PMF Analysis for Savannah River Multipurpose Projects

Similar documents
Recreational Enhancements on the Lehigh River Public Information Workshop February 2013

PERFORMANCE OF DAMS AND SPILLWAYS 2009 GEORGIA FLOOD. Randall P. Bass, P.E. 1, 2. James R. Crowder, P. Joseph S. Monroe, P.E.

Methods for Determination of Safe Yield and Compensation Water from Storage Reservoirs

Hydrologic Engineering Techniques for Regional Water Resources Planning

Reservoir Simulations for the Delaware River Basin Flood of June, 2006

Estimating Potential Reduction Flood Benefits of Restored Wetlands

Lower Raritan Watershed Management Area Stormwater & Flooding Subcommittee Strategy Worksheet LRSW-S3C1

Swannanoa River Flood Risk Management Study

Hydrologic Modeling using HEC-HMS

2013 Annual Climate Summary for the Southeast United States

Development of Technical Data For Long Term Flood Solutions For the Red River Basin

AZ EGER-PATAK HIDROLÓGIAI VIZSGÁLATA, A FELSZÍNI VÍZKÉSZLETEK VÁRHATÓ VÁLTOZÁSÁBÓL ADÓDÓ MÓDOSULÁSOK AZ ÉGHAJLATVÁLTOZÁS HATÁSÁRA

The Mississippi River & Tributaries Project

The Mississippi River & Tributaries Project

Fort Dodge Stormwater Master Planning. Prepared By: Ralph C. Stark, Jr., P.E., C.F.M. Joel N. Krause, P.E., C.F.M.

Flood mitigation program for Gatun lake. Programa de mitigación de inundaciones del lago Gatún

FLOOD FORECASTING PRACTICE IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

UNION COUNTY, FLORIDA AND INCORPORATED AREAS

CLEARWATER DAM BLACK RIVER, MISSOURI MAJOR REHABILITATION STUDY

Next Generation Flood Alert in Houston

CHAPTER 3 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

Hydropower. Corps Hydro Plants Non-Federal Plants

Environmental Data Management Programs

Thin Air and Thick Ice Unusual Challenges at a High Elevation Hydro Plant

CITY OF CHARLOTTE STORM WATER SERVICES CREDIT APPLICATION INSTRUCTION MANUAL

HEADWATERS CONTROL STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT POLICY AND OPERATING PROCEDURES

URBAN DRAINAGE CRITERIA

ROSE CREEK WATERSHED HYDROLOGIC, HYDRAULIC, SEDIMENT TRANSPORT, AND GEOMORPHIC ANALYSES TASK 1 EXISTING DATA AND INFORMATION SUMMARY REPORT BACKGROUND

WATER STORAGE, TRANSPORT, AND DISTRIBUTION Multi-Dam Systems and their Operation - J.J. Cassidy MULTI-DAM SYSTEMS AND THEIR OPERATION

2008 Total Dissolved Gas Management Plan

5.14 Floodplains and Drainage/Hydrology

Hydrologic Aspects of Flood Warning Preparedness Programs

Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW RESTORATION IN THE SAVANNAH RIVER

US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG

HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC MODELING OF WESTMINSTER WATERSHED ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Assiniboine River and Lake Manitoba Basins Flood Mitigation Study: Providing Greater Protection For Manitobans From Flood Risks

Appendix F Benefit-Cost Analysis of Flood Protection Measures

Computing Stormwater Runoff Rates and Volumes

USSD Workshop on Dam Break Analysis Applied to Tailings Dams

10/4/ slide sample of Presentation. Key Principles to Current Stormwater Management

Comparative Evaluation of Generalized River/Reservoir System Models. by Ralph A. Wurbs Civil Engineering Department Texas A&M University

Henry Van Offelen Natural Resource Scientist MN Center for Environmental Advocacy

Lockport Pool Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal Illinois Waterway

TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, L.L.C.

An Investigation of Potential Hydrologic and Management Impacts on the Bull Run System

CHAPTER 2 HYDRAULICS OF SEWERS

Shooks Run Drainage Study Basic Terminology

Des Moines River Regulated Flow Frequency Study

CRS 610 Ventura County Flood Warning System Website

J2.7 Using Multiple-Sensor Quantitative Precipitation Estimation for Flood Forecasting in the Lower Colorado River Basin

CITY UTILITIES DESIGN STANDARDS MANUAL

DANIELS RUN STREAM RESTORATION, FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA: FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS REPORT

Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety

Performing a Steady Flow Analysis

Post-Flood Assessment

The 1913 Dayton Flood and the Birth of Modern Flood Control Engineering in the United States

Section 2. Mono Basin Operations

Micromanagement of Stormwater in a Combined Sewer Community for Wet Weather Control The Skokie Experience

PRECIPITATION AND EVAPORATION

Red River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Framework

How To Understand And Understand The Cause Of Central Valley Flooding

FORECAST-COORDINATED OPERATIONS FOR THE YUBA-FEATHER RIVER RESERVOIR SYSTEM: INTERAGENCY COOPERATION

Flood After Fire Fact Sheet

Ruissellement du Bassin Précipitation Abstractions Hydrogramme Flux de Base. Superposition Routage

Addressing Declining Elevations in Lake Mead

Flood Risk Analysis considering 2 types of uncertainty

APPENDIX B DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR APPROVED TREATMENT METHODS

GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

FLOODPLAIN DELINEATION IN MUGLA-DALAMAN PLAIN USING GIS BASED RIVER ANALYSIS SYSTEM

Wolf Creek Hydropower Rehabilitation Analysis Report

JULY 1, 1993 NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER RESEARCH CUSTOMER SERVICE GROUP TECHNICAL REPORT WINTER PRECIPITATION IN SOUTHWEST ARIZONA

EMERGENCY HOME PROTECTION. Homeowner's Guide for Emergency Flood Control. Contents INTRODUCTION

Saving Constituents Money on Flood Insurance Under FEMA s Community Rating System (CRS)

Burnt River Black River and Gull River Flood Contingency Plan

Travel Time. Computation of travel time and time of concentration. Factors affecting time of concentration. Surface roughness

LDPCSD Water Supply Emergency Response Plan Status Update

Retention/Irrigation. Design Considerations. Soil for Infiltration Area Required Slope Environmental Side-effects

Adoption of an Interim 602(a) Storage Guideline. Final Environmental Assessment

Using HEC-RAS for Dam Break Studies

Basic Hydrology. Time of Concentration Methodology

USACE Dam Safety Program Current Approach & Methodology

Assessment of Impact of Hydropower Dams Reservoir Outflow on the Downstream River Flood Regime Nigeria s Experience

Quantifying Potential Floodplain Restoration Benefits in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, USA

State-Federal Flood Operations Center Informational Sheet


Impact of Warming on Outflows from Selected Upper Watersheds in California

USGS StreamStats Web Application for Kentucky

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tulsa District

A CASE-STUDY OF CUA_DAT CFRD IN VIETNAM

A. Flood Management in Nevada

CDM. City of Jacksonville Master Stormwater Management Plan (MSMP) Update. December 2008 Update. Agenda. 1. Data Collection. 2.

A Flood Warning System for City of Findlay, Ohio

GRAND RIVER BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT SERIES

California Energy Commission Agricultural Peak Load Reduction Program. For Water Agencies Administered by the Irrigation Training and Research Center

2D Modeling of Urban Flood Vulnerable Areas

The City of Ottawa Flood Hazards

HUDSON RIVER-BLACK RIVER REGULATING DISTRICT BOARD MEETING JUNE 10, 2014

Land Disturbance, Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Checklist. Walworth County Land Conservation Department

Small Dam Hazard Assessment Inventory

Transcription:

PMF Analysis for Savannah River Multipurpose Projects May 2016

PMF Analysis for Savannah River Multipurpose Projects The purpose of this analysis is to validate that the existing spillway capacities and gate operating schedules of the Hartwell, Russell, and Thurmond multipurpose projects on the Savannah River meet current dam safety criteria. The original design of Hartwell and Thurmond were based on Spillway Design Flood (SDF) criteria which is no longer used. Currently, the Corps of Engineers uses the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) in the design of spillway capacities of large dams. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District (CESAS), collaborated with the Corps Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) to develop computer models to perform an analysis of the effects of a PMF design storm. The first element of the study was for HEC to identify the precipitation patterns that would produce a Probable Maximum Storm event. Due to the size and length of the basin, HEC developed several storms centered and oriented on different parts of the basin. This enabled the District to validate the PMF design capability at each multipurpose project. HEC then developed an hourly version of HEC-HMS (a rainfall-runoff model used to simulate hydrologic processes on dendritic watershed systems) and applied these storms to determine which orientations would produce the largest inflows to the Savannah River projects. HEC then developed an hourly configuration of HEC RES-SIM (the Corps reservoir simulation model). This version of the RES-SIM model included all of the rules and gate regulation curves that CESAS uses in their 1996 Reservoir Regulation Manuals. HEC used the outputs from the different centering positions of the PMF storms in HEC-HMS as inflows to RES-SIM. Each multipurpose project was tested to determine which inflows would produce the highest pool, and whether the gate operation would be sufficient to prevent overtopping of the gates. The RES-SIM analysis was prepared under the assumption that the PMF begins at the top of their flood pools at 665 FT-MSL, 480 FT-MSL, and 335 FT-MSL at Hartwell, Russell, and Thurmond, respectively. The maximum design-induced surcharge elevations are 674.0 FT-MSL, 490 FT-MSL, and 346 FT-MSL at Hartwell, Russell, and Thurmond, respectively. The maximum design-induced surcharge elevation is the elevation of the top of the gates at their full open position. The original spillway design established the size of the gates and their maximum opening that defined the top of the induced surcharge pools. Typically, the top of the induced surcharge pool is set at or slightly above the maximum gate opening which prevents potential failure of the gates from overtopping. 1

Table 1 compares the original SDF criteria to the results of the 2015 PMF analysis. The results indicate that the 2015 PMF analysis is consistent with the original SDF criteria confirming that the peak pool elevations would not exceed the maximum induced surcharge pool elevations. The peak pool elevations from the PMF analysis are slightly below the peak pool elevations in the original SDF analysis at all three projects. This analysis confirms that the Savannah River multipurpose projects have adequate gate capacity and operating guidance to manage the PMF storm event. Table 1: Comparison of Peak Elevations of Original SDF and PMF Original Spillway Design Flood Criteria 2015 PMF Analysis Peak Elevation Peak Inflow Peak Outflow Peak Elevation Peak Inflow Peak Outflow Hartwell 674.00 FT-MSL 875,000 CFS 565,000 CFS 671.40 FT-MSL 778,000 CFS 546,747 CFS Russell 490.00 FT-MSL 1,035,210 CFS 801,500 CFS 485.88 FT-MSL 707,000 CFS 703,675 CFS Thurmond 346.00 FT-MSL 1,280,000 CFS 1,055,000 CFS 344.54 FT-MSL 1,236,450 CFS 1,048,244 CFS Figure 1 illustrates how the PMF storm would affect the Hartwell Pool elevation and how the PMF peak pool elevation compares to the maximum induced surcharge elevation. The maximum induced surcharge elevation is 674 FT-MSL. The PMF peak pool elevation is 671.4 FT-MSL. The PMF peak pool elevation is 2.6 FT-MSL below the maximum design-induced surcharge elevation. Therefore, the Hartwell project has adequate gate capacity and operating guidance to manage a PMF storm event. Figure 1: PMF Compared to Maximum Design-Induced Surcharge Elevation at Hartwell 2

Figure 2 illustrates how the PMF storm would affect the Russell Pool elevation and how the PMF peak pool elevation compares to the maximum induced surcharge elevation. The maximum design-induced surcharge elevation is 490 FT-MSL. The PMF peak pool elevation is 485.88 FT-MSL. The PMF peak pool elevation is 4.12 FT-MSL below the maximum design-induced surcharge elevation. Therefore, the Russell project has adequate gate capacity and operating guidance to manage a PMF storm event. Figure 2: PMF Compared to Maximum Design-Induced Surcharge Elevation at Russell 3

Figure 3 illustrates how the PMF storm would affect the Thurmond Pool elevation and how the PMF peak pool elevation compares to the maximum induced surcharge elevation. The maximum design-induced surcharge elevation is 346 FT-MSL. The PMF peak pool elevation is 344.54 FT-MSL. The PMF peak pool elevation is 1.46 FT- MSL below the maximum design-induced surcharge elevation. Therefore, the Thurmond project has adequate gate capacity and operating guidance to manage a PMF storm event. Figure 3: PMF Compared to Maximum Design-Induced Surcharge Elevation at Thurmond 4

Figure 4 illustrates how the operation of the Corps of Engineers three multipurpose projects would affect the flow at Augusta, Georgia. Figure 4: PMF Flow Impacts at Augusta, Georgia 5

Conclusions of the PMF Analysis The 2015 PMF analysis enabled Savannah District to validate that the three Savannah River multipurpose projects meet current USACE design criteria, HMR-51/52. If the projects were designed today, a PMF design storm would be used to design the flood capacity of these USACE reservoir projects. The existing flood storage at the three Savannah River Projects -- Hartwell, Russell, and Thurmond -- combined with the existing operational rules associated with flood management of the system are sufficient to manage the PMF storm without overtopping the gates. During a PMF event, substantial volumes of water would temporarily rise into the induced surcharge zones requiring releases over the spillway. It is important to keep in mind that while the dams have the capacity to manage the PMF storm without failure, the peak flow of 1,026,395 cfs would occur at Augusta. The Augusta Levee is only capable of protecting Augusta from floods less than 550,000 cfs. If the three dams were not present, a PMF would produce 1,261,723 cfs at Augusta. This analysis focused on the PMF event and the ability of the Corps Savannah River multipurpose projects to operate without failure during this event. The analysis indicates that no alteration of the existing gate regulation curves or induced surcharge storage pools is needed to prevent failures at the projects. 6

December 2015 Storm Event In December 2015, a series of non-tropical winter storm events passed across the Savannah River basin affecting all three multipurpose projects. These storm events equated to roughly a 25-year event (4 percent chance of exceedance in any given year). When the series of winter storm events began on December 14th, the pool elevations were at or near their guide curve. For the Hartwell Project, the guide curve pool elevation was 656 FT-MSL and the actual pool elevation was at 656.9 FT-MSL. For the Thurmond Project, the guide curve pool elevation was at 326 FT-MSL and the actual pool elevation was 325.84 FT-MSL. The guide curve pools on December 15 th were nearly 4-feet below the summer full pool elevations of 660 FT-MSL and 330 FT-MSL at Hartwell and Thurmond, respectively. The seasonally transitioning guide curve provided an additional 4-feet of flood storage at both Hartwell and Thurmond for the series of storm events that began on December 14th. For the Russell Project, the guide curve pool elevation was 475 FT-MSL and the actual pool elevation was a few inches below guide curve. The Russell Project s guide curve does not vary seasonally. The flood control storage, which includes the additional 4-feet at both Hartwell and Thurmond from the seasonally transitioning guide curves, was nearly 100 percent available. Runoff from the storms caused the Corps reservoirs to enter flood control operations. Lake levels rose to the top of all three project s flood control pools and into the induced surcharge pool at Thurmond. Hartwell s lake levels rose to 664.85 FT-MSL, just 0.15 feet from the top its flood control pool. Russell s lake levels rose to 479.79, just 0.21 feet from the top of its flood control pool. Thurmond s lake levels ascended beyond the top of its flood control pool and one foot into the induced surcharge pool. The local inflows below Thurmond in addition to a maximum release of 45,688 cfs from Thurmond Dam resulted in a peak stream flow at Augusta of 54,000 cfs. This is roughly twice the downstream channel capacity of 30,000 cfs. The Corps was required to open Thurmond s spillways 1.5 feet to prevent overtopping of the gates. The City of Augusta/Richmond County, Georgia, and North Augusta, Aiken County, South Carolina all experienced flooding from this event. The City of North Augusta begins to flood at some locations even when streamflows are less than the channel capacity. This is due to encroachment on the flood plain. The December 2015 storm revealed that the flood control pools for the Corps three multipurpose projects (with the 4-foot winter drawdowns at Hartwell and Thurmond) have the capacity to store slightly less than a 25-year storm event without making use of induced surcharge. The Corps observed that releases from a 25-year storm event will flood portions of Augusta and North Augusta. A larger storm would have resulted in more flooding in those areas. If the storm had struck during a time when the reservoir levels were at full summer pool, additional downstream flooding and increased flood risks would have occurred. 7