOD ROUTING Flood Routing Techniques Siti Kamariah Md Sa’at PPK Bioprocess
Ground Water Assessment Drought Management Advisory Council Meeting April 1, 2010 Nat Wilson ( or Ground Water Management.
1 TR-55 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. 2 Simplified methods for estimating runoff and peak discharge for small urban/urbanizing watersheds Ch 1.
Model Overview Application of CALSIM II to Friant System.
Redd Dewatering Monitoring and Assessment on the Sacramento River.
TEMPORAL VISUALIZATION OF DATA FROM THE FRENCH SENTINEL NETWORK.
Regional Flood Awareness Workshop December 3, 2009 Jeff Graschel Service Coordination Hydrologist Lower Mississippi River Forecast Center.
ERT 246 Hydrology & Water Resources Eng.
Guide Curve Operations Partition reservoir storage into “pools” Each pool has a separate purpose Release (or avoid releasing) water to reach the “guide.
TR-55 Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds
The Term Structure and Economic Growth: The Recession of 2001
Date of download: 12/23/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved.
February 12 – 19, 2018.
Tips Need to Consider When Organizing a College Event
المنحنى الزمني للتدفق في المجاري الطبيعية Stream Flow Hydrograph
Streamflow Measurement
ماجستير إدارة المعارض من بريطانيا
Review of Flood Reservoir Routing
Streamflow Measurement
Comparing NFIE RAPID models with measured river flood hydrographs.
Damage Scoring Flowchart
Presentation transcript:

Solvang data – first value is non-adjusted flow rate prior to 3/6 The second value is the adjusted value computed on 3/6

Los Laureles Peak Flow = 3000 cfs Solvang Peak Flow = 127 cfs (green line) Solvang Peak Flow = 81 cfs (pink line) Bradbury Dam release reaches Solvang *Green line data was real-time data available through 3/6 *Pink line data is corrected values that were downloaded on 3/20

Figure 2. Hydrograph at Los Laureles and Bradbury Dam before and during second passage supplementation (March 30 through April 4). Solvang flow data not available due to flood damage at the monitoring site. Begin spill event – April 4 Solvang recedes from max flow of 64 cfs at approximately 05:00 on March 30 Supplementation BeginsSupplementation Ends

Figure 1. Hydrograph recession curve at Los Laureles and Solvang before and after first passage release – February 27 through March 14 passage supplementation event Los Laureles Peak Flow = 3000 cfs Solvang Peak Flow = 127 cfs (green line) Solvang Peak Flow = 81 cfs (pink line) Bradbury Dam release reaches Solvang *Green line data was real-time data available through 3/6 *Pink line data is corrected values that were downloaded on 3/20

First Supplementation = 14 Days Second Supplementation = 5 Days

Los Laureles Peak Flow = 3000 cfs Solvang Peak Flow = 127 cfs (green line) Solvang Peak Flow = 81 cfs (pink line) Bradbury Dam release reaches Solvang *Green line data was real-time data available through 3/6 *Pink line data is corrected values that were downloaded on 3/20 Figure 1. Hydrograph recession curve at Los Laureles and Solvang before and after first passage release – February 27 through March 14 passage supplementation event