From Severe Drought to Flood of the Century

What do you know about USACE How many employees/offices in USACE?

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 40 District/division offices for civil works 7 laboratories 37,000 employees $5.4 billion annual civil works budget Partners with sponsors Manages USACE assets Military Design/Construction Design/construction for other agencies Contract administration (billions)

USACE Civil Works Mission Water resources Flood control – approx. 700 structures (flood control, navigation and other) Over $25 billion in flood Damages prevented each year Levee systems – 14,000 miles Smaller flood damage reduction projects Navigation – approx. 191 locks/dams 12,000-shallow, 13,000-deep miles of waterway 300 commercial harbors Water supply – 10 million people in 115 cites plus agriculture, industrial Hydro power – 75 sites w/ 25% of hydroelectric or 3% of energy Recreation Nation’s largest outdoor recreation supplier 2,500 COE operated plus 1,800 leased areas 360 million visits, 600,000 jobs directly related Environmental Restoration Clean Water Act Environmental flows relating to reservoirs Emergency/disaster response (hurricanes, tornados, etc)

Statewide Reservoir Development Summary Multi-purpose Flood control, water supply, hydropower, environmental, recreation, navigation Critical to the early development of Texas Significant federal economic contribution Planned/constructed dams 111/32 1st - Marshall Ford Dam (Lake Travis) 1942 Last – Cooper (Jim Chapman Reservoir) 1991 8.8 M ac-ft conservation storage (WS/hydropower) in 29 federal dams 15.9 M ac-ft flood storage in 31 federal dams Costs (2013) Construction - $8.2 billion Benefits - $76 billion B/C ratio – 9.3 Annual recreation visits – 22 M San Jacinto

What Do You See? Flood control system Water supply system Over $70 billion in damages prevented (60 years) $2-3 billion per year Water supply system 6.5 million served

Flood Control Operations What was the largest historical dam failure catastrophe?

Maintaining Perspective On Water Management Historical Disasters S. Fork Dam, Johnstown, Pennsylvania (Operational Issues) May 1889, 2209 dead, $17 mil damages St Francis Dam, California (Operational & Design) March 1928, 450 dead, several towns destroyed Buffalo Gap, Virginia Tailings Dams (Operational & Des.) Feb 72, 125 dead (COE Involvement) Teton Dam, Idaho (Design Issues) June 1976, 11 dead, $.5 billion damages Banqiao & Shimantan Dams (Ru & Hong Rivers, China)(Design Issues) August 75, 85,000 dead, 11 million affected

RESERVOIR ALLOCATIONS Perched Reserve Power Pool Top of Dam Maximum Design Surface Freeboard Surcharge Top of Flood Control SWF – 15.9 million ac-ft $2-3 billion/yr damages prevented, $76 billion total Top of Conservation Water Supply, Municipal Agricultural Industrial Hydropower Fish & Wildlife, Recreation Spillway Crest 8.8 million ac-ft 5.8 ac-ft water supply 20-25% surface water supply Spillway Crest Perched Reserve Power Pool SWF - 214 GWH/yr @ 5 locations Low Flow Top of Inactive Pool Sedimentation Pool Streambed

Hydrologic Network Cooperative program – federal, state, local, academia, AE community Over 400 Remote Sensing Stations, approximately 2000 Observers Basic data for operation of the projects Calibration of NWS precipitation estimates Model calibrations, real-time forecasting and hydrologic investigations Jointly funded with USACE direct expenditures of close to $18 million annually, SWF $1 million annually Partnerships USGS, NWS, River Authorities, Counties, Cities Coordination and resource sharing to maximize network benefits USACE-SWF has leveraged partnerships for $700k $700k

Plans of Regulation Follow published plans of regulation for each project Store flood producing runoff to protect downstream areas Uncontrolled areas Project Safety – can we store it? Surcharge releases? Forecasts - reservoir managers, surcharge releases Evacuate flood water to prepare for subsequent flooding events Coordinate with other dam operators Retain full conservation pools and additional supplies on a temporary basis to support drought (deviation) Controls

Control Points – Downstream States During Event Control points & control point flows Select locations along a river, which are considered representative, for the purpose of evaluating the impact of a flood along that portion of the river. These locations are designated in the plan of regulation as regulatory discharge points A rate of flow at which damages begin to occur is established for each control point As the pool level and overall risk to the reservoir increases within a reservoir, the acceptable control point flow may increase These flow rates are known as the allowable control point flows or regulatory discharges Current flow/stage = > 8000 cfs/24.7’ Control capacity = 8000 cfs/24.7’ No releases from USACE flood control projects unless in surcharge operations After Event – Flood Water Evacuation Current flow/stage = 8000 cfs/24.7’ Control capacity = 8000 cfs/24.7’ Reservoir A = 1700 cfs Reservoir B = 4300 cfs Reservoir C = 500 cfs Flow from uncontrolled area = 1500 cfs

Surcharge Operations Most likely from ensemble events Dams have limited capability to store runoff, 100-yr, SPF, PMF, ensemble Once full spillway activation likely Control point flows no longer applicable Dam safety Spillways Uncontrolled Rare Damages Tainter gates Requires SWF internal decision Proctor Lake Lavon Lake

May – June 2015 Event 20” – 30” rainfall across entire upper Trinity River USACE projects flood pool capacity exhausted Surcharge pools engaged at all 8 Trinity River reservoirs Damage inducing surcharge releases at Lewisville, Grapevine and Lavon Numerous forecasts for USACE reservoirs across the state Inundation mapping across the state Denton Creek Brazos Elm Fork Trinity East Fork Neches Guadalupe

Monthly Rainfall

*Pool percent taken on the last day May 1- 5 Ray Roberts I=0.88 in 98 C Lavon I=0.44 in Lewisville I=0.65 in 15 F Grapevine I=0.70 in 7 F 93 C Benbrook I=0.41 in 10 F 83 C Joe Pool I=0.35 in *Pool percent taken on the last day

*Pool percent taken on the last day Storm Event May 6-12 Ray Roberts I= 9.45 in C= 10.33 in 86 F Lavon I=5.57 in C=6.01 in Lewisville I= 7.04 in C= 7.69 in Grapevine I=6.74 in C=7.44 59 F 37 F 25 F Benbrook I=4.61 in C=5.02 Joe Pool I=3.72 in C=4.07 2 F 18 F *Pool percent taken on the last day

*Pool percent taken on the last day Storm Event May 13-19 Ray Roberts I=4.36 in C=14.69 in Lavon I=3.61 in C=9.62 in 93 F Lewisville I=3.57 in C=11.26 in 74 F Grapevine I=3.74 in C=11.18 in 57 F 44 F Benbrook I=2.01 in C=7.03 in Joe Pool I =4.24 in C =8.31 in 11 F 51 F *Pool percent taken on the last day

*Pool percent taken on the last day Storm Event May 20-25 Ray Roberts I=4.74 in C=19.43 in 100 Lavon I=5.04 in C=14.66 in Lewisville I=4.15 in C=15.41 in 100 Grapevine I=3.37 in C=14.55 in 82 F 71 F Benbrook I=3.44 in C=10.47 in 18 F 79 F Joe Pool I=5.25 in C=13.56 in *Pool percent taken on the last day

*Pool percent taken on the last day Storm Event May 26-31 Ray Roberts I=4.84 in C=24.27 in Lavon I=3.12 in C=17.78 in 100 Lewisville I=4.38 in C=19.79 in Grapevine I=4.33 in C=18.88 in 100 100 100 Benbrook I=3.79 in C=14.26 in Joe Pool I=6.52 in C=20.08 in 100 40 F *Pool percent taken on the last day

Variations is Loss Rates for Forecast Modeling Upper Trinity River – Dallas, Fort Worth Area 70% variation in loss rates

Tropical Storm Bill June 13-23 2.3 Million (ac-ft) stored in the 6 projects Ray Roberts I=4.78 in C=29.45 in 100 Lavon I=5.07 in C=22.93 in Lewisville I=4.70 in C=24.86 in Grapevine I=6.46 in C=25.76 in 100 98 F 100 Benbrook I=5.16 in C=19.43 in Joe Pool I=3.03 in C=23.11 in 100 91 F *Pool percent taken on the last day

Whitney, Waco Lake and Aquilla were significantly in the flood pool. Anticipating Bill Whitney 21000 1453 Aquilla 611 Waco 4230 206 Belton 1641 27 Georgetown 258 Granger 2820 Whitney, Waco Lake and Aquilla were significantly in the flood pool. The Corps of Engineers had a 24 hour watch on the reservoirs in the path of Tropical Storm Bill. At 11 pm on June 16th the Corps of Engineers reduced releases at 6 reservoirs in anticipation of the storm.

Trinity River Reservoir System Where is the 7th flood control reservoir? Flood control system Over $70 billion in damages prevented (60 years) $2-3 billion per year Water supply system 6.5 million served

Corridor Development Certificate Floodplain as a Reservoir 1990 1989 1949 RIVER CHANNEL WATER SURFACE Full floodplain conveyance and storage

Corridor Development Certificate Floodplain as a Reservoir RIVER CHANNEL WATER SURFACE Full floodplain conveyance and storage Downstream flood risk increases Higher flows Higher water surface elevations Reduced floodplain conveyance and storage RIVER CHANNEL BUILDABLE AREA Bad things happen when you do this!

Chronology of the Regulatory Program TREIS 1987 ROD 1988 CDC 1991 Benefits of the CDC Process Establishment of the CDC Process provides a number of benefits and innovations, including the stabilization of flood risk. Common regional criteria State-of-the-art floodplain mapping Hydrologic modeling based on year 2055 Upper Trinity River watershed development A current hydraulic model incorporating CDC permitted floodplain development U.S. Army Corps of Engineers technical review Regional review and comment

Corridor Development Certificate Floodplain as a Reservoir RIVER CHANNEL WATER SURFACE Full floodplain conveyance and storage RIVER CHANNEL BUILD AREA STORAGE AREA Recovered conveyance and compensatory storage Reduces, but does not eliminate, impacts on downstream flood potential (compromise) Leveraging to expand SW management practices

NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation Frequency Estimates . NOAA - Office of Hydrologic Development – Sanja Perica PhD UCAR Technical Paper 40 & 49 (1961 & 1964) USGS/TXDOT (Asquith) 10 volumes completed Improved techniques Additional durations (urban studies, 5-min) Additional frequencies (1000-yr) Aerial reduction factors Increased granularity Denser network Improved spatial interpolation PRISM techniques Longer records Connectivity to USACE software (MetVue) Cost – $1.5 mil, $500k/yr for 3 years $170k in hand, $790k pledged

CWMS Implementation 200+ USACE watersheds $150 M investment, nationally $6 M for Texas 6+ year plan Supports Dam safety, operations (forecasting), can be leveraged (FEMA) 2014 Colorado, Neches, Guadalupe, Trinity, San Jacinto (Buffalo Bayou) 2015 Brazos MetVue -> HMS-> RiverWare-> RAS-> FIA

HEC-MetVue Meteorological Data Tool Real-time flood forecasting Rainfall scaling Additional calibration Grids or lumped DSS Design storms for standard frequencies Integration with NOAA Atlas 14 PMP studies – HMR52, HMR55a Storm rotation and translation Storm Analysis Depth-area-duration, hyetographs, moments of inertia

Military and Civil Works AE Contracts Currently Available Coming on Line Military 2 - $15M UR (unrestricted) 1 - $ 10M SDVOSB 1- $10M EDWOSB 1 – $5M HUBZone 3 - $10M 8(a) Civil Works 2 - $7.5M SB Construction Phase Services (CPS) 2 - $10M SDVOSB 1 - $5M EDWOSB Military SE Huey SB Arizpe SB Blair-Remy SB Merrick – PBSJ (Atkins) UR Mason-Hangar/Pond UR Civil Works URS/Freeze-Nichols/Huitt-Zollars UR CDM-Stanley UR Survey Munoz-Dannenbaum SB IEA SB Continental Mapping Consultants SB Construction Phase Services (CPS) Argo Systems URS Group Jacobs-Huitt-Zollars

WEB Site www.swf-wc.usace.army.mil Questions?