draft technical memorandum lower sacramento bypass 2-d ...€¦ · knights landing at ridge cut,...

Draft Technical Memorandum

Lower Sacramento Bypass 2-D Model Calibration and Validation Task Order No. T10502186-09053 OM September 2013

Prepared For: MWH Americas, Inc.

3321 Power Inn Rd., Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95826

Prepared By:

Resource Management Associates 4171 Suisun Valley Road, Suite J

Fairfield, CA 94534 Contact: Richard Rachiele

707-864-2950

Section 1: Introduction

Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM i

Contents

Page

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 RMA2 ................................................................................................ 1-1

LSB Model Description and Summary of the LSB Model Development .... 2-4 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 2-4 2.2 Geometry Data ................................................................................... 2-4 2.3 Model Mesh Development ................................................................. 2-7

2.4 2-D Levee/Weir Elements.................................................................. 2-7 2.5 Element Material Types/Properties.................................................... 2-8

2.6 Integration of the Yolo Bypass and Sutter Bypass RMA2 Models into

the LSB Model ................................................................................... 2-9

2.7 Boundary Conditions ......................................................................... 2-1 2.8 Model Initialization ............................................................................ 2-1

Model Calibration to January 2006 Flood Event........................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Data Sources ...................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Boundary Conditions ......................................................................... 3-1 3.3.1 Fremont Weir and Sacramento Weir ........................................... 3-6

3.4 Observed Data for Calibration ........................................................... 3-6

3.5 Calibration Process ............................................................................ 3-6

3.6 Calibration of the Lower Yolo Bypass ............................................ 3-13 3.6.1 Geometry Modifications ............................................................ 3-13 3.6.2 Modification to Material Types and Manning’s “n” values ...... 3-14

3.6.3 Results for January 2006 Flood Event ....................................... 3-18 3.7 Calibration of the Cache Creek and Cache Creek Settling Basin .... 3-20

3.8 Calibration of the Feather River ...................................................... 3-22 3.9 Model Parameters ............................................................................ 3-25

3.10 Calibration of the LSB Model.......................................................... 3-26 3.11 Final Calibration Results.................................................................. 3-27

Model Validation to the January 1997 Flood Event ...................................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Boundary Conditions ......................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Model Validation Results .................................................................. 4-5

Sensitivity Simulations...................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Downstream Stage Boundary Sensitivity Run ................................... 5-1 5.3 1997 Flood Event Simulation for Yolo Bypass ................................. 5-1

Summary and Conclusions............................................................................... 6-2 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 6-2


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM ii

6.2 Model Calibration/Validation ............................................................ 6-2

References .......................................................................................................... 7-3

Appendix A – January 2006 Calibration Results .......................................... 8-4

Appendix B – January 1997 Model Validation Results ................................. 9-1

List of Figures and Tables

Table 2.1 Data sources for channel bathymetry.................................................. 2-5

Table 2.2 Material Types and initial (prior to calibration) Manning’s “n” values

used for the LBS Model. .......................................................................... 2-8

Table 2.3 Comparison of model geometry properties for the USACE Yolo

Bypass, Sutter Bypass and LSB RMA2 models. ................................... 2-10 Table 3.1 Boundary condition sources for January 2006 Calibration runs. ......... 3-1 Table 3.2 Observed data locations for calibration of the LBS model for the

January 2006 flood event. ........................................................................ 3-8 Table 3.3 Changes to Manning’s “n” friction coefficients for the Lower Yolo

Bypass-Cache Slough Complex. ............................................................ 3-14

Table 3.4 Model and Observed Peak WS Elevations for Lower Yolo Bypass

Grid, January 2006 flood event. ............................................................. 3-18

Table 3.5 Initial and Final calibration values for the Manning’s friction

coefficients for the Cache Creek and Cache Creek Settling Basin grid. 3-20 Table 3.6 Initial and Final calibration values for the Manning’s friction

coefficients for the Feather River grid. .................................................. 3-22

Table 3.7 Adjustments to the Manning’s friction coefficients from the original

Sutter Bypass model values. .................................................................. 3-27 Table 3.8 Comparison of Observed and Model Predicted Peak Water Surface

Elevations. Final 2006 Calibration Runs .............................................. 3-29 Table 3.9 Comparison of Observed and Model Predicted Peak Flows. Final 2006

Calibration Runs .................................................................................... 3-30

Table 4.1 Comparison of Observed and Model Predicted Peak Water Surface

Elevations. 1997 Validation Run ............................................................ 4-6 Table 4.2 Comparison of Observed and Model Predicted Peak Flows for 1997

Validation Run ......................................................................................... 4-6 Table 5.1 Observed and modeled maximum water surface elevations (ft) for

locations in the lower Yolo Bypass for the original USACE Yolo Bypass

model grid and two grids developed for this calibration study.

Parenthetical numbers show modeled minus observed values. The USACE

model used the Yolo Bypass at Liberty Is as the downstream stage

boundary condition .................................................................................. 5-4

Figure 1.1 Outlines of existing USACE Yolo Bypass Model (left), and the new

extended Lower Sacramento Bypass (LSB) Model (right). ..................... 1-3


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM iii

Figure 2.1 The LSB Model coverage, showing the re-used portions of the

existing USACE Yolo Bypass and CH2M Hill Sutter Bypass grids. New

2-D model grid development is indicated by the red boxes. The new grid

development includes the 1-D reaches of the Sacramento River upstream

and downstream of the Fremont Weir. The full Sutter Bypass Model

extends from Long Bridge to the Yolo Bypass at the USGS gauge near

Interstate-5. .............................................................................................. 2-6 Figure 2.2 2-D flow control structures used in the LSB model. ....................... 2-11 Figure 2.3 Coverage of the element material types for the LSB Model prior to the

model calibration. .................................................................................. 2-12 Figure 2.4 LSB model flow and stage boundary condition locations for the mid

and upper system...................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2.5 LSB model flow boundary condition locations for the lower system

and downstream stage boundary at Rio Vista. ......................................... 2-3 Figure 2.6 Initialization of model water surface elevations. WS elevations are

specified at indicated lines and interpolated over the domain of the model

mesh. ........................................................................................................ 2-4

Figure 3.1 Location of the observed data stations used for boundary condition

input for theLBS model calibration/validation simulations. Inflows for the

Knights Landing at Ridge Cut, the Natomas Cross Canal and Willow

Slough were computed or derived from sources not shown (see Table 3.1).

.................................................................................................................. 3-3

Figure 3.2 (left) Configuration of the LSB model with the Feather River

truncated to Nicolaus to match the Feather River boundary location of the

Sutter Bypass model. (right) The Feather River grid extent calibrated

separately from the LSB model. .............................................................. 3-1

Figure 3.3 Available observed flow data stations for estimating the north Delta

channel inflows to the LSB model. The observed flow from the station

GES defines the inflow for the Sacramento R above Cache Slough

location and was available for both the 1997 and 2006 flood events. For

the 2006 event, observed data was available for the Miner Slough

boundary inflow. Steamboat Slough inflow were computed from the

SUT+SSS-MIN records. For the 1997 event, Miner Slough and

Steamboat Slough inflows were estimated from the FPT-SDC

hydrographs.............................................................................................. 3-2 Figure 3.4 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the Feather River system

for the January 2006 flood event. The dashed lines indicate the Dec 29,

2005 through Jan 8, 2006 simulation period and the Dec 28, 2005 spin-up

period. ...................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3.5 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the Sutter Bypass below

Tisdale and Sacramento River below Tisdale locations for the January

2006 flood event. The Feather R Inflow at Nicolaus was applied to the

version of the LSB model configured with the Feather inflow boundary at

Nicolaus. The solids lines for the Sutter Bypass and Feather River

hydrographs represent the time periods extracted from the Sutter Bypass


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM iv

model inputs or results. The dashed portions of the two hydrographs were

derived from observed data records. ........................................................ 3-3 Figure 3.6 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the Natomas Cross Canal

and the American River for the January 2006 flood event. The dashed

lines indicate the Dec 29, 2005 through Jan 8, 2006 simulation period and

the Dec 28, 2005 spin-up period. ............................................................. 3-4 Figure 3.7 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the west side creeks

entering the Yolo Bypass for the January 2006 flood event. The dashed


the Dec 28, 2005 spin-up period. ............................................................. 3-4 Figure 3.8 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the north Delta inflow

channels for the January 2006 flood event. The dashed lines indicate the

Dec 29, 2005 through Jan 8, 2006 simulation period and the Dec 28, 2005

spin-up period. ......................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3.9 Downstream stage boundary conditions for the LSB model for the

January 2006 flood event. The dashed lines indicate the Dec 29, 2005

through Jan 8, 2006 simulation period and the Dec 28, 2005 spin-up

period. ...................................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 3.10 Observed gauge data locations for model calibration to the January

2006 flood event. Parameters used for model boundary conditions (e.g.

stage at SRV) are not included in the plot. .............................................. 3-7 Figure 3.11 Water surfaced profile transects for the northern region of the LSB

model...................................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3.12 Water surfaced profile transects for the southern region of the LSB

model...................................................................................................... 3-12

Figure 3.13 Comparison of computed and observed stage and flow for the

January 2006 flood event at stations in the lower Yolo Bypass. Results are

for an early trial simulation of the full LSB model. The computed result

showed a good match for stage at the Lisbon station (LIS) and flow at the

downstream boundary at Rio Vista (SRV), but under-predicted peak stage

at the Liberty Island station (LIS). The top-left figure indicates the

upstream boundary (“Yolo Bypass south of I80”) of the lower Yolo

Bypass grid used in the calibration process. .......................................... 3-15

Figure 3.14 Areas of revision and refinement for the lower Yolo Bypass-Cache

Slough Complex..................................................................................... 3-16 Figure 3.15 Revised lower Yolo Bypass area model grid elevation change from

original Yolo Bypass model. The land elevation for revised grid section

was updated from the CVFED LiDAR dataset. ..................................... 3-17

Figure 3.16 Observed vs. Computed stages for calibration runs for the Lower

Yolo Bypass model grid for the Yolo Bypass at Lisbon (LIS) and Liberty

Island (LIY). LWR_YOLO_1 – Original grid and coefficients.

LWR_YOLO_2 – Updated land elevations and levee revisions.

LWR_YOLO_3 – Increase friction coefficients for “Open Water” and

“Reeds and Rushes”. .............................................................................. 3-19


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM v

Figure 3.17 Final calibration water surface profile for the Cache Creek and Cache

Creek Settling Basin sub-section model plotted with the 2006 High Water

Mark data. .............................................................................................. 3-21 Figure 3.18 Computed and observed stage for the Feather River at Boyd's

Landing for the 2006 flood event........................................................... 3-23 Figure 3.19. Computed peak water surface profile elevations for the final 2006

calibration run for the Feather River grid. ............................................. 3-24 Figure 3.20 Example time series plots of observed and computed flow (top) and

observed and computed stage (bottom). Plotted model results are for the

final 2006 calibration runs of the LSB model with the two configurations

of the Feather River. ................................................................................ 3-1 Figure 3.21 2006 Final calibration run (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus). Computed

peak water surface profile elevation for the Sacramento River upstream of

the Fremont Weir. .................................................................................... 3-1 Figure 3.22 2006 Final calibration run (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus). Computed

peak water surface profile elevation for the Sacramento River downstream

of the confluence with the Feather River. ................................................ 3-2

Figure 4.1 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the Sutter Bypass below

Tisdale, Sacramento River below Tisdale and Feather River at Nicolaus

locations for the January 1997 flood event. The solids lines for the Sutter

Bypass and Feather River hydrographs represent the time periods

extracted from the Sutter Bypass model inputs or results. The dashed

portions of the two hydrographs were derived from observed data records.

.................................................................................................................. 4-2 Figure 4.2 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the Natomas Cross Canal

and the American River for the January 1997 flood event. The dashed


the Dec 29, 1996 spin-up period. ............................................................. 4-2 Figure 4.3 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the west side creeks

entering the Yolo Bypass for the January 1997 flood event. The dashed


the Dec 29, 1996 spin-up period. ............................................................. 4-3 Figure 4.4 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the north Delta inflow

channels for the January 1997 flood event. The dashed lines indicate the

Dec 30, 1996 through Jan 8, 1997 simulation period and the Dec 29, 1996

spin-up period. ......................................................................................... 4-3 Figure 4.5 Downstream stage boundary conditions for the LSB model channels

for the January 1997 flood event. The dashed lines indicate the Dec 30,

1996 through Jan 8, 1997 simulation period and the Dec 29, 1996 spin-up

period. ...................................................................................................... 4-4

Figure 4.6 ............................................................................................................. 4-1 Figure 4.7 ............................................................................................................. 4-2 Figure 5.1 Change from Base condition peak stage resulting with the 1 foot

increase to the boundary condition stage for the Sacramento River at Rio

Vista. The is for the January 1997 flood event. ...................................... 5-2


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM vi

Figure 5.2 Comparison of computed water surface elevation profiles for base

(Final Calibration) and the Rio Vista shifted stage (+1 ft) sensitivity

simulations. .............................................................................................. 5-1 Figure 5.3 Grid extent and boundary condition locations for Yolo Bypass runs. 5-

2 Figure 5.4 Comparison of observed spill flow at the Sacramento and Fremont

Weirs versus LSB model predicted flow. Observed flow was used as

boundary condition data at these locations for the Yolo Bypass grid

simulations. .............................................................................................. 5-3

Figure 5.5 Element material type modifications to Liberty Island for the 1997

simulation grid. The Manning’s n friction factor was set to 0.030,

reflective of agricultural land. .................................................................. 5-1 Figure 5.6 Lower Yolo Bypass model sensitivity to grid modifications in Liberty

Island representing levee breaches and land use changes between 1997 and

2006. Water surface elevations in the 1997 grid are above 2006 grid

results at low flows and lower at high flows. Locations downstream of

Liberty remain largely unaffected ............................................................ 5-1

Figure 5.7 Lower Yolo Bypass model sensitivity to grid modifications in Liberty

Island representing levee breaches and land use changes between 1997 and

2006. Water surface elevations at Lisbon Weir, approximately 10 miles

upstream of Liberty Island, are largely unaffected. ................................. 5-1 Figure 8.1 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and

observed stage time series for the Sutter Bypass at PP2 (SB2) for the full

LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at

Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus). ................................................... 8-5

Figure 8.2 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and

observed stage time series for the Sutter Bypass at Willow SI (WSL) for

the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather

inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus). .................................... 8-5


observed stage time series for the Sutter Bypass at RD 1500 Pump (SBP)

for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather

inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus). .................................... 8-6


observed stage time series for the Sacramento SI near Karnak (SSK) for


inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus). .................................... 8-6 Figure 8.5 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and

observed stage time series for the Feather R at Yuba City (YUB) for the

full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at

Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus). ................................................... 8-7 Figure 8.6 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and

observed stage time series for the Feather R at Nicolaus (NIC) for the full


Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus). ................................................... 8-7


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM vii


observed stage time series for the Sacramento R below Wilkins SI nr

Grimes (WLK) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model

with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus). ......... 8-8


observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Knights Landing

(KNL) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the

Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus). ....................... 8-8 Figure 8.9 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and

observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Fremont Weir West

(FRE) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the


observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Fremont Weir East

(A02160) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the


observed flow time series for the Sacramento R at Verona (VON) for the


Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus). ................................................. 8-10


observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Verona (VON) for the


Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus). ................................................. 8-10 Figure 8.13 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and

observed stage time series for the Sacramento R above Sac Weir (A02108)

for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather

inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus). .................................. 8-11 Figure 8.14 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and

observed stage time series for the Sacramento Weir Spill (SAC WEIR) for



observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Bryte Lab (BYL) for



observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at I Street (IST) for the




observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Freeport (FPT) for the



observed flow time series for the Sacramento R at Freeport (FPT) for the


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM viii



observed flow time series for the Yolo Bypass near Woodland (YBY) for



observed stage time series for the Yolo Bypass near Woodland (YBY) for



observed stage time series for the Yolo Bypass at Lisbon (LIS) for the full



observed stage time series for the Yolo Bypass at Liberty Is (LIY) for the



observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Rio Vista (SRV) for


inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus). .................................. 8-16


observed stage time series for the Minser SI at Hwy 84 Bridge for the full



Figure 9.1 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and

observed stage time series for the Sutter Bypass at PP2 (SB2) for the LSB

model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus). 9-

2 Figure 9.2 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and

observed stage time series for the Sutter Bypass at PP2 (SB2) for the LSB


2 Figure 9.3 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and

observed stage time series for the Sutter Bypass at Willow Si (WSL) for

the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-

Nicolaus). ................................................................................................. 9-3


observed stage time series for the Sutter Bypass at RD 1500 Pump (SBP)

for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-

Nicolaus). ................................................................................................. 9-3 Figure 9.5 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and

observed stage time series for the Sacramento SI near Karnak (SSK) for


Nicolaus). ................................................................................................. 9-4


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM ix


observed stage time series for the Feather R at Nicolaus (NIC) for the LSB


4


observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Knights Landing

(KNL) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus

(LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus). ................................................................... 9-5 Figure 9.8 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and

observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Fremont Weir West

(FRE) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus


observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Fremont Weir East

(A02160) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus


observed flow time series for the Sacramento R at Verona (VON) for the

LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-

Nicolaus). ................................................................................................. 9-6


observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Verona (VON) for the



observed stage time series for the Sacramento R above Sac Weir (A02108)

for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-


observed stage time series for the Sacramento Weir Spill (SAC WEIR) for



observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at I Street (IST) for the



observed flow time series for the Yolo Bypass near Woodland (YBY) for


Nicolaus). ................................................................................................. 9-9


observed stage time series for the Yolo Bypass near Woodland (YBY) for



observed stage time series for the Yolo Bypass at Lisbon (LIS) for the


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM x


Nicolaus). ............................................................................................... 9-10 Figure 9.18 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and

observed stage time series for the Yolo Bypass at Liberty Is (LIY) for the


Nicolaus). ............................................................................................... 9-10


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 1-1

Section 1

Introduction

In support of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) a two-dimensional (2-D)

hydraulic model is being developed for the mid and lower Sacramento Bypass system. The

model is an extension of the existing two-dimensional RMA2 model (USACE, 2007) of the Yolo

Bypass developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The new model

(LSB Model) extends the two-dimensional Yolo Bypass model upstream of the Fremont Weir to

include the Sutter Bypass up to the Tisdale Weir, and the Feather River up to the Yuba River

(Figure 1.1). The channelized reaches of the Sacramento River upstream from the Fremont Weir

to the Tisdale Weir and downstream of the Fremont Weir to Clarksburg are represented with

one-dimensional (1-D) channel elements.

The objective of the model development and calibration/validation tasks is to provide a higher

dimensional modeling tool for evaluating flood management strategies for the mid and lower

Sacramento River system.

The initial model development was presented in the technical memorandum (TM), “Lower

Sacramento Bypass 2-D Model Development”, August 2013. The TM described the

development of the model geometry and the initial set of model parameters for the new RMA2

model of the mid and lower Sacramento Bypass system (LSB).

This TM documents the calibration and validation of the LSB model. The model is to be

calibrated to the January 2006 flood event and validated with the January 1997 flood event.

1.1 RMA2

The hydrodynamic simulation program used is the RMA2 finite element based program for the

computation of two-dimensional depth-averaged steady and unsteady flow. The model computes

water surface elevations and horizontal flow velocity in two dimensions. It provides for the

detailed representation of flow over the broad floodplains and bypass channels of the lower

Sacramento River system.

Two versions of the RMA2 program are discussed in this TM, the USACE’s version of the

RMA2 program (RMA2 WES) and RMA’s in-house version of RMA2. The RMA2 WES is

maintained and supported by the USACE at its Engineer Research and Development Center

(ERDC). The RMA2 WES v. 4.5 is commercially distributed with the Surface Water Modeling

System (SMS) package from Aquaveo, LLC. The governing equations and the model use are

documented in detail in the “Users Guide to RMA2 WES Version 4.5” (USACE, 2011). The

RMA2 WES version of the program has been applied to portions of the Lower Sacramento Basin

system in other studies. RMA2 based model systems have been developed for the Yolo Bypass

(USACE, 2007), the Sutter Bypass (CH2M Hill, 2012) and the Lower Feather River (MBK,

2012).

The version of the RMA2 program applied to the LSB model development and analysis is the

Resource Management Associates, Inc. (RMA) in-house version of the numerical model

program. At its core, RMA’s version of the RMA2 program is the same as the RMA2 WES.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 1-2

RMA has updated the equation solver to use the PARDISO solver available in the Intel Fortran

package. The PARDISO module is an efficient parallel direct sparse solver that is many times

faster than the standard RMA2 solver for the size system of the study. Currently the model mesh

has over 400,000 nodes and 145,000 elements. The in-house version of the RMA2 program

includes 2-D flow control structure element types. These are employed in the LSB model to

simulate flow for weirs, levees and gates. Similar 2-D flow control elements are enabled with

the RMA2 WES version available to the USACE, but not in publicly distributed version of the

program.

The Technical Memorandum presenting the LSB model calibration/validation is organized into

the following sections:

Section 2 – Summary of the LSB Model Development

Section 3 – Model Calibration to the January 2006 Flood Event

Section 4 – Model Validation to the January 1997 Flood Event

Section 5 – Sensitivity Simulations

Section 6 – Summary and Conclusions


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 1-3

Figure 1.1 Outlines of existing USACE Yolo Bypass Model (left), and the new extended Lower Sacramento Bypass (LSB) Model (right).

Section 2: LSB Model Description and Summary of the LSB Model Development

Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 2-4

Section 2

LSB Model Description and Summary of the LSB Model Development

2.1 Introduction

A full description of the LSB model and model development is provided in the 2-D Model

Development TM (RMA, 2013). This section provides a description of the LSB model grid,

boundary condition locations and area types (material types) for assigning Manning’s friction

coefficients. The model grid and model properties presented here describe the LSB model prior

to the calibration phase. Some additional geometry and material property refinement have

occurred with the model calibration process. These refinement items are discussed in the

calibration section.

The extents of the Lower Sacramento Bypass (LSB) RMA2 model are shown in Figure 1.1. The

new model mesh (or grid) utilizes previously developed model grids of the Yolo Bypass

(USACE, 2007) and the Sutter Bypass (CH2M Hill, 2012). The grid development and model

calibration of the earlier models provides a foundation for the development of the new LSB

model. Figure 2.1 shows the coverage of the Yolo Bypass and Sutter Bypass components in the

LSB model, and identifies the areas of the new 2-D and 1-D model development.

The model was constructed in the UTM Zone 10 coordinate system with reference to the NAD83

horizontal datum. The model elevations were set to the NAVD88 vertical datum. Both the

horizontal distance and vertical elevation units are feet. The datum and unit systems match those

of the latest Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation Program (CVFED) LiDAR

and bathymetric surveys. The Sutter Bypass model conforms to these datum and units. The

USACE Yolo Bypass model was developed to the NGVD29 vertical datum and the California

State Plane Coordinate System Zone 2 coordinate system. The Yolo Bypass grid was

transformed to the UTM coordinate system and NAVD88 vertical datum using the Corpscon 6

program1 developed by the USACE.

No additional field data were collected for the LSB model development. The development of

new model geometry utilized existing topography and bathymetry datasets as discussed below.

2.2 Geometry Data

Table 2.1 lists the sources for the channel bathymetry data used in development of the model

geometry. Bathymetry survey data collected under the CVFED program were the primary data

sources used in developing the model geometry for the channels of the Sacramento and Feather

River. Multi-beam bathymetry data were available for the Sacramento River below the Natomas

Cross Canal to the downstream Sacramento River boundary at Clarksburg.

1 http://www.agc.army.mil/Missions/Corpscon.aspx

http://www.agc.army.mil/Missions/Corpscon.aspx


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 2-5

LiDAR data collected and processed for the CVFED project were made available through DWR

Central Valley Flood Planning Office (CVFPO) for the model development and covered the

nearly all of the model domain. The processed LiDAR data provided “bare earth” elevations at a

3.125 foot horizontal resolution in 5000 foot by 5000 foot tiles. Vertical LiDAR accuracy was

within 0.6 feet. The LiDAR tiles were used to set the model floodplain elevations and in

developing the upper parts of the 1-D channel geometry.

Table 2.1 Data sources for channel bathymetry.

Data Source Collection Date Coverage

DWR Urban Levees

Evaluation Program

(ULEP)

2007/2008 Multibeam. Includes adjacent levee topography.

Sacramento River, below American River to

Georgiana Slough

CVFED Task Order

202

2010 Multibeam.

Sacramento River, from Natomas Cross Canal to

Freeport

CVFED Task Order

18

2010 Single beam.

Sacramento River upstream of Natomas Cross

Canal, Feather River channel, Bear River channel.

Typical cross-section spacing 800 to 1300 feet.

Prospect Island

Tidal Restoration

Study (DWR)

2012 Single beam and multibeam.

Cache Slough, from confluence with the

Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel to Rio Vista


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 2-6

Figure 2.1 The LSB Model coverage, showing the re-used portions of the existing USACE Yolo Bypass and CH2M Hill Sutter Bypass grids. New 2-D model grid development is indicated by the red boxes. The new grid development includes the 1-D reaches of the Sacramento River upstream and downstream of the Fremont Weir. The full Sutter Bypass Model extends from Long Bridge to the Yolo Bypass at the USGS gauge near Interstate-5.

USACE’s

Yolo Bypass

Model

Sutter Bypass Model

(CH2MHill)

Feather

River

Sacramento

River 1D

Sacramento

Weir

Cache Creek &

Settling Basin

Putah Creek

Sacramento

River 1D

LSB Model

2-D

1-D

Fremont Weir

Modifications to

Little Egbert Levee

Yolo Bypass at USGS

gauge near Interstate-5

Sutter Bypass

at Long Bridge


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 2-7

2.3 Model Mesh Development

The existing Yolo Bypass model and sections from Sutter Bypass model comprise the bulk of the

LSB model domain. Figure 2.1 indicates the new 2-D and 1-D geometries developed under the

current task. The new 2-D and 1-D portions of the model mesh were constructed and edited

using Surface Water Modeling System (SMS) mesh tools and RMA’s in-house mesh

development and editor program. The 1-D channel elements were used for representing the

sections of the Sacramento River channel upstream of the Fremont Weir and downstream of the

Feather River confluence near Verona. For these reaches, the Sacramento River is confined by

levees to a comparatively narrow channel which can be effectively and efficiently represented by

the 1-D channel elements. The 2-D elements were used to model the broad floodplains and

bypasses of the LSB system where there is significant lateral variation in geometry and flow.

Mesh cell resolution was generally set to conform to those used for the Yolo Bypass and Sutter

Bypass RMA2 models. The nominal element size was 200 to 400 feet, with finer detail in and

around the main flow channels and flow structures.

2.4 2-D Levee/Weir Elements

The LSB model uses 2-D flow control elements to simulate flow for weirs, levees and gates.

These elements provide more precise control and specification of flow through control

structures. A special type of 2-D flow control element available to the in-house RMA2 program

is the “levee/weir” element type. RMA2 WES also includes a similar 2-D flow control type that

uses the basic broad crested weir equation for simulating free and submerged flow over weirs

and levees. The levee/weir type in the RMA2 WES is limited to a single crest elevation per

control structure assignment. The in-house RMA2 allows setting of the crest elevation and crest

width on a node by node basis. The “RMA2 WES Version 4.5” manual states the 2-D control

structure feature is not available in the general public release version of RMA2.

The 2-D Levee/Weir elements are used for modeling several levee and weir locations in the LSB

model (Figure 2.2):

1) Fremont Weir

2) Sacramento Weir (includes scheduled gate operations)

3) Cache Slough – Little Egbert Tract restricted height levee

4) Cache Creek Settling Basin to Yolo Bypass weir

5) Cache Creek Settling Basin interior levee

An additional 2-D Levee/Weir levee location has been added during the calibration refinement to

the lower Yolo Bypass levee to the Sacrament River Deep Water Ship Channel (DWSC) (see

Section 3).


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 2-8

2.5 Element Material Types/Properties

Model “material types” are set for each element to correspond to properties such as Manning’s

“n” bed friction coefficients. The material classifications for the new mesh development

generally followed those used for the Sutter Bypass model. The initial assignment of element

material type for the new mesh development was based upon estimation of land use and

vegetative cover from aerial photography. The material type assignments for the new grid

development near the Fremont Weir reproduced the coverage developed for the Sutter Bypass

model. The material types for the new 2-D mesh development follow the same classification

description as the Yolo Bypass and Sutter Bypass models. However, the new mesh sections

retain a different “Material ID” number to allow adjustment of the Manning’s “n” value for the

new sections without changing the calibrated “n” values in the Yolo Bypass and Sutter Bypass

mesh sections. Table 2.2 lists the general Material Type category descriptions and the

corresponding Manning’s “n” value currently assigned to the model sections prior to the

calibration process. The material type assignments for the LSB model are illustrated in Figure

2.3.

Table 2.2 lists relatively high Manning’s “n” values for the Weir element types. The Yolo

Bypass and Sutter Bypass models utilize standard 2-D elements for weir sections. For the Yolo

Bypass model, the Manning’s “n” value was artificially increased to 0.10 (USACE, 2007) for the

restricted height levee surrounding the Little Egbert Tract to help stabilize the steady state

simulations. The Manning’s “n” values for the Feather River Weir and the Fremont Weir

elements in the Sutter Bypass model were developed during the calibration procedure (CH2M

Hill, 2012). The flow and head loss through the 2-D Levee/Weir elements for the “RMA Added

Sections” are primarily governed by the weir flow equations. The Manning’s friction loss limits

flow under certain submerged flow conditions.

The coverage of the material types and the corresponding friction coefficients were adjusted for

some portions of the LSB model during the calibration process (Section 3).

Table 2.2 Material Types and initial (prior to calibration) Manning’s “n” values used for the LBS Model.

Material USACE

Yolo Bypass

CH2M Hill

Sutter Bypass

RMA

Added Sections

River — 0.035–0.0381 0.030–0.038

2

Toe Drain / Slough 0.025 0.03–0.05 0.03–0.05

Open Water 0.025 — 0.025

Vegetation - dense 0.12 0.10 0.10

Vegetation - medium 0.07 0.08 0.08

Vegetation - sparse 0.05 0.06 0.06

Grassland 0.045 0.045 0.045

Agriculture 0.03 0.028 0.028

Levee / Road 0.07 0.035–0.06 0.03

Weir 0.10 0.10–0.16 0.043

1 Includes the lower Feather River and Sacramento River near Fremont Weir

2 Includes the Feather River and Bear River, 1-D Sacramento River, and Cache and Putah Creeks

3 Weirs in the new RMA Added Sections use 2-D flow control elements.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 2-9

2.6 Integration of the Yolo Bypass and Sutter Bypass RMA2 Models into the LSB Model

Table 2.3 lists the details of the LSB grid development together with those of the Yolo Bypass

and Sutter Bypass RMA2 models. The LSB reuses a subset of the Sutter Bypass grid. The full

Sutter Bypass model extends from the Sutter Bypass north at Longbridge (Figure 2.1), south into

the Yolo Bypass to the USGS gauge near Interstate-5. The new LSB grid development has

generally followed the outlines of the Sutter Bypass model development in terms of material type

classifications and the corresponding initial set of Manning’s “n” values, and the level of element

detail. The new LSB grid development utilizes the LiDAR topography and bathymetry survey

data sources used to develop the Sutter Bypass grid (Table 2.1). The primary model difference is

the use of the 2-D levee/weir elements in the LSB model for the representation of flow over the

Fremont Weir.

The floodplain topography for the USACE Yolo Bypass RMA2 model was developed with an

older topographic data set based upon aerial photography and photogrammetry collected for the

1997 Comprehensive Study (USACE, 2007). Limited bathymetric data were collected in 2005

for the lower Yolo Bypass in support of the grid development. In the initial model development,

the USACE’s Yolo Bypass grid was incorporated into the LSB geometry with only the

modification to the Little Egbert Tract levee and the adjacent Cache Slough channel. The recent

CVFED LiDAR data set does cover the USACE Yolo Bypass model domain, but was not

applied to updating the floodplain elevations in the initial development phase.

During the model calibration process, the LiDAR data was used to evaluate and update the land

and levee elevations in the lower Yolo Bypass (Section 3).


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 2-10

Table 2.3 Comparison of model geometry properties for the USACE Yolo Bypass, Sutter Bypass and LSB RMA2 models.

Model Parameter

USACE

Yolo Bypass

CH2M Hill

Sutter Bypass

RMA New Grid

Development and

LSB Run Parameters

Original Model

Extent

Yolo Bypass below

Fremont Weir to

Sacramento R at Rio

Vista

Sutter Bypass at

Longbridge to Yolo

Bypass at USGS gauge

near Interstate-5

Nominal (Max)

Element Size

500 x 500 ft 200 x 200 ft

Coarser elements

below Fremont Weir

200 x 200 ft to

400 x 400 ft

Geometry Data

Sources

1997 Comp Study

Topography Data

(aerial

photogrammetry)

2005 Limited

bathymetric data

collection, Liberty

Island and Little

Holland Tract

Table 2.1 Table 2.1

Coordinate System CA State Plane

Coordinate System;

Zone 2

UTM, Zone 10 UTM, Zone 10

Horizontal Datum NAD 83 NAD 83 NAD 83

Vertical Datum NGVD29 NAVD88 NAVD88

Units Feet Feet Feet


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 2-11

Figure 2.2 2-D flow control structures used in the LSB model.

Little Egbert -

Cache Slough

Levee

Interior Levee

Cache Creek

Settling Basin to

Yolo Bypass Weir

Sacramento

Weir

Fremont Weir


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 2-12

Figure 2.3 Coverage of the element material types for the LSB Model prior to the model calibration.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 2-1

2.7 Boundary Conditions

Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5 identify the boundary condition locations for the LSB model. When

used as a planning tool, the boundary conditions will be specified by UNET or HEC-RAS model

output extracted at the locations shown. With RMA’s in-house RMA2 program, boundary

conditions are typically specified using time series records from HEC-DSS files, which is the file

format used for storing the time series result output from the UNET or HEC-RAS models. The

RMA2 program can input stage and flow boundary condition hydrographs directly from HEC-

DSS format files, facilitating the interconnection to the UNET or HEC-RAS model outputs.

2.8 Model Initialization

The model initialization strategy employed in the current work differs from the standard method

used when running RMA2 in the SMS framework. In the standard procedure, the model is first

initialized to a constant water surface elevation over the domain. The stage and flow boundary

conditions are then adjusted over a series of steady state runs to arrive at a model-wide starting

flow and water elevation condition.

For the LSB model simulations, the initial water surface is established over the domain by

specifying the water surface elevation at several lines of nodes throughout the model (Figure 2.6)

and running an interpolation program to fill in the water surface elevations at the intermediate

node locations. Given the large spatial domain, the spatially-variable initial water surface

elevation should reduce the required spin-up period compared to the standard method. Most of

the fixed stage locations shown in Figure 2.6 occur at observed gage locations. The model

initialization for the calibration/validation runs used the observed gauge water surface elevations

for the time of the model spin-up runs.

The initial water surface elevations developed with the interpolation program are read in by the

(in-house) RMA2 program to start a dynamic spin-up run of one or more days applying the

normal time series boundary conditions of the full run. A small time step size is used at the

beginning of the spin-up until the interior and boundary flows stabilize. A time step of 1.5 to 3

minutes was used for the first 30 minutes of the spin-up then set to 7.5 minutes thereafter.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 2-2

Figure 2.4 LSB model flow and stage boundary condition locations for the mid and upper system.

Sacramento R

at Clarksburg

(discharge or

stage)

Sacramento R

below Tisdale

Weir

Sutter Bypass

below Tisdale

Weir

Feather R

below Yuba R

Knight’s Landing Ridge Cut

Cache Creek

Willow Slough

Putah Creek

Bear River

American

River

Natomas

Cross Canal


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 2-3

Figure 2.5 LSB model flow boundary condition locations for the lower system and downstream stage boundary at Rio Vista.

Sacramento R

at Rio Vista

(Stage)

Sacramento R

above Cache

Slough

Cache

Slough

Miner

Slough

Steamboat

Slough

Lindsey

Slough

Shag

Slough


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 2-4

Figure 2.6 Initialization of model water surface elevations. WS elevations are specified at indicated lines and interpolated over the domain of the model mesh.

Sacramento R

at Clarksburg

Sacramento R

at Tisdale Weir

Sutter Bypass

at Tisdale Weir

Feather R

at Yuba City

Fixed WS

locations

Sacramento R

at Rio Vista

Section 3: Model Calibration to January 2006 Flood Event

Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-1

Section 3

Model Calibration to January 2006 Flood Event

3.1 Introduction

The model geometry and the initial set of run parameters have been developed for the LSB

RMA2 model under the model development task. The current task is to calibrate/validate the

LSB model and document the process and results. The model has been calibrated to the January

2006 flood event and validated with the January 1997 flood event. The selection of the 2006

flood event for calibration is due to the greater availability of observed data for both model

boundary condition input and model results comparison. The objective of the calibration is to

develop the model parameters and refine/adjust the model geometry to best reproduce the

available observed stage and flow records over the model domain.

3.2 Data Sources

Observed time series stage and flow data are applied for both model results comparison and

model boundary condition input. The USACE Sacramento District (USACE, 2013) has

compiled a comprehensive set of time series data for boundary condition input and model

calibration for the Sacramento River system. The data set covers both the 1997 and 2006 flood

events. The USACE data package also provides high-water mark (HWM) survey results for both

the 1997 and 2006 flood events. The LSB model was constructed to the NAVD88 datum. Thus

both the stage boundary conditions and observed stage data for comparison with model results

are needed in the NAVD88 datum. Significant effort was made by the USACE to provide the

high-water mark and stage time series data referenced to the NAVD88 datum. Three DSS files

were provided with the package:

1) Compilation_HEC-RAS_Model_Input_Observed.dss

2) Compilation_HEC-RAS_Model_Input_Computed.dss

3) Compilation_HEC-RAS_Model_Input_Constant.dss

The USACE compiled dataset was the predominant source of observed data used for the LSB

model calibration/validation. Observed data for deriving flow boundary conditions for some of

the north Delta locations of the model was obtained from the USGS for previous modeling

projects or was available on-line from the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS).


Figure 2.4 and Figure 2.5 show the standard boundary condition locations for the LSB model.

These locations are specific to applying UNET or HEC-RAS model output for planning

simulations. The LSB grid was modified slightly for applying boundary condition inputs from


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-2

the observed data sets. The upstream Feather River grid was branched to allow a separate inflow

boundary condition for the Yuba River (Figure 3.1). The Feather River branch was extended

upstream slightly to encompass the observed stage station at Yuba City for model

calibration/validation purposes. The downstream boundary location for the 1-D Sacramento

River channel was extended further downstream to allow the application of the observed stage

record at the Snodgrass Slough location.

Figure 3.1 shows the overall location of the observed inflow and stage data sources relative to

the LSB model boundary locations. Some of the model inflow boundary conditions are notably

distant from the observed flow gauge location. These include several of the major LSB model

inflows: the Sutter Bypass, the Feather River system and the American River. An initial run was

performed for the LSB model using the observed flow sources shown in Figure 3.1 for the model

inflows. With the unadjusted application of the Feather River system inflows, the computed

stages and hydrographs throughout much of the LSB model noticeably peaked earlier relative to

the observed stages and flows. One strategy employed to mitigate the effect was to lag the

timing of the observed hydrographs before applying it to the LSB inflow boundary.

A second strategy was to develop boundary conditions from the Sutter Bypass model (CH2M

Hill, 2012) results and inputs. These were available with the Sutter Bypass model package for

the January 1997 and January 2006 flood events. The Sutter Bypass simulation results were

processed to extract computed flow for the Sutter Bypass below the Tisdale weir location and

applied as the Sutter Bypass inflow boundary condition for the LSB model. The flow at this

location includes contribution from the Butte Slough at Meridian flow, the Tisdale weir flow and

the estimated 1500 cfs flow from the Wadsworth Canal into the upstream Sutter Bypass.

The source inflows to the Sutter Bypass model are documented as from the USACE Common

Features Sacramento River Basin HEC‐RAS model (Release 3, February 2011). The Sutter

Bypass model report notes the Common Features HEC-RAS model was considered “in

development” and as such, the model results are subject to change in future releases of the

model.

The simulation time of the Sutter Bypass model for the 2006 event covered the period December

28, 2005 at 00:00 to January 4, 2006 at 24:00. This encompassed the time of peak flow for the

event, but was insufficient to provide the entire boundary input hydrograph for the LSB model.

Because of the larger extent of the LSB model, earlier and in particular later flow inputs were

needed for the flood simulation. Lagging the Butte Slough at Meridian observed flow (plus 1500

cfs for the Wadsworth Canal) +7 hours produced a good match to the Sutter Bypass model flow

above the Tisdale Weir. Thus the observed Butte Slough record (plus 1500 cfs) was added to the

observed Tisdale Weir record to extend the inflow hydrograph for the necessary period.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-3

Figure 3.1 Location of the observed data stations used for boundary condition input for theLBS model calibration/validation simulations. Inflows for the Knights Landing at Ridge Cut, the Natomas Cross Canal and Willow Slough were computed or derived from sources not shown (see Table 3.1).

Cache Creek

(CCY)

Putah Creek (PUT)

Butte Sl at Meridian

(BSL)

Feather R at Gridley

(GRL)

Yuba R nr Marysville

(MRY)

Bear R nr Wheatland

(BRW)

America R nr Fair

Oaks (AFO)

Sac R at Grimes

(WLK)

Observed

Data Stations

Stage

Flow

Sac R nr Snodgrass Sl

(B91750)

Sac R below Georgiana Sl

(GES)

Sac R at Rio Vista

(RVB)

Miner Sl

(HWB)Steamboat Sl (SSS)

Sutter Sl

(SUT)

Tisdale Weir

(TIS)

Natomas Cross Canal

Knights Landing Ridge Cut

Willow Sough

Sutter

Bypass


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-4

The Sutter Bypass model input dataset also included the Feather River inflow. The Feather

River boundary condition for the Sutter Bypass model was located near Nicolaus, about 1.7

miles upstream of the Sutter Bypass. The source of the Feather River inflow for the Sutter

Bypass model was the Common Features HEC-RAS model. Tests runs of the LSB with the

Feather River input at the Nicolaus location resulted in a better model comparison to observed

peak stage and flow for the LSB system downstream of the Feather River. As a result, much of

the calibration effort used the LSB model with the Feather River boundary inflow at Nicolaus.

The Feather River section of the LSB model was calibrated separately (Figure 3.2) using the

observed inflow records from the Feather River at Gridley (GRL), the Yuba River at Marysville

(MRY) and the Bear River at Wheatland (BRW) and stage boundary at Nicolaus (NIC). The

adjustments to the friction coefficients derived from the Feather River calibration process were

transferred to the full LSB model. Final calibration results are presented for the LSB model with

the full Feather River grid and secondly with the Feather River inflow boundary at Nicolaus.

The boundary conditions and the corresponding data sources used for the model calibration to

the January 2006 flood event are listed in Table 3.1.

Figure 2.5 shows the model boundary condition locations for the lower end of the LSB model.

Observed flows for the calibration runs were not available for the Lindsey Slough, Cache Slough

and Shag Slough locations. These locations in the USACE data package were listed as a

constant 100 cfs value. Relative to the Yolo Bypass flow, these were not considered significant

inputs and were not modeled.

Observed flow data was available for 2006 for the Miner Slough and Sacramento River above

Cache Slough inflow locations (Figure 3.3). There were no observed flow gauges directly

applicable for the Steamboat Slough inflow boundary condition. However the Steamboat Slough

inflow can be derived by combining hydrographs from the other gauge locations. For the 1997

flood event, observed flow data were not available for the HWB, SUT and SSS station locations.

The combine inflows of Miner Slough and Steamboat Slough can be computed by differencing

the flow records from the FPT and SDC stations. Regression analysis of the 2006 observed data

showed the flow split to be about 76% for Steamboat Slough and 24% for Miner Slough.

The boundary condition inflow hydrographs and stage boundary conditions used for the 2006

calibration runs are shown in Figure 3.4 to Figure 3.9. The simulation period begins December

28, 2005 at 24:00 and extends to January 8, 2006 at 24:00. A one day spin-up is performed over

the December 28 date. The spin-up and simulation periods were selected to start the model

sufficiently before the times of peak flow and continue on until the flood peak passes through the

lower end of the model system.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-1

Table 3.1 Boundary condition sources for January 2006 Calibration runs.

Boundary Location Type Source Notes

Feather R at Yuba City Flow Observed, Feather R at Gridley (GRL) Lagged 8 hours

Yuba R Flow Observed, Yuba R at Marysville (MRY) Lagged 4 hours

Bear R Flow Observed, Bear R nr Wheatland (BRW) Lagged 4 hours

Feather R at Nicolaus Stage Observed, NIC For Feather R only grid calibration

Feather R at Nicolaus Flow Sutter Bypass Model BC Input

Initial LSB model result

Sutter Bypass below Tisdale Weir Flow Sutter Bypass Model below Tisdale Weir Extracted from Sutter Bypass model result

Observed, BSL + TIS + 1500 cfs Butte Sl lagged 7 hours. +1500 cfs for

Wadsworth Canal

Sacramento R below Tisdale Weir Flow Observed, Sacramento R at Grimes (WLK)

Natomas Cross Canal Flow Sutter Bypass Model BC Input

American River Flow Observed, American R at Fair Oaks (AFO) Lagged 2 hours

Sacramento R at Snodgrass Sl Stage Observed, B91750

Knights Landing Ridge Cut Flow Computed, HEC-RAS Model Input

Cache Creek Flow Observed, Cache Creek at Yolo (CCY)

Putah Creek Flow Computed, HEC-RAS Model Input

Willow Slough Flow Computed, HEC-RAS Model Input 0.17 of PUT


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-2

Boundary condition sources for January 2006 Calibration runs (continued)

Computed, HEC-RAS Model Input - from the DSS File Compilation_HEC-RAS_Model_Input_Computed.dss.

Boundary Location Type Source Notes

Miner Slough Flow Observed, Miner Sl at Hwy 84 Bridge (HWB) Filled-Interpolated Dec 30, 2005 to Jan 3, 2006

Steamboat Slough Flow Observed, Steamboat Sl, Sutter Sl and Miner Sl Sutter Sl estimated

SSS + SUT - HWB

Sacramento R above Cache Sl Flow Observed, Sac R below Georgiana Sl (GES)


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-1

Figure 3.2 (left) Configuration of the LSB model with the Feather River truncated to Nicolaus to match the Feather River boundary location of the Sutter Bypass model. (right) The Feather River grid extent calibrated separately from the LSB model.

Feather at

Nicolaus Flow

BC

Feather at

Nicolaus Stage

BC

LSB Feather at

Nicolaus

Configuration

Feather Only

Configuration

Bear R

nr Wheatland

Yuba R

nr Marysville

Feather R at Gridley


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-2

Figure 3.3 Available observed flow data stations for estimating the north Delta channel inflows to the LSB model. The observed flow from the station GES defines the inflow for the Sacramento R above Cache Slough location and was available for both the 1997 and 2006 flood events. For the 2006 event, observed data was available for the Miner Slough boundary inflow. Steamboat Slough inflow were computed from the SUT+SSS-MIN records. For the 1997 event, Miner Slough and Steamboat Slough inflows were estimated from the FPT-SDC hydrographs.

Sac R below

Georgiana Sl

(GES)

Miner Sl

(HWB)

Steamboat Sl

(SSS)

Sutter Sl

(SUT)

Observed Flow Stations

Data Availability

1997 only

1997 and 2006

Sac R abv

Delta Cross

Channel

(SDC)

Sac R at

Freeport

(FPT)

Steamboat

Slough Inflow

Sacramento R

Above Cache

Slough Inflow


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-3

Figure 3.4 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the Feather River system for the January 2006 flood event. The dashed lines indicate the Dec 29, 2005 through Jan 8, 2006 simulation period and the Dec 28, 2005 spin-up period.

Figure 3.5 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the Sutter Bypass below Tisdale and Sacramento River below Tisdale locations for the January 2006 flood event. The Feather R Inflow at Nicolaus was applied to the version of the LSB model configured with the Feather inflow boundary at Nicolaus. The solids lines for the Sutter Bypass and Feather River hydrographs represent the time periods extracted from the Sutter Bypass model inputs or results. The dashed portions of the two hydrographs were derived from observed data records.

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Dec2005 Jan2006

Flo

w (

cfs

)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Spinup Period Simulation Period

Feather R at Yuba R

Yuba River

Bear River

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Dec2005 Jan2006

Flo

w (

cfs

)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000


Sacramento R below

Tisdale

Sutter Bypass below

Tisdale

Feather R Inflow (at

Nicolaus)


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-4

Figure 3.6 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the Natomas Cross Canal and the American River for the January 2006 flood event. The dashed lines indicate the Dec 29, 2005 through Jan 8, 2006 simulation period and the Dec 28, 2005 spin-up period.

Figure 3.7 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the west side creeks entering the Yolo Bypass for the January 2006 flood event. The dashed lines indicate the Dec 29, 2005 through Jan 8, 2006 simulation period and the Dec 28, 2005 spin-up period.

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Dec2005 Jan2006

Flo

w (

cfs

)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000


American River

Natomas Cross Canal

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Dec2005 Jan2006

Flo

w (

cfs

)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000


Cache Creek


Willow Slough

Putah Creek


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-5

Figure 3.8 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the north Delta inflow channels for the January 2006 flood event. The dashed lines indicate the Dec 29, 2005 through Jan 8, 2006 simulation period and the Dec 28, 2005 spin-up period.

Figure 3.9 Downstream stage boundary conditions for the LSB model for the January 2006 flood event. The dashed lines indicate the Dec 29, 2005 through Jan 8, 2006 simulation period and the Dec 28, 2005 spin-up period.

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Dec2005 Jan2006

Flo

w (

cfs

)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Sacramento R above Cache Sl

Steamboat Slough

Miner Slough


23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20


Sacramento R at Rio Vista

Sacramento R at Snodgrass Sl


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-6

3.3.1 Fremont Weir and Sacramento Weir

A uniform 32.5 ft NAVD88 weir crest elevation was used for the Fremont Weir in the LSB

model and was the crest elevation used in the Sutter Bypass model grid. The Sacramento Weir is

described in the DWR Fact Sheet (DWR, 2012) as being 1920 feet long, with 48 gates. Each

gate consists of 38, 6-feet long wooden planks. The Fact Sheet lists the weir crest elevation as

24.75 ft USED. The crest elevation was converted to 24.10 ft NAVD88 for the model run using

the NGVD29 to NAVD88 conversion for the observed nearby gauge on the Sacramento River

just upstream of the weir (A02108). The weir height in the model can be adjusted by date and

time to simulate gate operation. The weir height was initially set to 30.1 ft NAVD88 to account

for the height of the closed gates. This elevation allows the overtopping flow which occurs at the

weir when the tops of the wooden planks are exceeded by high river stage. The model did not

however include any leakage flow through the gates which is observed when Sacramento River

stage exceeds the base weir crest elevation. The equivalent of 20 gates were opened in the model

run December 31, 2006 at 9:00. Timing of the gates opening was selected based upon review of

the nearby stage record at the A02108 gauge location.

3.4 Observed Data for Calibration

The primary data type used for the model calibration were the available observed stage and flow

gauge records for the locations within the model domain. The data stations available for

calibration are mapped in Figure 3.10 and listed in Table 3.2. High water mark (HWM) data

were available for some reaches of the LSB system and are plotted in the water surface profile

plots for visual comparison model computed results. The HWM data can be somewhat scattered

and preference was given to using the observed gauge data for calibration. The HWM data was

used for calibration of the Cache Creek and Cache Creek Settling Basin section of the LSB

model where no gauge data were available.

3.5 Calibration Process

An initial calibration run of the full LSB model was performed with the boundary conditions

described in Section 3.3. In viewing the computed results, the Feather River system boundary

conditions as applied appeared to produce an early timing of the peak flood flow and stage in the

model result relative to what was seen in the observed data records used for the model

calibration. The Feather River was a large contributor to the early period flood flow for the LSB

system and the early onset of the flow peak propagated downstream through the system. The

Feather River boundary condition used for the Sutter Bypass model was assumed to be a better

representation of the Feather River flow. As a result much of the LSB model calibration was run

with the Feather River inflow boundary location at Nicolaus (Figure 3.2) about 1.7 miles

upstream of the confluence with the Sutter Bypass. The Feather River portion of the LSB grid

was calibrated separately applying the observed flow records for the Feather River at Gridley

(GRL), the Yuba River at Marysville (MRY) and the Bear River near Wheatland (BRW) (Figure

3.1 and Table 2.1). Both the LSB model with the full Feather River grid and the shortened

Feather River grid were run for the final calibration and both results presented.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-7

Figure 3.10 Observed gauge data locations for model calibration to the January 2006 flood event. Parameters used for model boundary conditions (e.g. stage at SRV) are not included in the plot.

Sacramento R

at Rio Vista

Sacramento R

at Snodgrass Sl

Sacramento R

at Tisdale Weir

Sutter Bypass

at Tisdale Weir

Feather R at

Yuba City

Putah Creek

Cache Creek

American River

LSB Model

2-D

1-D

Fremont Weir

LIY

LISFPT

HWB

YBY

SRV

BYL

IST

SBP

VONFRE

A02160

WLK

KNL

SB2

SB1

FBL

NICWSL

YUB

SAC

WEIR

Observed Data Stations

StageFlowStage & Flow

A02108

SSK

Yuba R


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-8

Table 3.2 Observed data locations for calibration of the LBS model for the January 2006 flood event.

Station ID Station Name Latitude (°N) Longitude (°W)

Coordinates

from CDEC Operator Date Type

YUB Feather R at Yuba City 39.138611 122.605833 CA Dept of Water Resources Stage

FBL Feather R at Boyd's Landing 39.045 121.611 Sutter County (CDEC Database) Stage

NIC Feather R at Nicolaus 38.8897 121.6047 CA Dept of Water Resources Stage

SB2 Sutter Bypass Chan at PP2 39.025681 121.72718 CA Dept of Water Resources Stage

SB1 Sutter Bypass Chan at PP1 38.93232 121.63533 CA Dept of Water Resources Stage

WSL Willow Slough at SB West Burrow Pit 38.914589 121.627556 CA Dept of Water Resources Stage

SBP Sutter Bypass at RD 1500 Pump 38.785275 121.65432 CA Dept of Water Resources Stage

SSK Sacramento Sl near Karnak 38.779366 121.637756 CA Dept of Water Resources Stage

WLK Sacramento R Below Wilkins Sl nr Grimes 39.009895 121.824692 USGS Stage

KNL Sacramento R at Knights Landing 38.803349 121.716393 CA Dept of Water Resources Stage

FRE Sacramento R at Freemont Weir (West End) 38.758889 121.666667 CA Dept of Water Resources/NCRO Stage

A02160 Sacramento R at Freemont Weir (East End) 38.766652 121.63413 WDL CA Dept of Water Resources Stage

VON Sacramento R at Verona 38.774345 121.598289 USGS & CA Dept of Water Resources Stage & Flow

A02108 Sacramento R above Sac Weir 38.608611 121.56 CA Dept of Water Resources Stage

SAC WEIR Sacramento R Spill to Yolo Bypass USGS Flow

BYL Sacramento R at Bryte Lab 38.600089 121.539506 CA Dept of Water Resources/NCRO Stage

IST Sacramento R at I Street 38.588666 121.505075 CA Dept of Water Resources/NCRO Stage

FPT Sacramento R at Freeport 38.455925 121.501628 USGS Stage & Flow


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-9

Observed data locations for calibration of the LBS model for the January 2006 flood event (continued).

Unless indicated, station coordinates are from metadata included in the USACE Observed data package (USACE, 2013).

“Coordinates from CDEC” signify the listed coordinates are from DWR’s California Data Exchange Center (CDEC) website. CDEC

coordinates were used if the CDEC webpage for the station noted a recent update of the posted coordinates.

Station ID Station Name Latitude (°N) Longitude (°W)

Coordinates

from CDEC Operator Date Type

YBY Yolo Bypass nr Woodland 38.677681 121.644127 USGS Stage & Flow

LIS Yolo Bypass at Lisbon 38.475 121.588333 CA Dept of Water Resources Stage

LIY Yolo Bypass Near Liberty Island 38.329167 121.693889 CA Dept of Water Resources Stage

HWB Miner Slough at Hwy 84 Bridge 38.2917 121.6308 USGS Stage

SRV Sacramento R at Rio Vista 38.159722 121.686389 USGS Flow


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-10

The primary model parameters adjusted in the model calibration were the area type assignments

(material types) and the corresponding Manning’s friction coefficients. The second set of model

adjustments were refinements to the model geometry. These were mainly updates to the lower

Yolo Bypass region where the original land elevations were developed from older elevation

datasets.

To speed the overall calibration process, the LSB model was partitioned into smaller grid

sections. As an example, the reach of the Sacramento River from the Fremont Weir upstream to

the Tisdale Weir was extracted from the LSB model and calibrated independently. The observed

stage record for the Fremont Weir gauge (FRE) provided the required downstream boundary

condition for these calibration runs. By this process, the initial estimate of the friction

coefficients for the reach could be quickly obtained. Four sub-sections of the LSB model were

calibrated by this process:

1) Sacramento River from the Fremont Weir to the upstream inflow boundary below the

Tisdale Weir

2) Cache Creek and the Cache Creek Settling Basin

3) Lower Yolo Bypass below I-80.

4) Feather River

The calibration of the Cache Creek, the lower Yolo Bypass and Feather River sub-sections of the

LSB model described in further detail. The final calibration steps for the full LSB model are

then subsequently presented. Water surface profile plots are presented for the sub-section

models and the full LSB model. The profile transects are shown in Figure 3.11and Figure 3.12.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-11

Figure 3.11 Water surfaced profile transects for the northern region of the LSB model.

Model Grid BoundaryProfile Transect

Feather Riverfrom Yuba City

to Nicolaus

Sutter Bypassfrom Tisdale

Weir toFremont Weir

SacramentoRiver from

Wilkins Sl toFremont Weir


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-12

Figure 3.12 Water surfaced profile transects for the southern region of the LSB model.

Model Grid BoundaryProfile Transect

SacramentoRiver from

Feather Riverto Snodgrass SlYolo Bypass

from FremontWeir to theSacramentoRiver at Rio Vista


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-13

3.6 Calibration of the Lower Yolo Bypass

The calibration of the lower Yolo Bypass portion of the LSB is described in detail as it includes

modifications of the incorporated model grid from the USACE Yolo Bypass model.

Initial simulations of the LSB model for the January 2006 flood event indicated computed stage

in the lower Yolo Bypass at the Liberty Island gauge locations (LIY) was under-predicted at time

of peak by nearly 2 feet (Figure 3.13). In contrast, computed stage upstream at the Lisbon gauge

location (LIS) and computed flow at downstream Sacramento River boundary at Rio Vista

(SRV) were well estimated by the model. As a result, effort was focused on improving the

model representation in the vicinity of Liberty Island and Little Holland Tract and the general

Cache Slough complex. This area of the LSB at the start of the calibration process was

unmodified from the original USACE Yolo Bypass model. The strategy followed for improving

the computed stage result for the area entailed:

1) Review geometry and update land elevations with the CVFED LiDAR data.

2) Adjust friction coefficients and material type assignments.

The evaluation of the model changes was performed for a subset of the full LSB model. To

reduce simulation times, the model grid was limited to the Yolo Bypass south of Interstate 80

(Figure 3.13). The upstream unsteady flow boundary condition used for these simulations was

extracted from the full model result at the below I-80 location. A test run showed the limited

model reproduced the full model run time series stages at the Lisbon and Liberty Island gauge

locations.

3.6.1 Geometry Modifications

Some modifications of the USACE Yolo Bypass grid occurred in the initial LSB Model

Development. The primary change was to represent the Little Egbert Tract levee bordering

Cache Slough with 2-D Levee/Weir elements (Figure 2.2). Some additional grid detail was also

added to the Cache Slough near the levee. Otherwise the Lower Yolo Bypass section of the LSB

grid was unchanged from the USACE Yolo Bypass model.

The grid topography for the USACE Yolo Bypass model was based upon land elevations

developed from aerial photogrammetry (USACE, 2007). For the most part the LSB model

incorporated the Yolo Bypass model grid elevations with only limited revision. For the current

calibration effort, the existing model land elevations were evaluated relative to the CVFED

LiDAR dataset. The LiDAR data were applied to update land area elevations for the region

outlined in Figure 3.14. The original model levee elevations and geometry were carefully

reviewed for the areas around Liberty Island, Little Holland Tract and the adjacent channel

levees. The levee elevations were revised and the model geometry adjusted or refined where

deemed needed. The representation for the levee separating the Cache Slough complex from the

Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel (DWSC) was revised to use 2-D Levee/Weir

elements (Figure 3.14). The elevations of the revised and original grids were differenced and are

spatially plotted in Figure 3.15.

The Cache Slough complex presents a wide variation in topography/bathymetry. Some

additional grid detail was added to better represent the flow channels and the transition between


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-14

land areas and adjacent channels which were sometimes coarsely approximated. In addition to

the changes to the Cache Slough complex, detail was added to lower Cache Slough from the

DWSC to the downstream boundary at Rio Vista.

3.6.2 Modification to Material Types and Manning’s “n” values

The simulation with the revised levee and land elevations produced some increase in modeled

stage at the Liberty Island (LIY) gauge location. However under peak flow conditions, the

effects of the revised levee elevations diminish. The second set of model modifications

comprised of reviewing the material type assignments for the Liberty Island and Cache Complex

and adjusting the Manning’s friction coefficients of some of the materials. Table 2.2 lists the “n”

values for the original Yolo Bypass model and the revised coefficients developed from the lower

Yolo Bypass calibration runs. A new material type “Mixed Vegetation and Open Water” was

developed to model friction for elements covering areas of both vegetation and water. The

friction coefficient for the “Open Water” material type was increased from 0.025 to 0.030. A

value of 0.030 or higher has been calibrated for the larger channels (Cache Slough, Shag Slough

and Liberty Cut) and open waters of Liberty Island in other modeling studies (RMA, 2012).

Those studies were typically for low Yolo Bypass inflow conditions where the channel/open

water flows were primarily tidally driven flows.

The “Reeds and Rushes” material type covers large portions of northern Liberty Island and Little

Holland Tract. The friction coefficient for this material type was increased from 0.050 to 0.060

for the calibration study. The areas of the tules and marsh vegetation have expanded over time in

northern Liberty Island since the time of the island inundation. The revised material type

assignments for Liberty Island were based upon 2005-2006 aerial photography (Google Earth) to

match the calibration period conditions.

Table 3.3 Changes to Manning’s “n” friction coefficients for the Lower Yolo Bypass-Cache Slough Complex.

Material USACE

Yolo Bypass

Revised

Lower Yolo Bypass

Open Water 0.025 0.030

Reeds and Rushes 0.050 0.060

Mixed Vegetation and

Open Water

0.045


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-15

Figure 3.13 Comparison of computed and observed stage and flow for the January 2006 flood event at stations in the lower Yolo Bypass. Results are for an early trial simulation of the full LSB model. The computed result showed a good match for stage at the Lisbon station (LIS) and flow at the downstream boundary at Rio Vista (SRV), but under-predicted peak stage at the Liberty Island station (LIS). The top-left figure indicates the upstream boundary (“Yolo Bypass south of I80”) of the lower Yolo Bypass grid used in the calibration process.

28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge

(ft

NA

VD

88

)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Flo

w (

cfs)

-100,000

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

Yolo Bypass at Lisbon (LIS)

Yolo Bypass at Liberty Island (LIY)Sacramento R at Rio Vista (SRV)

Observed

Computed


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-16

Figure 3.14 Areas of revision and refinement for the lower Yolo Bypass-Cache Slough Complex.

Area of Topography/Levee Update

Revisions to Channels

2-D Levee Elements

Liberty Island

Little Holland

Tract

Additional Channel Detail To Lower Cache Slough


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-17

Figure 3.15 Revised lower Yolo Bypass area model grid elevation change from original Yolo Bypass model. The land elevation for revised grid section was updated from the CVFED LiDAR dataset.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-18

3.6.3 Results for January 2006 Flood Event

Results are presented for three configurations of the Lower Yolo Bypass sub-model.

LWR_YOLO_1 – Initial grid and friction coefficients

LWR_YOLO_2 – Update land elevations and revise levee detail in Cache Slough complex

LWR_YOLO_3 – In addition to the above, revise and refine some material type assignments.

Apply revised friction coefficients listed in Table 2.2.

Figure 3.16 compares the observed water surface elevation time series with the three computed

run conditions for the Yolo Bypass and the Lisbon and Liberty Island gauge locations. The

results are summarized in Table 3.4 which compares observed and computed peak water surface

elevations. The results show the adjustments to the levees and update of the elevations have only

a small effect when water levels are at flood conditions. Increasing the friction coefficients for

the open water areas and the areas of northern Liberty Island and Little Holland Tract covered by

marsh plants was much more effective in improving the computed stage at the Liberty Island

gauge location (LIY). While the model still under-predicts the stage at this location, the

computed result is greatly improved. Further increasing the friction coefficients in this area will

wait to be examined in the full model run.

The results show computed stage at the Lisbon gauge location is only slightly affected by the

modifications downstream at the Cache Slough complex. The “Open Water” material type has a

limited representation in the upstream portion of the Yolo Bypass model and the “Reeds and

Rushes” material type is only represented in the Cache Slough complex. Increasing the friction

for these material types should not affect the calibration of the model upstream of the Lisbon

gauge.

Table 3.4 Model and Observed Peak WS Elevations for Lower Yolo Bypass Grid, January 2006 flood event.

Observed

Peak WS Peak WS Error Peak WS Error Peak WS Error

Station (ft NAVD88) (ft NAVD88) (ft) (ft NAVD88) (ft) (ft NAVD88) (ft)

LIS 23.32 23.23 -0.09 23.23 -0.09 23.31 -0.01

LIY 16.97 15.12 -1.85 15.35 -1.62 16.29 -0.68

LWR_YOLO_1 LWR_YOLO_2 LWR_YOLO_3


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-19

Figure 3.16 Observed vs. Computed stages for calibration runs for the Lower Yolo Bypass model grid for the Yolo Bypass at Lisbon (LIS) and Liberty Island (LIY). LWR_YOLO_1 – Original grid and coefficients. LWR_YOLO_2 – Updated land elevations and levee revisions. LWR_YOLO_3 – Increase friction coefficients for “Open Water” and “Reeds and Rushes”.

Yolo Bypass at Lisbon (LIS)

Yolo Bypass at Liberty Island (LIY)

28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Observed

LWR_YOLO_1

LWR_YOLO_2

LWR_YOLO_3


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-20

3.7 Calibration of the Cache Creek and Cache Creek Settling Basin

The crest elevation for the Cache Creek Weir to the Yolo Bypass is 35 feet NAVD88 and

exceeds the modeled and observed 2006 event stage (YBY) of the adjacent Yolo Bypass by

several feet. Thus flow over the weir for the 2006 period is expected to be primarily free

flowing. The Cache Creek and Cache Creek Settling basin grid was extracted from the main

LSB model along with a small portion of the adjacent Yolo Bypass grid where a stage boundary

condition could be applied. No observed gauge data was available for the domain of the model.

However, observed high water mark (HWM) data was available from the USACE observed data

package (2013) along the Cache Creek levees. Initial model runs over-predicted stage along the

Cache Creek profile relative to the HWM data. The model friction coefficients were reduced and

some reassignment of the material types performed to improve the match of the model water

surface profile to the HWM data (Figure 3.17). The final set of friction coefficients for the

Cache Creek and Cache Creek Settling basin grid are listed in Table 3.5

Table 3.5 Initial and Final calibration values for the Manning’s friction coefficients for the Cache Creek and Cache Creek Settling Basin grid.

Material Initial Value Final Value

Cache Creek Channel 0.038 0.038

Agriculture 0.028 0.028

Vegetation - dense 0.10 0.07

Vegetation - medium 0.080 0.065

Vegetation - sparse 0.06 0.05

Bare Grass - 0.030

Toe Drains, slough 0.030 0.030

Levee Bank 0.030 0.030


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-21

Figure 3.17 Final calibration water surface profile for the Cache Creek and Cache Creek Settling Basin sub-section model plotted with the 2006 High Water Mark data.

Hw

y 1

13

Ho

wa

rd D

r

CR

10

2

N E

nd

of

Se

ttlin

g

Ba

sin

S E

nd

of

Se

ttlin

g

Ba

sin

Le

ve

e

Yo

lo

Byp

ass


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-22

3.8 Calibration of the Feather River

The grid used for the Feather River calibration was extracted from the main LSB model and

included the stretch of the Feather River from just upstream of Yuba City and its confluence with

the Yuba River to the Feather River’s intersection with the Sutter Bypass. Upstream inflow

boundary conditions were available at the Feather River at Gridley, the Yuba River at

Marysville, and the Bear River at Wheatland. Because of the long distances between the

observed data locations and the model boundaries (approximately 6 river miles for the Yuba, 10

miles for the Bear, and 22 miles for the Feather, see Figure 3.1), inflow time series were lagged

several hours: 4 hours for the Bear and Yuba and 8 hours for the Feather. Lag times were

determined based on comparison of observed water surface elevation time series in the area. A

single observed gauge data was available for the interior of the grid for calibration - the Feather

River at Boyd’s Landing (FBL). Initial model runs over-predicted stage at that location (Figure

3.18). Model friction coefficients were reduced for both the Feather River channel and the

floodplain vegetation to improve the match of the model to the observed data (Figure 3.19). The

initial and final sets of friction coefficients are listed in Table 3.6

Table 3.6 Initial and Final calibration values for the Manning’s friction coefficients for the Feather River grid.

Material Initial Value Final Value

Feather River Channel 0.038 0.030

Bear River Channel 0.030 0.030

Yuba River Channel 0.038 0.030


Vegetation - dense 0.100 0.090

Vegetation - medium 0.080 0.070

Vegetation - sparse 0.060 0.050

Grassland 0.060 0.045

Toe Drains, slough 0.030 0.030

Levee Bank 0.030 0.030

Open Water 0.030 0.030


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-23

Figure 3.18 Computed and observed stage for the Feather River at Boyd's Landing for the 2006 flood event.

27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge

(ft

)

40

45

50

55

60

Initial Model Run Final Calibration Observ ed Data


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-24

Figure 3.19. Computed peak water surface profile elevations for the final 2006 calibration run for the Feather River grid.

Yuba C

ity

Shanghai

Bend R

d

Boyd’s

Landin

g

Sta

r B

end

Rd

Bear

Riv

er

Sutt

er

Bypass


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-25

3.9 Model Parameters

Development and adjustment of the model friction coefficients has been discussed in the

previous sections. This section presents a listing and discussion of the model run parameters

used for the calibration simulations. These include parameters for eddy viscosity, wetting and

drying, time step and convergence criteria. The model parameters used for the calibration and

validation runs were those developed and documented in the Model Development TM (RMA,

2013). That TM provides a full discussion of the model parameters and comparison to the model

parameters of the Yolo Bypass and Sutter Bypass RMA2 models.

The turbulence coefficients (eddy viscosity) are computed in the LSB model using the

Smagorinsky methodology, whereas the Yolo Bypass and Sutter Bypass models employed the

Peclet number option for computing the element turbulence exchange coefficients. The Peclet

number option is not available for the in-house RMA2 program. The methods differ in that the

Peclet number option computes the eddy viscosity based upon the overall velocity within the

element while the Smagorinsky method considers the velocity gradients. The coefficient values

used for the Smagorinsky parameterization in the LSB are:

TBFACT 0.10

TBMINF 1.00 ft2/s

The TBFACT value of 0.10 is within the range (0.094 to 0.2) recommended by the RMA2 WES

Users Guide. The TBMINF of 1.00 is the default value for the RMA2 WES. The input

parameters listed were applied on a global basis.

The LBS Model currently uses the marsh porosity option for modeling wetting and drying. The

global values for the Marsh Porosity are:

Minimum Land Elevation, Distance below each node’s bathymetry: 26.0 feet

Transition Range: 1.5 foot

Minimum wetted surface area factor: 0.002

Other run control parameters include:

Convergence criteria:

x-velocity: 0.065 fps

y-velocity: 0.065 fps

Depth: 0.003 feet

Max number of iterations: 9

Time step size:

7.5 to 15 minutes (2006 flood event simulation)

3.25 to 15 minutes (1997 flood event simulation)

Most of the model stability issues were encountered in the validation run of the 1997 flood event.

The higher flows in the 1997 simulation included levee overtopping flow into the Little Egbert


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-26

Tract from the adjacent Cache Slough and the subsequent wetting of the dry land surface. This

was the primary factor in the need to reduce the time step size 3.25 minutes for a one day

simulation period. To also increase the model stability, the marsh porosity wetted surface area

factor was increased to 0.02 and the transition range increased to 2.5 feet for a few selected

elements right adjacent the levee.

3.10 Calibration of the LSB Model

The revised lower Yolo Bypass grid discussed in Section 3) was incorporated into the LSB

model for the calibration of the larger model. The LSB model calibration primarily utilized the

grid configuration with the Feather River inflow applied at Nicolaus (Section 3.3) as this was

believed to provide a better estimate of the Feather River flow to the greater LSB model. The

Feather River grid was calibrated separately (Section 3.8). Final calibrations runs were

performed both configurations of the LSB model (with and without full Feather River grid).

The calibration discussion presented pertains to the LSB model updated with the calibrated lower

Yolo Bypass and Cache Creek grids. The initial model runs with updated LSB model under-

predicted observed stage near the Fremont Weir, along the Sacramento River below Verona to

the downstream boundary at Snodgrass Slough and in portions of the Yolo Bypass. The initial

runs over-predicted stage in the Sutter Bypass upstream of the Feather River confluence and at

the Feather River at Nicolaus location. The Sutter Bypass model grid (CH2M Hill, 2012) was

directly used for the Sutter Bypass and lower Feather River areas of the LSB model. The LSB

model grid in the vicinity of the Fremont Weir was developed independently by RMA, but the

material type assignments generally followed that of the Sutter Bypass model.

Some friction coefficients were reduced to address the high computed stages in the lower Feather

River and the area upstream of the Feather-Sutter Bypass confluence. Changes to the coefficient

values from the Sutter Bypass model are listed in Table 3.7. To mitigate the low predicted stages

near the Fremont Weir, some areas below the weir and to the northwest of the weir were

assigned material types with higher friction coefficients. The “agriculture” type is dominant

material type assignment for the lower Sutter Bypass upstream of the Fremont Weir. The

Manning’s “n” coefficient was increased slightly to also raise the predicted stage near the weir

(Table 3.7).

For the Yolo Bypass region of the LSB model, computed stages under-predicted observed stage

at the YBY gauge location. The friction coefficient value for the “agriculture” material type for

Yolo Bypass region was increased from 0.030 to 0.031. Model friction coefficients for the

Sacramento River below Verona were incrementally raised to better reproduce the observed

stages.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-27

Table 3.7 Adjustments to the Manning’s friction coefficients from the original Sutter Bypass model values.

Material Sutter Bypass

Model

Final LSB

Model


Feather River 0.038 0.034

Feather River

Confluence Weir

0.160 0.080

Sparse Vegetation 0.060 0.050

3.11 Final Calibration Results

The presentation of the calibration results include time series plots of computed and observed

stage/flow, tabulated values of observed and model predicted and peak stage, and computed peak

water surface profile plots with observed gauge peak stage and/or high water mark data. Model

results are presented for the LSB model with the full Feather River grid (LSB_ALL) and the

LSB with the Feather River inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

Figure 3.20 provides an example time series plots of computed and observed stage and flow.

The full set of time series plots for the observed gauge locations are available in Appendix A.

Table 3.8 summarizes the peak observed and computed water surface elevations at the available

gauge locations. The results overall would indicate the LSB model somewhat under-predicts

peak stage for the 2006 flood event. In particular are the Sacramento River stations above and

below the Sacramento Weir (A02160, BYL and IST). The time series plots (Figure 8.13, Figure

8.15 and Figure 8.16) for these stations show the overall the computed stage reproduces the

observed stage, except at the spike in the stage just prior to opening the Sacramento Weir gates.

Computed peak stages for stations near and upstream of the Fremont Weir are also somewhat

below observed values (FRE, SSK and SBP). Similarly, the predicted peak stage is low in the

Yolo Bypass at the Woodland gauge location (YBY). These low predicted stages may possibly

be improved by a further incremental increase of the Manning’s “n” value for the agricultural

land type from what was developed in the Sutter Bypass and Yolo Bypass model calibrations.

Model predicted stages were high for the Sutter Bypass at Willow Slough (WSL) and Feather

River at Nicolaus (NIC). These gauges are upstream of the Feather-Sutter Bypass confluence.

A comparison of the two model runs, LSB_ALL and LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus, show higher

peak stages for the LSB_ALL result. These result from higher peak Feather River flows from

the LSB_ALL run. The exception are the stations near and below the Sacramento Weir

(A02160, BYL and IST). The stage peak at these stations is affected by the opening of the

Sacramento Weir gates on the morning of December 31, 2005. For early December 31, the

computed flow upstream at Verona is less for the LSB_ALL run. Correspondingly flow and

stage are lower at the downstream Sacramento River stations.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-28

Table 3.9 lists observed and computed peak flows at the available flow stations. Overall

computed flow peaks are within a few percent of the observed values for the Sacramento River at

Verona (VON) and the Yolo Bypass near Woodland (YBY). However, the flow time series plots

(Figure 8.11 and Figure 8.19) show the computed peak flow proceeds the observed by several

hours. The model over-predicts flow for the Sacramento Weir (Figure 8.14) possibly indicating

the need for some further refinement to modeling the weir for the 2006 event.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-29

Table 3.8 Comparison of Observed and Model Predicted Peak Water Surface Elevations. Final 2006 Calibration Runs

Avg Error -0.24 -0.14

Avg Absolute Error 0.40 0.36

* Observed gauge location just upstream of model boundary

Observed

Peak WS Elev Peak WS Elev Error Peak WS Elev Error

Station ID Location (ft NAVD88) (ft NAVD88) (ft) (ft NAVD88) (ft)

YUB Feather R at Yuba City 67.71 67.41 -0.30

FBL Feather R at Boyd's Landing 58.85 60.05 1.20

NIC Feather R at Nicolaus 44.70 46.09 1.39 45.71 1.01

SB2 Sutter Bypass Chan at PP2 * 46.85 46.92 0.07 46.86 0.01

SB1 Sutter Bypass Chan at PP1 -

WSL Willow Slough at SB West Burrow Pit 43.49 44.01 0.52 43.88 0.39

SBP Sutter Bypass at RD 1500 Pump 39.00 38.91 -0.09 38.78 -0.22

SSK Sacramento Sl near Karnak 39.13 38.79 -0.34 38.67 -0.46

WLK Sacramento R Below Wilkins Sl at Grimes 50.68 50.64 -0.04 50.61 -0.07

KNL Sacramento R at Knights Landing 40.31 39.93 -0.38 39.83 -0.48

FRE Sacramento R at Freemont Weir (West End) 38.72 38.51 -0.21 38.40 -0.32

A02160 Sacramento R at Freemont Weir (East End) 37.91 37.97 0.06 37.85 -0.06

VON Sacramento R at Verona 37.94 37.84 -0.10 37.72 -0.22

A02108 Sacramento R above Sac Weir 31.15 30.58 -0.57 30.70 -0.45

BYL Sacramento R at Bryte Lab 30.84 30.27 -0.57 30.38 -0.46

IST Sacramento R at I Street 30.24 29.52 -0.72 29.63 -0.61

FPT Sacramento R at Freeport 23.30 23.48 0.18 23.54 0.24

YBY Yolo Bypass nr Woodland 30.70 30.36 -0.34 30.26 -0.44

LIS Yolo Bypass at Lisbon 23.33 23.34 0.01 23.25 -0.08

LIY Yolo Bypass Near Liberty Island 16.98 16.45 -0.53 16.33 -0.65

HWB Miner Slough at Hwy 84 Bridge * 13.86 14.14 0.28 14.14 0.28

LSB_ALL LSB_Feather_At Nicolaus


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-30

Table 3.9 Comparison of Observed and Model Predicted Peak Flows. Final 2006 Calibration Runs

Observed

Peak Flow Peak Flow Error Error Peak Flow Error Error

Station ID Location (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) % (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)

VON Sacramento R at Verona 85,600 83,830 -1,770 -2.1 83,092 -2,508 -2.9

SAC WEIR Sacramento R Spill to Yolo Bypass 26,100 29,699 3,599 13.8 29,335 3,235 12.4

YBY Yolo Bypass nr Woodland 225,170 228,912 3,742 1.7 224,312 -858 -0.4

FPT Sacramento R at Freeport 97,200 92,780 -4,420 -4.5 92,798 -4,402 -4.5

SRV Sacramento R at Rio Vista 372,000 353,950 -18,050 -4.9 350,023 -21,977 -5.9

LSB_ALL LSB_Feather_At Nicolaus


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-1

Figure 3.20 Example time series plots of observed and computed flow (top) and observed and computed stage (bottom). Plotted model results are for the final 2006 calibration runs of the LSB model with the two configurations of the Feather River.

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Flo

w (

cfs

)

50,000

55,000

60,000

65,000

70,000

75,000

80,000

85,000

90,000

Sacramento R at Verona (VON)

Observed

LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus

LSB_ALL

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

33

34

35

36

37

38

39Sacramento R at Verona (VON)

Observed


LSB_ALL


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-1

Figure 3.21 2006 Final calibration run (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus). Computed peak water surface profile elevation for the Sacramento River upstream of the Fremont Weir.

Wilk

ins S

l

Co

llin

s E

dd

y

CR

98

A

Kn

igh

ts

Landin

g

Fre

mo

nt

We

ir


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 3-2

Figure 3.22 2006 Final calibration run (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus). Computed peak water surface profile elevation for the Sacramento River downstream of the confluence with the Feather River.

Fe

ath

er

R C

on

fl

I-5

Sa

cra

me

nto

We

ir

Fre

ep

ort

Snodgra

ss

Slo

ugh

Am

erica

n R

iv

Co

nflu

en

ce

Section 4: Model Validation to the January 1997 Flood Event

Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 4-1

Section 4

Model Validation to the January 1997 Flood Event

4.1 Introduction

The LSB model validation was performed using the conditions of the January 1997 flood event.

This was a complex event with multiple levee breaches on the Feather River (CH2M Hill, 2012)

and upstream on the Sutter Bypass system.


The 1997 flood event included a levee break along the Feather River grid of the LSB model.

The levee break and the complexity of deriving Feather River system inflow boundary

conditions from observed gauge data from the GRL, MRY and BRW locations resulted in

selection of the LSB grid with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (Figure 3.2) for the model

validation. In particular, the observed flow data for the Yuba River was missing at time of the

peak flood flow. As in the model calibration run with the shortened Feather River

representation, the Feather inflow to the LSB model was the same as the applied inflow used in

the Sutter Bypass model run for the 1997 flood event.

Similarly, the Sutter Bypass boundary condition inflow was extracted from the Sutter Bypass

model run for the 1997 flood event. The main limitation of using the Sutter Bypass model data

for the LSB model input was the limited duration of the data. The data derived from the Sutter

Bypass model extend from December 31, 1996 at 12:00 to January 4, 1997 at 23:00. The authors

of the Sutter Bypass model reported the original Sutter Bypass inflow to their model was

overestimated and subsequently scaled the down the by 26 percent. The same scaling was

applied to the observed Butte Slough at Meridian flow to extend the LSB Sutter Bypass inflow

boundary condition for the validation run. The Feather River inflow hydrograph was extended

by lagging the observed data hydrographs for the Feather River at Gridley and the Yuba River at

Marysville. The Feather River inflow derived from this process may be questionable and should

be kept in mind when viewing the later period computed results for the downstream LSB model.

Observed data for developing inflows for the north Delta channels was more limited for the 1997

flood event relative to the 2006 event (Figure 3.3). Observed flow data was available for the

Sacramento River above Cache Slough inflow location. However, observed flow data were not

available for the HWB, SUT and SSS station locations for developing the inflows to the Miner

Slough and Steamboat Slough boundary condition locations. The combined inflows of Miner

Slough and Steamboat Slough can be computed by differencing the flow records from the FPT

and SDC stations (Figure 3.3). Regression analysis of the 2006 observed data showed the flow

split to be about 76% for Steamboat Slough and 24% for Miner Slough.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 4-2

Figure 4.1 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the Sutter Bypass below Tisdale, Sacramento River below Tisdale and Feather River at Nicolaus locations for the January 1997 flood event. The solids lines for the Sutter Bypass and Feather River hydrographs represent the time periods extracted from the Sutter Bypass model inputs or results. The dashed portions of the two hydrographs were derived from observed data records.

Figure 4.2 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the Natomas Cross Canal and the American River for the January 1997 flood event. The dashed lines indicate the Dec 30, 1996 through Jan 8, 1997 simulation period and the Dec 29, 1996 spin-up period.

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Dec1996 Jan1997

Flo

w (

cfs

)

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000


Sacramento R below

Tisdale

Sutter Bypass below

Tisdale

Feather R Inflow (at

Nicolaus)

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Dec1996 Jan1997

Flo

w (

cfs

)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000


American River

Natomas Cross Canal


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 4-3

Figure 4.3 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the west side creeks entering the Yolo Bypass for the January 1997 flood event. The dashed lines indicate the Dec 30, 1996 through Jan 8, 1997 simulation period and the Dec 29, 1996 spin-up period.

Figure 4.4 LSB model Inflow boundary conditions for the north Delta inflow channels for the January 1997 flood event. The dashed lines indicate the Dec 30, 1996 through Jan 8, 1997 simulation period and the Dec 29, 1996 spin-up period.

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Dec1996 Jan1997

Flo

w (

cfs

)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000Spinup Period Simulation Period

Cache Creek


Willow Slough

Putah Creek

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Dec1996 Jan1997

Flo

w (

cfs

)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Sacramento R above Cache Sl

Steamboat Slough

Miner Slough



Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 4-4

Figure 4.5 Downstream stage boundary conditions for the LSB model channels for the January 1997 flood event. The dashed lines indicate the Dec 30, 1996 through Jan 8, 1997 simulation period and the Dec 29, 1996 spin-up period.

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

0

5

10

15

20


Sacramento R at Rio Vista

Sacramento R at Snodgrass Sl


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 4-5

4.3 Model Validation Results

Computed and observed results are presented for the 1997 flood event. As earlier noted, there

were greater uncertainties to the estimated system inflows for this event. Computed and

observed peak water surface elevations for the 1997 event are listed in Table 4.1. Time series

plots of computed and observed stage and flow are provided in Appendix B.

The error values in computed peak stage (Table 4.1) are somewhat scattered in that some areas

stage is over-predicted and under-predict in others. The computed stages are higher than

observed for the Yolo Bypass stations for the 1997 event, whereas the model Yolo Bypass stages

were low. The computed and observed hydrograph for the YBY station (Figure 9.15) indicates

the model overestimates the Yolo Bypass flow for this event, although observed data at time of

peak flow are missing. The absolute errors in model predicted stage for the Fremont Weir (FRE,

A02160) and downstream Sacramento River stations (VON, A02108 and IST) are 0.21 or less.

The time series stage plots also show a good match of computed to observed stage for much of

the event. Figure 9.13 compares the computed and observed flow for the Sacramento Weir. The

computed result reproduces the flow magnitude for the weir, with some error in the timing of the

flow. Flow in the American River as measured at the Fair Oaks gauge rises sharply late on

January 1 from about 32,000 cfs to just over 110,000 cfs. The model run used the Fair Oaks

hydrograph lagged 5 hours. However, the lagged Fair Oaks record is a simplification of the

American River flow routed to the Sacramento River. Overall, the model results are generally

good in simulating a complex flood such as the 1997 event over a large model domain.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 4-6

Table 4.1 Comparison of Observed and Model Predicted Peak Water Surface Elevations. 1997 Validation Run

Avg Error 0.07

Avg Absolute Error 0.50

Table 4.2 Comparison of Observed and Model Predicted Peak Flows for 1997 Validation Run

Observed

Peak WS Elev Peak WS Elev Error

Station ID Location (ft NAVD88) (ft NAVD88) (ft)

NIC Feather R at Nicolaus 49.33 50.33 1.00

SB2 Sutter Bypass Chan at PP2 * 50.64 49.28 -1.36

SB1 Sutter Bypass Chan at PP1 47.01 47.62 0.61

WSL Willow Slough at SB West Burrow Pit 46.91 47.51 0.60

SBP Sutter Bypass at RD 1500 Pump 42.50 42.13 -0.37

SSK Sacramento Sl near Karnak 42.70 42.03 -0.67

WLK Sacramento R Below Wilkins Sl at Grimes -

KNL Sacramento R at Knights Landing 42.71 42.34 -0.37

FRE Sacramento R at Freemont Weir (West End) 41.40 41.45 0.05

A02160 Sacramento R at Freemont Weir (East End) 40.90 41.04 0.14

VON Sacramento R at Verona 41.31 41.10 -0.21

A02108 Sacramento R above Sac Weir 33.10 32.98 -0.12

BYL Sacramento R at Bryte Lab -

IST Sacramento R at I Street 32.92 32.74 -0.18

FPT Sacramento R at Freeport -

YBY Yolo Bypass nr Woodland (missing obs peak) 32.86 33.62 0.76

LIS Yolo Bypass at Lisbon 26.10 26.51 0.41

LIY Yolo Bypass Near Liberty Island 19.56 20.38 0.82

HWB Miner Slough at Hwy 84 Bridge * -

LSB_Feather_At Nicolaus

Observed

Peak Flow Peak Flow Error Error

Station ID Location (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)

VON Sacramento R at Verona 102,000 100,020 -1,980 -1.9

SAC WEIR Sacramento R Spill to Yolo Bypass 98,175 100,270 2,095 2.1

YBY Yolo Bypass nr Woodland (peak value

missing)

305,855 352,717 46,862 15.3

FPT Sacramento R at Freeport -

SRV Sacramento R at Rio Vista -

LSB_Feather_At Nicolaus


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 4-1

Figure 4.6 Computed peak water surface profile for the Sutter Bypass for the 1997 Validation run.

Tis

dale

Weir

Fre

mont W

eir

Gils

izer

Sl

Rt113

Will

ow

Sl

Feath

er

Riv

er


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 4-2

Figure 4.7 Computed peak water surface profile for the Yolo Bypass system for the 1997 Validation run.

Fre

mont W

eir

I-5

I-80

Lis

bon W

eir

Min

er

Sl

Rio

Vis

ta

N E

nd o

f

Lib

ert

y Is

Sacra

mento

Weir

Knig

hts

Landin

g R

idge C

ut

Section 5: Sensitivity Simulations

Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 5-1

Section 5

Sensitivity Simulations

5.1 Introduction

The calibrated LSB model was further evaluated in two sets of sensitivity runs:

1) LBS model sensitivity to the downstream boundary condition stage

2) Sensitivity of the 1997 flood event run to the Liberty Island configuration.

5.2 Downstream Stage Boundary Sensitivity Run

A sensitivity run was performed to quantify the area of influence to the model downstream stage

boundary location. The LSB model has two stage boundary conditions, on the Sacramento River

at Rio Vista and to the east on the Sacramento River at Snodgrass Slough (Figure 3.1). The

sensitivity analysis was performed only for the Rio Vista location as this is the lower boundary

condition for the Yolo Bypass system and an area where potential flood mitigation projects may

be of interest.

For the sensitivity analysis, the observed Rio Vista time series stage record was increased 1 foot

and applied to the Sacramento River at Rio Vista location. The January 1997 flood event was

selected for the analysis as this was a more significant event relative to the January 2006 flood

event.

Peak water surface elevations over the LSB model domain were extracted from simulation result

for the base (no stage shift at Rio Vista boundary) and the shifted boundary condition runs. The

two results were differenced to produce a spatial contour plot of peak stage change in Figure 5.1

Peak water surface profiles along the lower Yolo Bypass for the two simulations are show

presented in Figure 5.2. Both plots show the stage difference notably decreases above Little

Egbert Tract to about +0.22 ft.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 5-2

Figure 5.1 Change from Base condition peak stage resulting with the 1 foot increase to the boundary condition stage for the Sacramento River at Rio Vista. The is for the January 1997 flood event.

Little

Egbert

Tract

Cache

Slough

LIY

LIS


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 5-1

Figure 5.2 Comparison of computed water surface elevation profiles for base (Final Calibration) and the Rio Vista shifted stage (+1 ft) sensitivity simulations.

Lis

bo

n W

eir

Min

er

Sl

Rio

Vis

ta

N E

nd

of

Lib

ert

y Is


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 5-1

5.3 1997 Flood Event Simulation for Yolo Bypass

Several model simulations were performed using a truncated section of the LSB grid covering

the 2D model areas downstream of Fremont Weir. There were two purposes of these simulations.

First, to verify that this lower section of the LSB grid produces results of similar accuracy to the

original USACE-developed Yolo Bypass grid (USACE, 2007) from which it was derived. In

addition to the effect of grid changes/additions between the USACE grid and the LSB grid, these

simulation results will also reflect differences in RMA2 software platforms and model

parameters utilized such as the eddy viscosity model and wetting/drying strategy. Model runs

produced for this report were generated using RMA’s in-house version of the RMA2 software,

whereas the USACE Yolo Bypass model results were computed with the USACE version of

RMA2.

The second purpose of the lower Yolo Bypass simulations was to examine the sensitivity of the

results to changes in land use and levee elevations/breach locations that have occurred around

Liberty Island between 1997 and the present. Major breaches occurred on levees surrounding

Liberty Island shortly after the 1997 model verification event. The flooding of the island created

changes in land use, altering the bed roughness values.

The lower Yolo Bypass grid used for this section, along with the locations for the inflow and

stage boundary conditions is shown in Figure 5.3. Simulations were performed for the 1997

verification event. Where boundary condition locations matched those in the full LSB grid, the

same inflow and stage time series (described in Section 4.2) were used. DWR observed data for

the observed spill flow at the Fremont Weir and USACE flow at the Sacramento Weir, calculated

based on observed water levels, were used at the other inflow boundaries. A comparison of the

observed weir boundary conditions to computed flows at these locations from the final LSB 1997

Verification run is shown in Figure 5.4.

There were some notable differences between the current run and the USACE runs. The USACE

grid only extended south to the “stair-step levee” above Liberty Island and Little Holland Tract

(Figure 5.3). The downstream boundary condition for the USACE model was the observed stage

from the gauge at LIY shifted +1.5 ft. The shift was added to adjust for the offset distance of the

boundary condition location from the recorded stage location. Secondly, the USACE model was

developed and calibrated in the NGVD29 vertical datum system. An additional simulation

difference is the Cache Creek inflow to the Yolo Bypass. The RMA Yolo Bypass model grid

simulates flow over the Cache Creek settling basin weir into the Yolo Bypass. This computed

weir flow peaks later than the applied Cache Creek to Bypass hydrograph used with the USACE

Yolo Bypass model.

Model runs were performed using two grids: one representing 2006 conditions with a breached

and flooded Liberty Island, and one designed to simulate the pre-breach 1997 conditions.

Material elements in the interior of Liberty Island for the 2006 grid represented a combination of

open water and mixed tule marsh types. These were modified to reflect agricultural bed

roughness values (Manning’s n = 0.030) for the 1997 grid. Material type changes are shown in

Figure 5.5. Minor levee breaches were filled by raising the breached levee elevations to the

approximate elevation of adjacent intact levees. Larger breaches were raised by 12 feet, based on

comparison with historical topography surveys in the area.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 5-2

Figure 5.3 Grid extent and boundary condition locations for Yolo Bypass runs.

DS Stage BC of USACE 1997 Runs


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 5-3

Figure 5.4 Comparison of observed spill flow at the Sacramento and Fremont Weirs versus LSB model predicted flow. Observed flow was used as boundary condition data at these locations for the Yolo Bypass grid simulations.

Table 5.1 shows the computed and observed maximum water surface elevations at three gauge

locations for which verified data exists for the 1997 flood event. For the USACE model, only

error values taken from the 2007 Yolo Bypass report are provided due to the different vertical

datum of that model. Absolute differences between observed and modeled data are equal to or

smaller in the grid created for this calibration report versus the original USACE model grid.

Modifications around Liberty Island for the 1997 conditions grid improved modeled maximum

stage values around Liberty Island significantly. These improvements decreased along with

distance upstream from the top of Liberty.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 5-4

Table 5.1 Observed and modeled maximum water surface elevations (ft) for locations in the lower Yolo Bypass for the original USACE Yolo Bypass model grid and two grids developed for this calibration study. Parenthetical numbers show modeled minus observed values. The USACE model used the Yolo Bypass at Liberty Is as the downstream stage boundary condition

Location Observed Data USACE Model 2006 Grid 1997 Grid

Yolo Bypass

near Woodland

(USGS

11453000)

32.86 (-0.39) 33.16 (+0.30) 33.15 (+0.29)

Yolo Bypass

near Lisbon Weir

(DWR B91560)

26.10 (-0.44) 26.22 (+0.12) 26.18 (+0.08)

Yolo Bypass

near Liberty

Island

(DWR B91510)

19.56 - 19.97 (+0.41) 19.62 (+0.06)

Figure 5.6 shows the sensitivity of the modeled water surface elevations to the grid changes in

the areas surrounding Liberty Island. Directly upstream of Liberty, 1997 grid surface elevations

are higher than 2006 grid elevations at low flows. At high flows, however, 1997 grid elevations

are lower than 2006 elevations and are closer to the observed 1997 high water gauge values.

Downstream locations in Cache and Lindsey Sloughs are largely unaffected by the changes.

Similarly unaffected are the peak stage values in the Yolo Bypass at Lisbon Weir, located

approximately 10 miles north of the upper end of Liberty Island (Figure 5.7),


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 5-1

Figure 5.5 Element material type modifications to Liberty Island for the 1997 simulation grid. The Manning’s n friction factor was set to 0.030, reflective of agricultural land.


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 5-1

Figure 5.6 Lower Yolo Bypass model sensitivity to grid modifications in Liberty Island representing levee breaches and land use changes between 1997 and 2006. Water surface elevations in the 1997 grid are above 2006 grid results at low flows and lower at high flows. Locations downstream of Liberty remain largely unaffected


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 5-1

Figure 5.7 Lower Yolo Bypass model sensitivity to grid modifications in Liberty Island representing levee breaches and land use changes between 1997 and 2006. Water surface elevations at Lisbon Weir, approximately 10 miles upstream of Liberty Island, are largely unaffected.

Section 6: Summary and Conclusions

Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 6-2

Section 6

Summary and Conclusions

6.1 Introduction

A two-dimensional model of the Lower Sacramento Bypass (LSB) system was constructed in the

previous model development task (RMA, 2013). The new model included sections of existing

RMA2 models for the Sutter Bypass (CH2M Hill, 2012) and Yolo Bypass (USACE, 2007) and

significant new grid development. The calibration and validation of the LSB model was

performed and documented under the current task.

6.2 Model Calibration/Validation

The Sutter Bypass and Yolo Bypass model networks provided a starting set for the geometry and

material properties (land cover and corresponding friction coefficients) developed in the

calibration/validation of those models. Model boundary conditions were developed for

simulation of the 2006 flood event to test the initial geometry and model properties. Initial

simulations identified areas where adjustments and refinements to the model could be made to

improve the match to observed data.

Initial model runs, computed stage well under-predicted observed stage in the lower Yolo Bypass

near the top of Liberty Island. Effort was expended to update the topography and refine the

geometry to the CVFED LiDAR data. Adjustments were made the land coverage assignment

and friction coefficients in the northern Liberty Island.

Boundary conditions for the calibration runs were primarily from observed gauge records.

However, several of the flow gauge locations needed for model inflows were significantly

upstream of the LSB boundary locations. Model results and boundary condition inputs from the

Sutter Bypass model were used to better the estimated boundary inflows for the LSB Sutter

Bypass and Feather River system. Final calibrations runs were perform for two versions of the

LSB grid, one with the full Feather River grid and applying observed tributary hydrographs. A

second version of the grid used the Feather River inflow from the Sutter Bypass model applied at

a Feather River location 1.7 miles upstream of the Sutter Bypass.

For the final 2006 calibration runs, the average error in computed peak stage was about -0.2 feet

with an average absolute error of about 0.4 feet.

The LSB model validation was performed by the 1997 flood event hydrology. Several levee

breaks occurred along the Feather River in the 1997 event. As such the LSB model with the

shortened Feather grid was used, applying the Feather River input hydrograph from the Sutter

Bypass model. For the validation run, the average error in computed peak stage was about 0.1

feet with an average absolute error of about 0.5 feet

Section 7: References

Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 7-3

Section 7

References

California Dept. of Water Resources (DWR). 2010. Sacramento River Flood Control Project

Weirs and Flood Relief Structures Fact Sheet. DWR Division of Flood Management,

Flood Operations Branch.

California Dept. of Water Resources (DWR). 2012. Attachment 8D: Estuary Channel

Evaluations, Public Draft, 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, January.

CH2MHill. 2012. Sutter Bypass RMA2 Model Report, Draft Report, Prepared for the California

Dept. of Water Resources, June.

MBK Engineers. 2012. Lower Feather River Corridor Management Plan Flood Hydraulics

Analysis of Future Conditions. Prepared for AECOM Technical Services, Inc. July 2012.

Resource Management Associates, Inc. (RMA). 2012. Prospect Island Tidal Restoration Project

Calibration and Verification of Hydrodynamic model Used for Phase 1 Preliminary

Alternative Screening. Technical Memorandum. Prepared for Wetlands and Water

Resources, June 2012.

Resource Management Associates, Inc. (RMA). 2013. Lower Sacramento Bypass 2-D Model

Development. Technical Memorandum, Prepared for MWH Americas, Inc. August 2013.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007. Yolo Bypass 2-D Hydraulic Model

Development and Calibration, Engineering Documentation Report, Sacramento District.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2011. Users Guide to RMA2 WES Version 4.5, U.S.

Army, Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. Memorandum for File: American River

Common Features GRR Feasibility Study, Sacramento River System Hydrologic Inputs

for Calibration, Sacramento District, May 2013.

Section 8:

Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 8-4

Section 8

Appendix A – January 2006 Calibration Results

Section 8: Appendix A – January 2006 Calibration Results

Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 8-5

Figure 8.1 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sutter Bypass at PP2 (SB2) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

Figure 8.2 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sutter Bypass at Willow SI (WSL) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48Sutter Bypass at PP2 (SB2)

Observed


LSB_ALL

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45Sutter Bypass at Willow Sl (WSL)

Observed


LSB_ALL


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 8-6

Figure 8.3 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sutter Bypass at RD 1500 Pump (SBP) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

Figure 8.4 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento SI near Karnak (SSK) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

34

35

36

37

38

39

40Sutter Bypass at RD 1500 Pump (SBP)

Observed


LSB_ALL

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

34

35

36

37

38

39

40Sacramento Sl near Karnak (SSK)

Observed


LSB_ALL


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 8-7

Figure 8.5 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Feather R at Yuba City (YUB) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

Figure 8.6 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Feather R at Nicolaus (NIC) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70Feather R at Yuba City (YUB)

Observed

LSB_ALL

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

36

38

40

42

44

46

48Feather R at Nicolaus (NIC)

Observed


LSB_ALL


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 8-8

Figure 8.7 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento R below Wilkins SI nr Grimes (WLK) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

Figure 8.8 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Knights Landing (KNL) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

47.0

47.5

48.0

48.5

49.0

49.5

50.0

50.5

51.0Sacramento R below Wilkins Sl nr Grimes (WLK)

Observed


LSB_ALL

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

35

36

37

38

39

40

41Sacramento R at Knights Landing (KNL)

Observed


LSB_ALL


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 8-9

Figure 8.9 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Fremont Weir West (FRE) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

Figure 8.10 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Fremont Weir East (A02160) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

34

35

36

37

38

39

40Sacramento R at Fremont Weir West (FRE)

Observed


LSB_ALL

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

33

34

35

36

37

38

39Sacramento R at Fremont Weir East (A02160)

Observed


LSB_ALL


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 8-10

Figure 8.11 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed flow time series for the Sacramento R at Verona (VON) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

Figure 8.12 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Verona (VON) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Flo

w (

cfs

)

50,000

55,000

60,000

65,000

70,000

75,000

80,000

85,000

90,000


Observed


LSB_ALL

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

33

34

35

36

37

38


Observed


LSB_ALL


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 8-11

Figure 8.13 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento R above Sac Weir (A02108) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

Figure 8.14 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento Weir Spill (SAC WEIR) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

26

27

28

29

30

31

32Sacramento R above Sac Weir (A02108)

Observed


LSB_ALL

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Flo

w (

cfs

)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Sacramento Weir Spill (SAC WEIR)

Observed


LSB_ALL


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 8-12

Figure 8.15 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Bryte Lab (BYL) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

Figure 8.16 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at I Street (IST) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

26

27

28

29

30

31

32Sacramento R at Bryte Lab (BYL)

Observed


LSB_ALL

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

25

26

27

28

29

30

31Sacramento R at I Street (IST)

Observed


LSB_ALL


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 8-13

Figure 8.17 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Freeport (FPT) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

Figure 8.18 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed flow time series for the Sacramento R at Freeport (FPT) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

19.0

19.5

20.0

20.5

21.0

21.5

22.0

22.5

23.0

23.5

24.0Sacramento R at Freeport (FPT)

Observed


LSB_ALL

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Flo

w (

cfs

)

65,000

70,000

75,000

80,000

85,000

90,000

95,000

100,000Sacramento R at Freeport (FPT)

Observed


LSB_ALL


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 8-14

Figure 8.19 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed flow time series for the Yolo Bypass near Woodland (YBY) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

Figure 8.20 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Yolo Bypass near Woodland (YBY) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Flo

w (

cfs

)

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

220,000

240,000

Yolo Bypass near Woodland (YBY)

Observed


LSB_ALL

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32Yolo Bypass near Woodland (YBY)

Observed


LSB_ALL


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 8-15

Figure 8.21 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Yolo Bypass at Lisbon (LIS) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

Figure 8.22 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Yolo Bypass at Liberty Is (LIY) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

14

16

18

20

22

24

26Yolo Bypass at Lisbon (LIS)

Observed


LSB_ALL

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18Yolo Bypass at Liberty Is (LIY)

Observed


LSB_ALL


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 8-16

Figure 8.23 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Rio Vista (SRV) for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

Figure 8.24 Final calibration results for January 2006 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Minser SI at Hwy 84 Bridge for the full LSB model (LSB_ALL) and the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At_Nicolaus).

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Flo

w (

cfs

)

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

Sacramento R at Rio Vista (SRV)

Observed


LSB_ALL

29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec2005 Jan2006

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

9

10

11

12

13

14

15Miner Sl at HWY 84 Bridge

Observed


LSB_ALL

Section 9: Appendix B – January 1997 Model Validation Results

Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 9-1

Section 9

Appendix B – January 1997 Model Validation Results


Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 9-2

Figure 9.1 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sutter Bypass at PP2 (SB2) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

Figure 9.2 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sutter Bypass at PP2 (SB2) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

38

40

42

44

46

48

50


Observed


30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

36

38

40

42

44

46


Observed



Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 9-3

Figure 9.3 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sutter Bypass at Willow Si (WSL) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

Figure 9.4 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sutter Bypass at RD 1500 Pump (SBP) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48Sutter Bypass at Willow Sl (WSL)

Observed


30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43Sutter Bypass at RD 1500 Pump (SBP)

Observed



Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 9-4

Figure 9.5 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento SI near Karnak (SSK) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

Figure 9.6 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Feather R at Nicolaus (NIC) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43Sacramento Sl near Karnak (SSK)

Observed


30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

40

42

44

46

48

50

52Feather R at Nicolaus (NIC)

Observed



Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 9-5

Figure 9.7 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Knights Landing (KNL) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

Figure 9.8 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Fremont Weir West (FRE) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43Sacramento R at Knights Landing (KNL)

Observed


30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42Sacramento R at Fremont Weir West (FRE)

Observed



Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 9-6

Figure 9.9 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Fremont Weir East (A02160) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

Figure 9.10 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed flow time series for the Sacramento R at Verona (VON) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42Sacramento R at Fremont Weir East (A02160)

Observed


30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Flo

w (

cfs

)

55,000

60,000

65,000

70,000

75,000

80,000

85,000

90,000

95,000

100,000

105,000


Observed



Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 9-7

Figure 9.11 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at Verona (VON) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

Figure 9.12 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento R above Sac Weir (A02108) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41


Observed


30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34Sacramento R above Sac Weir (A02108)

Observed



Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 9-8

Figure 9.13 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento Weir Spill (SAC WEIR) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

Figure 9.14 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Sacramento R at I Street (IST) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Flo

w (

cfs

)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Sacramento Weir Spill (SAC WEIR)

30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

Sacramento R at I Street (IST)

Observed



Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 9-9

Figure 9.15 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed flow time series for the Yolo Bypass near Woodland (YBY) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

Figure 9.16 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Yolo Bypass near Woodland (YBY) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Flo

w (

cfs

)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

Yolo Bypass near Woodland (YBY)

Observed


30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34Yolo Bypass near Woodland (YBY)

Observed



Task Order No. T10502186-98953-OM 9-10

Figure 9.17 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Yolo Bypass at Lisbon (LIS) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

Figure 9.18 Validation result for the January 1997 flood event. Computed and observed stage time series for the Yolo Bypass at Liberty Is (LIY) for the LSB model with the Feather inflow at Nicolaus (LSB_Feather_At-Nicolaus).

30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

16

18

20

22

24

26

28Yolo Bypass at Lisbon (LIS)

Observed


30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Dec1996 Jan1997

Sta

ge (

ft N

AV

D88)

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22Yolo Bypass at Liberty Is (LIY)

Observed


draft technical memorandum lower sacramento bypass 2-d ...€¦ · knights landing at ridge cut,...

Documents