Copyright [insert date set by system] by [CH2M HILL entity] Company Confidential Hydrologic Evaluation of the Little Thompson River Phase 2: Little Thompson.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Hydrologic Analysis Dr. Bedient CEVE 101 Fall 2013.
Advertisements

Generating Flow Frequencies – Updating NOAA Atlas Precipitation Frequency for California by: John High, Hydrologist Sacramento District Sacramento District.
Water Budget III: Stream Flow P = Q + ET + G + ΔS.
Reading: Applied Hydrology Sections 14-5, 14-6
CHARACTERISTICS OF RUNOFF
Hydrological Modeling for Upper Chao Phraya Basin Using HEC-HMS UNDP/ADAPT Asia-Pacific First Regional Training Workshop Assessing Costs and Benefits of.
Watershed Management Runoff models
Risk Analysis Division — Risk MAP Considerations for Developing Rainfall- Runoff Models for Large Watersheds – Passaic River Watershed, New Jersey Presented.
Hydrologic Simulation Models
OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Department Hydrology 101 OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering.
Overview of Urban Drainage Flood Prediction Methods and Approaches J.Y. Chen1 and B.J. Adams2 1. Water Survey Division, Environment Canada 2. Department.
Agricultural Pond Private Engineering Resources & Costs Agricultural Water Resource Development Workshops Presented by: Cavanaugh & Associates P.A. 530.
Continuous Hydrologic Simulation of Johnson Creek Basin and Assuming Watershed Stationarity Rick Shimota, P.E. Hans Hadley, P.E., P.G. The Oregon Water.
Hydrologic Theory One of the principal objectives in hydrology is to transform rainfall that has fallen over a watershed area into flows to be expected.
Upper Brushy Creek Flood Study – Flood mapping and management Rainfall depths were derived using USGS SIR , Atlas of Depth Duration Frequency.
Hydrologic Studies Unit Land and Water Management.
Floodplain Delineation of Indiana Streams Allison Craddock Tom Gormley Jessica Tempest Erin Wenger.
PrePro2004: Comparison with Standard Hydrologic Modeling Procedures Rebecca Riggs April 29, 2005.
The Hydrologic (Water) Cycle. Surface Water Oceans Rivers and streams Lakes and ponds Springs – groundwater becomes surface water.
Texas A&M University Department of Civil Engineering Cven689 – CE Applications of GIS Instructor: Dr. Francisco Olivera Logan Burton April 29, 2003 Application.
CE 3372 – Lecture 10. Outline  Hydrology Review  Rational Method  Regression Equations  Hydrographs.
Kansas City Industrial Council Hydrology and Hydraulics
Analyses of Rainfall Hydrology and Water Resources RG744
FNR 402 – Forest Watershed Management
Hydrologic Cycle. Hydrologic Cycle Processes Surface Water Soil water Atmospheric water Groundwater Processes Precipitation Evaporation Surface Runoff.
El Vado Dam Hydrologic Evaluation Joseph Wright, P.E. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Services Center Flood Hydrology and Meteorology Group.
WinTR-20 SensitivityMarch WinTR-20 Sensitivity to Input Parameters.
Alluvial Fan 8-7 Delta.
MA BF REFERENCE CURVES Objective Develop bankfull regional curves and equations for estimating bankfull width, mean depth, cross-sectional area, and discharge.
Taming the Alabama River Patrick Dobbs & Clay Campbell AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc Alabama Water Resources Conference.
Rush River Assessment Project Hydrologic Flow Study Sibley County SWCD Presentation to the Minnesota River Research Forum March 10, 2005.
FLASH FLOOD PREDICTION James McDonald 4/29/08. Introduction - Relevance  90% of all national disasters are weather and flood related  Central Texas.
Project Our group collaborated with students at the University of Zacatecas (UAZ) to accomplish the following: 1- Create an accurate hydrologic model which.
James River in Richmond, Virginia looking upriver from the Robert E. Lee bridge. Belle Isle is on the right, November What is happening in this.
Frequency Analysis and Data Reading: Applied Hydrology Sections
Presented by George Doubleday 1. What is The Woodlands Purpose of this Research Build and Calibrate Vflo TM model for The Woodlands Compare storms with.
National Research Council Mapping Science Committee Floodplain Mapping – Sensitivity and Errors Scott K. Edelman, PE Watershed Concepts and Karen Schuckman,
Stormwater Management: TCNJ Townhouses South
Assessment of Economic Benefits of the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program Hydrologic and Hydraulic Case Studies Adapted from a Presentation to NRC.
September 9-15, What happened? Over a 7 day period, a record amount of rain fell over the Front Range region of Northern Colorado As a result, rivers.
Prepared by: Burnham – Floodplain Study October 23, 2009 Presented by: Marty Spongberg, PhD, PE, PG AMEC Geomatrix, Inc.
Otter Creek Watershed Meeting January 19, 2008 Mike Dreischmeier Agricultural Engineer Natural Resources Conservation Service.
WinTR-20 SensitivityFebruary WinTR-20 Sensitivity to Input Parameters.
Map-Based Flood Hydrology and Hydraulics David R. Maidment Jan 10, 1998.
Long Valley Creek: A Rainfall-Runoff Modeling Story Rob Thompson Hydrologist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District
Living with Streams in Flood
FLO-2D Model Development Rio Grande Canalization Project Reach Presentation to: New Mexico – Texas Water Commission and Paso del Norte Watershed Council.
CE 3354 Engineering Hydrology Lecture 9: Rational Equation Method Introduction to HEC-HMS.
Surface Water Surface runoff - Precipitation or snowmelt which moves across the land surface ultimately channelizing into streams or rivers or discharging.
Basic Hydrology: Rainfall-Runoff – I
Effects of Rain Water Harvesting on the Hydrograph Tyler Jantzen May 3, 2007 CE 394K.2.
CONEWAGO CREEK GROUND WATER STUDY Base Flow and Impervious Cover November 7, 2007 Watershed Alliance of Adams County Joe McNally, P.G. GeoServices, Ltd.
Hydrologic Calibration: October 2010 U PDATE OF E FFECTIVE H YDROLOGY FOR M ARYS C REEK.
The Effects of Impervious Cover on a Hydrologic System BRUSHY CREEK WATERSHED By Ruth Haberman.
WATERWAYS AND BRIDGES IN TEXAS “Final” Presentation by: Brandon Klenzendorf CE 394K Dr. Maidment.
Rainfall-Runoff modeling Forecasting and predictingForecasting and predicting –Flood peaks –Runoff volumes Due to Large rain and snowmelt events ***especially.
BUILDING AND RUNNING THE HYDROLOGICAL MODEL
Rainfall-Runoff modeling
Innovation Through GIS
Basic Hydrology & Hydraulics: DES 601
Water Budget III: Stream Flow
Basic Hydrology: Rainfall-runoff based methods – II
Cristina Nelson, Term Project, CEE 6440, Fall 2007
EFH-2 Overview Quan D. Quan Hydraulic Engineer USDA – NRCS – WNTSC
Hydrology.
INTRODUCTION TO HYDROLOGY
Little Bear River 100-Year Storm Flood
Brian McInerney Hydrologist National Weather Service
Preciptation.
WRE-1 BY MOHD ABDUL AQUIL CIVIL ENGINEERING.
Presentation transcript:

Copyright [insert date set by system] by [CH2M HILL entity] Company Confidential Hydrologic Evaluation of the Little Thompson River Phase 2: Little Thompson River above Big Thompson River James Woidt, PE / CH2M HILL Cory Hooper, PE / CH2M HILL April 8, 2015

Presentation Overview Phase 2 Objectives Overview of Study Approach Overview of Study Area Data Collection Flood Frequency Analysis Model Development and Calibration Model Results Conclusions Q & A

Phase 2 Objectives Extend Phase I study to confluence with the Big Thompson River –Estimate peak discharges from September 2013 –Prepare updated flood-frequency analyses which include estimates of September 2013 peak discharge –Extend rainfall-runoff model to confluence with Big Thompson River –Calibrate rainfall-runoff model to 2013 event –Use rainfall-runoff model to estimate predictive peak discharges based on NOAA / NRCS design storms –Assess recurrence interval of September 2013 event along Little Thompson River using predictive hydrologic model

Study Approach Foundation of approach is calibrated rainfall-runoff model –US Army Corps of Engineers’ HEC-HMS v3.5 used –Model provides peak discharges at multiple locations along Little Thompson River mainstem –Model predicts runoff volumes and hydrographs –Model reflects relative differences and timing of flows –Model is able to be calibrated: 2013 rainfall calibrated to ground rain gages 2013 peak discharges estimated in multiple locations Time-of-peak discharge available at I-25

Project Area Phase 1Phase 2 Berthoud Milliken Johnstown

Previous Studies Previous Estimates of 1 Percent Annual Chance Peak Discharge Location Drainage Area (mi 2 ) Estimated 1 Percent Annual Chance Peak Discharge USACE, 1974 USACE, 1977 Ayres Associates, 2009 CDOT, 2011 FEMA Effective Hydrology Little Thompson River at LTCANYO Gage 100N/E 6,962 a N/E Little Thompson River at South County Line Road 132N/E7,2009,50011,305 a 7,200 b 9,500 c Little Thompson River at Interstate N/E 14,728N/E Little Thompson River upstream of confluence with Big Thompson River 1964,800N/E 4,800 b a While part of the hydrologic model, peak discharge estimates at this location was not a focus of the study b Per Preliminary Weld County FIS (FEMA, 2013) c Per Larimer County FIS (FEMA, 2013)

Previous Studies CDWR Dam Safety Branch, 2014 –Study to evaluate failure of five water supply dams –Hydrologic model developed for watershed above X-Bar 7 Ranch –Calibrated to September 2013 event –Determined peak discharge of September 2013 event was caused by rainfall-runoff processes, not dam failure –CH2M HILL and CDWR collaborated and provide review of the other entity’s study report –Comparison of modeled peak discharges provided on subsequent slides

Phase 2 Objectives Extend Phase I study to confluence with the Big Thompson River –Estimate peak discharges from September 2013 –Prepare updated flood-frequency analyses which include estimates of September 2013 peak discharge –Extend rainfall-runoff model to confluence with Big Thompson River –Calibrate rainfall-runoff model to 2013 event –Use rainfall-runoff model to estimate predictive peak discharges based on NOAA / NRCS design storms –Assess recurrence interval of September 2013 event along Little Thompson River using predictive hydrologic model

Data Collection – Peak Discharge Estimates Bob Jarrett and Dana McGlone Critical Depth Method: High water measured at drops, weirs, and long reaches with bed slopes greater than 0.5%; critical depth assumed to estimate discharge

Data Collection – Peak Discharge Estimates Bridge Hydraulics Method: High water marks, approach cross-sections, and bridge information surveyed to use HEC-RAS to back-calculate peak discharge

Data Collection – Peak Discharge Estimates 7,800 cfs 15,700 cfs 13,400 cfs 18,000 cfs 15,700 cfs; observed peak afternoon of 9/12 Courtesy of Jarrett, In Press URS, 2015

Phase 2 Objectives Extend Phase I study to confluence with the Big Thompson River –Estimate peak discharges from September 2013 –Prepare updated flood-frequency analyses which include estimates of September 2013 peak discharge –Extend rainfall-runoff model to confluence with Big Thompson River –Calibrate rainfall-runoff model to 2013 event –Use rainfall-runoff model to estimate predictive peak discharges based on NOAA / NRCS design storms –Assess recurrence interval of September 2013 event along Little Thompson River using predictive hydrologic model

Flood Frequency Analysis Little Thompson River at Canyon Mouth near Berthoud –37 total years of record (17 years of 1929 to 1961; 1993 to 2013) –Bulletin 17B methodology used with Station Skew only Exceedance Recurrence Interval (years) Canyon Mouth near Berthoud (cfs) , , , , ,656 Courtesy of Ayres Associates, 2014

Phase 2 Objectives Extend Phase I study to confluence with the Big Thompson River –Estimate peak discharges from September 2013 –Prepare updated flood-frequency analyses which include estimates of September 2013 peak discharge –Extend rainfall-runoff model to confluence with Big Thompson River –Calibrate rainfall-runoff model to 2013 event –Use rainfall-runoff model to estimate predictive peak discharges based on NOAA / NRCS design storms –Assess recurrence interval of September 2013 event along Little Thompson River using predictive hydrologic model

Subbasin, stream, and flow path delineation – via 40-foot USGS Topographic Maps Rainfall-Runoff Model Development

Infiltration Losses – NRCS Curve Number (CN) methodology with USGS National Land Cover Dataset and USDA Soil Maps used to determine CN based on TR-55 USDA, 2013

Rainfall-Runoff Model Development Infiltration Losses USGS, 2006

Rainfall-Runoff Model Development

Phase 2 Objectives Extend Phase I study to confluence with the Big Thompson River –Estimate peak discharges from September 2013 –Prepare updated flood-frequency analyses which include estimates of September 2013 peak discharge –Extend rainfall-runoff model to confluence with Big Thompson River –Calibrate rainfall-runoff model to 2013 event –Use rainfall-runoff model to estimate predictive peak discharges based on NOAA / NRCS design storms –Assess recurrence interval of September 2013 event along Little Thompson River using predictive hydrologic model

Rainfall-Runoff Model Development Rainfall Analysis AWA, 2014 Rainfall Calibration Storm Precipitation Analysis System (SPAS) – NEXRAD calibrated to ground rain gages. 10 days of 5-minute data on 1-km grid Average data at centroid of each subbasin

Rainfall-Runoff Model Development Rainfall Analysis

Model Calibration Systematic Peak Discharge Calibration –Peak Discharges estimated at different locations throughout the study watersheds –Goal was to obtain the best fit to the majority of peak discharge estimations –In some cases debris flows and landslides resulted in peak discharge surges (USGS 2013) that were higher in magnitude than the rainfall / runoff model could produce

Calibration Parameters Calibrated Model Curve Number Snyder’s Peaking Coefficient / Lag Time Manning’s N

Calibration Parameters Manning’s N Value –No Effect on Runoff Volume –Minimal Effect on Peak Discharge and Timing Snyder’s Peaking Factor and Lag Time –No Effect on Runoff Volume –Moderate Effect on Peak Discharge –Greater Effect on Time-of-Peak Location Calibration Data Source Observed Time of Peak Discharge Modeled Time of Peak Discharge Little Thompson River at Interstate 25CDOT, In Press9/12 Afternoon9/12 2:20 p.m.

Calibration Parameters Curve Numbers –Affected Runoff Volume –Significant Effect on Peak Discharge –Negligible Effect on Time-of-Peak Calibrated Model Manning’s N Snyder’s Peaking Coefficient / Lag Time Curve Number

Curve Number Calibration

Land Cover Classifications / Aerial Imagery USGS Land CoverTR-55 Classification Phase 2 Plains Phase 2 Mountains – Little Thompson Phase 2 Mountains – North Fork 11 - Open WaterOpen WaterFair Poor 12, 41, 42, 43 - Deciduous ForestOak- AspenFair Poor 21- Developed Open Space Developed Open Space, 2 Acre LotsFair Poor 22 - Developed, Low Intensity Developed Medium Intensity, 1 Acre LotsFair Poor 23 - Developed, Medium Intensity Developed Medium Intensity, 1/4 Acre LotsFair Poor 24 – Developed, High Intensity Developed High Intensity, 1/8 Acre LotsFair Poor 31 - Barren LandBarren LandFair Poor 52 – Shrub/BrushShrub, BrushFair Poor 71, 72, 81 - Grassland/PastureGrassland, pastureFair Poor 82- Row CropsCrops, Row CropsFair Poor 90, 95 - Woody Wetlands, Herbaceous Woody Wetlands, HerbaceousFair Poor

Calibration Results Location Drainage Area (square miles) Observed Peak Discharge (cfs) Modeled Peak Discharge (cfs) % Difference Little Thompson River Downstream of Confluence with West Fork Little Thompson River 43.27,800 a 9,28019% Little Thompson River at X Bar 7 Ranch ,73114,343-9% Little Thompson River at South County Line Road ,40015,47916% Little Thompson River at Interstate ,70015,173-3% Little Thompson River at County Road ,000 b 14,820-18% a - This flow was inaccessible and the observed peak discharge was estimated based on observations along similar, adjacent watersheds. b – Bridge overtopped, (URS, 2015)

Comparison to CDWR, 2014 modeling results Calibration Results Location Observed Peak Discharge (cfs) CH2M HILL, 2015 (cfs) CDWR, 2014 Little Thompson River at Pinewood Springs 14,600 a 9,400 10,190 Little Thompson River at X Bar 7 Ranch 15,731 b 14,300 15,999 a – NRCS, 2013 b – CDWR, 2014

Phase 2 Objectives Extend Phase I study to confluence with the Big Thompson River –Estimate peak discharges from September 2013 –Prepare updated flood-frequency analyses which include estimates of September 2013 peak discharge –Extend rainfall-runoff model to confluence with Big Thompson River –Calibrate rainfall-runoff model to 2013 event –Use rainfall-runoff model to estimate predictive peak discharges based on NOAA / NRCS design storms –Assess recurrence interval of September 2013 event along Little Thompson using predictive hydrologic model

Predictive Model Implementation Used calibrated rainfall-runoff model to predict peak discharges for the 10, 4, 2, 1, and 0.2 percent annual chance events –Predictive model developed by “resetting” CN to AMCII to be consistent with Colorado Floodplain and Stormwater Criteria Manual Other inputs for predictive model: NRCS 24-hr Type II Hyetograph

Predictive Model Implementation Site-specific DARF

Curve Number Calibration Estimate of the Recurrence Interval of the September 2013 Event Predictive Annual Chance Peak Discharge (cfs) Location Observed Peak Discharge (cfs)10 percent4 percent2 percent1 percent0.2 percent Estimated Recurrence Interval (yr) Little Thompson River Downstream of Confluence with West Fork Little Thompson River8, ,3652,2433,4187,504>500 Little Thompson River at US 369, ,3762,2643,4557,600>500 Little Thompson River at X Bar 7 Ranch 15,7312,3104,5006,97010,20020, to 500 Little Thompson River at LTCANYO Gage 15,5002,7605,3808,33012,10024, to 500 Little Thompson River at South County Line Road 13,4003,6506,94010,60015,30030,80050 to 100 Little Thompson River at Interstate 25 15,7004,1407,09010,90016,00033, Little Thompson River at County Road 17 18,0004,4807,15010,70015,70032, to 500 Little Thompson River Upstream of Confluence with Big Thompson 14,7004,4507,13010,50015,40031, Note: Italics denotes from the Little Thompson River [Phase 1] Hydrologic Analysis (CH2M HILL, 2014).

Conclusion

Predictive rainfall-runoff model recommended as best model / method to estimate Little Thompson high-flow hydrology The September 2013 flood on the Little Thompson was… –Greater than a 500-year flood above US 36 –Between a 100- and 500-year flood through the Canyon –On average, a 100-year flood across the plains

Questions

Conclusion