If we were to use the current conditions of the Savannah River Basin as indicators, it would seem reasonable to conclude we are facing imminent drought.
First, the upper basin has experienced below average rainfall for the last three months. Thurmond fared better than Hartwell by receiving about 86 percent of average rainfall in the past 90 days. 
But in the same period Hartwell has only received about 69 percent of average.
Second, the result of this rainfall deficit has left portions of the basin abnormally dry, and a few places in moderate drought, as shown in the image released Aug. 6 by NOAA here.
Third, inflows are currently dismal. At Hartwell inflows are 22 percent of normal, and at Thurmond we are observing a painful -19 percent of normal. The negative inflow at Thurmond means evaporation is greater than local inflows to the reservoir. Even assuming inflows improve to 75 percent of normal, our 10 week projection has us brushing up against Drought Level 2 in October.
If the projections are close to the mark, reservoir levels will reflect a sharper naturally-induced winter drawdown that hangs in the Drought-Level 1 vicinity, and maybe in Drought Level 2.
But by December we have good reason to expect a turn of events. We may even be dealing with the opposite challenge: high water.
The most recent ENSO forecast shows all models remain equal to or above +0.5ºC through spring 2016, and most predict a +1.5ºC or higher, as shown below.
This means El Niño conditions are now present and we are facing a near-certain “strong El Niño” for the winter. El Niño conditions are warmer-than-average air currents in the Pacific that typically translate to above-average precipitation in the southeast, as indicated in the winter outlook map below.
As a reminder, the cooler winter weather significantly increases the runoff-to-rainfall ratio. Historical data demonstrates reservoir levels are very responsive in the winter, which is why successful refills occur even with below-average rainfall.
In fact, I spoke with Todd Hamill, a hydrologist with NOAA’s Southeast River Forecast Center, and he said the last time we experienced a comparable El Niño was the winter of 1997-98. In October of 1997 both Hartwell and Thurmond were about a foot away from Drought Level 2.
Starting in December that year we began receiving above average rainfall. In January 1998 Hartwell received more than 9 inches and more than 7 inches the following month. As a result we were dealing with high water issues beyond June of that year.
“We got rain every three days [that winter],” Hamill said. “There are other factors that can come into play [besides El Niño] but it looks like we’re facing a chance of flooding – which is a bigger problem than people think.”
If the ENSO forecast is a reliable prediction of what’s to come in the winter, we may experience a refill that exceeds expectations earlier than usual – perhaps even causing a high-water event.
As always, we welcome your comments.
~Russell Wicke, Corporate Communications Office
Russell, thanks for the comprehensive assessment that exceeds my expectations!
The inability to measure runoff or evaporation directly leads to measuring “Net Inflow”, which includes outflows that subtract from runoff and can cause negative numbers.
Net inflow = runoff – (evaporation + withdrawals + seepage)
Numerous instructive discussions over the past several years have asserted the negative effect of evaporation on pool levels and inspired a specific comparison with a claim that matching outflow with runoff maintains full pools. The data demonstrates that holding full pools is contradictory to matching outflow with runoff. The values present average data from Apr 5 through Sep 4, representative of fish spawning season through Labor Day, for the years from 1985 through 2014 to include Russell evaporation.
– Matching outflow with runoff results in lakes falling 1.96′ from full pool because of evaporation losses. Hartwell and Thurmond fall 2.39′ with Russell full and 2.87′ with upstream lakes full.
– For all lakes held at full pool, the evaporation rate of 1.96′ reduces Thurmond releases by 1,190 cfs compared to runoff and prevents 18% of runoff from going downstream.
Observed data for this period shows a Russell loss of 1.53′, although Russell typically holds steady these days except during drought. Thurmond and Hartwell losses would have averaged 2.74′ with Russell steady. Observed level losses are in line with evaporation, with the difference equivalent to a reasonable loss of 0.47′ for upstream lakes. Observed 6,470 cfs Thurmond releases are also in line with estimated 6,714 cfs runoff based on an observed 5,459 cfs net inflow. ~Ferris
Notes:
1. Evaporation rates converted from SC Climatology Pan Evaporation to NOAA Free Water Surface and confirmed for NOAA annual and May-Oct rates.
2. SC data suggests summer evaporation rates vary from averages by +30% for unusually dry hot months and by -25% for unusually cool wet months. The resolution of evaporation maps and lake calibration tables also limit precision.
in oct and nov 2013 blog about possibility of not taking winter drawdown to 4 ft. Study was suppose to be done on maybe 2 feet because this was old standards before other lakes established. Now we have twice if not more for storage. Never saw result of studys, think it was suppose to take 18 months to complete. What was result of this study????
Thank you for your comment Mr. Williams. The most recent update on this study was posted last November, (2014) here: . We explained there was a delay in the study of an estimated six months. The study concluded in July 2015 and we now have the complete data set and the completed model. We’re working on running simulations and drafting a report on impacts. We intend to post a summary of the findings of this study in the near future. As a reminder, the results of this study will have no impact on operations. That is, no decisions will be made on how to operate pool levels based on this study. Results will only influence what will be included for consideration in the Comprehensive Study. Thanks for reading us! ~Russell Wicke
R Williams, I can envision the study recommending a smaller drawdown, but not because of thoughtlessly matching the Hartwell drawdown with Clark Hill. Clark Hill and Hartwell approval happened simultaneously in 1944, along with nine other projects. Neither the vision nor plan proposed a permanent solitary Clark Hill project. The inevitable Hartwell authorization came in 1950, before Clark Hill operation. It would have been silly to perform an extra set of laborious hand calculations that applied to just a few years when anecdotal comments indicate the intent was to use as much conservation storage as possible by winter, presumably to demonstrate the value of the huge expenditure.
The 1956 graph shows the effective average winter drawdown of 16′ from 1954-1960, the rapid 1956 spring recovery, current full pool, and current drought levels. The dramatic elevation swings expose Clark Hill vulnerabilities as a solitary project. Two other concurrent projects, Allatoona and Lanier, initially planned ~20′ drawdowns. Around 1960 Lanier drawdowns began running around 10′ and Clark Hill plus Hartwell began applying 4′, but Allatoona remains at 17′ today.
The rigorous HEC model will process decades of data not originally available that include the current river configuration with meander cuts and dredged navigation channel that increase the rate at which floods drain. It will also include the small additional 12% of winter flood storage available from Russell. However, downstream development and other considerations may offset higher drain rates. Many of us look forward to reviewing “the findings of this study in the near future”. ~ Ferris
The graph displays Hartwell and Thurmond average evaporation for matching outflow with runoff. Level losses accrue during fish spawning season for summer release. Dates show end of month for monthly totals. See the post below.
I would greatly appreciate understanding why the water is being pulled from J. Strom Thurmond Lake excessively. The water level dropped 3 feet last week from Saturday to Sunday on the Broad River end of the lake. It is still Summer and we are having to take our boats out because of the low water level. If the water has to be pulled down, it would be nice to have it at a level that our families can enjoy the lake at least through the Labor Day weekend. Hartwell and Russell have seen very minimal loss of water. It is very sad to us as homeowners not to be able to enjoy our beautiful lake for the entire summer. Please help me to understand why out of the 3 lakes (Hartwell, Russell and Thurmond) we (Thurmond) are at such a low water level.
Thanks!
Thank you very much for your question Georgette. We appreciate your feedback and understand the frustration involved in fluctuating reservoir levels.
You are correct that Thurmond is currently at a lower level than Hartwell. As of this writing Hartwell sits at 2.93 feet below full pool, and Thurmond is at 3.24 feet below full – about four inches lower than Hartwell. We continually strive to keep Hartwell and Thurmond balanced, in accordance with our water manual. Russell has a different purpose and much smaller conservation storage. For these reasons levels at Russell have less room for fluctuation.
Although we continually work to balance Thurmond and Hartwell, basin conditions often make this a challenge. In the most recent case, Hartwell has simply been receiving more inflow than Thurmond. This is an interesting observation because Thurmond has actually received more rain the last 90 days. There are a number factors that can contribute to this: Thurmond’s sub-basin is much larger and comprised of less rock and more sand. Additionally, Thurmond’s sub-basin has topography that is more level. These conditions cause less water to turn to runoff because the ground is more porous and less sloped. Water also has greater distances to travel to get to the reservoir. Another possible cause is that the evaporation rate at Thurmond is greater due to the larger surface area of the pool. I hope this helps, and please do write back if you have more questions. ~Russell Wicke
Russell,
Thank you for getting back to me. I do have more questions and will get back to you the first of next week. I understand what you are saying but am still unclear about other things. I will talk with you more next week.
Thanks!
Georgette
First, a couple comments about this year’s lake level management.
I have noticed that the releases this year from Thurmond (I use this as reference since the water is in inventory somewhere until this release occurs) have been maintained at the lower end of the band, which has conserved lake level as much as possible and I appreciate this.
Secondly, Lake Thurmond has been kept slightly lower then Lake Hartwell most of the year. Even as a Thurmond user, I appreciate this, as it makes it easier for the water manager to meet goals while minimizing Thurmond releases (it also minimizes evaporation as Ferris points out below). I actually am in favor of eliminating the “level balance” approach to reduce water evaporation–it may result in a lower level in Thurmond earlier, but then would allow all lakes to be maintained above the trigger 1 level for a longer period of time.
Finally, overall, I believe that the water management has shown significant improvement over last year, so thank you.
My question is relatively minor, but I believe can help overall management. In the story above, you point out that the lakes will reach drough level 2 around the beginning of October. I believe that your projection continues to paint a better picture than should be expected (even if inflows improve). The reason for this is quite simple, for the majority of weeks this summer, the projection estimates pumpback unit-hours for weeks 2-? (up to week 10) to be 180 or more for the week. However, when the declaration is issued, it is just slightly over 140 for the week (21 per day). This results in the actual results achieved being well below the projection.
Question 1) Is 188 unit-hours of pump possible?
Question 2) If YES on 1, why has pumpback not be raised when all indiations point to imminent trigger 1?
Question 3) If NO on 1, why does the projection continuously use this value for out-weeks?
Scott, I hope that Russell will respond to your questions next week.
I think you made a great observation regarding the relatively lower release rates. A query shows that July pumping this year not quite doubled from pumping last year, benefitting lake levels while meeting power contracts during this period of low runoff. Based on months ago blogs, pumping appears to have benefitted from more pumps available.
The Declaration and Projection pumping numbers should correspond. Although rainfall or the lack of rainfall can dramatically change the Projection, it benefits stakeholders and presumably USACE and SEPA to have the best estimate feasible for the following 10 weeks. I also wonder about unrealistic expectations over the next 10 weeks when projecting Thurmond Net Local Inflows rising to 75% with current very low to negative inflows. Levels may recover in Jan, but I would like a closer estimate of what to expect between now and then.
There was apparently something confusing in my post below. As you indicated, favoring Hartwell over Thurmond does reduce volumetric evaporation, but barely. Assume a comparison with both lakes at 2′ below full pool and Russell steady. The volume of water that allows Hartwell to rise 0.50′ also lowers Thurmond 0.40′. Thurmond decreases from 69,000 acres to 68,230 acres but Russell increases from 54,050 acres to 54,563 acres. The 257 acres net reduction represents only a 0.2% evaporation reduction for evaporation rates in feet per unit of surface area. I picked the numbers out of historical queries for different levels from 2008 through today.
I updated the post below to clarify that “upstream lakes” refers to Duke Energy lakes, GA Power lakes, and Lake Toxaway since that may have been the confusion. Duke Energy lakes represent 83% of the surface area for lakes upstream of our projects at full pool. ~Ferris
Well not only no response but this week’s declaration didn’t have 188 unit hours and the new projection has a 190 unit hour week. Not to mention the Thurmond releases are going to go down to 4500cfs (to prevent dropping below trigger 1 this weekend) then rebound to 5000cfs to 5550cfs to 7400!cfs. If history is any clue, then Thurmond discharge will be kept high for an additional week “because outflow must be reduced slowly once trigger 1 is exceeded.”
Scott, at first glance, today’s Projection appears to reflect your concerns.
A notable change includes reducing Local Inflows 10 weeks out to 50% of normal, with a projected 0.7′ lower Hartwell level and a 0.9′ lower Thurmond level on the date 10/24.
Although pumping projections appear mostly lower, the totals from the previous to the current projection increase by 1 hour, or from 1651 to 1652 hours.
I crunched some numbers to emphasize the magnitude of the pumping issue.
Assume we are in a drought that limits Thurmond releases and assume the period begins with Hartwell and Thurmond 4′ below full summer pool. The additional Hartwell releases required to make up the generation shortfall caused by overestimating pumping by 30 hours each week causes Hartwell to be 1.4′ lower and Thurmond to be 1.0′ higher than projected, with pools 2.4′ out of balance by the end of 9 weeks. ~Ferris
Δ 30 pumping hrs for 1 wk => 1,250 cfs for one wk => 2,450 MWH generation
583 cfs released from Hartwell and Russell => 2,450 MWH generation
583 cfs * 7 days * 9 weeks * (24*3600/43560) => 72,851 AF
Hartwell: 72,851/52,500 = 1.39′
Thurmond: 72,851/70,000 = 1.04′
Scott, I had hoped to learn the USACE positon on your questions, but it may be they cannot comment because of current negotiations or for some other reason.
We agree on the importance of exploring opportunities to increase the benefits that Russell provides to the projects. Part of the exploration requires understanding the issues. An important lake issue that your post uncovers is that rainfall distribution during a drought can lower the Hartwell balance because of contract power demand. I share my thoughts based on assimilated information from BtB, SEPA Annual Reports, and other SEPA publications with the intent of revealing and not necessarily defending these issues.
1) The 30 hours pumped on 11/23/2014 indicates a potential for 210 hours weekly. Average daily levels were 654.47 at Hartwell and 324.06 at Thurmond, well above DL2. Pumping restrictions vary seasonally based on nighttime hours and off peak purchased power cost.
2) The SEPA business model is different from Duke Energy or GA Power, and appears to prevent an open market profit from increased pumping. Aging turbines, even after recent repairs, could cause other considerations. Prudently operating a maximum of 3 turbines simultaneously could help assure 3 functional turbines at all times. Repairs require considerable turbine downtime and cost. The following item continues this response.
3) SEPA apparently must obtain customer approval for higher pumping rates during normal operation. Perhaps higher pumping hours anticipate potential approval that has not yet happened, so the date slides each week. SEPA could prohibit public comments on this scenario.
I share your cynical thoughts below. It could be that 7,400 cfs helps “flush” the river, estuary, and oxbows before falling to drought release rates, but I have found no corroborating evidence of that intent. The 7,400 cfs surge and following gradual reduction appear to benefit only SEPA, but they do follow my understanding of “technical release rules”. SEPA decisions govern because they bear financial responsibility for these projects and power represented 87% of project cost allocations in 2014. ~ Ferris
Some questions posed to us on this post took a bit longer than anticipated to answer due to limited availability of subject-matter experts this week. We do our best to respond quickly – unfortunately in this case, our response isn’t as prompt as we would like. Enough of us returned to give the questions the attention they deserve. I combined the responses into one post.
I talked to Jason Lavecchia, one of our water managers, about the questions on changing pumpback schedule in past and future weeks. He told me how this works.
“The amount of available pumping hours per day depends on the length of the night. We must adhere to environmental restrictions which allow us to pump between one hour after sunset until one hour before sunrise, or some portion of that time,” Lavecchia said. Currently, nighttime length allow up to 188 unit-hours of pumpback. As October approaches the longer nights will allow up to approximately 280 unit-hours, as long as all four pumpback units continue in service, he explained.
“Purchased power allows us to pumpback at night,” Lavecchia said. “The amount of pumpback purchased is driven by the amount of generation needed to meet power contracts between and its customers. Currently, SEPA deemed this increase from 80-unit hours to 140-unit hours of pumping per week economically viable with the current condition of the basin and its power commitments to customers.”
All pumpback hours cost SEPA money. SEPA determines what level of pumping is economically justifiable, not the Corps of Engineers. The 10-week projection assumes that SEPA will continue to increase pumping as the drought progresses in order to continue fulfilling its contracts, even with drought flow restrictions present.
Now concerning the other question on projected increases in Thurmond Dam’s releases, readers need to remember, the projections reflect estimates. Actual releases may differ.
“Thurmond releases were lowered to 4,500 cubic feet per second at the beginning of the week to allow Hartwell and Thurmond to get back in balance” he said. “They increase at Thurmond because we expect more rain in the lower basin than in the upper basin next week as well as expecting heavier generation schedules later in the week.”
While generation on the declaration often appears flat and repeated each day, the water managers working with power marketers at SEPA have discretion to schedule releases. They make the most benefit of the inflows as well as satisfy the weekly generation contract.
The reservoirs will likely reach drought trigger level 1 soon, but it is our intent to keep pools as close to balanced as possible.
— Billy Birdwell, Corporate Communications
So just to sumarize:
1) 188 unit hours is possible but SEPA doesn’t want to spend the money. (~20,000 dollars per day to raise the pump back from a project that makes at a very minimum of 1 million in revenue per week and likely more due to being a peaking plant). 140 unit hours should be the standard for summer, and 180 unit-hours should be justified as soon as projections show decline to trigger 1. Any other agency but government would be required to either 1) increase pump back or 2) reduce generation but hey, you are from the government and are here to help.
2) The 4500 cfs reduction is to “balance the lakes” this Friday. Even though they would have been balanced this Friday without the reduction, and on the last day of the reduction, Thurmond is half a foot lower than Hartwell (because the lakes are never balanced on Mondays). The next “balancing” doesn’t occur until after the 7500cfs releases.
3) The 7500cfs is based on expected lower basin rainfall. What does this have to do with anything? The most common quote I hear from people at the lake is “It doesn’t matter if it rains, the Corps will just let it out.” Well the quote justifying those releases, and a significant amount of history, just proves them correct.
In the end the following shows “economically justifiable”, “most benefit of inflows”, “our goal is to keep the pools as balanced as possible”. But only balanced on Fridays, the rest of the week who cares. Releasing 7500cfs at 4 feet low shows yet again generation is the only actual priority and the rest are rules that will be followed (using every available loophole) to ensure profits are maximized. Somehow, in this crazy world the federal government is worried about a couple million in income from SEPA when it runs a 500,000 million deficit each year. I personally think a couple million over the course of a year keeping the lakes higher through pump back is more justified than tons of other expenses.
And no, I’m not looking for a response to this post, just pointing out that SEPA continues to promise an amount of power based on high rainfall and then won’t raise pump back when the rainfall doesn’t occur because who cares about lake level, it’s all about the money. This can be seen because the water managers have been putting 180+ unit hours of pump back every week in the projection but then SEPA says no.
Scott, I hope these lake level balance thoughts provide some benefit.
Balancing the lakes requires meshing the 7-day week for Russell pumping and Thurmond releases that empty Thurmond with the 5-day week for Hartwell and Russell releases that fill Thurmond. The practical solution targets balanced pools once a week.
In the example below, balancing on Sat at 00:00 incurs a Thurmond Mon imbalance of -0.64 feet that gradually recovers by the following Sat, leaving Thurmond always lower. Balancing on Sun would incur a Thurmond Mon imbalance of -0.32 feet that would recover Wed and continue increasing to +0.32 feet Sat. I understand that a higher Thurmond balance hinders water distribution, but it would be helpful to know whether this is the reason for balancing on Sat rather than Sun.
Example (Excludes Runoff and Evaporation)
Russell 7-day 6000 cfs pumping balances with 5-day 8400 cfs releases
Russell supplies a net 2400 cfs M-F to Thurmond
Hartwell receives 250 cfs 7 days a week from upstream
Hartwell supplies 3600 cfs M-F to Thurmond
Hartwell net weekly loss = 0.60 feet
Thurmond releases 5750 cfs M-F and 5000 cfs S&S
Thurmond M-F: Net 250 cfs (2400+3600-5750) => +0.04 Feet
Thurmond S&S: Net -11000 cfs (-6000-5000) => -0.64 Feet
Thurmond net weekly loss = 0.60 feet
Pools Balance: 0.60-0.60 = 0
The runoff omitted in this example usually prevents large level losses, but upsets these ideal calculations. Increased pumping helps conserve water but increases the magnitude of the imbalance cycle.
~Ferris
I really don’t care what day they use for balance, I just wish that:
1) They would not worry about such an exact balance when levels vary by half a foot or more during the week.
2) That as pumping goes up, the target for Russell would go down (such that it is not > full pool on Monday) which could restrict pump back Sunday night.
3) That any priority at all would be placed on Thurmond releases (total inventory / downstream flow).
That being said, the declaration today shows great foresight that puts release at 4200 just before trigger 1. Thank you water managers for proving me wrong.
Yes, I realize this is a reply to myself, but I just saw the new declaration (9/2) and noticed that the target for Russell next Friday is 474.00 vice the normal 474.5 feet. Whether you are listening or not, it at least makes me feel that you are listening, and I thank you.
Scott, it appears to me that USACE heard you on several issues. I provided some supporting calculations and comments, but these were your great ideas.
1. You said “even if inflows improve” and the 10 week projected inflows dropped from 75% to 50%.
2. You called attention to the failure to achieve projected pumpback rates, which briefly set records and now gradually decline for fall weather.
3. You expressed concern about the 7400 cfs release rate surge, which did not happen.
~ Ferris
Thanks Billy for your comprehensive yet understandable response.
Would a water manager ask SEPA for more pumping to conserve water as we probably fall to DL1 soon and potentially fall to DL2 before the replenishing rainfall?
An additional 2.3 hours of pumping each day for 5 days beginning Aug 24 would provide sufficient Russell releases on Aug 27 & 28 to replace the 896 MHR lost by reducing Thurmond releases from 7,400 cfs to 5,550 cfs. Hartwell would still end the week at 656.06, Thurmond would end at 326.17, and Russell daily releases would continue to exceed pumping. In addition, remaining at 5,550 cfs will facilitate reducing release rates to 4,200 cfs and conserve even more water.
~ Ferris
Could we please have more pumping? Russell pumping controls pool balance while meeting power contracts, and slows or halts the rate Hartwell balance falls when drought restricts Thurmond release rates.
Comparing Sep 2 through Sep 5 observed with the Declaration, pumping dropped an average 1,289 cfs and Hartwell releases increased an average 1,698 cfs, placing Hartwell on target to be 0.4′ low rather than balanced with Thurmond at days end Sep 11.
Ferris,
Thanks for your comment – According to Jason Lavecchia,
hydrologist with Savannah District, the Corps has been pumping 32 unit-hours
(224 unit-hours total per week) to cover the generation contract while in
Drought Trigger Level 1. That amount was lowered for a few days last week in
order to allow Russell’s pool to drop back down below 475’ and not impact gate
work. Pumping will resume at 32 unit-hours again this week (9/8-13).
Thanks for increasing pumping again, but your reply does not make sense to me.
Hartwell releases increased by 1,698 cfs and contributed to filling Russell. Russell pumping decreased by 1,289 cfs but Russell releases also decreased by 1,027 cfs. Level gained at 1,435 cfs, contrary to your desire. In fact, Russell ended Sep 5 at 474.13′, above the 473.69 on the Declaration. I think the Declaration had a better solution. Any additional power could have been generated from higher Russell release rates rather than from Hartwell to speed the lowering of Russell.
A priority would maintain pool balance with pumping until exiting drought. I have seen Russell referred to as a workhorse, so let it work!
As a resident on Lake Hartwell, the continuing downward lake level spiral is dishartening…again. When we receive 6 in. less rain than normal, releases need to be adjusted downward and Russell pumping increased if that is what it takes to stay close to SEPA demands. (What we have always needed is a drought clause in the SEPA contract, as any reasonable business/person would have included.) We are now once again in ‘hernia’ mode, with those hundreds, or thousands, of us on shallow coves moving our docks out every couple of weeks if we hope to keep our investment in the recreational use of Lake Hartwell. You have the ability to keep lake levels at full pool during the allocated rule curve time frame. By continuing to release lake water well beyond inflow, coupled with the summer evaporation and transporation, we have a users nightmare…again. Please look at your 10-week projection and cringe, and do your best work to hold on to what little we have.
Thanks for your comment. We understand the difficulty declining levels place on the lake communities, and do our best to mitigate that while still meeting our congressionally mandated objectives. We have increased pumping at Russell to near capacity and have restricted outflow in accordance with our drought plan. When results from the Comp Study are revealed, we may be able to make some adjustments to the drought plan that helps to mitigate the impact even more. ~Russell
The “drought clause” allows SEPA to pass on the cost of pumping and power purchases when necessary, a “reasonable” concession for the customers who have paid and are paying for the projects.
Pumping supplements generation when stream flows become insufficient to meet contracts. From comments on BtB, one can deduce that SEPA conceded lower inflows this summer would likely lead to hydraulic drought and agreed to the higher than normal pumping rates that slowed the descent of lake levels through lower release rates than would have otherwise occurred. SEPA was not required and did not need to increase pumping during Normal Operation, but authorized the early increase to benefit lake users.
Although lake basins are in hydraulic drought, the US Drought Monitor shows lake basins at D0 or Abnormally Dry . Lake level history indicates to me a hydraulic DL1 trigger about 2′ higher than expected to align with regional drought. I am not suggesting a change, just observing. The Monitor shows the river basin at D1 to D2 or Moderate Drought to Severe Drought Intensity.
the corps answer is not truthful. Recreation (meaning the recreational infrastructure which includes homes and developments built for recreational purposes) is one of the corps’. it is the only one the corps only does lip services to. they used to use all kinds of excuses on why flows need to be so high but we managed to show each one to be fallacious. That has left the Corps with power production as the only excuse. And it is an excuse because no one in their right mind would believe that power should be produced at the expense of lake stakeholders.
Ha ha ha! You wrote an opinion in the Sep 16 2010 issue of the Augusta Chronicle claiming to be “speaking for both sides of the dam” while commending a brief nine days of 3800 cfs release rates at the Drought Level 1 Trigger. You even claimed SOLN was an “environmental group”! Your disproven fallacious claims that attempt to support simultaneous full pools and drought release rates leave only your full pools dogma supported by your view that “fresh water becomes salt water when it passes Thurmond dam”. “No one in their right mind” would support long term damage to the 240 mile river ecosystem with Drought Level 4 release rates just to maintain full pools.
And adding to my last comment, hydrological power production is supposed to be a renewable power source. It is only renewable if you don’t send more water through the dams than nature provides. We all agree there is a lower limit to releases but it is 3600cfs, which has been demonstrated to be safe numerous times for as much as a year at these flows, not the 5000 and 4200 the corps has been releasing so recklessly for the past few months. Additionally fresh water should not be wasted making power that can be produced elsewhere.
Jerry, you present a “fallacious” statement that “3600 cfs has been demonstrated to be safe … for as much as a year” in your determined disagreement with the consensus of the natural resource agency experts, a statement shown “not truthful” numerous times on BtB. Just two weeks ago, I posted a reply to you regarding the same statement with EA comments from all SEVEN responding agencies.
You could learn from the Environmental Assessments and comments provided with the 2012 Drought Plan Revision and the Level 4 Drought Operations. AFTER experiencing the extended period of 3600 cfs release rates, the consensus agreed that the river should not endure the harm of 3600/3100 cfs release rates until the lake recreational purpose begins enduring the harm of Drought Level 4, at least not without the supporting results of a comprehensive study. ~Ferris
I am quoting the corps when I say 3600 works. Their own publications State there is no environmental impact from releases at 3600 CFS. Besides during the past 3. Droughts we operated at 3600 repeatedly without doing damage to the environment water supply or water quality. This ends my comments for this release
Jerry – this is not true … at all. ~Russell
pants on fire
Jerry, how can a chemical engineer not know how an EA works?
Only the Level 4 Drought Operations EA applies an extended 3600 cfs rate.
The EA found no impacts that caused harm 20% or greater for 3600/3100 cfs release rates at Level 4 compared to the 1989 DCP of 3600 cfs release rates at Level 4.
There is harm at DL4, just not 20% or greater than the 1989 DCP.
The narrow EA scope applies to only DL4 operation.
No competent chemical engineer would apply these results to higher levels or full pool.
The 3600 cfs release rates during previous droughts did cause harm, which is why natural resource agency experts rejected those rates except during winter and DL4 for the current drought plan. You continue confirming that you do not understand.
In your typical fashion, comments end rather than provide supporting evidence because you have none. ~Ferris
Ferris, you keep trying to attack me personally rather than listen to what I am saying. The corps of engineers developed a plan to destroy the lakes one at a time should the droughts continue past the conservation pool limitations of Thurmond and Hartwell. They adopted that plan and stated that no EA would be required because there is no environmental impact from operation at 3600cfs.
You also continue to ignore the fact that the recreational infrastructure is being destroyed repeatedly by the current Corps practices. If the Corps is to protect recreation then there needs to be changes to the way things are currently being operated.
You also continue to ignore the fact that 3600cfs is not an experimental value. It was demonstrated repeatedly over the past several droughts. From a lake stakeholders point of view that experience is sufficient to warrant the use of 3600cfs to avoid the certainty of irreparable damage to recreation with the current drought plan.
And you demonstrate extremely well what I have been saying over and over again that the interpretation of data whether from past experience or tests now being run is subject to the bias of the interpreter. Unless lake stakeholders are represented in interpreting the data their interests will not be protected.
Jerry, I have studied your nonsense, which is why I continue to challenge your statements. You again confirm not understanding how an EA works and refer to the DL4 operation from an uninformed view that cannot comprehend even my simple summary below. You also confirm not caring about environmental problems that ensued from extended 3600 cfs release rates. I follow the data but you demand the data follow you. I am for environmentally responsible improvements to drought lake levels. However, I am against your baseless glowing generalities and your ongoing baseless attacks on USACE statements, including calling them “fallacious” and “not truthful” on this topic. I can tell it did not feel so good when used against your statements.
The other example to which you refer reduced release rates from 3800 cfs to 3600 cfs, a small reduction of 200 cfs that still increased environmental harm according to natural resource agencies and provided the arguments for the current 3800 cfs drought release rates. You propose reducing release rates from ~5600 cfs to 3600 cfs or by 2000 cfs during normal operation and astonishingly do not expect this reduction of 10 times greater than your reference to cause environmental harm.
I have supported lower release rates to benefit lake levels when based on environmental data. In addition, my posts on the 07/17/2014 topic encouraged increased pumping to benefit Hartwell levels and questioned limiting Russell to 470′ during drought. I have proposed that Russell share the pain by lowering the minimum to 460′ when Hartwell and Thurmond fall to 10′ below full summer pool, thereby saving 3′ in subsequent Hartwell and Thurmond elevation losses at the cost of relatively small overall efficiency losses. The current study could consider lowering Russell, but changing the level requires an act of congress and the extension of some boat ramps and water intakes.
My research of the five previously proposed drought plans with comments and the current study documents indicate that Alt 2 of the current study offers the only viable candidate for natural resource agencies. Alt 2 calls for DL3 at 2′ below DL2 and 3600/3100 cfs release rates. Even my anticipated compromise of 3800/3100 cfs would benefit lake levels compared to the current 4000/3800/3600 cfs for the 6′ overlap with the existing DL2 summer level. ~Ferris
Jerry, your reference to “destroyed” grossly mischaracterizes system resilience and ignores the drought management plan. “Destroyed” corresponds to the depletion of inactive storage with no expectation of recovery and closing of the projects.
There is only a remote possibility of reaching the bottom of conservation storage because the 2012 DMP provides a 33% safety margin for the drought of record. Lakes retain 57% of their capacity at the bottom of conservation storage, so the likelihood of completely emptying the lakes is miniscule. Recovery of the lakes begins with the return of normal rainfall, rendering terminology like “destroyed” an implausible analogy, even for empty lakes, and provides another example of your histrionic hyperbole. ~Ferris
This post further discusses my reasoning in the previous posts. The image joins portions of two pages from the 2012 Drought Plan Revision Final EA.
The EA showed moderate (>10%, 10%, 0, <10%) adverse impacts for harbor DO. Significant impacts begin at 20%. The 200 cfs difference at DL2 and DL3 for the technical analysis and observed impacts determined acceptance versus rejection. The difference increases to 600/400 cfs at DL1 for 4200/4000 cfs versus 3600 cfs.
Alt 2 shows 25% system storage remaining ÷ 75% used = 33% safety factor.
Minimum Thurmond elevations vary little because the rule balances remaining storage rather than level beginning at 15' below full summer pool.
The current study evaluates a selected period of 10 years with abundant graded data. I think the comprehensive data, revised methodology, and SHEP project benefits will result in an impact of around 20% for the higher DL3 elevation in Alt 2, and anticipate a 3800/3100 cfs concession from all parties to effect a consensus revision. The higher DL3 elevation would have placed most of the drought of record at DL3, underscoring the importance of these DL3 release rates.