1. From Severe Drought to Flood of the Century

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

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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

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

8. 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

9. 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 locations
Low Flow
Top of
Inactive Pool
Sedimentation Pool
Streambed

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

16. Monthly Rainfall

17. *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

18. *Pool percent taken on the last day
Storm Event May 6-12
Ray Roberts
I= 9.45 in
C= 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

19. *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

20. *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

21. *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

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

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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

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

27. 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!

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

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