WSP07315 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

9 Fluctuating Flow Alternative and 64 and 73 percent for the preferred Modified Low Fluctuating Flow Alternative (draft EIS, pages 54-55, 184, 187, and 194). Results from these two alternatives differ by 3 percentage points. For the final EIS, the Peak Shaving Model was used to simulate hourly releases for the revised preferred alternative for the same 20-years and used in the power economic impact analysis. 8y interpolating between impact analysis results from the interim Low and Moderate Fluctuating Flow Alternatives, the increase in number of hours when the flow is between 20,000 and 25,000 cfs was expected to be small. Since only a small increase was predicted, little difference in sand transport capacity was expected to result. Consequently, no additional analysis of the long-term sand transport capacity or sand storage was conducted. Expanded Analysis: Recently, an additional analysis of the sand transport capacity was conducted due to concerns expressed by the environmental community. Using the previous .Peak Shaving Model results, the percentages of days and hours that flows exceed specific discharges were quantified and are shown in Table 4 for selected alternatives. These results are from a variety of years with annual volumes ranging from 8 million to 18 million acre-feet. As shown in the table, the changes in the preferred alternative result in a 3.5 percentage-point increase over the Interim Low Fluctuating Flow Alternative in the number of hours when the flow is greater than 20,000 cfs. Peak Shaving Model results indicate that during minimum release years (less than or equal to 8.3 million acre-feet), flows would be greater than 20,000 cfs during 2.6 percent of the hours and greater than 22,000 cfs during 1.1 percent of the hours. Again using the results from the peak shaving model, sand transport capacity was computed for each hour of the 20 year simulation for the final preferred alternative. The computed sand transport capacity for the 20-year period was compared among the No Action, Moderate Fluctuating Flow, interim Low Fluctuating Flow, and the modified Low Fluctuating Flow Alternatives (see figure 2). As shown, there is a substantial reduction in sand transport capacity between the no action alternative and the action alternatives. However, the differences in sand transport capacity for the interim Low Fluctuating Flow, modified Low Fluctuating Flow, and Moderate Fluctuating Flow are quite small. As anticipated, there is no significant difference in sand transport capability, and thus sand storage between the interim Low and modified Low Fluctuating Flow alternatives.