Summer Flood

1
2007 Summer Flood on the Red River
by Robert Simrall, P.E. Chief, Water Control
Section Vicksburg District
2
Southwestern Division
Flood of June and July 2007 Red River Valley
Assoc 22 Feb 2008 Presented by Ron Bell SWD
Water Management Team Leader

3
Vicksburg District
4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
Total Rainfall for June 2007
9
Total Rainfall by Counties for June 2007
10
Total Rainfall by Counties for July 2007
11
The Following 17 Lakes Filled to Over 90 Full
12
Flood of June and July 2007

• The Corps cannot control floods, we can only
  respond to the flood by managing the outflows
  from our projects.

13
Flood OperationIndividual Project

• The goal of any flood damage risk reduction
  operation is to not exceed the downstream
  bankfull capacity.
• Releases from the lake, when combined with
  downstream runoff will not cause the river to
  exceed bankfull capacity, if possible.
• Flood waters will be stored as long as possible
  in order to accomplish this goal.

14
System Water Control Plan

• All the Lakes in the Red River Basin are Operated
  as a System
• Each river system has a system water control
  plan.
• Each system water control plan attempts to
  balance the percent of flood storage contained in
  individual project flood pools.

15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
Reservoirs Peaking on July 13, 2007
Lake Texoma Pool Crested at 640.73 (104) Top of
flood pool is 640 Peak inflow was 158,000
cfs Peak release was 39,700 cfs
21
Lake Texoma
Taken July 5, 2007 Pool elevation 639.33 Release
24,400 cfs
22
Lake Texoma
Taken July 5, 2007 Pool elevation 639.33 Release
24,400 cfs
23
Lake Texoma Flood of 2007
US Army Corps of Engineers
One Corps Serving The Army and the Nation
24
Red River at Arthur City, TX
Unregulated Peak Flow 237,200 cfs Stage 31.9
feet
Regulated Peak Flow 84,700 cfs Stage 21.6 feet
Flood Stage is 22 feet
25
Red River at Dekalb, TX
Unregulated Peak Flow 305,400 cfs Stage 38.2
feet
Regulated Peak Flow 89,000 cfs Stage 26.9 feet
Flood Stage is 24 feet
26
Flood Damages Prevented

• Red River Damages Prevented gt 218M

27
Maximum Stage
28
Maximum and Minimum Stage
29
Maximum, Minimum, and Average Stage
30
Red River at Shreveport, LA 2007 Stages
31
Red River at Shreveport, LA 2007 Stages
32
Red River at Fulton, AR 2007 Stages
33
Red River at Grand Ecore, LA 2007 Stages
34
Red River at Alexandria, LA 2007 Stages
35
Impact of the High Water on Navigation

• Navigation Aids
• - Channel Markers
• Closing Locks to Navigation
• Increase Sediment Load Increase in Dredging?

36
Navigation Aids during the High Water Channel
Markers RM 147.6
37
Navigation Aids during the High Water Channel
Markers RM 143.2
38
Navigation Aids during the High Water Channel
Markers RM 175.3
39
Navigation Aids during the High Water Channel
Markers RM 187.2
40
Navigation Aids during the High Water Channel
Markers RM 163.2
41
Navigation Aids After High Water Channel Markers
42
Navigation Aids After High Water Channel Markers
43
Navigation Aids After High Water Channel Markers
44
Impact of the High Water on Navigation

• Navigation Aids
• - Channel Markers
• Closing Locks to Navigation
• Increase Sediment Load Increase in Dredging?

45
Closing Locks to Navigation Red River at LD 1
46
Closing Locks to Navigation Red River at LD 2
47
Closing Locks to Navigation Red River at LD 3
48
Closing Locks to Navigation Red River at LD 4
49
Closing Locks to Navigation Red River at LD 5
50
Impact of the High Water on Navigation

• Navigation Aids
• - Channel Markers
• Closing Locks to Navigation
• Increase Sediment Load Increase in Dredging?

51
Increase in Dredging?
As the channel has matured, the amount of
dredging required has dropped from a 3 year
average of 2.5 million cubic yards in 97-99 to
an average of only 728 thousand cubic yards in
05-07. The amount of dredging required was
also influenced by unusually low spring river
stages.
Dredging Stats '97 - 1,585,000 cy '98 -
3,563,000 cy '99 - 2,493,000 cy '00 - 1,939,000
cy '01 - 2,414,000 cy '02 - 1,668,000 cy '03 -
773,000 cy '04 - 1,175,000 cy '05 - 670,000
cy '06 - 766,000 cy '07 - 750,000 cy
52
Increase in Dredging?

• Why Dredging did not increase?
• My Opinion Good Communications and hard
  work of the members of the Red River Navigation
  Steering Committee

53
Coordination/Communication

• NWS River Forecast Centers
• USGS
• Between SWD Districts
• Vicksburg District
• News Releases
• Situation Reports (Emergency Mgmt)
• Great Updates by Rich Brontoli
• Meetings with Communities during Event

54
Red River Navigation Steering Committee

• Red Valley Association
• Red River Waterway Commission
• Major Users of the Waterway
• US Coast Guard
• US Army Corps of Engineers

55
Red River Navigation Steering Committee

• US Army Corps of Engineers
• Mississippi Valley Division
• Vicksburg District
• New Orleans District
• Southwest Division
• Tulsa District
• Little Rock District
• Fort Worth District

56
Why a Successful Flood Operation?

• Great Decisions by COE Districts HH Staff
• Very Accurate Forecasts by COE and RFC
• USGS - Measured Flows Kept Gages Working
• Great Work by the Lake Managers and Staff
• Excellent Communications and Coordination
• Timing of Release Reductions were Staggered
• It Stopped Raining Just in Time!!!

57
Thanks to the RRVA for being great partners!
58
Questions