2. Waller Creek Sub-basin HMS

3. Review Original project idea scrapped Difficult to find adequate GIS data No measured flow data to validate model results Selected new study area

4. New Area

5. Area Characteristics Located on UT campus at 24 th and San Jacinto Dr. Barrett has a monitoring point at basin outlet Very urban and hydrologically restricted

6. Goals Create terrain model in Arcview Process terrain model with HEC-geoHMS Create working hydrologic model in HEC- HMS Calibrate model and evaluate results with measured rainfall and runoff data

7. Data TIN developed by Esteban Azagra One-meter DEM (courtesy of Becky) Vegetation Vegetation Removed Dr. Barrett’s rainfall and runoff data at outlet

8. Interesting Questions Which data source is best suited for this application? How can we use HEC-geoHMS? How can we create a hydrologic model of a restricted basin in a meaningful way? How will this model interact with other models created in the area?

9. Story Begins It all started with Esteban Azagra’s TIN Converted TIN to a grid Projected grid from State Plane to UTM Overlayed grid onto a DOQQ for position verification

10. Conversion TIN GRID (DEM)

11. Projected Grid Arc-Info

12. Projected Grid Code

13. Overlayed Grid onto DOQQ

14. Story Progresses Fun with HEC-geoHMS Familiar with HEC-geoHMS Processed terrain data Analyzed final result

15. Familiar with HEC-geoHMS

17. HEC-geoHMS In Action! Fill Sinks Flow Direction

18. HEC-geoHMS In Action! Flow Accumulation Watershed Delineation

19. HEC-geoHMS In Action! End Result: Streams! Cool, but bad! Why? Streams are not behaving No way to modify!

20. Uh – Oh! What now?

21. Pre-Pro In Action! Drew in sewer system Burned into grid

22. The Plot Thickens! Becky provides one-meter DEM of study area (E00 Files) E00 files no longer a mystery to me Import 71 Becky solves vegetation problems

23. Enter LIDAR! Vegetated Vegetation Removed

24. Processing Both Grids in Pre-pro LIDAR Flow Direction TIN Flow Direction

25. TIN Product

26. LIDAR Product

27. Comparison of Watersheds

28. Comparison of Streams

29. Creation of HMS Schematic TIN GIS Model TIN Schematic

30. Creation of HMS Schematic LIDAR GIS Model LIDAR Schematic

31. The Winner Is: LIDAR for HMS Too cumbersome to do both (out of time) LIDAR looks better Checked soil types via SSURGO Developed curve numbers Input hydrologic attributes Ran model

32. Intro to HMS 3 Parts

33. Basin Model Chose SCS for loss and transform methods Chose no baseflow Chose lag method for reach routing Parameters by Hand (and Arcview)

34. Getting Soiled With SSURGO All for this? Soil type is Ur (urban) Either C or D Land use is urban Curve numbers are either 94 (C) or 95 (D) I went with 95

35. Hydrologic Parameters Sub-basin attributes Notice SLOPES!! Those darned buildings!!!

36. Hydrologic Parameters By Hand (and Arcview) Reach Attributes Chose lag transform Easy

37. Meteorologic Model and Control Specifications User Specified Hyetograph From 0:00 to 23:55 10/18/99 5 minute increments

38. RESULTS!!! After all of this hard work: I am ready to reap what I have sowed

39. Comparison to measured data:

40. Looks good … But I’m off by a factor of 10 Units problem? Variability in rainfall? Another problem? ???

41. I Would Like To: Calibrate this model (determine problem) Try to use HEC-geoHMS in combination with Pre-pro (burn sewers, process with geoHMS) Figure out how to make Pre-pro transfer hydrologic attributes Study how this model fits into models already completed

42. Questions?