Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002559 <br /> <br />powerplant releases throughout the runoff period, a BHBF would be triggered to cause a <br />"pre-emptive strike", Such an early BHBF would mitigate against the impacts of pending <br />extremely high powerplant releases or actual spills which could occur later in the runoff <br />period. Such a BHBF would not materially reduce the risk of future spills since the <br />volumes ofBHBF's are relatively small, but would accomplish the goal of moving <br />sediment from the main channel to the side channels and eddies. Subsequent high <br />powerplant releases to control the spring runoff then would have a less detrimental effect <br />on sediment resources. These BHBF' swould occur very early in the runoff forecast <br />(mid-January through March), <br /> <br />The value of 140 percent was chosen as the threshold value in an attempt to balance the <br />number offalse alarms (BHBF's that after-the-fact were not actually required) with the <br />number of missed spills (actual spring spills that were unforeseen earlier in the runoff <br />season). This percentage value of 140 percent is near the level of the January forecast <br />during 1986, an historic spill year. <br /> <br />b - anytime an increasing forecast would require a powerplant monthly release greater <br />than 1.5 MAF or use of the 0.5 MAF storage buffer, a BHBF could be released prior to <br />increasing the releases above 25,000 cfs. Such conditions may occur with forecasts such <br />as occurred in the years 1973, 1983, and 1995. These were years in which spring spills <br />were undetectable earlier in the winter/spring and which would result in BHBF's or spills <br />later in the runoff year. The timing of such releases may occur in the March or April time <br />frame, but also could occur later in the runoff season, <br /> <br />Previous presentations to the AMWO and the TWO have addressed the use of forecast <br />risk curves as a means for triggering BHBF's. However, the subgroup felt this approach <br />to be too complex. The substitution of the forecast percent ofnonnal and 1.5 MAF <br />monthly release volume as thresholds are actually similar measures offorecast risk. <br /> <br />The subgroup recognizes that these trigger mechanisms will initiate BHBF's in months other <br />than the months of March and April which have been targeted previously for such flows. <br />However, the long tenn frequency ofBHBF's is greatly dependent on an ability to recognize <br />statistically extreme events such as much above nonnal snowpack conditions early in the year or <br />the potential for large spring precipitation events that result in large increases in the forecast late <br />in the runoff period, The proposed triggering mechanisms attempt to (I) comply with the <br />Secretary of the Interior's comminnent made in the OCDEIS ROD, (2) minimize the number of <br />actual spill years that were not recognized in time for a BHBF in March, and (3) minimize the <br />number of years in which BHBF's were triggered but in which an actual spill did not materialize. <br /> <br />5 - For the following three paragraphs, the statistical results of the model runs apply to conditions <br />only when the reservoir is at the target content of21.5 MAF on January I. As a long tenn <br />average, this-mTI condirron is expected to occur about half the time in the future. Therefore, the <br />lon~ tenn frequency of spills and BHBF's (I year in 6) is about half of the modeled frequency (I <br />year in 3). Table I compares the proposed vs, current occurrences of spills and BHBF's. <br /> <br />7 <br />