US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center

Techniques for Real-Time Operation of Flood Control Reservoirs in the Merrimack River Basin November 1975 Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited. TP-45

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) November 1975

2. REPORT TYPE Technical Paper

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Techniques for Real-Time Operation of Flood Control Reservoirs in the Merrimack River Basin

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) Bill S. Eichert, John C. Peters, Arthur F. Pabst

5F. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) US Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) 609 Second Street Davis, CA 95616-4687

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER TP-45

10. SPONSOR/ MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 11. SPONSOR/ MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Presented at the Hydrologic Engineering Center, Seminar on Real-Time Water Control Management, 17-19 November 1975, Davis, California. 14. ABSTRACT Techniques being developed to provide decision criteria on a real-time basis for operating the five flood control reservoirs in the Merrimack River basin in central New England are described. The techniques include (a) application of alternative streamflow forecasting models, (b) application of computer program HEC-5C, Simulation of Flood Control and Conservation Systems, to develop decision-criteria for system operation on a real-time basis, and (c) use of computer terminals to enable analysis of alternative forecast and/or decision criteria in both batch mode and interactive applications. 15. SUBJECT TERMS reservoir operation, flood control, water control, runoff forecasting, river forecasting, systems analysis, computer applications, computer models 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT U

b. ABSTRACT U

c. THIS PAGE U

17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT UU

18. NUMBER OF PAGES 52 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER

Techniques for Real-Time Operation of Flood Control Reservoirs in the Merrimack River Basin

November 1975 US Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources Hydrologic Engineering Center 609 Second Street Davis, CA 95616 (530) 756-1104 (530) 756-8250 FAX www.hec.usace.army.mil TP-45

Papers in this series have resulted from technical activities of the Hydrologic Engineering Center. Versions of some of these have been published in technical journals or in conference proceedings. The purpose of this series is to make the information available for use in the Center's training program and for distribution with the Corps of Engineers. The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents. The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.

TECHNIQUES FOR REAL-TIME OPERATION OF FLOOD CONTROL RESERVOIRS IN THE MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN

Bill S . EichertaP John C. ~ e t e r s , ~ and A r t h u r F. Pabst3

INTRODUCTION

T h i s paper contains a description of the techniques tha t a re under development a t The Hydrologic Engineering Center fo r providing decision c r i t e r i a on a real-time basis for operating the f ive flood control reser- voirs i n the Merrimack River basin. Techniques under development include:

a. test ing o f a1 ternative streamfl ow forecasting models

b. application of computer program HEC-5C, Simulation of Flood Control and Conservation Systems, t o develop decision-cri t e r i a fo r system operation on a real -time basis

c. use of computer terminals to enable analysis of a1 ternative forecast and/or decision c r i t e r i a i n both batch mode and interactive appl i cat i ons . Each of these techniques will be discussed following a brief description of character is t ics of the basin, reservoir system and automatic data coll ection network.

CHARACTERISTICS OF BASIN AND RESERVOIR SYSTEM

The Merrimack River basin is located i n eas t central New England and extends from the White Mountain area of New Hampshire southward into the northeast portion of Massachusetts. The basin is 134 miles long north t o south and up to 68 miles wide eas t t o west, the drainage area is about 5,000 square miles, 3,800 of which are i n New Hampshire.

The average annual precipitation for the Merrimack River basin varies from about 60 inches i n the headwaters t o about 40 inches i n the southern section, w i t h a basin average of about 45 inches. Precipitation is f a i r ly evenly distributed throughout the year. During winter months the preci p- i ta t ion is mostly i n the form s f snow, w i t h amounts averaging 70 to 100 inches or more i n the north t o 45 to 60 inches i n the southern areas,

'Di rector, The Hydrologic Engi neeri ng Center "Chief, Training & Methods Branch, The Hydrologic Engineering Center 3~ydraul i c Engineer, The Hydro1 ogic Engineering Center 4Presented a t The Hydroloqie Engineerinq Center, Semfnar on Real-Time Water Control Manaqement, 17-19 Movemher 1975 a t Dav is , California.

Paper 12

Floods can occur during any season. The two grea tes t basin-wide floods occurred i n March 1936 and September 3338. The 1936 event resul ted from two periods of heavy ra infal l about a w e k apar t associated wi t h s i gn i f i c an t -. snovmel t, r ne I938 flood resul ted from intense hurricane r a in f a l l which occurred a f t e r a week of almost continual ra in .

The reservoir system i n the jderrimack basin consis ts of f i v e reservoirs , a l l of which a r e operated almost exclusively f o r flood control . Drainage areas and flood control storage capaci t ies f o r the reservoirs a r e as fo l lows:

Bra i nage Area Flood Control Storage Reservoi -- r ac. f t , - ?in

Frankl i n Fal l s 131 ackbgater Hopki nton Everett HacDowel 1

A schematic diagram of the reservoir system i s shown i n f igure 1 . The Hopkinton and Everett reservoirs a r e joined by a canal t o enable diversion from Hopkinton t o Everett during flood events. Franklin Fal ls reservoir has a r e l a t i ve ly l imi ted flood control capacity because i t was o r ig ina l ly ant ic ipated t h a t another reservoir would be developed upstream.

Populat'ion centers i n the basin a r e located, f o r the most pa r t , along the main stem of the Merrimack River. For computer simulation runs described i n t h i s paper, the locations of Franklin Junction, Concord, Manchester and Lowell were t reated as damage centers (see Figure 4). The f i r s t th ree centers a re i n New Hampshire; Lowell i s i n northern Nassachu- s e t t s . A major proportion of the t o t a l damages occurs a t Lowell. The t ravel time from Franklin Fal ls t o L.owell i s about 30 hours.

PRESENT REGULA'TI0t.J PROCEDUREIS

Because a l l reservoirs except Franklin Fa l l s contain about 5 inches of' flood control storage, a large flood o r a s e r i e s of smaller ones can be s tored in four of the reservoirs without spi l l i ng . Consequent1 y , current operation procedures require t h a t the o u t l e t works of 3jacDowel1, Blackwater, Hopkinton, and Everett reservoirs be shut o f f ea r ly i n a flood event. Because of the limited s torage capacity a t Frankl i n Fa l l s , flows a r e passed through t h i s reservoir up t o the channel capacity of 18,000 c f s . Inf l oavs to Frankl i n Fa1 1s a r e estimated from rese rvo i r ra te-of-r ise curves; fu ture inflows a re based on flows a t an upstream location cal led Plymouth. Once flows a t Plymouth have peaked, a re lease r a t e fo r Franklin Fa l l s is established based on the estimated flood volume.

Paper 12

DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM

The New England Division has established a comprehensive data collection network i n the Merrimack River basin as well as i n several other New England basins. An automatic radio reporting network supplies information on rain- fa1 1 and r iver stage direct ly to a computer i n the Control Center i n the Division off ice in Waltham, Massachusetts. Under computer-programmed control, reporting s tat ions can be interrogated singly o r as a group a t automatically selected time intervals ranging from s ix hour to one hour periods based on the amount of r iver flow or rainfal l . A t present, r iver stage i s reported from ten locations and precipitation from three locations. Also the New England Division i s assessing the use of orbiting sate1 1 i t e s for relaying information from data collection platforms, Four of these platforms are currently i n use in the Merrimack basin.

FORECASTING TECHNIQUES

Streamflow forecasting may be accomplished us ing a variety of techniques. A re lat ively simple technique would involve relating the stage a t a downstream location to the stage a t some e a r l i e r time a t an upstream stat ion. A rela- t ively sophisticated technique woul d invol ve model ing the preci pi t a t i on- runoff process continuously involving a1 1 aspects of the hydrologic cycle deemed signif icant . Accompanying this range of forecasting sophistication is a range of required data. A simple gage relationship requires only stage or discharge as a function of time. A precipitation-runoff model may require precipitation, water equivalent of a snow pack, a i r temperature, dewpoint, wind velocity, insolation, albedo, soi 1 moisture, f r o s t depth as well as streamflow discharge. Forecasting by a simple model is severely limited in i ts capabili ty t o provide information very f a r into the future. The sophisticated precipitation-runoff model may u t i l i ze forecasted meteo- rological conditions and provide forecasts of runoff as f a r as is reasonably possible into the future.

The selection of a particular technique will depend on a r e a l i s t i c assessment of the actual data available, the accuracies of the forecast method, and the use tha t will be made of the forecasted streamflows.

Streamflow Extrapolation Forecasting

A method for making relat ively short-term forecasts tha t u t i l izes a minimum amount of data would be a useful tool to complement a more complete precipitation runoff model. In i t i a l e f for t s were directed to development of a simple forecast tool tha t would require only observed streamflow a t various locations in the basin. The technique developed i s termed Streamflow Extrap- olation Forecasting. In essesnce i t i s no more than taking observed flows a t stream gaging locations, extending them into the future by gage relationships, recessing the f lows from tha t point on, and routing them down the basin.

Paper 12

T h i s technique will be described by use of a simple i l lus t ra t ion . Given only the observed flows a t stream gage locations A, B, C and D , (Figure 2a) up u n t i l the current time, the problem is to estimate the future flows a t s i t e s A and B.

The following ser ies of steps would be taken:

(1) Extend the current flows a t A, 3-hours into the future based on the immediately preceding flows a t A and nearby s tat ion C . (Figure 2b)

(2) Recess th i s hydrograph a t A for flows beyond 3 hours into the future. This will provide the forecasted flows a t A. (Figure 2h)

(3) Route the forecasted flows a t A down to B. (Figure 2c)

(4) Extend the current flows a t B, 6-hours in to the future based on the immediately preceding flows a t B and nearby s tat ion D, (Figure 2c)

(5) Subtract the routed flows from A from the extended flows a t 0 yielding incremental local flows between A and B. (Figure 2d)

(6) Recess the incremental local flow beyond 6-hours into the future. T h i s will be the forecasted incremental flows between A and B, (Figure 2d)

(7) Add these incremental flows to the flows routed down from above yielding the forecasted flows a t B. (Figure 2e)

(8) Continue downstream as required us ing the preceding steps . The gage relationships used i n steps 1 and 4, to extend flows a t

a given s tat ion, should be developed from historical data. Mu1 t i p l e regression analysis may readily be used to establ ish these relationships. A future flow a t s tat ion A may be correlated t o current and past flows a t s tat ions A and C. The time span for extending flows ( i .e . , 3 hours, 6 hours) will depend on the s ize, shape and other characteristics of the basins.

Such a procedure which assumes l i t t l e or no future precipitation o r snowmel t input, yields the minimum future flows i n the r iver system. If future additional precipitation or snowmel t occur the actual flows will exceed the forecasted f l ows ,

Such a forecast can provide a firm basis for establishing tha t a reservoir wi 11 surely f i 11. I t may not give a long lead time as to when a reservoir will f i l l ; b u t i t i s f ree from the uncertainities of having to assess average basin precipitation w i t h sparse data, calculations of snowmel t, or of establishing losses for frozen or partly frozen ground.

Paper 32

The forecasted discharges are interfaced to the reservoir opera tion model through a data f i l e . This allows the forecast model to run independently of the operation model. As a separate program the fore- cast can be made once and then several operation policies may be evaluated using the discharges. It i s n o t necessary t o fit both the forecast and operation models in computer core a t the same time, or to resort to overlays. Any other forecast technique may be used by simply having the a1 ternative model write the appropriately formatted discharge f i 1 e.

Evaluation of Forecasts

In order to choose between a1 ternative forecasting techniques i t is necessary to establish a measure of forecast accuracy. The measure should reflect the error over a certain f i n i t e period into the future, recognizing that the error over such a span will change as one proceeds through the event. In addition i t would be desirable to aggregate the error over a series of several floods rather than to accept a given technique only on i t s reproduction of one event.

When historical data are available the Streamflow Extrapolation Forecasting program wi 11 provide information on the relative error (eq. 1 ) and the standard error (eq, 2 ) over a future time span selected by the user

i +n, C

IQ. - QOBS.1 j=i+l QOBS .

RELERRi = R eq. 1

' fL (Qi - QOBS,) 2

eq. 2

where Q i s forecast discharge QOBS i s observed discharge

i i s current time index R i s future span length of forecast

Paper 12

Such errors can be evaluated a t each time period as one steps through the event. The relat ive errors for the 1936 flood for the Merrimack River a t Lowell, MA for two forecast conditions are shown i n figure 3. Beneath the actual cumulative local flow hydrograph are shown the errors i n a forecast based only on recessed f lows a t upstream locations, and the errors when stat ion flows are f i r s t extended into the future by gage re1 ationships and then recessed. Relatively good agreement was obtained for short term forecasts using this technique.

Another indication of the adequacy of the forecast can be measured i n terms of the efficiency of system operation by comparing the resul ts of operation of historical floods with and without forecasts. One measure of this efficiency tha t may be useful for flood control operation i s a comparison of expected (or average) annual flood damages (AAD) using historical flows and forecasted flows. Such a comparison i s made i n Table 2 where the average annual damage (AAD) fo r run F-1 i s about the same for locations 8, 9 , and 10 as the runs u s i n g measured streamflow (runs J and 17). The AAD for location 91 i s considerably higher for run F-1 than for e i ther r u n J o r 17 indicating additional improvement i n forecasting procedures i s needed for the location that i s substantially further downstream.

Paper 1 2

RESERVOIR OPERATIONAL MODEL

Gasi c Objectives of Model

The HEC-5C program was i n i t i a l l y developed t o a s s i s t i n planning s tudies required f o r the evaluation of proposed changes t o a system and t o a s s i s t i n s i z ing the system components f o r flood control and conser- vation requirements. However, the program can a l so be used i n s tudies made immediately a f t e r a flood to ca lcu la te the preproject conditions and t o show the e f f ec t s of exis t ing and/or proposed reservoirs on flows and damages i n the system. Special features have been added t o the program t o make i t useful f o r real-time applications. The program log ic is designed t o minimize flooding as much as possible and y e t empty the system as quickly as possible while maintaining the proper balance of f 1 ood control storage among the reservoi r s .

The above objectives a r e accomplished by simulating thk sequential operation of various system components of any configuration fo r shor t interval h i s to r ica l o r synthet ic floods o r f o r long duration nonflood periods, o r f o r combinations of the two. Specifical l y the program may be used t o determine:

a, Releases from reservoirs during flood emergencies based on local flow forecasts furnished t o the program.

b. The evaluation of operational c r i t e r i a f o r both flood control and conservation f o r a system of reservoi PS.

c. The influence of a system of reservoirs , o r o ther s t ruc tures on the spa t i a l and temporal d i s t r ibu t ion of runoff i n a basin.

d. The expected ( o r average) annual flood damages (MD), system cos t s , and excess flood benef i ts over cos t s ,

e . Flood control and conservation (including hydrsporqer) storage requirements of each reservoir i n the system.

f . The determination of the system of exis t ing and proposed reservoirs o r o ther s t ruc tura l o r norls t ructural a l t e rna t ives t h a t r e su l t s i n the maximum net benef i t f o r flood control f o r the system by making simulation runs f o r selected a1 t e rna t i ve systems.

Paper 12

Cn

g5: 'r- 4C L

0

2 h

V)

F

-3

a

d

a, .r- cr- .P

u

ii! 6%

E

3

m

r

.r- x

V)

3

2x M

5

.r- L

a, a, .r- n

L L

6) 0,

0,

cnm

s m

.r

C,

@Lo

3

1 0 a,

LP

TJ pr P

a, 5

E:

L

6 4.J

*v

)

r

0 L. 0

- a

M E

- 3

* (d

t- n a

\

cw:

PO

U

TZ

.r r

oo

+'

4.J

Of--Q)

m

I-0

s

!3

LC

, LQS

3

og2

0

F-

30

L

LO

L

I--A=

0

'4- U

*

cm

-

-P

UaJM

3

L 0

2K

2d x

$ a Q

m

a,

G

st- T3

C, a,

6, C,

3W

a-

C

Q)

.r L

.F 0 5.

> n

L

-r-

Q)

P- 6n

ro

ad

L

V).r

E

Lcua

.r- EC,

8

V)

0 sl

LM

V)

Q

) V

) - Q

) .*

a

V)

r u

l 02

LC

, 3

Q

0 a-

* > cur-

n3LQ)O

ax*

(1) When the level of a reservoir i s between the top of conser- vation pool and the top of flood pool, releases are made to attempt to draw the reservoir to the top s f conservation pool w i t h o u t exceeding the designated channel capacity a t the reservoir or a t downstream control points for which the reservoir i s being operated.

(2 ) Releases are made equal to or greater than the minimum desired flows when the reservoir storage i s greater than the top of buffer storage, and o r equal to the required flow i f between level one (top of inactive pool ] and the top of buffer pool. No releases are made when the reservoir i s be1 ow l eve1 one. Re1 eases calculated for hydropower require- ments* will override minfmum flows i f they are qreater than the control 1 ing desi red or requi red flows.

(3 ) Releases are made equal to or less than the designated channel capacity a t the reservoir until the top of flood pool i s exceeded, then a1 1 excess flood water i s dumped i f suff icient out le t capacity i s available. I f insuff icient capacity exis ts , a surcharge routing i s made. Input options permit channel capacity releases (or greater) to be made prior to the time tha t the reservoir level reaches the top s f the flood pool i f forecasted i nf l ows are excess i ve .

(4) The reservoir release i s never greater (or less) than the previous period release plus (or minus) a percentage of the channel capacity a t the dam s i t e unless the reservoir i s in surcharge operation.

b. Operational c r i t e r i a fo r specified downstream control points are as f o l l o ~ ~ s :

(1) Releases are not general1 y made (as long as flood storage remains) which would contribute to flooding a t one or more specified downstream locations during a predetermined number of future periods except to sa t i s fy minimum flow and rate-of-change of release c r i t e r i a . The number of future periods considered is the lesser of the number of reservoir release routing coefficients or the number of local flow forecast periods specified on i n p u t data.

(2 ) Releases are made, where possible, to exactly maintain down- stream flows a t channel capacity ( for flood operation) o r for minimum desired or required flows ( f o r conservation operation). In making a re1 ease determination, local (intervening area) flows can be mu1 tip1 ied by a contingency a1 lowance (greater than 1 for flood control and less than 1 fo r conservation) to account for uncertainty in forecasting these flows.

*No Corps hydropower projects are in the Merrimack River Basin.

Paper 12

c. Operational c r i t e r i a for keeping a reservoir system in balance are as fo'llows:

( i j Where two or more reservoirs are in parallel operation above a comnon control point, the reservoir tha t i s a t the highest index level, assuming no releases for the current time period, will be operated f i r s t to t ry to increase the flows i n the downstream channel to the target flow. Then the remaining reservoirs will be operated i n a pr ior i ty established by index levels t o attempt t o f i l l any remaining space i n the downstream channel without causing flooding during any of a specified number of future peri ods .

( 2 ) I f one of two parallel reservoirs has one o r more reservoirs upstream whose storage should be considered in determining the prior i ty of releases from the two para1 l e l reservoirs, then an equivalent index level i s determined for the tandem reservoirs based on the combined storage i n the tandem reservoirs.

(3 ) If two reservoirs are in tandem (one above the other) , the upstream reservoir can be operated for control points between the two reservoirs. In addition, when the downstream reservoir i s being operated for control points, an attempt i s made to b r i n g the upper reservoir to the same index level as the lower reservoir based on index levels a t the end of the previous time period.

Two key input items are used i n determining reservoir releases based on downstream f l oodi ng as d i scussed under "operati onal c r i t e r i a for down- stream control points.'"hese factors are the number of future time periods (IFCAST) that should be checked for possible future flooding (cal led forecast periods) and the contingency al lowance (CFLQD) which i s mu1 t i pl i ed times the cumulative uncontrol 1 ed downstream fa ow to account for uncertainty i n forecasts. For simulation of historical floods (where flows are known for duration of flood) a contingency factor of 4 and an in f in i t e forecast period could be used in order to operate with maximum foresight. However, these assumptions would not simulate "real world" conditions where 1 arge errors in forecasting future strearnflsws are possible. These two key factors, for the simulation of historical floods, should be selected so that the oper- ational efficiencies i n the planning mode wi 11 approach the expected efficiencies under flood emergency conditions, During flood emergencies these factors should be used to insure tha t the forecasting errors do not cause reservoir releases to be made which will cause major unneces- sary flood damages. The sens i t iv i ty of the system to different values s f these two factors can be detern~ined by simulating the operation and resulting flood damages for a ser ies of different s i ted flood events for

Paper 7 2

the system. The difference between the average annual damages (AAD) f o r various combinations of these factors will help to evaluate the sens i t iv i ty o f these factors. Table 1 i l l u s t r a t e s how the reservoir system responds to these factors. The adopted value fo r the number of forecast periods (IFCAST) was four and the adopted contingency factor (CFLOD) was 1.2. Because a time intervai o f 3 hours was used, the duration of %he a d ~ p t e d forecast per iod was 12 hours.

TABLE 1

AVERAGE ANNUAL DAMAGE VS FORECAST PERIOD AND CONTINGENCY FACTOR USING HISTORICAL FLQNS

RUN - - CFLOD 1 FCAST

*One kmu1d expect these values to be less than the previous values. They are not because f a r the larger events a long forecast period causes reservoir re1 eases to he diminished re1 at ively early i n the event, When the reservoirs evenl- ual ly go uncontrol led, the resulting flosdi ng i s greater than would have occurred i f the releases had not been diminished early i n the event. The increase i n damages i n the larger events exceeds the decrease i n damages fo r the smaller events.

Paper 12

Paper 12

Use of Forecasted Flows

If flow forecast models are available, the same type of simulation runs can be made to determine the proper forecast period and contingency factor by using forecasted streamflow for one or more historical floods and one or more rat ios of those floods to calculate the average annual damages. In most cases, the best operation should occur where the average annual damages are a minimum. Table 2 i l l u s t r a t e s resul ts u s i n g forecasted flows. The adopted values for the forecast period (IFCAST) were four 3-hour periods and contingency factors (CFLOD) were assumed as 1.2 and 1.4 respectively. Results indicate forecast flows are generally adequate for locations 8, 9, and 10, but n o t a t location 11.

The adopted values for historical floods (where future flows are known) should not necessarily be the same as the adopted values during flood emergencies since the forecasted flows will not be the same as the observed historical flows. In general , the contingency fac%or for historical floods should be selected t o produce the same AAD as the run u s i n g fore- casted flows. The number of periods of foresight should be the same regardless of the source of flows.

OPERATIONAL CRITERIA FOR MERRIMACK BASIN

An essential task associated w i t h computer simulation of the Merrimack reservoir system i s evaluation of i n p u t parameters for computer program HEC-5C to obtain the most desirable operation of the system. Some of the key input parameters are l i s t ed i n Table 3. Alternative operation c r i t e r i a were evaluated by determining average annual damages based on spatial and temporal runoff variations associated w i t h the March 1936 and September 1938 flood events. While average annual damage i s a useful c r i t e r i a for selecting operating pol ic ies , other factors such as legal and p ~ P i t ica l considerations must also be used i n the evaluation. The procedure used in HEC-5C for estimation of average annual damages i s as follows:

a. Ratios are determined for appl ication to selected historical flood events tha t are representative of the fu l l range of frequency of flood occurrence. For example, rat ios of 1.4, 1.0, 0.8, 0.7 and 0.5 were applied to inflow and local flow hydrographs for the March 1936 flood to obtain f ive floods for which system operation was to be simulated. Frequencies associated with peak discharges for the f ive floods were determined from frequency curves for unregulated flows for locations where damages were to be computed.

b. Reservoir system operation i s simulated for each flood, tha t i s , for each s e t of inflow and local flow hydrographs obtained by applying ra t ios to hydrographs for a historical event. Frequencies associated with peak "regulated" discharges are assumed to be the same as the "unregulatedn frequencies. Figure 4 i l l ustrates natural and regulated frequency curves for Lowell. Points on the regulated frequency curve in figure 4 represent peak discharges resulting from system simulation for a specific s e t of operation c r i t e r i a .

Paper 12

c. Damage-discharge relations input to the computer program enable determination of do1 l a r damages corresponding to the peak discharges a t each damage center for each flood. Figure 5 i l lu s t r a t e s the damage- discharge relation tha t was used for Lovtell. This i s an approximate relation tha t wil 7 be updated i n the future.

d. Damage-frequency relations are established for each damage center for both natural and regulated conditions. Figure 6 i l l ustrates these relations for Lowell. The computer program integrates the area below the damage-frequency curves to obtain average annual damages -

The average annual damage ral culation i s influenced by the distribution of runoff for the historical "pattern" storms. Some characteristics of runoff production for the 3936 and 1938 floods can be ascertained from the hydrographs in Figures 7 and 8. These plots show discharge per square mile for inflow to Franklin Falls reservoir, unregulated flow on the C O ~ ~ O Q C Q O ~ r iver a t Penacook and uncontrol led local flow (runoff from al l areas down- stream from nearest upstream reservoirs) a t Lowel I .

The 7936 flood ref lec ts h i g h runoff production over the en t i r e Elerrimack basin. The flatness of the peak for local flow a t Lowell re f lec ts the re1 a t i vely slow responsiveness of th is portion o f the basin, Lowell i s a key location because a large proportion of total damages occurs there. Consequently, an objective in operating the reservoir system i s to t ry to avoid "building on" the local peak a t Lowell.

F i yure 8 indicates tha t runoff production f rom the Contoocook was relat ively high for the 1938 event. tfov~ever, th is portton sf the Merrianack basin i s ' c o n t r o l l e d h i t h four of the five reservoirs.

Paper 12

TABLE 3

INPU'T PARAMETERS FOR HEC-5C

9 . !{umber of periods of future (forecasted) flows tha t will he used to determine reservoir releases.

2. Contingency factors

These are rat ios t o be applied to flows i n determining reservoir releases; factors are used t o account for limited knowledge o f future Plows beyond the forecast period.

3 . Control points fo r which reservoirs are to be operated.

4. Rate-of-change-of -release c r i t e r i a for reservoirs.

5. Channel capacity cr i t e r i a for control points.

5. Minimum re1 ease vs reservoir el evation c r i t e r i a .

7, Pre-re1 ease c r i t e r i a

a . Whether or not pre-releases will be permitted. W pre- release i s a flood-producing reservoir release tha t i s made when the reservoir level i s below the top s f flood control pool, The release i s based on the anticipated f lood volume exceeding avai l ab7 e capaci ty . b. Reservoir elevation t h a t pre-releases wil l be geared to.

c. Magnitude of pre-release permitted (can be specified as a function of reservoir elevation).

Paper 12

RESULTS OF AVERaGE AFjNUAL DAMAGE RUNS

In s e t t i n g up average annual damage runs f o r IiEC-SC, a v a r i e t y o f a p p r ~ a c h e s c ~ u l d be used i n se lec tSng f l oods and f l o s d r a t i o s . Fsr example, one o r more r a t i o s o f a number o f d i f f e r e n t h i s t o r i c a l events could be incorpora ted i n a s i n g l e average annual damage computer run. Another approach is t o determine average annual darnages f o r s e p a r a t e sets o f r a t i o s appl i ed t o i nd iv idua l h i s t o r i c a l even t s . Wesul t s sf these ind iv idua l average annual damage runs could be weighted depending on how r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i nd iv idua l storms a r e o f the o v e r a l l f lood-producing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the bas in . Two s e p a r a t e sets o f s imula t ion runs were made t o compute average annual damages f o r the Iderrimack bas in . As i n d i c a t e d prev ious ly , one set is based on using f i v e r a t i o s of t h e 1936 event. A second set uses f i v e r a t i o s of t h e 1938 event.

Paper l 2

TABL

E 4

AVEM

GC

ANN

UAL

DAM

AGE

SUMM

ARY 0

Base

Run

, No

P

re-r

ele

ase

2 B

ase

Run

, w

/o

op

era

tin

g f

or

loc

11

:VOT

ES:

1 E

ase

Run

- O

pera

ting

fo

r lo

c 1

1,

RD

card

s as

sho

wn

no

te 2

, P

re-r

elea

ses,

C

ontin

genc

y fa

cto

r =

1.2,

F

orec

ast

Pe

rio

d =

12

hour

s.

2 KD

Car

ds

for

Res

1 s

pe

cify

mln

enl

erge

ncy

rele

ase

s as

fu

nct

ion

o

f re

serv

oir

sto

rage

s.

w

Sv

', F.

C.

Stg

32

49

7 5

10

0 (E

l 38

9)

109

(El

394)

11

2 (E

l 39

6)

'U

Base

Run

Q

0 6,

000

12,0

00

18,0

00

18,0

00

30,5

00

ID 1

Hig

h Q

0 18

,000

18

,000

18

,000

18

,000

30

,500

.-1

Low

Q

0 0

6,00

0 18

,000

18

,000

30

,500

N

* Im

prov

emen

t ov

er b

ase

con

dit

ion

s.

b

Results of the average annual damage runs are summarized i n Table 4. The "baseii runs, labeled A i n Tab le 4, were made with HEC-5C input parameters specified as Pol lows.

a. A forecast period of 12 hours; tha t i s , discharges u p to 12 hours in the future were considered in determining reservoir releases.

b. A contingency factor of 1.2 was applied to local flows for purposes of reservoir re1 ease determination.

c. The reservoir system was operated for a l l control points shown in figure 1.

d . Rate-of-change sf release c r i t e r i a were specified so as no t t o be a constraint on releases from Frankl in Fa1 l s reservoi r.

e , Fixed channel capacities were specified for a l l control po in t s based on information supplied by the New England Division.

f . A table of salues fo r minimum permissible release as a function of reservoir elevation was specified for Frankl i n Fa1 1s reservoir as shokqn on fable 4 (note 2 ) .

g . Pre-releases were permitted; a t Frankl In Fa1 1 s reservsi r, pre- releases were made i f inflows to the reservoir d u r i n g the 72-hour forecast period would cause the reservoir level to r i se above elevation 394 (5 f ee t above the spi 3 away cres t ) .

The discharge-damage relation for Lowell (Figure 53 tha t was input to WEG-SC had a maximum discharge ordinate of 180,000 cfs . Because discharges larger than 180,000 cfs were used in the damage analysis, the discharge- damage relation was extrapolated by the computer program as shown in Figure 5. The ef fec t of using the al ternat ive extrapolation, also shown i n Figure 5, on average annual damages was less than 2% for both natural and regulated flows.

Paper 12

Operation c r i t e r i a f o r average annual damage runs other than the base runs a r e summarized i n Table 5. Some observations pertaining t o r e su l t s o f the average annual damage simulation runs a r e as follows:

a. Average annual damages based on floods patterned a f t e r the March 4936 f lsod a r e of approximately the same magnitude as average annual damages based an floods patterned a f t e r the September 1938 flood.

b. Operational c r i t e r i a used fo r the base run (run A ) produced the lowest average annual danages f o r floods patterned a f t e r the March 1936 $1 ood; operational c r i t e r i a t h a t does not u t i l i z e the pre-release option (run E ) produced the lowest average annual damages f o r floods patterned a f t e r the September 1938 f lsod and orily s l i g h t l y more damage f o r the 1936 flood.

c. 8f the order of 95% of the t o t a l average annual damages occurs a& Lowel l on the basis of the approximate stage-damage re la t ionshi p For t h a t l ocat i on.

d. Damages associated w i t h very large floods account f o r a major proportion of average annual damages; t h i s i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n f igure 9 which shows the re la t ion between percent of average annual damage and recurrence in terval a t Lowell f o r the base run f o r floods patterned a f t e r the March 7936 f lsod, (e.g., 45% of average annual damages occur under regulated eondi t ions from floods having a recurrence in terval of 300 years o r g r ea t e r ) .

e. Signif icant discharge and damage reduction a t the $808 year f lood level i s due t o the surcharge storage avai lable i n the reservoirs due t o the 1 imi ted discharge capacity of the uneon t rol led spillways s ince the flood control storages were exceeded very ea r ly i n the l a rge s t floods,

Paper 12

TABLE 5

Q P E M T I O N CRITERIA FOR SIMULATION RUNS

Run - E

Cri teri a

Same as for base run, except minimum release not specified for Franklin Falls reservoir,

Same as for base run, except relatively large minimum releases were specifled (as a function of reservoir elevation) for Frankl in Fal 1s reservoir (see note 2 of 'Table 4 for values).

Same as for base run, except relatively small minimum re1 eases were specified (as a function of reservoir elevation) for Franklin Falls reservoir,

Same as base r u n , except pre-releases were not made.

Same as base run, except reservoir system was not operated for Lowel 7 . Same as base run, except pre-releases were no t made and minimum releases for Franklin Falls reservoir were not specified.

Same as base run, except pre-releases were not made and reservoir system was no t operated for Lowel 1 . Same as base run, except reservoir elevation of 389 was used a t Franklin Falls reservoir for pre- re1 case determinali on.

Same as base run, except minimum releases of 18,000 cfs from Frankl in Fal l s reservoir were specified, system was no t operated for Lowell.

Same as base run, except the pre-release option was modified to include volume of recession o f hydrograph past the period o f forecast.

Paper 12

OU'TPUT DISPLAYS

Batch Node vs Interactive ;#!ode

Execution of a computer program in batch mode requires that a l l i n p u t for a computer run be supplied to the computer prior to program execution. An interactive-mode execution is where the user can in terac t with the computer during the execution of a job. As used i n the application described herein, the interact ive mode i s used to selectively pr int out data from an output f i l e of the system operation that has been generated i n batch mode, This enables the user to review any portion of the output that he desires. The output f i l e can be permanently saved and interrogated a t future times from one or more computer terminal s i t e s .

While output displays from high-speed l ine printers used i n the batch mode can provide any amount of output desired, the level of output must be specified prior to making the computer run. Presently, a f t e r a r u n has been made, output not previously requested can only be ~ b t a i n e d by making another complete simulation r u n . A n a l ternat ive method ~qould be to save the output f i l e and p r i n t in batch mode by writing a special program. If the turn-around time is adequate (say less than 30 minutes) and the program execution cost i s small, then the batch mode i s the best way to ge t the necessary output assuming tha t a high-speed pr inter i s available. Where batch mode turn-around times are Song, or high-speed printers are not readily available, the sfw-speed terminals can be an effect ive way of obtaining a limited amount o f infomation rapidly. After looking a t selected data through the slow-speed teminal the output can then be directed to a high-speed pr inter i f desired.

Paper 12

The subroutine PROUT i n 8EC-SC i s used t o p r i n t output for the high- speed pr inter (batch mode), s l ow-speed teletype terminal ( interact ive mode) and cathode pay tube terminals ( interact ive mode), All output devices can be used t o p r i n t any combination of types of output (see samnles on Figures 10-11) except for the graphical plots (see Figure 17) available w i t h cathode ray tube teminals . Printer plots (Figure 12) can be requested by the batch mode printers. The types of output that can be requested are as follows:

OUTPUT DESCRIPTION

* Input Card Listing * Input Flows * Input Data for System Specification * Output - tjormal Sequential (by control point) * O u t p u t - Reservoirs - by Period * O u t p u t - Reservoir Releases - by Period * O u t p u t - Reservoir Regulation Sumiary - Single Flood * O u t p u t - Reservoir Regulation Summary - A1 1 Floods * O u t p u t - Hydrslogic Efficiencies * O u t p u t - Computer Check f a r Possible Errors * Batch Economic Summary * User Designed O u t p u t - Results by Period * User Designed O u t p u t -. Summary

Interactive Terminal - While the batch mode se lec ts desired output by input cards, the slow-

speed terminal asks the user questions, as i l l u s t r a t ed in figure 93, concerning what type of function (see Figure 14) should be performed next (output from operation, modify i n p u t deck HEC-5C, e tc . ) . I f oper- ational output is desired, the type of data (o tion number of Figure 14) and possibly variable codes and locations, on Figure 15, as well as the output mode (p lo t , tabulate or save on tape) are required t o be specified to the computer. Data can be i n p u t t o the computer through the terminal by depressing the appropriate terminal keys or ( for certain CWT ks) by touching an electronic pen to the appropriate instruction (see Figure 15) on a selection l i s t (menu) which l i e s on a graphic tablet . After the tabulated output (see Figure 96) o r plotted resul ts (Figure 97) a re obtained, additional data can also be selected and printed as desired, Any combination of data types (reservoir outfl ow, storage, elevation, downstream flow, e tc . ) for any location can be tabulated o r plotted. Depending on the s i ze of the paper (or screen) up to 14 different items can be tabulated s ide by s ide and u p t o 5 different time dependent variables can be plotted on a s ingle graph. Two different scales ran be used fo r the plots as shown on Figure 17 where the inflow and o~tflokd are plotted on the l e f t scale (discharge) and the reservoir level on the r ight scale. When a l l of the desired output has been displayed, the data can be transferred to the l ine pr inter a t a nearby batch location.

22 Paper l 2

In the batch mode, data cards for the forecast program are read by the card reader and an output f i l e of the forecasted basin-wide flows is - L & . - 2 - - J uu ecl r mu. The HEC-5C data cards can be loaded a t t h e sanie time oi- a t a l a t e r time, and the system simulation i s performed for the duration of the forecasts and the output i s directed to the l ine printer. Any desired change in the forecast o r operation requires a few new data cards and rerunning e i ther the operation model or both the forecast and operation models. Where adequate computer turn-around i s available this process can be accomplished in 30 nrinutes or less .

i g i t h a slow-speed terminal the same cycle can be accomplished by using the keyboard or the electronic pen. In addition, high quality graphical displays of the s ta tus of the system can be obtained. After the operational data has been displayed, function 5 s f figure 14 can be selected and an interactive program called REVISE will allow the revision and/or execution of the data f i l e s of e i ther the forecast or operation models. I t i s then possible to once again display selected output. A diagram of th i s process i s shown as figure 98,

COb:PUTER SYSTEYS REQUIRED FOR REAL-TIME OPERATION

In order to reap the benefits of the real-time operation tools described previously, access to d ig i ta l computer equipment is a necessity. T h i s access may take several different forms depending on character is t ics of the data acquisition system, the forecasting and operation models used, and available communications equipment. Real-time water resource operations may make use of only in-house equipment, only remote s i t e equipment, or some combination of each.

The f i r s t basic function to be accomplished i s tha t of acquisition o f available data. Information required may include observer! collected data reported by voice communications and analog or d ig i ta l signals received by appropriate equipment. Such information may be received over dial-up phone 1 ines, dedicated phone 1 ines, radio repeating l inks, or satel 1 i t e repeating l inks.

When the volume of data i s great i t i s obviously desireable to have the data recorded direct ly on a rnediun~ tha t may be read by machines. Even more desireable i s to have the whole data acquisition function occur under control of a mini-computer. I f t h i s is done the mini-computer may also perform several functions such as, e r ror checking, data reduction, permanent logging, report generation, e tc . In most cases a mini-computer dedicated to such functions would be required.

Paper 12

Once the data in reduced form ( i .e., discharge, precipitation, e tc . ) is available, the forecast may be performed. Computer equipment for th is function will vary depending on the s ize of the forecast program. Some forecasting models may execute v~el l on the same mini-computer used for data acquisit ion. Others would require such extensSue reprogramming i n order to operate on a mini-computer that other alternatives would be desirable, In some cases additional large scale in-house computers may be available. In most cases such f a c i l i t i e s will not be direct ly available to d i s t r i c t offices. The use of larger capacity remote s i t e computing becomes very a t t r ac t ive in such a s i tuat ion. A portion of the reduced data may be sent Lo the remote s i t e direct ly by the mini-computer, or read in from paper tape, or magnetic casset te . The forecast may then be performed a t the remote s i t e w i t h resu l t s returned to the local s i t e and/or saved for future reference a t the remote s i t e .

A similar s i tuat ion exis t s for executing large system operation programs. Again remote s i t e computing offers a cost effect ive solution. The forecasted flows may be passed on to the operation model through common access to a data f i l e . Results from the operation routine may then be returned to the local s i t e , or be held for future reference. Display of the resul ts may be performed by the in-house mini-computer, or be handled direct ly from the remote s i t e .

Problems of using a remote s i t e computing center around two factors; (1 ) guaranteed access to f a c i l i t i e s twenty-four hours per day, three hundred and sixty-five days per year, and ( 2 ) re l iab le comnunications and power supply even under extremely adverse conditions. I t i s impossible to guarantee access to any one f a c i l i t y a t a l l times. I t i s possible however, t o have access to several remote f a c i l i t i e s and t h u s provide as high a level of "guaranteed" access as deemed necessary. Communications and power supply which involve ground l ines are quite vulnerable to inter- ruption during major storm ac t iv i ty . Backup power supply may be easi ly supplied by emergency generators.

Backup comunications based on a ground network may require an individual Lo physically carry necessary data to an a l te rna te i n p u t s i t e outside the area effected by the comniunications interruption. An a t t rac t ive backup for communications which i s rapidly being developed i s t o communicate to the remote s i t e by way of a s a t e l l i t e l ink.

The use of large scale machines fo r the forecasting and operations aspects of real-time operation are a t t r ac t ive because of the ease of up- dating o r improving the models used. Other modeling techniques may be quickly compared and substi tuted for those currently i n use. When mini - computers are used for executing large programs, changes to the program often entai l major restructuring of over1 ays.

Paper 1 2

FUTURE WORK

I t i s planned to implement the forecast-operation-display capabi l i t ies described i n t h i s paper a t the Control Center of the New England Division in the near future. The next s tep '!ill he t o interface these c;pabilitizs w i t h the existing automated data collection system.

Alternative forecasting techniques other than the strean~flow extra- polation procedure described herein will be tested. Application o f the computer program Streamf low Synthesis and Reservoir Regulation (SSARR) developed by the North Pacific Division i s ant ic i pated.

The ent i re procedure fo r real-time simulation w i 1 l be thoroughly tested and "fine-tuned'hone i t i s operational a t the Control Center.

Paper 1 2

FRANKL IN 1 FALLS A

K WA TER

RVINS FALLS)

MACDO WEL L

f

IWERRIMACK RIVER BASIN

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE f LOOD CON- TROL UESEU VOIR SYS TEM

NEW ENGLAND DIVISION

// RESERVOIR

0 CONTROL POINT

0 LOWELL

Paper 3 2

FIGURE 1

F i g . 2 a

EXTENSION (STEP 1 1

-RECESSION ( STEP 2 1

Fig. 2 b

'ENSION (STEP 4 1

OBSERVED A'

A ROUTED TO B (STEP 3 1

F ig . 2 c

LOCAL BETWEE A & B (STEP 5 ) RECESSION (STEP 6 )

F ig . 2 d

I

FORECAST AT B (STEP71

Fig. 2e

t PAST OBSERVED - 1 FUTURE-

CURRENT TIME

FIGURE 2

Paper 3 2

3 fa

L L 0 (U

=-J Or- c

cv 0 m L c a O .c *r-- U m V) V)

Paper 12

- t f ~ 1 3 4 + - b * - , t" 3

Exouotleno~ frocjt~ency p e r hundred yonro I

I paper 82 1 FIGURE 4

Paper 12 FIGURE 5

SAlb'iFLE HE@-5C OUTPUT USER 3ESlGffED

FIGURE 11 Paper 12

& D'J a J U)

P a ~ e r 92

FIGURE 33

INTE

RAC

TIVE

HEC

-5C

MEN

U

I RE

TURN

FUN

CTI

ON

SEL

ECTI

ON

AND

FU

NC

TIO

N 1

OPT

ION

S (P

RE-F

ORM

ATTE

D O

UTPU

T TY

PES)

9

9

* B

RA

iJC

t-i

PQ

INT

" *

*

YES

NO

FUN

CTI

ON

D

ESC

RIP

TIO

N

'I

1 D

ISP

LAY

DAT

A AN

D/O

R R

ESU

LTS

USI

NG

STA

NDAR

D O

PTIO

NS

2 D

ISP

LAY

RES

ULT

S BY

US

ER

SP

EC

IFIE

D C

ONT

ROL

POIN

TS A

ND

VAR

IABL

E CO

DES

3 TR

ANSF

ER

THE

MO

ST R

ECEN

T TI

ME-

SHAR

E RE

QUE

STED

OUT

PUT

TO T

HE

LIN

E P

RIN

TER

4

TER

MIN

ATE

PRO

CESS

ING

5 M

OD

IFY

HEC

-5

INP

UT

DAT

A DE

CK U

SIN

G T

HE

REV

ISE

PROG

RAM

6

DIS

PLA

Y O

UTPU

T W

ITH

BAT

CH O

PTIO

NS

(IN

VOKE

TH

IS F

UN

CTI

ON

ONL

Y O

NCE)

FUN

CTI

ON

NO

. 1

CAR

RIA

GE

?

DES

CR

IPTI

ON

disp

lay

inpu

t l=

basi

c in

put

data

disp

lay

inpu

t 2=

flow

dat

a

disp

lay

inpu

t 4=

summ

ary

of i

nput

disp

lay

norm

al se

quen

tial

ou

tput

by

cont

rol

poin

t

DEL

ETE

ENTR

Y D

ELET

E LI

NE

KE

YBO

ARD

ESCA

PE

ESC

FUN

CTI

ON

NO

. 2 if

you

wan

t d

ata

by

peri

od

if y

ou

wan

t su

mm

ary

dat

a fo

r re

serv

oir

s

if y

ou w

ant

sum

mar

y d

ata

for

nonr

eser

voir

s

VAR

IABL

E CO

DES

IidTE

RAC

TIVE

1-IE

C-56

MEF

dU

FUN

CTI

ON

2

(USE

R DE

SIG

FIED

OUT

PUT)

cum

lo

cal

q m

in r

equi

red

q le

vel

q by

us

re

s d

ivs

nat

ura

l fl

ow

sho

rtag

e eq

uiva

lent

le

vel

floo

d by

re

s di

vers

ion

q in

flow

po

wer

re

quir

ed

evap

orat

ion

regu

late

d fl

ow

outf

low

po

wer

ge

nera

ted

elev

atio

n a

vg

min

des

ired

flo

w

eop

sto

rag

e ch

anne

l ca

pac

ity

po

w.

shor

tage

sh

orta

ge

case

=lo

c ty

p q

spac

e av

ail .

SUM

MAR

Y CO

DES

I SU

M

I M

AX

I MIN

I P

D.

OF M

AXI AV

G

J SE

LEC

T O

UTPU

T M

ODE

I

MER

RIM

ACK

RIV

ER

BA

SIN

LO

W E

L L

IiiTE2ACTIVE K C - S C OUTPUT SAldPLE - USER DESIGI iED TABULATION

PERIOD MU -DY Y R HH !A_TIJKAL---R~ 6 ; l l I , a T ~ ~ - L f r ? C A -

-_ 7 0 . b 0 0 323f)Q. OO_-_2R5bBbQS._-L~3-3Q .!!L 8 Q 5 O 3. 3 4 A Q O , 0 0 % R 5 4 3 e a f l 12282su1 9 D ~ O ~ , Q L ~ L ~ R L ~ ? L ~ J U S ~ 8 4

1 0 0 Q 0 9, ~3000.00 2 8 0 9 k 1 ~ U 2 13850,17 -1 1 __._._ 0 - b - Q 12*-- -uah5Q+~~-Zh98uc~(~__l~Jh9a91-

$ 2 0 6 0 15, 557OOeOO 25bY7,24 12354.63 13 O O b - ~ @ ~ 1 R ~ - - - b b $ ~ 0 ~ ~ C l ~ % 6 6 % 6 _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S 3 L ~ " I _ _ ~ I 4 0 6 O 21, BZOOO*QO 3 1 3 4 9 r 7 3 18397.67 15 0 7 0 0. ~ 1 0 0 0 . 0 0 700761.1 4 l72112,~bi 1 6 0 7 0 3. 9ROOQ.00 2 9 2 9 6 . ~ 1 I ~ b 3 0 ~ 5 3 1 7 0 7 Q k 1 1 14.5 QQ34 0 35362,UO I % L L ~ _ L A ~ 18 O 7 0 9, ~ !BooO.OO Y l a Q f e 5 3 1flY54.33 I 9__0-720 _i.~ar sao ,B o 4 h H Q A & L S ~ ~ H F ~ , ~ L -

ao o 7 s 15, 1 2 ~ 0 0 0 . 0 0 S I ~ H Q , ~ ~ 14273.35 ~ ~ ~ ~ I R . 115$00.00 c ( h h 3 0 . k 9 1 t2FCI.75

22 0 7 0 21, 1 $ 3 0 0 0 * 0 0 6a164*%7 i n 2 2 b e 0 0 A- 2 3 _ - Q 8---Op O ~ O b 6 Q Q ~ Q Q 7 4 3 2 % ~ 2 h 9 9 8 ~ * - 7 L

24 0 8 0 3, 99200.00 7a775 ,?# 1 0 t 1 8 b " 3 2 5 O - 8 Q 6 ~ 9 5 9 5 0 ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ 4 L ~ c ~ b I l ~ d E I 1 . 7 - P ~ ~ 26 0 8 0 9, 91QOO.OQ 78O38.71 100j.?.AA

2 o s o 1 2 , 5 m o . o o 7 6 6 a 35 28 0 8 Q 15, 8 0 1 ~ 0 , O o 73444.4b Q 7 4 Y e 1 b 29 Q 8 - 0 18,- 7 l h 0 0 ~ 0 0 h ~ 0 4 ~ e @ / J 7 9 4 6 ~ I i -.

30 0 8 0 2 1 9 hA500o00 b u 2 h A e 9 2 7 7 0 5 ~ 2 3 - 31--- _0_- 9 0 0, - - 6 S 8 5 Q . 0 Q - 0 - b ~ ~ 9 2 a 4 L - f + H 3 9 e 7 _ 7 - ~ ~ 32 0 9 0 3, 62200*00 !594021hl Y S h 9 0 Q b 33 0 9 0 6 . ~ ~ 0 0 . 0 0 574OA.flH HhOS.51 34 0 9 Q 9, 58300.00 5h84O.88 9739.17 3s 0 - 9 Q i~.5~7a50,~nA6~7-?~.35 t(i3_zo0.9-~ 36 O 9 O 15, 5780QeUO 5 7 5 7 9 r 4 2 12394e33

- 3 7- -- 3 - 0 - 1 8 . C ; ~ ~ Q O ~ Q U S - ~ ? ~ ~ L I _ ~ - L L L ~ L ~ L ~ L 38 0 9 0 21, S4500.00 55749.99 11.532r48 39 0 10 0 - ] h . i 0 . . 0 1 9 . 6 4 5 A ) - 0 40 0 1 0 Q Ja 5 7 8 0 0 * 0 0 5 9 2 0 4 r 3 3 15h92e39 4 u 03 -. 0-6. -5-7 e m - , - ~ o ~ r 2 . 8 4 a e ~ s , l ~ 42 0 10 0 9, 58700,OQ b070brO1 17h79.72

--

SUM 3 2854600,OO 2031584,SS~ 503516.64 - - ---

M A X = 121500,OU 78038.71 1HA50,33

FIGURE 9 6 Paper 12

Paper 12

FIGURE 17

FIGURE 38

Paper 12

Technical Paper Series TP-1 Use of Interrelated Records to Simulate Streamflow TP-2 Optimization Techniques for Hydrologic

Engineering TP-3 Methods of Determination of Safe Yield and

Compensation Water from Storage Reservoirs TP-4 Functional Evaluation of a Water Resources System TP-5 Streamflow Synthesis for Ungaged Rivers TP-6 Simulation of Daily Streamflow TP-7 Pilot Study for Storage Requirements for Low Flow

Augmentation TP-8 Worth of Streamflow Data for Project Design - A

Pilot Study TP-9 Economic Evaluation of Reservoir System

Accomplishments TP-10 Hydrologic Simulation in Water-Yield Analysis TP-11 Survey of Programs for Water Surface Profiles TP-12 Hypothetical Flood Computation for a Stream

System TP-13 Maximum Utilization of Scarce Data in Hydrologic

Design TP-14 Techniques for Evaluating Long-Tem Reservoir

Yields TP-15 Hydrostatistics - Principles of Application TP-16 A Hydrologic Water Resource System Modeling

Techniques TP-17 Hydrologic Engineering Techniques for Regional

Water Resources Planning TP-18 Estimating Monthly Streamflows Within a Region TP-19 Suspended Sediment Discharge in Streams TP-20 Computer Determination of Flow Through Bridges TP-21 An Approach to Reservoir Temperature Analysis TP-22 A Finite Difference Methods of Analyzing Liquid

Flow in Variably Saturated Porous Media TP-23 Uses of Simulation in River Basin Planning TP-24 Hydroelectric Power Analysis in Reservoir Systems TP-25 Status of Water Resource System Analysis TP-26 System Relationships for Panama Canal Water

Supply TP-27 System Analysis of the Panama Canal Water

Supply TP-28 Digital Simulation of an Existing Water Resources

System TP-29 Computer Application in Continuing Education TP-30 Drought Severity and Water Supply Dependability TP-31 Development of System Operation Rules for an

Existing System by Simulation TP-32 Alternative Approaches to Water Resources System

Simulation TP-33 System Simulation of Integrated Use of

Hydroelectric and Thermal Power Generation TP-34 Optimizing flood Control Allocation for a

Multipurpose Reservoir TP-35 Computer Models for Rainfall-Runoff and River

Hydraulic Analysis TP-36 Evaluation of Drought Effects at Lake Atitlan TP-37 Downstream Effects of the Levee Overtopping at

Wilkes-Barre, PA, During Tropical Storm Agnes TP-38 Water Quality Evaluation of Aquatic Systems

TP-39 A Method for Analyzing Effects of Dam Failures in Design Studies

TP-40 Storm Drainage and Urban Region Flood Control Planning

TP-41 HEC-5C, A Simulation Model for System Formulation and Evaluation

TP-42 Optimal Sizing of Urban Flood Control Systems TP-43 Hydrologic and Economic Simulation of Flood

Control Aspects of Water Resources Systems TP-44 Sizing Flood Control Reservoir Systems by System

Analysis TP-45 Techniques for Real-Time Operation of Flood

Control Reservoirs in the Merrimack River Basin TP-46 Spatial Data Analysis of Nonstructural Measures TP-47 Comprehensive Flood Plain Studies Using Spatial

Data Management Techniques TP-48 Direct Runoff Hydrograph Parameters Versus

Urbanization TP-49 Experience of HEC in Disseminating Information

on Hydrological Models TP-50 Effects of Dam Removal: An Approach to

Sedimentation TP-51 Design of Flood Control Improvements by Systems

Analysis: A Case Study TP-52 Potential Use of Digital Computer Ground Water

Models TP-53 Development of Generalized Free Surface Flow

Models Using Finite Element Techniques TP-54 Adjustment of Peak Discharge Rates for

Urbanization TP-55 The Development and Servicing of Spatial Data

Management Techniques in the Corps of Engineers TP-56 Experiences of the Hydrologic Engineering Center

in Maintaining Widely Used Hydrologic and Water Resource Computer Models

TP-57 Flood Damage Assessments Using Spatial Data Management Techniques

TP-58 A Model for Evaluating Runoff-Quality in Metropolitan Master Planning

TP-59 Testing of Several Runoff Models on an Urban Watershed

TP-60 Operational Simulation of a Reservoir System with Pumped Storage

TP-61 Technical Factors in Small Hydropower Planning TP-62 Flood Hydrograph and Peak Flow Frequency

Analysis TP-63 HEC Contribution to Reservoir System Operation TP-64 Determining Peak-Discharge Frequencies in an

Urbanizing Watershed: A Case Study TP-65 Feasibility Analysis in Small Hydropower Planning TP-66 Reservoir Storage Determination by Computer

Simulation of Flood Control and Conservation Systems

TP-67 Hydrologic Land Use Classification Using LANDSAT

TP-68 Interactive Nonstructural Flood-Control Planning TP-69 Critical Water Surface by Minimum Specific

Energy Using the Parabolic Method

TP-70 Corps of Engineers Experience with Automatic Calibration of a Precipitation-Runoff Model

TP-71 Determination of Land Use from Satellite Imagery for Input to Hydrologic Models

TP-72 Application of the Finite Element Method to Vertically Stratified Hydrodynamic Flow and Water Quality

TP-73 Flood Mitigation Planning Using HEC-SAM TP-74 Hydrographs by Single Linear Reservoir Model TP-75 HEC Activities in Reservoir Analysis TP-76 Institutional Support of Water Resource Models TP-77 Investigation of Soil Conservation Service Urban

Hydrology Techniques TP-78 Potential for Increasing the Output of Existing

Hydroelectric Plants TP-79 Potential Energy and Capacity Gains from Flood

Control Storage Reallocation at Existing U.S. Hydropower Reservoirs

TP-80 Use of Non-Sequential Techniques in the Analysis of Power Potential at Storage Projects

TP-81 Data Management Systems of Water Resources Planning

TP-82 The New HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package TP-83 River and Reservoir Systems Water Quality

Modeling Capability TP-84 Generalized Real-Time Flood Control System

Model TP-85 Operation Policy Analysis: Sam Rayburn

Reservoir TP-86 Training the Practitioner: The Hydrologic

Engineering Center Program TP-87 Documentation Needs for Water Resources Models TP-88 Reservoir System Regulation for Water Quality

Control TP-89 A Software System to Aid in Making Real-Time

Water Control Decisions TP-90 Calibration, Verification and Application of a Two-

Dimensional Flow Model TP-91 HEC Software Development and Support TP-92 Hydrologic Engineering Center Planning Models TP-93 Flood Routing Through a Flat, Complex Flood

Plain Using a One-Dimensional Unsteady Flow Computer Program

TP-94 Dredged-Material Disposal Management Model TP-95 Infiltration and Soil Moisture Redistribution in

HEC-1 TP-96 The Hydrologic Engineering Center Experience in

Nonstructural Planning TP-97 Prediction of the Effects of a Flood Control Project

on a Meandering Stream TP-98 Evolution in Computer Programs Causes Evolution

in Training Needs: The Hydrologic Engineering Center Experience

TP-99 Reservoir System Analysis for Water Quality TP-100 Probable Maximum Flood Estimation - Eastern

United States TP-101 Use of Computer Program HEC-5 for Water Supply

Analysis TP-102 Role of Calibration in the Application of HEC-6 TP-103 Engineering and Economic Considerations in

Formulating TP-104 Modeling Water Resources Systems for Water

Quality

TP-105 Use of a Two-Dimensional Flow Model to Quantify Aquatic Habitat

TP-106 Flood-Runoff Forecasting with HEC-1F TP-107 Dredged-Material Disposal System Capacity

Expansion TP-108 Role of Small Computers in Two-Dimensional

Flow Modeling TP-109 One-Dimensional Model for Mud Flows TP-110 Subdivision Froude Number TP-111 HEC-5Q: System Water Quality Modeling TP-112 New Developments in HEC Programs for Flood

Control TP-113 Modeling and Managing Water Resource Systems

for Water Quality TP-114 Accuracy of Computer Water Surface Profiles -

Executive Summary TP-115 Application of Spatial-Data Management

Techniques in Corps Planning TP-116 The HEC's Activities in Watershed Modeling TP-117 HEC-1 and HEC-2 Applications on the

Microcomputer TP-118 Real-Time Snow Simulation Model for the

Monongahela River Basin TP-119 Multi-Purpose, Multi-Reservoir Simulation on a PC TP-120 Technology Transfer of Corps' Hydrologic Models TP-121 Development, Calibration and Application of

Runoff Forecasting Models for the Allegheny River Basin

TP-122 The Estimation of Rainfall for Flood Forecasting Using Radar and Rain Gage Data

TP-123 Developing and Managing a Comprehensive Reservoir Analysis Model

TP-124 Review of U.S. Army corps of Engineering Involvement With Alluvial Fan Flooding Problems

TP-125 An Integrated Software Package for Flood Damage Analysis

TP-126 The Value and Depreciation of Existing Facilities: The Case of Reservoirs

TP-127 Floodplain-Management Plan Enumeration TP-128 Two-Dimensional Floodplain Modeling TP-129 Status and New Capabilities of Computer Program

HEC-6: "Scour and Deposition in Rivers and Reservoirs"

TP-130 Estimating Sediment Delivery and Yield on Alluvial Fans

TP-131 Hydrologic Aspects of Flood Warning - Preparedness Programs

TP-132 Twenty-five Years of Developing, Distributing, and Supporting Hydrologic Engineering Computer Programs

TP-133 Predicting Deposition Patterns in Small Basins TP-134 Annual Extreme Lake Elevations by Total

Probability Theorem TP-135 A Muskingum-Cunge Channel Flow Routing

Method for Drainage Networks TP-136 Prescriptive Reservoir System Analysis Model -

Missouri River System Application TP-137 A Generalized Simulation Model for Reservoir

System Analysis TP-138 The HEC NexGen Software Development Project TP-139 Issues for Applications Developers TP-140 HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles Program TP-141 HEC Models for Urban Hydrologic Analysis

TP-142 Systems Analysis Applications at the Hydrologic Engineering Center

TP-143 Runoff Prediction Uncertainty for Ungauged Agricultural Watersheds

TP-144 Review of GIS Applications in Hydrologic Modeling

TP-145 Application of Rainfall-Runoff Simulation for Flood Forecasting

TP-146 Application of the HEC Prescriptive Reservoir Model in the Columbia River Systems

TP-147 HEC River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) TP-148 HEC-6: Reservoir Sediment Control Applications TP-149 The Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS):

Design and Development Issues TP-150 The HEC Hydrologic Modeling System TP-151 Bridge Hydraulic Analysis with HEC-RAS TP-152 Use of Land Surface Erosion Techniques with

Stream Channel Sediment Models

TP-153 Risk-Based Analysis for Corps Flood Project Studies - A Status Report

TP-154 Modeling Water-Resource Systems for Water Quality Management

TP-155 Runoff simulation Using Radar Rainfall Data TP-156 Status of HEC Next Generation Software

Development TP-157 Unsteady Flow Model for Forecasting Missouri and

Mississippi Rivers TP-158 Corps Water Management System (CWMS) TP-159 Some History and Hydrology of the Panama Canal TP-160 Application of Risk-Based Analysis to Planning

Reservoir and Levee Flood Damage Reduction Systems

TP-161 Corps Water Management System - Capabilities and Implementation Status