HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272708(6) 1
t EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED
GAGE DATA REVIEW
t
' Prepared for:
' City of Renton
Prepared by:
' Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc.
16300 Christensen Road, Suite 350
' Tukwila, WA 98188-3418
206-241-6000
' July 1997
' East Side Green River Watershed (ESGRW) Gage Data Review
' NHC processed raw stage data collected by the City of Renton between 1 October 1994 and 30
April 1997 at the following gage locations:
• Springbrook Creek at SW 27th Street (two Unidata recorders)
' • Panther Creek at Talbot Road (one TerraScience recorder)
' • Rolling Hills Creek at I-405 (one TerraScience recorder)
• Springbrook Creek at SW 43rd Street (one TerraScience recorder)
' • Springbrook Creek at Black River Pump Station (one Unidata recorder)
In the case of SW 27th Street, raw stage data were converted into water surface elevation and
' flow data and were appended to data that had previously been processed by NHC (City of
Renton Contract CAG-94-125) to produce a continuous record of 15 minute water surface
elevation and flow data for the period 1 October 1993 through 30 April 1997. For the other
' gages raw 15 minute gage data were converted into water surface elevation data and/or flow data
for the available period of record.
' In general, the stage data collected at SW 27th Street during the review period are good quality
and no significant or systematic errors have been detected. The Black River Pump Station
(BRPS) forebay water surface elevation record also appears to be good quality with only a few
short gaps in the data over the period of review. Note that these are the two gages using Unidata
shaft encoders and data loggers. For the other gages, which use TerraScience data loggers and
pressure transducers or capacitance probes, the data records are less reliable. The data contain
numerous gaps as a result of problems with downloading or allowing the data buffer to become
full between downloads. The data collected by these instruments have also tended to drift over
time. Following is a list of specific comments on the quality of the data reviewed and
recommendations for further efforts to improve data quality.
' Stage Data:
SW 27TH STREET
' Raw output from the shaft encoders/loggers at the SW 27th Street gage site are downloaded
approximately once per month by City of Renton personnel. Raw data consist of stages upstream
and downstream of the road crossing recorded at a 15 minute interval. The raw gage data
' collected between 1 October 1994 and 5 May 1997 were provided to NHC in digital format.
NHC converted the raw gage data to stream water surface elevations by offsetting the raw
measurement by an appropriate shift, producing as output water surface elevations corresponding
' to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD1929). Appropriate shifts were
determined based on NHC survey of the water level and corresponding instrument reading to an
arbitrary datum (PK in road) on 1 October 1993, and subsequent survey of the PK by Penhallegon
' Associates for the City in January 1995. Penhallegon also surveyed the four crest stage gages at
the site providing offsets for relating manually recorded water surface elevations to NGVD1929.
1
NHC Project 20852 1 July 14, 1997
All comparisons of the recorded data were made after converting water surface elevations to
NGVD1929 .
' Missing or Erroneous Data - The following periods of missing (or obviously erroneous) data
were noted at the SW 27th Street gages:
' Upstream (south) gage:
28 December 1994 0:15 - 28 December 1994 24:00
' 5 December 1995 3:15 - 21 December 1995 14:15
27 January 1996 22:30 - 28 January 1996 10:45
10 February 1996 14:30 - 21 February 1996 17:00
' Downstream (north) gage:
3 January 1997 2:00 - 7 January 1997 14:00
' 27 February 1997 23:00 - 10 March 1997 13:30
The missing data have occurred primarily as a result of the instrument's float cable having gotten
' hung up on the shaft encoder platform or due to battery problems. Corrective action has been
taken to prevent these problems from recurring.
' Instantaneous Instrument Readings-For both the north (downstream) and south (upstream)
instruments the manually read staff gage reading and the concurrent instrument reading
' corresponded within± 0.10 feet at each of the downloads with the exception of the 23 November
1994, 20 December 1994, and 15 February 1996 downloads (Table 1). At the time of the 23
November download the stream stage was falling rapidly and a short time lapse, perhaps less than
' 10 minutes between reading the staff gage and reading the instrument would have led to the
discrepancies noted (approximately 0.15 feet). Similarly, at the time of the 20 December
download the stage was rising and the difference between manual and gage water surface
' elevation records is probably a result of the time difference between staff gage and instrument
observations. The results generally indicate that there is no systematic error and no drift in the
instrument readings over the range of water surface elevations recorded at the time of downloads.
' Crest Stage Gage Readings-For both the north and south side instruments the manually read
crest stage gage readings and the peak instrument readings between downloads correspond within
' ± 0.20 feet in all cases with the exception of the 23 November 1994 download for both
instruments (Table 1). It should be noted that reading the crest stage gages to a high degree of
accuracy is difficult due to the wide band of cork being deposited (using less cork might alleviate
this problem but it would increase the risk of having all the cork washed out between visits and
missing a reading entirely). The purpose of the crest stage comparison is to verify that the instru-
ments are correctly recording high stage events, and these results demonstrate that is the case. In
addition the crest stage data provide a backup in the event that the instruments malfunction during
an extreme flow event.
For the 23 November download, the manually recorded crest stage readings appear extremely low
considering the time of year and the recorded rainfall. Curiously, the manual readings are within
NHC Project 20852 2 July 14, 1997
1
' approximately f 0.03 feet of being exactly 1 foot lower than the peak water surface elevation
recorded on the instrument for the concurrent period. Therefore, we think it is possible, even
' likely, that the manual readings were mis-recorded, and the discrepancy does not indicate a
problem with the automatic gage.
' ROLLING HILLS CREEK
Raw output from the pressure transducer at the Rolling Hills Creek gage site is downloaded
approximately once every 40 days by City of Renton personnel. Raw data consist of stages
' upstream of the I-405 and SR-167 culverts recorded at a 15 minute interval. The raw gage data
collected between 27 January 1995 and 5 May 1997 were provided to NHC in digital format.
NHC converted the raw gage data to stream water surface elevations by offsetting the raw
' measurement by an appropriate shift, producing output water surface elevations corresponding to
the arbitrary datum of the staff plate at the gage site. Two manual measurements are reported at
this site, one from the staff plate, and the second as a measure down distance from �°
i _ ort. A fixed offset was applied to all raw stage data to convert all data to the P a�
datum of the staff plate. Additional variable offsets were applied to the data to correct for drift in „
the transducer. The amount of these offsets was determined from the operator's observations at
' the time of each download. All comparisons of the recorded data were made after converting
stages to the staff gage datum.
' Missing or Erroneous Data -Because of the manner in which the TerraScience data loggers �Y
function, data recording does not take place during the time data are being downloaded.
Therefore there are numerous short intervals (15 minutes to 1 hour) of missing data
' corresponding to the time of each download. In addition to these gaps data are not available for
the periods from 12 February 1996 at 6:00 through 29 March 1996 at 17:00 and 25 September MIr,
1996 at 3:00 through 27 Sept er 1996 at 14:00. The remainder of the data appears to be of fv ",�r.,� �
good quality through about m h 1997. The station observer's notes indicate that a City crew on�,�q
performed maintenance work-work-m the channel at the gage site on 5 March 1997. Subsequent to t s
' work the recorded rZ 'mum stages appear to be about 0.15 feet lower than were observes pri 10
to the channel work. b March 1997 the station operator adjusted the instrument's offset t
correspond to a manual staff reading at the time of the data download.
' adjustment-the--stages recorded at d
at ceded imthe-ga�r rd. . /We-are riot able to verify the adjustment made by the
station operator on 25 March�j��a4a recorded subsequent to �a justment5 pp r tabe is s1., e1
r images produced from the raw data recorded after 25 March
' 1997 are likely to be erroneous. qd
' Instantaneous Instrument Readings -F r the Rolling Hills gage the manually read staff plate
reading and the concurrent tnstrumenVreading corresponded within f 0.18 feet at each of the �d
downloads (Table 2). Note, however, that relatively few observations of the staff plate have beer��'pPl;,Ka-4
' recorded so it is difficult to say if the gage has experienced any transient problems. I i , r.�r
particularly problematic that no,staff plate stage observations have been made since arch <4vE-
r�1��
1996, so it is not possible to s`ay how the instrument is cu Intl erforming relative to the fixed '` f'
gage. The instrument's d , as measured down on the , was used in conjunction p[..t ;
with an assumed fixed set between the instrument datum and the staff plate to adjust the raw
�e%fw iti fi�c �.l, W aft,b
NHC Project 20852 3 c w��sl rn�. FAL r^w '� fw P'� Sf.f - 14, 1997
' 4P ak,�� IS4r1k #Lt S44rf Pnk
t��.
/ ��LL ��//�� /�') ,,�.,�`�,�1�P - �� r I[ ��.� L�Lf�cf,sG - dE p�JE.e �rL,n«
�IK uCf�� °pG/p��7rH0'WC��irr/lG.C` T�arfT �� - /u� rwI �`.'_^ S'L►r✓C '�i/¢ -bb fif- MV#
' stage data to coincide with the staff plate. Recorded drift ha typically been less than 0.1 feet
between downloads. The single exception to this was at the 5 March 1997 download when the
observed drift was noted by the station observer as 0.39 feet. With the exception of the 25 March !"'6? '
' download, the observations indicate that there is no systematic error in the instrument readings for
water surface elevations in the range of those observed at the time of downloads.
Crest Stage Gage Readings -No crest stage gage is maintained at this site.
' PANTHER CREEK
Raw output from the capacitance probe at the Panther Creek gage site is downloaded
approximately once every 40 days by City of Renton personnel. Raw data consist of stages
upstream of the Talbot Road culvert recorded at a 15 minute interval. The raw gage data
collected between 12 December 1994 and 9 April 1997 were provided to NHC in digital format.
NHC converted the raw gage data to stream water surface elevations by offsetting the raw
' measurement by an appropriate shift, producing output water surface elevations corresponding to
the arbitrary datum of the staff plate at the gage site. Two manual measurements are reported at
this site, one from the staff plate, and the second as a measure down distance from a bolt on the
brace holding the gage. As will be described later, the discharge measurements at the site have all
been referenced to the staff plate datum. The TerraScience capacitance probe, however, has
always been calibrated to the bolt datum. The two datums have not been surveyed or otherwise
' conclusively tied together so the offset, necessary to adjust water surface elevations to the datum
of the stage-discharge rating was chosen by NHC on the basis of the available observations.
' Observations by City staff have indicated differences between these two datums ranging from
+0.21 feet to -0.40 feet. For this analysis, a fixed offset of-0.15 feet was applied to all raw stage
data to convert the data to the datum of the staff plate. Variable offsets were also applied to the
' data to correct for significant drift in the transducer. The amount of these offsets was determined
from the operator's observations at the time of each download. All comparisons of the recorded
data were made after converting stages to the staff plate datum.
' Missing or Erroneous Data -Because of the manner in which the TerraScience data loggers
function, data recording does not take place during the time data are being downloaded.
' Therefore there are numerous short intervals (15 minutes to 1 hour) of missing data
corresponding to the time of each download. In addition to these gaps, numerous problems have
been encountered with the TerraScience loggers and/or the capacitance probe at the Panther
' Creek gage site. Data are not available for the day of 1 March 1995 and the periods from 11
April 1995 at 15:30 through 1 June 1995 at 15:30, 6 September 1995 at 5:30 through 15
September 1995 at 14:00, 25 September 1996 at 5:30 through 27 September 1996 at 14:45, 11
' November 1996 at 3:30 through 26 November 1996 at 16:15, and 6 December 1996 at 23:15
through 9 January 1997 at 15:45 . The remainder of the data appear to be of marginal quality due
to instrument drift, datum uncertainty, and gage overtopping.
Instantaneous Instrument Readings-For the Panther Creek gage the manually read staff plate
' reading and the concurrent instrument reading are difficult to corroborate (Table 3). The
difference between the readings staff plate and measure down) reported by the station operator
have ranged between -0.40 feet and +0.21 feet. It is therefore difficult to determine what offset
NHC Project 20852 4 July 14, 1997
should be applied to the stage data to reconcile it with the fixed staff plate. For these analyses it
was assumed that the offset between the manual and staff plate readings was constant at 0.15 feet.
' Based on the station observer's readings, the capacitance probe has shown drift ranging between-
0.16 feet and +0.17 feet between downloads. There is no indication of a systematic error in the
observations but the relatively large random errors necessitate caution in the use of the data from
' this gage, particularly for low flow periods where discharge is quite sensitive to water levels.
Crest Stage Gage Readings- Comparison of the manually recorded crest stage gage observations
' and the instrument readings between downloads shows similar results to the instantaneous data.
Discrepancies have ranged between -0.57 feet and +0.60 feet. The instrument readings are
typically lower than the manual observations indicating that perhaps the calibration of the
' capacitance probe is poor. Again, the large (and somewhat random) discrepancies between
manual observations and instrument readings makes use of the data from this gage problematic.
The crest stage gage has also been overtopped during several of the largest storms in the review
' period, thus it has failed to provide additional data for key events.
' Flow Data:
SW 27TH STREET
Water surface elevations recorded at the SW 27th Street gage site were converted to flows using
' a proprietary program, STAGE2Q, created by NHC for this purpose. Conventional and double
entry rating curves were developed for this site as described in a previous NHC memorandum'.
' The rating curve and raw discharge measurements made to date are shown in Figure 1. The
rating curve was reviewed considering more recent discharge measurements and found to be
appropriate for continued use. Following review of the stage data we chose to use the single entry
rating table whenever water surface elevation at the north(downstream) site was below an
elevation of 9.9 feet NGVD1929, and use the double entry rating table when water surface
elevation exceeded this limit and the head difference across the culverts exceeded 0.05 feet. At a
water surface elevation of approximately 9.9 feet NGVD1929 the culvert outlets become
submerged and the head drop across the culverts typically increases. There is also an apparent
breakpoint in the single entry rating at this water surface elevation so this was chosen as an
' appropriate point at which to commence use of the double entry rating table. The criteria for
head difference across the culverts was selected so that the double entry table would not be used
during intervals in which the velocities might be so low that the hydraulic analysis was suspect.
' As more discharge data become available these assumptions can be reviewed and modified as
appropriate.
' Using our program, STAGE2Q, and a combination of the two rating tables as described above,
15 minute flow data were computed for the period of record. The water surface elevation and
' computed flow data were then imported into a WDM file using HSPF. Similarly, 15 minute
rainfall data from the Panther Lake gage (KCWLR gage 03U) for the coincident period were
imported into the WDM file. The following documentation was produced to facilitate review of
' the streamflow data:
' 1 NHC,8 September 1995,ESGRW Rating Curve Development,Memorandum to Scott Woodbury,City of Renton
NHC Project 20852 5 July 14, 1997
■ Plots of the flows and recorded precipitation for each month in the extended data period
' (Figures 4 through 19).
■ Table of computed runoff in inches for the period 1 October 1993 - 4 May 1997 (Table 4)
■ Table of total daily precipitation at Panther Lake (KCSWM gage 03U) for the period 1
' October 1993 - 15 May 1997 (Table 5)
Visual inspection of the streamflow plots (Figures 4 through 19) shows that the observed flow at
the SW 27th Street gage was generally consistent with the observed rainfall at the Panther Lake
gage. Notable exceptions include 4 - 10 October 1995, 6 November 1996, and 30 December
1996 - 1 January 1997. In the 4 - 10 October 1995 period the gage appears to have recorded
' higher water surface elevations and a slower recession than the rainfall would indicate as
reasonable. It is not known if a local obstruction or operations at the BRPS caused unusual
' backwater at the gage site during this period. The rainfall data at Panther Lake for 4 - 8 October
is consistent with SeaTac records so it is not likely there is any significant error in the precipita-
tion data. The 6 November 1996 rainfall spike observed at Panther Lake was not accompanied by
' a corresponding spike in the SW 27th Street streamflow data. However, the total rainfall at
SeaTac on 6 November was only 0.04 inches so it appears the Panther Lake observation was
either due to an isolated storm or a problem with the Panther Lake gage. The 30 December 1996
' through 1 January 1997 period included instances of freezing rain, sleet, and snow in addition to
rain. It is difficult to determine how much of the precipitation across the basin fell as rain and/or
how much was snow or otherwise frozen. It is also difficult to determine the distribution of the
' subsequent melt. The observed streamflow hydrograph for this period appears odd shaped, and
probably resulted from freezing in the gage stilling wells. In any event the observed streamflow
data for this event are almost certainly erroneous.
' g
Analysis of several of the largest storms in the extended data period produced the results shown in
Y
Table 6. Considering the differences in antecedent conditions the recorded storm flows at SW
27th Street are reasonably consistent with the rainfall data with the exception of the week ending
2 January 1997 (when the float was probably frozen), when computed runoff exceeded the
' observed precipitation by approximately 25%. The November 1995 event seems to have shown
relatively low runoff at each of the three gages. One possible explanation for this result are the
dry conditions prior to November storm.
Table 4 shows that the computed monthly runoff at the SW 27th Street gage ranges between 0.26
inches in May 1995 to 6.4 inches in December 1996 (note that the record for February 1996 is
' incomplete). Considering the precipitation data, the seasonal nature of the groundwater table in
the lower basin, and the lowland soil moisture retention capacity, these figures are in line with
what we would expect. The percentage of monthly rainfall recorded as runoff ranges from a low
' of 24% in May 1995, to a high of over 84% in January 1996.
The development of accurate low flow data is more problematic than the storm event
' hydrographs. In particular, there are problems with the development of a reliable record of base
flows. As noted in our previous data review (NHC, 1995) there has only been a single discharge
measurement made at low flow at the SW 27th Street gage. This measurement was made on 13
NHC Project 20852 6 July 14, 1997
' October 1993 at a discharge of about 3 cfs. Development of an accurate flow record requires a
continuous review of the stage-discharge rating to account for changes in the channel configura-
tion, modified downstream conditions, changes in operations of the BRPS, and other transient
effects including, for example, growth of bank vegetation. These changes would have particularly
significant impacts on the accuracy of the low flow record. In the absence of additional low flow
' discharge measurements the low flow record developed for this review should be considered
approximate. Improvement in the low flow data is necessary if accurate annual and seasonal flow
' volumes are to be computed for model validation or other purposes.
ROLLING HILLS CREEK
Water surface elevations recorded at the Rolling Hills Creek gage site were converted to a time
series of 15 minute flows using NHC's STAGE2Q program. A conventional stage-discharge
rating curve was developed for this site using the NHC and King County Water and Land
' Resources Division(KCWLR) discharge measurements (Figure 2). Note that the rating curve is
referenced to the staff plate while many of the raw discharge measurements were referenced to
the top of a fence post in the stream. The staff plate was installed in 1995. Prior to that time all
' observations were tied to the fence post datum which provided the best available fixed reference.
As described above, the water surface elevation data at the Rolling Hills Creek site were adjusted
to correspond to the staff plate datum. The difference between the staff plate and fence post
' datums was not measured at the time of the installation of the staff plate. A measurement
coincident with a high flow discharge measurement by NHC in February 1995 indicated the two
datums differed by about 1.95 feet. A more recent measurement at low flow showed the
difference to be about 1.73 feet. We know that the fence post at the site was moved and/or bent
over at times in the past. Therefore, totally accurate correlation of the two datums is not possible.
Stages from the discharge measurements taken prior to the installation of the staff plate (prior to
Feb 1995) were adjusted to be consistent with the staff plate using a stage correction of 1.85 feet.
The rating curve fits the discharge data moderately well for discharges between about 1 and 40
cfs. Below 1 cfs there is some scatter in the discharge data and the curve represents the best fit to
the majority of the data. The curve is poorly defined at the upper end due to a lack of discharge
' data. The single discharge measurement made at a flow in excess of 50 cfs was taken in February
1996 at a stage of 5.95 feet and a discharge of 69 cfs. This point plots somewhat above the rating
curve. Considering the lack of definition at the upper tail of the rating curve, flow data for flows
' above 40 cfs are probably only accurate to within t 25%.
Rolling Hills Creek flow data were computed for the period 28 January 1995 through 5 May 1997
' using the STAGE2Q program and the rating curve shown in Figure 2. The water surface
elevation and computed flow data were then imported into a WDM file using HSPF. Plots of the
Rolling Hills Creek discharge for the period of available data are shown are shown in Figures 4 -
' 19 along with the SW 27th Street data. In addition, a table of computed runoff in inches for the
period 1 October 1993 - 5 May 1997 (Table 7) was produced to facilitate review of the
streamflow data
' Visual inspection of the streamflow lots (Figures 4 through 19) shows that the observed flow at
P P
the Rolling Hills gage was generally consistent with the observed rainfall at the Panther Lake
NHC Project 20852 7 July 14, 1997
' gage. No significant anomalies were noted in the data. The streamflow data clearly show the
flashy character of this stream which has made it difficult to obtain high flow discharge measure-
ments, thus adding additional uncertainty to the high end discharges.
Analysis of several of the largest storms in the extended data period produced were reported
' above in the discussion of the SW 27th Street gage. Note that the Rolling Hills Creek gage
typically reports less unit area storm runoff(inches) than the other basin gages. It is not known
whether inaccuracies in the stage-discharge rating or other features of the gage are causing this,
' or if this site actually receives less storm runoff than the other basin gages. Note that the unit area
runoff would also be affected by errors in the basin delineation. For the week ending 2 January
1997, computed runoff at the Rolling Hills gage exceeded the observed Panther Lake precipita-
tion by approximately 25%. It is not known whether the accumulations of snow on the ground
prior to the late December storm, and the effects of rainfall on frozen ground, resulted in the
' abnormally high streamflow or if it was the result of a rating shift or other problem at the gage.
Table 7 shows that the computed monthly runoff at the Rolling Hills Creek gage ranges between
' 0.63 inches in July 1995 and June 1996 to 6.2 inches in December 1996 (note that the record for
February 1996 is incomplete). Considering the precipitation data and the relatively high impervi-
ous area in this basin, these figures are in line with what would be expected. The percentage of
' monthly rainfall recorded as runoff ranges from a low of 25% in October 1995 and October 1996,
to a high of over 100% in June 1996, apparently as a result of base flow.
' It should be emphasized that the stage-discharge rating for the Rolling Hills Creek gage is
somewhat uncertain at the low end due to the datum correction described above, and also at the
high end due to the lack of high flow discharge measurements. Also, with only 7 discharge
' measurements over the last 4 years, and none since February 1996, it is clear that the stage-
discharge rating at the Rolling Hills Creek site is not as precisely defined as would be desirable.
However, with the exceptions noted abms�F
the data developed to date appears to be of reason-
able quality for validation of the City's model.
' PANTHER CREEK
Water surface elevations recorded at the Panther Creek gage site were converted to flows using
NHC's STAGE2Q program. A conventional stage-discharge rating curve was developed for this
' site using the single NHC discharge measurement and numerous discharge measurements made by
the King County Water and Land Resources Division (KCWLR) as shown in Figure 3. Note that
the rating curve is referenced to the staff plate which was used as the reference elevation for the
' discharge measurements. As described above, the water surface elevations at the Panther Creek
site were also adjusted to correspond to the staff plate, although there is significant uncertainty in
the offset between the gage datum and the staff plate datum (used for discharge measurements).
The rating curve fits the discharge data moderately well for discharges above about 8 cfs. Below
8 cfs there is considerable scatter in the discharge data reported by KCWLR. There was no
' obvious trend in the discharge data indicating any rating shift over time. The curve shown on
Figure 3 represents the best fit to the available data. The curve is fairly well defined at the upper
end due to the control of the downstream culvert. At the low end however, the curve is very
NHC Project 20852 8 July 14, 1997
' approximate. Considering the lack of consistency in the discharge measurements at the low end,
and the datum problems discussed previously, flow data for flows above 10 cfs are likely to show
tsignificant errors.
Panther Creek flow data were computed for the period 12 December 1994 through 9 April 1997
' using the STAGE2Q program and the rating curve shown in Figure 3. The water surface
elevation and computed flow data were then imported into a WDM file using HSPF. Plots of the
Panther Creek discharge for the period of available data are shown are shown in Figures 4 - 19
' along with the SW 27th Street data. In addition, a table of computed runoff in inches for the
period 1 October 1993 - 9 April 1997 (Table 8) was produced to facilitate review of the
' streamflow data
Visual inspection of the streamflow plots (Figures 4 through 19) shows that the observed storm
' flows at the Panther gage are generally consistent with the observed rainfall at the Panther Lake
gage. No significant anomalies were noted in the storm response data. Base flow data and
streamflow recessions for the period December 1995 through February 1996 appear to be
' dissimilar to the remainder of the streamflow data. It is not known if these data indicate a
problem with the gage or if base flows were in fact much higher at this gage site during this
period. The November 1995 through February 1996 period was the wettest four month period
' covered by this review.
Analysis of several of the largest storms in the extended data period were reported above in the
' discussion of the SW 27th Street gage. Note that the Panther Creek gage typically reports
approximately 75% of the storm runoff observed at the SW 27th Street gage. It is not known
whether inaccuracies in the stage-discharge rating or other features of the gage are causing this,
' or if this site actually receives less storm runoff than the SW 27th Street gage. Note that the
Panther Creek gage was not operational during at two of the more significant storms in the review
period and the capacitance probe and crest stage gage were overtopped during the February 1996
' storm.
Table 8 shows that the computed monthly runoff at the Panther Creek gage ranges between 0.07
inches in August 1996 to 5.9 inches in February 1996 (note that the record for December 1996 is
incomplete). The percentage of monthly rainfall recorded as runoff ranges from a low of 6% in
' August 1996, to a high of approximately 100% in March 1995 and February 1996. The observed
runoff may indicate questionable data with high flows being overestimated and some low flow
periods being underestimated. The observed runoff for June - September 1996 appear to be quite
low relative to the runoff in other months and the observed runoff at the other gages in the basin.
In contrast, the observed runoff in the months of December through March appears to be
consistently high relative to what was observed at the other gages.
It should be emphasized that the stage-discharge rating for the Panther Creek gage is very
uncertain at the low end due to the datum correction problems and scatter in the discharge data
' described above. The rating is also somewhat uncertain at the high end due to the lack of high
flow discharge measurements. Furthermore, with only 1 discharge measurement over the last 4
years it is possible that the stage-discharge rating at the Panther Creek site has shifted, and that
NHC Project 20852 9 July 14, 1997
' the shift has not been detected and is not reflected in the flow data. Considering the problems
noted above, the data should be considered as questionable, and may not be of sufficient quality
' for validation of the City's HSPF model.
' Recommendations:
SW 27TH STREET
Our review of the hydrometric data indicates that the stage data (and computed flow record) for
' the SW 27th Street gage are of good quality for the period 1 October 1994 through 5 May 1997.
Together with the data previously reviewed, the continuous flow record now consists of
' approximately 43 months of data commencing in October 1993. As discussed above the data for
storm events is probably of higher quality than that for low flow periods due to the lack of low
flow discharge measurements, and possible seasonal variations in low flow ratings. This gage has
' operated well through most of the significant storms in the review period with the exception of
the December 1996/January 1997 storm event.
' As noted in our earlier data review, the program of discharge measurements made for the City by
NHC has collected flow data across the entire range of flows seen at the gage site since its
installation, including discharge measurements at the time of the February 1996 storm. Continued
collection of current meter measurements of discharge is recommended, both to extend the rating
curve to higher flows, and to improve the reliability of the rating curve for low and moderate
flows. It would be particularly useful to have additional low flow discharge measurements to
' support (or adjust) the continuous flow record for calibration of the hydrologic model of the basin
to annual flow volumes.
' The City's existing HSPF model of Springbrook Creek has been previously validated to peak flow
and storm volume data for the severe event of 8-10 January 19902. In a subsequent phase of this
contract, the model will be validated to several additional storms including the February 1996
1 event. This event appears to have been between a 10-year and a 25-year event, based on NHC's
previous ESGRWP hydrologic modeling. The additional validation should resolve continuing
' questions regarding the model's accuracy for the estimation of severe floods.
At this point we recommend continued operation of the SW 27th Street gage as is currently being
done by the City and additional streamflow discharge measurements as described above. One
note about gage operation - in the data provided to NHC there were numerous errors in the time
stamp of the data being recorded by the SW 27th Street loggers, as a result of erroneous upload
' of scheme information from the lap top computer. All of the data processed by NHC for this site
has been adjusted to correspond to Pacific Standard Time. In the future the City should increase
their efforts to assure that the gages are always recording on Standard Time, rather than shifting
' between standard and daylight savings time. This will make the data reduction simpler and faster.
The gage operator should also make sure to clearly record all relevant data on the data download
sheets for both gages at each site visit. This includes the time, staff gage readings, crest stage
' s NHC,20 October 1994,HSPF Model Validation for the ESGRWP,Letter Report Prepared for the City of
Renton
NHC Project 20852 10 July 14, 1997
' readings, and site observations. All of this information is useful when developing streamflow data
from the observed stages.
' ROLLING HILLS CREEK
Review of the hydrometric data indicates that the stage data(and computed flow record) for the
' Rolling Hills Creek gage are of reasonable quality for the period 27 January 1995 through 5 May
1997. As discussed above, the computed flow data is somewhat suspect due to difficulties
reconciling datums between early streamflow discharge measurements and the current staff plate.
The streamflow data indicate that the gage may be under-reporting streamflows for storm events,
at least relative to other basin gages. Data for moderate flows (10 - 25 cfs) is probably of the best
' quality, while high flows are problematic due to the lack of high discharge measurements, and low
flows are problematic due to possible errors in the offset applied to the raw stage data to correct
for the gage datum discrepancy and instrument drift. This gage has been operational through
' most of the significant storms in the review period with the possible exception of the December
1996 storm event, for which the pattern of flow looks reasonable but the volumes appear to be
high.
' As noted above, the program of discharge measurements made for the City by NHC has collected
discharge data for seven low and moderate sized storms at the Rolling Hills site. Continued
collection of current meter discharge measurements is recommended, both to extend the rating
curve to higher flows, and to improve the reliability of the rating curve for low and moderate
flows. It would be particularly useful to have a high flow discharge measurement to support (or
' adjust) the flow record for calibration of the HSPF model to storm hydrographs. In a subsequent
phase of this contract the model will be validated to several storms including the February 1996
event. This validation may provide further insight into the accuracy of the observed flow record.
'
At this pointP we recommend continued operation of the Rolling Hills Creek gage as is currently
being done by the City and additional streamflow discharge measurements as described above. As
' noted above for the SW 27th Street gage site, the gage operator should make sure to clearly
record all relevant data on the data download sheets for the gage at each site visit including watch
time, data logger time, gage offsets, and site observations. In particular the operator should make
' it a point to consistently record gage offsets as the difference between the log reading and the
staff reading, and to also note the staff plate water surface elevation at the time of each download.
This information is essential for the accurate development and review of the data. In addition, the
City should schedule data downloading more frequently to prevent the loss of data as has
occurred several times in the past due to filling the data buffer.
' PANTHER CREEK
Review of the hydrometric data indicates that the stage data (and computed flow record) for the
' Panther Creek gage are of questionable quality for the period 12 December 1994 through 9 April
1997. The gage record at the Panther Creek gage contains several significant gaps due to logger
malfunction, operator error, or data buffer overflow. As discussed above, the computed low flow
' data is extremely suspect due to difficulties reconciling datum's between the gage and the stage-
discharge rating. The high flow record is also somewhat uncertain due to the lack of adequate
high flow discharge measurements. The gage is also prone to overtopping during extreme storms,
NHC Project 20852 11 July 14, 1997
and may have problems with debris accumulations that affect the validity of stage data collected
during other times of the year. The Panther Creek instrument is a capacitance probe which is
' subject to significant drift over time. We do not know if the gage has been calibrated recently by
the City (without calibration the gage may produce reasonable results for portions of the stage
range and poor results for other portions). However, the crest stage gage results indicate
' potential problems with the gage data at higher stages.
At this point there appear to be two reasonable courses of action for this gage; either discontinue
' the gage or replace the capacitance probe with a more reliable one and improve maintenance and
operation at the site. If the capacitance probe is to be replaced we recommend replacement with a
shaft encoder and Unidata type data logger which we have found to provide more stability and a
' uniform accuracy over the full range of stages.
Conclusion:
The City should review the costs associated with maintaining the SW 27th Street, Rolling Hills
' Creek, and Panther Creek streamflow gages versus the potential for upcoming projects which
might use the data being collected. If the City implements the recommendations listed above the
gages should provide high quality streamflow data for many years. The characteristics of flows at
these three sites ranges from the flashy response of Rolling Hills Creek to the well attenuated
flows observed at SW 27th Street. Together the gages provide information on runoff patterns
and hydraulic conditions for a significant portion of the East Side Green River Watershed. In
' light of potential capital improvement projects throughout the City, the data provided by these
gages could prove to be extremely useful for project design and evaluation. As an example,
hydrometric data collected in the East Side Green River Watershed allowed calibration of an
' HSPF model, which subsequently was instrumental in gaining acceptance for revised (lowered)
design flows for Springbrook Creek channel improvements. Reducing the design flow from 3000
cfs (the original NRCS estimate) to 1300 cfs (NHC, 19963) resulted in a substantially different
' design and a corresponding massive reduction in potential project costs. Continued collection of
high quality streamflow data in the Springbrook Creek basin could facilitate more appropriate
design and potentially similar savings on future projects.
' NHC,March 1996,East Side Green River Watershed Hydrologic Analysis,Report Prepared for RW Beck and the
' City of Renton
NHC Project 20852 12 July 14, 1997
Table 1
Springbrook Creek at SW 27th
Comparison of Manual and Instrument Readings
Manual Readings Instrument Readings Difference
Download Staff Crest Staff Crest Crest Instrument-Manual Reading
Date Time Site (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) Date staff(feet) crest(feet) Notes
5-Oct-94 10:30 North 5.24 6.40 5.24 6.36 8-Sep-94 0.00 -0.04
South 5.23 6.35 5.25 6.39 0.02 0.04
7-Nov-94 12:45 North 5.09 8.96 5.11 9.02 27-Oct-94 0.02 0.06
South 5.10 9.06 5.13 9.07 0.03 0.01
23-Nov-94 13:14 North 5.60 5.85 5.78 6.87 16-Nov-94 0.18 1.02 falling stage
South 5.70 5.90 5.81 6.92 0.11 1.02 falling stage
8-Dec-94 11:30 North 5.05 10.20 5.05 10.23 30-Nov-94 0.00 0.03
South 5.07 10.36 5.08 10.38 0.01 0.02
20-Dec-94 13:30 North 9.98 9.98 9.81 9.81 20-Dec-94 -0.17 -0.17 rising stage
South 10.04 10.04 9.95 9.95 -0.09 -0.09 rising stage
5-Jan-95 13:50 North 5.20 11.04 5.24 10.91 27-Dec-94 0.04 -0.13
South 5.22 11.18 5.24 11.15 0.02 -0.03
6-Jan-95 13:55 South 5.18 5.28 5.18 5.24 5-Jan-95 0.00 -0.04
7-Feb-95 12:42 North 5.30 8.86 5.30 8.93 31-Jan-95 0.00 0.07
South 5.33 9.06 5.34 9.01 0.01 -0.05
6-Mar-95 14:45 North n.a. 11.10 5.07 11.19 20-Feb-95 n.a. 0.09
South 5.10 11.46 5.11 11.52 0.01 0.06
3-Apr-95 13:30 North 4.88 8.08 4.88 8.20 10-Mar-95 0.00 0.12
South 4.96 8.24 4.92 8.27 -0.04 0.03
5-May-95 11:30 North 4.68 6.29 4.67 6.46 13-Apr-95 -0.01 0.17
South 4.72 6.32 4.71 6.52 -0.01 0.20
5-Jun-95 14:30 North 5.26 5.86 5.32 5.78 5-Jun-95 0.06 -0.08
South 5.34 5.86 5.36 5.82 0.02 -0.04
Table 1 (cont)
Springbrook Creek at SW 27th
Comparison of Manual and Instrument Readings
Manual Readings Instrument Readings Difference
Download Staff Crest Staff Crest Crest Instrument-Manual Reading
Date Time Site (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) Date staff(feet) crest(feet) Notes
7-Jul-95 14:49 North 4.74 5.74 4.72 5.79 10-Jun-95 -0.02 0.05
South 4.87 5.83 4.77 5.94 11-Jun-95 -0.10 0.01
4-Aug-95 13:50 North 4.57 7.53 4.54 7.52 9-Jul-95 -0.03 -0.01
South 4.57 7.57 4.58 7.59 0.01 0.02
12-Sep-95 15:30 North 5.03 9.77 5.01 9.70 17-Aug-95 -0.02 -0.07
South 5.04 n.a. 5.04 9.85 0.00 n.a.
6-Oct-95 14:03 North 5.96 7.53 5.94 7.54 2-Oct-95 -0.02 0.01
South 5.95 7.54 5.98 7.59 0.03 0.05
3-Nov-95 14:19 North 4.45 10.07 4.44 10.06 11-Oct-95 -0.01 -0.01
South 4.47 10.05 4.49 10.14 0.02 0.09
5-Dec-95 15:00 North 6.26 10.52 6.27 10.54 29-Nov-95 0.01 0.02
South 6.34 10.74 6.34 10.75 0.00 0.01
8-Dec-95 12:00 North 5.50 6.26 5.51 6.27 5-Dec-95 0.01 0.01
South 5.81 6.34 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
21-Dec-95 14:00 North n.a. n.a. 5.29 9.52 11-Dec-95 n.a. n.a.
South 5.35 8.71 5.330 n.a. -0.02 n.a.
8-Jan-96 15:00 North 6.52 10.33 6.53 10.35 7-Jan-96 0.01 0.02
South 6.59 10.55 6.56 10.52 -0.03 -0.03
6-Feb-96 14:38 North 9.40 10.53 9.31 10.56 15-Jan-96 -0.09 0.03
South 9.40 10.77 9.42 10.77 0.02 0.00
15-Feb-96 15:15 North 5.80 12.82 5.79 12.73 9-Feb-96 -0.01 -0.09
South 5.85 13.83 n.a. 13.79 n.a. -0.04
Table 1 (cont)
Springbrook Creek at SW 27th
Comparison of Manual and Instrument Readings
Manual Readings Instrument Readings Difference
Download Staff Crest Staff Crest Crest Instrument-Manual Reading
Date Time Site (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) Date staff(feet) crest(feet) Notes
16-Feb-96 15:15 North 5.80 12.82 5.80 12.73 15-Feb-96 0.00 -0.09
South 5.85 13.83 n.a. 13.79 n.a. -0.04
21-Feb-96 16:15 North n.a. n.a. 6.23 8.39 19-Feb-96 n.a. n.a.
South 6.34 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
5-Mar-96 15:18 North 5.20 8.43 5.21 n.a. 23-Feb-96 0.01 n.a.
South 5.25 7.53 5.32 7.64 0.07 0.11
5-Apr-96 11:50 North 4.73 7.05 4.71 7.06 31-Mar-96 -0.02 0.01
South 4.75 7.10 4.81 7.16 0.06 0.06
3-May-96 12:45 North 4.98 10.65 4.97 10.62 24-Apr-96 -0.01 -0.03
South 5.02 10.90 5.09 10.96 0.07 0.06
7-Jun-96 14:15 North 4.55 8.85 4.54 8.85 13-May-96 -0.01 0.00
South 4.58 8.94 4.64 9.02 0.06 0.08
9-Jul-96 12:21 North 4.55 5.59 4.57 5.58 23-Jun-96 0.02 -0.01
South 4.59 5.60 4.66 5.72 0.07 0.12
9-Aug-96 12:00 North 4.74 7.62 4.72 7.64 3-Aug-96 -0.02 0.02
South 4.77 7.67 4.81 7.77 0.04 0.10
9-Sep-96 14:30 North 4.63 6.56 4.64 6.44 3-Sep-96 0.01 -0.12
South 4.66 6.56 4.74 6.70 0.08 0.14
7-Oct-96 13:59 North 4.56 6.86 4.55 6.86 4-Oct-96 -0.01 0.00
South 4.67 7.01 4.64 6.98 -0.03 -0.03
5-Nov-96 14:00 North 4.59 8.30 4.62 8.31 18-Oct-96 0.03 0.01
South 4.67 8.36 4.74 8.41 0.07 0.05
Table 1 (cont)
Springbrook Creek at SW 27th
Comparison of Manual and Instrument Readings
Manual Readings Instrument Readings Difference
Download Staff Crest Staff Crest Crest Instrument-Manual Reading
Date Time Site (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) Date staff(feet) crest(feet) Notes
9-Dec-96 13:00 North 7.30 10.08 7.31 10.08 27-Nov-96 0.01 0.00
South 7.37 10.05 7.42 10.20 0.05 0.15
7-Jan-97 16:00 North 6.15 12.13 6.16 12.18 1-Jan-97 0.01 0.05
South 6.21 12.67 6.21 12.76 0.00 0.09
10-Feb-97 13:20 North 4.91 9.68 4.92 9.63 30-Jan-97 0.01 -0.05
South 4.97 9.80 5.03 9.90 0.06 0.10
10-Mar-97 12:30 North 5.82 8.82 n.a. n.a. 7-Mar-97 n.a. n.a.
South 5.87 8.90 5.95 9.00 0.08 0.10
8-Apr-97 13:00 North 4.79 11.30 4.79 11.27 20-Mar-97 0.00 -0.03
South 4.83 11.58 4.85 11.68 0.02 0.10
Table 2
Rolling Hills Creek
Comparison of Manual and Instrument Readings
Manual Reading Instrument Reading Staff Difference
Download Staff Staff Crest Crest Instrument - Manual Reading
Date Time (ft gage) (ft gage) (ft gage) Date (feet) Notes
6-Oct-94 10:07 2.81 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. No Crest Stage Gage
14-Nov-94 15:02 4.00 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
15-Nov-94 14:39 4.20 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
23-Nov-94 08:08 4.23 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
21-Dec-94 13:32 n.a. -1.00 -1.00 9-Dec-94 n.a.
13-Jan-95 13:45 4.10 4.02 3.93 21-Dec-94 -0.08
7-Feb-95 15:49 3.94 3.96 5.06 1-Feb-95 0.02
8-Feb-95 14:24 n.a. 3.93 3.97 8-Feb-95 n.a.
16-Mar-95 13:58 n.a. 3.98 5.24 18-Feb-95 n.a.
2-May-95 14:00 3.90 3.94 4.57 23-Mar-95 0.04
16-Jun-95 14:50 3.84 3.89 5.13 5-Jun-95 0.05
28-Jul-95 14:45 3.82 3.81 5.13 9-Jul-95 -0.01
18-Sep-95 15:05 3.80 3.88 5.50 4-Sep-95 0.08
1-Nov-95 16:25 3.90 3.90 5.20 10-Oct-95 0.00
20-Dec-95 14:01 3.98 4.00 5.76 11-Nov-95 0.02
12-Feb-96 16:09 4.04 -1.00 6.07 8-Feb-96 n.a.
29-Mar-96 16:40 4.06 4.04 -1.00 12-Feb-96 -0.02
10-May-96 14:30 n.a. 3.90 5.50 23-Apr-96 n.a. End of stage observations
14-Jun-96 14:55 n.a. 3.88 5.21 13-May-96 n.a.
3-Aug-96 12:10 n.a. 4.03 4.73 24-Jun-96 n.a.
27-Sep-96 13:35 n.a. 3.84 5.61 17-Sep-96 n.a.
15-Nov-96 15:10 n.a. 4.01 5.75 12-Nov-96 n.a.
7-Jan-97 12:27 n.a. 4.04 6.06 31-Dec-96 n.a.
9-Jan-97 15:20 n.a. 4.02 4.14 9-Jan-97 n.a.
21-Feb-97 12:36 n.a. 3.95 5.54 30-Jan-97 n.a.
25-Mar-97 03:40 n.a. 3.44 4.93 3-Mar-97 n.a.
5-May-97 n.a. n.a. 3.30 4.69 20-Apr-97 n.a.
w w� ■w w ■w w� w w w w ww w w w w w w w w
Table 3
Panther Creek
Comparison of Manual and Instrument Readings
Manual Gage Reading Instrument Reading Difference
Download Staff Crest Staff Crest Crest Instrument - Manual Reading
Date Time (ft gage) (ft gage) (ft gage) (ft gage) Date staff(feet) crest (feet) Notes
24-Oct-94 15:42 0.33 0.71 0.38 n.a. n.a. 0.05 n.a.
9-Dec-94 14:24 0.43 0.42 n.a. n.a. -0.01 n.a.
13-Jan-95 12:32 1.14 1.25 3.49 27-Dec-94 0.11 n.a.
27-Feb-95 13:08 1.19 4.29 1.18 4.20 19-Feb-95 -0.01 -0.09
11-Apr-95 15:20 0.99 1.44 1.00 2.07 10-Mar-95 0.01 0.63
25-May-95 16:53 0.84 -1.00 1.00 11-Apr-95 n.a. n.a.
1-Jun-95 15:00 0.79 1.63 0.79 -1.00 25-May-95 0.00 n.a.
14-Jul-95 13:30 0.79 2.01 0.79 1.94 9-Jul-95 0.00 -0.07
15-Sep-95 13:15 0.69 2.59 0.70 2.43 17-Aug-95 0.01 -0.16
2-Nov-95 15:30 0.82 0.82 1.95 10-Oct-95 0.00 n.a.
20-Dec-95 15:00 1.07 4.89 1.07 4.73 11-Nov-95 0.00 -0.16
12-Feb-96 17:16 1.50 overtop 1.50 6.17 8-Feb-96 0.00 n.a.
5-Apr-96 16:44 0.70 0.70 2.21 18-Feb-96 0.00 n.a.
10-May-96 15:20 0.38 4.10 0.38 3.96 23-Apr-96 0.00 -0.14
14-Jun-96 14:21 0.40 3.00 0.40 2.85 13-May-96 0.00 -0.15
2-Aug-96 14:10 0.39 0.40 1.92 24-Jun-96 0.01 n.a.
27-Sep-96 14:16 0.37 2.50 0.37 2.20 17-Sep-96 0.00 -0.30
15-Nov-96 15:00 0.60 2.76 0.62 2.68 13-Nov-96 0.02 -0.08
26-Nov-96 14:50 0.70 2.25 0.71 2.20 20-Nov-96 0.01 -0.05
9-Jan-97 15:15 1.18 over top 1.21 5.62 27-Nov-96 0.03 n.a.
21-Feb-97 13:45 0.80 0.80 3.28 30-Jan-97 0.00 n.a.
10-Apr-97 12:14 0.58 3.75 0.67 3.18 19-Mar-97 0.09 -0.57
Table 4
Observed Runoff (inches) - Springbrook Creek at SW 27th Street
Water Year 1995
Date October November December January February March April May June July August September
1 0.01 0.06 0.27 0.05 0.26 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
2 0.01 0.04 0.21 0.03 0.21 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
3 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
4 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04
5 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.27
6 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.21
7 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.08
8 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.03
9 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.02
10 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.17 0.02 0.26 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.02
11 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.03 0.22 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02
12 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.18 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
13 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.13 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01
14 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.10 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
15 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
16 0.01 0.14 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01
17 0.01 0.04 0.34 0.02 0.14 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.38 0.01
18 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.08 0.25 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.01
19 0.02 0.04 0.22 0.03 0.71 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.02
20 0.02 0.10 0.46 0.02 0.57 0.14 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02
21 0.02 0.02 0.35 0.02 0.26 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.02
22 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.02 0.17 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02
23 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
24 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.10 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
25 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
26 0.23 0.13 0.39 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.02
27 0.33 0.09 0.61 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.11
28 0.08 0.02 -999 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.12
29 0.02 0.06 0.17 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.06
30 0.03 0.43 0.11 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.11
31 0.19 0.08 0.31 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
Total 1.26 1.87 4.37 1.96 3.45 2.25 0.58 0.26 0.33 0.52 1.30 1.34
Mean 0.04 0.06 0.14 0.06 0.12 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.04
Maximum 0.33 0.43 0.61 0.31 0.71 0.26 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.12 0.38 0.27
Table 4 (cont)
Observed Runoff (inches) - Springbrook Creek at SW 27th Street
Water Year 1996
Date October November December January February March April May June July August September
1 0.06 0.01 0.36 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
2 0.21 0.01 0.29 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.01
3 0.24 0.01 0.21 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.20 0.06
4 0.16 0.01 0.30 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
5 0.11 0.01 0.10 0.03 0.19 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
6 0.10 0.01 -999 0.09 0.35 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
7 0.09 0.28 -999 0.48 0.32 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
8 0.12 0.35 -999 0.20 1.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
9 0.12 0.10 -999 0.10 1.31 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
10 0.38 0.07 -999 0.06 0.62 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
11 0.39 0.40 -999 0.03 -999 0.12 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
12 0.18 0.13 -999 0.02 -999 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
13 0.03 0.09 -999 0.03 -999 0.02 0.01 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
14 0.02 0.03 -999 0.20 -999 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
15 0.01 0.06 -999 0.52 -999 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07
16 0.06 0.03 -999 0.38 -999 0.01 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
17 0.03 0.02 -999 0.19 -999 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05
18 0.02 0.04 -999 0.12 -999 0.01 0.04 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02
19 0.01 0.01 -999 0.19 -999 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.08
20 0.08 0.01 -999 0.30 -999 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
21 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.37 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
22 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.22 0.10 0.03 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
23 0.01 0.17 0.02 0.17 0.16 0.01 0.73 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
24 0.01 0.18 0.01 0.22 0.08 0.01 0.56 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
25 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.17 0.04 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
26 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.11 0.03 0.01 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
27 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
28 0.01 0.17 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
29 0.01 0.62 0.20 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
30 0.01 0.38 0.18 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
31 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01
Total 2.49 3.63 1.75 4.52 4.44 0.69 2.72 0.88 0.19 0.31 0.52 0.50
Mean 0.08 0.12 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
Maximum 0.39 0.62 0.36 0.52 1.31 0.12 0.73 0.30 0.02 0.06 0.20 0.08
Table 4 (cont)
Observed Runoff (inches) - Springbrook Creek at SW 27th Street
Water Year 1997
Date October November December January February March April May June July August September
1 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.97 0.22 -999 0.02 0.06
2 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.85 0.10 -999 0.01 0.02
3 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.07 -999 0.04 0.02
4 0.08 0.02 0.22 -999 0.03 -999 0.02 0.04
5 0.05 0.01 0.23 -999 0.02 -999 0.01
6 0.01 0.02 0.20 -999 0.02 -999 0.01
7 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.04 0.02 -999 0.01
8 0.01 0.01 0.37 0.08 0.01 -999 0.01
9 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.09 0.01 -999 0.01
10 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.01
11 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.01
12 0.01 0.06 0.19 0.02 0.08 0.13 0.01
13 0.07 0.22 0.17 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06
14 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.03
15 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.27 0.03
16 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.19 0.05
17 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.38 0.02 0.23 0.01
18 0.19 0.18 0.02 0.31 0.06 0.42 0.01
19 0.01 0.13 0.03 0.29 0.22 0.85 0.13
20 0.01 0.16 0.09 0.39 0.05 0.68 0.28
21 0.02 0.14 0.07 0.28 0.02 0.28 0.05
22 0.13 0.06 0.02 0.17 0.02 0.18 0.05
23 0.04 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.12 0.14
24 0.12 0.23 0.16 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.04
25 0.04 0.20 0.22 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.02
26 0.01 0.08 0.13 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.02
27 0.01 0.37 0.39 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.08
28 0.13 0.33 0.21 0.14 -999 0.04 0.05
29 0.14 0.15 0.44 0.05 0.02 0.02
30 0.02 0.11 0.93 0.35 0.02 0.11
31 0.01 0.97 0.18 0.02
Total 1.30 2.80 6.40 5.10 1.24 3.81 1.33 0.13
Mean 0.04 0.09 0.21 0.16 0.04 0.12 0.04 0.00
Maximum 0.19 0.37 0.97 0.97 0.22 0.85 0.28 0.06
Table 5
Observed Rainfall (inches) - KCWLR Panther Lake Gage 03U
Water Year 1995
Date October November December January February March April May June July August September
1 0.02 0.03 0.32 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.00 0.13 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00
3 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.09 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.50
5 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.13
6 0.00 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.01
7 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.01
8 0.00 0.22 0.18 0.04 0.00 0.22 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 0.00 0.24 0.08 0.27 0.00 0.46 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.01
10 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.27 0.00 0.49 0.27 0.18 0.17 0.00 0.14 0.00
11 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.42 0.11 0.10 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00
12 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00
13 0.29 0.04 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.16 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
14 0.04 0.06 0.20 0.16 0.00 0.36 0.04 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.10 0.00
15 0.00 0.30 0.34 0.08 0.20 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
16 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00
17 0.03 0.02 0.68 0.09 0.34 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.12 0.00 1.15 0.00
18 0.00 0.02 0.20 0.08 1.44 0.51 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
19 0.15 0.44 0.48 0.00 1.38 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
20 0.09 0.04 1.48 0.00 0.16 0.22 0.20 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00
21 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
22 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23 0.02 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
25 0.29 0.28 0.32 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
26 1.19 0.24 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.02
27 0.76 0.24 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33
28 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10
29 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06
30 0.14 1.64 0.02 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15
31 0.69 0.00 0.66 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 3.76 5.94 7.36 3.39 4.56 3.74 2.04 1.07 1.30 1.08 1.99 1.34
Mean 0.12 0.20 0.24 0.11 0.16 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.04
Maximum 1.19 1.64 1.48 0.66 1.44 0.51 0.57 0.36 0.31 0.66 1.15 0.50
Table 5 (cont)
Observed Rainfall (inches) - KCWLR Panther Lake Gage 03U
Water Year 1996
Date October November December January February March April May June July August September
1 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.45 0.00 0.20 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00
3 0.26 0.00 0.58 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.44 0.31
4 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.16 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00
5 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.13 0.58 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17
6 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.18 0.46 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0.01 1.40 0.00 1.04 0.46 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06
8 0.18 0.46 0.00 0.00 2.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
9 0.24 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.27 0.09 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 1.22 0.65 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 0.73 0.83 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.17 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12 0.00 0.06 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
13 0.00 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12
14 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23
15 0.12 0.21 0.00 1.34 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31
16 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
17 0.22 0.17 0.08 0.12 0.45 0.00 0.12 0.19 0.01 0.16 0.00 0.42
18 0.01 0.06 0.28 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.12 0.48 0.00 0.17 0.01 0.31
19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.24 0.09 0.10 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.28
20 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.20 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.03
21 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.40 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.15
22 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.23 0.24 0.22 0.70 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23 0.02 0.47 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.06 1.70 0.04 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.01
24 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00
25 0.14 0.26 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
27 0.00 0.36 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
28 0.00 0.98 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
29 0.00 1.19 0.55 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
30 0.00 0.34 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00
31 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.11
Total 4.32 8.61 4.97 5.95 6.04 1.97 5.44 2.77 0.42 0.67 1.25 2.45
Mean 0.14 0.29 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.06 0.18 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08
Maximum 1.22 1.40 0.72 1.34 2.35 0.41 1.70 0.65 0.31 0.17 0.62 0.42
Table 5 (cont)
Observed Rainfall (inches) - KCWLR Panther Lake Gage 03U
Water Year 1997
Date October November December January February March April May June July August September
1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.07 0.75 0.00 0.00
2 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.64 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00
3 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.30 0.16 0.17
4 0.66 0.00 0.72 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18
5 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.15
6 0.00 0.46 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00
7 0.00 0.01 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00
9 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.39 0.00
10 0.00 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 0.16 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.33 0.17 0.00
12 0.08 0.75 0.25 0.00 0.02 0.20 0.00
13 0.46 0.36 0.18 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.42
14 0.16 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.18
15 0.09 0.19 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.17
16 0.01 0.18 0.02 0.46 0.02 0.16 0.16
17 0.72 0.34 0.00 0.82 0.03 0.30 0.00
18 0.22 0.31 0.00 0.22 0.39 1.51 0.00
19 0.00 0.11 0.21 0.41 0.32 1.33 0.90
20 0.00 0.01 0.25 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.32
21 0.59 0.24 0.07 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00
22 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.42
23 0.45 0.43 0.30 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.14
24 0.31 0.76 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
25 0.01 0.12 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00
26 0.00 0.06 0.50 0.00 0.24 0.14 0.25
27 0.00 1.31 0.05 0.32 0.17 0.11 0.12
28 0.97 0.00 0.14 0.13 0.08 0.00 0.26
29 0.04 0.01 1.92 0.17 0.00 0.00
30 0.00 0.23 0.40 0.72 0.00 0.42
31 0.00 0.97 0.40 0.05
Total 5.12 6.35 8.65 6.10 2.05 7.32 3.92 0.50
Mean 0.17 0.21 0.28 0.20 0.07 0.24 0.13 0.02
Maximum 0.97 1.31 1.92 0.82 0.39 1.51 0.90 0.18
Table 6
Springbrook Creek Hydrology
Comparison Of Observed Precipitation and Unit Area Runoff
Total Rainfall or Observed Runoff (Inches)
Data for One Week Period Ending Panther Lake Rainfall Springbrook at SW 27th Rolling Hills Creek Panther Creek
24-Feb-95 3.66 2.4 1.05 2.3
14-Nov-95 3.54 1.53 1.31 1.02
6-Dec-95 4.09 2.52 1.79 1.98
12-Feb-96 4.29 3.93 2.95 3.051
29-Apr-96 2.96 2.03 1.31 1.22
11-Nov-96 2.95 1.7 1.18 n.a.
2-Jan-97 3.73 4.75 5.64 n.a.
23-Mar-97 4.14 3.29 n.a. 2.02
Note:The capacitance probe at Panther Creek was overtopped during portions the week of 12 February 1996.
Therefore it is possible that the reported runoff underestimates actual runoff during this event.
Table 7
Observed Runoff (inches) - Rolling Hills Creek
Water Year 1995
Date October November December January February March April May June July August September
1 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
2 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
3 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
4 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06
5 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.02
6 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01
7 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
8 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
9 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.01
10 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01
11 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
12 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
13 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
14 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
15 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
16 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
17 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.01
18 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.24 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
19 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.32 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
20 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.11 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
21 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
22 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
23 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
24 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
25 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
26 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01
27 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03
28 -999 -999 -999 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
29 -999 -999 -999 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
30 -999 -999 -999 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
31 -999 -999 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Total -999 -999 -999 -999 1.37 0.87 0.48 0.42 0.52 0.46 0.61 0.42
Mean -999 -999 -999 -999 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01
Maximum -999 -999 -999 0.19 0.32 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.23 0.06
Table 7 (cont)
Observed Runoff (inches) - Rolling Hills Creek
Water Year 1996
Date October November December January February March April May June July August September
1 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.02 0.02 -999 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
2 0.05 0.01 0.08 0.06 0.02 -999 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01
3 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.03 0.04 -999 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.09
4 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.03 -999 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01
5 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.18 -999 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
6 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.21 -999 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
7 0.01 0.32 0.02 0.46 0.19 -999 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
8 0.02 0.18 0.02 0.04 1.44 -999 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
9 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.03 0.33 -999 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
10 0.19 0.15 0.21 0.02 0.06 -999 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
11 0.11 0.30 0.18 0.02 0.04 -999 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
12 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.02 -999 -999 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
13 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.02 -999 -999 0.02 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
14 0.01 0.02 0.15 0.10 -999 -999 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
15 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.55 -999 -999 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06
16 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.08 -999 -999 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
17 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 -999 -999 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.10
18 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.03 -999 -999 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02
19 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.06 -999 -999 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.05
20 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.20 -999 -999 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
21 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.21 -999 -999 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
22 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.06 -999 -999 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
23 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.04 -999 -999 0.65 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01
24 0.01 0.18 0.02 0.07 -999 -999 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01
25 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.03 -999 -999 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 -999
26 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 -999 -999 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 -999
27 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.02 -999 -999 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 -999
28 0.01 0.27 0.03 0.02 -999 -999 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
29 0.01 0.65 0.13 0.02 -999 -999 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
30 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
31 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02
Total 0.83 2.79 1.89 2.43 2.08 -999 1.65 0.77 0.43 0.45 0.47 0.57
Mean 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.07 -999 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
Maximum 0.19 0.65 0.21 0.55 1.44 0.05 0.65 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.10
Table 7 (cont)
Observed Runoff (inches) - Rolling Hills Creek
Water Year 1997
Date October November December January February March April May June July August September
1 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.53 0.07 0.09 0.00 0.00
2 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.62 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00
3 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.00
4 0.09 0.01 0.26 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00
5 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00
6 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.00
7 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.00
8 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00
9 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00
10 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00
it 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.00
12 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00
13 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00
14 0.05 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00
15 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.00
16 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00
17 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.25 0.02 0.01 0.00
18 0.12 0.08 0.02 0.15 0.04 0.09 0.00
19 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.18 0.05 0.07 0.03
20 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.28 0.02 0.01 0.02
21 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00
22 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01
23 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00
24 0.03 0.11 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00
25 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00
26 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01
27 0.01 0.60 0.20 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.01
28 0.17 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00
29 0.02 0.02 1.07 0.02 0.00 0.00
30 0.01 0.04 1.25 0.22 0.00 0.01
31 0.01 1.07 0.08 0.00
Total 1.02 1.72 5.16 3.13 0.65 0.55 0.15 0.02
Mean 0.03 0.06 0.17 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00
Maximum 0.17 0.60 1.25 0.62 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.00
Table 8
Observed Runoff (inches) -Panther Creek
Water Year 1995
Date October November December January February March April May June July August September
1 -999 -999 -999 0.09 0.24 -999 0.07 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.02
2 -999 -999 -999 0.07 0.17 0.10 0.06 -999 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02
3 -999 -999 -999 0.04 0.13 0.09 0.06 -999 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02
4 -999 -999 -999 0.03 0.11 0.11 0.07 -999 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
5 -999 -999 -999 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.06 -999 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.02
6 -999 -999 -999 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.07 -999 0.04 0.04 0.04 -999
7 -999 -999 -999 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.11 -999 0.04 0.04 0.03 -999
8 -999 -999 -999 0.03 0.08 0.15 0.09 -999 0.04 0.04 0.03 -999
9 -999 -999 -999 0.07 0.07 0.19 0.07 -999 0.04 0.09 0.03 -999
10 -999 -999 0.00 0.12 0.07 0.26 0.09 -999 0.05 0.04 0.03 -999
11 -999 -999 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.22 0.05 -999 0.04 0.04 0.02 -999
12 -999 -999 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.19 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.02 -999
13 -999 -999 0.00 0.09 0.05 0.16 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.02 -999
14 -999 -999 0.01 0.09 0.05 0.20 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.03 -999
15 -999 -999 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.14 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.02 -999
16 -999 -999 0.07 0.04 0.08 0.12 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02
17 -999 -999 0.23 0.04 0.12 0.11 -999 -999 0.05 0.04 0.18 0.02
18 -999 -999 0.09 0.08 0.31 0.17 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02
19 -999 -999 0.17 0.04 0.54 0.13 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02
20 -999 -999 0.37 0.03 0.35 0.17 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02
21 -999 -999 0.16 0.03 0.25 0.11 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02
22 -999 -999 0.09 0.02 0.21 0.10 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02
23 -999 -999 0.09 0.02 0.19 0.18 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02
24 -999 -999 0.08 0.05 0.17 0.11 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02
25 -999 -999 0.08 0.06 0.16 0.10 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03
26 -999 -999 0.40 0.09 0.14 0.09 -999 -999 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.03
27 -999 -999 0.46 0.08 0.12 0.09 -999 -999 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.04
28 -999 -999 0.22 0.13 0.11 0.08 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03
29 -999 -999 0.17 0.22 0.08 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03
30 -999 -999 0.14 0.20 0.08 -999 -999 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.04
31 -999 0.12 0.28 0.08 -999 0.04 0.02
Total -999 -999 2.85 2.29 4.18 3.82 0.47 -999 1.16 1.21 0.97 0.36
Mean -999 -999 0.09 0.07 0.15 0.12 0.01 -999 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.01
Maximum -999 -999 0.46 0.28 0.54 0.26 0.11 -999 0.06 0.09 0.18 0.04
Table 8 (cont)
Observed Runoff (inches) - Panther Creek
Water Year 1996
Date October November December January February March April May June July August September
1 0.03 0.04 0.24 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.05 0.04 0.18 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 -999 0.00
3 0.04 0.04 0.19 0.08 0.05 0.12 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04
4 0.03 0.04 0.19 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.03 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.16 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
6 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.22 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 0.03 0.23 0.09 0.35 0.21 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 0.04 0.15 0.08 0.11 0.98 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9 0.04 0.03 0.16 0.09 0.62 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 -999 0.00 0.00
10 0.17 0.09 0.26 0.08 0.36 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 0.13 0.26 0.29 0.07 0.27 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12 0.03 0.06 0.20 0.06 0.12 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
13 0.03 0.06 0.23 0.06 0.20 0.07 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
14 0.03 0.05 0.28 0.13 0.18 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
15 0.03 0.06 0.17 0.37 0.16 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03
16 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.18 0.14 0.04 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
17 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.14 0.21 0.04 0.02 0.02 -999 -999 0.00 0.03
18 0.03 0.06 0.23 0.09 0.27 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01
19 0.03 0.04 0.13 0.12 0.27 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02
20 0.07 0.04 0.10 0.23 0.21 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
21 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.26 0.17 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
22 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.15 0.16 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23 0.04 0.12 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.03 0.50 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
24 0.03 0.14 0.04 0.16 0.13 0.03 0.20 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00
25 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.11 0.12 0.03 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 -999
26 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.11 0.03 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 -999
27 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -999
28 0.04 0.20 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
29 0.04 0.47 0.17 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
30 0.04 0.20 0.12 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
31 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01
Total 1.35 3.00 4.25 3.70 5.92 1.76 1.98 0.65 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.17
Mean 0.04 0.10 0.14 0.12 0.20 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Maximum 0.17 0.47 0.29 0.37 0.98 0.13 0.50 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.04
Table 8 (cont)
Observed Runoff (inches) - Panther Creek
Water Year 1997
Date October November December January February March April May June July August September
1 0.00 0.00 0.05 -999 0.16 0.14 0.03
2 0.00 0.00 0.06 -999 0.10 0.08 0.03
3 0.00 0.01 0.03 -999 0.08 0.06 0.04
4 0.05 0.00 0.20 -999 0.07 0.07 0.03
5 0.00 0.00 0.10 -999 0.06 0.04 0.02
6 0.00 0.03 0.13 -999 0.06 0.07 0.02
7 0.00 0.01 -999 -999 0.05 0.20 0.02
8 0.00 0.00 -999 -999 0.05 0.09 0.02
9 0.00 0.00 -999 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.02
10 0.00 0.00 -999 0.11 0.04 0.06
11 0.01 0.00 -999 0.10 0.09 0.05
12 0.00 0.06 -999 0.08 0.05 0.07
13 0.04 0.09 -999 0.07 0.04 0.05
14 0.03 0.06 -999 0.06 0.09 0.04
15 0.00 0.02 -999 0.05 0.05 0.16
16 0.00 0.03 -999 0.09 0.04 0.18
17 0.07 0.03 -999 0.30 0.04 0.16
18 0.05 0.03 -999 0.21 0.07 0.22
19 0.00 0.05 -999 0.22 0.10 0.52
20 0.00 0.09 -999 0.33 0.04 0.29
21 0.04 -999 -999 0.20 0.04 0.17
22 0.04 -999 -999 0.13 0.03 0.13
23 0.04 -999 -999 0.10 0.03 0.10
24 0.04 -999 -999 0.08 0.03 0.08
25 0.01 -999 -999 0.08 0.03 0.07
26 0.01 -999 -999 0.06 0.04 0.07
27 0.01 0.36 -999 0.09 0.04 0.06
28 0.14 0.14 -999 0.09 0.03 0.04
29 0.01 0.08 -999 0.06 0.04
30 0.00 0.09 -999 0.28 0.04
31 0.00 -999 0.15 0.03
Total 0.62 1.12 0.11 2.84 1.60 3.46 0.23
Mean 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.06 0.11 0.01
Maximum 0.14 0.36 0.20 0.33 0.16 0.52 0.04
Figure I
Springbrook Creek at SW 27th Street Rating Curve (8 July 1997)
16.00
NHC Discharge Measurements
15.00 ---------------4---------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ----------------
14.00 ---------------------------------------------------I------------------ ---------------- ----------------------------------a---------------- ----------------;-------------- -
13.00 ---------------- ----------------------------------4---------------------------------- -------------------------a----------------------------------I-----------------
12.00
^I 1.00 ------------ ------------ ---------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
---------------- ------ ----------------
o
Uses double entry rating curve above elev. 9.9ft' NGVD
10.00 ----------------
------ ---------Z---- ----------------- ---------------- -----------------------------------:-----------------------------------i----------------
-------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------ --------------
9.00 ----------------- -------------
8.00
O
7.00 ---------------- ----------------- i---------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------a--------------
Im 4/
----------------- ----------------1------------------ ---------------- ----------------- ----------------I------------------ ---------------- ----------------
5.00 --------------- ----------------- ----------------I-----------------------------------I----------------------------------- ----------------- ---------------- ----------------
4.00
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0
Flow
(cfs)
Figure 2
Rolling Hills Creek Rating Curve (8 July 1997)
6.50 T-F-F7----7
NHC Discharge Measurements
6.25 ------- -------- ------------------------r--------------- ------
KCWLR Discharge Measurements
6.00
5.75 --------------- --------i------ ------ ------------------ -------- ------ ........... ------------------ -------- -----------------
5.50 --------------- -------- ------ ------------------ --------------- ------------------ -------- ---- --- --------------
5.25 ----------------L--------I--------L..............L-L-LA------------------------ ------ ------------------ --- ---- -- --------------
5.00
0 j,6
4.75 ------------ -- -------- ------------------ -------------------------
---------- -------- ------ ---- ------- --------------------
4.50 ---------- 1-1 L ----------------
-------------------- -------- ------ ------------------r--------T------ ----r---T---r-- - -- --------------
---- ------------------ -------- ------ --1--- --------------
4.25 ----------------�L-------------------- ----- -------------- 4------- ------
4.00
3.75 -------------- --------------------- -- --------------- ---------I------------------------,-4----------------
--------------------------- ------
3.50
0.1 1.0 10.0 100,0
Flow
(efs)
Figure 3
Panther Creek Rating Curve (8 July 1997)
10.0
_______i_____l____L L__1__1_J_ _____________i________L____-r___1__J___L_J__L_ ________-_--
0 NHC Discharge Measurements , , ; ------------ ------- ----- -- - --- 'fir- ------------
KCWLR Discharge Measurements ------ f
I - -----------
I III I I I I I I I
I III I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
IIII I I
IIII I I I
I
I I I I I I III ,
I I I
I I I I I
I I III
I I I I I I
I I I
------------' •' --------------�-------
+ +
IIII I I I IIII I I
� ! ,
1.0 III I
I IIII
--------------' I I
-------- -----------
;
I tI i--I I
i-----i----f---F--f--h-i
F- --F---'II
---i---�-i--f- -
- ------------1-■+I-------I-----II i1I---i- IIII
1I iI
IIi
I II II- --------------iII
--------
I T____f _f _ _ ______________i________fI1-----fI1___YII _ _
_1_ _ Y_______l_____l____ _ ---l_ _-------------i------__f_____I___l___ f _
---
f__f_i--- _ + _ f_____f___l___+__l__T1i_If_ --------------
+
I
+ I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1
I
I 1 I 1 I
I 1 1 I I /I ■ 1 I I I I i 1 1 I 1 i I
h F F F i i i i h- ------------ i F F i f
/ + +,
I I I I I I I I I
�}- 1}- F- I i- i----+---F--f--+-i- - --i--------�- --F---"---i---�44- -
1� + I
0.1
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Flow
(cfs)
CO
0.5
a�
0.25
a.
' 0
Ali-
500 100
450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
................. Rolling Hills Creek
400 - - - - Panther Creek 80
350 70 L
c
N 300
3 v
N
250 50 � U
o. o
0 L 2M1/W�J 40
CJ �
150 30
O
1DO 20
' 50 L10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0
OCTOBER, 1994
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
' 0.5
a�
0.25
0 1
500 00
450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
................. Rolling Hills Creek
400 - - - - Panther Creek 80
' 350 70 s
a-
60
' C14 300
v
N 250
50 O+ N
U5`.
Er
v 40
v 200
o
150 "
N
O
' 1 20
50 10
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
NOVEMBER, 1994
' TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
' Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997) 4
0.5
1 d i
0.25
a�
' 0 1
500 00
450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
Rolling Hills Creek
400 - - - - Panther Creek
70 s
' 350 =
300
v
3 50
0 v,
' 250 o -=
Q
200 40
U 'I pf
' )
150 h I 30
5
i, I o
100 '� 1 f 20
Ji , i
;�
50 ::' :j 10
r
0 0
' 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
DECEMBER, 1994
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
' Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
' a � 0,5
0.25
0 100
500
' 450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
.......... ... Rolling Hills Creek
400 - - - - Panther Creek
70 s
350 CL
_ v
N 300
v
rn�
250 o
r
E�-
v 40
200
30 L
150 JV
' 100 ;� 20
F 10
50
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
JANUARY, 1995
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
' 5
0.5
0.25
0
500 100
450 - Spmgbrk 0 SW27[h 90
................. Rolling Hills Creek
400 - Panther Creek 80
350 - 70
300 60
o
50
-G 250 -
200 II 40
150 - 30
20
100 IQ
1
50 0
0 2 4 6 4_ 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 2+ 26 28
FEBRUARY, 1995
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
0.5
0.25
L .-
5DO 100
450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th - 90
................. Rolling Hills Creek - 80
400 - Panther Creek
- 70
350 -
-00 60
C`4
Orin
50
'15 250 -
40
200 -
150 -
1DO - 20
.41
50 V, 10
0 L 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
MARCH, 1995
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997) 6
0.5
a
_
0.25
' 0 100
500
450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
' Rolling Hills Creek 80
4.00 - - - - Panther Creek
70 L
350IL
_
y 60
3DO v
CV
' 50 _ U
� 250 0`--'
40
200 O'
n O
30 L
' 150 0
20
100
' 10
50 �
0 2 4 6 J 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0
' APRIL, 1995
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
' a 0.5
0.25
0 100
500
' 450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
................ Rolling Hills Creek
400 - - - - Panther Creek
' 70 L
354CL
=
0
N 300
' v
N 50 O+ m
U
250 0
�`v 40
' V 200 0,
L
Q O
150
O
' 1 DO 20
50 10
i 0
'2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
MAY, 1995
' TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed now Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997) 7
0.5
0.25
0 1
500 00
450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
Rolling Hills Creek
400 - - - - Panther Creek 80
350 70
N 300 60
c
v
3 50 v,
cI7 250 C U
v 40
V 200
� >r
O
150 30
20
1DO
�
' 50 10
i
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0
' JUNE, 1995
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
' 0.5
a.
0.25
' 0 100
500
' 450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
Rolling Hills Creek
400 - - - - Panther Creek 80
_ 350 7060
y v
N 300
50
' v
c w
U
250
v 40
' V 200
U r
Q O
150 30
' 100 20
50 L
10
' 0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
JULY, 1995
' TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997) 8
0.5
a.i
0.25
a�
' 0 100
500
450 Sprngbrk 0 SW27th 90
' ................. Rolling Hills Creek
400 - - - - Panther Creek 80
350 70
N 300
60
_
v
' G 250 = U
Er
v V 200 400,
� L
150 30 V
N
.� Cm
100 > ,
20
50 10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0
' AUGUST, 1995
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
' Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
' 0.5
a^
0.25
0 100
500
' 450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
................. Rolling Hills Creek
400 - - - - Panther Creek
' 70CD
350 =
r` 60
300
rn�
250 —o
o,
`v 40
V 200
N
150 30 y
0
100 20
50 ; 10
3i
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 1 28 30
SEPTEMBER, 1995
' TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997) 9
0.5
d
� 0.25
' 0 100
500
450 Sprngbrk 0 SW27th 90
................. Rolling Hills Creek
400 - - - - Panther Creek 80
350 70
N 30060
c
v
250
0 40
V
200
150 30
100 20
10
50
0 2 4 6 8 10 \ 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0
t OCTOBER, 1995
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
0.25
EL L 11,jb i a,-LL J
' 0 100
500
' 450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
................. Rolling Hills Creek
400 - - - - Panther Creek
350 70 s
N CL-
300 60
cn' v
250
50 0
U
U
2'
v : 40
200 yi U,
In
30
150 11 i�1:o
1f ��•'I
100 f,. I ' ' :, 20
50 1h1r` ii l 10
' 0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 - 18 20 22 24 ` 26 28 30
NOVEMBER. 1995
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997) 10
0.5 . . . . . . . .
0.25
' 0 , 11 1 Ait A
500 100
450 - Spmgbrk 0 SW27th - 90
................. Rolling Hills Creek - 80
400 - Panther Creek
-350 70
CL
50
3DO -
50
250 -
Cn
40
U 200
(n
150 30
o
20
100
50
o
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 2+ 26 28 30
DECEMBER, 1995
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
. . . . . . . . . .
0"
0.25
av
0 LILL 6. Ad-, 100
500
450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
............... Rolling Hills Creek 80
400 Panther Creek
70 4;
(L>
350
60
300
C'4
250 50
o 40
200 -
o
150 -
100 - 20
10
50
A
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
JANUARY, 1996
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
0.5
0.25
0
1000 100
900 SprnOrk 0 SW27th 90
' ................. Rolling Hills Creek 80
800 — — — — Pa4er Creek
700 , 7060
0
l� CL
N 600
3 I !E =v+
' �� 50
500Ell
E�
0 40
400 a '
300 ;� 30
3
200 20
100 10
2 4 J 6 r 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
0
' FEBRUARY, 1996
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
' Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
' a � 0.5
_
0.25
av
0 100
500
' 450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
................. Rolling Hills Creek 80
400 -- - - Panther Creek
' 70
350 =
60 v
N 300 v
c'
50
250
N �-
2` L
30 U
150 0
' 100 20
50 + ,E iE`! 10
� r
' O 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
MARCH, 1996
' TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997) 12
0.5
d i
0.25
CL-
' 0 100
1000
900 Sprngbrk 0 SW27th 90
' Rolling Hills Creek
800 - - - - - Panther Creek
70 s
700 v
d.
� 60 -0
C'4 600 v
vv+
N 50
500 o
o 40
400 x
U L
N
a 300 ; 30
0
20
200
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
' APRIL, 1996
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
' Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
' 0.5
a�
0.25
0 100
500
' 450 Spmgbrk Q SW27th 90
.......... Rolling Hills Creek
4Q0 - - - - - Panther Creek
350 70 L
a
N 340
t v
�v
250
a+
200
cn
O ��nn 30 L
150 TJ co
Q
' 100 '� 20
507;; 10
1 ` ,
' 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
MAY, 1996
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997) 13
0.5
a�
0.25
' 0 100
500
450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
' Rolling Hills Creek
400 - - - - - Panther Creek
' 70
350
CL
0
N 300 v
3 50
o+in
' 250 o
v+
40
200
30
V y-
N O
' U
150 O
100 20
50 h 10
f
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0
JUNE, 1996
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River 8asin
' Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
0.5
0.25
a�
' 0 100
500
' 450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
Rolling Hills Creek 80
400 - - - - Panther Creek
' 70 s
350 =
a_
60
300
N p
50
250 o
`a 44
y 200 a
O 30 U
150 s
' 1 DO 20
50 ' 10
' 0 0
18 20 22 24 26 28 30
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 �
JULY, 1996
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River 8asin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997) 14
0.5
a�
_
0.25
a
0 LA 100
500
450 Sprngbrk 0 SW27th 90
' Rolling Hills Creek
400 - - - - Panther Creek
' 70
350
CL-
60
C14 300 =v
U 250 .0
v
0 40
V 200
� O
30
150 U
m 20
O
100
50 10
0
L A,�
' 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 M
AUGUST, 1996
TIME, IN DAYS
' East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
' 0.5
a.^
�v
0.25
0 100
500
' 450 Spmgbrk ® SW27th 90
Rolling Hills Creek
440 - - - - Panther Creek
70
350 =
0-
60 0
N 300 0
v v,
c
25040
o
v+
V 200
N O
30
U
a 150 o
' 100 = 20
i 50 y t �
i 10
5 ` 0
' 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
SEPTEMBER, 1996
' TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997) 15
0.5
a�
0.25
' 0
500 11 11 1111 11111 100
450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
' ................. Rolling Hills Creek
400 - - -- Panther Creek 80
350 70 L
CL
60
300
v
50 m
250 — U
::
v 40 a
L 200
V 1.fWll
N O
0 O
U
150 30N
100 _. ;�J§rI 20
J.x Y1
50
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
OCTOBER, 1996
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
0.5
0.25
' 0 100
500
' 450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
................. Rolling Hills Creek 80
4W - - - - Panther Creek
' s
350 70
CL
300
50
N v
250 t' � U
v 40
o+' 0 200 3� 30 L
150 j' U
�1 O
100 20
5041
ig 10
Nfi l'�y 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 0
NOVEMBER, 1996
TIME, IN DAYS
' East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997) 16
0.5
a�
d 0.25
_
' 0 100
500
450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
' ................. Rolling Hills Creek 80
400 - - - - Panther Creek
' 70
350
CL
60
c, 340 t=
I v
' 250
50 _
0 200 40
o,
V �
30 U
150 I �'
))� :•. 20
100 i
' 50 i.A 10
0 r 0
2 4 6' 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
' DECEMBER, 1996
TIME, IN DAYS
' East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
0.5
�v
0.25
0 100
500
' 450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
Rolling Hills Creek
400 - - - - Panther Creek �
' 70
350 =
a_
60
C14 300 v
�v
250 50 0
o f40
200
' y O
150 . t 30 N
i
I
100 f: ,"' t 20
tz
10
50
1 0 v 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
JANUARY, 1997
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997) 17
0.5
' a^
0.25
a.�
' 0 100
5{?0
450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
' .........•....... Rolling Hills Creek
400 - - - - Panther Creek
' 70
350
L
CL
N 300
v
U
250 o
200
150 30
100 20
50 � 10
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 T 18 20 22 24 26 28
' FEBRUARY, 1997
TIDE, IN DAYS
' East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
' a � 0.5
0.25
0 100
500
' 450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
Rolling Hills Creek 80
400 - - - - Panther Creek
' 70 L
350
CL
60 C
c`+
300 v
50
d
o^m 250 o-"-
v+
V 40
200
150
U� O
41'
100 20
1 10
50
' 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
MARCH, 1997
' TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997) 18
0.5
� 0.25
' 0 100
500
450 Spmgbrk 0 SW27th 90
' ................ Rolling Hills Creek 80
400 - - - - Panther Creek
' 70 s
350
i 60
300
N ;;0 �
' U
25040
0
V 200
N L
30
150 C6
100 20
' 50 14
0 }
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22` 24 26 28 30 0
APRIL, 1997
TIME, IN DAYS
East Side Green River Basin
' Verification of Observed Flow Data
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (July 1997)
19