Attachment_9.2_Beale_AF_Basin-Wide_Comprehensive_Analysis.pdf

The time of concentration and storage coefficient for subbasins without discharges were adjusted based on a linear regression equation using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS). The regression analysis follows procedures described by D.R. Helsel and R.M. Hirsch, 2002. The linear equation was developed by regressing the calibrated Tc and R against basin characteristics such as area, longest flow path (LFP), slope, and percent impervious. The basin parameters that reasonably described the calibrated Tc was the longest flow path divided by the square root of the slope, 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿

�𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆

, with a correlation coefficient of

0.76. The basin parameter with the highest correlation coefficient was basin area; however, there were high influence observations detected using Cooks D and DFFITS tests.

𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖 =

𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖2ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑝𝑝𝑠𝑠2

𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑇𝑇𝐷𝐷 =

𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖�ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖

Where 𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖=prediction residual; ℎ𝑖𝑖=leverage; p = # of coefficients (2 for simple linear regression); s = mean squared error.

Cook’s D and DFFITS are widely used to measure influence. A Cooks D value greater than 1 and DFFITS value greater than 2 ∗ �𝑆𝑆 𝑛𝑛 were used to indicate high leverage observations. The regression model was further investigated if an observation showed high leverage for both tests. This occurred when regressing time of concentration with area and no strong justification was provided to remove the high leverage observation point. As suggested by D.R. Helsel and R.M. Hirsch, 2002, a more complex model was derived using LFP and slope (Figure 22). These parameters showed no indicators of high influence.

Time of concentration was the best predictor for estimating storage coefficient with a correlation coefficient of 0.6 (Figure 23).

𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.027 ∗

𝐿𝐿𝐷𝐷𝐿𝐿

√𝐷𝐷

+ 0.607

𝑅𝑅 = 1.562 ∗ 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 + 1.02

These equations were developed from basins with LFP from 1.1 to 6.9 miles and slopes from 0.002 to

0.03 ft/ft. Statistical analyses are shown in Appendix I.

Figure 22: Linear Regression model for Time of Concentration

Figure 23: Linear Regression model for Storage Coeff icient

Tc and R equations were compared to those developed by Kirpich (Maidment, 1993) and Straub et al., 2000. Kirpich, 1940 also related time of concentration with length and slope for well-defined channels in Tennessee. Straub et al., 2000 developed Tc and R estimates for small rural basins in Illinois and also found a strong relationship using river length and slope. These comparisons are shown in Appendix I.

y = 0.027x + 0.607 R² = 0.763

0.5

1.5

2.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Ca lib ra te d Tc

L/Sqrt(S) y = 1.562x + 1.020 R² = 0.596

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Ca lib ra te d R

Tc

Design Storm An average storm centering technique was applied to developed annual chance exceedance hydrographs at each computation point. The average ACE depths for 1 hour to 96 hour durations, 50% to 0.1% were obtained upstream each computation point.

Design Storm 1 and Design Storm 2 The hydrology developed for this study was used to assess the hydrologic hazard for Beale Dams and the flood risk to the air force base. To accomplish this goal, two types of design storms were created. The first type produces ACE inflow hydrographs at each lake with a hazard classification. This design storm evaluated the dam’s current conditions in meeting its hazard classification. The second type of design storm produces an average storm centering along the AFB cantonment region, above Miller Lake Dam, and above Beale Lake Dam to assess the AFB current condition flood risk. This design storm was used to evaluate the AFBs flood risk downstream of the lakes that are within the AFB boundary. Figure 24 and Figure 25 show how and where NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation-frequency depths were obtained for Design Storm 1 and 2. Design Storm 2 was created because Design Storm 1 was not representative of the ACE total rainfall volume over the AFB cantonment area. Additionally, an areal reduction factor should be applied to the cantonment since the storm area was greater than 10 mi2. The second design storm removes these issues by applying appropriate rainfall depths over the cantonment and accounting for the storm area. Also, Design Storm 2 analyzes precipitation-frequency depths from 50% to 0.1% ACE (Design Storm 1 analyzes precipitation-frequency depths from 1%, 0.1% and PMP).

Figure 24: Obtained PMP and Area-Averaged NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation-frequency depths at each highlighted subbasin for developing Design Storm 1. Depths were obtained for 1% and 0.1% ACE, 1 hour to 96 hour duration. Rainfal l depths were grouped into rainfal l zones.

Figure 25: Obtained Area-Averaged NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation-frequency depths at highlighted region for developing Design Storm 2. Depths were obtained for 50% to 0.1% ACE, 1 hour to 96 hour duration. Rainfal l depths were grouped into rainfal l zones.

Rainfall Depths and Zones Computation

Subbasins were grouped into rainfall zones with similar precipitation frequency estimates based on the 1% ACE 24-hour depth (Figure 26). The same precipitation-frequency depth was given to subbasins in the same given zone (i.e. all subbasins in zone 15 were given the same depth value). Depths were obtained for 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, 24-, 48-, 72, and 96 hour durations. The February 1986 storm hyetograph from Grass Valley (GVY) rainfall station, as shown in Figure 27, was selected as the temporal distribution.

Areal reduction was applied to basin greater than 10 mi2 using reduction curves from HMR-58/59 (NWS, 1999), which only applied to the Dry Creek watershed for Beale Lake inflow and Hutchinson Creek cantonment analysis. Depth-area curves are an attempt to relate the average of all point precipitation-frequency depth values for a given duration within a basin to the average depth over the basin for the same duration and frequency (NOAA, 1973). This study assumed design hydrographs produced from %ACE rainfall generate the same frequency event (i.e. 10% ACE rainfall produces the 10% ACE hydrograph).

Figure 26: Rainfal l Zones for HEC-HMS meteorological modeling

Figure 27: Hyetograph obtained from Grass Valley (GVY) rainfal l gage. Hyetograph is based on the February 1986 rainstorm

Probable Maximum Precipitation Probable maximum precipitation depths were developed following HMR-58/59 guidance. The probable maximum precipitation is defined as “theoretically the greatest depth of precipitation for a given duration that is physically possible over a given storm area at a particular geographical location and certain time of year (Hansen et al. 1988)”. HMR 58/59 provides estimates of general and local probable maximum precipitation for 1 to 72-hour durations and 15 minutes to 6 hours, respectively. After computing the PMP, rainfall depths were distributed over the rainfall-runoff model to generate the probable maximum flood. As recommended by HMR 58/59, both general and local storm PMP depths were developed (NOAA, 1999).

In HMR58/59, general storm PMPs were developed for basin areas ranging from 10-10,000 square miles.

The majority of the lake basins in Beale AFB had contributing areas less than 10 square miles. The resolution of the PMP depth is at best 10 square miles for the 24-hour duration. Flooding at Beale AFB has historically been the result of atmospheric rivers, which are better described by the general rainstorm. Given that flooding is the result of a general storm, the general storm PMP depths were still developed but with the understanding that the depths were generated using a 10 square miles depth resolution.

The general and local PMP storm was generated using the MMC-Precip Tool v 1.2.0. The MMC Precip Tool assists with automating the estimation of PMP values and was built using the ESRI AddIN Framework (MMC, 2017). In addition to generating generalized and local depths, the tool is also capable of distributing depths into rainfall patterns suggested by HMR 58/59. The rainfall distribution that generated the highest peak flow value was selected (Figure 28 and Figure 29). The MMC Precip Tool procedure is discussed in detail in the User Guide (MMC, 2017). Rainfall depths with an assigned temporal distribution were simulated in the calibrated rainfall-runoff model to obtain PMFs at each lake with a hazard classification.

0.00

0.02

0.04

1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91

Pr ec ip ita tio n

(in ch es

Time (hours)

The local PMP developed for Beale Lake watershed utilized the ellipsoid isohyetal pattern to account for the rainfall spatial distribution. Figure 30 shows the ellipsoid isohyet, obtained from HMR 58/59, for the 6-hour duration and Table 7 shows the rainfall depths, obtained from MMC Precip Tool, for each isohyet area. The ellipsoid was centered over the basin centroid to maximize the PMP depth and oriented such that the major isohyet areas were encapsulated within the watershed. In addition to the ellipsoid isohyet, the basin topography was also accounted for in the local PMP by using a normalized 1% 6-hour precipitation-frequency grid (normalized by the basin mean depth of 2.95 inches) shown in Figure 31.

The normalized grid was applied to the ellipsoid rainfall depths to obtain a combined ellipsoid isohyet that recognizes the impact of orography. The average combined isohyet depths for each duration was computed for rainfall zones 15, 16, and 52 and shown in Table 8.

Table 7: El l ipsoid isohyet Local PMP depths for each duration and isohyet area. These depths were obtained from the MMC Precip Tool.

Isohyet Duration (hours)

(mi2) 1/4 1/2 3/4 1 2 3 4 5 6

A (1) 3.63 5.21 6.01 6.6 7.52 7.92 8.25 8.45 8.58

B (5) 2.9 4.36 5.12 5.68 6.6 7 7.33 7.52 7.66

C (25) 1.72 2.9 3.54 4.03 4.88 5.35 5.68 5.87 6.01

D (55) 1.12 2.05 2.65 3.07 3.83 4.29 4.62 4.82 4.95

E (95) 0.73 1.32 1.77 2.14 2.77 3.23 3.56 3.76 3.89

F (150) 0.44 0.86 1.25 1.58 2.11 2.51 2.84 3.04 3.17

G (220) 0.43 0.73 0.92 1.06 1.52 1.85 2.18 2.38 2.51

H (300) 0.33 0.53 0.69 0.79 1.16 1.42 1.68 1.91 2.05

I (385) 0.2 0.4 0.56 0.69 1.06 1.32 1.58 1.82 1.98

J (500) 0.16 0.36 0.53 0.66 0.99 1.25 1.52 1.75 1.91

Figure 28: General Storm PMP temporal pattern.

Figure 29: Local Storm PMP temporal pattern.

0.5

1.5

2.5

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70

De pt h (in

Time

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

0:

0:

0:

1:

1:

1:

1:

2:

2:

2:

2:

3:

3:

3:

3:

4:

4:

4:

4:

5:

5:

5:

5:

6:

De pt h (in

Time

Figure 30: El l ipsoid Isohyet obtained from HMR 58/59. El l ipsoid was centered at the basin centroid and rainfal l depths represent the 6-hour duration.

Figure 31: Normalized grid computed from NOAA Atlas 14 1% ACE 6-hour duration precipitation-frequency normalized by the 1% ACE 6-hour basin average depth.

Figure 32: Combined el l ipsoid isohyet that incorporates the isohyet pattern with the effects of topography.

Table 8: Local PMP Rainfal l depths obtained from combined isohyet for 0.25 – 6 hour duration and rainfal l zone

Rainfall Zone Depths (inches)

0.25 (hr) 0.5 (hr) 0.75 (hr) 1 (hr) 2 (hr) 3(hr) 4 (hr) 5 (hr) 6 (hr) 15 0.72 1.33 1.77 2.11 2.69 3.09 3.38 3.56 3.69

30 1.53 2.58 3.19 3.64 4.42 4.87 5.19 5.38 5.51

52 1.32 2.28 2.89 3.36 4.16 4.66 5.02 5.24 5.51

EM 1110-8-2 (FR) “Inflow Design Floods for Dams and Reservoirs” sets hydrologic engineering requirements for selecting an Inflow Design Flood (IDF) for dams and reservoirs. Rainfall runoff unit hydrograph parameters are to represent the rapid concentration of runoff; additionally, parameters also need to be peaked 25 to 50 percent (USACE, 1991). This is to account for the non-linear response rate of smaller floods relative to the probable maximum flood. Two additional basin models were developed to represent peaking factors of 25 and 50% - unit hydrograph parameters were incrementally adjusted lower such that the unit hydrograph peak produced nearly a 25% and 50% increase given 1-inch rainfall over the basin. Routing reaches, however, were not adjusted for Beale Lake watershed to account for increased routing efficiency. Future improvements to the model may consider updating the routing reaches for a PMF analysis. The PMF hydrographs produced in this analysis were routed through a 1-dimensional and 2-dimensonal hydraulic model described in the hydraulic model report (USACE, 2018).

Results For dam safety, 1%, 0.1%, and PMF simulated results were obtained at each lake with “low”, “significant’, and “high” hazard classification. Table 9 shows the 1%, 0.1%, and general and local PMF at all dams. Hydrographs can be seen in Appendix I. These hydrographs were not routed through the rainfall-runoff model but simulated through the HEC-RAS routing model (USACE, 2018).

Table 9: Peak f low values obtained after applying Design Storm 1 to watersheds with dams.

Reservoir Peak Flows (cfs)

1% 0.10% Local PMF 25% Local PMF 50% PMF 25% PMF 50%

B-Street Pond 492 715 2,374 2,796 1,354 1,452

Beale Lake 14,651 22,356 44,250 51,354 45,441 48,283

Bedsprings Lake*

Broskey Lake 633 924 3,213 3,736 1,645 1,750

Frisky Lake 484 701 2,270 2,669 1,368 1,467

Goose Lake* 436 635 2,051 2,413 1,203 1,290

Hospital Pond 144 210 770 882 367 391

Lower Blackwelder* 58 84 273 318 161 173

Mad Dog Lake 313 457 1,539 1,792 824 885

Miller Lake 823 1,192 3,914 4,621 2,223 2,384

Pave Paws Lake 96 138 468 550 253 270

Small Arms Range Lake 85 122 399 469 224 241

Upper Blackwelder 1,366 1,971 5,791 6,840 4,094 4,384

Vassar Lake 629 916 3,090 3,641 1,652 1,770 *Dams that have upstream impoundments. Recorded peak flows represent the local hydrograph obtained at its subbasin. A representative peak flow at these dams can be obtained from the HEC-RAS model

The 50 to 0.1% ACE upstream and lateral hydrographs were developed for the AFB flood risk assessment. Table 10 shows the simulated peak flows for sub-basins that contribute runoff to the cantonment, and Figure 33 shows the subbasin location each hydrograph was produced.

Table 10: Annual Chance Exceedance peak f lows for AFB Cantonment Flood Risk Analysis developed from Design Storm 2

Sub-basin

ID

Annual Chance Exceedance Peak Flow (cfs)

50% 20% 10% 4% 2% 1% 0.50% 0.20% 0.10%

W6790

W1680

W6930

W6940

W6980

W7040

W7130

W7140

W1530

W5010

W2060

W7190

W1290

W1360

W1420

W1440

W6830

W6880

W6890

W1220

W1230

W1190

1,001

1,151

1,307

1,472

1,702

1,888

W1830

W1080

Figure 33: Hydrographs produced at each subbasin for the cantonment using Design Storm 2.

Comparison to Previous Studies Return period peak flows for the 100-yr and 500-yr events were created for the 1993 Hydrology Analysis (USACE, 1993) at several locations at Beale AFB. Other studies with %ACE results were performed at Miller Lake in 1996 and 2016 on Frisky and Bedsprings Lake. These studies did not have observed hydrographs for calibration and simulated peak flows do not all correspond to the same locations as this analysis; however, results at 8 locations can be reasonably compared as shown in Table 11. Peak flow estimates were within +/- 13% some values lower than those in 1993 and some showing higher values.

This study utilized NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall precipitation, whereas the 1993 study likely used NOAA Atlas 2, which has been superseded. Other information related to the 1993 modeling approach were not available and methodology and parameters could not be compared; however, peak flows are within a similar range. Overall, peak flows do not appear underestimated or overly conservative.

Greater percent differences are shown in the instantaneous peak flows for the 1996 Miller Lake results and Frisky and Beale Lake peak inflows. The 1996 Miller Lake study used an HEC-1 model and precipitation-frequency rainfall values. The precipitation-frequency depths were likely NOAA Atlas 2 depths though it was not clearly specified in the documentation. The HEC-1 model selected Clark Unit Hydrograph as the transform method with Tc estimated at 1.6 hours and R estimated at 2.5 (The Tc and R for this report were 1.6 hr and 3.5 hr, respectively). A higher storage coefficient, as estimated in this study, would contribute to a lower peak flow estimate. A different loss method was selected and could not be directly compared. The lower storage coefficient and different precipitation-frequency depths were contributors to the differences in the reduced peak flow. The 2016 Frisky and Bedsprings study used the same unit hydrograph transform, loss method, and precipitation-frequency depths. The 2016 unit hydrograph Tc and R values (~1.4 and 2.3 respectively) were lower than those calibrated for Frisky Lake and contained higher percent impervious estimates. As a result, the peak flow values from this study were expected to be lower than those developed in 2016 hydrology. The 2016 inflow to Bedsprings Lake had lower Tc and R values and did not account for Upper Bedsprings impoundment, though attenuation was shown to be minimal for large rainstorms. The percent impervious was slightly higher and constant loss rates were slightly lower in the 2016 study. These differences are likely what led to higher peak flow estimates in 2016. Since the unit hydrograph transform parameters were calibrated and validated by matching an observed event, hydrograph results from this study were adopted for all annual chance exceedance events.

Table 11: USACE, 1993 1% and 0.2% Annual Chance Exceedance Peak Flows at Beale AFB

Stream Location Drainage Area

(sq. mi.) 1% %

Difference 0.20% % Difference

Reeds Creek at Doolittle Drive (1993) 4.8

1,040 13%

1,330 2%

Reeds Creek at Doolittle Drive (2017) 900 1,300

Hutchinson Creek at Doolittle Drive (1993) 11.8

2,375 -9%

3,050 -5%

Hutchinson Creek at Doolittle Drive (2017) 2,600 3,200 Combined Tributaries at Hutchinson Creek

(1993) 9.3

2,020 11%

2,585 11%

Combined Tributaries at Hutchinson Creek (2017) 1,800 2,300

Hutchinson Creek at South Beale Road (1993)

4,710 -4%

6,070 -7%

Hutchinson Creek at South Beale Road (2017) 4,900 6,500

Dry Creek at Camp Beale Road (1993)

13,930 -6%

18,055 -10%

Dry Creek at Camp Beale Road (2017) 14,700 19,900

Inflow to Miller Lake (1996) 3.1

1,144 30%

1,601*

25% Inflow to Miller Lake (2017) 800 1,200*

Inflow to Frisky Dam (2016) 1.93

26%

33%

Inflow to Frisky Dam (2017) 500 600

Inflow to Bedsprings Dam (2016) 0.88

35%

27%

Inflow to Bedsprings Dam (2017) 200 300

*This value represents the 0.1% annual chance exceedance (1/1000) **Flows are rounded to the nearest hundred

Additional Limitations & Uncertainty Results were computed based on a rainfall runoff model that was calibrated to WY 2017. Although WY2017 was a wet year and produced sizeable flows, the model could not be tested against other significant rainfall periods. Verification used the same water year and therefore does not provide a true indication of model robustness. If future observed hydrographs are available, the model should be calibrated and validated to those storms.

Reservoir elevation-discharge-storage relationships were developed in the HEC-RAS model up to 2 feet above the dam crest. These relationships were necessary for the calibration and validation effort, but were not intended to be used for the annual chance exceedance design storms and floods. Many of the flow scenarios overwhelmed the lake pool and overtopped the crest by more than 2 feet. The HEC-HMS model purpose was only to obtain hydrographs entering the lake. Elevation-storage-discharge relationship will need to be revised if model is used for accurate estimates of dam outflow and storage.

This analysis assumes X% annual chance exceedance rainfall produces the X% annual chance exceedance hydrograph. This assumption has not been shown to be consistently true as antecedent conditions, such as soil saturation, can significantly reduce or increase the hydrograph volume and peak. The model was calibrated and validated to events with saturated antecedent soil conditions. Improvements to approximate rainfall-runoff ACE relationship were not performed.

Conclusion The purpose of this study was to provide 1%, 0.1% and PMF inflow hydrographs at select dams, and 50% to 0.1% hydrographs along the cantonment region. These hydrographs were developed using a calibrated HEC-HMS and NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation-frequency depths. The first set of hydrographs were used to evaluate the hydrologic hazard to each dam with a hazard classification, and the second set of hydrographs were used to assess the potential flood risk at the cantonment.

The model was calibrated to the January 2017 storm and validated to the February storm at three USGS discharge stations. Results showed good agreement between the simulated and observed with a Nash- Sutcliffe value greater than 0.75 and 0.65 respectively. In addition to calibrating the model, simulated hydrographs for the January and February storms were used for the HEC-RAS model calibration effort.

Linear regression analysis was performed to obtain time of concentration and storage coefficient values for basins outside the calibration area. The equation produced from using the inverse relationship between longest flow path and the square root of river slope reasonably predicted time of concentration values. Predicted values using the linear equation model matched close to the Kirprich equation for estimating time of concentration. Time of concentration had the best correlation with predicting storage coefficient with a value of 0.6.

After calibrating the rainfall-runoff model, design storms using NOAA Atlas 14 precipitation-frequency depths were obtained to generate 50- to 0.1% annual chance exceedance hydrographs. The design storm temporal pattern was based on the 1986 rainfall hyetograph at Grass Valley. 50% to 0.1% annual chance exccedance flood hydrographs were generated throughout the cantonment basin. These hydrographs represent the potential flood flow if a storm were centered along the cantonment region.

An inspection report in 2016 classified 15 dams with hydrologic hazard ratings of Low, Significant, or High as prescribed in FEMA P-94 (FEMA, 2013). Dams classified as low must be able to pass the 1% ACE, significant must pass the 0.1% ACE, and high must pass the PMF event. Design storms were centered above each lake basin to obtain 1% and 0.1% hydrographs. Additionally, the general and local storm probable maximum precipitation was developed for each lake with a high hazard classification using the MMC Precip Tool.

Simulated hydrographs’ peak values were compared to previous study results performed in 1993, 1996, and 2016. Peak flow values were within 13% for drainage areas greater than 4.8 mi2 and within 35% for drainage areas less than 3.1 mi2. The dissimilarities were due to the differences in parameter estimates from each model. Greater confidence was placed in the model parameters developed in this study given the good agreement in the calibration effort. Annual chance exceedance hydrographs were adopted from this study and routed through the HEC-RAS model.

References:

Beale AFB, 2016. “Rain Storm/Flood Damage Beale AFB 28 Nov – 2 Dec 2012 Draft Version.” Accessed

Bonnin, D. Martin, B. Lin, T. Parzybok, M. Yekta, and D. Riley, 2011. “Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States” NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 1, Version 5.0, G. M. NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=ca. Accessed 2017

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). California Data Exchange Center (CDEC).

http://cdec.water.ca.gov/. Accessed 2017

Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2004. “Lower Feather River Floodplain mapping study: Bear River hydrology, Appendix B”. Sacramento, CA.

Helsel, D.R. and Hirsch, R.M, 2002. “Statistical Methods in Water Resources.” U.S. Geological Survey, http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/twri/twri4a3/

FEMA, 2013. “FEMA P-94: Selecting and Accommodating Inflow Design Floods for Dams.”

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1386108128706- 02191a433d6a703f8dbdd68cde574a0a/Selecting_and_Accommodating_Inflow_Design_Floods_for_Da ms.PDF

Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N.D., Wickham, J.D., and Megown, K., 2015. “Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover change information”. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81, no. 5, p. 345-354

Gotvald, A.J., Barth, N.A., Veilleux, A.G., and Parrett, Charles, 2012 “Methods for determining magnitude and frequency of floods in California, based on data through water year 2006: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5113,” 38 p., 1 pl., available online only at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5113/.

Hansen, E. M., D. D. Fenn, L. C. Schreiner, R. W. Stodt, and J. F. Miller, 1988. ”Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates--United States between the Continental Divide and the 103rd Meridian.

Hydrometeorological Report Number 55A”, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD

Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), 2016. “Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS User’s Manual Version 4.2.” U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Davis, CA.

Maidment, D.R., 1993. Handbook of hydrology. McGraw-Hill., New York, NY http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=ca http://cdec.water.ca.gov/ http://bit.ly/1K7WjO3 http://bit.ly/1K7WjO3 http://bit.ly/1K7WjO3 http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5113/

Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Binger, R. L., Veith, T. L., 2007. “Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations.” American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Vol. 50(3): pp. 885-900

Mraz D., 1996. “Beale Air Force Base Dams Miller Lake Dam: A Report of Current Conditions.” Prepared for Beale Air Force Base. Reserve Environmental Engineering Unit, Pacific

MMC, 2017. “MMC Precip Tool v.1.2.0 User Guide PMP Methodologies (Continental U.S.).”

NOAA, 1973. “Precipitation-frequency Atlas of the Western United States.” NOAA Atlas 2, Volume XI- California. NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland

NOAA, 1999. “Hydrometeorological Report No. 59, Probable Maximum Precipitation for California.”

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Springs, MD

NOAA. “Earth System Research Laboratory Physical Science Division Atmospheric River Information Page.” https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/atmrivers/. Accessed 2017

PRISM Climate Group. Oregon State University, http://prism.oregonstate.edu, accessed September 2017.

Ralph, F. M. “Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes Scripps Insitution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.” http://cw3e.ucsd.edu/ accessed 2017a

Ralph, F. M., Kawzenuk, B., Hecht, C., Kalansky, J. “Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes Scripps Insitution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.” http://cw3e.ucsd.edu/how-many-atmospheric-rivers-have-hit-the-u-s-west-coast-during-the-remarkably-wet-water-year-2017/. Accessed 2017b

Sacramento City/County Drainage Manual, 1996. “Hydrology Standards Volume 2 of the Sacramento City/County Drainage Manual.” December 1996

Skaggs, R.W., and R. Khaleel, 1982. Infiltration, Hydrologic Modeling of Small Watersheds. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. Available online at https://sdmdataaccess.sc.egov.usda.gov. Accessed August 2017

Straub, T., Melching, C.S., Kocher, K., 2000. “Equations for Estimating Clark Unit-Hydrograph Parameters for Small Rural Watersheds in Illinois.” U.S. Geological Survey.

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), 1991. Engineering Manual (EM) 1110-8-2 (FR) “Inflow Design Floods for Dams and Reservoirs”. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), 1993. “Special Flood Hazard Study Beale Air Force Base Yuba County, California.” Prepared by Sacramento District, Sacramento, CA. November 1993.

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), 1994. Engineering Manual (EM) 1110-2-1417 Engineering Design – Flood-runoff Analysis. Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/atmrivers/ http://prism.oregonstate.edu/ http://cw3e.ucsd.edu/ https://sdmdataaccess.sc.egov.usda.gov/?referrer=Citation.htm-SSURGOLink

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), 2002. Comprehensive Study Technical Studies Documentation Synthetic Hydrology Technical Documentation Appendix B. Sacramento District, Sacramento, CA

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), 2003. “Lower Feather River Floodplain Study Bear River Hydrology.” August 2003

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), 2015. “Corps Water Management System (CWMS) Final Report for the Sacramento River Watershed.”

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), 2016. “Beale Air Force Base Hydrologic Analysis.” U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Sacramento District

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), 2018. “Comprehensive Study of Beale Air Force Base Hydraulic Analysis.” U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Sacramento District

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2007. “Part 630 Hydrology National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 7. Hydrologic Soil Groups.”

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2010. “Part 630 Hydrology National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 15. Time of Concentration.”

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed September 2016.

USDA-NRCS, USGS, and EPA. Watershed Boundary Dataset for California HUC#12.

"http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov" Accessed September 2017.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2017. “National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Plus Version 2.” http://www.horizon-systems.com/NHDPlus/NHDPlusV2_18.php. Accessed September, 2017.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 3DEP products and services: The National Map, 3D Elevation Program Web page, accessed at http://nationalmap.gov/3DEP/3dep_prodserv.html. Accessed August 2017

Viessman & Lewis, 2003. “Introduction to Hydrology.” Upper saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall

Woolpert Inc., 2016. “Airborne LiDAR Report: AFSOC, ACC Installation Aerial Imagery Data Collection Phase III Beale Air Force Base.” Contract Number: FA0021-11-D-0004. Dayton, Ohio

Xian, G., Homer, C., Dewitz, J., Fry, J., Hossain, N., and Wickham, J., 2011. The change of impervious surface area between 2001 and 2006 in the conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, Vol. 77(8): 758-762.

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ http://www.horizon-systems.com/NHDPlus/NHDPlusV2_18.php http://nationalmap.gov/3DEP/3dep_prodserv.html https://www.mrlc.gov/downloadfile2.php?file=Preferred_NLCD11_Impervious_Surface_Citation.pdf https://www.mrlc.gov/downloadfile2.php?file=Preferred_NLCD11_Impervious_Surface_Citation.pdf

Appendix I:

Basin Model Parameters & Initial Tc and R estimates

Name A (mi^2) n LFP (ft) CN S Ssh (%) Tc (hr) R

W1080 1.93 0.23 19253 86.85 1.51 5.34 1.94 3.30

W1140 3.10 0.23 19998 86.96 1.50 6.14 1.86 3.16

W1190 6.36 0.23 36210 86.64 1.54 9.10 2.48 4.22

W1220 1.44 0.22 12029 85.84 1.65 2.62 1.97 3.35

W1230 0.24 0.20 5853 86.80 1.52 6.25 0.69 1.18

W1290 1.95 0.23 16380 86.96 1.50 9.25 1.29 2.19

W1360 0.32 0.21 6669 85.14 1.75 3.44 1.10 1.87

W1420 0.36 0.23 7247 87.04 1.49 5.13 0.90 1.53

W1440 0.46 0.23 7443 86.96 1.50 7.95 0.74 1.26

W1530 0.33 0.23 6149 86.90 1.51 10.32 0.56 0.95

W1680 1.12 0.24 11194 86.87 1.51 2.77 1.74 2.97

W1830 1.79 0.23 14637 86.80 1.52 3.47 1.93 3.29

W2060 0.31 0.23 8030 86.91 1.51 2.99 1.28 2.19

W300 8.57 0.31 38904 81.93 2.21 16.88 2.27 3.86

W310 7.73 0.25 40657 86.10 1.61 12.82 2.34 3.98

W320 8.02 0.12 56516 82.51 2.12 0.61 15.82 26.94

W340 2.22 0.15 22774 85.30 1.72 0.62 6.87 11.69

W380 2.47 0.25 19725 85.14 1.75 13.13 1.34 2.28

W390 9.17 0.31 34479 82.62 2.10 15.49 2.10 3.58

W400 0.20 0.12 5154 84.69 1.81 0.23 3.48 5.93

W430 10.35 0.16 52626 86.53 1.56 0.75 11.72 19.96

W440 3.10 0.15 28335 86.36 1.58 0.38 10.06 17.14

W460 10.14 0.17 92384 86.13 1.61 1.26 14.38 24.48

W470 5.73 0.15 36509 87.33 1.45 0.51 10.26 17.47

W480 3.28 0.16 39725 86.94 1.50 0.62 10.15 17.28

W490 7.15 0.15 32677 80.56 2.41 0.95 8.69 14.80

W500 0.09 0.03 3674 86.89 1.51 0.97 1.21 2.06

W5010 0.69 0.15 11250 83.54 1.97 1.52 2.66 4.53

W520 12.65 0.34 48149 70.60 4.16 16.56 3.79 6.46

W570 5.08 0.36 25506 71.38 4.01 22.03 1.94 3.29

W5780 2.77 0.32 20930 79.15 2.63 21.95 1.32 2.25

W5790 6.46 0.34 23090 74.92 3.35 15.93 1.90 3.24

W5880 3.76 0.16 39866 85.80 1.66 1.04 8.16 13.90

W590 11.38 0.34 44210 68.51 4.60 17.28 3.67 6.24

W5930 6.34 0.17 37210 83.59 1.96 0.71 10.07 17.14

Name A (mi^2) n LFP (ft) CN S Ssh (%) Tc (hr) R

W5990 7.49 0.19 28937 86.64 1.54 1.91 4.52 7.70

W6070 5.34 0.17 41127 86.33 1.58 0.61 10.70 18.21

W6090 1.29 0.19 13796 86.77 1.52 1.22 3.11 5.30

W670 15.23 0.19 61147 85.92 1.64 2.26 7.76 13.21

W6780 2.45 0.17 20610 85.91 1.64 1.40 4.13 7.03

W6790 2.11 0.21 18939 85.02 1.76 1.62 3.71 6.32

W6830 0.37 0.21 5696 84.42 1.84 2.14 1.26 2.14

W6880 0.87 0.17 9119 85.33 1.72 1.40 2.20 3.74

W6890 0.96 0.15 7728 85.48 1.70 1.58 1.80 3.07

W6930 0.21 0.22 5551 83.34 2.00 1.95 1.34 2.28

W6940 0.37 0.23 7972 84.66 1.81 2.60 1.48 2.53

W6980 0.45 0.20 8756 85.90 1.64 2.89 1.45 2.47

W7040 0.26 0.20 6553 85.66 1.67 2.45 1.26 2.15

W7080 10.62 0.34 46880 78.12 2.80 23.95 2.49 4.24

W7130 0.44 0.23 6701 86.64 1.54 3.38 1.06 1.80

W7140 0.97 0.23 12313 86.67 1.54 5.85 1.30 2.22

W7190 0.89 0.20 14301 84.62 1.82 2.27 2.54 4.32

W730 2.09 0.23 16222 86.92 1.50 9.60 1.26 2.14

W7330 0.86 0.21 13227 85.21 1.74 2.62 2.17 3.70

W7340 0.10 0.23 3456 85.58 1.69 6.30 0.47 0.80

W7380 0.12 0.23 4305 84.91 1.78 2.90 0.85 1.45

W7440 0.13 0.24 4249 86.81 1.52 3.00 0.77 1.32

W7480 9.52 0.19 64615 86.24 1.60 5.28 5.25 8.94

W7490 1.63 0.22 15379 86.63 1.54 4.85 1.71 2.92

W7500 0.37 0.21 8400 85.59 1.68 3.71 1.25 2.13

W770 0.21 0.23 4398 86.73 1.53 4.89 0.62 1.06

W810 0.33 0.23 5583 86.97 1.50 5.79 0.69 1.17

W830 2.02 0.21 15012 86.73 1.53 8.84 1.24 2.11

W930 0.44 0.23 8324 87.02 1.49 5.89 0.94 1.60

W970 1.77 0.21 17850 86.82 1.52 8.00 1.49 2.54

Name %Impervious Name %Impervious

W1080 0.04 W6790 0.60

W1140 0.11 W6830 0.39

W1190 0.16 W6880 7.00

W1220 0.96 W6890 8.79

W1230 0.25 W6930 0.03

W1290 0.03 W6940 0.17

W1360 0.44 W6980 0.42

W1420 0.24 W7040 0.48

W1440 0.25 W7080 0.11

W1530 0.03 W7130 0.16

W1680 0.00 W7140 0.08

W1830 0.08 W7190 7.06

W2060 0.08 W730 0.09

W300 0.17 W7330 2.78

W310 0.27 W7340 1.26

W320 13.24 W7380 0.22

W340 6.09 W7440 0.00

W380 1.81 W7480 0.54

W390 0.04 W7490 0.18

W400 0.00 W7500 0.28

W430 0.53 W770 0.09

W440 0.51 W810 0.08

W460 0.31 W830 2.55

W470 0.22 W930 0.12

W480 0.22 W970 3.21

W490 4.18

W500 0.13

W5010 2.60

W520 0.19

W570 0.19

W5780 0.07

W5790 0.11

W5880 0.65

W590 0.34

W5930 0.26

W5990 5.62

W6070 0.15

W6090 4.24

W610 0.31

W670 0.18

W6780 1.08

Calibration & Validation rainfall depths for each subbasin

Subbasin January 6-13 February 5-10

Subbasin January 6-13 February 5-10

GageInterp Depth

Ratio Precip

GageInterp Depth

Ratio Precip

GageInterp Depth

Ratio Precip

GageInterp Depth

Ratio Precip

W1080 4.35 7.04 3.09 5.18 W6070 3.85 6.24 2.22 3.71

W1140 4.51 7.30 3.33 5.57 W6090 4.00 6.48 2.51 4.20

W1190 4.92 7.96 3.59 6.02 W670 3.76 6.08 1.42 2.38

W1220 4.08 6.61 2.72 4.55 W6780 3.88 6.29 2.03 3.41

W1230 4.15 6.72 2.81 4.72 W6790 3.87 6.26 2.05 3.43

W1290 4.55 7.36 3.17 5.31 W6830 3.96 6.40 2.24 3.76

W1360 4.12 6.67 2.77 4.64 W6880 3.98 6.44 2.42 4.06

W1420 4.27 6.91 2.90 4.86 W6890 4.02 6.50 2.59 4.33

W1440 4.41 7.13 3.06 5.12 W6930 3.92 6.34 2.08 3.49

W1530 4.56 7.38 3.15 5.27 W6940 3.94 6.38 2.23 3.74

W1680 3.88 6.28 2.16 3.62 W6980 3.94 6.38 2.37 3.97

W1830 4.15 6.73 2.87 4.80 W7040 3.96 6.41 2.48 4.16

W2060 4.06 6.58 2.68 4.50 W7080 6.60 10.69 5.08 8.52

W300 5.66 9.16 4.21 7.05 W7130 3.98 6.44 2.58 4.33

W310 5.21 8.43 3.80 6.37 W7140 4.21 6.82 2.81 4.71

W320 3.63 5.88 2.23 3.73 W7190 4.06 6.57 2.67 4.48

W340 3.62 5.86 2.00 3.36 W730 4.01 6.49 2.54 4.25

W380 4.28 6.93 2.89 4.84 W7330 3.89 6.30 2.35 3.94

W390 4.88 7.91 3.52 5.90 W7340 3.99 6.47 2.53 4.24

W400 3.59 5.82 1.85 3.10 W7380 3.96 6.41 2.50 4.20

W430 3.72 6.03 1.68 2.82 W7440 3.98 6.45 2.60 4.35

W440 3.56 5.77 1.66 2.79 W7480 4.17 6.76 3.01 5.04

W460 3.70 5.99 1.46 2.45 W7490 4.16 6.74 2.96 4.95

W470 3.54 5.74 1.44 2.41 W7500 3.91 6.33 2.38 3.98

W480 3.61 5.84 1.14 1.91 W770 3.77 6.11 2.22 3.71

W490 3.74 6.05 0.42 0.71 W810 3.82 6.18 2.28 3.83

W500 3.44 5.56 1.61 2.70 W830 4.09 6.62 2.60 4.36

W5010 4.01 6.49 2.50 4.18 W930 4.18 6.76 2.79 4.68

W520 7.57 12.26 6.12 10.26 W970 4.33 7.01 2.93 4.91

W570 6.86 11.11 5.51 9.23

W5780 5.43 8.78 4.06 6.79

W5790 6.23 10.08 4.82 8.07

W5880 3.74 6.05 1.93 3.24

W590 8.30 13.43 6.93 11.61

W5930 3.78 6.12 2.35 3.93

W5990 4.03 6.52 2.65 4.43

Calibrated Tc, R, and Loss Rate.

Sub-basin Tc (hr) R (hr) Initial Loss (in) Constant Loss (in/hr)

W1080 1.8 3.6 0.1 0.027

W1140 1.6 3.5 0.1 0.021

W1190 2.2 5 0.1 0.025

W1220 1.8 4.1 0.1 0.04

W1230 0.6 4.2 0.1 0.03

W1290 1.7 3.9 0.1 0.025

W1360 1.1 2.9 0.1 0.06

W1420 0.8 3 0.1 0.04

W1440 0.7 2.7 0.1 0.027

W1530 1 3.2 0.1 0.01

W1680 1.3 3.1 0.1 0.03

W1830 1.8 3.9 0.1 0.03

W2060 1.1 3.5 0.1 0.01

W300 2 4.1 0.1 0.035

W310 2.5 4.8 0.1 0.023

W320 13.4 21.7 0.1 0.06

W340 4.5 8 0.1 0.042

W380 1.5 3.3 0.1 0.023

W390 1.7 3.7 0.1 0.028

W400 1.6 3.5 0.1 0.06

W430 9.4 15.6 0.1 0.029

W440 5.5 9.4 0.1 0.037

W460 15.9 25.6 0.1 0.04

W470 7.2 12.2 0.1 0.036

W480 7.4 12.5 0.1 0.053

W490 5.3 9.3 0.1 0.127

W500 1.1 2.8 0.1 0.025

W5010 1.5 1.7 0.1 0.06

W520 2.6 5 0.1 0.133

W570 1.4 3.2 0.1 0.108

W5780 1.2 2.8 0.1 0.058

W5790 1.2 2.9 0.1 0.092

W5880 7.4 12.4 0.1 0.041

W590 2.3 4.5 0.1 0.153

W5930 7.2 12.2 0.1 0.074

W5990 3.7 6.7 0.1 0.026

Sub-basin Tc (hr) R (hr) Initial Loss (in) Constant Loss (in/hr)

W6070 7.5 12.7 0.1 0.032

W6090 2 4.2 0.1 0.024

W670 7.6 12.7 0.1 0.042

W6780 2.8 5.4 0.1 0.042

W6790 2.8 5.3 0.1 0.053

W6830 1.1 2.7 0.1 0.051

W6880 1.4 3.2 0.1 0.044

W6890 1.3 3 0.1 0.039

W6930 1.1 2.7 0.1 0.081

W6940 1.3 3.1 0.1 0.051

W6980 1.3 2.3 0.1 0.04

W7040 0.7 1.5 0.1 0.02

W7080 1.9 4 0.1 0.058

W7130 0.6 1.5 0.1 0.02

W7140 1.3 2.7 0.1 0.02

W7190 1.2 2.7 0.1 0.06

W730 1.1 2.8 0.1 0.022

W7330 1.3 3.1 0.1 0.056

W7340 0.7 2.1 0.1 0.039

W7380 0.9 2.4 0.1 0.07

W7440 0.8 2.3 0.1 0.027

W7480 8.3 13.9 0.1 0.029

W7490 1.7 3.6 0.1 0.029

W7500 1.5 3.4 0.1 0.051

W770 0.7 2.2 0.1 0.026

W810 0.8 2.3 0.1 0.023

W830 1 2.6 0.1 0.022

W930 0.9 2.4 0.1 0.022

W970 1.3 3 0.1 0.024

Linear Regression analysis for Time of Concentration using 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿

�𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆

Subbasin X Y Pred Y Residuals Residuals^2 Leverage Mod MSE Rstudent T-test Cooks D ABS(DFFITS)

W1190 58 2.2 2.15 0.05 0.00 0.34 0.06 0.25 0.80 0.02 0.18

W1080 41 1.8 1.69 0.11 0.01 0.13 0.06 0.47 0.64 0.02 0.18

W1220 40 1.8 1.67 0.13 0.02 0.12 0.06 0.56 0.59 0.03 0.21

W1230 15 0.6 1.01 -0.41 0.17 0.08 0.05 -1.87 0.08 0.14 0.55

W1530 7 1 0.78 0.22 0.05 0.13 0.06 0.96 0.35 0.08 0.38

W1830 47 1.8 1.86 -0.06 0.00 0.19 0.06 -0.28 0.78 0.01 0.14

W6980 16 1.3 1.04 0.26 0.07 0.07 0.06 1.11 0.28 0.06 0.31

W7040 12 0.74 0.92 -0.18 0.03 0.09 0.06 -0.78 0.45 0.04 0.25

W7130 12 0.6 0.93 -0.33 0.11 0.09 0.06 -1.48 0.16 0.12 0.47

W7140 18 1.26 1.09 0.17 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.70 0.49 0.02 0.19

W1290 23 1.7 1.22 0.48 0.23 0.06 0.05 2.27 0.04 0.14 0.57

W1360 13 1.1 0.96 0.14 0.02 0.09 0.06 0.57 0.58 0.02 0.17

W1420 10 0.8 0.86 -0.06 0.00 0.11 0.06 -0.25 0.81 0.00 0.09

W1440 9 0.7 0.84 -0.14 0.02 0.12 0.06 -0.60 0.55 0.03 0.22

W2060 14 1.1 0.98 0.12 0.01 0.08 0.06 0.51 0.62 0.01 0.15

W5010 45 1.5 1.79 -0.29 0.09 0.16 0.06 -1.33 0.20 0.18 0.58

W7190 30 1.2 1.40 -0.20 0.04 0.07 0.06 -0.83 0.42 0.03 0.22

High Leverage Estimate

Cooks D > 1

DFFITS > 2*�𝑆𝑆

𝑛𝑛

= 0.71 y = x - 2E-15 R² = 0.7626

0.5

1.5

2.5

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Ca lib ra te d Tc

Predicted Tc

Linear Regression Analysis for Storage Coefficient using Tc

Subbasin X Y Pred Y Residuals Residuals^2 Leverage Mod MSE Rstudent T-test Cooks D ABS(DFFITS)

W1190 2.20 5 4.46 0.54 0.29 0.30 0.67 0.78 0.45 0.15 0.51

W1080 1.80 3.6 3.84 -0.24 0.06 0.14 0.70 -0.31 0.76 0.01 0.13

W1220 1.80 4.1 3.84 0.26 0.07 0.14 0.70 0.33 0.74 0.01 0.14

W12301 0.60 4.2 1.97 -1.97 3.90 0.17 0.34 -3.71 0.00 0.84 1.70

W1530 1.00 3.2 2.60 0.60 0.36 0.08 0.67 0.77 0.46 0.03 0.22

W1830 1.80 3.9 3.84 0.06 0.00 0.14 0.70 0.07 0.94 0.00 0.03

W6980 1.30 2.3 3.06 -0.76 0.58 0.06 0.66 -0.97 0.35 0.04 0.25

W7040 0.74 1.5 2.19 -0.69 0.48 0.13 0.66 -0.91 0.38 0.07 0.35

W7130 0.60 1.5 1.97 -0.47 0.22 0.17 0.68 -0.63 0.54 0.05 0.29

W7140 1.26 2.7 3.00 -0.30 0.09 0.06 0.70 -0.37 0.71 0.01 0.10

W1290 1.70 3.9 3.69 0.21 0.05 0.12 0.70 0.27 0.79 0.01 0.10

W1360 1.10 2.9 2.75 0.15 0.02 0.07 0.70 0.18 0.86 0.00 0.05

W1420 0.80 3 2.29 0.71 0.51 0.12 0.66 0.94 0.37 0.06 0.34

W1440 0.70 2.7 2.13 0.57 0.33 0.14 0.68 0.75 0.47 0.05 0.31

W2060 1.10 3.5 2.75 0.75 0.56 0.07 0.66 0.95 0.36 0.04 0.26

W5010 1.50 2 3.38 -1.38 1.89 0.08 0.55 -1.94 0.07 0.15 0.57

W7190 1.2 2.7 2.91 -0.21 0.04 0.06 0.70 -0.26 0.80 0.00 0.07 1Value removed from regression analysis.

High Leverage Estimate

Cooks D > 1

DFFITS > 2*�𝑆𝑆

𝑛𝑛

= 0.71 y = 1.5624x + 1.0197 R² = 0.5959

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Ca lib ra te d R

Tc

𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 = 0.0078𝐿𝐿0.77𝐷𝐷−0.385 - Kirpich Equation for computing time of concentration

𝑅𝑅 = 16.4𝐿𝐿0.342𝐷𝐷−0.79 – Estimating Storage Coefficient for Small Rural Watersheds

Tc and R comparisons using Kirpich and Straub equations

Sub-basin Time of Concentration Storage Coefficient

Initial Values Calibrated/Regression Kirpich Initial Values Calibrated/Regression Illinois W1080 1.9 1.8 1.9 3.3 3.6 3.30 W1140 1.9 1.6 1.9 3.2 3.5 3.16 W1190 2.5 2.2 2.5 4.2 5.0 4.22 W1220 2.0 1.8 2.0 3.4 4.1 3.35 W1230 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.2 4.2 1.18 W1290 1.3 1.7 1.3 2.2 3.9 2.19 W1360 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.9 2.9 1.87 W1420 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.5 3.0 1.53 W1440 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.3 2.7 1.26 W1530 0.6 1.0 0.6 1.0 3.2 0.95 W1680 1.7 1.3 1.7 3.0 3.1 2.97 W1830 1.9 1.8 1.9 3.3 3.9 3.29 W2060 1.3 1.1 1.3 2.2 3.5 2.19 W300 2.3 2.0 2.3 3.9 4.1 3.86 W310 2.3 2.5 2.3 4.0 4.8 3.98 W320 15.8 13.4 15.8 26.9 21.7 26.94 W340 6.9 4.5 6.9 11.7 8.0 11.69 W380 1.3 1.5 1.3 2.3 3.3 2.28 W390 2.1 1.7 2.1 3.6 3.7 3.58 W400 3.5 1.6 3.5 5.9 3.5 5.93 W430 11.7 9.4 11.7 20.0 15.6 19.96 W440 10.1 5.5 10.1 17.1 9.4 17.14 W460 14.4 15.9 14.4 24.5 25.6 24.48 W470 10.3 7.2 10.3 17.5 12.2 17.47 W480 10.1 7.4 10.1 17.3 12.5 17.28 W490 8.7 5.3 8.7 14.8 9.3 14.80 W500 1.2 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.8 2.06 W5010 2.7 1.5 2.7 4.5 1.7 4.53 W520 3.8 2.6 3.8 6.5 5.0 6.46 W570 1.9 1.4 1.9 3.3 3.2 3.29 W5780 1.3 1.2 1.3 2.3 2.8 2.25 W5790 1.9 1.2 1.9 3.2 2.9 3.24 W5880 8.2 7.4 8.2 13.9 12.4 13.90 W590 3.7 2.3 3.7 6.2 4.5 6.24

Sub-basin Time of Concentration Storage Coefficient

Initial Values Calibrated/Regression Kirpich Initial Values Calibrated/Regression Kirpich

W5930 10.1 7.2 10.1 17.1 12.2 17.14 W5990 4.5 3.7 4.5 7.7 6.7 7.70 W6070 10.7 7.5 10.7 18.2 12.7 18.21 W6090 3.1 2.0 3.1 5.3 4.2 5.30 W610 3.7 7.6 3.7 6.4 12.7 6.37 W670 7.8 2.8 7.8 13.2 5.4 13.21 W6780 4.1 2.8 4.1 7.0 5.3 7.03 W6790 3.7 1.1 3.7 6.3 2.7 6.32 W6830 1.3 1.4 1.3 2.1 3.2 2.14 W6880 2.2 1.3 2.2 3.7 3.0 3.74 W6890 1.8 1.1 1.8 3.1 2.7 3.07 W6930 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.3 3.1 2.28 W6940 1.5 1.3 1.5 2.5 2.3 2.53 W6980 1.5 0.7 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.47 W7040 1.3 1.9 1.3 2.1 4.0 2.15 W7080 2.5 0.6 2.5 4.2 1.5 4.24 W7130 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.8 2.7 1.80 W7140 1.3 1.2 1.3 2.2 2.7 2.22 W7190 2.5 1.1 2.5 4.3 2.8 4.32 W730 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.1 3.1 2.14 W7330 2.2 0.7 2.2 3.7 2.1 3.70 W7340 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.8 2.4 0.80 W7380 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.4 2.3 1.45 W7440 0.8 8.3 0.8 1.3 13.9 1.32 W7480 5.2 1.7 5.2 8.9 3.6 8.94 W7490 1.7 1.5 1.7 2.9 3.4 2.92 W7500 1.3 0.7 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.13 W770 0.6 0.8 0.6 1.1 2.3 1.06 W810 0.7 1.0 0.7 1.2 2.6 1.17 W830 1.2 0.9 1.2 2.1 2.4 2.11 W930 0.9 1.3 0.9 1.6 3.0 1.60 W970 1.5 1.3 1.5 2.5 3.0 2.54

These are NOAA Atlas 14 depths (50% - 0.1%; 5 min – 60 day duration) used for the Dam Safety design storm analysis. These depths were also used for Beale and Miller Lake watershed (areal reduction applied to Beale Lake watershed). Design storms were balanced up to the 4 day depths. These were obtained from GIS grids: https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_gis.html - Volume 6: California.

50% 20% 10% RF Zone 15 16 30 52 RF Zone 15 16 30 52 RF Zone 15 16 30 52 5 Min 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 5 Min 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 5 Min 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.24 10 Min 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 Min 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.29 10 Min 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.35 15 Min 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.26 15 Min 0.32 0.32 0.34 0.36 15 Min 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.42 30 Min 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.35 30 Min 0.44 0.44 0.46 0.48 30 Min 0.53 0.53 0.55 0.57 60 Min 0.42 0.42 0.45 0.49 60 Min 0.59 0.59 0.63 0.66 60 Min 0.71 0.70 0.75 0.79 2 hr 0.61 0.59 0.66 0.72 2 hr 0.81 0.78 0.88 0.96 2 hr 0.95 0.92 1.04 1.13 3 hr 0.76 0.73 0.83 0.91 3 hr 0.99 0.94 1.10 1.22 3 hr 1.15 1.09 1.29 1.43 6 hr 1.11 1.04 1.25 1.39 6 hr 1.43 1.32 1.64 1.86 6 hr 1.66 1.52 1.91 2.17 12 hr 1.54 1.39 1.81 2.08 12 hr 2.14 1.93 2.50 2.88 12 hr 2.53 2.30 2.94 3.39 24 hr 2.20 1.93 2.68 3.14 24 hr 3.33 3.02 3.93 4.58 24 hr 4.03 3.70 4.71 5.48 48 hr 2.93 2.52 3.60 4.23 48 hr 4.39 3.82 5.38 6.30 48 hr 5.30 4.63 6.47 7.57 3 day 3.47 2.95 4.33 5.09 3 day 5.17 4.36 6.50 7.63 3 day 6.21 5.24 7.82 9.18 4 day 3.87 3.28 4.85 5.71 4 day 5.72 4.78 7.27 8.56 4 day 6.85 5.72 8.73 10.28 7 day 4.81 4.06 6.06 7.17 7 day 6.95 5.77 8.91 10.54 7 day 8.25 6.84 10.61 12.58 10 day 5.47 4.60 6.92 8.20 10 day 7.80 6.47 10.04 11.92 10 day 9.23 7.64 11.90 14.16 20 day 7.33 6.14 9.34 11.08 20 day 10.34 8.57 13.34 15.88 20 day 12.14 10.05 15.70 18.74 30 day 8.86 7.40 11.30 13.42 30 day 12.41 10.31 15.98 19.08 30 day 14.53 12.07 18.72 22.41 45 day 10.98 9.15 14.03 16.65 45 day 15.28 12.75 19.59 23.39 45 day 17.81 14.88 22.82 27.31 60 day 12.99 10.84 16.62 19.76 60 day 17.96 15.07 22.93 27.44 60 day 20.85 17.53 26.57 31.87

4% 2% 1% RF Zone 15 16 30 52 RF Zone 15 16 30 52 RF Zone 15 16 30 52 5 Min 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.30 5 Min 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.35 5 Min 0.36 0.36 0.38 0.40 10 Min 0.39 0.39 0.41 0.43 10 Min 0.45 0.45 0.48 0.50 10 Min 0.51 0.51 0.54 0.57 15 Min 0.47 0.47 0.50 0.52 15 Min 0.54 0.54 0.57 0.60 15 Min 0.62 0.62 0.66 0.69 30 Min 0.65 0.66 0.68 0.70 30 Min 0.75 0.76 0.78 0.81 30 Min 0.85 0.87 0.89 0.93 60 Min 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.97 60 Min 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.12 60 Min 1.14 1.15 1.22 1.28 2 hr 1.15 1.11 1.26 1.37 2 hr 1.31 1.27 1.44 1.57 2 hr 1.49 1.44 1.63 1.78 3 hr 1.38 1.31 1.55 1.72 3 hr 1.57 1.49 1.76 1.95 3 hr 1.78 1.70 1.99 2.20 6 hr 1.98 1.81 2.28 2.59 6 hr 2.24 2.06 2.57 2.92 6 hr 2.52 2.34 2.88 3.27 12 hr 3.05 2.78 3.53 4.07 12 hr 3.45 3.16 3.98 4.58 12 hr 3.86 3.55 4.44 5.10 24 hr 4.92 4.55 5.70 6.62 24 hr 5.57 5.17 6.43 7.46 24 hr 6.22 5.78 7.16 8.30 48 hr 6.42 5.64 7.82 9.15 48 hr 7.25 6.38 8.81 10.30 48 hr 8.06 7.12 9.77 11.43 3 day 7.50 6.35 9.44 11.08 3 day 8.45 7.17 10.61 12.47 3 day 9.37 7.98 11.75 13.82 4 day 8.25 6.90 10.52 12.40 4 day 9.27 7.77 11.81 13.93 4 day 10.27 8.63 13.06 15.42 7 day 9.87 8.19 12.70 15.09 7 day 11.05 9.18 14.19 16.90 7 day 12.20 10.17 15.64 18.65 10 day 10.98 9.10 14.17 16.90 10 day 12.26 10.18 15.80 18.88 10 day 13.51 11.24 17.36 20.80 20 day 14.36 11.89 18.55 22.21 20 day 15.95 13.24 20.57 24.68 20 day 17.50 14.55 22.50 27.04 30 day 17.10 14.22 22.00 26.41 30 day 18.94 15.77 24.30 29.23 30 day 20.70 17.28 26.49 31.92 45 day 20.85 17.45 26.66 31.98 45 day 23.00 19.27 29.34 35.25 45 day 25.04 21.02 31.86 38.33 60 day 24.30 20.48 30.87 37.11 60 day 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 60 day 29.00 24.52 36.66 44.15

0.50% 0.20% 0.10% RF Zone 15 16 30 52 RF Zone 15 16 30 52 RF Zone 15 16 30 52 5 Min 0.40 0.41 0.43 0.45 5 Min 0.47 0.48 0.51 0.53 5 Min 0.53 0.54 0.57 0.60 10 Min 0.58 0.58 0.62 0.65 10 Min 0.68 0.69 0.73 0.76 10 Min 0.76 0.77 0.82 0.86 15 Min 0.70 0.71 0.75 0.78 15 Min 0.82 0.83 0.88 0.92 15 Min 0.92 0.93 0.99 1.04 30 Min 0.97 0.99 1.02 1.06 30 Min 1.13 1.16 1.20 1.24 30 Min 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.40 60 Min 1.30 1.30 1.39 1.46 60 Min 1.52 1.53 1.63 1.72 60 Min 1.71 1.73 1.83 1.94 2 hr 1.68 1.64 1.84 2.01 2 hr 1.96 1.93 2.15 2.33 2 hr 2.19 2.18 2.40 2.61 3 hr 2.00 1.92 2.23 2.47 3 hr 2.33 2.26 2.58 2.85 3 hr 2.60 2.55 2.88 3.17 6 hr 2.82 2.64 3.21 3.63 6 hr 3.27 3.11 3.69 4.15 6 hr 3.64 3.52 4.07 4.56 12 hr 4.29 3.96 4.92 5.64 12 hr 4.88 4.52 5.57 6.37 12 hr 5.35 4.98 6.09 6.94 24 hr 6.86 6.38 7.89 9.14 24 hr 7.71 7.18 8.86 10.24 24 hr 8.36 7.77 9.59 11.08 48 hr 8.86 7.85 10.72 12.54 48 hr 9.91 8.80 11.95 13.99 48 hr 10.69 9.52 12.86 15.07 3 day 10.28 8.79 12.86 15.14 3 day 11.47 9.85 14.30 16.85 3 day 12.36 10.65 15.36 18.12 4 day 11.25 9.49 14.27 16.88 4 day 12.53 10.63 15.84 18.76 4 day 13.49 11.49 16.99 20.15 7 day 13.33 11.15 17.04 20.37 7 day 14.80 12.45 18.84 22.57 7 day 15.89 13.43 20.16 24.19 10 day 14.74 12.31 18.88 22.66 10 day 16.34 13.70 20.82 25.05 10 day 17.52 14.76 22.23 26.81 20 day 19.00 15.85 24.35 29.32 20 day 20.93 17.54 26.69 32.21 20 day 22.36 18.80 28.38 34.31 30 day 22.41 18.75 28.58 34.49 30 day 24.58 20.64 31.20 37.71 30 day 26.16 22.04 33.07 40.02 45 day 27.00 22.71 34.25 41.24 45 day 29.46 24.86 37.21 44.85 45 day 31.23 26.42 39.32 47.42 60 day 31.16 26.40 39.29 47.35 60 day 33.87 28.76 42.54 51.29 60 day 35.80 30.46 44.83 54.06

HMR-58/59 areal reduction factors for Beale Lake watershed and the Hutchinson Creek-cantonment basin.

Watershed area (sq.

mi) 1 hr 2 hr 3 hr 6 hr 12 hr 24 hr 48 hr 72 hr 96 hr

Beale 79 80.4 81.1 81.7 83.7 86.3 88.6 90.3 92.0 93.7

Cantonment

22.7 95.07 95.24 95.42 95.94 96.66 97.29 97.69 98.09 98.49

Local and General Probable Maximum Precipitation depths computed using MMC Precip Tool v.2.0.

Dam Local PMP General PMP 6-hr depth (in) 72-hr depth (in)

B Street Pond 8.1 27.3 Beale Lake 15.1 230.2

Upper Bedsprings 8.1 27.5 Bedsprings Lake 8.0 27.4

Broskey Lake 7.9 28.0 Frisky Lake 8.0 27.8 Goose Lake 8.0 26.9

Hospital Pond 8.0 28.0 Lower Blackwelder Lake 8.0 27.2

Mad Dog Lake 7.8 27.0 Miller Lake 8.0 27.4

Pave Paws Lake 8.1 27.9 Small Arms Range Lake 8.0 27.4 Upper Blackwelder Lake 7.8 27.8

Vassar Lake 7.8 28.0

1Includes areal reduction 2Beale Dam 72-hr depths show here represent the average 72-hr depth over 79 square miles. Areal reduction of 92% was applied to the 72-hr depth and spatially distributed (spatial distribution based on NOAA Atlas 14 1% 24-hr rainfall grids)

General Probable Maximum Precipitation Hyetograph

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

De pt h (in ch es

Duration

Local PMP Depths

Zone 15 Zone 30 Zone 52

0.5

1.5

2.5

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70

De pt h (in

Results showing 1% ACE inflow hydrographs to dams with hydrologic hazard classif ications. Dams given a low hazard classif ication must pass the 1% ACE hydrograph

Results showing 0.1% ACE inf low hydrographs to dams with hydrologic hazard classif…