\%\ 3^-1 -Xb w S’S’* MO APPLICATION OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY S APPLICATION OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY'S PRECIPITATION-RUNOFF MODELING SYSTEM TO WILLIAMS DRAW AND BUSH DRAW BASINS, JACKSON COUNTY, COLORADO By Gerhard Kuhn U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4013 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Denver, Colorado 1988 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division Box 25046, Mail Stop 415 Federal Center Denver, CO 80225-0046 U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Section Federal Center Box 25425 Denver, CO 80225-0425 [Telephone: (303) 236-7476] CONTENTS Page Abstract- 1 Introduction- 2 Purpose and scope- 2 Approach- 4 Description of study area- 4 General features- 4 Climate- 6 Streamflow- 7 Model description- 7 Application of model to Williams Draw and Bush Draw basins- 12 Meteorological data- 12 Watershed partitioning- 14 Model parameters- 16 Calibration- 20 Verification- 23 Sensitivity analysis- 24 Transferability of calibrated model- 25 Summary- 27 References cited- 30 Supplemental information- 33 FIGURES Page Figures 1-2. Maps showing: 1. Location of Williams Draw and Bush Draw in Jackson County- 3 2. Location of streamflow-gaging and precipitation stations in Williams Draw and Bush Draw basins- 5 3-4. Hydrographs showing daily average streamflow at station: 3. 06619420 Williams Draw near Walden, 1980-83- 8 4. 06619415 Bush Draw near Walden, 1983- 10 5. Diagram of the conceptual watershed system and its inputs- 11 6-7. Maps showing hydrologic-response units for: 6. Williams Draw basin- 15 7. Bush Draw basin- 17 8-9. Hydrographs showing simulated and recorded streamflow at station 06619420 Williams Draw near Walden: 8. 1980- 22 9. 1982-83- 24 10. Graph showing sensitivity of average squared prediction error to optimized model parameters for simulated runoff, 1980-84- 25 TABLES Page Table 1. Summary of precipitation data at three locations in Williams Draw and Bush Draw basins, 1980-83 water years- 13 2. Selected characteristics of hydrologic-response units for Williams Draw basin- 16 iii Page Table 3. Selected characteristics of hydrologic-response units for Bush Draw basin- 18 4. Initial and optimized values for selected model parameters for Williams Draw basin- 19 5. Summary of simulated and recorded streamflow volumes at station 06619420 Williams Draw near Walden, 1980-81- 21 6. Summary of simulated and recorded streamflow volumes at station 06619420 Williams Draw near Walden, 1982-83- 23 7. Summary of simulated and recorded streamflow volumes at station 06619420 Williams Draw near Walden, 1980-83, using the same weighted value for SMAX, TRNCF, and DSC0R on each hydrologic-response unit- 28 8. Summary of simulated and recorded streamflow volumes at station 06619415 Bush Draw near Walden, 1981-83, using the same weighted value for SMAX, TRNCF, and DSCOR on each hydrologic-response unit- 29 9. Precipitation-runoff modeling system parameters for the daily simulation mode- 34 10. Values for model parameters used in application of precipitation-runoff modeling system to Williams Draw and Bush Draw basins- 37 CONVERSION FACTORS The following factors can be used to the convert inch-pound units in this report to metric (International Systems) units: Multiply inch-pound unit By To obtain metric unit acre-foot (acre-ft) 1233 cubic foot per second (ft 3 /s) 0.028317 foot (ft) 0.3048 inch (in.) 25.4 mile (mi) 1.609 square mile (mi 2 ) 2.590 cubic meter cubic meter per second meter millimeter kilometer square kilometer To convert degree Fahrenheit (°F) to degree Celsius (°C), use the following formula: °C = 5/9 (°F - 32). Sea level : In this report "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929)--a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of both the United States and Canada, formerly called "Sea Level Datum of 1929." iv APPLICATION OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY'S PRECIPITATION-RUNOFF MODELING SYSTEM TO WILLIAMS DRAW AND BUSH DRAW BASINS, JACKSON COUNTY, COLORADO By Gerhard Kuhn ABSTRACT The U.S. Geological Survey's precipitation-runoff modeling system was calibrated for this study by using daily streamflow data for April through September, 1980 and 1981, from the Williams Draw basin in Jackson County, Colorado. The calibrated model then was verified by using daily streamflow data for April through September, 1982 and 1983. Transferability of the model was tested by application to adjoining Bush Draw basin by using daily stream- flow data for April through September, 1981 through 1983. Four model parameters were optimized in the calibration: (1) BST, base air temperature used to determine the form of precipitation (rain, snow, or a mixture); (2) SMAX, maximum available water-holding capacity of the soil zone; (3) TRNCF, transmission coefficient for the vegetation canopy over the snow- pack; and (4) DSCOR, daily precipitation correction factor for snow. For calibration and verification, volume and timing of simulated streamflow compared closely to recorded streamflow; differences were least during years that had considerable snowpack accumulation and were most during years that had minimal or no snowpack accumulation. Calibration of the model was facilitated by snowpack water-equivalent data. Application of the model to Bush Draw basin to test for transferability indicated inaccurate results in simulation of streamflow volume. Weighted values of SMAX, TRNCF, and DSCOR from the calibration basin were used for Bush Draw. The inadequate results obtained by use of weighted parameters indicate that snowpack water-equivalent data are needed for successful appli¬ cation of the precipitation-runoff modeling system in this area, because frequent windy conditions cause variations in snowpack accumulation. 1 INTRODUCTION Much of the concern about coal-resources development on Federal land is how it affects local water resources. Questions regarding effects on local water resources occur as development proceeds or as new areas are proposed for development. Often, minimal or no hydrologic information is available for areas of active or proposed coal-resource development. Moreover, the length of time required to obtain enough information to determine the hydrologic effects of coal-resource development may be several years, especially in the semiarid West, where coal areas primarily are drained by ephemeral streams. In an effort to minimize the time required to obtain at least some surface-water hydrologic information for Federal coal areas, the U.S. Geo¬ logical Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management began a cooperative study in 1976 to develop, test, and verify a hydrologic model. The goals of the model development were to provide: (1) A method to estimate the hydrologic characteristics and processes for areas where basic hydrologic data are lacking, and (2) the capability to predict hydrologic effects from poten¬ tial coal-lease areas (Van Haveren and Leavesley, 1979, p. 4). The model, the precipitation-runoff modeling system (PRMS), is described in detail in Leavesley and others (1983). In conjunction with the model development, small basins in coal areas on Federal land were instrumented and studied to provide the data necessary to test the model (Van Haveren and Leavesley, 1979, p. 8). Purpose and Scope As part of the study of small basins in coal areas on Federal land, Williams Draw and Bush Draw basins in Jackson County, Colorado (fig. 1), were instrumented and studied to test PRMS. The purpose of this report is to present the results of the application of the model to these two basins. Williams Draw was instrumented beginning in July 1979, and streamflow, precipitation, and snowpack water-equivalent data were collected. Bush Draw was instrumented beginning in October 1980, but only streamflow data were collected. However, streamflow data were obtained only for April through September at both locations because there was no runoff during the winter months. The purpose of the data obtained for Williams Draw basin was to provide the data necessary to calibrate and verify the model. The data obtained for Bush Draw basin were used to test the transferability of the calibrated model. The small-basin study in Jackson County was part of a larger, ongoing study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (U.S. Geological Survey, 1984b, p. 27) to provide baseline hydrologic information for coal-resource areas drained by the Canadian River (fig. 1). Data collection for the study ended during September 1983. Streamflow and water-quality data from the studies have been published in annual reports (U.S. Geological Survey, 1980-1984a). Water-quality data also were summarized statistically by Kuhn (1982). A preliminary evaluation of the hydrology of Williams Draw basin and adjacent areas was presented in a resource and potential reclamation evaluation report (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1983, p. 93-118). A more general description of the hydrology and coal resources of the area was presented in one of a nationwide series of reports describing the hydrology of coal-resource areas (Kuhn and others, 1983). 2 EXPLANATION 106 30 ^06619450 STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION AND NUMBER ♦ METEOROLOGIC STATION | | AREA SHOWN IN FIGURE 2 \ Base from U.S. Geological Survey State base map, 1969 10 I n——i r 5 10 15 KILOMETERS 15 MILES J Figure 1.--Location of Williams Draw and Bush Draw in Jackson County. 3 Approach Application of PRMS to Williams Draw and Bush Draw basins consisted of five basic steps: 1. Collection of streamflow, precipitation, air-temperature, solar- radiation, and snowpack water-equivalent data needed for application of the model; 2. Partitioning of each basin into hydrologically similar units; 3. Estimation of model parameters and selection of parameters to be optimized during calibration; 4. Calibration and verification of the model; and 5. Testing for transferability of the calibrated model. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA The study area (fig. 1) is located in the east-central part of Jackson County. Most of Jackson County coincides with North Park, an intermontane basin in the Southern Rocky Mountains physiographic province (Fenneman, 1931, p. 125-127). Because the study area is within North Park, which consists of a topographically and climatologically uniform area, frequent reference to North Park will be used in this report. General Features North Park generally is a 1,000-mi 2 gently rolling, treeless area that has elevations ranging from about 8,000 to 8,500 ft. Elevations in the study area are between about 8,110 ft and 8,400 ft, with a small, isolated ridge that has a maximum elevation of about 8,550 ft. Williams Draw basin has a drainage area of 3.95 mi 2 (at streamflow-gaging station 06619420 Williams Draw near Walden), and Bush Draw basin has a drainage area of 4.10 mi 2 (at station 06619415 Bush Draw near Walden) (fig. 2). The basins are elongated considerably and the main channels of both streams, as well as most tributary channels, are relatively straight. Direc¬ tion of flow generally is to the northeast. Williams Draw basin has a pro¬ nounced asymmetry (fig. 2), because the main channel is near the southeast border of the basin. The majority of the basin is northwest of the main channel, where the drainage network is extensive and overall slopes are relatively moderate; only a small part of the basin is southeast of the main channel, where the drainage network is minimal and slopes are relatively steep. Bush Draw basin, by contrast, is considerably symmetrical (fig. 2), the main channel is near the center of the basin, and the drainage network is not very extensive. Overall slopes also are relatively moderate northwest of the main channel and relatively steep southeast of the channel in Bush Draw basin. Both streams are tributaries of the Canadian River (fig. 1). A detailed physiographic description of Williams Draw basin is presented in a report by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (1983, p. 49-62). 4 40 ° 40 ' 106°06‘ Figure 2.--Location of streamflow-gaging and precipitation stations in Williams Draw and Bush Draw basins. 5 The Cretaceous Pierre Shale, the coal-bearing Coalmont Formation of Tertiary age, and the Quaternary terrace deposits crop out in the area. Outcropping of the Pierre Shale and Coalmont Formation is controlled largely by the north-northwest trending McCallum anticline that traverses the center of the study area. The Coalmont Formation crops out on the flanks of the anticline, and the Pierre Shale crops out in the center where the overlying Coalmont Formation has been eroded away. Quaternary terrace deposits composed of sand and gravel overlie the other two formations in some of the higher areas (Kinney, 1970). A detailed study of the soils of Jackson County has been completed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (Fletcher, 1981). This soil survey indicates that primarily three soil units--the Gelkie and the Morset series, and the steep Cryorthents--have been mapped in the study area (Fletcher, 1981, pis. 13 and 14). These soils are classified as loams or sandy loams. The Gelkie and Morset series are characterized by soil depths greater than 20 in. and a runoff potential that is low to moderate, whereas the steep Cryorthents are characterized by soil depths generally less than 20 in. and are subject to rapid runoff and severe wind and water erosion (Fletcher, 1981, p. 18-19). Several other soil units also have been mapped, but they are not as extensive as the three primary soil units. A study by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management was done to determine the suitability of soils in and adjacent to the study area for use as planting media for resurfacing shaped spoils following surface mining. Results of that study (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1983, p. 69) indicated that about 87 percent of the soils in the area are suitable. Vegetation in the area is composed entirely of shrubs (primarily Artemesia sp.) and grasses. On the basis of a vegetation study of Williams Draw basin and adjacent areas (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1983, p. 77-92), seven ecological subdivisions, or range sites, are within the area: mountain loam, dry mountain loam, drainage bottom, clay pan, valley bench, dry exposure, and salt flat. These subdivisions are mapped and described in detail in the previous reference. Climate An analysis of the climate of Williams Draw basin and adjacent areas was completed by McKee and others (1981) for the resource and potential reclamation evaluation of the area (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1983). The following discussion is wholly derived from the climate study by McKee and others (1981). Much of North Park, including Williams Draw and Bush Draw basins, is characterized by a generally uniform, semiarid climate, with cool summers and cold winters. Large variations in daily and seasonal temperatures are common. Daily temperature variations are about 25 °F in winter but increase to about 40 °F in midsummer and fall. Temperature extremes measured at Walden, about 8 mi west of Williams Draw and at a similar elevation, were 96 °F and -49 °F between 1938 and 1978. During that period, average July temperature was 59 °F, and average January temperature was 15 °F; average July maximum temperature was 78 °F, and average January minimum temperature was 3 °F. 6 Annual precipitation at Walden averaged about 10 in. between 1938 and 1978; annual precipitation in the study area of the two basins probably is about 11 to 12 in. About 60 percent of the annual precipitation occurs during May through September; precipitation from October through April usually is in the form of snow. Daily precipitation quantities greater than 1 in. are unusual, especially during the summer, when most precipitation results from thunderstorms. On the average, rainfall quantities greater than 0.1 in. occur only 18 days each summer. Streamflow Two streamflow-gaging stations, station 06619420 Williams Draw near Walden and station 06619415 Bush Draw near Walden (fig. 2), were established to obtain continuous records of streamflow for this modeling study. Stream- flow in the two basins is ephemeral and, as previously described, streamflow records were obtained only from April through September. Hydrographs of average daily streamflow at station 06619420 (Williams Draw) for the 1980, 1982, and 1983 runoff periods are shown in figure 3; no streamflow was recorded during the 1981 runoff period nor during the July through September 1979 period. Recorded streamflow in Williams Draw was not very large. The maximum daily streamflow was 11 ft 3 /s (fig. 3); maximum instantaneous streamflow was 22 ft 3 /s (U.S. Geological Survey, 1984a, p. 50). Recorded streamflow volumes were 123 acre-ft in 1980, 4.7 acre-ft in 1982, and 112 acre-ft in 1983. [Note: Streamflow volume in acre-feet is obtained by summing the daily streamflows, in cubic feet per second, and multiplying the sum by the conversion factor of 1.9835.] A hydrograph of average daily streamflow at station 06619415 (Bush Draw) for the 1983 runoff period is shown in figure 4. Only 1 day of very small streamflow was recorded during the 1981 runoff period and no flow was recorded during the 1982 runoff period. During the 1983 runoff period, the maximum daily streamflow at station 06619415 was 4.0 ft 3 /s (fig. 4) and maximum instantaneous streamflow was 42 ft 3 /s (U.S. Geological Survey, 1984a, p. 49). Streamflow volume for 1983 was 69 acre-ft. Nearly all streamflow recorded at stations 06619420 and 06619415 during the study period resulted from snowmelt during April and May. During the summer of 1983, one of the wettest summers on record, considerable streamflow resulting from rainfall was recorded (figs. 3 and 4). However, the volume of streamflow resulting from rainfall during June, July, and August was small in comparison to the volume of streamflow resulting from snowmelt. During 1983, about 80 percent of the recorded streamflow at station 06619420 and about 75 percent of the recorded streamflow at station 06619415 resulted from snowmelt during April and May. MODEL DESCRIPTION PRMS is a deterministic physical-process model that is capable of simula¬ ting the response (for example, streamflow) of a hydrologic system (a basin or watershed) to the model input (for example, precipitation and land use). 7 < UJ CC I— CO 0.5 1982 o.i J\ APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER Figure 3.--Daily average streamflow at station 06619420 Williams Draw near Walden, 1980-83. Changes in the response that result from differences in the hydrologic system, whether real or hypothetical, also can be simulated by making appro¬ priate modifications to the model input. The model is designed to function either as a lumped- or distributed-parameter model and has the capability to simulate average daily streamflow or stormflow hydrographs. 8 Figure 3.--Daily average streamflow at station 06619420 Williams Draw near Walden, 1980-83--Continued. Development and operation of PRMS is based on a conceptual watershed system (fig. 5). The various components of the watershed system (hydrologic cycle) are represented mathematically in the model by known physical laws or empirical relations, which attempt to reproduce the physical reality of the hydrologic system as nearly as possible. Inputs to the watershed system are precipitation, air temperature, and solar radiation. Precipitation, in the form of rain, snow, or a mixture of the two, is delivered to the watershed; the inputs of air temperature and solar radiation drive the processes of evaporation, transpiration, sublimation, and snowmelt (Leavesley and others, 1983, p. 7). Thus, daily values for precipitation, air temperature, and solar radiation are needed to operate the model. The conceptual watershed system (fig. 5) includes four reservoirs: the upper soil zone, the subsurface, the ground water, and the impervious zone. Outputs of these reservoirs combine to produce the total system response. In this report, the impervious-zone reservoir was not considered because it was not applicable to Williams Draw and Bush Draw basins. The upper soil-zone reservoir is two-layered; it represents the part of the soil mantle that can lose water through the processes of evaporation and transpiration. The quantity of water stored in the upper soil-zone reservoir is increased by infiltration of rainfall or snowmelt; if rainfall or snowmelt exceed specific infiltration rates, then surface runoff (Qi, fig. 5) results. Some of the excess infiltration also can be routed to the subsurface 9 Figure 4.--Daily average streamflow at station 06619415 Bush Draw near Walden, 1983. reservoir. Subsurface flow (Q 2 ) is derived from water in shallow ground-water zones (subsurface reservoirs) that is available for relatively rapid movement to a channel system. The ground-water reservoir, which is the source of all baseflow (Q 3 ), can be recharged from either the soil-zone reservoir or the subsurface reservoir, or from both. Water from the ground-water reservoir also can be routed to a ground-water sink beyond the area of measurement. Streamflow (Q 4 ) is the sum of Qj_, Q 2 , and Q 3 . A more detailed description of the conceptual watershed system is provided by Leavesley and others (1981; 1983, p. 7-9). For simulation of average daily streamflow, which was used in the present study, watersheds are divided into any number of hydrologic-response units (HRU's). HRU's are delineated on the basis of similarities in such character¬ istics as slope, aspect, elevation, type of vegetation, type of soil, and precipitation. Partitioning a watershed into HRU's provides the capability to account for spatial and temporal variations in physical and hydrologic charac¬ teristics, climatic variables, and system responses within a watershed. The sum of the responses of all HRU's, weighted on a unit-area basis, produces the daily watershed response and streamflow (Leavesley and others, 1983, p. 9). 10 • • Air • • Solar Evapotranspiration temperature Precipitation radiation 11 Figure 5.--The conceptual watershed system and its inputs (modified from Leavesley and others, 1983, p. 8). APPLICATION OF MODEL TO WILLIAMS DRAW AND BUSH DRAW BASINS Application of PRMS to Williams Draw and Bush Draw basins consisted of several steps. The first step was the collection of daily streamflow, pre¬ cipitation, air-temperature, solar-radiation, and snowpack water-equivalent data. Streamflow data have been previously described; meteorological data are described in subsequent paragraphs. The second step consisted of HRU delin¬ eation on the basis of physical or hydrological similarities of various parts of the basin. Initial values for model parameters then were determined or were determined in conjunction with delineation of the HRU's; the model para¬ meters to be optimized during calibration also were selected. The model was calibrated for Williams Draw basin by using streamflow data for April through September, 1980 and 1981, and then was verified by using streamflow data for April through September, 1982 and 1983. The period from July 1979 to April 1980 was used as an initialization period for the model. After cali¬ bration and verification, the sensitivity of optimized parameters was analyzed. Lastly, the transferability of the model was tested for Bush Draw basin by using streamflow data for April through September, 1981 through 1983. The following discussion is a more detailed description of this process. Meteorological Data Two precipitation stations (stations A and B, fig. 2) initially were installed in the study area in July 1979 when streamflow-gaging station 06619420 was established on Williams Draw. One precipitation station was at the Williams Draw basin outlet; the other precipitation station was near the center of the basin at a higher elevation. A third precipitation station (station C, fig. 2) was installed in October 1980 near the drainage divide at the southern end of the basin. Analysis of the precipitation data indicated that variations in daily precipitation during winter at the three stations were not very large. Variations in daily precipitation during summer were more pronounced, but monthly precipitation generally was uniform even during summer (table 1). Therefore, precipitation data from only one of the three stations, station B (fig. 2), were used for model input. However, when daily precipitation quantities at the three stations varied substantially, the average of all stations was used. Most precipitation stations have a gage-catch deficiency, especially when precipitation is accompanied by wind. Gage-catch deficiency and the use of shields to minimize this deficiency has been discussed extensively in the literature; a brief review of some of this literature is presented by Larson and Peck (1974). The precipitation stations installed in the study area were shielded to minimize gage-catch deficiency, primarily in reference to snow¬ fall. Nevertheless, even if precipitation was uniform throughout a basin, gage-catch deficiency would result in some error in the precipitation data (model input). 12 1 P CO CM rH rH CO CO rH CO m 00 00 m G G G OJ o CM LO CM in o '3’ CM O' p ** 03 W P 43 • • • • • • • . • • • to P QJ O U rH rH CO CM CM CM CM rH LO LO m G 03 to P G H rH rH P P rH i—t P rH 1 — 1 rH •H to V _ / 03 -Q G 1 QJ rH rH P CO O' m CM O' o O' in Si (G 43 00 00 CM OL LO CM O av m 03 QJ B • • • • • • • . • • 5s C/3 QJ rH rH P p rH CM CM p o Q P -CJ to P 3 CO m CO Mr CM O o '3' m o OQ G 00 OL o m O CO CM CM av O' CM GO • • • • • • • • • • • T3 G o p rH o i—i rH p CM CM G < OS £ 03 to m p o 00 in 00 OV LO CO CM 5s P -) o CM rH p p rH rH CO CO to S 03 •H QJ m m m <* o o CO CM CO p o P G o o LO CM CO -3" m CM LO LO P w G • • • • • • • • • • • •H OJ l— 3 o p p P o CM CM CM Sfc 43 U G G 'H •H to co m m O' 00 '3- co CM o m CO O' 00 OL O' LO LO rH o p to to G 2 • • • • • • • • • • • G G •H CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM rH p rH o 03 G G G G •H 0) #N G G G G 4J t* G rH OJ 03 03 03 03 o •H to in rH to Mf CO o to O' O' P to <* co p G • • G • • • G • • • G • • • P •p 03 < 03 o QJ o 03 o QJ rH p rH 03 P P P P P Q) 3: •H G G G G QJ LO VO rH 00 CM rH rH o rH z u m CJ rH o o X o o o o X rH rH o • • • • • • • •u rH CO rH CN CM u rH 1 o 1-1 CJ co X rH m E o o o m m m CJ • • • • • • • 4-> rH o in co CO cx rH i 4) X CO <*J c CM o 4-> rH m E c/) o o o o CM X X 3 • • • • • • O0 r-H m X rH CO CO CJ 3 4i CO E rH m 03 41 o o o o Os X X l-i 3 • • • • • • • rH V4H o 41 <* 3 rH m rH o o o m os ON «3 z rH m CO CO rH 1 m rH rH o •H o o o o X rH rH in • • • • • • • cx rH X rH oo CO < rH 1 X rH m u o o o m m m in • • • • • • • 03 rH 00 CM ON ON s rH X O' C3 l-H m 3 o o o m m O O 1-1 • • • • • • • X rH oo r- ON CM 41 rH pH X os lH rH m ±J QJ u 41 u C/3 41 QJ 1 1 CJ X CJ CX cx •H 1 1 O 0 0 o c 1 1 CJ o CJ X 0 o 0 •» rH 1 >h flj 41 CO H CJ r. z X U u >—) H < Q Cl} X X (4 4) < a CX 2 0- H t- CX, E •H 3 3 4J M C o ex W 41 b oc ON 00 I L, R3 41 U iJ f0 41 CL, E o o m u0 CM u0 CM Os r-H o CM o CO o o o o o rH sO o o 00 m 00 o X • lH CO m o rH rH X CM •o rH CM CM X X ■3 41 o uo uo CM uO CM o 4J o rH o CO o o o o o rH sQ o o o CO o 03 m • U CO uo o CM rH X CM •H rH co rH •o c •H u S o UO U0 CNI U0 CM o o C3 o o o CO o o o o o rH vO o o m X m 4 h CO o m rH rH X CM rH CO rH uo m U0 CM m CM o o o CO o o o o o rH sO o o o 00 o rH • CO o m rH rH X CM rH CO rH >N (0 •o aJ 4J w C c (/) 1/3 C/3 1/3 L, (/) C/3 (13 4-) 1 dd o 01 3 H 09 > oo sO CO on ON I Id (0 01 Id *J <0 4) Pd B un sO o on un o H (N| (M on un o — 00 C4 on un o — 04 ON on un o — ON C4 on un o h on M on o un h tn h un so on o — on un on un o — H N 04 on o un h h on h un un on on o o o o o — un on so o o SO O X o so ON un vO o un un on on o o o o un on so o o so o r~ o SO ON un sO o un un on on o o o o o H un on so o o so o r-~ o sO ON un so o un un on on o o o o o —< un on sO O O sO O r» O sO ON un SO O un un on on o o o o o — un on so o o so o o so ON un so O un un on on o o o o O — un on so o o so o o VO ON un un on on o o o o O — un on so o o so o r» o un SO O un un on on o o o o O — ON un on sO O O SO o r- o sO ON un so o un un on on o o o o O i-i un on so o o so o r~ o so ON >s 19 ■o «J CA 4J 4J c c W (/) CO Id CA C/3 CA 1 dJ 1 V 4) u QJ O I o CO 5 z z os x £ £ 8 H O O CO CJ CJ O Q CO 3 Z X cj o CO CO J3 u a •H X H — Pd «£ co o w r! z CO CO CO CO 3 4-> M a 41 CA V Id p. 01 J3 4-1 TJ 41 U 3 M <9 3 a; 3 — 09 > 41 C o c o J3 CJ •H -C 3 Id o CA Id 41 4-1 4) E 09 Id 09 a. o (A 14 41 4-1 4J E <9 Id 09 a. T3 4J 4 J 3 X) •rt Id 4-1 IA •H T 3 a o a o (A 4) 3 r-d 19 > 4) 3 i-d <9 > CA 4 J •H a 33 id 41 4-1 41 E (9 Id 19 Pd on sf un a 33 Id 41 4J 41 E 19 Id 09 Pd un o un un on — r» o -3- o o O O vj- un ON CJ I o i i H E K H 3 Z Z — CO H W W < CO CJ Q a w Pd < CJ 3 co Pd o Pd Pd as co 3 33S 38 *U,S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1 9 89-0-673-19 6/0000 6 UNIVERSrrY OF illinois-urbana 3 0112 098719328 Kuhn - APPLICATION OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY’S PRECIPITATION-RUNOFF MODELING SYSTEM TO USGS/WRIR 88-4013 WILLIAMS DRAW AND BUSH DRAW BASINS, JACKSON COUNTY, COLORADO