DAM-BREAK FLOOD INUNDATION ANALYSIS FOR LAKE YOUNGS RESERVOIR Henry Hu1 John Howard2 Daniel Huang3

ABSTRACT A dam failure analysis was conducted for the Seattle Public Utilities to determine the flood inundation extents of a hypothetical failure of the Lake Youngs Reservoir Outlet Dam in King County, Washington. The 690-acre reservoir is unique as it is completely impounded by embankments and perimeter dikes without receiving natural inflows. The lake is filled with water piped from the Cedar River and serves as an intake regulation reservoir for the Metropolitan Seattle Area drinking water supply system. The Outlet Dam is classified as High, Hazard Class 1A and failure could potentially place a large number of people and property along the Soos Creek and Green River valley in danger. An unsteady flow HEC-RAS model was developed for a sunny day failure, a winter failure, and a probable maximum flood failure. This paper discusses the methods and assumptions used to build the HEC-RAS model. The paper presents dam break flood routing results, including the travel time (warning time) of the flood wave to various key locations in the downstream valley and the representative channel/valley cross-sections depicting flow depth and typical flow velocities. It finally presents the elements and information depicted on an inundation map, which is used by stakeholders and public agencies for the purpose of emergency alert and management. INTRODUCTION The Lake Youngs reservoir is located about 5 miles east of the City of Kent on the plateau between the Green and Cedar River Watersheds (Figure 1) in King County, WA. The reservoir covers an area of 690 acres and serves as an intake regulation reservoir for the Seattle Public Utilities drinking water supply system. The reservoir is an enlargement of a natural lake and was formed by the construction of several dikes and levees around the lake perimeter. The lake is filled with water piped from the Cedar River and receives no inflow from the natural watershed because of the perimeter dikes and levees. The Lake Youngs Outlet Dam (Outlet Dam) is a homogenous earth fill structure at the south end of the Lake Youngs reservoir (Figure 2). The primary public safety considerations of any dam failure are the potential for loss of life and damage to property in the downstream valley. Washington State uses a
1

Senior Project Manager, WEST Consultants, Inc., 12509 Bel-Red Road, Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98005, hhu@westconsultants.com. 2 Project Engineer, WEST Consultants, Inc., 12509 Bel-Red Road, Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98005, hhoward@westconsultants.com. 3 Supervising Senior Engineer, Seattle Public utilities, 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900, Seattle, WA 98124, Daniel.huang@seattle.gov.

Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis

1411

Lake Youngs vicinity map.700 acre-feet of water that has been diverted from the Cedar River via a tunnel and pipelines. Figure 1. 2000) for use in an Emergency Action Plan due to population growth and new developments downstream. Later in the 1950’s. and the outflow pumped into a treatment plant that treats and delivers water to the distribution system of the greater Seattle Area (Seattle Public Utilities. which is defined as more than 300 people at risk. The reservoir surface elevation is controlled by regulating the inflow from the Cedar River diversion. The Outlet Dam was initially constructed in 1921 across the natural outlet of Lake Youngs at the headwaters of Little Soos Creek (Seattle Public Utilities. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Dam and Reservoir The Lake Youngs reservoir stores approximately 14. The WA DOE Dam Safety Office (State Dam Safety Office) recently inspected Lake Youngs Reservoir in 2010 as part of the Washington state’s 5-year periodic dam inspection program (WA DOE. the State Dam Safety Office identified the need to update the dam break inundation maps from the 1999 study (MGS Engineering Consultants. 2010). the dam was raised to 1412 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction . 2010). 2010). Although the likelihood of failure is very remote. Hazard Class 1A. The Outlet Dam is classified as High. 1992). more than 100 inhabited structures impacted and/or extreme economic loss.classification system to describe the general level of development downstream from a dam and uses it as an index of the relative magnitude of the potential consequences to human life and development that could be affected by a flood should the dam fail (Washington State Department of Ecology (WA DOE).

The original embankment fill is dense silty sand glacial till material. 690 acres.increase the storage capacity in the reservoir. Outlet Dam Dimensions The Outlet Dam has a maximum height of 30 feet. The upstream face of the dam is covered with a 5-inch thick concrete facing for erosion protection.4 ft North American Vertical Datum (NAVD88). a 6-inch steel siphon pipeline crosses over the outlet dam to provide continuous flow to Little Soos Creek. All storm surface water around the reservoir is diverted away from the lake by a continuous road dike known as Lake Youngs Perimeter Dike that surrounds the entire reservoir at approximately 506. The flow rate in the Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis 1413 . Water from the drainage basin outside the perimeter dikes is drained into either a diversion system to the east or to Little Soos Creek to the south via a series of catch basins and drain pipes (Seattle Public Utilities. 2010). Lake Youngs Outlet Dam. A summary of the outlet dam dimensions can be found in Table 1. and a crest length of 703 feet. Figure 2. a crest width of 22 to 31 feet. the contributing area to the reservoir is only the surface area of the reservoir itself. The downstream slope was buttressed in 2001 by adding fill behind a 6-foot high ecology block wall. The Outlet Dam’s function is to retain reservoir water during normal reservoir operation. Due to the diversions. Although no spillway is provided for Lake Youngs. while the 1950’s fill that flattened the downstream face slope to 3H:1V is silty gravelly sand.

such as a dam breach. and Tukwila before draining into Puget Sound.0 ft 480.4 ft Downstream Valley Description Little Soos Creek naturally drains Lake Youngs. In addition to the flow from the siphon. Top of Dam Elevation. which is a one-dimensional fully dynamic routing model that has the capability of simulating subcritical. Summary of Outlet Dam specifications. Big Soos Creek eventually drains into the Green River just to the east of Auburn.siphon pipeline fluctuates depending on the water surface level in the reservoir. Jenkins Creek is a small tributary of Big Soos Creek that shares a low topographic divide with Little Soos Creek around the City of Covington. increasing the amount of potential property damage and danger to human life if the Outlet Dam failed.4 ft 690 acres Measurement 6-inch steel pipe 487. Additional flows from the diversion dikes around Lake Youngs contribute to the flow at the head of the creek. Little Soos Creek receives flow from two drainage springs from the left and right edges of the reservoir. The Green River flows through the cities of Auburn. HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND CALIBRATION This dam failure analysis utilizes unsteady-flow HEC-RAS. The areas in the downstream valley have all grown significantly in the past 10 years. although it normally only receives a small amount of water from Lake Youngs. Both the Little Soos Creek basin and the Jenkins Creek basin drain into the larger Big Soos Creek. could cross from the Little Soos Creek basin into the Jenkins Creek basin. and mixed flows and lateral split flows. Invert Elevation Siphon Outlet. A large flood. and is normally just a little less than 2 cfs. and routing flood water along 1414 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction . Kent. The original 30-inch diameter outlet into Little Soos Creek was removed from service in 1991 by grouting it full with concrete. Invert Elevation Measurement 27 ft 703 ft 30 ft 3:1 2:1 506. Table 1. Invert of Reservoir Contributing Area to Reservoir Outlets Siphon Siphon Inlet. supercritical.4 ft 479. Little Soos Creek travels about four miles before it converges with Big Soos Creek. Continuing downstream. Dam Dimensions Dam Height (downstream toe to top of dam) Length of Dam Width of Dam Crest Upstream Slope Downstream Slope Elevation.

the overbank areas were modeled using FLO-2D in the KCGRFIS (nhc. water depth. Additionally. Once in HEC-RAS. The TIN contains points that have defined x and y coordinates and a z value. the 1986 flood insurance study (FIS) model was not digitized and there has been significant development along that reach of Big Soos Creek. Two-foot contour lines were used to create a TIN. The hydraulic structures (bridges and culverts) were added manually from data collected during the field surveys. Mass points from the LiDAR data were first used to create a representative surface area in ArcGIS known as a TIN. It can extract channel and overbank geometry in a cross-sectional format at user-defined points from digital topographic data and can be used to automate mapping of initial floodplain/inundation boundaries. The areas where a lateral structure or flow split was added to the HEC-RAS model were highlighted in Figure 3. and flow velocities. 2010).channel and overbank areas (HEC. Little Soos Creek and Jenkins Creek. Cross Section Geometry The topography used to create the cross sections in the study areas upstream of the Green River was the Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium (PSLC) LiDAR data. Cross sections were defined based on field surveys and then cut from the TINS using HEC-GeoRAS. We added more cross sections in the areas where significant development has occurred. The cross section geometry was then imported into HEC-RAS (Figure 3). Significant efforts were needed to develop an existing conditions HEC-RAS model that covers all the anticipated inundation areas using the latest topographic data. 2010 and nhc. In order to model the overbanks in the HECRAS model. 2010). TINS were created for the upper reaches: Big Soos Creek. the HEC-RAS models recently developed by FEMA for the King County Green River FIS (KCGRFIS) only included the in-channel cross-sections (nhc. the overbank and channel files were blended in Excel by adding the left and right overbank to the existing channel data. The study approach for this project was to build a basin-wide HEC-RAS model from existing hydraulic models available and extend or modify them where necessary. The following sections describe the process and data used in developing the HEC-RAS model that was used to simulate the dam break from Lake Youngs and compute the flood wave downstream. Unfortunately. the cross section geometry was manually refined to better represent the anticipated flow paths. Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis 1415 . On the Green River. We also added several flow splits and lateral structures to the upper reaches to improve results and to model the peak flow more accurately. To preserve the original instream channel cross section geometry from the KCGRFIS HEC-RAS model. The TIN was then used to create newly cut cross sections that now captured the overbank geometry. 2007 and nhc. However. the instream channel geometry was obtained from the existing KCGRFIS HEC-RAS model. the cross sections were extended using topographic data and the 500-year floodplain boundary from the KCGRFIS as a guideline for how far to extend the cross sections. 2007).

and 500-year profiles from the 1987 FIS model. and were not calibrated. and downstream Big Soos Creek) in the rest of the HEC-RAS model did not have any data that could be used for calibration. The initial flow in these reaches does not impact the results of the inundation due to the large difference in magnitude between the initial flow and the dam break flow. 2007). The upstream boundary condition was defined as a flow hydrograph generated by HEC-RAS during the dam breach of the Lake Youngs reservoir outlet. Boundary Conditions Boundary conditions define the upstream and downstream ends of the river system. 100. The newly built sections of the other reaches (Little Soos Creek. and Jenkins Creek was set to 200 cfs. Calibration The HEC-RAS model flood profile for the Big Soos Creek reach was calibrated to match the 10-. The HEC-RAS model flood profile for Green River reach was previously calibrated in the KCGRFIS (nhc. 2010 and nhc. The downstream boundary for the model is on the Green River and is the same as the KCGRFIS. The initial flow for all reaches in Big Soos Creek. Jenkins Creek. Figure 3. 1416 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction . 50-. Little Soos Creek. HEC-RAS model cross-sections of all of the reaches. The initial flow in the Green River is different for each scenario and is discussed in the Dam Failure Scenarios section.Note: The red boxes highlight the areas where the channel geometry was manually refined.

Table 2 lists the initial operating parameters of Lake Youngs during each failure scenario. While the dambreak peak flood would be less in the winter because of the reduced reservoir volume.700 686.4 ft.. the time of year when the project fails has a large influence on the nature of the dam-break flood.. The 1997 Lake Youngs Dam Inspection Report (WA DOE. If the project failed in the summer when the reservoir is at maximum pool. The updated report finds that the PMP event is likely to increase the reservoir volume by 1. based on HMR-43 (U. 1966). 1987). dry summers. The region where Lake Youngs is located is characterized by wet.22 PMF Failure 501.4 12. Additionally the streamflow in the receiving rivers would increase during a PMP event. We used the PMF that was calculated from a previous PMF study of the Lake Youngs watershed (Ebasco Services.000 acre-feet more water would be released than if the failure occurred during the winter.DAM FAILURE SCENARIOS In the instance of a potential dam failure.078 688. Reservoir operating parameters. 1997) updates the design storm and water budget computations from the 1987 report (Ebasco Services. For this reason a “Sunny Day Failure”. Weather Bureau. 1987). Since the 1987 study was completed. approximately 2.366 acre-feet.S.769 Winter Failure 499. For this reason a “Sunny Day Failure” and a “Winter Failure” were computed in this study to determine the worst case scenario. Table 2.4 14. the Lake Youngs Reservoir is operated at a higher elevation during the summer months (May 1-September 30) and at a lower elevation during the winter (October 1-April 30) (Table 2). Inc. the concurrent flow in the downstream receiving reaches would likely be higher than in the summer. a “Winter Failure”.4 to 501. a probable maximum flood (PMF) was calculated and tested as a dam failure scenario. Breach Parameter Reservoir Water Surface Elevation (ft) Reservoir Volume (ac-ft) Reservoir Surface Area (ac) 690. Inc.89 Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis 1417 . The PMP event would most likely occur during winter operation.4 14. the National Weather Service has revised the PMP estimates for the Northwest in HMR-57 (NOAA. Additionally. rainy winters and warm. The PMF is the flood that may be expected from the most severe combination of critical meteorological and hydrologic conditions that are reasonably possible in a particular drainage area. therefore raising the pool elevation from 499. and a winter “PMF Failure” scenario were computed and the scenario that resulted in the worst flooding from a dam-breach was used for mapping. To allow for more freeboard in the winter in case of a large storm. The design storm used to generate the PMF was the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) event.23 Sunny Day Failure 502. 1994).

287 1 Sunny Day Failure Flow 368. This was chosen for model stability. Final Breach Elevation. The f inal bottom elevation of the f ully f ormed breach. There are no inflows to the Lake Youngs Reservoir at the time of the hypothetical failure because Seattle Public Utility has the ability to turn off the inflow from the Cedar River diversion.6 PMF Failure Flow 5906. Side slope of the breach as it forms in a trapezoidal shape. Side slopes. The horizontal location of th e breach within the lateral structure. but are coded into the HEC-RAS model as plan data.6 Dam Breach Parameters Dam breach parameters define the size. Note that flow in the Green River is regulated by Howard Hanson Dam. “Green River near Auburn. shape. which is located downstream of the Big Soos confluence with the Green River. RAS River Station 31. WA”. The final bottom width of the breach at full formation. the flow in the Green River at the time of the dam failure was set at the 10-percent exceedance probability for the season when the failure is assumed to occur. and timing of the breach that modify a lateral or inline structure. the flow in the Green River at the time of the dam failure was set at the 5-percent exceedance probability for the winter season.Antecedent Flow conditions The initial flow for all of the upper reaches (Big Soos Creek. The coefficient that is us ed for weir fl ow over t he embankment in the standard weir equation. For the Sunny Day and Winter Failure scenarios. The parameters include the following: • • • • • Centerline Station. which is located approximately 20 miles upstream of the confluence with Big Soos Creek. Antecedent flow of the Green River (cfs). The daily historic flow records from USGS gage station 12113000. This analysis breached a lateral structure. and Jenkins Creek) was set to 200 cfs at the upstream end of each reach. This analysis chose 2. The initial flow of the Green River changes with each failure scenario. Final Breach Width. The Green River station uses daily flow statistics for 48 years (from 10/1/1961-9/30/2009). For the PMF Failure scenario. Little Soos Creek. The daily 95th percentile of the mean daily flow values at the gauging station was averaged over the winter season (October 1-April 30) to develop the 5-percent flow exceedance values to be used in the PMF scenario (Table 3). The daily 90th percentile of the mean daily flow values at the gauging station was averaged over each season (summer: May 1-September 30. Breach Weir Coefficient. were used to find the 5. Table 3.and 10-percent exceedance flows for each scenario.6 Winter Failure Flow 3516. winter: October 1-April 30) to develop the 10-percent flow exceedance values to be used in the summer and winter failure scenarios (Table 3).6 due to the 1418 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction .

T he trigger m echanism can be based on tim e.• • expectation that the co mposition of the dam would caus e the weir surface to be relatively smooth.6 Piping 0. 2007).5 0.4 06:00 Winter Failure 370 145 479.5 479.5 2. the volume of the reservoir and the mode of failure (WA DOE. Dam failure parameters. The most significant difference occurs when the Piping Elevation is changed.5 479. The character of a flood resulting from a dam failure is dependent upon the physical characteristics of the dam.6 Piping 0. Failure mode can be set to pipi ng or overtopping.5 2. which results in a higher peak flood simulated. Breach Parameter Center Station (ft) Final Bottom Width (ft) Final Bottom Elevation (ft) Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Breach Weir Coefficient Failure Mode Piping Coefficient Initial piping Elevation (ft) Trigger Failure At Sunny Day Failure 370 146. Trigger Mechanism.4 06:00 Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was performed on the Sunny Day failure model to test the effects of the parameters on the dam breach results.4 06:00 PMF Failure 370 146 479. 1997). Failure Mode. The flow was then routed through the HEC-RAS model to Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis 1419 .5 0. For this anal ysis. To be conservative.5 0. it was set to initiate the p iping failure 6 hours after the initial start time for the model. Previous studies verified that the Outlet Dam would be able to withstand a PMP event with sufficient freeboard. we chose the lowest elevation for piping failure to occur. Table 4. water surface elev ation.4 0.5 479. so an overtopping failure was not simulated (WA DOE.5 2. The parameters in Table 4 were used as input to the HEC-RAS model to simulate a dam breach caused by a piping failure.5 479. RESULTS Timing and Flows The unsteady flow HEC-RAS model was used to simulate a dam breach of the Outlet Dam on Lake Youngs. If the piping mode is selected.4 0.4 0. the user specifies the piping coefficient and the initial p iping elevation.6 Piping 0. o r bo th.

214 Winter Failure PMF Failure 34.596 6. Flood wave arrival and peak time results for each scenario. Table 6 lists the flood wave arrival time and the time to reach maximum discharge at a few select locations in the study area.90 53 10 7.63 6. the outflow of Jenkins Creek into Big Soos Creek. approximately 44% of the peak flow migrated from Little Soos Creek to Jenkins Creek (Table 7).23 2 3. the outflow of Big Soos Creek into the Green River. 1420 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction .simulate flooding in the reaches.207 13. The calculation of the full formation time (WA DOE.189 14. Table 5.363 6. the outflow of Little Soos Creek into Big Soos Creek. The time to reach maximum discharge is the length of time from the beginning of the dam failure until the flood wave reaches its maximum discharge and elevation.352 12.03 .807 Since the Outlet Dam is an earthen structure.493 8. Peak flow results for each failure scenario (cfs).30 3 3.07 1.07 2.087 5.07 .175 14.37 7.871 8.20 1. 4. Amongst the four lateral structures between the two reaches. but the flood would slowly rise to a maximum discharge and then slowly recede.07 .30 7.93 6. The flood arrival time is the time from the start of the dam breach until the time the impact of the dam breach is measureable at a given location.10 0. Location Dam Breach Outflow Little Soos Creek Outflow Jenkins Creek Outflow Big Soos Creek Outflow Max flow in Green River Sunny Day Failure 36. The flood wave would not be a wall or a wave of water.32 3. it is important to determine the flood arrival time and the time to maximum discharge in the event of a dam breach.789 10.57 1.57 4.23 1.845 17. The peak flows from the three failure scenarios are shown in Table 5 at the dam breach on Little Soos Creek.47 The overflow from Little Soos Creek to Jenkins Creek captured a significant amount of the peak flow. 4. 57 4.97 5. 2007) estimates that it would take about an hour to reach full breach formation. Table 6.17 4. For emergency planning purposes. 8.60 0. Sunny Day Failure Flood Wave Arrival Time (hrs) Time to Flood Peak (hrs) Winter Failure Flood Wave Arrival Time (hrs) Time to Flood Peak (hrs) PMF Failure Flood Wave Arrival Time (hrs) Time to Flood Peak (hrs) Dam Breach Outflow Little Soos Creek Outflow Jenkins Creek Outflow Big Soos Creek Outflow Max flow in Green River 0. 3. it would take some time to erode if it failed.990 29.47 67 03 4. and after the confluence of Big Soos Creek and the Green River.306 3.53 2 23 3. 4. where the maximum flow on the Green River occurs.

and it resulted in a larger peak flow (Figure 4 and Figure 5).085 1.781 92 8 83 1. but started with a larger initial flow in the Green River (Table 3).002 The storage area on Jenkins Creek also captured a large amount of the peak flow and attenuated the peak flow as it was routed through Jenkins Creek (Table 8). which resulted in a larger peak flow in the Green River (Figure 6). Winter Failure 742 PMF Failure 8. Therefore.446 652 246 658 15. Flow in lateral structure near the confluence of Little Soos and Big Soos Creeks. Sunny Day Failure 8. The PMF Failure had a lower flow volume throughout the upper reaches.Table 7. and Jenkins Creek) because the volume from the dam breach during the Sunny Day Failure was 2. Big Soos Creek. The lateral structure that was at the confluence of Little Soos Creek and Big Soos Creek only captured a small amount of the flow that would back up due to a small culvert near the exit of Little Soos Creek (Table 9). Table 8. Lateral Structure River Station 15223 14305 13918 13625 Total Sunny Day Failure 14.631 6. Winter Failure 486 PMF Failure 1. Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis 1421 .971 Governing Failure Scenario The governing failure in this analysis was the Sunny Day Failure for the upper reaches (Little Soos Creek. the governing failure for the Green River in this analysis is the PMF Failure. Lateral Structure River Station 2232 Sunny Day Failure 2.808 1 761 3 305 9 750 3 16.054 Table 9. Flow in lateral structures from Little Soos Creek to Jenkins Creek (cfs).000 ac-ft larger in volume than the Winter Failure.654 PMF Failure 13.624 1 Winter Failure 0. Maximum flow captured in Jenkins Creek Storage Area (cfs).

Sunny Day Fail Flow .323 18000 16000 14000 12000 Flow (cfs) 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2400 Legend Flow .Failure . River: Green River Reach: Lower Mainstem RS: 33. Flow hydrograph on the Green River near the confluence with Big Soos Creek. 1422 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction . Flow hydrograph near the outflow from Big Soos Creek. River: Big Soos Reach: Lower RS: 5735.PMP 0600 1200 01Sep2008 1800 2400 Time 0600 1200 02Sep2008 1800 Figure 5.Sunny Day Fail 0600 1200 01Sep2008 1800 2400 Time 0600 1200 02Sep2008 1800 Figure 6.Winter Failure 25000 Flow (cfs) 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 2400 Legend Flow .Failure .PMP Fail 2 Flow . Flow hydrograph at the dam breach on Little Soos Creek.PMP 0600 1200 01Sep2008 1800 2400 Time 0600 1200 02Sep2008 1800 Figure 4.River: Little Soos Reach: 1 RS: 25681.Winter Failure 10000 Flow (cfs) 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2400 Legend Flow .Winter Fail Flow .83 40000 35000 30000 Flow .Sunny Day Fail Flow .162 16000 14000 12000 Flow .

judgment zones. time to peak. and low danger zones. peak elevation. In addition. is included on the maps. Each map shows the aerial extent of danger as determined by the depth-velocity relationships: high danger zones. 2. judgment. CONCLUSION A dam failure flood inundation analysis was conducted for the Lake Youngs Outlet Dam using unsteady flow HEC-RAS. 4. Adults attempting evacuation by wading through floodwaters Children attempting evacuation by wading though floodwaters Automobiles attempting to travel through floodwaters Standard frame houses on competent foundations Manufactured homes on dry stack block or unsecured foundations A flood inundation map was created for each category of human or property that faces danger in the event that the Outlet dam fails. the worst-case scenario was the Children attempting evacuation by wading though floodwaters hazardous condition. and low danger based on a combination of flow depth and velocity. 3. Flow splits between reaches and flow diversion to the storage area were well captured and simulated in the model. The results of the HEC-RAS model were used to map the inundation limits.Floodwater Depth and Velocity Hazards Relating floodwater depth and velocity to hazard was accomplished with the aid of depthvelocity charts published by the US Bureau of Reclamation (1990). which is important for the purpose of emergency alert and management. The inundation areas were mapped as zones of high danger. and in this case. The HEC-RAS model reasonably simulated the propagation and attenuation of the dam break flood through the Soos Creek and Green River valley for three hydrologic scenarios. dam breach flood information. At selected key locations. The inundation areas are color coded to represent different levels of flood risk. The worst-case scenario was chosen for the Emergency Management Planning maps. Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis 1423 . peak elevation. The resolution of the cross sections was increased in the populated areas. and peak discharges were depicted on the inundation maps at key locations. The model was developed using the best available topographic data and included all major topographic features and hydraulic structures. information of the flood warning time. and peak discharge. Figure 7 shows an example of the final inundation maps. including flood warning time. These graphs represent the following five categories of hazardous conditions: 1. time to peak. 5.

Example of an inundation map. Prepared for: King County River and Floodplain Management Water and Land Resources Division. WA. Seattle. WA nhc (2007). River Analysis System. (1987).Figure 7. WA. Olympia. Seattle. Prepared for: King County River and Floodplain Management Water and Land Resources Division. Prepared by: northwest hydraulic consultants inc. U. Prepared for: The City of Seattle Department of Public Utilities. A CER Technical Memorandum No. Probable Maximum Flood Study. 1424 Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction . Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) (2010). Hydrologic Engineering Center. Users Manual. CA. REFERENCES Bureau of Reclamation (1990). Inc. Downstream Hazard Classification Guidelines.S. Seattle. Army Corps of Engineers. Ebasco Services. 11. Floodplain Mapping Study for Middle Green River. WA. Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis for Lake Youngs South Dam. Prepared by: northwest hydraulic consultants inc. Floodplain Mapping Study for Lower Green River. Davis. US Department of Interior. Lake Youngs Dam and Reservoir. MGS Engineering Consultants (2000). HEC-RAS. nhc (2010).

Silver Springs. U. Technical Note 1: Dam Break Inundation Analysis and Downstream Hazard Classification. Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis 1425 . 92-55E. 43 Probable Maximum Precipitation. KI09-254 & KI09-415.: KI09209. Olympia. Strategic Asset Management Plan. Weather Bureau. Department of Commerce. 57 Probable Maximum Precipitation for Pacific Northwest States. Periodic Dam Safety Inspection Report. Olympia. WA. Environmental Science Services Administration. Washington. Weather Bureau (1966. WA. WA. Olympia. Hydrometeorological Report No.NOAA (1994). Third Periodic Inspection Report. Northwest States. WA.5 (draft). Report prepared by: Doug Johnson and Jerald LaVassar. U. Revised in 1981). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report prepared by: Doug Johnson and Fenggang Ma.S. WA DOE (1997). Lake Youngs Dams. Dam Safety Guidelines. Seattle Public Utilities (2010). Lake Youngs Reservoir and Dams Version 0. November 1966. WA DOE (2007). File No.S. Lake Youngs Dams. Hydrometeorological Report No. WA DOE (2010). Seattle. MD. (TP-57).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful