Workshop 11

Flood Forecasting within HEC-HMS

Question 1: What are acceptable loss and baseflow zonal parameters for the three zones for this
forecast alternative? Use asterisks for multiplication factors. Fill in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1. Recession Baseflow Parameters.

Discharge
Recession
Zone Per Area Ratio to Peak
Constant
(cfs / sq mi)

Cincinnatus 0.25 - -

WhitneyPoint_IN 0.1 - -

EastSidney_IN 0.8 0.125 0.8

Table 2. Deficit and Constant Infiltration Parameters.

Initial Maximum Constant

Zone
Deficit Deficit Rate

Cincinnatus *2.0 - -

WhitneyPoint_IN *2.0 - -

EastSidney_IN *1.15 - -

1
W – Flood Forecasting within HEC-HMS/Bartles
Additional Task 1. Use Forecast Blending Options

Question 2: What is the difference (in cfs) between the observed and computed total flow
results at the point when observed data ends (i.e. 05Sep2011 20:00)? (Hint: you will need to add
the computed subbasin and reach flows)

Computed total inflow = 1915.7 cfs

Observed = 545.2 cfs
Difference = 1370.5 cfs

What is the difference (in cfs) between the computed total inflow to the junction and the blended
total outflow from the junction at the time of peak flow?

Computed total inflow = 28993.7 cfs

Blended total outflow = 27623.2 cfs
Difference = 1370.5 cfs

What is the difference (in cfs) between the computed total inflow to the junction and the blended
total outflow from the junction at the end of the simulation?

Computed total inflow = 3238 cfs

Blended total outflow = 1867.5 cfs
Difference = 1370.5 cfs

Question 3: What is the difference (in cfs) between the observed and computed total flow
results at the point when observed data ends (i.e. 05Sep2011 20:00)? (Hint: you will need to add
the computed subbasin and reach flows)

Computed total inflow = 1915.7 cfs

Observed = 545.2 cfs
Difference = 1370.5 cfs

What is the difference (in cfs) between the computed total inflow to the junction and the blended
total outflow from the junction 12 hours after the point when observed data ends (i.e. 06Sep2011
10:00)?

Computed total inflow = 1765.5 cfs

Blended total outflow = 1765.5 cfs
Difference = 0 cfs

What is the difference (in cfs) between the computed total inflow to the junction and the blended
total outflow from the junction at the time of peak flow?

2
W – Flood Forecasting within HEC-HMS/Bartles
Computed total inflow = 28993.7 cfs
Blended total outflow = 28993.7 cfs
Difference = 0 cfs

Question 4: What are the major differences between the Step and Taper blending methods?

Step maintains the difference between computed total inflow to the junction and observed flow
throughout the remainder of the forecast simulation. Taper alters the outflow from the junction
beginning with the observed flow and gradually transitioning to the computed total inflow over a
defined time.

3
W – Flood Forecasting within HEC-HMS/Bartles
Additional Task 2. Predict possible impacts to in-lake and downstream communities using the
forecasted results.

Question 5: Are forecasted flows expected to remain within capacity of the Binghamton Levee
system? If not, by how much will the capacities be exceeded?

Peak Flow Rates:

Susquehanna River upstream of Chenango River confluence = 89,885 cfs
Chenango River upstream of Susquehanna River confluence = 71,733 cfs
Susquehanna River downstream of Chenango River confluence = 158,966 cfs

The forecast alternative predicts a peak flow rate along the Susquehanna River both upstream
and downstream of the Chenango River that will exceed the published capacities of the levee
system by approximately 9800 cfs and 33,000 cfs, respectively.

Question 6: Do you feel that there is enough information and certainty provided by the HEC-
HMS model to ascertain whether the levee system will exclude Binghamton from this flood
event? Why or why not? (Hint: Are upstream points calibrated adequately?)

The certainty provided by the HEC-HMS forecast alternative is dependent upon several factors
specific to this simulation including the accuracy of the boundary condition data (i.e. observed
and forecasted precipitation) as well as the calibration during the lookback period. Inherent
uncertainty and variability within the HEC-HMS model also needs to be taken into account when
assessing the accuracy of predicted flow rates.

Question 7: What other factors, besides peak flow rate, could impact the performance and level
of protection provided by a levee system? (Hint: Does HEC-HMS compute water surface
profiles along the levee system?)

Factors that could impact the performance and protection provided by the levee system include
levee seepage, interior drainage systems (i.e. pump stations), and human decision making. None
of these variables/uncertainties are taken into account within this HEC-HMS forecast alternative.

Also, hydraulic factors, such as backwater effects due to constrictions and hysteresis (different
water surface elevations for a given flow rate) affect the performance of hydraulic structures
such as levee systems. Backwater and hysteresis effects are not explicitly taken into account
within the channel routing routines in HEC-HMS. However, these effects can be approximated
using the Mod Puls channel routing routine. These phenomena need to be ascertained within an
HEC-RAS model which can accurately account for these effects and generate the necessary
storage-outflow relationships for use within HEC-HMS. HEC-HMS computes flow rates at
subbasin, routing reach, and junction elements; not water surface profiles.

4
W – Flood Forecasting within HEC-HMS/Bartles
Question 8: Using the results from the HEC-HMS forecast alternative and Table 3 and Table 4,
determine what impacts and actions could occur within the Whitney Point and East Sidney pools
during this event.

Both East Sidney and Whitney Point Lakes are predicted to exceed flood storage and begin
flowing through their uncontrolled spillways during this event.

Question 9: What factors impact the computed pool elevations within the HEC-HMS model?
Do you think they are overestimated or underestimated? Why or why not?

Releases are assumed to be zero throughout the entire forecast period for both East Sidney and
Whitney Point Dams. This will cause the pool elevations to be overestimated. Releases would
likely be made before the pools at both dams would exceed flood storage and start spilling.

Question 10: What other factors could impact the uncertainty and variability within the
forecasted HEC-HMS model results? (Hint: natural variability vs. computational uncertainty)
How could you isolate and ascertain their impacts?

Uncertainty alludes to the fact that the runoff response due to modeling assumptions, such as the
linearity inherent within unit hydrograph theory, cannot be “perfectly” predicted. This is
inherent within the realm of hydrology due to limited data and knowledge of the rainfall-runoff
processes. Variability refers to the randomness within a natural process, such as rainfall.

An uncertainty analysis within HEC-HMS could be used to ascertain the impacts of various
forms of uncertainty (not variability)

5
W – Flood Forecasting within HEC-HMS/Bartles