Watershed Hydrology Modeling: What is Considered Calibrated?
Appendix A Upper Watershed Hydrology Calibration
44
A-1 Appendix A Upper Watershed Hydrology Calibration A.1 Introduction The SacWAM model was calibrated in a multi-step process that covered the upper watersheds, the Sacramento Valley floor and CVP/SWP project operations. The first step was to calibrate the rainfall runoff processes in the catchments located upstream of the valley rim reservoirs as these calculations are independent of all other processes in the model. This involved tuning the Soil Moisture method hydrological parameters in the catchments until simulated and observed historical flows matched within an acceptable degree of tolerance. This calibration is described below. Following completion of the upper watershed calibration, the next step was to focus on processes occurring on the Sacramento Valley floor. This calibration is described in Appendix B. The upper watersheds of SacWAM were calibrated by adjusting Soil Moisture Method hydrological parameters until stream flows agreed with DWR reported unimpaired flows. Calibration was performed at the following 21 locations (Figure A-1 and Figure A-2): American River at Fair Oaks Battle Creek Clear Lake Inflow Calaveras River near Bellota Clear Creek nr Igo Cosumnes River Cottonwood nr Olinda Cow Creek Elder Creek Feather River Jackson Creek Mokelumne River N Fork Cache Creek Paynes Creek Putah Creek Sacramento at Shasta Stony Creek Thomes Creek Trinity at Trinity Reservoir Yuba River at New Bullards Bar Yuba River at Englebright The calibration period was water years 1970 – 2009, which represents both periods of high and low flow. The calibrated streams are the largest streams in the region. In the discussion below, flow statistics are presented for the 21 calibrated streams and an additional 17 smaller streams that were not calibrated. Initially the snow parameters, crop coefficients, soil water capacity, deep water capacity, runoff resistance factor, root zone conductivity, deep conductivity, and preferred flow direction were set using parameters from the CVPA model. During calibration additional adjustments were made to all parameters except crop coefficients and runoff resistance factors. Comparison between simulated and observed flows at the locations shown in Figure A-1 and Figure A-2 were made using the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (E), root mean square error (RMSE)/Mean, and BIAS. These statistics were calculated using the following equations.
Transcript of Appendix A Upper Watershed Hydrology Calibration
A-1
Appendix A Upper Watershed Hydrology Calibration
A.1 Introduction
The SacWAM model was calibrated in a multi-step process that covered the upper watersheds, the Sacramento Valley floor and CVP/SWP project operations. The first step was to calibrate the rainfall runoff processes in the catchments located upstream of the valley rim reservoirs as these calculations are independent of all other processes in the model. This involved tuning the Soil Moisture method hydrological parameters in the catchments until simulated and observed historical flows matched within an acceptable degree of tolerance. This calibration is described below. Following completion of the upper watershed calibration, the next step was to focus on processes occurring on the Sacramento Valley floor. This calibration is described in Appendix B. The upper watersheds of SacWAM were calibrated by adjusting Soil Moisture Method hydrological parameters until stream flows agreed with DWR reported unimpaired flows. Calibration was performed at the following 21 locations (Figure A-1 and Figure A-2):
American River at Fair Oaks
Battle Creek
Clear Lake Inflow
Calaveras River near Bellota
Clear Creek nr Igo
Cosumnes River
Cottonwood nr Olinda
Cow Creek
Elder Creek
Feather River
Jackson Creek
Mokelumne River
N Fork Cache Creek
Paynes Creek
Putah Creek
Sacramento at Shasta
Stony Creek
Thomes Creek
Trinity at Trinity Reservoir
Yuba River at New Bullards Bar
Yuba River at Englebright
The calibration period was water years 1970 – 2009, which represents both periods of high and low flow. The calibrated streams are the largest streams in the region. In the discussion below, flow statistics are presented for the 21 calibrated streams and an additional 17 smaller streams that were not calibrated. Initially the snow parameters, crop coefficients, soil water capacity, deep water capacity, runoff resistance factor, root zone conductivity, deep conductivity, and preferred flow direction were set using parameters from the CVPA model. During calibration additional adjustments were made to all parameters except crop coefficients and runoff resistance factors. Comparison between simulated and observed flows at the locations shown in Figure A-1 and Figure A-2 were made using the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (E), root mean square error (RMSE)/Mean, and BIAS. These statistics were calculated using the following equations.
A-2
𝐸 = 1 −∑ (𝑄𝑠,𝑖 −𝑛𝑖=1 𝑄𝑜,𝑖)
2
∑ (𝑄𝑜,𝑖 −𝑛𝑖=1 �̅�𝑜)
2
n
QRMSE
n
i iois
o
1
2
,,)(100
]/)[(100oos
QQQBIAS
where: n= number of months in the calibration period (480); Qs,i = simulated monthly flow for time step i; Qo,i= observed monthly flow for time step i;
�̅�𝑜= average of observed monthly flow values.
A-3
Figure A-1 Streamflow Calibration Points (North)
A-4
Figure A-2 Streamflow Calibration Points (South)
A-5
These adjustments were made based on an iterative approach in which the following steps were taken:
1. If a sub watershed had significant snow accumulation then the snow melt and freeze thresholds
were adjusted so that the monthly average flow values peaked during the correct month. An
additional effort was made to match simulated snow water equivalent values to recorded values
at snow gauge locations similar to the approach described in Young et al. (2009). However, after
an initial analysis was conducted, it was determined that the 500-meter elevation bands used in
the model resulted in a simulated values that were too coarse to compare with point
observations.
2. Simulated annual average flow volume was compared to observed values. If the simulated value
was larger than observed then the soil water capacity and root zone conductivity were adjusted
to increase the ET thereby reducing the stream flow. If the simulated value was smaller than
observed then the soil water capacity and root zone conductivity were altered to decrease ET.
3. The simulated monthly average hydrograph was compared to the observed to determine if dry
season low flows (July – Oct) were in agreement. If not, three parameters were adjusted. First,
the preferred flow direction was altered to increase or decrease the amount of water flowing
into the second compartment. Second, the deep water capacity and deep conductivity were
adjusted until the decline in summer flows in the observation record were matched by the
simulated values. Often, this resulted in smaller values of the deep water capacity and larger
values of deep conductivity than the initial values, which resulted more rapid drainage of the
deeper compartment.
The process used to arrive at the final calibration factors was a combination of manual and automated approaches. Preliminary exploration of the model performance was conducted by a brute force method in which the model was run over a range of parameter values. Maximum and minimum parameter values were set based on the author’s experience. For each model run, the goodness of fit statistics discussed above were calculated. Following these automated model runs, plots of Nash Sutcliffe, BIAS, and RMSE/Mean were produced that showed which combinations of parameters resulted in the best model performance. In general, low values of model BIAS were favored over higher Nash Sutcliffe or lower RMSE/Mean values. Plots were also made of monthly average flows for each parameter combination. These graphs were inspected visually for goodness of fit. Once a set of parameters was selected from the brute force analysis, additional model runs were made either using the brute force approach with reduced parameter ranges or an automated parameter estimation process employing the PEST software was run. The graphical results of the calibration can be found below. Plots of monthly flows, monthly average flows, annual flows, and flow exceedance are provided. Goodness of fit statistics are provided in Table A-1. Initial calibration efforts were focused on the largest rivers in the system including the upper Sacramento, Trinity, Feather, and American Rivers as well as tributaries that are of higher interest to SWRCB. Particular effort was made to keep the BIAS values close to zero. In future efforts, the accuracy of the runoff simulations for the smaller streams could be improved.
A-6
Table A-1 Upper Watershed Summary Statistics
Stream BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE Calibrated
American River at Fair Oaks -3.0% 64.0% 74.1% Y Antelope Creek -1.8% 60.2% 72.8% N Battle Creek -5.6% 40.3% 62.2% Y Bear Creek 34.4% 63.4% 77.1% N Bear River at Camp Far West 3.1% 45.1% 91.2% N Big Chico Creek 2.5% 66.7% 83.3% N Butte Creek -19.4% 62.5% 75.2% N Clear Lake Inflow 15.8% 69.6% 82.5% Y Calaveras River near Bellota 2.0% 72.9% 86.8% Y Clear Creek near Igo -1.0% 56.2% 83.2% Y Cosumnes River 18.5% 73.4% 80.8% Y Cottonwood near Olinda 4.8% 49.5% 91.1% Y Cow Creek 2.2% 45.7% 89.6% Y Deer Creek -5.2% 49.4% 81.1% N Dry Creek 72.0% 110.8% 70.8% N Dry and Hutchinson 48.5% 98.1% 69.5% N Elder Creek 12.8% 93.8% 69.1% Y Feather River -0.5% 50.3% 78.6% Y French Dry Creek 125.0% 180.9% -14.3% N Honcut Creek 74.9% 228.4% 35.9% N Jackson Creek 29.6% 86.6% 73.2% Y Kellogg Creek 227.7% 333.1% -21.2% N Little Chico Creek 3.2% 74.0% 83.7% N Little Stony Creek -2.2% 101.7% 62.6% N Littlejohns Creek -8.1% 177.5% 41.4% N Marsh Creek 19.6% 204.2% 45.4% N Mill Creek -5.6% 52.6% 60.6% N Mokelumne River 2.4% 63.1% 74.1% Y North Fork Cache Creek 13.4% 99.0% 74.1% Y Paynes Creek -2.4% 69.7% 83.7% Y Putah Creek 29.3% 87.3% 82.1% Y Sacramento at Shasta 0.7% 31.7% 85.9% Y South Fork Cottonwood -33.6% 77.9% 77.9% N Stony Creek -13.3% 81.2% 80.0% Y Thomes Creek 29.8% 99.1% 53.8% Y Trinity at Trinity Reservoir -1.9% 59.4% 69.6% Y Yuba River at NBB 4.6% 59.9% 74.7% Y Yuba River at Englebright 9.3% 57.6% 76.0% Y
Key: N=No; NBB=New Bullards Bar NSE=Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency; RMSE=root mean square error; Y=yes.
In the charts below, “Historical” represents full natural flows; “Simulated” represents simulated natural flows with all upstream operations removed.
A-7
Figure A-3 American at Fair Oaks
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
-3.00% 64.03% 74.13%
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-8
Figure A-4 Antelope Ck nr Red Bluff
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
-1.77% 60.22% 72.76%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
5
10
15
20
25
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-9
Figure A-5 Battle Ck nr Cottonwood
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
-5.62% 40.26% 62.18%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-10
Figure A-6 Bear Ck nr Millville
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
34.41% 63.42% 77.12%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-11
Figure A-7 Bear River at Camp Far West
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
3.10% 45.08% 91.21%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-12
Figure A-8 Big Chico Ck nr Chico
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
2.50% 66.75% 83.34%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-13
Figure A-9 Butte Ck nr Chico
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
-19.36% 62.54% 75.16%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-14
Figure A-10 Clear Lake Inflows
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
15.82% 69.59% 82.53%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-15
Figure A-11 Calaveras nr Bellota
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
3.62% 72.05% 87.23%
0
50
100
150
200
250F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-16
Figure A-12 Clear Creek nr Igo
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
-4.99% 53.67% 84.64%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-17
Figure A-13 Cosumnes at Michigan Bar
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
18.53% 73.38% 80.79%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-18
Figure A-14 Cottonwood Ck nr Olinda
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
4.81% 49.51% 91.08%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-19
Figure A-15 Cow Ck at RM 14
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
2.16% 45.75% 89.55%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-20
Figure A-16 Deer Ck nr Vina
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
-5.22% 49.43% 81.13%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-21
Figure A-17 Dry Ck (tributary to the Mokelumne River)
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
72.01% 110.75% 70.83%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
5
10
15
20
25
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-22
Figure A-18 Dry and Hutchinson Ck
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
48.51% 98.15% 69.50%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-23
Figure A-19 lder Ck nr Paskenta
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
12.75% 93.77% 69.15%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
5
10
15
20
25
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-24
Figure A-20 Feather at Oroville
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
-0.54% 50.27% 78.63%
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-25
Figure A-21 French Dry Creek (Merle Collins Inflow)
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
125.00% 180.94% -14.29%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
5
10
15
20
25
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-26
Figure A-22 S Honcut Ck nr Bangor
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
74.87% 228.35% 35.92%
0
5
10
15
20
25F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
5
10
15
20
25
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-27
Figure A-23 Jackson Creek (Amador Reservoir Inflow)
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
29.63% 86.61% 73.24%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-28
Figure A-24 Kellog Creek (Los Vaqueros Reservoir Inflow)
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
227.74% 333.08% -21.20%
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-29
Figure A-25 Little Chico Ck at RM 38
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
3.18% 73.98% 83.74%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-30
Figure A-26 Little Stony Creek (East Park Reservoir Inflow)
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
-2.21% 101.74% 62.61%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-31
Figure A-27 Littlejohns Creek (Farmington Reservoir Inflow)
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
-8.06% 177.47% 41.36%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-32
Figure A-28 Marsh Ck at RM 15
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
19.55% 204.23% 45.37%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-33
Figure A-29 Mill Ck nr Los Molinos
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
-5.56% 52.64% 60.57%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-34
Figure A-30 Mokelumne River at Pardee
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
2.44% 63.05% 74.08%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-35
Figure A-31 North Fork Cache Creek (Indian Valley Reservoir Inflow)
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
13.39% 99.05% 74.13%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-36
Figure A-32 Paynes and Sevenmile Cks
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
-2.44% 69.72% 83.72%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-37
Figure A-33 Putah Creek (Lake Berryessa Reservoir Inflow)
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
29.32% 87.28% 82.06%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-38
Figure A-34 Sacramento River (Shasta Lake Reservoir Inflow)
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
0.70% 31.72% 85.91%
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-39
Figure A-35 SF Cottonwood Ck nr Olinda
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
-33.58% 77.86% 77.95%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-40
Figure A-36 Stony Ck at Black Butte
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
-13.33% 81.19% 80.02%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-41
Figure A-37 Thomes Ck at Paskenta
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
29.76% 99.09% 53.83%
0
50
100
150
200
250F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-42
Figure A-38 Trinity River (Trinity Reservoir Inflow)
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
-1.94% 59.42% 69.61%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-43
Figure A-39 Yuba River (New Bullards Bar Reservoir Inflow)
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
4.57% 59.91% 74.65%
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
A-44
Figure A-40 Yuba River at Smartville
BIAS RMSE/Mean NSE
9.28% 57.61% 76.04%
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600F
low
(TA
F/m
onth
)Simulated Historical
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Flo
w (
TA
F/Y
ear)
Simulated Historical
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated
Historical
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Flo
w (
TA
F/m
onth
)
Simulated Historical
